Final Zone 8 Prososals (Version-2)

[Steve Grosekemper]

The Rules Committee has had a look at all the concerns that people have had with the final rules proposals and has generously spent time trying to come to a solution. Instead of saying the process is complete they have come up with a version-2.

Please take a look and see what the changes are. I think this shows that the Rules Committee is really focused on the true goal of making things better any way that they can. They should be congratulated on doing their best to make this ever changing process work for the members.

Here is is the new version

http://www.pca.org/zone8/rules/2006/200 ... osals2.pdf

This is what is says:
Note: Version 2 of this document corrects a typo in AX/TT proposal 14 and adds AX/TT proposal 19.

AX/TT Proposal 14 – Engine Displacement
Current rule:
III POINTS FOR MODIFICATIONS
J. Engine displacement increase:
3% to 10% 4
10% to 20% 8
20% to 30% 10
30% to 40% 12
Over 40% 14
Proposed Change:
III POINTS FOR MODIFICATIONS
J. Engine displacement increase:
Percentage of engine displacement increase multiplied by 36 = total points.
For sums ending in more than a whole number, round to the next highest whole number.
Example: 2.0L to 2.4L is a 20% increase.
20% x 36 = 7.2, rounded to 8 points
Description:
Updating an outdated rule to include modern motors which are much bigger than engines were when this rule was originally written.

AX/TT Proposal 19 – Changes due to modifications (New)
Description:
This proposal deals with the inequities in the current AM class by splitting it into two classes. Here is how: Remove class J Improved. Add class I Improved which is fed from IP & JP. Add class I Modified which is fed from I Improved. Obviously, the J and I class lines no longer feed into A Modified. IM feeds into AR-1 along with KM and AM.

Prop 14 is a correction to a mathematical error made by me. The multiplier has been increased from 24 to 36.

Prop 19 has been added to address the AM issue which was improperly changed 2 years ago. This is what we believe it should have been changed to originally. I am sure there are going to be tweaks made to the rules next year to make this work even better, but there is just no time for that now. Please check the link to see the graph that goes along with Prop 19 to get a better visualization.

http://www.pca.org/zone8/rules/2006/200 ... osals2.pdf

Thank you to all who have worked so hard to make this less than perfect, but improving system work.

[ttweed]

Please take a look and see what the changes are. I think this shows that the Rules Committee is really focused on the true goal of making things better any way that they can. They should be congratulated on doing their best to make this ever changing process work for the members.

Undoubtedly, this is true, Steve, and I commend the members of the RC for trying to be responsive to concerns. However, there is a downside to changing the process mid-stream, and in this case, it is that adding and changing proposals at this late date do not allow for member comment on them. Here are mine, although they will probably not be taken into account, since it is outside the formal process.

Prop 14 is a correction to a mathematical error made by me. The multiplier has been increased from 24 to 36.

I supported the original proposal with a factor of 24, and submitted a favorable comment on it. With a new factor of 36, I would not have done so, and would have argued against it. Now I have no opportunity to do so, except on this forum, which we know is not monitored by the RC.

Changing the factor involved to a higher number will NOT make much of a difference in the AM class situation, and in some cases will make it worse. The problem is that the Carrera begins with 3.2 displacement and the older cars begin with 2.0-2.4. Any displacement rule will always favor the Carrera horribly, and the more punitive it is, the worse it becomes. A 3.2 Carrera has a 12.5% increase to go to a 3.6. My 2.4 car has a 50% increase to go to the same size engine. Point penalties under the 24 factor would be 3 for the Carrera and 12 for my car, a difference of 9 points. With the new factor of 36, the penalties are 5 for the Carrera and 18 for the early car, a difference of 13. How does this help the early 911 compete better with the Carrera??? They simply should not be in the same class.

Additionally, having the lower factor would actually help people "decontent" their cars and move down in class, if that is their decision/choice in this dilemma. With the lower factor, I could run smaller wheels and tires, take off my aero aids and strut brace, and perhaps run in Improved class instead of Modified. With a higher factor, I could not, and could actually end up out of AM and into AR1!

Prop 19 has been added to address the AM issue which was improperly changed 2 years ago. This is what we believe it should have been changed to originally. I am sure there are going to be tweaks made to the rules next year to make this work even better, but there is just no time for that now.

Unfortunately, this won't fix the AM problem for everyone--only the current H-class-and-below early 911s would get relief. The '72-73 911S and 911E were moved all the way up to I-class in the past, so they would still progress to the new IM class and have to run against the Carreras in IM, just as they do now in AM. Without fixing the base class problems, only the VERY early 911s (2.0-2.2), along with the '69-73 911T, which are currently in F and H class, would be able to run in AM under this proposal, and the I-class '72-73 911E and S would have to progress to IM and still be screwed.

The only way to truly fix this problem is with changes to the base classes, OR, to allow the '72-73 911E and S, which are in I class, to BACKDATE their cars to the F class, if it is determined that the intention of the Update/Backdate provision was to allow cars on the same model series line to apply this provision even when they have progressed beyond the Stock classes. If this interpretation is correct, then a 1972-73 911E or S model would be allowed to BACKDATE to a 1973 T model, starting in F class, and progressing to AM instead of IM, as long as all points penalties for mods were calculated from the base '73T model specs. This would be the "best-of-all-possible" solutions, IMHO, but it will require clarification of the U/B rule, as I have asked for elsewhere.

This would keep all the early RS clones running together in AM, on even footing, and separate them all (not just half of them) from the Carreras and SCs in IM, which is what the old AM crew wants. It would solve the problem for EVERYONE equally, T, E, or S model, without any changes to the base classifications (moving the 944 to E-class, etc.,) which are admittedly a little radical to undertake at this late date in the rules change process.

Thanks for "throwing us whiners a bone," and the 911T owners will love it, but us E and S owners are still choking on it.

TT

[Steve Grosekemper]

Tom,

I agree with you.

Here is the rule:
V MODEL RANGES
Update/Backdate - Major assemblies such as engines, brakes,
suspension or transmissions may be substituted with parts from the same series
car. Model ranges are defined in the chart below. Cars that are updated or
backdated shall have all major assemblies updated and changed as a whole, or
take the appropriate modification points. In order to be eligible for this
provision of the rules, the car as modified must be functionally identical
(mechanically, physically and aerodynamically) with the model to which it has
been updated or backdated. Under those circumstances, the car is eligible to run
in the same class as the model to which it has been modified to match.
Series Models Year
356 Pushrod models All
356 4-Cam and Carrera All
911 Any 911 Model 1965-68
Any 911 Model 1969
Any 911 Model 1970-71
Any 911 Model 1972-73
Any 911 Model 1974-77
911SC 1978-83
911 Carrera 1984-89
911 Carrera 2&4 (964) All
911 Carrera 2&4 (993) All
911 Carrera 2&4 (996) All
911 Carrera 2&4 (997) All
911 Turbo See 930
912 912 All
912E All
914 914/4 All
914/6 All
924 924 1977-82
924S 1987 -88
924 Turbo (931) All
928 928 1978-82
928S 1983-84
928 S4, GT, & GTS All
930/911 Turbo 930 All
911 Turbo All
911 C2 Turbo/3.6 Turbo All
944/968 944 All
944S All
944 Turbo 1986-88
944 Turbo S & 89 Turbo 1988-89
968 All
986 Boxster All

It seems to me that any model 911 means just that. (But I am not part of the Z-8 rules Committee) I read the rule to mean that when you no longer have that stock engine that really defines the class; you can start from the base model (being a 911T in this case) I will ask if that can be better defined in the final approved version.

Here is a possible example to tach on to the end of the rule:
As cars progress out of stock class due to engine change or upgrade they can back date to the base model car of their model range. An example might be a 1973 911E getting a stock 3.2L engine transplant and taking the 140 to 214HP points (+74HP) of a 911T through F-Class progression instead of the 165-214HP points (+49HP) in I-progression.

Would that slide down a little easier?

[ttweed]

Would that slide down a little easier?

Absolutely! That is just what I am looking for with my request to clarify the U/B rule, and my reason for submitting Proposal #30 this year.

You are the Rules God I am looking for, even if you are not on the Committee!

Please make that happen!

TT

[gulf911]

A BIG thank you to Steve and all involved in the rules changes. Thank you very much for your time and effort!!

Now I will go through the new proposals to see whats what.

[Curt]

Steve,
Thank you for your continued work on this issue.
I sincerely appreciate being given a class where our cars have the potential to win if driven well.

PS. A little hint that this was not necessarily a done deal, say on about page 2 of that "other" thread, would have really prevented a lot of hand wringing, bitching and complaining and probably limited that thread to about two pages. Oh, OK who am I kidding? We would still have found something to complain about.

[Steve Grosekemper]

Remember this just a suggestion that I will ask for.
That is all we can ask for at this late date is consideration.

Stay tuned and I will let you know how things go...

The real thanks needs to go to the rules committee and most importantly Richard Price and Tom Brown. I think they deserve a huge year end bonus, at least double last years....

[Michael Dolphin]

Wow, I suppose that we just can't win.....

But to refute one allegation, I will tell you that I am one of those among the Rules Committee who does review the forum from time to time. I certainly would not venture to say that I "monitor" it. To assume that responsibility would require that I give the same attention to all the forums within the thirteen regions. Granted those thirteen forums do not exist today, but if they did that task would be herculean -- and underpaid.

As to addressing or debating rules on the forum, our intention was/is that your region would be represented by someone, as it is now by Steve Grosekemper -- and you should obviously see that turned out to be true in this case.

And to the comments that if we posted responses earlier in the thread then the resulting comment may have been different, I speculate that the same comment that says the rule change was "promised" woud have arisen again if the resultant decisions had not been popular again.

We do our best - but I know for certain that we will never make everyone happy.

[Curt]

Wow, I suppose that we just can't win.....

Well you have three very appreciative thank you's by the three people who have visited this thread so far.

My PS in my post was absolutely a joke and I'll bet Steve took it exactly that way knowing the writer as well as he does.

[ttweed]

I certainly would not venture to say that I "monitor" it.

Michael-

Would it help if there was a separate forum for "Rules Discussion," as I suggested elsewhere? I think it is a relatively easy process for the Forum administrators to create a separate area for this, which might go a long way towards "separating the wheat from the chaff" if an RC member did want to monitor discussion of rules issues in the region. They could go directly to that forum and not have to sift thru the general and technical discussions, not to mention the trashtalk and jokes.

We recently added a forum for the "2007 Parade" discussion, so I imagine the same thing could be done for "Rules", if it would help manage the time investment.

TT

[Michael Dolphin]

Tom, I like that thought of a "rules discussion forum" but even more so if it might be hosted on the Zone 8 website for the entirety of the Zone.

I have to defer to the Rules Chair and the total committee for that consideration, particularly (I think) as how that idea might hinder or affect the process already in place.

And to Curt, my comment on "..we can't win..." had less to do with appreciation but with the frustrations of trying to achieve parity, equity or perfection. I purposefully did not use "and/or" because I know dang well that I ain't smart enough to achieve that near-impossible combination.

[ttweed]

Stay tuned and I will let you know how things go...

I have not seen any announcement of what happened with the Rules proposals at the President's meeting. Any updates available regarding what the rules will look like for next year?

Thx,
TT

[Steve Grosekemper]

Sorry Tom,
The version -2 rules passed vertually as they were on the Z-8 site with the exception of some typo's and grammar checks.

I was waiting to post until the final version was up on the site.
I will see how that is coming along.

[ttweed]

I will see how that is coming along.

Thanks for the update, Steve.

TT