Final Zone 8 proposals

[chris&lori]

Pardon me boys for budding into your conversation so late in the game. I have to say that this is all very entertaining even though at the expense of some club members reputation/egos. I feel the content of this disscusion could be taken to any one of the major networks as a scipt and be sold as a reality TV show. Better act now while the iron is still hot.

Tom, You know that Lori and I are on your side since we too were the victums of club politics. You remember our '73 911(944 killing)E. Lori and I started in GSS and did the dominating husban and wife 1st and 2nd and then moved on to GS then GP doing the same in those as well. Good times Lori and I were having a blast. Then Dan Chambers with his white 944 and the rest of the 944 red brigade were. So much so that the wheels of politics were set in motion to change the rules. The politics are simple. Most of the 944's are Steve Grosskempers customers and he wants to keep his people happy on both sides of the counter(nice tight rope walking Steve) and since he ultimatly is the Rules commity.....Follow the money! But I don't fault him because this is the true reality of life in our some what corrupt Consummer driven Capitalistic/Imperialistic/Demicratic socity.

So the ramifications of politics from a few years ago ultimatly dissrupted AM. Since Grosskemper doesn't have any coustomers with AM cars(That I know of) now that Luis Wise has drop out, he had no motivation to fix the mess he created. Sorry guys

Lori and I dominated GP back in 2003 and I'm not sure when the current rules came into effect because We bought the 993 in October of 2003. I remember Steve Grosskemper saying that my 993 was a big track car only. Well I don't belive what most people say most of the time especially when your a coustomer. Which Lori I were at the time. But thats a whole other story and why I like to smack talk Grosskemper. Anyway Steve G, ready em and weep. My big track car took TTOD in the South East Lot this last Sunday .

To anyone interested, I've been working some IMSA Races with FarnbacherLoles and that is where I learned the set up for the 993. I took the 993 to The Black Forrest and I gave Charlie my numbers I learned from Horest Farnbacher and Wolf Hensler. Charlie ajusted the car with me right there(I was sitting in the car when it went on to the scails) in less than two hours. This is when the reality of why those pros are all little & light weight, hit me. To get the set up right with reguards to the weight distribuiton, the driver with equipment can only weigh 175lbs. Other wise you start comprimising the set up. So we left it at the good setting and needlees to say I'm on a diet. as for the 993, ulitmatly the goal is to have a car that I can easlly ajust (shock rebound-compression/air-presure/swaybar/brake-bias/tire compounds) which can all be done myself at the track easily and quickly. The goal is to be competive at the Q or Willow Springs and any where in between. I think we found it. So Jad D.,Martin R. and Tim C. Call me (760) 622-0207 let's talk about the NASA endurence racing series. I would like to use my car at the 25 hour enduro in 2007. Anyone else interseted just e-mail me @ kineticcorporation@cox.net

Dan A & Curt, I'll see you soon at Big Willow. Our 993 is curently MI with 40pts. I will bump up to KM if you two move to KM. Then you'll have to contend with my 3.6L.

Ok Dan C, Run while I have them distracted.

Thanks again to all who have made me belly laugh reading these postings. Keep up the p!$$!ng each other off contest. Remender this is suppose to be fun.

Chris O'

It's not the car that makes the driver fast it's the driver that makes the car fast. Unless of course you have a 650HP twin turbo.

[Jad]

Sorry, I don't associate with people who make posts like that.

[ttweed]

First: allow me to apologize if my statements were interpreted as a direct insult to you personally.

Apology accepted, Dan. I realize that the limitations of these ASCII communications are great, and the possibility for misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the written word is almost unlimited, without the added inputs of inflection, tone, body language and gestures, etc. that we enjoy in face-to-face, real-life encounters. I know that your heart is in the right place, and your energy and enthusiasm is boundless, which is and has been a great asset to the Club.

However, in the issue under discussion, which is rules-making, I think we need to avoid opinions and feelings (which may be tainted by personal agendas and bias), and deal as much as possible with objective facts, using careful and precise language, as that is exactly what a ruleset is--a collection of carefully chosen words trying to establish a certain order to a common endeavor which might otherwise be chaotic.

This includes all those "builders" in AM class (or any other class for that matter) who may unfairly use the rules to crush other drivers in AM, GP, KP, etc.

This feeling of yours, for instance, though it may be based in an admirable concern for the underdog (or disdain for the overdog) is misguided, I believe, and contrary to the factual history and practice of motorsports. Any set of rules, due to the fact that they are merely words, subject to interpretation and omissions, is going to allow a builder or competitor to find advantages and exploit them. That is the nature of the sport. Such exploitation has always been considered cleverness or ingenuity, and has been celebrated rather than scorned, and has led to the ultimate evolution of the sport and the rules. Without Colin Chapman and Lotus dominating open-wheel racing, we wouldn't have had the mid-engine design which has become the defacto standard. Without Don Garlits dominating drag racing by putting the engine behind the driver, we would not have sub-4 second ETs and the greater driver safety his innovation brought to that sport. The list goes on and on, including (as David pointed out) Porsche's own exploitation of the FIA homologation rules which led to the ultimate success of the company and has resulted in the fine machinery we have available for our own purposes today.

It is my view that such "exploitation" is not contrary to the sport, but an integral facet of it that leads to its advancement and evolution. It is not to be eliminated but rather encouraged. I applaud the cleverness and ingenuity of Mark Kinninger in seeing the writing on the wall when the rules changed and responding to it with his creative ingenuity.

When such evolutions happen, however, and the inevitable imbalances in competition are perceived and recognized, it is the responsibility of the sanctioning body to respond to the new situation and adjust the rules accordingly, and/or for competitors to change their strategies appropriately, but this cycle is inevitable, I believe. It is the nature of the sport.

That's up to those whose conscience is..... well .... where it is. I play for the thrill, not the ribbon or trophy.

It is this kind of judgmental statement that is counter-productive in this situation, Dan. I hope that you can see that. What you are saying is that you do not play to win, which I don't really believe is true, otherwise why would you compete at all? The goal of racing is to win. If winning is not important to you, than why do you have strong feelings about the domination of the 944s by other models in their class with greater speed potential? And the reference to "conscience" brings the "ethical/moral" subtext into your statement that I objected to previously. I believe this is another example of your hastily dashing off a less-than-precise written response that might be easily misinterpreted, so I will not take it seriously or personally, as so much of what you wrote indicates that you are not aiming your comments at me, alone.

I do believe that the facts prove that our current AM class is "broken" and as unfair as our G class ever was. I don't think that our rules change process has adequately addressed this imbalance as yet. I am committed to working within the established context to improve this, but rest assured that I have a larger perspective on this than it may seem like, judging simply from all I have written in this thread. These matters are all "small potatoes" in the bigger scheme of life beyond PCA, and I do not attach nearly the significance or seriousness to them as it must sound like in the context of discussing them in detail.

TT

[chris&lori]

Jad, No problem! I like knowing were you stand. I hope you reconsider because you are an awsome driver that any and I mean any team would be proud to have you on. The seat is always open for you.

It's funny how when I was reading those postings all the anger that I had from a passed bad experiance surfaced. Please forgive me for not being more discreat. I just right from the heart, knowing it may upset others and cause them to dislike me. I think that takes courage to do. Don't you? I expected some negitive feed back but was still not afraid to speak out about how I felt.

The important lessen to learn here is to be independant of the good or bad opinions of others.

That is what I like about Dan Chambers and all who write on this forum. It takes courage to say how you feel. If you offended someone in the process, apoligize. Dan did just that. As do I. Forgive me for my short comings. I am slowly changing for the better I beleive.

By the way thanks for the feed back after you drove the 993 at the school. If you get over being up set with me I'll have a new set tires at the next auto cross. Remember you were on junk tires. New tires are unbelivable.


Chris O'

[Curt]

First of all Dan C, I think that was a manly thing to do, to step up and write that last post.

Here is what I find so frustrating about this entire topic. No one from the RC is stepping up and saying "ok, we voted against the brilliantly written proposals that would have fixed AM because of ____________________ ." Or dang, sorry guys, you were led to believe your issue was going to be taken care of and you believed it for damn good reason, but we screwed up, we overlooked something. Shoot guys, Sorry. Please bear with us, put up with it for one more year good-naturedly and we guarantee will fix it next year."

Instead we're getting a snippy, inaccurate pop-in by an out of the region member. Paul seems to be in doubt that there even is an issue which ignores the Rules Chair's previously posted opinion. Steve's early post sounds very frustrated. He screwed up the math on his proposal he says and wants to know why none of us checked it when we had the chance. I can only speak for myself, and I know Steve is human, but the day I feel like I'm qualified to check Steve's math on Porsche related mechanical issues is, well certainly a day that I didn't think would ever arise.

And to Chris O and Dan C..... the issue with 911's vs. 944's is older than both of your membership in this club. Dan A and Jad and John Kincaid were dealing with this and the ball was set in motion for this class change by Vince (I believe) before you guys were even active competitors. That Chris and Lori were able to come right in and continue the beating up on the 944's was the last straw. So Dan C can't be blamed for "crying" and getting the 911E's banned. The 911E's can be blamed for being so great on the autocross track, of which yours was the one that broke the camels back.

And to Steve G, I don't think there is any issue with you not servicing any of the AM cars so you didn't care about our issue. I think you are as stand up a guy as exists in this club. Chris O may very well have been kidding, but as we all know it's near impossible to tell when we are reduced to communicating through this damn message board.

I just wish that on Page 1 of this thread the Rules Committe stood up and said what I said in my 2nd paragraph instead of blaming it all on the AM class participants failure to do anything at all. That really stirred up the hornets nest. I didn't "not do anything". I believed. Can I get an Amen?

[ttweed]

I have to say that this is all very entertaining

Chris-

I am glad you are enjoying it, and that you are "on my side," but I believe some of your comments are seriously inappropriate and counter-productive in this situation. I know you are enjoying sticking your finger into the hornet's nest and stirring it up, laughing all the way, but puhleeze:

Most of the 944's are Steve Grosskempers customers and he wants to keep his people happy...

This is a gross oversimplification of the situation, and a disservice to Steve, who has tried to fit massive volunteer duties into an 80-hour work week at a real job for many years. The same is true for all the other volunteers on the Rules committee--they are contributing their scarce and valuable time to deal with these issues so that we can all have fun.

Since Grosskemper doesn't have any coustomers with AM cars(That I know of) now that Luis Wise has drop out, he had no motivation to fix the mess he created.

I am still one of his customers and I still have an AM car, even if I have not run it much lately. He is aware of the issues, and as far as I remember, he was not even involved officially in the rule changes that took place 3 years ago when this started---He was the Tech chair then, and did a fantastic job organizing that function so that I have been able to perform it for the last two years with a minimum of effort. Please do not belittle his contributions or attribute such motives to his actions--they are innaccurate and mean-spirited.

My big track car took TTOD in the South East Lot this last Sunday .

Congratulations. That is quite an accomplishment.

Keep up the p!$$!ng each other off contest. Remender this is suppose to be fun.

Thanks for throwing gas on the fire just when I was trying to refocus things on the issues and return to civility. That really helped.

TT

[ttweed]

I think that takes courage to do. Don't you?

It has been said before that "Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor."

Tossing inflammatory comments into the mix for the sake of personal gratification or humor is the kind of thing that might tempt a forum moderator into deleting a thread like this. All the factual comments that have been made so far toward seeking a reasonable solution would then be lost. That would be a Bad Thing, in my opinion, as I believe there is some useful information in what has been posted so far. I would not want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater when this thread is flushed down the toilet. I have blisters on my fingers already from typing.

TT

[gulf911]

I think that takes courage to do. Don't you?

It has been said before that "Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor."

TT

Damn! Where is that pic of the Huge orange helmet??...
I guess some things never change.
Run a TTOD when Steve G, Steve Dente, Roland , Mark Kinnenger and Erik Kinnenger, James Gunn W, to name a few, show up....

[gulf911]

For the old timers...

[Jackie C]

I don't know if my opinion is relative and not sure if I can help, but when I started with SDR 2002 (GSS), TT was the MAN. Basically, everyone else compared their times minus Tom's 1st place. 2003 made me realize I needed to upgrade my 944 to be competitive so my husband/mechanic went over the rules and we decided the most cost efficient option was to strip the 944 to Spec class. That made the rules clear and the cars evenly matched. What about Spec 911 classes? What do I know?

[Mike]

What about Spec 911 classes? What do I know?

I like it.
Others have done it already.
The PRC TOYO spec 2.7 to 3.2 class.
The PRC also has a GTL 3.6 spec class.
BTW was the PRC uses the PCA club race rules for most of it's other Porsche classes.
Something to consider.
TT many words of wisdom.

Still think you guys should contact someone and not wait/expect them to come to you?

[ttweed]

Here is what I find so frustrating about this entire topic. No one from the RC is stepping up and saying "ok, we voted against the brilliantly written proposals that would have fixed AM because of ____________________ ."

Actually, Curt, there was no proposal made this year that could have fixed the problem. There were several made that could have helped somewhat in a tangential way, and two were forwarded for approval--the HP and displacement rule changes.

I know Steve is human, but the day I feel like I'm qualified to check Steve's math on Porsche related mechanical issues is, well certainly a day that I didn't think would ever arise.

I do not think that he screwed this up. I checked his math, and while the proposals may be more lenient than the previous penalties, which would seem to possibly allow more 3.6 overdogs into the class, making them stiffer does NOT solve the problem, as the early cars will always be penalized MORE for displacement or HP changes than the Carreras, since they start at lower levels. If the factors in the formulas were higher, you will find that an early car ends up in AR1 before a late Carrera does! The reality is that the new proposals are more fair than the old rules, and apply to a larger range of upgrades in a more graduated manner, instead of 4-point chunks.

The proposal that was not forwarded was the one I made regarding the "virtual" update/backdate rule, and it would have only addressed the old issues in AM from 3 years ago--namely, the difference between building a modified car from a T vs. an S model. This issue pales in comparison with the current reality, and would have no effect on the early 911 vs. late Carrera problem.

I don't know what happened to the "bigger wheels and tires" proposal, but the truth is that it wouldn't solve the problem either. It may be needed, but it wouldn't level the playing field in AM. A late Carrera has bigger wheels and tires allowed to start with, and with more points to upgrade things due to the advantage it has in taking less points for engine mods, brakes, sway bars and track increase. It is more likely to be able to go to a widebody with big slicks while remaining in AM than an early car is. In point of fact, if I had to take points for this, I would be in AR1 with my car. The only time I was able to beat Roland while he was still in AM was at Spring Mountain, in 2003, when I put on a fresh set of 9 & 10" slicks and he was on an old set of DOT-R tires. If there had been a penalty for big slicks at the time, I would have been out of the class.

I just wish that on Page 1 of this thread the Rules Committee stood up and said...

I am afraid there are not many members of the RC reading the forum regularly, if ever, as has been pointed out. AFAIK, it is composed of members from each of the regions in the Zone, not just SDR, and many of them were probably not even aware of this issue or its history, and certainly do not frequent this forum. Perhaps that is part of the problem, as SDR has one of the most active driving event programs in the Zone, not too mention some of the most vocal and opinionated members , and some good discussion about the rules has taken place here over the years. Maybe it would be a good thing if at least one member monitored this forum and forwarded links to relevant threads to the other members by email? Maybe a link to this very thread, if that hasn't already been done. Just a thought. Methods of communication are changing in this digital age, and our processes have to adjust to that new reality.

If you want to know what they thought of the proposals, you can read the document linked from the Rules page: http://www.pca.org/zone8/rules/2006/2006ResponseToRuleProposals.pdf. I don't ever remember seeing this posted in years past anywhere, but I may have missed it. I think it is a valuable tool for improvement to give members feedback about their proposals. For instance, I learned from this document that my proposal (#30) was not clearly understood by the RC. Fine. Why not ask the submitter to clarify the proposal before discarding it? I could have expanded on it. I would say that the extra time and effort to add this step to the process is a problem. We need to identify a solution for that, perhaps.

I also found out that the proposal was mistaken as some sort of an "engine swap" proposal and was inappropriate for that section of the rules. Well, considering that I made the same proposal last year, using the same language in the example, as an engine swap rule, it is obvious that we are lacking some element of continuity in this process. Didn't anyone remember that it was turned down as an engine swap proposal last year? Is everyone on the committee new each year? Are the past proposals and decisions not reviewed by new members to get them up to speed? Something is wrong here and needs to be fixed, perhaps.

These are just suggestions I am trying to make for the future. No, I am not volunteering for the job. I was asked months ago if I would serve as the Rules Chair next year and declined, for a number of reasons.

Please bear with us, put up with it for one more year good-naturedly and we guarantee will fix it next year.

While the sarcasm is so thick here that it is dripping out of my monitor, I think this may actually be all that we can do at this point. Be patient. It would take some kind of heroic effort to change the published process at this point in time, but I think I know now how to make a proposal that will fix things next year and have it accepted, at least. I have learned a lot from the process this year. It is a classing issue, not a points issue.

TT

[Curt]

Still think you guys should contact someone and not wait/expect them to come to you?

Mike I believe that we contacted our President last Weds or Thurs as Steve G suggested and pointed them to this thread as Steve suggested. I don't think we have been replied to as of yet.

EDITED:
This just in! The above is in fact not true. Our President was only asked in that email to monitor this thread and has in fact been doing so. I apologize for the misinformation.

[gulf911]

I don't know if my opinion is relative and not sure if I can help, but when I started with SDR 2002 (GSS), TT was the MAN. Basically, everyone else compared their times minus Tom's 1st place. 2003 made me realize I needed to upgrade my 944 to be competitive so my husband/mechanic went over the rules and we decided the most cost efficient option was to strip the 944 to Spec class. That made the rules clear and the cars evenly matched. What about Spec 911 classes? What do I know?

Just for fun I looked at the standings for GSS in 2000 and reminisced a bit. Tom was running GP and cleaning up, as was Lewis in AM, and Steve G as usual... I lost 3 in a row to Mr. John Kincaid (944) in that year and Jad was close behind. There was no huge desparigy in times. It went back and forth and Jad won his share as well. While there was weight and torque advantages, there was balance and tire size on the other. Perhaps the advantages could have been amplified by a better driver , but I drove the car pretty hard and 944's were still on my tail, make a mistake and that was it. Tom taught me a lot early on, even when we were in the same class he would lend tips for improvement..... then the cookies stopped...
I guess I just wanted to emphasize the gap between the 944 and the 911E in GSS was not the same gap as what AM is faced with today. Jad, John and the 944's knew they could win by outdriving me, and on many occaisions did just that. Here's to you guys!!

[ttweed]

then the cookies stopped...

When you did not beat the 944s EVERY TIME, and dominate in true 911 fashion, you were no longer worthy of the Mutha Tom's Chocolate Chip Macadamia Nut cookies as a reward, Dan.

TT