A Different Car Classification System

[kary]

....
Maybe they do need a "revolutionary" overhaul, and when Kary has the time to lay out specific details of what he is suggesting, I would be happy to listen to it. However, I think it is important that we not underestimate the magnitude of such an undertaking. It is not a simple matter, and could not likely be accomplished by any single person working alone.

.....

TT

Thought I would start a new thread since this is not the main topic that Tom had started prior.

Tom, absolutely agree. So here is a starting point of what I am proposing for everyone to contribute to see if it at all makes sense. I have simplified my proposal to the following chart. It does not have points for this and that except for tires which really have the most significant contribution beyond the HP to weight ratio.

Please take a look and see how it might work. I am sure we can throw stones at it but it is harder to make suggestions that help. Please try, otherwise don't comment. Pretty simple.

Each group has two units of ratio assigned to them. If this is to much or too little adjusting to 1 unit or 3 units is easy. I am assuming everyone runs street tires above treadwear rating 100 by default. Addition of R compounds moves you up 1 group (i.e. G4 to G3) and race tires move you up two group (i.e. G4 to G2). This is established afer your car is group based up the weight to HP ratio.

I also considered changing the group movement to 1 unit of ratio movement. So if a car was rated at a ratio of 10 (G5) using R compounds could rate this car at 9 still G5. Race slicks in this example would rate the ratio at 8 changing the group to G4 for example. This provides a little buffer for improement with class jumps and can be adapted further if the spread of ratio is increase from 2 units to 3 or 4 units for example.

If there are other areas like tires that are needed because they have significant improvements then please suggest.


Ratio Class
1 G1 Tires:
2 G1 Street tires above TW 100 - Stay in class
3 G2 R Compounds below 100 - Move up one class
4 G2 Race Tires - Move up two classes
5 G3
6 G3
7 G4
8 G4
9 G5
10 G5
11 G6
12 G6
13 G7
14 G7
15 G8
16 G8
17 G9
18 G9
19 G10
20 G10
21 G11
22 G11
23 G12
24 G12

See where your car and your competitors cars fit into this scheme. It is an interesting theory to play out.

[ttweed]

Each group has two units of ratio assigned to them.

Kary-
I'm confused about what the "units" are in your proposal. If my car has 240HP and weighs 2400 lbs., HP/Weight ratio is 1/10. Does that make it a "unit of 10", placing it in G5, as one of your sentences suggests--("So if a car was rated at a ratio of 10 (G5)..."?) What would the HP/weight ratio for G1 be, then? 1/1? That would be a 1000HP car weighing 1000 lbs., which Porsche has never made, so I must be misunderstanding how the groupings relate to HP/weight ratio in your chart. Please explain.

If there are other areas like tires that are needed because they have significant improvements then please suggest.

Here's where it gets sticky. I know you have said that you think that modifications other than tire type have very little impact, but I think there are a number of things that can make substantial differences in relative speed potential, such as:

1. Stock/street suspension vs. race suspension
2. Aero development, including wings and reduced frontal area.
3. Chassis F/R weight distribution (front/rear/mid-engine placement) and location of CG (lowering)
4. Gearing and differential type
5. Chassis stiffening (reinforcement or tube framing)
6. Brakes and/or sophisticated electronic traction controls

Also, you differentiate between street, R-compound and "race" type tires, but nothing about rim and tire width? Can you really equate a 7" rim running a 205 tire (which is all some models can fit) with a 12" rim running a 335 tire on a widebody model? They might each have the same HP/weight ratio, and the same type of tire, but be very much different in maximum grip levels, and thus cornering speeds. Under this scheme, they would end up in the same group, no?

Not throwing stones, just trying to understand,
TT

[kary]

I'm confused about what the "units" are in your proposal. If my car has 240HP and weighs 2400 lbs., HP/Weight ratio is 1/10. Does that make it a "unit of 10", placing it in G5, as one of your sentences suggests--("So if a car was rated at a ratio of 10 (G5)..."?) What would the HP/weight ratio for G1 be, then? 1/1? That would be a 1000HP car weighing 1000 lbs., which Porsche has never made, so I must be misunderstanding how the groupings relate to HP/weight ratio in your chart. Please explain.

Tom, sorry that was a bit confusing (but not in my own mind one of those things a person takes for granted when they are thinking of the idea but not communicating to others) I was computing Horsepower to Weight (H/W) ratios. So for my car, 282 HP and 2850 lbs is a 10.11 H/W ratio or 10.11 lbs per one horsepower. So I have a ratio of 10 or G5 class in the proposed system.

The point is 1 ratio unit of H/W. As mentioned before, ratio points can be added for tires as an example. The scale currently has two ration H/W units per class though I am not sure of this is where it should be but it is a good starting point. we could change this to be lower or much higher depending upon what we feel a ratio H/W unit really worth.

You are correct Porsche or likely anyone else for that matter have never produced a 1 lb for 1 HP car though the Prosche 917-30 at around 1400 HP (boost all the way up) and around 2000 lbs provides a ratio of 1.4, so they do exist at these levels, just not in our club.

Also, you differentiate between street, R-compound and "race" type tires, but nothing about rim and tire width? Can you really equate a 7" rim running a 205 tire (which is all some models can fit) with a 12" rim running a 335 tire on a widebody model? They might each have the same HP/weight ratio, and the same type of tire, but be very much different in maximum grip levels, and thus cornering speeds. Under this scheme, they would end up in the same group, no?

My thoughts on this valid question are this. I am not sure why a car that has a 7" front tire running a 205 size tire would have a high HP/Weight ratio. For example, I could swap out my motor for a turbo changing my H/W ratio from 10.11 to 4.75 (fully blown out 600 HP 3.6 motor). Now, would I keep the small 245 fronts and 285 rears and try and compete in the new G2 class? I think not. What I believe is cars are "sized" proportionally, in a reasonable way with tire widths, brakes, transmissions, etc based upon their HP/Weight ratio's to begin with. Otherwise, as in my example, moving from 282 HP to 600 HP and keeping my brakes, tires, and transmission the same would result in some serious issues, like I could not stop in time because my brakes were overheated or my tires are blowing out because of wear due to the small size. This same basic law applies to cars that are upgraded as in my example. With 600 HP in my car I would need to visit John Simone to flare the body out so I could run 11" front wheels and 13" rear wheels, bigger brakes to the stop the car as well as a new transmission to handle the load (probably more aero beyond that I already have also).

Here's where it gets sticky. I know you have said that you think that modifications other than tire type have very little impact, but I think there are a number of things that can make substantial differences in relative speed potential, such as:

1. Stock/street suspension vs. race suspension
2. Aero development, including wings and reduced frontal area.
3. Chassis F/R weight distribution (front/rear/mid-engine placement) and location of CG (lowering)
4. Gearing and differential type
5. Chassis stiffening (reinforcement or tube framing)
6. Brakes and/or sophisticated electronic traction controls

While I see these as definite advantages for cars to have different gearing or suspensions as you have pointed out, I fall back to the above explanation that cars are outfitted appropriate to their horsepower and weight to begin with and should do the same as they progress through modification. Yes, you can take a GT3, stock tires and stock parts and make it better wiht some of the areas you outlined above without moving classes, but this is the same for the current system as well particularly in the higher classes outside of Street Stock. I do not believe this is as significant as tires or HP/Weight ratio's given equal driver skill. I am sure folks will disagree so I am open to adding ratio points the categories mentioned thus moving cars up on the scale for some of these items, but remember, this system is not about all the mods but about relatively like matched capable cars. I think the example you mentioned regarding putting 3.6 motors in older cars is handled by this system better than today's system and handles it fairly (and safely) across all cars at any ratio level.

Tom, thanks for the questions, keep them coming!

[ttweed]

I was computing Horsepower to Weight (H/W) ratios. So for my car, 282 HP and 2850 lbs is a 10.11 H/W ratio or 10.11 lbs per one horsepower. So I have a ratio of 10 or G5 class in the proposed system.

OK, I was understanding what you meant correctly, I guess, but I just didn't see that we would have many cars in the G1 thru G3 groups. A car with 6 lbs./HP would run in G6, right? That would be, say, a factory GT3 RSR w/ 410HP and weighing 2500 lbs. Even on slicks it would only move up to G4. Who are we expecting to show up and go faster than one of those? I guess we would be ready, though, just in case someone did bring out one of those 917-30s.

I am not sure why a car that has a 7" front tire running a 205 size tire would have a high HP/Weight ratio.

Well, the '68 911 I am building has a 204 HP SC engine in it, and weighs 2100 lbs. That gives it a ratio of 10.29 lbs. per HP. (BTW, are we talking HP at the rear wheels, as measured on a chassis dyno, or DIN HP as measured by the factory, at the flywheel? That makes about a 10-15% difference in measurement values.) This would be in the same class as your car, I assume, yet I can only run a 7" rim with 205 tires under the stock body. I would be forced to turn it into a widebody to be competitive with your car, I'm afraid, which I would not want to do for a lot of reasons. I don't think mine is a radical example, either. It looks to me that there are going to be a lot of very different cars all in the 9-12 lbs./HP range, all crowded into 2 classes, G5 and G6.

What I believe is cars are "sized" proportionally, in a reasonable way with tire widths, brakes, transmissions, etc based upon their HP/Weight ratio's to begin with.

When they are stock, this is true, I think, but once they begin being modified, anything can happen.

I fall back to the above explanation that cars are outfitted appropriate to their horsepower and weight to begin with and should do the same as they progress through modification.

I agree, that is the ideal model, I suppose, but it hasn't always happened the same way over time. Stock cars of 30-40 years ago were not "outfitted" according to the standards that exist today, in modern cars, and this rule set has to fit them all, early and late, no? Stock or modified, right?

Personally, I think there are some "generational gaps" present in Porsche production which make such concentrated or close groupings unfair, and will tend to encourage a single type of car to be developed in each class, which is optimal under the range allowed, and other types of cars will be discouraged. We need to allow for the vast differences in technology and design over the last 40+ years of production, and encourage participation by examples from all eras, I think, especially in a "Club" setting like this. This type of rule would heavily favor the newer cars, IMHO, because the newest cars are generally the fastest of the line, due to design improvements.

I think using the classing to keep the various "generations" apart is the best approach for wide participation and encouraging diversity in the field. Our current system does this pretty well, actually, except for a few anomalies. I don't see that happening with this type of classification system. We're going to end up with a lot of newer, aero-efficient, widebody cars, because that is what it will encourage.

TT

[kary]

OK, I was understanding what you meant correctly, I guess, but I just didn't see that we would have many cars in the G1 thru G3 groups. A car with 6 lbs./HP would run in G6, right? That would be, say, a factory GT3 RSR w/ 410HP and weighing 2500 lbs. Even on slicks it would only move up to G4. Who are we expecting to show up and go faster than one of those? Shocked I guess we would be ready, though, just in case someone did bring out one of those 917-30s.

We likely would not have many if any in these classes but I wanted to account for them. Our current system just puts cars like that in "X" class which I think is very short sited and discourages those that have Porsche factory cars from competing in any meaningful way. For example, we have a particpate that has an ex Alex J car that runs as X. Everyone discounts his car for TTOD. It is a factory Porsche after all!

Well, the '68 911 I am building has a 204 HP SC engine in it, and weighs 2100 lbs. That gives it a ratio of 10.29 lbs. per HP. (BTW, are we talking HP at the rear wheels, as measured on a chassis dyno, or DIN HP as measured by the factory, at the flywheel? That makes about a 10-15% difference in measurement values.) This would be in the same class as your car, I assume, yet I can only run a 7" rim with 205 tires under the stock body. I would be forced to turn it into a widebody to be competitive with your car, I'm afraid, which I would not want to do for a lot of reasons. I don't think mine is a radical example, either. It looks to me that there are going to be a lot of very different cars all in the 9-12 lbs./HP range, all crowded into 2 classes, G5 and G6.

I believe HP would need to be at the wheel using a dyno to be accurate for modified cars. I am sure we could do a fair calculation for unmodified engines from the engine HP to determine HP at the rear wheel to make it easy for those stock cars to avoid dyno'ing.

Tom, I believe you can run a 225 tire on a 7" wheel because I did that early on with my 993 before moving on to new sets of wheels. That is a difference of 245 - 225 = 20 on the width in the front tire between our cars. Not much given the difference in car weight! 750lbs above your car is a lot to deal with for turning beyond your car in my case. Rear wheel might be a slight advantage but doesn't seem significant compared to the turning advantage you would have. I think your car would do quite well against my car. I do not see the need for you to go wide body with that big of a differential in car weight. HP between the cars is proportionally equivalent though any car that is lighter has an advantage in all aspects (accerlation, braking, and cornering).

Distribution of cars is something I have not had time to calculate, at least from stock spec examples. See my point below on this as related to your next point.

I agree, that is the ideal model, I suppose, but it hasn't always happened the same way over time. Stock cars of 30-40 years ago were not "outfitted" according to the standards that exist today, in modern cars, and this rule set has to fit them all, early and late, no? Stock or modified, right?

This is a good point I had not considered. There are some generational gaps in technology for sure. I do not want this classification scheme to discourage participation. I suggest, much like "Need for Speed Porsche Unleashed" computer game, that era's are created with these classes within each era. In the computer game there are three era's but this too can be altered as needed. I think that concept is something good as the Porsche technology progession continues well beyond any of us and will need to be addressed over time. So as an example a car could be classified as E1 for Era 1 class G5.

This brings up an interesting issue in that someone in a era must stay in that era forever? This means that a car like yours or a John Simone car would not compete against later era cars like 993 or 996 cup cars. This seems strange to me.?.?.? Thoughts?

[Curt]

Kary,
The 225 tire will fit on the 7" rim, but will rub the inside fender lips, mostly on the rear passenger side. For whatever reason, the rear passenger wheel well has 1/2" less clearance on the early cars. We proved this one day when we measured about 6 or 7 early cars. They were all like this

What I have noticed recently is that this light weight argument is starting to mean less and less to me. I'm talking lightweight AND old combined. In theory, a lighter car will be better under braking, cornering and acceleration. In reality, the newer heavier cars KILL me under braking because they have ABS and huge calipers and rotors. No threshhold braking required, dive in deep, stand on the brakes and reel in the early cars easily.

Cornering would be to our advantage too if we weren't using 50 year old torsion bar suspensions versus modern adjustable coil-overs. And the grip these wider tires add is incredible. An extra 25mm of tire gives you an extra 4 inches of grip all around. My car with 225's in front is an understeering pig and with 245's in front the turn in is beautiful.

Plus the big torque really can pull the heavier car out of corners where most of the ligher cars are based on hp at the top of the RPM range. So while our cars are 600 lbs lighter than yours, your brakes, your suspension, your grip and your torque make up for it. Obviously they do. This is what Porsche engineers get paid to do. While all Porsche's have gotten heavier, they kill the early cars in every area of performance. Heck, our holy grail car, the '73 Carrera RS probably couldn't even compete with a stock Subaru WRX right off the dealers lot these days.

All this aside I think what you are working on here is very interesting and gives us all something to think and talk about.

[Greg Phillips]

No need to reinvent the wheel. NASA has the GTS Challenge for all German cars.
Any sedan or coupe from any German manufacturer - Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche,Merkur or Volkswagen - that has been modified to meet all N.A.S.A Club Codes and Safety Regulations, and having a N.A.S.A issued log book is eligible for GTS Challenge competition. There are six classes in GTS Challenge; GTSU, GTS5, GTS4, GTS3,GTS2, and GTS1. All cars will be classed on a power to weight ratio. Based on dynamometer test results the ratio will be calculated as follows:
If max torque is less than maw RWHP: Car weight with driver divided by RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) = lbs/hp.
DOT race tires:
GTSU = 5.99 and lower
GTS5 = 6.0 - 8.49
GTS4 = 8.5 - 10.99
GTS3 = 11.0 - 14.49
GTS2 = 14.50 - 18.49
GTS1 = 18.50 and higher
AWD or Non-DOT race tires (slicks):
GTSU = 6.49 and lower
GTS5 = 6.5 - 8.99
GTS4 = 9.0 - 11.99
GTS3 = 12.0 - 15.99
GTS2 = 16.0 - 19.99
GTS1 = 20.0 and higher
*** All AWD (All Wheel Drive) cars with non-DoT tires (slicks) are bumped to next class.

Other than the AWD and DOT vs slicks, everything else (except for safety) seems to be open. Pick your motor and weight to fit your tires, brakes and suspension (or vice versa) and run what you brung. If you can't fit the tires or brakes, don't bring a big engine
Greg

[Gary Burch]

Personally, I think there are some "generational gaps" present in Porsche production which make such concentrated or close groupings unfair, and will tend to encourage a single type of car to be developed in each class, which is optimal under the range allowed, and other types of cars will be discouraged. We need to allow for the vast differences in technology and design over the last 40+ years of production, and encourage participation by examples from all eras, I think, especially in a "Club" setting like this. This type of rule would heavily favor the newer cars, IMHO, because the newest cars are generally the fastest of the line, due to design improvements.

This is one of the problems we have with the current set of rules. Although the generations are divided, every model is held to the same criteria without regard to make or year. The older cars suffer the penalty of suspension upgrades that the newer cars never face. Especially in the stock classes. Maybe, the newer cars, say from 964's on should have a lower transition point from stock to P-class.

I also think in any reclassification system,the tire rules, type,size, need to be clearly laid out.

This attempt to alter the rules is a noble experiment, but in the long run is it just academic?

Gary

[Greg Phillips]

Personally, I think there are some "generational gaps" present in Porsche production which make such concentrated or close groupings unfair, and will tend to encourage a single type of car to be developed in each class, which is optimal under the range allowed, and other types of cars will be discouraged. We need to allow for the vast differences in technology and design over the last 40+ years of production, and encourage participation by examples from all eras, I think, especially in a "Club" setting like this. This type of rule would heavily favor the newer cars, IMHO, because the newest cars are generally the fastest of the line, due to design improvements.

This is one of the problems we have with the current set of rules. Although the generations are divided, every model is held to the same criteria without regard to make or year. The older cars suffer the penalty of suspension upgrades that the newer cars never face. Especially in the stock classes. Maybe, the newer cars, say from 964's on should have a lower transition point from stock to P-class.

I also think in any reclassification system,the tire rules, type,size, need to be clearly laid out.

This attempt to alter the rules is a noble experiment, but in the long run is it just academic?

Gary

Probably just academic chatter, but thought-provoking. I think the weight/hp rules would only be for the more modified cars, The stock and street stock are easier to classify, but once you start adding modifications it becomes more and more difficult. Engine upgrades, suspension changes, weight removal are all hard to quantify for handicapping. Taking 200 lbs. out of a 3400 lb 928 helps, but taking 200 out of a 2000 lb 911 really helps, but the same points. Adding 35 hp to a 300 hp motor helps, but adding 35 to a 70 hp motor really helps.
Power to weight is not a panacea. Some cars will be easier to modify and do well, other cars will take a lot of work to be competitive at the same wt/hp class. But if you want to take the time and cost, it should be possible. Wings, wide tires and fenders, upgraded brakes and 4 cam motor on your 356 will give you a chance

[RickK]

Hp/Wt formulas work well in professional series but there they also have very strict rules regarding brake size, tire size and type (some even have spec tires) and aero aids. Even them some balancing gets done periodically throughout these season to keep things equal (just look at he ALMS GT1 debate all this year).

For our club purposes maybe using hp/wt classes would work to break up the super top (read full race car) classes - like AR - where one assumes that all mods possible are going to be done to increase the performance of a car but at the mid-level xP and xI classes the cars are not fully prepared and will be mismatched based on this method alone. At the stock level we will probably end up with all types of cars mixed into 3-5 different groups which, for example, would put 911s and 944s right back together after all that was done to split them last year.

IMHO, this could be a worthwhile experiment but when one sees the trouble caused by eveolutionary changes to a rule set jut realzie that a reveolutionary change will cause exponetially more problems - at least in the short run.

[ttweed]

Probably just academic chatter, but thought-provoking. I think the weight/hp rules would only be for the more modified cars...

My thoughts, exactly, Greg. Thanks for posting the NASA rules for the GTS Challenge. That is the first I have heard of a sanctioning body trying to use strictly HP/Weight and tires (and I guess AWD) for classing decisions, and it certainly looks very similar to Kary's approach, just with different ranges, etc. I will have to investigate further how successful their system has been from a competitor's standpoint--maybe find some of their forums where people are wasting time on their computers whining and wringing their hands about rules like we are.

I do believe, though, that their rules, and any system like this, is intended only for fully developed, highly modified race cars, in the same way that the GT classes in SCCA racing are, with their Displacement/Weight ranges. With our larger diversity of the field of cars, including stock to modified, from 356 to 997, I have to agree with Gary that this exercise is academic (which is not to say that it is uninteresting or not valuable--on the contrary, I think issues have already been raised here which are germane to improving our PCA Zone 8 rules.) I just think that our peculiar situation is quite a bit more complex than either NASA or SCCA faces in those two race groups.

Perhaps the answer lies in some hybrid solution, which allows for stock classes, and "generational" differences, but also contains an element of Kary's criteria for the more modified classes? Who knows?

I am enjoying this discussion, though, and I will throw out one of my pet peeves about our "point penalty" method of determining improvements that increase the class level of the car, which relates tangentially to Gary's "every model is held to the same criteria without regard to make or year" objection, and Greg's "Engine upgrades, suspension changes, weight removal are all hard to quantify for handicapping" statement. It seems to me that penalties for modifications should be based on their ability to reduce lap times, and should somehow be proportional across the board. This is already difficult for a system like ours, which lumps autox and TT rules together, since some attributes which make a good TT car are less important in autox, and vice versa. Perhaps we should be looking at ways to separate the two venues more, as well as allowing for the difference in impact of penalties across the "generational divide?"

At the very least, I think we have some glaring discrepancies regarding the relative burden of penalties for things such as tires vs. those for other improvements, such as weight reduction. As Kary has pointed out, no single influence on lap times is greater than tire choice, and the technology is changing rapidly. I have argued previously that 4 points for a sticky DOT-R tire is not nearly the equivalent of a 4-point penalty for a 150-lb. weight reduction, no matter what weight your Porsche is. I think we need to look at all penalties in this way, for an eye towards what the practical advantage in reducing lap times is for each one, and make them as consistent as possible. This is not a simple task, as Greg has pointed out.

Regardless of the eventual, practical outcome of his or any other proposals, Kary should be commended for urging us to "think outside the bun," even if the end result is not a revolutionary overhaul of the rules. The discussion could lead us to some valuable evolutionary tweaks that no one has thought of before, simply because of inertia or ennui or a lack of imagination.

TT

[Gary Burch]

I have argued previously that 4 points for a sticky DOT-R tire is not nearly the equivalent of a 4-point penalty for a 150-lb. weight reduction, no matter what weight your Porsche is.

This quote completely sums up the glaring weakness in the current rules. The inequality in the points system for modifications. These range from tires to engine swaps to suspension. If we could use the point system to make a reasonable range of choices in each class, while protecting a class from the obvious ringer, the system we have might work with a few tweaks.

[kary]

The 225 tire will fit on the 7" rim, but will rub the inside fender lips, mostly on the rear passenger side. For whatever reason, the rear passenger wheel well has 1/2" less clearance on the early cars. We proved this one day when we measured about 6 or 7 early cars. They were all like this

Curt, I know it is something that is frustrating but the passenger side of 911's being tight to the fender exists all the way up to the 993 era as well. I have fought this issue for years and simply bend the fenders out to deal with the clearance issue. We area all in the same position with pre water cooled 911's.

Cornering would be to our advantage too if we weren't using 50 year old torsion bar suspensions versus modern adjustable coil-overs. And the grip these wider tires add is incredible. An extra 25mm of tire gives you an extra 4 inches of grip all around. My car with 225's in front is an understeering pig and with 245's in front the turn in is beautiful.

Plus the big torque really can pull the heavier car out of corners where most of the ligher cars are based on hp at the top of the RPM range. So while our cars are 600 lbs lighter than yours, your brakes, your suspension, your grip and your torque make up for it. Obviously they do. This is what Porsche engineers get paid to do. While all Porsche's have gotten heavier, they kill the early cars in every area of performance. Heck, our holy grail car, the '73 Carrera RS probably couldn't even compete with a stock Subaru WRX right off the dealers lot these days.

I think this is correct in terms of handling etc...agreed.

All this aside I think what you are working on here is very interesting and gives us all something to think and talk about.

Thank you however I think it is the contributions and other points that are coming out that are the real value here. I am glad we were all able to get out of box a bit!

[kary]

No need to reinvent the wheel. NASA has the GTS Challenge for all German cars.

Greg, thanks for sharing that information. I guess this idea is not that far fetched after all...maybe I should run with NASA...hhmmmm....maybe not

If you can't fit the tires or brakes, don't bring a big engine

EXACTLY!!!

[kary]

This attempt to alter the rules is a noble experiment, but in the long run is it just academic?

Actually I think not, unless we want our entire club classification system to be useless as it is today for many.

Many of us really do not follow the classification system today because it does not fairly reward good driving because of the inconsistencies. This is the reason for my proposal to get back to driving and free up rules to allow people to improve their cars how ever they wish. I see so many people restricting their car performance and driving ability because of these arbitrary classification rules.

If I had stayed in MSS with my stock 993 back 5 years ago, which I think is now NSS, not sure, I would have never progressed as a driver. I began to realize that these classes were holding me back to learn about my car and about my driving. I know I am better off abandoning the PCA classification system years ago and pursuing improvement of my car as it relates to my abilities to drive the car.