scca stock class becoming street class!
10-25-2013, 11:42 AM
#211
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any event, also be thankful that OZ makes some reasonably priced, reasonably light wheels in widths and offsets that will make it possible to take advantage of the SCCA's new-for-2014 +/- 1" wheel diameter allowance, as wheels that meet all three requirements -- price, weight, and dimensions -- aren't exactly thick on the ground, let alone available from in-stock inventory...
Interestingly, based on the results of some early testing I've done, I might not be switching to 18" wheels next year after all. It's still too early to call, but so far, my present 19" wheel/tire combo appears to be slightly quicker (i.e., .3-.4 seconds on a low 50-second course) than my 18" one, which is completely contrary to what conventional wisdom suggests...
10-25-2013, 05:27 PM
#212
Three Wheelin'
10-25-2013, 09:20 PM
#213
The base 986 stays in C Stock, but that class ceases to exist after next year. In the Street classes, it moves up to B Street alongside the contemporary Boxster S where it's obviously doomed. The rationale for this move is presumably that it hasn't proven popular in C Stock, and could be too fast for C Street because of its mid-engined layout.
10-26-2013, 05:53 PM
#215
Drifting
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-aug-solo.pdf
986: C-stock, B-street
986S: BS
987.1: BS
987.1S: AS
987.2: AS
981 (2013): AS
987.2S: SS
981S Boxster S (2013): SS
981S Cayman S (2013 & 14): SS
2014 Boxster will almost certainly be A Street for 2014.
986: C-stock, B-street
986S: BS
987.1: BS
987.1S: AS
987.2: AS
981 (2013): AS
987.2S: SS
981S Boxster S (2013): SS
981S Cayman S (2013 & 14): SS
2014 Boxster will almost certainly be A Street for 2014.
10-26-2013, 09:40 PM
#217
Drifting
10-28-2013, 10:24 AM
#219
Burning Brakes
So I don't run into privacy issues with your letter, do you want to explain here so I can bring more detail to the call in a couple weeks when we would likely discuss this?
10-29-2013, 06:36 AM
#220
Drifting
Sure thing; already posted most of the language here and on SCCA Forums anyhow:
Probably should explicitly allow manufacturer-approved means of disabling the resultant warning light, too. Or if you can think of a better way of saying "turn it off with Durametric".
Ugh. Also see an editing error. That one sentence should read: "The use of "may" would suffice for both those who want to remove and those who do not want to install electronic modules and wiring harnesses:"
Originally Posted by Letter 12809
SCCA Solo rule 13.5 permits non-electronically controlled shocks to replace electronically controlled shocks, but isn't clear how the associated electronic components are to be handled when the electronic shocks are removed, or the associated option package installed.
Where electronically controlled shocks have external electronic control units dedicated to the shocks and serve no other purpose, are they considered part of the shock assembly, with all that implies? I'm thinking they'd fall into the same general category as remote reservoirs and be treated in the same way, but wasn't sure.
I am specifically interested in interpretation with respect to Porsche PASM, though this should apply generically to other marques as well. The PASM package on all model Porsches is standalone and comes with stiffer springs, electronic shocks, a button to change shock response, and a control module. I've unfortunately found that while PASM (option I475) was offered on 987 Boxsters, it's largely unavailable on the used market, and even more rarely offered in conjunction with sport chrono, PDK or LSDs. (Of appx 150 987.2 and 987.2S presently for sale in the US, none have PASM; I've only seen one in the past year, and it did not have sport chrono, LSD or PDK.) I would like to retrofit the PASM option package on a car not originally fitted with it, although I would like to use non-electronic double adjustable shocks in lieu of the electronic shocks (in other words, I just want the stiffer and lower PASM springs). The control module (p/n 987-618-450-01) is a $571 part that would be functionally useless without e-shocks. It's also insignificant weight. Other Porsche owners that have cars with PASM would like to replace their e-shocks with double adjustable shocks, but don't want to have to remove the electronics module or replace the wiring harnesses because it would harm resale value. I believe both these approaches fit with the philosophy of street class, and should be allowed under clarified interpretation of the current rules.
If SAC/SEB feel a tech bulletin is insufficient to clarify these rules, I recommend appending the following clarifying language (in italics below) to 13.5.A.5. The use of "may" for would suffice for both those who do not want to remove and those who do not want to install electronic modules and wiring harnesses:
13.5.A.5. Electronically controlled shocks may not be used on vehicles not originally equipped with such units. Vehicles originally equipped with electronically controlled shocks may use the standard parts or non-electronically controlled alternative shocks subject to all the requirements of Section 13.5. Non-standard electronically controlled shocks are not allowed. If electronically controlled shocks are replaced with non-electronically controlled shocks, components of the electronically controlled shock system that serve no other purpose; including electronic control modules, switches and wiring; may be removed.
Where electronically controlled shocks have external electronic control units dedicated to the shocks and serve no other purpose, are they considered part of the shock assembly, with all that implies? I'm thinking they'd fall into the same general category as remote reservoirs and be treated in the same way, but wasn't sure.
I am specifically interested in interpretation with respect to Porsche PASM, though this should apply generically to other marques as well. The PASM package on all model Porsches is standalone and comes with stiffer springs, electronic shocks, a button to change shock response, and a control module. I've unfortunately found that while PASM (option I475) was offered on 987 Boxsters, it's largely unavailable on the used market, and even more rarely offered in conjunction with sport chrono, PDK or LSDs. (Of appx 150 987.2 and 987.2S presently for sale in the US, none have PASM; I've only seen one in the past year, and it did not have sport chrono, LSD or PDK.) I would like to retrofit the PASM option package on a car not originally fitted with it, although I would like to use non-electronic double adjustable shocks in lieu of the electronic shocks (in other words, I just want the stiffer and lower PASM springs). The control module (p/n 987-618-450-01) is a $571 part that would be functionally useless without e-shocks. It's also insignificant weight. Other Porsche owners that have cars with PASM would like to replace their e-shocks with double adjustable shocks, but don't want to have to remove the electronics module or replace the wiring harnesses because it would harm resale value. I believe both these approaches fit with the philosophy of street class, and should be allowed under clarified interpretation of the current rules.
If SAC/SEB feel a tech bulletin is insufficient to clarify these rules, I recommend appending the following clarifying language (in italics below) to 13.5.A.5. The use of "may" for would suffice for both those who do not want to remove and those who do not want to install electronic modules and wiring harnesses:
13.5.A.5. Electronically controlled shocks may not be used on vehicles not originally equipped with such units. Vehicles originally equipped with electronically controlled shocks may use the standard parts or non-electronically controlled alternative shocks subject to all the requirements of Section 13.5. Non-standard electronically controlled shocks are not allowed. If electronically controlled shocks are replaced with non-electronically controlled shocks, components of the electronically controlled shock system that serve no other purpose; including electronic control modules, switches and wiring; may be removed.
Ugh. Also see an editing error. That one sentence should read: "The use of "may" would suffice for both those who want to remove and those who do not want to install electronic modules and wiring harnesses:"
10-29-2013, 10:19 AM
#221
Burning Brakes
Good letter. We'll discuss but this is similar to a letter we got back in February time frame. That letter's result was no flashing (or durametric changes) are allowed, the problem has to be solved with the shock/strut. So if there is some kind of plug in simulator you could put on the shock/strut that fools PASM, fine, but if you need to flash the ECU or any of the six or seven control modules in the wiring diagrams we saw, it is not allowed. This response is unofficial but more or less what we decided then, we'll certainly rediscuss with your letter.
11-06-2013, 08:32 PM
#222
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it turns out, KW makes a plug-in "PASM cancellation kit" that disables the PASM error light on the dash but leaves the rest of the electronic functions (i.e., PSM, which shares some of the sensors with PASM) alone:
... who knew?
11-20-2013, 10:52 PM
#223
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the December Fastrack:
#12394 Wheel Allowance Clarification
Thank you for your input.
The SAC recommends that the member ask Porsche for clarification on their conflicting wheel width documentation
Hmm ... entirely understandable, but not very helpful, eh?
Well, at least this issue is resolved insofar as my '06 concerned...
#12394 Wheel Allowance Clarification
Thank you for your input.
The SAC recommends that the member ask Porsche for clarification on their conflicting wheel width documentation
Hmm ... entirely understandable, but not very helpful, eh?
Well, at least this issue is resolved insofar as my '06 concerned...
11-21-2013, 11:43 AM
#225
Burning Brakes
The response was due to the fact the SAC/SEB have no additional resources and the burden of legality is on the competitor. Since at that time nothing from the factory was provided to either to help decide, making a "ruling" on it would have been a bad idea. The docs found later (remember this fastrack represents most things from our 2nd week in October meeting) should be kept handy at events for the PC if needed.