racing916

I would love to see a rule change allowing GT classed cars be classed on HP/Weight ratio rather then PCA's formula. Hopefully it would level the playing field, a little.

jrgordonsenior

+1 but don't hold your breath. The powers that be seem to think their formula works. I wrote in suggesting placing the 993 RSR's in a GTA classification since they're the only Porsche factory built race car allowed in the GT classes (GT3). All the other Cups and R, RS, or RSR's are in GTC or GTA classes. One ran at Rennsport last summer and was 2nd. in Group 7 posting faster laps than the GTC5 cups....

mglobe

My class, SP996 allows removal of the passenger seat, but I chose to keep one in the car. First of all because I instruct with the car, and use the seat to take students for rides, which I find one of the most useful teaching tools. Furthermore, the seat provides ballast on the right side of the car, without using up any of the allowed ballast limit.

samluke

I liked the original purity of stock, ie AC full interior etc. It was fairly easy to take a street car and race it, which I did for a number of years, including driving to and from work with passengers. Prepping a car for stock was affordable.

Then there was the move to eliminate AC condensers, then AC and heating all together. Then a gutted interior. Remote reservoir shocks, camber plates etc etc.

A competetive "Stock" car is now far from the car that left the factory. The best ones are bare shell, all sound deadening removed, and possibly acid dipped cars. The bare minimum of equipment and wiring installed. Trick/expensive suspensions and custom exhaust and wheels, optimal engine setup/parameters, and ballest added to get within weight. Sounds like a GT build to me.

There is not so much difference between stock and GT now days other than "stock" power, tires and weight.

I would like to see a long lasting, low cost spec tire for stock classes. At my last race I got 70 race minutes out of a brand new set of Hoosiers. Its becoming way too expensive on tires, but necessary to run competitively.

I know it won't happen, but I would vote for a return to a true showroom stock class with a minimum wear value on tires (like Chumps), then have the spec classes for an intermediate semi prepped race cars and spec tires, then GT for all out cars.

racing916

It would be great if they did it, I think it would tighten up the fields, and bring down costs to drivers, at least the ones that can't afford a trick motor, just something reliable with decent power. If they followed NASA's format you could know that if you switched back and forth you have a chance of being competitive. My Car is a GT4 in PCA and would be a GTS3 in NASA. Based on lap times I would be near the front in NASA and am at the back in PCA. HP/Weight formula takes some of the $$ out of a win and puts more of it back into driver skill. I am not trying to harp on PCA, I race there because I like the people and the cars, I would just like to see the playing field leveled out.

racing916

+1 There is nothing stock about stock cars, and don't get me started on prepared cars.

Horus2000

This is one of the reasons that I'm moving to SP996. I feel that to be competitive (beyond being a better driver) in E class in TX that I need to keep pouring $ into the car. And it's still at a disadvantage based on the current class setup. At least in SP996 I feel like there's a ceiling to this thing.

M758

I have a passenger's seat in my 944 spec as well. For many of the reasons you mentioned. I do like that fact that I can choose what works best for me.

M758

Years ago I pushed for interior removal in stock classes. Mostly as a "preppared" mod. Why? Because there was not place to race cheap build car. By cheap build I mean one where you make the car faster by reducing weight rather than spending money. Pulling 300lbs of wasted interior out of an old car is pretty cheap. Howeve in the day they put you righ in GT where back then that forced you into a highly prepped motor, fiberglass body work and really high dollar suspensions.

Of coruse even when stock required full interiors they were far from stock as they had very expensive trick suspensions and big wide tires.

One thing I really love of 944 spec prep is that it is all budget based. Most performance for the least money. Of course we hav been able to get 944 spec recognized in PCA, but some of the core issues remain. To me the NASA Performance Touring System despute being complex works well. Points for mods and you get to choose to either put in high dollar suspension and keep the interior or do a more basic suspension and ditch the interior.

What works for 20-30 year old junkyard race car will not work for 5 year weekend driver/race car.

Chris M.

So come up with a well thought out proposal and submit it, including enforcement, ie provisions for dynos at the track. This is a reason that's been cited in the past as a stumbling block towards a hp/wt system. I agree that being competitive in the current system requires serious spending but talking about it here does nothing.

racing916

Chris,

I agree with your comments. I am currently putting something together to submit. I posted my thoughts hoping others would feel the same way and submit a request for a change as well.

NaroEscape

Agreed.

As am I.

ninjabones

Amen to that... would love to see this in PCA. Agreed, that the chances are slim, but perhaps a test class for one year would spark interest. I, personally, know of a lot of cars well suited for NASA GTS that would love a class based on HP/weight in PCA

My proposal for 2013 would be to start with three GT sub-classes (GT5Sx, GT4Sx, and GT3Sx). All of the same rules would apply to three respective classes PCA GT classes; however, the minimum weight and class will be based on actual rather than theoretical horsepower calculations.

Here’s the way it would work:

All eligible cars (as stipulated in the PCA rule book as pertains to GT5S, GT4S, and GT3S) will be classed on a power to weight ratio. A vehicle's classification and minimum allowable weight (as the car would exit the track with the driver) will be determined by multiplying the appropriate class weight ratios by the vehicle's power. "Power," as used here, will be determined from a minimum of three consecutive dyno pulls, and shall be defined as:

a) the horsepower value (WHP) from the single run with the highest horsepower reading (for cars with higher horsepower than torque);

Weight with driver / WHP

or,

b) the average of horsepower (WHP) and torque (WTQ) from the single run with the highest average of those values (for cars with higher torque than
horsepower).

Weight with driver / ((WHP + WTQ) * 0.5)

The following table shall be used to determine each car’s class based on the calculations determined using the above methods.

Class / Minimum ratio for D.O.T approved tires / Minimum ratio for non-D.O.T. approved tires

GT5Sx / 14.5 / 16 (similar to NASA GTS2)
GT4Sx / 11.0 / 12 (similar to NASA GTS3)
GT3Sx / 8.5 / 9 (similar to NASA GTS4)



All cars would be required to have a dyno run annually at an approved facility, under standard conditions (similar to NASA GTS requirements). Specific rules about challenges, impound, etc could be worked out later.

I don't think this would negatively impact PCA in any way... we already have a bunch of GT cars that run basically for overall position (as they didn't want to invest in an overstressed GT-class winning engine). We'd still run in the same field, in the same run group, and be gridded by lap time, but now we'd actually have a chance to run for a class win with a much more even playing field.


Now in terms of the fear about costs of dyno pulls, we could adopt similar rules to what NASA Northeast has done this season (very strict dyno certification requirements and documentation yearly, random compliance checks with black-boxes in front-running cars, and no need for actual dynos at the track). It would require a minimum investment of perhaps three or four data-loggers and a volunteer to analyze/interpret the results.

I know that the whole dyno-HP/weight issue will start another debate about how easy it is to cheat and how hard it is to enforce this type of race classification... but in my opinion there is no doubt that even with these limitations and defensible arguments, these rules create a much more level playing field than what is presently available in any of the non-spec PCA race classes. In truth, I think the black box concept would be a great way to police the stock, prepared and so-called spec classes as well.

Why not test the concept out for a season and see what happens…. All that will be required is an annual dyno pull at a certified/authorized shop, purchase of some black boxes, volunteers to assist with compliance checks, and then re-evaluate at the end of the season to see how it played out. Worst case is that it flops, and we go back to the currently existing structure.

racing916

I like your proposal Glen. I was thinking during large race weekends (Watkins, Sebring, Etc..) a dyno could be on hand for testing and policing classes. The black box seems like a better option and much cheaper. NASA only uses the dyno jet? I see there is tons of places that do dyno jet tests. Www.dynojet.com

MJR911

LESS classes, condense, not MORE.