Final Zone 8 proposals

A place to hang out and discuss all things Porsche.

Postby Jad on Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:14 am

Tom,

I might suggest starting a new thread with your plan/request as this has becoming too big to read or find anything.

Just a thought.
Jad Duncan
997 S Cab - Sold
996 "not a cup car" Sold
Tesla Model S
Porsche Taycan
https://www.goldfishconsulting.com/
User avatar
Jad
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Del Mar

Postby gulf911 on Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:37 am

Koom by ya.... :lol:
Dan Andrews
#2 Carmine Red GT4 , 19" Forgelines , LWBS.
User avatar
gulf911
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: San Clemente

Postby richard on Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:11 pm

Tom,
My suggestion is that you take it out of this thread and start a new topic with your specific request as to the interpretation of the update/backdate rule. If the rule is vague then there are those who will interpret it to their advantage, a la Porsche.Maybe someone from the RC will respond.
richard
Time Trialer
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:06 pm

Postby gulf911 on Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:47 pm

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

Dan
Dan Andrews
#2 Carmine Red GT4 , 19" Forgelines , LWBS.
User avatar
gulf911
Pro Racer
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: San Clemente

Postby ttweed on Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:07 am

gulf911 wrote: 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 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 and 130 HP!

To equalize this, all the '72-73 911 models should be allowed to be updated or backdated freely within the model series line. However, a strict, literal interpretation of the existing rule does not allow this, 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
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Resolution of the update/backdate question

Postby ttweed on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:59 pm

This is a duplicate post to the one I just made in the other thread on this forum discussing this subject.

I am just dredging up this old thread to post the resolution of this question as determined by the Zone 8 Rules Committee, so that anyone searching this forum or looking at old postings will know how this came out in the end.

My request for clarification of the update/backdate provision has been answered here by the committee.

The short answer is that the more liberal view of this provision is correct--there is nothing in the rules to prevent a car from being updated/backdated within its model range (virtually or otherwise) before being modified extensively and progressing upwards in class. Thus the 1972-73 911E and S can progress to AM class instead of IM, by backdating to 1972 911T specs and using that for the base model from which to calculate appropriate modification points, starting in F-class rather than I.

TT
Tom Tweed -- #908
SDR Tech Inspection Chair 2005-06
SDR Forum Admin 2010-present
Windblown Witness Assistant Editor 2012-present
Driving Porsches since 1964
User avatar
ttweed
Admin
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:13 am
Location: La Jolla, CA

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron