Rule changes for 2011

[Greg Phillips]

I guess I am a little confused by all this. What exactly is being proposed? Replacing our classification system with that of GGR, or replacing our entire AX/TT/DE ruleset with theirs? The two cannot be separated really. Many of our safety and prep rules are related to our classification system. Do we adopt theirs, then? For instance, the rollbar/cage, steel lugnut, fire suits and driver restraint requirements in Zone 8 are all tied to the class of your car. What is the proposal for dovetailing those with the GGR classification rules? They are two different things. Do we adopt their safety rules as well, then? What about our update/backdate provision? Do we abandon that and adopt theirs? This is crucial to how you point out a car with an engine swap, it seems to me. Our rules are quite different in this respect.

All I am saying is this is not as easy as it may appear at first glance. The Zone 8 ruleset has many provisions connected to our classification scheme that would have to be modified/rethought to use the GGR classification system, unless we are talking about wholesale replacement of our rules with theirs. If we are doing this simply because we have too many classes with too few cars in them, are there better/easier ways to fix that--like consolidating classes--rather than a revolutionary change that will have quite far-reaching, complex, and unintended consequences, raising as many new questions as it resolves, forcing people to modify their cars in ways they didn't anticipate in order to be competitive under the new system, making this hobby even more expensive than it already is? I am and always have been a proponent of rules stability, with evolutionary (not revolutionary) development, so as not to obsolete investments people have already made in building/modifying their cars. This would be a radical change, requiring alterations to many other portions of our ruleset besides simply the classification system. Has anyone really thought about these other aspects and how they would be resolved? I would like to hear all the answers before I could say this is a good idea.

TT

Tom you are correct about the linkage between our safety rules and underlying class systems and I had not considered this when I was looking at the proposal.
http://www.pca-ggr.org/files/pdf/GGR%20 ... s%20v2.pdf

However, since you bring it up, I have been looking at the GGR rules and I don't think there would be a lot of problems in adopting or adapting their safety rules.
They are overall less restrictive than ours as they do not require roll cages or roll bars or driving suits or even fire extinguishers although they do make recommendations.
They do closely follow the PCA national DE guidelines for safety.
They do have backdate/update provisions.

The more I look at the provisions, the more advantages I see. Since the classes are more granular (every 50 points changes a class) you have many more options where you would like your car to end up.
With my 911SC, I am limited to S for 8 points, P for 20 points, I for 40 points, M for 54 points then AR1 to 74 points and then AR2 for over 75. Theoretically their would be 6 classes I could possibly compete in, with some large jumps in cost for the modifications past stock or prepared.
In the GGR system I could run from TT15 if left stock up to TT1 if I really got carried away. Right now it is TT7or 6 depending on wheels & tires. I could add or remove modifications and would not find the disparity that exists between a 21 point car in II and a 40 point car (hello OTTO)
If we feel we need more stringent safety rules, we could make modifications, but at first reading I did not find any major problems with theirs But I do not have the history/technical knowledge that others in the club possess.
That is why we are starting in June

Greg

[Greg Phillips]

The irony is that our proliferation of classes stemmed from the fact that some folks complained about being in the same class with Boxsters, or Turbos, or 997S's, or whatever. I guess when we had a lot of attendees, it was easier to give each car type its own class (especially in the L to R range), but now due to a down-turn this inadvertent laziness has created many 1-car classes.

Maybe we should revisit re-consolidating some of the classes (Although this could be less drastic than adopting a whole new system, I know this will also be a can of worms, especially when some cars have an advantage in a TT, and some in an AX). Perhaps we could review cars for their base class the way other sanctioning bodies do, by calculating HP/weight, Torque/weight, and Stock Tire Width/weight, and start by grouping cars of similar vintage and similar base class numbers together (and see how it looks).

Besides attendance, part of the problem is the proliferation of classes. When I first joined in 1998, I think the Boxsters were just coming in and they were in L and M was the top class with 996 and some turbos. With all of the new Porsche models, 997, 996GT3,997 GT3, GT2, Caymans, 987 Boxsters we kept adding classes to try and accommodate the new cars.

We could try to tweak and consolidate classes, but I think it makes more sense to reboot the system and make a change that better plans for new models and how to bring them into the system.

Greg

[ChuckS]

Just to ensure that the can of worms has every flavor of worm -

Many of us experienced a different Zone's rules and classes and found them to be potentially better.
(Although initially a little confusing and frustrating)

Perhaps, someone should look at the classification systems of all of the other Zones to see if there is one that is even more appealing one - or if there are a lot of them like Z7 or - if there are strong benefits to some characteristics of one Zones rules and some from another Zones rules that together would make the best of everything.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this, but it is at least worth looking into (but not by me).

[ttweed]

However, since you bring it up, I have been looking at the GGR rules and I don't think there would be a lot of problems in adopting or adapting their safety rules. They are overall less restrictive than ours as they do not require roll cages or roll bars or driving suits or even fire extinguishers although they do make recommendations.

I see this requirement: "Full roll cages are required in cars with greater than 650 mod points and all GT cars."

They do have backdate/update provisions.

Yes, but they are considerably more liberal than ours: "Update/Backdate: Any car may be entered as a different car than originally manufactured, provided it matches the car as which it is being run in all performance‐related specifics. These include (but are not limited to) weight, weight distribution (front/rear and side‐to‐side), center‐of‐gravity height, gearing, power, torque, suspension, and airflow."

Our rule allows update/backdate only within a model range series, which is much more restrictive. Almost any 911 between 1969 and 1989 could be made to be "matching" under their criteria, with an appropriate swap of equipment, but how do you deal with the weight adjustment? The problem is that weight is never directly mentioned in their system, and there is no manner specified to allow ballasting. How do they deal with this? When you state that you may update as long as you keep the weight parameters equal, and then give no specs for how this should be accomplished, I see a problem.

Their approach to weight also discourages the installation of safety equipment, and would encourage people who have installed roll bars and cages under our current system to remove them, because they are a weight penalty that cannot be offset, since you are still charged for any other weight reductions you make. Under our rules, the car can be lightened in other areas without penalty (up to 50 lbs. below stock)to offset the added weight of the cage. It doesn't seem to be a prudent approach to me to discourage the installation of safety equipment by not allowing the extra weight to be offset somehow.

I agree that safety issues regarding fire suits, restraints, lugnuts, etc. could be resolved fairly easily, but i am having a hard time understanding their approach to the weight issues.

TT

[Otto]

Greg:

I am addressing these comments to you as you seem to be the main proponent and most enthusiastic about changing to the Zone 7 Rules system. They have also been posted in the NEW PROPOSALS comment section. You know what, I smell a rat here... You and I are in the same Zone 8 TT Class which is II and it looks like you got tired of trying to catch up with me on the track so it looks easier for you to propose throwing out the window the set of rules we have and start from scratch?

More seriously, I don't quite agree with your desire to jump into this Zone-7-Rules system right this minute and throw in the trash the Rules system that we have been carefully developing over the years. I do agree with you that no system is perfect, ours included, and needs to be continuously reviewed and revised as we do ours on an annual basis.

I have concerns about the Zone 7 system however. Basically because it is for the most part a purely SUBJECTIVE point system . By this I mean that not only are the so-called BASE POINTS a SUBJECTIVE assessment of an "expert" panel but also every other modification including the WEIGHT related modifications are based on SUBJECTIVE points dictated by this "expert" panel. What is the rationale in charging 20 points to a car that has non-stock doors? Why not 10 points? or perhaps 30 points? The interior of one car does not weigh the same as another. What is wrong with using the tried and true ACTUAL WEIGHT IN POUNDS to determine the points for weight -related modifications? In that case the competitor can decide how and where will he take his weight reduction. He simply has to abide by a minimum weight which can be easily tested on a scale, every time. This straightforward and equitable system is part of our current rules and is practiced by ALL other racing organizations out there, save Zone 7. The list of questions that can be raised could go on and on.

Same goes for the BASE POINTS. Why should a 996 GT-3 be charged 530 BASE POINTS? Why not 740 BASE POINTS? Pick a number, only the "expert" panel knows the rationale. Our CLASS system instead is based on a grouping of cars by model which we believe are REASONABLY competitive with each other based on vintage, base horsepower and weight. Further our CLASS PROGRESSION assumes that newer, more powerful and feature-laden cars are faster and thus belong in a HIGHER class. There is however no attempt in our current classification system to establish a SUBJECTIVE numerical relationship between one class of cars and another. That we leave to our BRI factor system, all for fun, which allows us in a way to "equalize" all cars so we can be competing with ALL cars in a specific event, for those that want to get an idea of how they fared overall. Here again, the BRI system is a work-in-progress and is in fact ripe for a review at this time, but the system is in place.

Moreover, there are many of us out here that have spent more money than we care to admit in optimizing our cars to run in a CLASS system we felt was going to last. The brand-new system being proposed would require us to start that process again if we want to be competitive and can afford it. Is that fair? Nothing is eternal but we need some stability and not simply being forced to switch to an untried system as early as January of next year as proposed here.

Is the Zone 7 system fair? Don't think so. Have made some specific comparisons and seen results that are way out of line when comparing cars using our current system and Zone 7's. I notice that the bias is towards being too lenient with the newer, very powerful cars that do not need many modifications to be fast versus the older cars which require substantial weight reduction, engine modifications and tire packages to modestly improve performance. Consequently, under Zone 7 Rules some of these older, slower cars end up in a Class much higher than the newer, faster cars, something which does not happen under our current Rules system.

Since these comments are too long already, I will stop here but just want to let you know that I do not see this proposed change to be the way to go for Zone 8.

[David Polk]

When I class out Tuffy i end up against 911SC's, 964 C2's, and 914's... Not a 944 in the lot

At the last AX you finished ahead of Boxsters, Carreras, 911's, 964 C2's, C4's, 968's etc. That's what's great about the system. It allows different cars to compete equally (theoretically) against each other. You can have a highly modified 944 competing against a bone stock GT3, a slightly modified 996 and a moderately modified Boxster. I say, bring it on. I think it will be more competitive, more fun and will be easier to adjust than our current system. It will probably take a few years to sort out the point values for changes, especially on some of the older cars, but we're changing things every year now and we continue to add new classes for cars.

Actually I think it would be fun running againt other types of cars! I was just curious because when I checked the "AX Classsed" cars on their site there were no 944's, maybe they just dont own them? I did check a 1989 944 (the one with 20 more HP than I have...that our current rules puts in my class ) and that system puts it in a different class. (Go get 'em Jerry! hehe) I am with you Mark...lets give it a whirl! If it dosnt work no biggie we can always go back to our current system..no harm trying.

I just pointed out my car,,,,,,,Stone stock 88 944 with aftermarket rims, I got classed in with jerry's car, No way can a stock 944 compete with his, (No offense jerry, my hats off to your latest build), the same as in our current system, I have to build what is basically a unstreetable car to compete in a street stock class, And I like driving mine on the street

[Mmagus]

I just pointed out my car,,,,,,,Stone stock 88 944 with aftermarket rims, I got classed in with jerry's car, No way can a stock 944 compete with his, (No offense jerry, my hats off to your latest build), the same as in our current system, I have to build what is basically a unstreetable car to compete in a street stock class, And I like driving mine on the street

David,

I may be incorrect, but with our current rules your bone stock 944 WILL be classed with Jerry's new build as it is an 89 944 2.7L. I am fairly sure he is well within points on it to be in GSS. Which is fine, Jerry is a great competetor, and a it will just be all that more fun trying to whup up on him and his extra 25hp.

[David Polk]

I just pointed out my car,,,,,,,Stone stock 88 944 with aftermarket rims, I got classed in with jerry's car, No way can a stock 944 compete with his, (No offense jerry, my hats off to your latest build), the same as in our current system, I have to build what is basically a unstreetable car to compete in a street stock class, And I like driving mine on the street

David,

I may be incorrect, but with our current rules your bone stock 944 WILL be classed with Jerry's new build as it is an 89 944 2.7L. I am fairly sure he is well within points on it to be in GSS. Which is fine, Jerry is a great competetor, and a it will just be all that more fun trying to whup up on him and his extra 25hp.

You are correct, he is driving a six point car, (if he takes off the strut brace), what i am saying is, that under both situations,
i am classed with a car that i can not compete with, also, i don't think the 89 has 25 more horsepower, from what i read it is more like 12,

I would love to point out my car, but, currently, in this economy and my line of business, it's not gonna happen,
it kinda takes a lot of the fun out of it, and if I feel this way, what about newer guys and gals coming in and getting disheartened?? We are already having attendance issues and I don't think this is helping any.

[JERRY B]

The black car is only 3 points with 180 treadwear tires but still whup's you guys

[MTrotter]

with the classing issue aside...
The 2011 proposed rule change about catalytic converters needing to be used.
I think this is a disservice to the older (78-89) aircooled cars. though there is minimal power gains from removing the cat, there is the cooling issue to be considered.
I for one dont want to take the SC to an autox in the summer with the cat in and run oil temperatures upwards of 250f.

Ill be writing a letter,

[Cajundaddy]

I just pointed out my car,,,,,,,Stone stock 88 944 with aftermarket rims, I got classed in with jerry's car, No way can a stock 944 compete with his, (No offense jerry, my hats off to your latest build), the same as in our current system, I have to build what is basically a unstreetable car to compete in a street stock class, And I like driving mine on the street

David,

I may be incorrect, but with our current rules your bone stock 944 WILL be classed with Jerry's new build as it is an 89 944 2.7L. I am fairly sure he is well within points on it to be in GSS. Which is fine, Jerry is a great competetor, and a it will just be all that more fun trying to whup up on him and his extra 25hp.

You are correct, he is driving a six point car, (if he takes off the strut brace), what i am saying is, that under both situations,
i am classed with a car that i can not compete with, also, i don't think the 89 has 25 more horsepower, from what i read it is more like 12,

I would love to point out my car, but, currently, in this economy and my line of business, it's not gonna happen,
it kinda takes a lot of the fun out of it, and if I feel this way, what about newer guys and gals coming in and getting disheartened?? We are already having attendance issues and I don't think this is helping any.

David,
Your situation does not change with either rule set. You still compete with Jerry who has a bit more power. I suspect if you drove his car your times would not change unless he has much better tires. That is the beauty of AX. Us little guys can compete very well with cars that have a lot more power and do very well. Check the overall results for Mark Rondeau, Jackie C, Paul Young, and Kim Crosser. These drivers often outrun much more powerful cars driven by skilled drivers. Your wrists and feet are much more powerful than the ponies in AX.

[Mmagus]

The black car is only 3 points with 180 treadwear tires but still whup's you guys

As I said Jerry, you are a great competitor. It is always a pleasure running against you. Especially when I sqweek by you in whatever car you happen to be driving.



David, from what I read Porsche upgraded the 944 from the 2.5 liter engine to a 2.7 liter engine with a rated 175 hp. while the 924S puts out 150hp.

Back to my first point, I still think th cat removal on a car like mine is should not cost 2 points and I still like the idea of broadening the car field classes somehow and not having so many one car classes.

[AGill]

Ralph Linares has beaten a few Cayman S cars in his C4S when they were all grouped together in NSS (and the occasional Boxster S). His wife, Annette, was able to "chick" a few drivers in her very first AX in that C4S.

http://results.pcasdr.org/event_class_overall.php?event_date=2007-06-23&class_str=NSS&database=&time_format=0#64.15-51

The current BRI has the OSS and NSS cars indexed exactly the same. We already acknowledge that the cars are pretty close in performance. In AX, it really comes down to track, setup and driver. With drivers that are equal, one car or the other will have the advantage due to that car's inherent strengths or weaknesses and the way the track is layed out. Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield.

Good data point, Mark. I too have beaten many Cayman/Boxster's in various classes but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are comparable cars given the same driver on the same track in the same car. I agree it is very much about the track, car setup and driver but don't think you can say that because the BRI has them indexed the same that they are equal in performance. Was the BRI index correct when last year a stock 993C4S was classed as an NP? Just because that same car is now classed as OSS does it now mean the BRI is correct? No on both accounts. Frankly, in my opinion the BRI is not created equal in how it indexes certain classes...it works for some classes but I think is way off in other classes. At the risk of shooting myself in the foot I will use myself as an example. At the last event I placed 35th in the BRI with an adjusted time of 1.32.62. The top BRI placers (Bill B., David M., Leigh R., Mark R. and Kim C.) had adjusted times about 5 seconds faster than mine. So.....if the BRI is accurate (and achieves its purpose of making it about driver skill) we would expect that any one of those drivers in the top BRI standing to be able to get in my car on that same track and after 12 or so laps beat my best time by 5 seconds. In addition, if the BRI is accurate we would expect me to get in any one of their cars and be about 5 seconds slower than they are...all because of driver skill, right? This is not a challenge by any means but who would bet on the BRI being right in this situation??? I would not and assuming there are some out there that agree with me then we must conclude the BRI, at least as far as my class is concerned, is not accurate.

Why do I bring this up? Simple. If the BRI that we use can be wrong in how it classes "O" cars compared to the handful of other cars in other classes in my above example, then it is entirely possible that the GGR system has also incorrectly classed similar "O" cars in their base points system. I don't put blind faith in the BRI nor would I do the same with the GGR system, two cars might look closely matched on paper but how they actually perform next to each other in the real world can be a different story all together.

[944Greg]

Otto mentioned our current adjustments through the BRI system.

This has been updated in recent history for AX but not for TT.

The zone 7 base points system would make it easy to adjust each cars model by adding or taking away base points vs. the BRI system for adjusting entire classes to change one car model.

It would be easy for a novice to understand how his/her car would be positioned vs. other models with the zone 7 base points system.

[Cajundaddy]

Ralph Linares has beaten a few Cayman S cars in his C4S when they were all grouped together in NSS (and the occasional Boxster S). His wife, Annette, was able to "chick" a few drivers in her very first AX in that C4S.

http://results.pcasdr.org/event_class_overall.php?event_date=2007-06-23&class_str=NSS&database=&time_format=0#64.15-51

The current BRI has the OSS and NSS cars indexed exactly the same. We already acknowledge that the cars are pretty close in performance. In AX, it really comes down to track, setup and driver. With drivers that are equal, one car or the other will have the advantage due to that car's inherent strengths or weaknesses and the way the track is layed out. Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield.

Good data point, Mark. I too have beaten many Cayman/Boxster's in various classes but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are comparable cars given the same driver on the same track in the same car. I agree it is very much about the track, car setup and driver but don't think you can say that because the BRI has them indexed the same that they are equal in performance. Was the BRI index correct when last year a stock 993C4S was classed as an NP? Just because that same car is now classed as OSS does it now mean the BRI is correct? No on both accounts. Frankly, in my opinion the BRI is not created equal in how it indexes certain classes...it works for some classes but I think is way off in other classes. At the risk of shooting myself in the foot I will use myself as an example. At the last event I placed 35th in the BRI with an adjusted time of 1.32.62. The top BRI placers (Bill B., David M., Leigh R., Mark R. and Kim C.) had adjusted times about 5 seconds faster than mine. So.....if the BRI is accurate (and achieves its purpose of making it about driver skill) we would expect that any one of those drivers in the top BRI standing to be able to get in my car on that same track and after 12 or so laps beat my best time by 5 seconds. In addition, if the BRI is accurate we would expect me to get in any one of their cars and be about 5 seconds slower than they are...all because of driver skill, right? This is not a challenge by any means but who would bet on the BRI being right in this situation??? I would not and assuming there are some out there that agree with me then we must conclude the BRI, at least as far as my class is concerned, is not accurate.

Why do I bring this up? Simple. If the BRI that we use can be wrong in how it classes "O" cars compared to the handful of other cars in other classes in my above example, then it is entirely possible that the GGR system has also incorrectly classed similar "O" cars in their base points system. I don't put blind faith in the BRI nor would I do the same with the GGR system, two cars might look closely matched on paper but how they actually perform next to each other in the real world can be a different story all together.

Yep, I will bet on the BRI. Putting a top driver behind the wheel in my car is always shocking. I could lay down a nice top 20 AX lap and hand the keys to Kim C or Mark R and watch them take 2 seconds off in just a few laps. I encourage any driver who feels their car is not competitive in BRI to take this real world test. You too may be shocked. If they cannot run significantly faster you have a tire/setup issue that may not optimized for your class.