Toms Update Backdate proposal for 2007

[gulf911]

So, how 'bout try to plan a get-together and begin the process of submitting a change in the rules?

Dan-
I would be happy to participate in any "focus group" effort towards this end, but I also believe I could now make some proposals that would fix the situation and garner widespread support for them next year without doing this, but it might help to "fine-tune" my proposals ahead of time and gain insights from more brains applied to the task.

I have, however, thought of one thing that might still be done this year to at least fix the "old" AM problem and help equalize the "second tier" group of early car drivers. This would not involve any rule change at this point, but a modification of the "response to the proposals" crafted by the RC before it is presented to the Presidents in Nov.

Specifically, I am talking about my Proposal #30, which Paul has stated was not understood by the RC. He has also stated in this thread that he was under the impression that a modified car could use the update/backdate rule in a way that differs from my strict, literal interpretation of it, allowing a "T" or Normal model on the same model line in the chart to be considered as having been upgraded to "S" specs at some time in the past before it was modified beyond stock specs. If his interpretation of the rule is correct, and that has always been the intent with the update/backdate provisions, then my proposal was unnecessary, as the rules already provide for this possibility.

If the RC are all of the same mind as Paul, and my subsequent explanations of my reasons for the proposal here have clarified it somewhat, then all that has to be done is to change the response to my proposal to be something like: "This proposal is unnecessary, as the intent of the existing rule is to allow such "virtual" or "hypothetical" updates within an existing model line, even when the car has been modified beyond the Stock classes."

This response document would then serve as a "clarification" to the existing rule, and no change to it would be necessary. A competitor could point to the clairification as justification for calculating his engine swap points on a 911T the same as an S model on the same line would, if protested. I did not give an example in my proposal of it, but I believe there are also some difference in published weights for different models on the same line in the chart, so this would equalize the early cars in the weight area as well, for determining points penalties in the modified classes.

Does this make sense? Is it feasible at this late date?

It will not solve the whole classing issue, but at one time there were a lot of "stock engine swap" cars running in AM that were penalized differently while being identical except for the model designation. Now that JR and Mike G. have modified their motors, maybe Dan A. is the only one who would still be effected by this, but I think it is necessary for future competitors and/or cars in the other modified classes besides AM to level competition.

Thx,
TT

Hi Tom,
Could you please give me an example how this would help?

Thanks,
Dan

[ttweed]

Note--Repeating my answer here, which I have also posted in the very long and confusing Final Zone 8 Proposals thread.

Sorry for the late response, but I am unclear on how that will help AM. Can you use an example?

Dan-
As I said above, this will not fix the entire, current problem in AM, since the addition of the Carreras. I don't believe that can be done without a change to the classification scheme. BUT, it will solve the "old" problem in AM, which was that a 1972-73 911 T, E and S were penalized differently when they were modified equally beyond the Stock classes.

They all currently end up in AM class, with equal speed potential, but the 911S has the advantage of a 190 HP MFI engine, compared to a 140 HP 911T. Drop a stock 3.2 into both of them, and the HP difference calculation for an engine swap mod is unfair, unless the T is allowed to be considered as having been "updated" to the "S" spec before it was further modified. Read my example in Proposal #30:
"Consider the case of a 3.2 liter Carrera transplant into a pair of early 911s, which is a fairly common modification in our club. If one of the cars is a 1973 911S, with 190 HP, and one is a 1973 911T with 140 HP, there is a 50 HP difference in their HP deltas with the 217HP Carrera motor, yet they end up as essentially the same cars afterwards, running in the same AM class. The 3.2 "S" car is assessed only 12 points (27 HP increase,) while the 3.2 "T" car is assessed 20 points (77 HP increase). Although the cars now have equal speed potential, the "S" car can still make 8 more points in improvements before being equal to the T's assessment."

Inequities exist even outside the "engine swap" rule, however, since a late '73.5 T, for example, came with CIS injection, which suffers a 4-point induction mod penalty if it goes to carbs, compared with an MFI T, E or S, or even the '72-73T Euro model that came with Zenith carbs. There may be other examples, including, as I mentioned, possible base curb weight differences in different models in the same series--I have not checked every single line in the update/backdate model chart!

To equalize this, all the '72-73 911 models should be allowed to be updated or backdated freely within their model series line, as should every other model Porsche, within their line on the chart. However, a strict, literal interpretation of the language of the existing rule does not allow this, IMHO, as it says the car must be "functionally identical" to the model it is changed to resemble. Once cars are modified beyond the Stock classes, "functional identity" is no longer possible, unless they can be "considered" to have been updated/backdated at a previous time. Thus my suggestion for a "virtual" or "hypothetical" update/backdate clarification.

At least 1 RC member, Paul, has expressed the opinion that the existing rule already allows for this more liberal interpretation. However, myself and others, for many years, who made modifications beyond stock specs, have been under the impression that the calculations for these mods must be made according to the original car's model designation, which is determined by the VIN, without the benefit of updating/backdating to another model on the same series line. When I had a stock, 180HP CIS 3.0 in my '73E, in GP class, I took 8 points for a 15 HP upgrade, even though an S in the same class had 10 more HP at 190HP with a STOCK engine!

I am suggesting that this inequity can be erased, without even changing any rule at this point, if the more liberal interpretation of the "update/backdate" provision is clarified by the RC as being correct. This clarification can be accomplished with their response to my Proposal #30, by simply affirming that such updates/backdates beyond Stock class are intended to be allowed.

This alone won't fix AM, but it will help equalize the early cars there.

Does this help explain what I am talking about?

TT

[ttweed]

Since Dan has started this new thread, taking this smaller question out of the long and unwieldy "Final rules proposals" thread, I would like to add here the issue I raised at the end of that discussion, namely this:

How does one obtain a formal clarification of a provision of the rules anyway? I have never seen a formal procedure outlined for that. Only by a protest, where the decision of the protest committee determines the proper interpretation of a rule? Or can one write a letter to the RC at any time, outlining the issues and asking for their "take" on it?

I am unclear about this, and it seems to me that the language of the "update/backdate" rule is certainly open to different interpretations. I would like to obtain some clarity on it, and will do whatever is the correct process to go about it.

My understanding of the current process would be something like this: If a competitor has a question about the rules and/or their interpretation, they would query the Rules Chair for their region. We currently have such a defacto process set up from our SDR website, where an email is generated to the Rules Chair from the website's Rules Page if there is a question.

What is unclear to me is what happens after that, if, say, the Rules Chair does not know the correct answer, or they think they do, but their answer is different from the competitor's interpretation? Is there an appeals process, or does the Rules Chair ALWAYS consult with the Zone Rules Committee before giving an answer? How is consistency and accuracy maintained in this process, from region to region, across the Zone?

Since there are 13 Regions in the Zone, and each one could conceiveably have a different Rules Chair, none of whom are necessarily on the Zone Rules Committee, it seems to me that there could be a wide variance of opinions and interpretations of the rules without some central, organized process to govern this simple scenario.

I am simply not aware of them, and am wondering what procedures we actually have in place in the Zone, if any, for such an eventuality?

TT

[ajackson]

A more liberal update/backdate rule seems like it would fix the Carrera problem in AM as well since an early car could update to a Carrera before adding on points for everything else.

I do see a reading of the rules that allows for this type of update/backdate. When it says everything must be identical, I think they are saying that either everything needs to be the same or you have to take points for changes. They seem to be trying to make it clear that you can't put in just a new drive train, suspension, etc and not also follow the weight rules.

When there is literally no difference between two cars except for the vin number, who could complain about the different assignment of points.

[kary]

Consider the case of a 3.2 liter Carrera transplant into a pair of early 911s, which is a fairly common modification in our club. If one of the cars is a 1973 911S, with 190 HP, and one is a 1973 911T with 140 HP, there is a 50 HP difference in their HP deltas with the 217HP Carrera motor, yet they end up as essentially the same cars afterwards, running in the same AM class. The 3.2 "S" car is assessed only 12 points (27 HP increase,) while the 3.2 "T" car is assessed 20 points (77 HP increase). Although the cars now have equal speed potential, the "S" car can still make 8 more points in improvements before being equal to the T's assessment.

Tom, I think this example strengthens the argument that PCA should classify cars by the weight to hrosepower ratio's at least to establish a base class. POC does this faily well.

[ttweed]

A more liberal update/backdate rule seems like it would fix the Carrera problem in AM as well since an early car could update to a Carrera before adding on points for everything else.

I do see a reading of the rules that allows for this type of update/backdate. When it says everything must be identical, I think they are saying that either everything needs to be the same or you have to take points for changes.

I would like to believe that is the intent of the rules, Alan, but I am pretty sure that the specific language currently used would not allow such a thing. The rule starts with: "Major assemblies such as engines, brakes, suspension or transmissions may be substituted with parts from the same series car." Note that it applies ONLY within the "same series car." The chart that accompanies the rule defines the model ranges that may be considered to be within the "same series." The '84-89 Carrera is not on the same line as any of the early 911s in the chart. Therefore, an early 911 cannot be updated to an '84-86 Carrera, according to my understanding. A 1973 911T, though, may be updated to a '73 911S, as they are both within the "Any 911 model 1972-73" series.

Additionally, the rule goes on to say:
"...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."

As I expressed in the other thread, my concern is with the words "the car as modified must be functionally identical" and "Under those circumstances..." It seems to me to be saying that a car can only take advantage of this provision if it is currently functioning in an identical state to a different model, which would only be true for an SS or S class car. Once the car has been modified beyond stock specs, how can it be asserted that it is the same as the other model? Using the words "as modified" seems to refer to it's current state only, excluding it from eligibility for this provision, even if it could be proven that at some time in the past, the car had been changed in every respect to equal another model in the same series.

Thus the problem with two identical early 911s, one a T and one an S, which have been modified beyond stock specs and are both running in AM. One can't really point at the other, then, and say "we started in the same place," right? Or can you? That is the clarification that is needed. That was my point in offering the "hypothetical" or "virtual" update/backdate language in my proposal #30.

This is not even close to an attempt to address the question of equalizing an early car and an '84-89 Carrera in AM. I think the rule is unequivocably clear that an early 911 cannot add ballast and claim it started as a Carrera, figuring all of its mods from the Carrera base. That is an entirely different problem, which I think can only be addressed with either classification changes, or a specific "Out-of-model-range" exception rule, such as exists in the POC GCRs.

When there is literally no difference between two cars except for the vin number, who could complain about the different assignment of points.

EXACTLY! Yet our rules seem to provide for just this kind of inequality, if interpreted literally and strictly, IMHO.

TT

[ajackson]

I am mistaken then, I always took the "same series" statement to include various years where the car was basically the same with the main difference being engine, brakes, suspension, transmission. In other words I thought that I could take my 77 911 that has carrera flares, 6/7 fuchs, carrera 3.2/915, carrera suspension, and run it as a stock carrera assuming the weights matched. That would handle the 911S/E/T putting in a 3.2 and handle the 3.2 cars being in AM as well.

How do other race organizations handle this? Do PCA and POC racers have to have a carrera tub as a starting point to create a carrera stock race car?

The 911 is a unique model in that the 68-89 shell is basically the same. In catalogs of porsche parts, they typically list 74-89 as the range a part fits. I think we need some sort of rule that reflects the fact that a 911E w/3.2 is the same as a 911T w/3.2 and the fact that a 86 3.6L can be built to the exact same specs as a 73 3.6L.

They seem like one issue to me, Tom, where you seem to treat them as two.

[ttweed]

Tom, I think this example strengthens the argument that PCA should classify cars by the weight to hrosepower ratio's at least to establish a base class. POC does this faily well.

Kary-
I think the PCA base classes attempt to do this also, although they might not be as thorough with it as with the POC scheme, and we may have made some notable deviations from this in the last few years.

However, I would like to focus this thread completely on the "update/backdate" rule issue, and how a clarification of it might be attained. The larger problem in AM is a bigger issue and has a 10-page thread devoted to it elsewhere. The suggestion was made there that this discussion (of what is only a subset of the larger issues) be broken out separately, to prevent confusion or loss of focus.

Hopefully, we can address base classification issues in a separate thread, and keep things clearer for everyone. Perhaps we should even have a separate forum category for "Rules Discussion" where everyone can start a thread on their pet peeve with the rules and keep these discussions separate from the general traffic. That would certainly make it easier for the RC to monitor rules issues brought up in this forum, and possibly lead to broader understanding of the rules and quicker resolution of problems/misinterpretations, especially if the RC actually participated in the discussions (something they are not inclined to do, given the sorry state to which past discussions have deteriorated.)

TT

[ttweed]

I always took the "same series" statement to include various years where the car was basically the same with the main difference being engine, brakes, suspension, transmission. In other words I thought that I could take my 77 911 that has carrera flares, 6/7 fuchs, carrera 3.2/915, carrera suspension, and run it as a stock carrera assuming the weights matched. That would handle the 911S/E/T putting in a 3.2 and handle the 3.2 cars being in AM as well.

If that is the correct interpretation, then someone on the RC in a position of authority who knows the truth of it should speak up and put me out of my misery! I have been functioning under an entirely different conception for many years! This is exactly why we need a clarification/interpretation process, besides a rule change process. Two reasonable people can have entirely different interpretations of the same words! How do we find out which one of us is correct in this situation?

How do other race organizations handle this?

They do it by specific allowances in the rules. POC, for instance, has Section 27 of their GCRs which allows specific exceptions to the update/backdate provision (which is largely the same as ours, allowing changes only within a model series line) for approved engine swaps to SC or Carrera specs:

APPROVED ENGINE SWAP TO 911SC
27.1 Any 911 may use 1978 - 1983 911SC USA specification engine. Car shall be classified in Class I and can be brought up to all 911SC specifications. Car must comply with 911SC weight requirements.

27.2- APPROVED ENGINE SWAP TO 911 3.2 Carrera
Any 911 may use 1984 - 1989 911 Carrera USA specification engine. Car shall be classified in Class J and can be brought up to all 911 Carrera specifications. Car must comply with 911 Carrera weight requirements.

Note that they also include the following exception in their update/backdate rule: A 1965 912 may only Update-Backdate between any 1965- 68 911 or 912, it may not update to a 1978 911SC. (See “Approved Engine Swaps” for out–of-category cars) They also differentiate between Euro and USA spec cars for update/backdate purposes with this language: Update or backdate between European and USA cars must be approved by the Competition Director and the Competition Committee.

In addition, under the POC rules for more highly modified, V-class cars, there are provisions such as this:

26.4.4- Any pre-1990 vehicle in V may use 1989-1994 3.6 liter engine. Car shall start with K base points and C2 Carrera VIN weight and may upgrade to 911 Turbo/930 brakes.

TT

[ajackson]

Sounds like we basically just need a 911 rule as follows:

Any pre 1990 911 can install a 3.0L, 3.2L, or 3.6L engine (US Spec and stock). The car will be classified starting in the stock class of I, J, and K respectively. Any other components may be brought up to the specifications for a stock SC, Carrera, or 964 in that class without point penalty. Modification beyond those specification will result in points being assessed. Weight must be brought up to the stock weight of an SC, Carrera, or 964 or points for weight removal must be included in classification.

[RickK]

If you were going to include 964s then you would include 911s up to 1994. But 964s and earlier 911s are such totally different models that updating a 911 to a 964 is all bu impossible. You've got a different tub, different suspension, ABS and the list goes on.

Update/backdate within 911s up to 89 (not including the C4) may be sensible but beyond that 964, 993, 996 and 997 cars are very different.

[ajackson]

If you were going to include 964s then you would include 911s up to 1994. But 964s and earlier 911s are such totally different models that updating a 911 to a 964 is all bu impossible. You've got a different tub, different suspension, ABS and the list goes on.

Update/backdate within 911s up to 89 (not including the C4) may be sensible but beyond that 964, 993, 996 and 997 cars are very different.

90-94 911's already have a 3.6L so it wouldn't make any sense to update them to a 3.6L. I do see your point that it is very difficult to bring an older 911 up to 964 specs (coilovers, etc). The point still stand though, put pre 90's 911s with a 3.6L in a distinct class with a set of stock specifications.

Pre 90's 3.L cars start in K, can have coilovers or torsion bars up to this spec, 964 or boxster brakes, 225x245 tires, etc, etc (these are just examples). I do think that it makes sense to make some broad classifications based on the engine. 3.2L cars should compete together, 3.6L cars should compete together, etc.

Any support for this type of rule? I really like the simpleness of the rules that Tom posted.

[Curt]

Don't take the lack of responses from AM class TT'ers as a lack of interest. I'd say most of us will be interested in returning to this club in 2008 if we have a class we can be competitive in. For 2007 Time Trials, AM class is going to be quite sparse, let's put it that way.

For 2007, I'm looking to resurrect my 1970 911T FS autocross car and Dan Andrews and I will share it. It would seem that GS would be an excellent class to step up and run that car in with our 944 buddies. Perfectly legal, right? Between Tom in GP and Dan and I in GS, I would guess that our 944 drivers will get right behind a rule change to find a competitive class for our old AM cars.

[Gary Burch]

For 2007, I'm looking to resurrect my 1970 911T FS autocross car and Dan Andrews and I will share it. It would seem that GS would be an excellent class to step up and run that car in with our 944 buddies. Perfectly legal, right?

Curt

You should run in FS if you have the skill. FS is a very tough ax class and should give you carpetbaggers more than enough action. If it gets to hard on you guys you could always move to GS or ask for a rules change.

Gary"gearingupfor06"Burch

[Greg Phillips]

If you were going to include 964s then you would include 911s up to 1994. But 964s and earlier 911s are such totally different models that updating a 911 to a 964 is all bu impossible. You've got a different tub, different suspension, ABS and the list goes on.

Update/backdate within 911s up to 89 (not including the C4) may be sensible but beyond that 964, 993, 996 and 997 cars are very different.

I would agree with Rick that the virtual update would only apply to the long wheelbase 911 through 1989. The later 964 and earlier SWB 911 would not be candidates. They are too different.

Greg