Zone Rules proposals for 2005

[MikeD]

I like the new proposal, though I have to get new letters for my class designation

Actually Kary, aren't you in MI? I think you stay there as the next step from NP is MI.

[kary]

If I run slicks you are correct I woul dbe still be in MI. In auto-x, which is where I put class designations on ( I never seem to put them on in time trail) I would be in MP because I would use the Dunlop super sport race tire. I guess I am at the strange point in the system where I am inbetween classes.

[ttweed]

The 911's, whatever model, have a huge advantage. While Tom is an excellent driver, he is winning the class by 4-5 seconds! That is not fair. I do not believe a 944 driver of any level, could possibly catch him.

Thanks for thinking of me, Jad, but there were a couple of events where I only won by 2.5 seconds.

Did you notice that proposal 15 gives the 944s the chance to run 225 tires in GS/S now with no points? The 911 is still limited to 205s. That should even the playing field a little. Tim Comeau beat me by over 2 seconds in the 8/21 event in a 944 Spec car running 225 tires. Granted they were RA-1s and the 944 Spec car is a little lighter, but put Tim in a stock 944 and he could win in GS/S on 225 Falken Azenis.

Making classing decisions based on the performance of one driver in one region is a mistake though, IMHO. By that reasoning, the 2.0 911S should be in MS/S, since I would have won that class several times last year and never placed lower than 3rd in it all year.

That said, while I objected last year to having the 2.0 911S moved to "I" class with the 2.4 911S and E, which are much faster cars, I have to agree that "H" may be a better place for the 2.0 and 2.7 911S, although a fully developed ‘70-‘71 911S 2.2 or '74 911S 2.7 or even 914-6 2.0 will easily beat the 2.0S.

I just noticed in Proposal 9 that the '74 911S seems to be classed in both G and H. What's up with that? G class shows "74-77 911/S 2.7" and H shows "74 911S". What is the deal there? Am I missing something? What does 911/S mean as opposed to 911S?

TT

[martinreinhardt]

Are you sure? How are you measuring your weight, Martin? "Curb weight" in the owner's manual is with a full fuel tank and spare, jack and tool kit on board.

Tom, yes I took the 964C2 US Curb Weight 3031 pounds - removed incl. replaced parts + incl. 20 pounds for 17 wheels over the 16's - 275 pounds (since yesterday) = 2756 pounds. (All fluids filled)

I will be adding a rollbar (not sure 50-70 pounds) which should bring it back to 8 points for weight removal (if this rule will be accepted) and add savety.

[Steve Grosekemper]

Tom,

Good eye! That's why we have all of your extra eyes looking at this stuff. After a while it just looks like bla,bla,bla to us.

Here is the rules as printed.
G 944 2.5 & 2.7, 924S 2.5, 924 Turbo 2.0, ‘67-‘69 911S 2.0, ‘74 -‘77 911/S 2.7, ‘72-‘73 911E 2.4.

H ‘70-‘71 911S 2.2, 914-6 2.0, ‘74 911S, 944S 2.5

I think it should be:

In "G" it should be 74-75 911 2.7L 76-77 911S 2.7L

In "H" it should be '74 911S, ‘74-‘75 911 Carrera 2.7,


I will look into this further and get it corrected,

Thanks all
Steve Grosekemper
PCA-SDR Rules Chair
Zone-8 Rules Page Editor

[Larry Clark]

Re: Steve's responses:

I agree with your comment about Monday morning quarterbacking. I've not been studying the draft proposals because (1) there has been no sentiment in other regions for adopting the rally rules changes that Tim Errington & I feel would be desirable and (2) as an very infrequent AXer, I don't feel that I would have any useful input on that front.

But I am curious about the idea of not classifying a car until you've seen how it performs. What will happen the first time somebody shows up with a 987 or other new model? Will they be prevented from running for points? Or will they get classified after the fact? If the latter, does this mean that contestants who appeared to place high in the class to which the new car gets assigned could get bumped down if the new car beats them?

If we never classify a car until we've seen it perform, how is it that the classification scheme lists the 997? From my quick scan of recent AX results, I don't see that one has run as yet.

As I said, I have no axe to grind here. I'm just curious about the process.

[Steve Grosekemper]

The 997 is a real car that has real performance data. as compared to a known unit (996)

I don't know of a post prodcution 987 to get data from do you?

Seems like we would be jumping the gun,

IMHO

Steve Grosekemper
PCA-SDR Rules Chair
Zone-8 Rules Page Editor

[harnishclan]

Tom sorry but Falken doesn't offer Azenis in 225 unless it is on a 17" rim. And 2.5 secs is still a big gap. There are enough 944 to run in their own class.

[ttweed]

Tom sorry but Falken doesn't offer Azenis in 225 unless it is on a 17" rim.

There is no rule penalizing wheel diameter. Why can't you fit a 17" rim on a 944?

Falken (or maybe it should be "Flaken" ) has been saying they are coming out with the 2nd gen. Azenis for over a year now, with a lot more sizes available, but it hasn't happened yet.

The Kumho Ecsta MX comes in a 225/50-16, however, and it is just as good a tire as the Azenis, according to many of the SCCA folks who use them in the street tire classes.

TT

[Jad]

Tom, a spec car is hardly a GSS car. It has 300-500 lbs weight advantage. That is 12 points or something alone. Now add the tires, springs, and all the other things allowed (they are spec, not stock) and it is like saying a cup car should run in MSS.

And while 17 inch wheels may fit, the engine pretty much can't move them. I actually prefered going to 15" on the n/a and 944 have been allowed to run 225's with no points for a long time, so that isn't a change and you are still 2.5 seconds ahead. Much like Chris o'Connor was as a rookie. He is not that good and before him was Dan Andrews. The early 911 have dominated the class for ~10 years now with a lot of strong 944 drivers coming from GSS having virtually never winning the class, including myself, Ralph, Dan Chambers, John Kinkaid, etc. I think we have enough data to show this isn't 1 driver and it isn't even close.

Plus, that one drive you are talking about with Tim, was spectactular. He got a top ten, not a good typical example. Don't you want a little challenge....

[MikeD]

The Kumho Ecsta MX comes in a 225/50-16, however, and it is just as good a tire as the Azenis, according to many of the SCCA folks who use them in the street tire classes.

I agree, I like the MX's. I used them on Sat. @ Pahrump and did some pretty good times. I use them as my street tire and and on occasion a temporary track tire. I think they are better than the Azenis, if only because I can get them in the right size. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about in regards to the Azenis. They are a good tire sure, but there are others out there. Heck, I went as fast on Yoko AVS Sport's as I did on the Azenis. You'd think they were the "Hoosier Azenis" the way people talk about them.

Just my $0.02

[Jad]

I find it hard to believe you can run as fast on AVS's as the azenis assuming the sizes were similar. I know several classes that had a bunch of even drivers, one got azenis and started winning every event, others got azenis, and now they are even again.

I have had both and while I really like the AVS's and highly recommend them for the street, at an autocross the azenis are a good second faster. I find them particularly strong in straight lines (ie braking and putting power down). They are no Victoracer or Hoosier, but they last 2-3 times as long and cost less. They do ride rough and the size selection is pretty poor, but if they have your size (or close as they do run large), they are the tire for SS in my opinion (Haven't tried the MX).

[MikeD]

I find it hard to believe you can run as fast on AVS's as the azenis assuming the sizes were similar. I know several classes that had a bunch of even drivers, one got azenis and started winning every event, others got azenis, and now they are even again.

That's the point Jad. I can run sizes that are more in tune with what my car *should* run. To run the Azenis I only had one choice 225/245 (well two choices if I wanted to run 245/245). Which kind of sucked as Porsche used (recommends?) a 50mm differential. I found the car to be more balanced with my 235/275 combo. I still get a little understeer at times, but I hardly EVER have a problem with oversteer, which I did with the Azenis.

BTW, I wasn't saying the Azenis were a *bad* tire. Just that I don't think they are "all that". But then again, maybe they are for 15" and 16" wheels. However, for 17's the selection is so limited I can't imagine going back.

[Jad]

OK, if they don't fit the car, then they won't work. I bet 205 hoosiers would suck on your car as well, but the tire is good. I run the 245 17's on my car and they work well, not R compound well, but better than any other street tire I have tried. But my car is happy with the same tire all around (though 275's would be nice Falken???)

[harnishclan]

Pretty cool how this evolved into a tire forum!!