2005 auto-x/TT rules

[Doug]

The rules change that more specifically penalizes weight reduction is bound to generate this sort of discussion, Steve. It goes with the territory.

But you're right about the club level of competition here. Without scales, all you can do is hope that people believe in the honor system.

BTW, if anyone's willing to make the trip to Newport Beach on a Saturday or Sunday, I'll be happy to use the R&T scales to weigh our cars. I'm not sure how Porsche defines curb weight, but for most manufacturers, it's the "wet" weight with a full tank of gas and all fluids--not to be confused with the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GWVR), which indicates the maximum allowable weight with passengers and luggage.

[Bob Gagnon]

Porsche used to only give the unladen DIN weight which is for NO driver, NO luggage and all fluids topped up except fuel which for some reason is 90% full.

Porsche also now give an "EC directive" weight as well which is 90% full fuel tank, all other fluids topped up + 68 kg for driver + 7 kg for luggage.

They note in their weights that they are for a "standard vehicle" and vary with equipment ordered.

[RickK]

One car, an RSA owned by (Let's call him Mr. Bean) is fully optioned and weighs 3023.
Another car a 1990 C-4 owned by (Let's call him Mr. Cousteau) weighs in at 3060.

In this case only 40 pound separates the lightest and heaviest models.

Wouldn't the lightest 964 be a zero optioned RSA though?

Unfortunately, I am pretty sure I know what the heaviest 964 is!!

David,
I wrote a proposal to eliminate all 964 variants from "K" and leave only 964, making you take points for all other versions. But it was voted down. Better luck next year.

I just thought it wrong that a stock '89 C-4 cab should run against a 94 Turbo look with wider wheels, bigger brakes, spoiler, track....

(Opps there I go again, I've said too much)

Oh, and Steve, sorry but this could be the only time I ever get to correct you on a technical fact so I have to, I don't think there were any 89 C4 Cabs - coupes only that year. But I do like your thinking on this point.

[Steve Grosekemper]

Rick,
You are probably correct, but I was only making a point picking the worst performance model combination.

Doug,
I realize this kind of rule change is bound to cause an uproar. What upsets me is spending countless hours on a website that listed this change for over 3 months and getting only a half dozen responses.

If we had all the people on this thread submit strong opinion to this rule when it was only a proposal, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. That was 3 months, this is only three days!

It is just frustrating to put so much work into a process only to have people not use it. It makes me wonder what I did wrong last year.

I am open to suggestions to inprove the process for this year.

Anyone...Bueler...Bueler????

[MikeD]

Anyone...Bueler...Bueler????

Fry? .... Fry? .... Fry?

Steve, I don't think there is anything wrong with process you worked so hard implementing. I say keep it up. Although, rather than be upset by this discussion use it to encourage people to use the process to make changes for 2006. I've seen you mention here a few times that the suggestion box is open for next year. Maybe, rather than get deffensive about the 2005 rules, you could use your extensive knowledge of these cars and the rules to help these guys formulate an intelligent proposal for the 2006 season?

Also, it's not a bad thing to have open discussion about these sorts of topics. I really don't get why people in this club get so bent out of shape when centain topics are discussed here on the board. It's OK to talk smack or "car talk" but heaven forbid we actually want to get at the meat of a subject and possibily get some real club related work done here on the forum.

In my profession I find it very helpful to discuss design ideas and challenges openly with other engineers (Yes, that actually means I have to admit, publically that I may not know it all). They often see things from a different perspective and have good (and yes sometimes bad) ideas on how to improve the product or solve an issue. It helps me bring a higher quality product to market.

I keep thinking that the same ideology is going to catch on here in the club, but alas it has not yet (as demonstrated by a few recent threads). Maybe someday....

[Bob Gagnon]

Steve-

Hey, please don't take these comments personally, after all you were only part of the committee.

I did take the time to visit your website and submit my comments. I too was amazed there weren't more responses.

I guess I started this mess with my request for a Fat Boy allowance, and kept it going with suggestions for scales at the track and reverse points for heavy cars- both of which I thought were tongue in cheek.

I still couldn't resist my comment when the rules came out only allowing a 50 pound reduction in weight when so much of the weight is easily fungible such as fuel, spare tire, tools, jack etc. which in a 964 alone weigh ~ 175 pounds....not to mention the Fat Boy driver issue which I obviously would benefit from!!!

I'm with Mike D. though, I think open threads on different rule issues should be opened during the year. Open discussion is a good thing.

[Greg Phillips]

If we had all the people on this thread submit strong opinion to this rule when it was only a proposal, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation. That was 3 months, this is only three days!

It is just frustrating to put so much work into a process only to have people not use it. It makes me wonder what I did wrong last year.

I am open to suggestions to inprove the process for this year.

Anyone...Bueler...Bueler????

Maybe the answer is to better utilize the forum for these issues.
When a request for rule change is submitted, put it up as a thread on the forum and wait for the fallout. Take the good with the bad and it may get off track, but at least there will be some feedback to point to.
And/Or as the last step for vetting a new rule, throw it up on the forum and look for holes in the concept.

Greg

[Carl Scragg]

I share some of Steve's frustration over this one. The proposed rule on weight reduction was poorly thought out (IMHO) and should not have been implemented in its current form. I think that I was one of only 2 or 3 people who posted comments to that effect on the rules page. Perhaps if more of us had posted our objections then, rather than now, we wouldn't be stuck with this vague unenforcable rule. Maybe we can get some good suggestions from the members that will fix this for 2006.

[RickK]

All in all I think the system worked much better this year than last, so we should all be pretty happy. The rules making process has definitely improved and it will continue to improve as we, the members, learn more about it AND choose to participate more in it. While having each proposed rule posted to the (or a) forum for discussion might be better, the proposed rules were available for viewing and commenting online this year so we are almost there.

[Jad]

One change I would suggest is to occasionally post a thread on one significant change. Reading through 100's of rules becomes overwhelming to decide which one to discuss, so you tend to ignore them until you realize how they impact you.

The current system is great, but needs a bit of focus in my opinion to get better feedback throughout the year.

[crossthreaded]

My concern with these new rules is with R compound tires. Someone can have a DOT treadwear of 49 or less and compete in *S (like GS or KS or MS or whatever) against someone else who has something really simple, like bigger wheels for looks, or perhaps lowering springs or adjustable shocks, but has high treadwear tires. Does 2 points for bigger wheels plus 2 points for adjustable shocks really compare to 4 points for 49 or less tires? I don’t think so. I would think that these lower treadwear tires should cost more points. Perhaps 7 for 49 or less (keep them out of *S classes), 5 for 50-100 and 2 or 3 for 101-200.

Another example would be someone who replaces worn out shocks with PSS9’s. They should take 4 points: 2 for non-stock springs and 2 for externally adjustable shocks. And they are supposed to compete against someone with a treadwear of 49 or less?

Comments?

[Greg Phillips]

My concern with these new rules is with R compound tires. Someone can have a DOT treadwear of 49 or less and compete in *S (like GS or KS or MS or whatever) against someone else who has something really simple, like bigger wheels for looks, or perhaps lowering springs or adjustable shocks, but has high treadwear tires. Does 2 points for bigger wheels plus 2 points for adjustable shocks really compare to 4 points for 49 or less tires? I don’t think so. I would think that these lower treadwear tires should cost more points. Perhaps 7 for 49 or less (keep them out of *S classes), 5 for 50-100 and 2 or 3 for 101-200.

I also have had concerns in the past about R tires, especially those that are really not suitable for the street.
I would prefer moving stock up a couple of points, but not allowing R rated tires. I would like to be able to have a street driven car that could compete without having to change tires for every event.
Make SS 2 points, treadwear >140, stock 8 points with treadwear >100 then production would start at >8 and allow any R rated tires.
If pushed, I would keep the tires the same for SS and stock, but I am lazy and would like to run street tires that would last the season but be competitive.
I agree that the points don't always make sense, 2 points for limited slip is not the same as the 2 points for sticky rubber.

Greg

[MikeD]

I dunno. I wouldn't vote for it given the choice. All last year I was in KP with POC just because I had a single Prepared upgrade. Nothing else was done to my car yet I was forced to compete with cars seconds faster than mine. Forcing someone into a higher class based on a single mod is a bad idea in my book.

Points are part of the strategy. If you spend them on tires and beat everyone else in your class your strategy was the best, right?

[bobbrand]

I like the idea of potentially changing stock "S" class to where you could run modifications excluding R-compound tires. (Similar to the old "SS" class). Maybe that would be something to consider for 2006.

I think it would help boost the attendance in the "P" classes, but also offer a very money-saving option to many people who want to have some mods on their cars, but don't want to make the cost-jump that R-compounds incurs.

[Kim Crosser]

I agree with Bob and Greg - how "stock" is a car running tires that aren't street legal - or even running tires that you use only for the track events, even if they are technically street legal?

The other modifications are essentially permanent and clearly used in "daily driving" for cars in the "S" classes, while getting a set of wheels and "R" compound tires just to be used in competition would seem to be bending the definition of "stock" pretty far.