Doug007

How about a rule that proposed changes with a petition (paper or electronic) supported by a certain number of PCA racers is automatically accepted for consideration.

Right now, unless you are on the PCA club racing committee, you don't get a vote.

Bryan_H

I got called here for another reason and saw this.

I would note that this poster is not and never has been a PCA racer. He has a thing for PCA Club Racing. He is on other forums doing the same.

How many guys who write negatively about PCA rules are not PCA Club Racing participants and do not even own a Porsche race car but do participate with other organizations? There is a word for that but I cant remember what it is.

Doug007

What exactly is the problem?

I assume that means you don't like my suggestions? Or are am I wrong in my statement somehow? I only know as much as I have seen at PCA races and can read in the rules so I'd be happy to be corrected if this stuff isn't written down.

I crew for about five guys and attend about four PCA races a year. I can't afford to race a porsche yet. The beauty of the internet is, even if I am not an officially sanctioned PCA Rules Commenter (tm), I can still type stuff for PCA racers to see and think about. Amazing stuff!

KaiB

Why on earth do you want to continue to add weight to GT cars?

Ain't nothing "fair" about GT, run what you brung. At our level, driver variances make by far the largest difference anyway.

mklaskin

Dave,

Can you shed a little light on the Sabelt slider rule?

Thanks,
MK

FredC

Don't you think that racing in a bigger field makes more sense Streak? Get that E car back and all will be good.

Streak, the other option is to go show them Texans how it's done... Long tow, but probably worth it.

NaroEscape

agreed
I've been saying for years...in GT, you can do A LOT to your car - almost anything really within displacement/weight formula, but the tire you use is what defines you? If someone argues that "your slicks are faster than my DOT's", then I could argue "well, your sequential gearbox is faster than my H pattern" or "well, your car has more hp/liter than mine, so it should be penalized" or....

Run what you brung (still think should be a HP/L ratio, but that's an argument for another day) fit it into the formula, and have at it... Talent on DOT will always win over no-talent on slicks. (I should know, I'm in the latter group!)

sleder

Totally agree all races should be for points. Stock class cars should not be able to upgrade to a non stock ABS unit that didnt come with the vehicle when purchased.

Juan Lopez

I do not know how the internal mechanics of the process work. All I know is that they provide an avenue for us to make suggestions; so let's make them!

I can see us not having a vote (since we are not part of the committee) but, that does not mean that our suggestions are not considered.

Come on guys, they are racers and enthusiasts of the marque like the rest of us and if we raise valid points and constructive criticism, I'm sure that our views will be debated and considered. It is the same on most racing or professional organizations.

flatsics

Agree with both.



I am going to propose that factory available PCCB brakes and PCCB hybrid brake systems are not legal for stock class cars. This should be a prepared change as are all other brake upgrades.

I know this will upset some people that have invested in the PCCB hybrid brake set ups.
IMO this needs to be changed before too many people have them installed, so that you can't go back...like adjustable shocks.

What are PCCB hybrid brakes?
It is the use of PCCB calipers with steel rotors. It also includes the use of PCCB uprights and master cylinder.


There is a reason that upgraded brakes move a car up to prepared class.
It a performance advantage, like other performance options that bump a car up one class. An example of this is X51 engine option.

This is the section in the PCA rule book regarding brakes on stock class cars:

"4. Brakes

A. Brake pad material is free. Insulating and radiating plates may be installed between pad and piston.
B. Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle. 911s which came with the aluminum S caliper may substitute the iron A caliper for pre-1984 911s. Caliper pistons of alternate material are allowed.
C. Grooving/slotting/cross drilling of rotors is allowed.
D. Ducting of air to brakes is allowed. Blower motors may be installed to pump air to brakes. Water may not be used to cool brakes.
E. Removal of dust shields (backing plates) is allowed. Openings in hubs may be blocked.
F. Brake fluid is free.
G. Master Cylinders must be as supplied by the factory, except that early production cars may update to a tandem master cylinder to provide the safety of a dual circuit system. Adjustable brake bias may not be added to cars not originally equipped with it.
H. Rubber brake lines may be replaced with stainless steel braid covered lines.
I. 914s may use aftermarket rear brake bias adjusters and relocate them to more convenient position for bleeding as long as they cannot be adjusted by the driver while driving."


I'm guessing that this is the section that is used to justify that PCCB hybrid brakes are legal.

"B. Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle. 911s which came with the aluminum S caliper may substitute the iron A caliper for pre-1984 911s. Caliper pistons of alternate material are allowed."

Going strictly by the wording of the rule, you have to use the rotors that were available for the type of car you are racing.

The rule uses the word "type". That should be changed to model.

Type is not the correct word, or all 911's could use turbo brake set ups as they are the same "type" of vehicle.

What is currently being done is to use PCCB calipers with rotors that were not available as an option for the vehicles they are being used on.

For example: PCCB calipers with 997 turbo rotors on a base 997 or Cayman S.

PCCB calipers are essentially the same as the brake calipers used on Porsche Cup cars, with slight differences. This is a substantial advantage in stock classes for cars with the available PCCB brake option, racing against cars that never had PCCB brakes as an available option.

NaroEscape

I can tell you that suggestions are heard. I don't want to speak out of turn since people way more in the know than me do post on here, but keep in mind, with over 3000 registered PCA racers, the 'vocal' group on Rennlist is actually a very small percentage of the racers as a whole.

For example: most people on here that post about GT classes thought we should do away with the R and S designations. But surprisingly, it was almost 50/50 split of people for and against it that submitted to Walt.

but...the more people that submit suggestions on specific topics, the better chance it has of being considered. Many, many of the rules changes through the years have come from racer suggestions. If the suggestions are well thought out, with and valid argument for the change, and enough people back it, it just may well be changed.

And remember, most on the committee are racers anyway.
Having said all that...I have no explanation for the passengers seat rule....nothing...

coryf

It is definitely difficult evening out such a vast difference in year model cars in the same class. That is a problem with power to weight grouping. It doesn't take into consideration tire size, brake size, gear ratio's ect… Maybe suggest every car in the class can upgrade to the max size that any other car in the class has as an option? So a G class 964 rs america can go to the same rotor size as a "g" class boxster s with pccb. Another argument though is that this is the advantage of having a car with the pccb option and cars like the 964 has a hp advantage with the allowed open exhaust rule. The 964 and 993 power difference (245 vs 275+) was primarily in the exhaust so you get a large hp increase with the legal open exhaust rule.

A possible mistake I believe in G class is the 07 boxster S. It should be grouped with the 08 since it has the same 3.4l engine. I think the 05-06 was 3.2 and the 07-08 was 3.4?

flatsics

Cory, I agree that it difficult to fairly class every Porsche because of all the variables involved.
PCCB brakes in stock class do not make sense to me if it is a "free upgrade".
Most other major performance options are a one class bump. The PDK caries a weight penalty.

A 997/987 that installs turbo calipers and rotors is bumped to I class, but a PCCB hybrid set up is legal....does that make sense?

The other part of this is, there are zero guidelines in the rules presently on what parts must be used for this upgrade. What rotors are legal to use? Why is a turbo rotor legal,but not gt3 cup rotor? Neither rotor was available on a 997/987.

I agree that an alternative would be to make brakes "free" in classes where PCCB's are legal. Really seems the only fair thing if it is continued to be allowed.

Maybe we need to designate that only H or I class and above can use the PCCB brakes or brakes are free in a certain class and above?

Personally I think it should be I class if that was the best way to do it.


Funny you mention the 2007 Boxste S in G class, you are correct it is classed wrong. I have been working on that for a few days.

Starting in 2007 the Cayman/Boxster and Cayman S/Boxster S both have the same engines. So the 2007 Boxster S has the same 3.4 as the Cayman S.

http://press.porsche.com/vehicles/07...ox_S_specs.pdf

Streak

FRED! The only thing going to E accomplishes is more points for you! Don't think I don't know what you're up to

Astroman

Hey, 930 brakes were offered on the E class "turbo-look" (option M491) Carrera. The 930 calipers are the same "type" as my go-kart calipers. Rotors are evidently "free." I guess I should switch!