Rule changes for 2011

[Don Middleton]

...Let's face it we have way to many classes and now, too few cars....With this system, instead of running for the BRI, we would be running for class wins...Now, I like it.

+1 on all that, Gary. It's not a perfect system, but looks an improvement over the one we're using. We've got too few cars running in far too many classes. The System looks like a great way solve the problem. Let's go for it!

[AGill]

Sorry Adam,
I didn't express myself very well. I edited my earlier post. Jad explained it much better that BRI assumes your tires and setup are optimized for your class and a top driver could possibly shave 5 sec on some courses. I don't know your tires or setup but I know my car is not optimized for my class so I pay a penalty in BRI and in overall results. Maybe next season I will get serious and max my car to the rules... who knows how much time I leave on the table. I play this game for kicks and grins anyways so a good finish is merely a bonus on top of a most excellent day driving.

I think we are all on a similar page with the BRI thing and I guess it comes down to how close to fully optimized we all believe my car is for it's class as to who's with me or against me here I have 8 points to use and am currently using them all, it's up for debate whether I am using them as beneficially as possible but I am using them nontheless with anti-roll bars, wider tires and PSS10's. Car is aligned for the full track driving in mind and corner balanced to my weight in the driver seat. The only thing not optimal in my opinion is the weight of the AWD system over a C2 (but I take my spare out and don't have a gut ) All that said, I still beleive on some statistically relevant level that the BRI is flawed in my class. I guess we will just agree to disagree on this one, no worries, I'll still raise my glass at the end of a hot day of racing to anyone who is against me

[David Polk]

I'm sure that it's a little different for each class or category, but that's the case with our current system. We've made changes that make no sense in our current system and allow a newer SS class car to run wider tires (big benefit for free) or an older SS car to run with 6 points. The only difference between an older SS class car and an S class car is what tires are on the car. You can still have the benefit of improved sway bars and springs/torsion bars and run in SS???? Many of these changes were made to make it easier for the novice. What it does is open a loophole for the good driver who wants to win. That doesn't really help the novice either. I think it's time for a new system and this could be the basis of one we should consider. You can't please everyone and if you want to be fair, you shouldn't try to.

Can't we all just try to get along?

That is my point, which everyone seems to be missing, in GSS, (SS meaning street stock i assume), you can run a 944 with adjustable front coil-overs, camber-plates, improved bars, and be a 6 point car, at the top of GSS, Something doesn't seem right about that, and as far as slowitis is concerned...Eric K, drove my car at the last q autocross, his time would have landed me the exact same finish as my best time, which was 2 seconds slower then him, My thinking is simply this, SS should be for a car you could drive to and from work, without going through 3 sets of tires a year running 3+ degrees of negative camber,
I mean, we now have a car in SS that is capable of running more negative camber then a stock car???
It is getting to the point that, in GSS to have a competitive car, you have to build basically a dedicated AX car.
That does not seem right to me in what is supposed to be a street stock class.

[ttweed]

Uhh at the risk of being flamed I'd like to propose a new class "Z" or what ever just for those of us that really don't care very much about a competitive time vs just going out and being able to drive our cars briskly in a relatively structured environment. That being said all usual tech and safety requirements must be met.

We already have that. It is called "X" class. Anyone who doesn't want to compete in a class structure can enter as "Exhibition" only.

[ttweed]

With this system, instead of running for the BRI, we would be running for class wins.

Now, I like it.

Read the whole rule set for Zone 7, Gary. Besides the class structure, they also have a PAX (index) just like our BRI to equalize the classes.

TT

[ttweed]

The only thing not optimal in my opinion is the weight of the AWD system over a C2 (but I take my spare out and don't have a gut ) All that said, I still beleive on some statistically relevant level that the BRI is flawed in my class.

Of course it is flawed--It is an estimate based on limited data. But it must be designed to account for all possible entries in the class. It is not just a matter of how optimized YOUR car is, or others like it--the BRI has to account for the possible speed potential of ALL the cars that are included in the class, in their optimal form. O class includes the ‘78-’92 930 & 911 Turbos. I would suggest that a '92 Turbo could be set up to be faster than yours or any of the cars we currently see entered in OS at our events, and that the BRI is accounting for that possibility.

Just another way of looking at it.
TT

[Otto]

Greg wrote:

Just to add another wrinkle. If you have 1010 points, you must have 730 modification points on top of your 280 base points. If so you would not run in TT3, but instead GT-3 as all cars with more than 650 mod points go into the GT-class 1-6 depending on displacement or GT-C if a cup car.
GT-3 is for displacements of 2.808 to 3.4 (with a 1.3 turbo factor). 2.5 x 1.3= 3.25 for your turbo.

Went back to the drawing board to check my GGR point calculations again because 1010 points looked outrageous for my car. Found I had made a couple of mistakes on interpreting the applicable modifications which I had done back when we went to the GGR Event at Buttonwillow. Point count might not be as bad as I thought but will need to check about a couple of modifications with my mechanic to make sure I understand correctly. If it comes to pass, will also have to make tire choices. Anyway, let's see what happens and will go from there

[rshon]

I am hearing two big issues here:

1) It is very hard to separate driver performance from potential car performance, but the class system is supposed to focus solely on potential car performance. Although I have a relative impression of some of the other drivers I've driven with/against, I wouldn't bet a lung that I could accurately and objectively grade their abilities to get every second out of their cars, much less my own. And without crawling over their cars, how do you tell it's the driver and not the way the car is setup? Sorry guys, anecdotal data against your friend's car doesn't constitute an objective measure of the car. And I don't think it's possible for us to be truly objective about our own driving abilities. The variability in driver ability and car setup is just that large. This is one of the reasons that the BRI is flawed, as I understand it's original basis is AX and TT results of the region. In cases where there were a lot of cars and some very good drivers, the aggregated statistics are better. But in the classes where there were more modifications and much fewer participants, let's say the standard deviation is very large. So we need to focus on a system which attempts to objectively concentrate on the car's ability, not our results.

2) In order to help us determine if any given classification system is workable, we need to develop a set of goals and criteria with which we can grade the system. Some possible items could be:

a) Use objective, measurable or documented data to rank cars abilities in acceleration, cornering and braking to rank their performance potential; when the effect of modifications cannot be objectively compared, break the class by grouped modifications with specifications in a manner similar to class racing (race tires, wings, etc.)
b) Allow purely stock cars to compete amongst themselves in appropriate classes
c) Make sensible breaks in classes to separate streetable cars from modified stripped-out track cars; make sensible breaks in classes so that class safety equipment requirements are appropriate.
d) Have roughly 15-20 classes represented at an AX, and roughly 8 to 10 classes represented at a TT; have fewer than 20% of participants in 1-car classes for a given event (these are not goals for the total number of classes, they are targets for events)
e) Have a different set of classes for AX and TT to account for the different environments and equipment advantages
f) Allow for some separation of cars by era
g) Incentivize participation in Spec Classes

and I'm sure there are others. When we have a good list of goals and criteria, then we will be in a much better position to evaluate any given classification system to see if it is meeting our needs. There are plenty of them out there to choose from (POC, NASA, etc.). If we can't agree on such a set of goals and criteria, how can we ever agree on a system?

[Gary Burch]

With this system, instead of running for the BRI, we would be running for class wins.

Now, I like it.

Read the whole rule set for Zone 7, Gary. Besides the class structure, they also have a PAX (index) just like our BRI to equalize the classes.

TT

Tom, I was referring to our system. With so many classes and so few cars and no hope of TTOD, most of us run for the BRI. With the Z7 setup the PAX would be what the BRI used to be, an interesting sidebar.

[Chaoscreature]

I haven't been with the club long enough to be completely educated on all of the nuances of our classification system, but the proposed points system is WAY more straightforward than our current system. I was always under the impression that to be in the SS class you had to have 0 points? But even then, if you look at the points card right above the "S" class it says 0-8 points. So does that mean you have to have negative points to be in "SS"? Even the tech inspectors get confused, which to me is a sign that our current system is flawed. If you walk around the pits and ask everyone about SS class you will get answers ranging from "you can't have any points" up to "you can have up to eight points."
I have a "stock" 993 C2 with original 15 year old everything, suspension, shocks, etc. When I swapped out my rear tires I installed 275's (300 tread rating). This bumped me out of the SS class. I didn't think that was fair, but whatever... Under the current points system my "stock" 993 has to compete with Adam and Joel's cars. Couple their performance mods with their superior driving skills and on a good day I am five seconds behind them (Adam, before you reply I know this is 90% driver and 10% car ).
In the new classification system I will be placed against other "near stock" 993's, Boxters, 964's and even some modded 914's. That's pretty cool! Much more competition and less confusion. The only thing I would maybe change is using tire width instead of the rim width since this more accurately predicts your actual contact patch and thus performance. On a 9" rim you can run anything from a 225 to a 275 tire width.
I say lets give this a shot!
- Peter

[Greg Phillips]

I haven't been with the club long enough to be completely educated on all of the nuances of our classification system, but the proposed points system is WAY more straightforward than our current system. I was always under the impression that to be in the SS class you had to have 0 points? But even then, if you look at the points card right above the "S" class it says 0-8 points. So does that mean you have to have negative points to be in "SS"? Even the tech inspectors get confused, which to me is a sign that our current system is flawed. If you walk around the pits and ask everyone about SS class you will get answers ranging from "you can't have any points" up to "you can have up to eight points."
I have a "stock" 993 C2 with original 15 year old everything, suspension, shocks, etc. When I swapped out my rear tires I installed 275's (300 tread rating). This bumped me out of the SS class. I didn't think that was fair, but whatever... Under the current points system my "stock" 993 has to compete with Adam and Joel's cars. Couple their performance mods with their superior driving skills and on a good day I am five seconds behind them (Adam, before you reply I know this is 90% driver and 10% car ).
In the new classification system I will be placed against other "near stock" 993's, Boxters, 964's and even some modded 914's. That's pretty cool! Much more competition and less confusion. The only thing I would maybe change is using tire width instead of the rim width since this more accurately predicts your actual contact patch and thus performance. On a 9" rim you can run anything from a 225 to a 275 tire width.
I say lets give this a shot!
- Peter

I believe they went with rim width because that is the best determinant of optimal contact patch. Although you could use 225 to probably 295 on a 9 inch rim,your best results will be 255-275. Too narrow makes no sense and if you try and fit too large a tire on a small rim you also lose contact patch and grip. Also it helps to prevent the problem of the tire manufacturers upsizing their tires but still calling at 275 for example. If you measure several different tires of the "same" width you will get several different answers. Using the tire rim width helps to alleviate this problem.

Greg

[Dan Chambers]

Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Good stuff. Makes for a good read on a drizzly morning.

Below are just some musings. If they provoke anger and hostility, my apologies. If they provoke thought, I've succeeded. Please don't hate me for having thoughts and ideas. No name-calling, please. Let's all just get along? Open minds are a good thing. This is a forum for all things Porsche and of differing ideas, right?

OK, so ....

On reflection I think it's important to remember that each year, the rules change. I have been down the road of optimizing a car to class one year, only to be bumped to the lowest level of the next class up the following year ... after spending more $$$ than a Bel Air Chateau and more time than the formation of quartz crystals for the initial optimization. So, Otto ... and others, I feel your pain and understand your concern about spending so much time and $$$, just to have changes alter your quest for class optimization in one year.

While the debate may rage on about which system to use, or what's "fair," or what's "better" I ask a wholly different question: why must we change the rules every year? Every year?!? Really?

Think about it.

Every year? Can't we save a little $$ and frustration by changing rules every 2 years or so? How 'bout different changes for different events (Concours one year, TT's another year, AX's another year? Just thinking out loud here...)

Something to think about...

Frequent rules changes have seen people completely change their cars, completely eliminate their car's optimal road-going capabilities, or sell their car all-together and vacate competition.

Some thought-provoking observations, I hope.

OK, so I'm not optimized for one whole year and have to wait. Is that so terribly bad? For me, I have to wait a year just to scrape up enough pennies to make the minor changes to better-optimize my car ... only to discover that the changes I've researched, the parts I've acquired, the $$ I've saved ... is no longer relevant for the class anymore ... because once again the rules have changed? If the rules changed every two years, it would seem almost natural ... evolutionary ... down-right Darwinian, even ... to adjust my car's spec's based on a two-year cycle instead of every January.

At least, that's one thought ...

Imagine: I get my car optimized at the top of it's class based on a "current" points/class system. Then the changes are made for the next year. I get bumped up to the bottom of another class, or more mod's are allowed. So, then I have to re-calibrate the class and my car's needs, start all over again; research the parts and cost; go to the spouse on bended-knee and beg for more mod's for a car that is already a financial black-hole and "wallet-vacuum" in her eyes ; then barter/beg/steal the new parts from the supplier; arm-twist/threaten/cajole the Master Tech into installing the newly stolen .... I mean, errr ..." bargained-for" part; and get ready for a new year of competition ... that will be null and void in 11.5 months.

Something to think about...

OK ... so I exaggerate, a little. (A little!?! OK, a lot. )

Seriously, though: have you all really thought about the frequency of the rules change? Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit ... "frequent" ... to have rules changes so often in a program that has a direct impact on everyone who drives competitively? Could so frequent a change in the system ... coupled with the system's complexity ... have anything to do with the reduction in participation at the Q events?

Something to ponder.

I guess it's just me, but at some point, I just have to stop making mod's and invest in new magnetic letters. Because each year, there's a chance I'll be put in a different class if I don't mod my car. So... new mod's, or new magnetic letters? Hmmm.

I know:

(OK ... here's the humorous part .... Hold on tight!)

"Chambers On-site Magnetic Lettering Service. New Class Letters While You Wait. Special rates for orders received December 1st through 31st." .... that's the ticket.

Finally: maybe I'm approaching this all wrong. Instead of being a competitive driver, I should concentrate of being a competitive rules-changer. After all: changing the rules only involves a little computer time, and no out-of-pocket expense.

If it catches on, we could come up with a classification system for rules changers based on how long you've been competing in rules changes. Then, over time, we could add different points systems based on the number of effective rules changes you've made vs rules that prove ineffectual. There would be sub-catagories for different major and minor rules changes, etc. This could open up a whole new competitive system for PCA. We could enter in a National Rules Changing Competition at the Annual Parade. The possibilities are endless...

(Humor part done ...)

OK, I'm ready for a change .... track time, anyone?

Just my sick, twisted, all-together irrelevant ramblings from too much espresso.

[Jackie C]

Just when I thought this thread finally died...
I'm up for every 2 years.
I don't have a 20 pt car.
I'm tired of optimizing so for me the only sure thing is Spec now (hopefully all those rule changes have settled down now).
Dan, you need more smiley faces...

[lbevins]

Finally: maybe I'm approaching this all wrong. Instead of being a competitive driver, I should concentrate of being a competitive rules-changer. After all: changing the rules only involves a little computer time, and no out-of-pocket expense.

If it catches on, we could come up with a classification system for rules changers based on how long you've been competing in rules changes. Then, over time, we could add different points systems based on the number of effective rules changes you've made vs rules that prove ineffectual. There would be sub-catagories for different major and minor rules changes, etc. This could open up a whole new competitive system for PCA. We could enter in a National Rules Changing Competition at the Annual Parade. The possibilities are endless...

Dan... I like the way you think. And here are some new acronyms for the club :

1. PCA-SDR = Probably Changing Annually - Several Driving Rules
4. AX = (I) Auto Get My Head Examined
3. TTOD = Trials and Tribulations On Demand
4. BRI = Bass-akwards Rules Index
5. TT = Totally Tweaked

Wa da ya thunk?

All in fun.

[Jad]

I think this entire 'optimizing' thing is a bit of a joke. I have never seen more than 1 or 2 cars at any AX optimized. To be even close, you need to be using max points, but with sticker, shaved, heat cycled max sticky for class tires you can buy. I don't care what spring rate or factory option you have, tires must be perfect to really be close to optimal. The third event on RA1's, a car is not optimized.

Since most of us are not willing/able to spend that much on tires, i think we just need a system that allows a bunch of people in a class to compete for a class win that really means something. Getting first (and last) in class, just isn't that rewarding. Getting third after nailing your last timed run is MUCH better, especially when your tires are getting old, the people that beat you are in cheater cars and the sun was in your eyes! That is the stuff that makes this fun, and the driving.

No matter how 'spec;' the series, some cars are better than others, so perfection for the rules is not possible. That is why a simpler system that allows more, and a greater variety of cars, in each class seems like a good idea. Otherwise we can each have our own class defined by the exact condition of the car that day. That would be fair, but not as much fun.