PCA SDR

Attention: All drivers (AX-TT-DE-Rally-Concours)

The final Z-8 rules proposals have been put together in a final document by the Zone 8 rules Committee. They wade through all the proposals and may put 3 related proposals together, or pieces of several proposals into one. Sometimes they even come up with issues we all forgot about, or even the dreaded typo.

They give this document to the region presidents which lets them know what the rules committee would like to do. They then ask the Presidents to discuss this with their membership... that's you guys!

This document is now available for you to view on the Zone-8 website or more directly on our own rules page-

http://www.pcasdr.org/porsche_events/pr ... /index.php
(See Important Zone-8 rules news)

Take a look at the document and the rules that pertain to your particular event of participation and tell your president what you think. You can reach our region President, Margi Knight at pres@pcasdr.org

This rules process if very difficult and time consuming and all those involved on the Zone level deserve a great big thanks. The process is getting better and more streamlined every year. We are really very lucky to have all of these people willing to spend so much time on this process.
Thanks to all!

I have already read the document and hope to see it pass in its entirety.
If you agree, tell Margi. If you don't, tell her why not.
She has to have your help to do her job.

Thanks in advance for all your help and input,

Steve Grosekemper
PCASDR Rules/Tech Advisor

I am very impressed that the committee was able to distill all the various proposals into this form; it obviously took a good deal of time.

I participated in the proposal process w.r.t. harnesses, and I am quite pleased with the result.

I am particularly happy with the curb weight clarifications; it closely matches my original interpretation, which I was worried that I had wrong after reading one of the proposals!

The committee really did a great job and yes, it takes a great bit of work.

I am also pleased with the weight ruling as this is without a doubt the number one rule I am asked for clarification about.

I think the committee was really listening to driver concerns over this past year.

Steve Grosekemper wrote:The committee really did a great job and yes, it takes a great bit of work.

I am also pleased with the weight ruling as this is without a doubt the number one rule I am asked for clarification about.

I think the committee was really listening to driver concerns over this past year.

Steve,
Were the previous rules around engine size changes always that way in terms of equations to add points? Interesting, or at least new to me...

kurquhart wrote:I am very impressed that the committee was able to distill all the various proposals into this form; it obviously took a good deal of time.

I whole-heartedly agree! With all the multiple, conflicting proposals, dealing with subtle nuances to overt omissions and typos, this was a Herculean effort by the Rules Committee. When I was told that the "Rules Committee does not make the rules, they simply collect member input" I was afraid of what the result might be, due to the numerous differing proposals on the same issues, many with good ideas but containing small flaws. It is obvious that the committee worked hard to combine, synthesize and distill the multiple individual inputs into a very sensible and practical final proposal. Nothing is ever perfect, but this is a great improvement. I support it completely and will forward my approval to Margi by email.

Thanks to everyone involved!

TT

kary wrote: Were the previous rules around engine size changes always that way in terms of equations to add points?

Kary-
No, if you look at the old rules, you will see that engine HP changes and displacement rules were covered by a table of values instead of a formula.

The new proposals help graduate the penalties more evenly as well as covering swaps and changes that weren't previously common, due to the availability of newer, bigger, more powerful engines from Porsche.

TT (--sorry to see that the "virtual" update/backdate proposal didn't make the cut, but still pleased overall)

kary wrote:
Steve,
Were the previous rules around engine size changes always that way in terms of equations to add points? Interesting, or at least new to me...

No Kary,
This is new. The problem is better outlined in the proposals comments. But with the old rule when you gained 50 HP you got 12-points and 51HP netted you 16-points. Not very fair.

This is a more equitable method of point assessing.

Steve Grosekemper wrote:

kary wrote:
Steve,
Were the previous rules around engine size changes always that way in terms of equations to add points? Interesting, or at least new to me...

No Kary,
This is new. The problem is better outlined in the proposals comments. But with the old rule when you gained 50 HP you got 12-points and 51HP netted you 16-points. Not very fair.

This is a more equitable method of point assessing.

Equitable????
Has anyone (other than John Riz and myself) actually looked at what happened to the points for engine mods??

You have a 3.6 and your points are now LESS than you had to take previously??. Displacement increase went down to 12 points, it was 14 and stopped at a 40% increase. It was supposed to go up because of bigger motors wasn't it?? Perhaps it was just an assumption with all the griping in AM and talks of it "will be fixed in 2007" that it would be addressed. What the hell happened to the steam roller tire points?? This is completely absurd..

FOR SALE: Gulf car

Was competitive AM car before 3.6 rule...

gulf911 wrote:

Steve Grosekemper wrote:

kary wrote:
Steve,
Were the previous rules around engine size changes always that way in terms of equations to add points? Interesting, or at least new to me...

No Kary,
This is new. The problem is better outlined in the proposals comments. But with the old rule when you gained 50 HP you got 12-points and 51HP netted you 16-points. Not very fair.

This is a more equitable method of point assessing.

Equitable????


Has anyone (other than John Riz and myself) actually looked at what happened to the points for engine mods??

You have a 3.6 and your points are now LESS than you had to take previously??. Displacement increase went down to 12 points, it was 14 and stopped at a 40% increase. It was supposed to go up because of bigger motors wasn't it?? Perhaps it was just an assumption with all the griping in AM and talks of it "will be fixed in 2007" that it would be addressed. What the hell happened to the steam roller tire points?? This is completely absurd..

FOR SALE: Gulf car

Was competitive AM car before 3.6 rule...

Dan you are right, to make the same 14 points you would have to use a factor of 36 instead of 24 (See proposal). An obvious error by a mathematically challenged or overburdened volunteer.

(See the proposal here Pg-57)
http://www.pca.org/zone8/rules/2006/AX- ... posals.pdf

The point of the proposal was to tax those running 80-100% increase in displacement who have been getting away with murder.
However, these proposals have been up for MONTHS. Where have you been? If you made this point in the time line you where suppose to, the rules committee could have adjusted the multiplication factor.

I suggest you send an e-mail to Margi at pres@pcasdr.org and reference this thread telling her your feelings. That's your only option since you didn't bother to read and factor in the AM scenario before this time.

This is why it is imperative that every AX/TT driver read the proposals. The authors are not trying to screw anyone, they just can't spend days factoring in how the new rule will affect every possible combination of cars.

Those of us who write the proposals need help from people like you to show us the error of out ways. I just wish you would have started your whinning in a more timely fashion so this could have been corrected earlier... Imagine that Dan, you were too slow on the bitching

BTW- I don't know what happened to the tire rule? I could have sworn I wrote and submitted it allong with HP and Disp increases. I will have to check my laptop and see. Where's the one you sent in?

(See lots of smilies!)

Curt wrote:

Steve Grosekemper wrote:The point of the proposal was to tax those running 80-100% increase in displacement who have been getting away with murder.

Steve,
I appreciate everything you do to try and help this club run better. Now.... I'm not that strong at math, but I have a calculator. So if I understand this correctly, we have people who have 100% displacement increases getting away with murder? My car was originally a 2.4L but I don't know anyone in AM who is running a 4.8L motor. How about those SC/Carrera cars with their 3.0L and 3.2L motors? I don't think any of them have upgraded to 6.0L or 6.4L motors. But if they had, this rules change would have really taught them a lesson.





I like this part of the Rationale for this rules change the best in the PDF:

"Under the proposed rule the 3.6L car would have to take XX points, keeping these monster-motor cars out of the classes where the smaller displacement vintage racecars classes live. Left unchanged these fun to watch and drive early cars will vanish from our events due to frustration of these lopsided rules."

Oh my gosh Steve...... you had me at hello.



So can you see why we may not have pulled the calculators out after reading sections like this in the Rules Proposals PDF? I felt pretty safe knowing that our issue in AM was going to be taken care of. I don't know who else the proposals authors might have been referring to when you talk about early cars vanishing from events due to frustrations with lop-sided rules. Has anyone in Zone 8 (or on planet Earth) been more vocal in voicing their frustrations with lop-sided rules than us early car drivers in AM?

Heck, even Mark Kinninger came on here and said we needed to sell our early cars because they were obsolete in the current AM. Obsolete? What is this, the American LeMans Series and we're trying to run last years GT3RS against this years GT3RSR?

Curt,
When I finish installing a 3.6L motor in my 914 (originally a 1.8L) it will have a 100% increase in displacement (112% for a 1.7L) These cars previously took 14 points. The same as if my 914 had a 2.4L in it.
That seemed unfair to me. So I wrote a proposal... albeit mathematically flawed.

(No, there is not going to be a 3.6 in my future... I'll still have to run you 3.2L boys down with a little 2.7L.... I know yours is a 2.9L ...that runs like a 3.4L

gulf911 wrote: It was supposed to go up because of bigger motors wasn't it?? Perhaps it was just an assumption with all the griping in AM and talks of it "will be fixed in 2007" that it would be addressed.

Dan-
You're barking up the wrong tree here. The displacement rule alone makes very little difference with the overall equity problem in AM. The basis for this problem is the reclassification of the early 911s from G class to H and I, along with the elimination of HM class in favor of KM, which has lumped all the former G, H and J cars into AM together.

Previously, the G class and under cars progressed to FI and then AM, while the H and above cars progressed to HI or JI and then HM, keeping them separate. The decision was made to eliminate HM and put all the torsion bar cars together in AM and all the coilover cars from K and above in a new class, KM. While this may have seemed like a logical idea at the time, it has been a disaster in my view (and obviously yours and Curt's.) The Carreras (and SCs to some extent) can be more highly developed, with less point penalties, than the early cars and have taken over dominance in the AM class. The Carreras start with higher stock displacement and higher HP (not to mention better brakes) than the early cars, so take less points for engine mods, and can be made almost as light.

Furthermore, if you look at the results for this year and last for both TT and autox, you will see that not one single car has been developed for the new KM class! Who was this rule change supposed to serve? Where are the hordes of KM cars to fill this new class? The previous AM class had its problems, mostly stemming from the fact that an early 911T suffered in relation to an early 911S when both were developed equally, but this is a minor problem compared to a developed Carrera like the Kinninger car or even a developed SC like Roland's (which has since moved on to AR.)

In my view, this whole problem stemmed from trying to protect the G-class 944s from the early 911s by moving the 911s up to H and I class. In hindsight, it is obvious to me that the 944s should have been moved down to a new "E" class and the early 911s should have been left in G, and that the HM and AM separation should have been maintained. The creation of KM and the consolidation of HM and AM has served no one, and destroyed the investment that many of us made in trying to build a competitive AM car out of an early 911.

Such are the compromises of rule-making, where the emphasis is on trying to create parity without increasing the total number of classes too much. Some cars are bound to be effected negatively and some will gain new advantages. The "car de jour" will change from season to season and the participants are left to roll with the punches and open their wallets.

TT

WOW. This new rule on displacement for modified engines just added 24 points!! 38 points total just for the displacement alone!

Ummm, I do believe there are still some torsion bar cars in K? As usual, either the only car in the universe is the 911 for some or the 944 is being discriminated against by being forced to run against (and beat ) the advanced coil over newer 911. Then again, the torsion bar 944 seems to beat AM soundly, so there is a problem in the 911 universe. stir stir stir

Tom, It's not just you, Dan and I that are getting sick of this AM class nonsense. You can add Johnny Riz and Mick Rosen to the list too. John keeps trying to post to this thread but he is so pi$$ed off that every word he types is a swear word and gets censored so his posts end up blank.

How many former 1.8L 914's are out here with us running 3.6's currently? None, but if anyone thinks of doing that, the rules are ready for them. In the meantime, the five of us with a substantial investment in our early cars have no class in PCA where they can be run competitively. We are talking about cars that come in and beat us by 3-4 seconds per lap. This is one of the most glaring inequities and it still has not been dealt with.

We haven't exactly been quiet about this the last two years either. This was a well-known issue, perhaps the most well-known issue needing to be addressed by the rules committee.

Let me again quote the Rationale for the rules change from the finalized rules proposals.

"Left unchanged these fun to watch and drive early cars will vanish from our events due to frustration of these lopsided rules."

Jad wrote:Then again, the torsion bar 944 seems to beat AM soundly

Jad, did you ever beat Roland in AM last year or Erik or Mark Kinninger in AM this year? That is exactly our point! You can beat the rest of us on occassion unless the track is named Buttonwillow

We are talking about "AM" class cars like Rolands who beat you by 5 seconds at Buttonwillow in 2005 and "AM" class cars like Mark Kinningers who beat all the KP class cars by over 2 seconds at a short track like Streets of Willow in 2006.

The fact that a 911, a 968 or a 944T can win KP class on any given day is AWESOME for you guys. The FACT that a historically competitive AM class car can not TOUCH a formerly HM classed car no matter what, is what we have been bitching about for going on 3 years now.