PCA SDR

The Committee has met and from your input devised the Revised proposal.

Please review it and provide additional comments.



http://zone8.pca.org/rules_prop.php


Thanks

Tom-

Thanks to you and the whole rules committee for your diligent "behind the scenes" work on this process, and to all the members who contributed suggestions/improvements.

TT

Thank you all for your efforts! I know it was a ton of work.

I have found an error:

On Page 43 the listing for a 924S is as follows "924 S || 1987 || 1987 || 2479 || 150 || 2,815 || 6 6 || 190

This would indicate that the Curb Weight is 2815. If you look at the August 11 version where weight errors were corrected you will see that the correct Curb Weight is listed as 2730, and therefore the base points would be 200 rather than 190.

A simple "google search" for "stock weight of a porsche 924S" netted me this Renlist link: http://members.rennlist.org/mikl1976/Specs.html

Furthermore I have weighed my car and it is indeed 2734.

Thanks again,

Mark

Hello Mr. Bray,
I'm looking forward to seeing you at the "Q" once again.
A question for you on the weights issue. Did your car come in at the listed weight, without stock seats, no carpet, no spare? If so, should that really be used as the base weight?

See you soon buddy,

Mmagus wrote:On Page 43 the listing for a 924S is as follows "924 S || 1987 || 1987 || 2479 || 150 || 2,815 || 6 6 || 190

This would indicate that the Curb Weight is 2815. If you look at the August 11 version where weight errors were corrected you will see that the correct Curb Weight is listed as 2730, and therefore the base points would be 200 rather than 190.

Mark-
Isn't this correction included in the proposal #13 for base points calculation that was sent forward by the committee? It proposes using the PCR weights instead of the GGR weights in the base point calcs, and although the chart from the original proposal (which was #25 originally) is not included now and will be finalized later (according to the notes in the "What Happened To My Proposal" document), the PCR weight in the original proposal DOES show the '87 924S weight at 2730 and the base points recalculated at 200. You're still looking at p. 43 of the "Complete 2012 Rules (PDF)" link that was published last year for review and discussion, I think. The proposed changes won't be integrated into the final version for 2012 until the Presidents vote on them.

TT

Proposal #11 redefines the points on weight reduction by calling for a weighing of the car with full fluids and "ready to run" without driver. The new weight is used to recalculate the base points. Do I have that correct? If so, what is the formula for calculating base points?

Don Middleton wrote: If so, what is the formula for calculating base points?

Don-
The formula is contained in the Appendix B.1. and in the header of the proposed base points chart:
Basepoints formula = (4000 / (Lbs. per HP)) + (year of model introduction - 2010) + (5 x (width in inches of one front + one rear standard-equipment wheel - 12 ))

There are some custom adjustments/tweaks and rounding involved in the final calculation for the charts, though, which an owner would not have access to, only the rules committee would know what was done and why for each individual model. For the purpose of weight and HP mod-point calculation, though, these fine adjustments would not matter, I suppose.

TT

ttweed wrote:

Don Middleton wrote: If so, what is the formula for calculating base points?

Don-
The formula is in the Appendix B.1. and in the header of the base points chart:
Basepoints formula = (4000 / (Lbs. per HP)) + (year of model introduction - 2010) + (5 x (width in inches of one front + one rear standard-equipment wheel - 12 ))

There are some custom adjustments/tweaks and rounding involved in the final calculation for the charts, though, which an owner would not have access to.

Thanks, Tom, I do recall seeing that somewhere. But, if there are adjustments/tweaks and rounding involved which the owners do not have, why would we be asked to recalculate the base points? It sounds like we don't have enough information. This new weight rule is probably most fair, but is it workable?

ttweed wrote:

Mmagus wrote:"What Happened To My Proposal" document[/url]), the PCR weight in the original proposal DOES show the '87 924S weight at 2730 and the base points recalculated at 200. You're still looking at p. 43 of the "Complete 2012 Rules (PDF)" link that was published last year for review and discussion, I think. The proposed changes won't be integrated into the final version for 2012 until the Presidents vote on them.TT

CrashBrown wrote:Hello Mr. Bray,
I'm looking forward to seeing you at the "Q" once again.
A question for you on the weights issue. Did your car come in at the listed weight, without stock seats, no carpet, no spare? If so, should that really be used as the base weight?

See you soon buddy,

Hola Tom, I was indeed looking at the top link on the page "Complete 2012 Rules". There aree so many permutations listed its hard to know which one is which. perhaps there should be a "Click THIS LINK for the latest Version". As long as the right weights are listed somewhere in the final draft I am good. The real issue is this. With the corrected weight I get a 10 point increase, which still keeps me in CC15. If, hoever, the WRONG base weight is listed, my car's stock weigh of 2730 puts me over the 50lb allotment by 35 lbs, thus generating a 20 point penalty with the "round up" system given. AND that if everything is totally stock. If I remove any weight thinking I am still within my given 50lbs I pay BIG time and will be way into the next class.


Mr Brown!
My carpet is in, and when I weighed I had a spare, tool kit etc. The difference between my stock seats and the racing seat, with add on mounts with sliders and harnesses and secure harness mounts only amounts to a few pounds. So I did account for that in the weigh in by adding ballast. It IS important to note that the "Curb Weights" listed for our P cars are for a TOTALLY "STRIP" model. No air con, no power windows, No electric seats, no power sunroof. If we were to try and accomadate all the possible different weights for each quipped car there would be just too many possibilities.

I look forward to seeing you too!

Don Middleton wrote:Thanks, Tom, I do recall seeing that somewhere. But, if there are adjustments/tweaks and rounding involved which the owners do not have, why would we be asked to recalculate the base points? It sounds like we don't have enough information. This new weight rule is probably most fair, but is it workable?

It is true that we don't have all the information, Don, but I think it probably is workable. Time will tell. I haven't been through the calculations for every model, but I think most of the tweaks/rounding are of fairly small magnitude, like 5-10 points. This is not a large percentage when the lowest base points are 250 and the highest are 1000 or so. For purposes of determining a penalty, you are just taking the difference between the stock points and your newly calculated points, and only if your weight is more than 2.5% less than the listed stock weight. If the stock base points for your model have been rounded/adjusted upward, this will actually help you on the penalty points. If they have been rounded/adjusted downward, it will hurt you, as your point difference for the penalty will be higher. In either case, I think the total penalty will be close enough for practical purposes when looked at in terms of the overall point total of the car.

The shortcomings of the rule's wording are more significant to me. It might be helpful to give people an example calculation, for instance, to head off questions like yours, as well as instructions for rounding off the total, etc. The specific meaning of "in conjunction with Proposal 10, if applicable" wording is unclear to me as well. Proposal 10 is the similar proposal for calculating the penalty for a HP upgrade. Does this mean that if your car also has a HP upgrade, as well as reduced weight, that you use your higher (modified) HP in the weight penalty calculation? That doesn't make sense to me if it does. Weight is weight, and HP is HP, and the penalties for each should be in comparison with stock HP and weight. Why would you use an upgraded HP figure in calculating a weight penalty? Proposal 10 contains identical wording relating it to "Proposal 11, if applicable." Does that mean you also calculate your HP penalty based on your reduced weight as well? That seems to me to be "doubling down" on the penalties for a car that does both (increases HP as well as decreases weight) compared to a car that only does one or the other improvement. Maybe I am confused about the meaning or intent of that phrase, though. Every rule is subject to interpretation, and maybe the final iteration will be more clear. The devil is in the details, and unfortunately, the proposal to implement this kind of a penalty scheme for weight and HP changes was not accompanied by specific wording. I think the committee had to devise the language themselves, "on the fly," so to speak, and as written, I am having trouble understanding it.

TT

Mmagus wrote:Hola Tom, I was indeed looking at the top link on the page "Complete 2012 Rules". There are so many permutations listed its hard to know which one is which. perhaps there should be a "Click THIS LINK for the latest Version".

Yes, it does get a little confusing, especially since we published the 2012 rules in 2010, as a "tentative" proposal, while retaining a different version for 2011, at least for everything but the TT series. But we won't have a final 2012 version until after the region Presidents vote on the new proposals. Then we will have clarifications after the fact, I'm sure, when specific issues are pointed out and questions raised, if past practices hold true. My take is that you are going to be good, though. I think the base weight and points will probably be revised to the PCR values as proposed. You will have to look over all the changes though, if you are determined to run in a certain class. The proposals for other improvements are increasing the point penalties in such a way that what you ran last year may easily land you in a higher class next year. Plus the class structure will turn "upside down," with CC1 at the bottom instead of the top. You will not be in CC15 next year, you will probably be shooting for CC2.

If the WRONG base weight is listed, my car's stock weigh of 2730 puts me over the 50lb allotment... and when I weighed I had a spare, tool kit etc.

Keep in mind that if the proposal is approved, the "50lb. allotment" you speak of goes away, replaced by a "2.5%" factor, and the method for weighing will no longer include the tools, jack, spare, etc., if they are removed for competition, as it is currently worded. I don't know where the 2.5% factor came from--I don't remember it being in any of the new weight proposals. I can see that it is intended to allow for the removal of the equipment for competition previously allowed by the 50 lbs., but changing from a fixed weight to a percentage factor gives an advantage back to the newer, heavier cars, many of which no longer even come with a spare tire or jack to be removed!

TT

I am glad to see the 2012 rules coming together. I know it has been a long haul for the rules team and I do appreciate the efforts. Sadly I think we are still missing the mark on tire points by a country mile. The revised tire point proposal would make it possible for identical cars to share a class, one on stock street tires and one on Hoosier/V710 (a 5 second advantage by most estimates or equal to approx.100 hp). This carries over one of the major problems with our past Zone 8 rules: Tire points for soft compounds that do not reflect the relative performance advantage. Getting tire points wrong takes away a very big piece of the "relatively level playing field" concept that we are trying to achieve.

I think GGR has tire points right and they are pretty consistent with SCCA, NASA, POC tire points. If you move up in tire compounds, you move up a class. Very clean and simple... so why can't we get this right? I am very interested in input from drivers who feel that identical cars with comparably skilled drivers; one on stock street tires and one on Hoosier/V710s could share a class and be even remotely competitive. 944s? 85 Carreras? Boxsters? GT3s? Empirical evidence such as lap times and track records might be useful here. I don't see how we can justify this revised tire points proposal in the quest for "relatively level playing field".

My humbly suggested quick fix:
B. Soft compound high performance tires (DOT Street legal) with a
• DOT tread wear rating of 140-199 40 points [ change back to 20 pts}
• DOT tread wear rating of 50-139 60 points [ Change back to 40 pts]
• DOT tread wear rating of 1 – 49 80 points
• DOT tread wear rating of 0 or Unrated 100 points

C. Race tires or slicks, defined as non-DOT street legal tires - 130 points
[This creates the separation needed to keep classes of similar cars competitive. The difference between street tires, 80-100 R tires, 30-40 R tires and slicks is significant and the points should reflect it for the 2012 rules. ]




On a related note I think adjustable sways carry too many points under the revised proposal. They are a necessary part of developing the suspension on a fully adjustable track car but 30 points seems about double the performance advantage from adjustable sways. They alone might be worth 1 second on a typical 90 second track if the driver sets them up right. Compare that with 5 seconds when a driver moves from street tires to Hoosier/V710s. Looking forward to your thoughts.

Cajundaddy wrote:I am glad to see the 2012 rules coming together. I know it has been a long haul for the rules team and I do appreciate the efforts. Sadly I think we are still missing the mark on tire points by a country mile. The revised tire point proposal would make it possible for identical cars to share a class, one on stock street tires and one on Hoosier/V710 (a 5 second advantage by most estimates or equal to approx.100 hp). This carries over one of the major problems with our past Zone 8 rules: Tire points for soft compounds that do not reflect the relative performance advantage. Getting tire points wrong takes away a very big piece of the "relatively level playing field" concept that we are trying to achieve.

I think GGR has tire points right and they are pretty consistent with SCCA, NASA, POC tire points. If you move up in tire compounds, you move up a class. Very clean and simple... so why can't we get this right? I am very interested in input from drivers who feel that identical cars with comparably skilled drivers; one on stock street tires and one on Hoosier/V710s could share a class and be even remotely competitive. 944s? 85 Carreras? Boxsters? GT3s? Empirical evidence such as lap times and track records might be useful here. I don't see how we can justify this revised tire points proposal in the quest for "relatively level playing field".

My humbly suggested quick fix:
B. Soft compound high performance tires (DOT Street legal) with a
• DOT tread wear rating of 140-199 40 points [ change back to 20 pts}
• DOT tread wear rating of 50-139 60 points [ Change back to 40 pts]
• DOT tread wear rating of 1 – 49 80 points
• DOT tread wear rating of 0 or Unrated 100 points

C. Race tires or slicks, defined as non-DOT street legal tires - 130 points
[This creates the separation needed to keep classes of similar cars competitive.]




On a related note I think adjustable sways carry too many points under the revised proposal. They are a necessary part of developing the suspension on a fully adjustable track car but 30 points seems about double the performance advantage from adjustable sways. They alone might be worth 1 second on a typical 90 second track if the driver sets them up right. Compare that with 5 seconds when a driver moves from street tires to Hoosier/V710s. Looking forward to your thoughts.

I totally agree, but tire points is the sacred cow of the PCA autocross series. The argument is still based on the antiquated old points system. If you notice only a zero was added to the old system values, The old system gave you the luxury to spend your spend your 2, 6, 8 points on anything you want. In this system the compromise is made by adding cumulative points for tire width without really penalizing the softer tires for their true value.

Cajundaddy wrote:The revised tire point proposal would make it possible for identical cars to share a class, one on stock street tires and one on Hoosier/V710 (a 5 second advantage by most estimates or equal to approx.100 hp).

I don't understand or agree with this statement. My personal experience has been from changing tires at every event from a Falken 615K 200 UTQG (0-point) tire in practice to a V710 for times runs. The difference between those two types of tires has consistently been 2-2.5 seconds, not 5, at least on our average autox courses. There is a proposed 80 point difference between these two types of tires, which does not allow me (or an identical car) to run in the same class with them, as you state above, since most classes are separated by only 50 points. I will actually be bumped up a class if I continue to use the V710s next year due to this increased penalty, and may choose to go back to a street tire for timed runs, depending on what other changes in the rules are approved. I actually think that the 60 points we originally had for them is enough of a difference to accomplish what you want (a bump up in class). The Falkens (and many other 140-200 UTQG "street" tires) are nearly as fast now as some of the worst R-compound tires. The 80-point difference between a street tire and V710s might be spent on other improvements that could easily level the speed potential, IMHO, if there were two cars running in the same class with those two tires.

TT

Gary Burch wrote:I totally agree, but tire points is the sacred cow of the PCA autocross series. The argument is still based on the antiquated old points system. If you notice only a zero was added to the old system values.

This is not really true, Gary. The softest R-compound tires have gone from being 4 points (40 if you add the zero) in the old days to 80 in the new proposal. That's double what they once were. Slicks have gone from 6 (60) to 130. That's MORE than double. Whatever perceived "injustice" may have existed due to "underpenalizing" tire compounds in the past has been at least cut in half by these changes. Why not give them a chance?

TT