S2000 and base Boxster moved to A Stock for SCCA autocross
10-09-2004, 03:11 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
S2000 and base Boxster moved to A Stock for SCCA autocross
Ron Bauer is a member of the Solo Events Board, SCCA autocross's governing body:
http://www.sccaforums.com/ubb/ultima...p/topic/18/825
What this means for Porsche owners:
Steve
http://www.sccaforums.com/ubb/ultima...p/topic/18/825
What this means for Porsche owners:
- Boxster S owners suddenly have a lot more competition in the form of the S2000. General feeling is that the two cars are evenly matched, with the S2000 potentially having a slight advantage.
- Base Boxster owners are doomed, but they are a small constituency within the SCCA, so it's a case of making changes that benefit the most people and hurt the least.
- 968 owners now own what's potentially the car to have in the new B Stock.
- 944S2 and 951 owners' chances in B Stock just improved dramatically.
- 914 owners are still doomed -- see above comment about constituency sizes.
- 924 and early 944 owners will shuffle further down the E Stock totem pole, as the M1.5 Miata has been moved to ES, where many feel it will become the new car to have.
Steve
10-09-2004, 07:06 PM
#3
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
complete lunacy???
A stock GT3 should be in SS. A stock Turbo, Carrera, C4S should be in AS. In stock form, the Z06 is a better autocrosser.
Who can understand the lunatics making the rules? They have assigned the Lotus Elise to SS.
Next week, I will have the chance to watch Pat Salerno on a sport package Elise with SSR wheels and Hoosiers A3S04 and the Tri-State SCCA Championship.
You don't need a Science degree to realize that the Elise is a better autocrosser than the GT3/Z06.
A stock GT3 should be in SS. A stock Turbo, Carrera, C4S should be in AS. In stock form, the Z06 is a better autocrosser.
Who can understand the lunatics making the rules? They have assigned the Lotus Elise to SS.
Next week, I will have the chance to watch Pat Salerno on a sport package Elise with SSR wheels and Hoosiers A3S04 and the Tri-State SCCA Championship.
You don't need a Science degree to realize that the Elise is a better autocrosser than the GT3/Z06.
10-09-2004, 10:59 PM
#4
Pro
Thread Starter
Ok, time to trot out the same arguments that you ignored the last time you went on a rant about the GT3 in SS.
1. The GT3 is a $100k car, whereas the Z06 is a $55k car, and is available used for around $30k. Putting the GT3 in SS would risk tripling the price of admission for that class, and to what end?. The SAC / SEB just decided to move the BMW Z4 from BS to AS. It was far from clear that the Z4 would be the car to have in BS, but they moved it anyway, likely because it's a $45k car, whereas the rest of BS is composed of $25-$35k cars. Why does the GT3 deserve different treatment?
2. It apparently isn't obvious to the experienced members of the SAC and SEB that the GT3's slower than the Z06, and these two national champions are on the record as saying that the GT3's too fast for SS. Why should anyone believe you rather than them? Have you considered that it's you who might be responsible for your losses to Z06s, not your car?
Edit: Regarding the Elise: Randy Chase has already been testing his Sport Package Elise, and at last account, he has not yet been able to beat Jason Isley in his AS C4 Corvette, let alone run with Super Stock. It's not completely obvious that the Elise belongs in SS instead of AS, yet you're advocating putting the Elise in ASP and the GT3 in SS? Get a grip, man.
Steve
1. The GT3 is a $100k car, whereas the Z06 is a $55k car, and is available used for around $30k. Putting the GT3 in SS would risk tripling the price of admission for that class, and to what end?. The SAC / SEB just decided to move the BMW Z4 from BS to AS. It was far from clear that the Z4 would be the car to have in BS, but they moved it anyway, likely because it's a $45k car, whereas the rest of BS is composed of $25-$35k cars. Why does the GT3 deserve different treatment?
2. It apparently isn't obvious to the experienced members of the SAC and SEB that the GT3's slower than the Z06, and these two national champions are on the record as saying that the GT3's too fast for SS. Why should anyone believe you rather than them? Have you considered that it's you who might be responsible for your losses to Z06s, not your car?
Edit: Regarding the Elise: Randy Chase has already been testing his Sport Package Elise, and at last account, he has not yet been able to beat Jason Isley in his AS C4 Corvette, let alone run with Super Stock. It's not completely obvious that the Elise belongs in SS instead of AS, yet you're advocating putting the Elise in ASP and the GT3 in SS? Get a grip, man.
Steve
10-10-2004, 09:06 AM
#7
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Z-man
And all along I thought classification was based on car performance, not car price! 
-Z.
-Z.
PedalFaster, thanks for that link to the SCCA forums. I enjoyed reading about Cooper S'...
Seriously, I didn't really see those guys saying that the GT3 would be too fast, they were just whining that they cost too much.I think it is funny they would exclude an off the showroom floor car from stock classes. "The Porsche is too good so let's not let them compete." Hmm, well, I suppose various racing sanctions have been saying that and banning various Porsches for years. Too bad.
From a quick perusal of SCCA classes the other day I was horrified to see that they put my car ('94 Turbo) into the top stock class. They even included all 930s. Like the early turbo 911s are good autocrossers.
Hell, like my car is a good autocrosser! Well, now after this thread I see I can assume it is just the SCCA being classist with regards to car price. This despite the fact that a 930 might cost you $20-30k today.
Trending Topics
10-10-2004, 02:10 PM
#8
Pro
Thread Starter
I absolutely agree with the SCCA's classing rare, expensive, and poorly documented cars in higher classes in Stock, and to be honest, I think if you disagree, you're either missing the big picture, or you're just biased because you feel your car is being slighted.
Take three extreme cases:
Only one ever made - Nightmare scenario -- a national-level driver buys the one example ever made, demonstrates that it's clearly superior, and wins Nationals. Other drivers in his class want to get the car, but can't since there are no more available. Net result: the guy who has the car has a permanent, unfair advantage, not due to driving skill, but due to being first in line somewhere.
Million dollar car - Nightmare scenario -- a national-level driver buys an example, demonstrates that it's clearly superior, and wins Nationals. Other drivers in his class want to get the car, but can't since they can't afford it. Net result: the guys who can afford the car have a permanent, unfair advantage, not due to driving skill, but due to having a bigger checkbook.
Undocumented car - Nightmare scenario -- a national-level driver buys an example, shows up at races with all kinds of apparently illegal engine and suspension mods, demonstrates that it's clearly superior, and wins Nationals. Other drivers in his class get the car and put all kinds of arbitrary modifications on theirs; due to the lack of documentation, there is no way to verify what's legal and what's not. Net result: there's no way to ensure fair competition.
As I mentioned above, in all three cases, the SCCA would class the cars aggressively or exclude them altogether in order to protect fair competition. For better or for worse, many Porsches fall into either the rare car bucket and/or the expensive car bucket, and many older ones also fall into the undocumented car bucket. Classing cars aggressively or putting them on the Stock exclusion list is simply an attempt to ensure fair competition by preventing the size of one's pocketbook or one's ability to find and restore antique cars from playing an outsized role in one's autocross success. It isn't classist at all -- if one can afford a new GT3, one could easily afford a $5000 M1.5 Miata, which will likely be the car to have in ES next year. Likewise, you're also free to spend a bit extra and prep the car to Street Prepared or Street Mod 2 levels.
No one ever claimed that cars were classed purely on the basis of performance potential -- the coexistence of ES and FS with their nearly identical PAXs demonstrates that. Cars are classed with performance potential as a guideline, with maximizing participation numbers and fair competition as goals. Your claims of elitism and stupidity on the part of the people doing the classing screams of sour grapes and/or a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding car classing.
Really, I'm disappointed -- I thought some of you knew better.
Steve
Take three extreme cases:
- A car of which only a single example was ever made (extreme example of rare car scenario)
- A car which costs a million dollars (extreme example of expensive car scenario)
- A car which has no factory documentation whatsoever (extreme example of poorly documented car scenario)
Only one ever made - Nightmare scenario -- a national-level driver buys the one example ever made, demonstrates that it's clearly superior, and wins Nationals. Other drivers in his class want to get the car, but can't since there are no more available. Net result: the guy who has the car has a permanent, unfair advantage, not due to driving skill, but due to being first in line somewhere.
Million dollar car - Nightmare scenario -- a national-level driver buys an example, demonstrates that it's clearly superior, and wins Nationals. Other drivers in his class want to get the car, but can't since they can't afford it. Net result: the guys who can afford the car have a permanent, unfair advantage, not due to driving skill, but due to having a bigger checkbook.
Undocumented car - Nightmare scenario -- a national-level driver buys an example, shows up at races with all kinds of apparently illegal engine and suspension mods, demonstrates that it's clearly superior, and wins Nationals. Other drivers in his class get the car and put all kinds of arbitrary modifications on theirs; due to the lack of documentation, there is no way to verify what's legal and what's not. Net result: there's no way to ensure fair competition.
As I mentioned above, in all three cases, the SCCA would class the cars aggressively or exclude them altogether in order to protect fair competition. For better or for worse, many Porsches fall into either the rare car bucket and/or the expensive car bucket, and many older ones also fall into the undocumented car bucket. Classing cars aggressively or putting them on the Stock exclusion list is simply an attempt to ensure fair competition by preventing the size of one's pocketbook or one's ability to find and restore antique cars from playing an outsized role in one's autocross success. It isn't classist at all -- if one can afford a new GT3, one could easily afford a $5000 M1.5 Miata, which will likely be the car to have in ES next year. Likewise, you're also free to spend a bit extra and prep the car to Street Prepared or Street Mod 2 levels.
No one ever claimed that cars were classed purely on the basis of performance potential -- the coexistence of ES and FS with their nearly identical PAXs demonstrates that. Cars are classed with performance potential as a guideline, with maximizing participation numbers and fair competition as goals. Your claims of elitism and stupidity on the part of the people doing the classing screams of sour grapes and/or a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding car classing.
Really, I'm disappointed -- I thought some of you knew better.
Steve
10-10-2004, 05:59 PM
#9
Rennlist Member
Pedal Faster
No need to rant if people disagree with you. I have to agree that using price as a criteria for classing is WRONG. The GT3 has a production run of app. 750 cars so it is not an extreme case as you stated above. Yes it is a high performance car but why should the SCCA guarantee the Vette a class of its own. It is boring to watch only one model run in SS. Would you advocate moving the 993 to SS or ASP because it won the Pro-Solo national championship in AS beating the vette's.
Peter
No need to rant if people disagree with you. I have to agree that using price as a criteria for classing is WRONG. The GT3 has a production run of app. 750 cars so it is not an extreme case as you stated above. Yes it is a high performance car but why should the SCCA guarantee the Vette a class of its own. It is boring to watch only one model run in SS. Would you advocate moving the 993 to SS or ASP because it won the Pro-Solo national championship in AS beating the vette's.
Peter
10-10-2004, 06:23 PM
#10
Pro
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 85Gold
No need to rant if people disagree with you.
Originally Posted by 85Gold
The GT3 has a production run of app. 750 cars so it is not an extreme case as you stated above. Yes it is a high performance car but why should the SCCA guarantee the Vette a class of its own. It is boring to watch only one model run in SS. Would you advocate moving the 993 to SS or ASP because it won the Pro-Solo national championship in AS beating the vette's.
750 cars priced at $100k each qualifies as both extreme pricewise and extreme availability-wise in my mind. SS has the highest price of entry of any Stock class -- $52k for a new Z06, low- to mid-$30s for a used one. If it's your assertion that the difference between $30k and $100k is a trivial one and should be ignored, then I accept that, but disagree. Also, the Z06 had an essentially unlimited production run, whereas you say the GT3 was limited to 750 units. The rules explicitly say that cars with production runs under 1000 units per year are not eligible for Stock unless explicitly classed, so the GT3 would be getting an exception if it were placed there.
You may think SS is boring because you perceive it as a spec Vette class, but guess what? It's consistently among the largest classes at national-level events; people obviously like the spec class concept. Do you really think that, if the GT3 were put in SS and became the car to have, that hundreds of GT3 drivers would come out of the woodwork to make up for the exodus of Vette drivers? Also, if the Vette has a class of it's own, why was NJ-GT arguing a few posts ago that the Elise would kill SS? So which is it?
Regarding the 993 -- you're attacking a straw man argument that I never made. Why would anyone argue that the 993 be reclassed? It passes the availability test (it was made for three years in large quantities), it passes the cost test (used examples are available in the $30s), it passes the documentation test, and it passes the competitiveness test (it doesn't appear to be vastly faster than the rest of AS given that an example driven by a multi-time national champion only managed fourth at Nationals this year).
If you disagree with my thinking and that of the SCCA, fine, but I think it's weak that, instead of trying to rationally address any of the points I've made, people just pout and loudly declare that they've been wronged by the evil SCCA.
Steve
Last edited by PedalFaster; 10-10-2004 at 06:55 PM.
10-10-2004, 07:58 PM
#11
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by PedalFaster
I don't consider my response a rant -- I went to great lengths to describe in excessive detail the SAC and SEB's thinking. Conversely, most of the other people on this thread are just firing off snippy one-liners about "classist lunatics" while demonstrating via factual errors their unfamiliarity with the SCCA and its classing processes. If you'd prefer, I could start name-calling as well, but that wouldn't add anything to this discussion; I rather the people who disagree with me also explain their points of view.
Addressing each of these points in turn:
750 cars priced at $100k each qualifies as both extreme pricewise and extreme availability-wise in my mind. SS has the highest price of entry of any Stock class -- $52k for a new Z06, low- to mid-$30s for a used one. If it's your assertion that the difference between $30k and $100k is a trivial one and should be ignored, then I accept that, but disagree. Also, the Z06 had an essentially unlimited production run, whereas you say the GT3 was limited to 750 units. The rules explicitly say that cars with production runs under 1000 units per year are not eligible for Stock unless explicitly classed, so the GT3 would be getting an exception if it were placed there.
You may think SS is boring because you perceive it as a spec Vette class, but guess what? It's consistently among the largest classes at national-level events; people obviously like the spec class concept. Do you really think that, if the GT3 were put in SS and became the car to have, that hundreds of GT3 drivers would come out of the woodwork to make up for the exodus of Vette drivers? Also, if the Vette has a class of it's own, why was NJ-GT arguing a few posts ago that the Elise would kill SS? So which is it?
Regarding the 993 -- you're attacking a straw man argument that I never made. Why would anyone argue that the 993 be reclassed? It passes the availability test (it was made for three years in large quantities), it passes the cost test (used examples are available in the $30s), it passes the documentation test, and it passes the competitiveness test (it doesn't appear to be vastly faster than the rest of AS given that an example driven by a multi-time national champion only managed fourth at Nationals this year).
If you disagree with my thinking and that of the SCCA, fine, but I think it's weak that, instead of trying to rationally address any of the points I've made, people just pout and loudly declare that they've been wronged by the evil SCCA.
Steve
Addressing each of these points in turn:
750 cars priced at $100k each qualifies as both extreme pricewise and extreme availability-wise in my mind. SS has the highest price of entry of any Stock class -- $52k for a new Z06, low- to mid-$30s for a used one. If it's your assertion that the difference between $30k and $100k is a trivial one and should be ignored, then I accept that, but disagree. Also, the Z06 had an essentially unlimited production run, whereas you say the GT3 was limited to 750 units. The rules explicitly say that cars with production runs under 1000 units per year are not eligible for Stock unless explicitly classed, so the GT3 would be getting an exception if it were placed there.
You may think SS is boring because you perceive it as a spec Vette class, but guess what? It's consistently among the largest classes at national-level events; people obviously like the spec class concept. Do you really think that, if the GT3 were put in SS and became the car to have, that hundreds of GT3 drivers would come out of the woodwork to make up for the exodus of Vette drivers? Also, if the Vette has a class of it's own, why was NJ-GT arguing a few posts ago that the Elise would kill SS? So which is it?
Regarding the 993 -- you're attacking a straw man argument that I never made. Why would anyone argue that the 993 be reclassed? It passes the availability test (it was made for three years in large quantities), it passes the cost test (used examples are available in the $30s), it passes the documentation test, and it passes the competitiveness test (it doesn't appear to be vastly faster than the rest of AS given that an example driven by a multi-time national champion only managed fourth at Nationals this year).
If you disagree with my thinking and that of the SCCA, fine, but I think it's weak that, instead of trying to rationally address any of the points I've made, people just pout and loudly declare that they've been wronged by the evil SCCA.
Steve
I interpret your posts to suggest that cars are classed more by cost than by potential. I still think this is wrong. Why not just class cars by their potential?
If you read what I wrote more carefully you might see that I think they are ignoring the reality of some cars' performance and price.
I think I do know better, I am a past NNJR-PCA autocross chairmen, multiple FTD and season champion autocrosser. I talk with some credentials. They might not be vaunted SCCA credentials, but I do have some experience.
I'd love it if you could defend the 930 being in SS. It would seem it passes all the criteria that you think makes for a fair classing.
I'd also like you to explain how you think forcing a person to buy a 2nd dedicated autocross car ("one could easily afford a $5000 M1.5 Miata")
is a better system than letting a person run the car they already own. Not everyone is a national level autocrosser, some folks just want to enjoy the car they've already bought. I assume the SCCA wants to encourage beginners...
10-10-2004, 08:16 PM
#12
Instructor
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kerist, Steve, are you campaigning for a spot on the boad? 
During the "debate" over "fixing" the Prepared classes the following was proposed at one point for FP:
A .75 multiplier for SOHC engines........ .75 X displacment (CCs)= minimum weight
A .80 multiplier for DOHC (4 valve)
A .78 multiplier for rear and mid engines....HUH? Who was that aimed at?
They finally (I think) went with the .75 for SOHC & .78 for DOHC.
The Porsches are still allowed only one plug per cylinder which limits compression
to around 10.5-11.0:1 where as the liquid cooled motors can run what ever they got the guts for.....14-15:1. Pretty much keeps the BMWs....not cheep ones either... at the top of the heap in FP.
Deny it till the cows come home, but the SCCA don't like Porsches. AX or road race.They want you to come play (and I do)....and bring your money... but don't win....at least at the national level. They run a popularity contest for classing, pure and simple.
BTW: The 914/4 in CS (or CSP) is absurd. All the documentation (as to orginal equipment) is available for those cars.....unlesss you don't want to find it.
During the "debate" over "fixing" the Prepared classes the following was proposed at one point for FP:
A .75 multiplier for SOHC engines........ .75 X displacment (CCs)= minimum weight
A .80 multiplier for DOHC (4 valve)
A .78 multiplier for rear and mid engines....HUH? Who was that aimed at?
They finally (I think) went with the .75 for SOHC & .78 for DOHC.
The Porsches are still allowed only one plug per cylinder which limits compression
to around 10.5-11.0:1 where as the liquid cooled motors can run what ever they got the guts for.....14-15:1. Pretty much keeps the BMWs....not cheep ones either... at the top of the heap in FP.
Deny it till the cows come home, but the SCCA don't like Porsches. AX or road race.They want you to come play (and I do)....and bring your money... but don't win....at least at the national level. They run a popularity contest for classing, pure and simple.
BTW: The 914/4 in CS (or CSP) is absurd. All the documentation (as to orginal equipment) is available for those cars.....unlesss you don't want to find it.
10-10-2004, 09:52 PM
#13
Pro
Thread Starter
If I come across as defensive, it's because I perceive a number of people on this thread to be alleging conspiracy or malicious intent within the SCCA when it appears that they're not particularly knowledgeable about the SCCA, and have not made much effort to understand SCCA classing. I will always dispute accusations that people I personally know to be intelligent and unbiased are making arbitrary, or worse, deliberately incorrect decisions out of spite.
[...]
(I grant this last one does not actually contain the word "stupid", but what else is one supposed to infer from this sentence?)
Cars are classed primarily by potential, but that can be overridden if there are extenuating circumstances, such as extreme cost.
To answer your question: would you continue autocrossing if the car to have in your class cost three times what your car cost? Do you think SS participation numbers would remain what they are today if the cost to compete in the class tripled? Even if you answer yes, I would answer no, as I expect most others would as well.
Piece of cake. I'm not familiar with the 930's classing history, but here's what I bet happened:
The 930 came out years ago, and was one of the fastest cars of its time, so it was put in Super Stock where it belonged. As time passed, cars got faster, and so did Super Stock. Many cars were moved down the ranks, but the 930 remained in SS because (a) no one was asking for it to be moved, and (b) no one was running the car, so there was no harm in leaving it in SS.
Anyone who takes issue with this classification can write a letter to the SEB, which will then get referred to the SAC for consideration. I doubt anyone has ever written such a letter, and I've seen an SAC member explicitly say on another forum that they don't have the time to proactively reclass older cars for which there is no member demand. Why bother? Who would benefit from such a change?
So why is the 930 in SS? I'd bet it's neglect due to lack of interest, rather than any anti-Porsche conspiracy.
JP, you refer to this as a popularity contest, and although I think your wording has strong and incorrect negative connotations, popularity definitely plays a part. The SCCA is a for-profit corporation. It's in their best interests to make decisions which keep the largest number of paying members happy. That means making classing decisions which are more favorable to very popular cars like the Z06 than they are to very rare cars like the GT3.
Let's turn your words around: why do you think forcing someone running their $30k autocross car to upgrade to a $100k car to remain competitive is a better system than the current one? Far more Z06 owners would be "wronged" if the GT3 was put in SS than there are GT3 owners who are being "wronged" under the current classification.
Almost every classification decision will result in winners and losers. I don't see the benefit of favoring a monied minority which might hypothetically show up to events over the less-monied majority which is showing up for events.
Lastly, towards your point about national-level autocross -- these rules only matter at the national level. Local regions are free to invent whatever arbitrary rules they see fit. Also, at the local level variations in driver skill in the order of seconds almost always dwarf minor differences in car capability. I see Minis driven by national-level drivers beat Corvettes driven by inexperienced drivers all the time. Beginners aren't going to be screwed by the difference between ASP and SS -- it typically takes years before they're good enough for subtle inter-class distinctions to matter in their results.
I will deny it until the cows come home, because it contradicts what I've seen with my own eyes. As I mentioned previously, I know some of these guys personally, and they know, like, and run Porsches. One member of the SAC won AS at Nationals in his Boxster in 2001. Another was leading AS at Nationals after the first day last year in his Boxster S, and ended up finishing third. A third SAC member came in third in this year's Ft. Myers Tour in his Boxster S. One SEB member bought a Boxster S specifically for autocross earlier this year. They're hardly biased against Porsches.
There are also recent examples of classing decisions that clearly favored Porsches. The Boxster S was moved from SS to AS last year amidst howls of protest; many believed at the time that it would be an overdog in AS, although this no longer appears to be the case. The 968 is also a big winner in the BS->AS move that this thread describes -- it was the dominant car in AS before the S2000 came along, and now it may own BS again. Time will tell.
I perceive what you consider anti-Porsche bias to be acknowledgement of the fact that Porsches are usually much faster in real life than they appear on paper.
I agree with everyone on this thread on one thing -- I'm spending way too much time and effort arguing with you. You'll never change your minds, which is why the PCA and SCCA will forever remain separate entities -- I accept that. On that note, I will resolve not to post to this thread again until at least tomorrow.
Steve
Originally Posted by DrJupeman
Steve, I find it amusing that you are using quotes as if you are quoting me and others in this thread but we've never said what you claim to be quoting. [...] I don't believe anyone said "classist lunatics" and "stupidity"
Originally Posted by DrJupeman
Seriously, talk about a classist system.
Originally Posted by DrJupeman
it is just the SCCA being classist with regards to car price.
Originally Posted by NJ-GT
Who can understand the lunatics making the rules?
Originally Posted by NJ-GT
You don't need a Science degree to realize that the Elise is a better autocrosser than the GT3/Z06.
Originally Posted by DrJupeman
I interpret your posts to suggest that cars are classed more by cost than by potential. I still think this is wrong. Why not just class cars by their potential?
To answer your question: would you continue autocrossing if the car to have in your class cost three times what your car cost? Do you think SS participation numbers would remain what they are today if the cost to compete in the class tripled? Even if you answer yes, I would answer no, as I expect most others would as well.
Originally Posted by DrJupeman
I'd love it if you could defend the 930 being in SS. It would seem it passes all the criteria that you think makes for a fair classing.
The 930 came out years ago, and was one of the fastest cars of its time, so it was put in Super Stock where it belonged. As time passed, cars got faster, and so did Super Stock. Many cars were moved down the ranks, but the 930 remained in SS because (a) no one was asking for it to be moved, and (b) no one was running the car, so there was no harm in leaving it in SS.
Anyone who takes issue with this classification can write a letter to the SEB, which will then get referred to the SAC for consideration. I doubt anyone has ever written such a letter, and I've seen an SAC member explicitly say on another forum that they don't have the time to proactively reclass older cars for which there is no member demand. Why bother? Who would benefit from such a change?
So why is the 930 in SS? I'd bet it's neglect due to lack of interest, rather than any anti-Porsche conspiracy.
JP, you refer to this as a popularity contest, and although I think your wording has strong and incorrect negative connotations, popularity definitely plays a part. The SCCA is a for-profit corporation. It's in their best interests to make decisions which keep the largest number of paying members happy. That means making classing decisions which are more favorable to very popular cars like the Z06 than they are to very rare cars like the GT3.
Originally Posted by DrJupeman
I'd also like you to explain how you think forcing a person to buy a 2nd dedicated autocross car ("one could easily afford a $5000 M1.5 Miata") is a better system than letting a person run the car they already own. Not everyone is a national level autocrosser, some folks just want to enjoy the car they've already bought.
Almost every classification decision will result in winners and losers. I don't see the benefit of favoring a monied minority which might hypothetically show up to events over the less-monied majority which is showing up for events.
Lastly, towards your point about national-level autocross -- these rules only matter at the national level. Local regions are free to invent whatever arbitrary rules they see fit. Also, at the local level variations in driver skill in the order of seconds almost always dwarf minor differences in car capability. I see Minis driven by national-level drivers beat Corvettes driven by inexperienced drivers all the time. Beginners aren't going to be screwed by the difference between ASP and SS -- it typically takes years before they're good enough for subtle inter-class distinctions to matter in their results.
Originally Posted by J P Stein
Deny it till the cows come home, but the SCCA don't like Porsches. AX or road race.
There are also recent examples of classing decisions that clearly favored Porsches. The Boxster S was moved from SS to AS last year amidst howls of protest; many believed at the time that it would be an overdog in AS, although this no longer appears to be the case. The 968 is also a big winner in the BS->AS move that this thread describes -- it was the dominant car in AS before the S2000 came along, and now it may own BS again. Time will tell.
I perceive what you consider anti-Porsche bias to be acknowledgement of the fact that Porsches are usually much faster in real life than they appear on paper.
I agree with everyone on this thread on one thing -- I'm spending way too much time and effort arguing with you. You'll never change your minds, which is why the PCA and SCCA will forever remain separate entities -- I accept that. On that note, I will resolve not to post to this thread again until at least tomorrow.
Steve
10-11-2004, 02:54 PM
#14
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I feel that moving the Miata down to ES is ludacris. The Miatas have been competeing fairly well CS with the MR2 Spyders, yet now they decide to move them down with the underpowered miatas. That is absolutly crazy. Now 944 owners have even less of a chance in ES than we already did. Previously, the MR2s dominted ES and the miatas they moved down are quicker then them. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE??? Secondly, I personally feel that the Mini Cooper S should be moved to DS like they had originally talked about. They are dominating GS, and would be competitive DS with the WRX and SRT4 etc. That makes a lot more sense than moving the miatas down or the boxster and S2K up.
10-11-2004, 05:17 PM
#15
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
[Who can understand the lunatics making the rules?]
I present my apologies to the people making the rules and the ones offended by such statement. I wanted to mention that in my opinion a Lotus Elise in SS is a crazy idea, when the 996Turbo, 996GT3, 996GT2 are excluded from SS. However, a final decision has not been made with the Elise.
I was reading the SCCA forum, and the good opinions on National autocrossers about the GT3.
I test drove a Z06 for a full day last year, and I decided not to buy the car. However, I consider that car a better autocrosser than a GT3, why?
Explanation on why a Z06 is a better autocrosser than a GT3:
- The weight is practically the same on both cars. The Porsche quote on 3042lbs is for the European GT3 with the lightweight seats, no A/C and PCCB. Weight figue for a GT3 with A/C and steel brakes is 3152lbs. If you go for the PCCB then it comes down to 3107lbs (and $8150 extra on the sticker). European Seats are not legal on stock classes.
- Torque is massive in the Z06 and not available in the GT3 until you hit 5000rpm. From 0-6000rpm there is practically no difference between a GT3 and a Carrera 3.6 with 320Hp, with a small advantadge on the Carrera. At 53mph the Z06 produces 400lb-ft of torque in second gear, a GT3 produces just 280lb-ft of torque in second gear at 53mph with the peak at 285lb-ft at 50mph in second gear. The torque on the GT3 falls to 270lb-ft at 6000rpm.
- Transmission in the Z06 is shorter. The GT3 redlines in 1st gear at 46mph and 2nd gear at 83mph. The car is way bellow the power band in autocrosses due to the long gearing in second gear.
- You can fit 275f/305r Hoosiers in a stock Z06. Don't try to do that with a 996 (GT3, GT2, Carrera, Turbo, etc) using stock wheels. The ASP Z06 are running 305f and 315r Hoosiers.
- Brake performance is better on the GT3. However, the Z06 doesn't suffer from brakes in autocross, you can always apply full brakes (if desired) and invoke the ABS in the Z06 at any given autocross. I don't think that will be a good autocross technique.
- Weight distribution in the Z06 is 51f/49r. The GT3 is 34f/66r.
Regarding the price. Well, I doubt that a $300k Maybach/Bentley Arnage/Rolls Royce/Ferrari 575 will be very competitive in SS.
I present my apologies to the people making the rules and the ones offended by such statement. I wanted to mention that in my opinion a Lotus Elise in SS is a crazy idea, when the 996Turbo, 996GT3, 996GT2 are excluded from SS. However, a final decision has not been made with the Elise.
I was reading the SCCA forum, and the good opinions on National autocrossers about the GT3.
I test drove a Z06 for a full day last year, and I decided not to buy the car. However, I consider that car a better autocrosser than a GT3, why?
Explanation on why a Z06 is a better autocrosser than a GT3:
- The weight is practically the same on both cars. The Porsche quote on 3042lbs is for the European GT3 with the lightweight seats, no A/C and PCCB. Weight figue for a GT3 with A/C and steel brakes is 3152lbs. If you go for the PCCB then it comes down to 3107lbs (and $8150 extra on the sticker). European Seats are not legal on stock classes.
- Torque is massive in the Z06 and not available in the GT3 until you hit 5000rpm. From 0-6000rpm there is practically no difference between a GT3 and a Carrera 3.6 with 320Hp, with a small advantadge on the Carrera. At 53mph the Z06 produces 400lb-ft of torque in second gear, a GT3 produces just 280lb-ft of torque in second gear at 53mph with the peak at 285lb-ft at 50mph in second gear. The torque on the GT3 falls to 270lb-ft at 6000rpm.
- Transmission in the Z06 is shorter. The GT3 redlines in 1st gear at 46mph and 2nd gear at 83mph. The car is way bellow the power band in autocrosses due to the long gearing in second gear.
- You can fit 275f/305r Hoosiers in a stock Z06. Don't try to do that with a 996 (GT3, GT2, Carrera, Turbo, etc) using stock wheels. The ASP Z06 are running 305f and 315r Hoosiers.
- Brake performance is better on the GT3. However, the Z06 doesn't suffer from brakes in autocross, you can always apply full brakes (if desired) and invoke the ABS in the Z06 at any given autocross. I don't think that will be a good autocross technique.
- Weight distribution in the Z06 is 51f/49r. The GT3 is 34f/66r.
Regarding the price. Well, I doubt that a $300k Maybach/Bentley Arnage/Rolls Royce/Ferrari 575 will be very competitive in SS.