Rules 2010

[tb911]

The committee has met and whittled down 87 pages to 12 or so.

6 proposals came out of the meeting

Please look at them on http://zone8.pca.org/rules_prop.php

and send me your comments to: tb911@roadrunner.com

Your comments will be used to formulate the final proposals for the Presidents' meeting in November.

thanks

[LUCKY DAVE]

I like the rules proposed.
There seem to less of them (less is more) and they're easier to interpret. Simple is better.
I especially approve of eliminating the some of the complicated rules for the older cars in s/s, which I feel is less restriction where less was wanted/needed. Many (most?) of the older cars have had larger aftermarket wheels added over the years, and requiring the purchase of stock size wheels and tires to compete adds cost that's discouraging to new participants.
Penalizing for non stock wheels in concours is fine, but silly for track cars.
The proposed seat belt rule makes sense too.

[tb911]

Less than one week left!

Comments due by Oct 15

thanks
tb

[kleggo]

The committee has met and whittled down 87 pages to 12 or so.

6 proposals came out of the meeting

Please look at them on http://zone8.pca.org/rules_prop.php

and send me your comments to: tb911@roadrunner.com

Your comments will be used to formulate the final proposals for the Presidents' meeting in November.

thanks

from a purely selfish viewpoint, i appreciate the changes you have collected / proposed regarding 993 C4S cars.
It was pretty silly to consider "us" a prepared class in bone stock condition.

I wish we would have decided to make R comp tires, (or better), to be a 4 point adder instead of only 2.
I know that many of you / us have optimized cars to use R comps, (or better), but from my newbie perspective, i prefer to use good street tires and consider the R comps worht WAY more than two points.
What other modification that only forces two points gains you anywhere near the same advantage? (hmmm maybe good coilovers?)
I wanted to say that i think the R comps are something of a crutch, but pretend i didn't since that will be too inflammatory and I'm sure I'll be down that same path at some point

Craig F

[Carl Vanders]

I think the concept of changing/modifying the chart is a good idea. Considering the time restraints, I thought I would post some observations on the forum so others could post there suggestions/ pros/ cons, etc.

I think the purpose and objective of the chart should be to consistently affect each car as fair as possible though it's progression across the chart.

Under the new Proposed Chart the R,Q, P,O class all feed into OM which feeds into AR1 and ends at AR2. Based on this chart, there is an error as the AR1 index is currently 1.030 and the BRI index for QP is the same as AR1 and QI is 1.065 (higher than both AR1 and AR2)? Raises the question: Do we need two new classes to continue the progression for Q and R. QM, QR1, Qr2? Or just run you gt2 in AR1 instead of QP? Or lower their index to flow into AR1? This seems cleanest.

An other potential issue I see is the lumping of several classes after Prepared (9-20pts)
For example, R,Q,P,O together will potential make a big jump in Index times for P and O. Not to mention make them uncompetitive.

Example, O class:
‘78-’92 930 & 911 Turbo, 964 RS, 993, 993 C2S, 993 C4S, ’99-’01 996 The cars in OM class will be up against a modified 997 GT3, or a GT2 with potentially 600 hp. Additionally, in OM a base carrera would be against a modified 997 Gt2?
Continuing the progression of R,Q separate from P,S would be easy and fair to both.

After Prepared class on the chart, similar is true for L,M,N. A base 986 is know competing against modified 987 Boxster S or Cayman S with base of least an additional 100 Hp. (suggest keeping M,N together and separate L like K)

To quote the new proposal for only 987's in class N , " corrects the imbalance cars in the current N class, which has grown
extremely large with the popularity of these cars." This Appears to push the cars- previously in N to a O. This is higher in the chart, potentially bumping these cars to a higher index?

I suggest a switch of the Cayman S (currently N class) to O and put the current O classes cars in N. In fact, you may want to consider moving both P and O below the Cayman S/Boxster S. Either switch would not greatly effect the new chart proposal.

K thru A are less impacted in the chart as there is just one progression or only two classes combined. Although, there are a couple of large index jumps here too.


A suggestion: group a max of two classes, and follow out the progression further on some of the classes? Below is based off the current proposal. (but could also work with the cayman class switch/s)

RSS, RS, RP, QI, QM, new-QR1, QR2
QSS, QS, QP, QI, QM, new- QR1, QR2 Easier to lower the index's to flow into AR1 (maybe increase AR1 a tad), than create new classes.

Keep P and O the same

NSS, NS, NP, Mi, NM, AR1
MSS, MS, MP, MI, NM, AR1

LSS, LS, LP, LI, IM, AR1
KSS, KS, KP, KI, IM , AR1.

Hope my two cents makes some sense.

[mrondeau]

I think the concept of changing/modifying the chart is a good idea. Considering the time restraints, I thought I would post some observations on the forum so others could post there suggestions/ pros/ cons, etc.

I think the purpose and objective of the chart should be to consistently affect each car as fair as possible though it's progression across the chart.

Under the new Proposed Chart the R,Q, P,O class all feed into OM which feeds into AR1 and ends at AR2. Based on this chart, there is an error as the AR1 index is currently 1.030 and the BRI index for QP is the same as AR1 and QI is 1.065 (higher than both AR1 and AR2)? Raises the question: Do we need two new classes to continue the progression for Q and R. QM, QR1, Qr2? Or just run you gt2 in AR1 instead of QP? Or lower their index to flow into AR1? This seems cleanest.

An other potential issue I see is the lumping of several classes after Prepared (9-20pts)
For example, R,Q,P,O together will potential make a big jump in Index times for P and O. Not to mention make them uncompetitive.

Example, O class:
‘78-’92 930 & 911 Turbo, 964 RS, 993, 993 C2S, 993 C4S, ’99-’01 996 The cars in OM class will be up against a modified 997 GT3, or a GT2 with potentially 600 hp. Additionally, in OM a base carrera would be against a modified 997 Gt2?
Continuing the progression of R,Q separate from P,S would be easy and fair to both.

After Prepared class on the chart, similar is true for L,M,N. A base 986 is know competing against modified 987 Boxster S or Cayman S with base of least an additional 100 Hp. (suggest keeping M,N together and separate L like K)

To quote the new proposal for only 987's in class N , " corrects the imbalance cars in the current N class, which has grown
extremely large with the popularity of these cars." This Appears to push the cars- previously in N to a O. This is higher in the chart, potentially bumping these cars to a higher index?

I suggest a switch of the Cayman S (currently N class) to O and put the current O classes cars in N. In fact, you may want to consider moving both P and O below the Cayman S/Boxster S. Either switch would not greatly effect the new chart proposal.

K thru A are less impacted in the chart as there is just one progression or only two classes combined. Although, there are a couple of large index jumps here too.


A suggestion: group a max of two classes, and follow out the progression further on some of the classes? Below is based off the current proposal. (but could also work with the cayman class switch/s)

RSS, RS, RP, QI, QM, new-QR1, QR2
QSS, QS, QP, QI, QM, new- QR1, QR2 Easier to lower the index's to flow into AR1 (maybe increase AR1 a tad), than create new classes.

Keep P and O the same

NSS, NS, NP, Mi, NM, AR1
MSS, MS, MP, MI, NM, AR1

LSS, LS, LP, LI, IM, AR1
KSS, KS, KP, KI, IM , AR1.

Hope my two cents makes some sense.

OUCH!!!!!

[Carl Vanders]

Seriously!

[gocart]

I see some inconsistancys in the rules for the older cars.

Change the venturis in your carburettors = 4 points?
Port the heads = four points?

But..

Change the ECU chip on a Carrera = ZERO points
Remove the catylitic converter and replace the exhaust with headers = ZERO points.

I doubt that just changing the venturis or just porting the heads would make much difference on one of the older cars.

You can however make a substantial gain on a Carrera with a race exhaust and an aftermaket chip.

To level the playing field shouldn't it be:

Venturi = 2 pts
port the heads =2 pts

aftermarket chip = 2 pts
remove catylitic converter =2 pts

just my two cents.
I know it's probably too late to consider for 2010, how about discussing it next year?

[tb911]

Yep, too late for now, but I'll make a note of it for next year

thanks

tb