Zone 8 Rules for 2011

[tb911]

The second review period for the Zone 8 Rules proposals for 2011 has begun!

On this web page http://zone8.pca.org/rules_prop.php you will find the second round of proposals (prepared by the Zone 8 rules committee and based on your proposals) for your review and comment.

There are three proposals, and they all warrant your attention and I await your comments on them.
Please send your comments to me at: tb911@tbsoftware.net

Item # 3 may be of particular interest, as this one does suggest that we adopt a GGR style classification system, to be run side-by-side with the current classes next year (and you thought we had too many classes now!) and then to replace them in 2012.
However, I was not the only one on the rules committee to suggest that we use our current points scheme rather than GGR’s. So you will see a lot of the proposal looks familiar. Some things have changed, to better fit the new style of classification. Please read the proposal carefully or you may mis-classify your car.

We really do need you to give us some feedback. In particular, for two things:
1) The tire reference size of “205.” Greg Philips came up with this number. But is it correct? Let us know what you think, and why!
2) The point levels where safety equipment is required. These levels are based on modification points only, not total points. But are they where they should be? Our goal is to not force safety equipment on anybody that doesn’t already require it today. The change in classification scheme shouldn’t change your safety equipment requirements.

To help us answer these two questions, please do the points on your cars and send me this info: Points under the current rules and base points and modification points under this proposal, broken down so that I can see how many are from tire width and how many are from other things.

I didn’t have too much luck getting feedback last time I asked for it. Hopefully this time will be better.

Finally, Tom Tweed, if you want to propose a new update/backdate rule to fit this scheme, now is the time.

Thanks!

[Greg Phillips]

Actually, the revised proposal seems better than I thought it would come out as a hybrid edition.

Main complaint is that it does not address one of the over-rated modifications for non-stock gears or ring & pinion. The 6 or now 60 points is out of proportion to the benefit, I think it should be similar to the performance gain from limited slip which is 20 points. The points assessed should be 20

Weight is the other issue. Our present system is simple in concept but difficult in measurement. You need scales and then have to add back in the factory tools, spare tire, etc. (which are long gone in most of the track cars). Better to have a listed curb weight for each model and include the spare, tools, gas etc in the free 50 pounds. You could also have a designated allowance of 25 pounds (another number from the air ) for spare and tools etc. You are also allowed to top off fluids, mainly gas but could include other fluids which is another enforcement factor.

Enforcement is the difficulty with this system. Better would be to have a weight as you come off the track and use that for to compare to the listed curb or designated weights (PCA Club race weights?) for your weight points. Would probably take some adjustment but would make it much simpler to follow (and enforce) the rules.
You might also consider making the points for weight more linear rather than in 40 point increments. Something like 0.4 points for each pound under the designated weight.

Greg

[Don Middleton]

...Main complaint is that it does not address one of the over-rated modifications for non-stock gears or ring & pinion. The 6 or now 60 points is out of proportion to the benefit, I think it should be similar to the performance gain from limited slip which is 20 points. The points assessed should be 20

Weight is the other issue...

Completely agree on the non-stock gears or ring & pinion. Needs to be more like 20-30 points.

And, there has to be a better way to handle weight. But, the issue is so difficult, maybe there isn't?

[ttweed]

I like this hybrid version better than the GGR rules, Tom. Thanks for your work on it.

I agree with both Greg and Don's concerns on weight and gearing, but with a different slant. I think the rule should not be "non-stock" gears or R&P for two reasons. First of all, if you installed Guard gears or other aftermarket R&P, even if the same ratios, you could technically be subject to penalty, since they are "non-stock" (if OEM is the definition of stock). Secondly, I have always thought the rule should only penalize "short" or lower gearing than stock. It is not an advantage to have higher gearing, since low gears multiply available torque to increase acceleration, and the opposite is also true. Putting in higher gears than stock actually slows the car down, and should not be penalized. Obtaining a higher top speed by raising gear ratios is not necessary or useful for most of our cars or venues, and I don't know anyone who has intentionally done that. I do know that many people with early cars have ended up replacing the less robust mag case, 7:31 R&P transaxles with later aluminum cased 8:31 trannies, and they are subject to penalty under a strict interpretation of this rule even though their cars are slower as a result.

As far as the weight issue, I think our method is fine except it could use some more "granularity" under this new system, as Greg suggests. Points might be 0 for the first 50 lbs. under stock, as we currently have, and then 10 pts for each 25 lb. increment, instead of 100 lb. increments adding 40. This is equivalent to the proposal, but with finer increments. I think .4 pts/lb. is a little too fine a gradation, considering the margins of error involved. It is not too difficult or expensive to fill your tank and drive across the scales at a recycling or moving and storage facility with the spare and tools in place to get a baseline curb weight from which to calculate your penalty, but I wouldn't trust those scales to be more accurate than +/- 20 lbs. or so.

I have also advocated in the past for using a weight "with driver" and a point deduction for being overweight, but I guess that's too much to ask at this point....

TT

[tb911]

Only two more weeks to send me any feedback!

[richard]

If Tom gets his wish to encourage "heavy weights" then I want a points reduction for age. I suggest one point reduction for every 5 years over 55!

[ttweed]

If Tom gets his wish to encourage "heavy weights" then I want a points reduction for age. I suggest one point reduction for every 5 years over 55!

I'm down widdat! And don't forget the added point for every year under 30, Richard. And 10 extra points for anyone with the intials "E.K."

TT

[Mmagus]

I sent this to Tom as well but thought I would post it here for discussion. I may be way off base and know you all will slap me into line if I am. A thought on section:

Modifications Points, Section P.
Non-Stock Sway Bars are broken down into:
Factory 10
Aftermarket. 20

My car has 26.8mm Front sway and 18mm rear, a factory option on some 944's, but not the 924S so I took 20 points. However for that same 20 points, if I were willing (or able) to
spend $900 or so I could install Weltmeister or Tarret 28mm and 22mm Adjustable sway bars and gain a substantial gain in handling via adjustments, plus the ability to tighten or loosen it depending on the track of the day if I choose. It seems to me that this adjustability should incur further points. (10pts?) Or, perhaps 10 points for ANY factory bar applied rather than just an option for that specific car. Then ANY aftermarket (any "non-Porsche" brand) bar at 20.