btwyx

More proposals came out yesterday (or at least landed in my inbox).

It still didn't seem to address Showroom Stock and tire ratings. It did have some things about using the GGR's points based system. I'm not sure if they're introducing this as another class, replacing classes or what.

The proposal changes the points for tires. Currently 200+TW tires are zero points. The new proposal is for 101-201 to be 50 points (it used to be 101-199 was 25 points). The Michelin PSC2 was specifically nobbled and assigned 100 points.

Showroom stock PAX was stiffened considerably, they took the most points a particular SS0X car could have and used the PAX for that AXx class. That puts the SS05 up from 0.938 to 978 (or there abouts). This seems very reasonable as the SS05 PAX was ridiculously soft for my car (Cayman S, which probably belonged in SS09). At this rate it won't be worth looking at SSO5 for next year, and the tires will probably push my car from AX7 (700 points) to AX6 (750 points).

Another section of the rules was about disallowing affiliate members from running in non Porsche cars. At the one event I've been to, I did notice a large number of the usual suspects from the local AX scene running in their usual (non-Porsche) cars.

PedalFaster

Can you elaborate on this? I'd guesstimate that a quarter to a third of the participants at our local PCA events are running non-Porsche cars. Banning them would fundamentally change the events, and I imagine blow a pretty big hole in the revenue stream as well.

BGLeduc

Just to be clear, are you talking about the PCA Parade Competition Rules, or rules for your PCA region? If you are taking PAX and points, I would wager you are not talking about Parade Rules.

Disallowing non-Porsches in my region would be a complete non-starter. As PedalFaster suggested, many regions get a high percentage of entries from SCCA and other club's members.

btwyx

I'm a bit confused about that myself. It definitely looked like it was coming from national, but did seem to deal with local issues.

odb812

That email was regarding GGR region specific issues. It's a little confusing with the references to national rules.

This is a proposal for a regional change, we have a large number of PCA members and affiliate members here that participate in other makes as well. PCA has been the only group that uses the airfield in Alameda, which is the best site in the Bay Area, so they've been attracting a lot of other drivers.

Based on the number of Porsche drivers that show up, I think GGR would still be in good shape with revenue if they banned non-Porsche drivers. It would be a bummer, but there are plenty of other organizations that autocross here in the Bay Area that would welcome us non-Porsche drivers.

btwyx

The only problem is we're facing the possibility of losing the last two sites in the bay area, so having alameda as an alternative is very attractive to a lot of folks. The clubs may welcome them, but if there's nowhere to run it doesn't get you anywhere.

odb812

From what I've heard once PCA's current agreement for Alameda is up it will not be renewed. I think us autocrossers have a better chance with Marina than Alameda. It's unfortunate, because Alameda not only has a lot more space, but it's in a better location to get to and a pretty scenic spot for an autocross site.

Organizations are experimenting with different sites. TMR has been holding autocrosses in the Sonoma Raceway paddock and SpeedSF has started to do the same at Laguna Seca. Sure, it's less than ideal, but for most of us local events are just practice anyway.

f4 plt

I might agree with you except one, I was told that Yoko just changed their treadwear rating on the 808R tires from 140 to 200 with no change in the tire. Michelin Cup tires were rated at 80 and the cup 2 is rated at 200 is it just me that is confused.

Bottom line is manufacturers apply a treadwear rating that best fits their target market for the tire.

It would not surprise me when both PCA and SCCA adopt the new minimum ratings for the "stock" classes we will soon see most of the manufacturers quickly change the ratings of their performance tires to comply, without actually changing the tires themselves. Marketing, its all about marketing.

btwyx

Treadwear ratings can always be understated. They were designed to tell the consumer how long a tire would last (roughly). The rules allow the manufacturer to put a lower number (but not a higher number) on the tire. I'd guess no one thought a tire which wore out quicker would be a marketing advantage, until you get to racers noticing an inverse relationship between treadwear and performance.

Tires which got renumbered upwards must have been hardwearing all along and their previous numbers were marketing BS.

I don't see why the PSC2, with a totally different compound, should not have a 180 rating.