ninjabones

Okay... i see a lot of valid arguments on both sides. It would suck to have built a car to the top of current GT class standards and then have everything change. At the same time, it sure would be nice to have better parity in the GT classes without having to spend >$40,000 on a grenade engine. I guess, I'll just keep running in NASA for the juice and PCA for fun. Perhaps one day (when old faithful finally kicks the bucket and it's time to rebuild), I'll take my medicine and have Peter Dawe build me an engine that can compete in both series.

M758

JR you are just too fast!

BTW... The onboard GPS would be nice if it worked. I am not confident that the systems have right now do that.

M758

It is alot better than what it used to be. When I did my first PCA race in 2002 my 944 spec was in GT4S. So I had 130 whp at 2600lbs with driver on 225 width toyos. The typical 4S car at the time had 300 hp motor at 2000-2100lbs. Fat hoosiers and trick suspension. Talk about being out gunned!!

Of course the reason for this was getting tossed from stock due to the weight reducton and interior removal. So when PCA moved to this formula at least it helps cars like mine where getting 300 hp from a 2.5L 944 motor is just not going to happen.

hp18racer

Here's mine for this year.

(1) GT Class: Allow non-porsche motors, class automatically GT1.

The LS1 in a 944 is a popular setup as a great combination of
power and reliability. Many of these are getting
built and raced, just not in PCA.


(2) GT and Stock Classes
Base class assignment assumes DOT R tires.
Race Slicks move one class faster
Tires with tread UTQG >= 80 move one class slower

Drivers that run RA-1's or NT-01's could cut their tire costs
by a factor of four vs Hoosiers.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that would race more if tires
were cheaper.

samluke

I put my changes suggestions in.

Spec tires for stock classes or min tread wear. I too am getting tired of the Hoosier costs and the ridiculously short life. I am with Ron, I too would rather have more track time. I now rarely do Friday test and Tune, to preserve valuable race rubber. At the last Club Race at Heartland, some competitors only ran the two points races of the 4 races in total, to limit tire wear. Makes no sense prepping, then travelling long distances and not wanting to go on track. Something has to change.

I also put in for no engine adjustments for stock cars, ie no cam, ignition, fuel pressure or boost, or trick headers.

I was also considering requesting reclsssification or adding weight to 911 Euro's in E stock, to try and even up the competition!

Astroman

Tire costs are significant but obviously there is no rule that says you have to run the expensive tires. Last year I proposed making the soft A6 illegal and it was rejected. So I suspect your proposal will go over even less well.

The rules committee is not going to go backwards and make people remove expensive things like headers (which is understandable). It's the reason we're stuck with the inexcusable remote reservoir shocks in Stock classes.

tomburdge

Perhaps I should know the answer to this but I don't...so would someone please tell me who is on the "Rules Committee" and are there any competitiors ,even in an advisory (non-voting) capacity?
Tom B.

Horus2000

+1
When E class cars (several) are running as fast or faster laps than the fastest H class cars it might be time to reconsider classifications and/or weights. (And definitely driving lessons for me....)

Vampire

The PCA website has lots of information.

Info on rules changes can be found in the rule book on Page 35

Most of the CR Officials have or are currently racing.

John H

That's what I did. It was fun while it lasted. Ended up selling the motor and throwing the car in for free.

The HP to Weight argument has been around since at least 2006/2007. I was screwed trying to run a 993 in G and in GTS3 where I was so frustrated I went out and bought the aforementioned GT car that fell perfectly into both GT4S and GTS4 (with 60 lbs of ballast). Like I said, it was awesome while it lasted. But as they say, all good things must come to an end, especially since I have a NASA budget, not a PCA budget. So the GT car went bye-bye.

FrankyV

Not sure the car is the biggest factor here as I am bringing up the rear with this set up. The drivers dominating E with this set up would likely be dominant in any other class and have been in some cases. Jim B in spec box and Fred C in D are two examples.

Astroman

Yes, and Mark H in GTC3.

The Euro SC is "the" dominant car to have in E class... no doubt about it. But it doesn't help that the dominant racers drive them as well. It's a double whammy. Jim, Fred, and Mark could probably still win E class in an '85 928. We're all screwed.

FWIW, I think if PCA started to enforce the rev limit "rule" on the SCs (USA and Euro), that would take some of the advantage away from those cars.

Chris M.

I doubt it would slow them down much, especially when running the 225/50 tire, but they should require the 7000rpm rotor to be used. It has a different shape than the "no limit" rotor and can be visually inspected for compliance in less than 10 seconds.

Jim Child

No kidding. I've seen dyno sheets for some of those Euro SC's, and they're putting out about the same RWHP as my car, whch has all of the legal mods. Yet they get to run at 2,702 lbs, and I have to run at 3,236 lbs. It makes no sense at all that the Euro SC's run in E class with those numbers.