PedalFaster

Just to elaborate, I contacted Porsche's help line and was told to contact a dealer's parts department. I didn't bother doing so since they'd just look at the same parts catalog we've been looking at, and some random dealer wouldn't be definitive anyway.

I also submitted a question to the PCA national technical committee, but they didn't reply.

I'm no longer considering purchasing a Cayman, so you guys are on your own...

jpgunn

It seems they should list wheel Code 102 as an option on the 991.

sjfehr

SCCA responded in the May Fastrack:
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...strack-may.pdf

So, as I read this, if we upgrade a non-PASM car with PASM springs (and at least one sway bar), we would still have to install PASM sensor modules, even if using non-electronic shocks. They would not have to be connected, but can't be "removed". I believe we're still OK with the button and wiring harness per comfort and convenience clause (13.2.A), which permits modifications that do not materially affect the car weight or performance.

Q1. Is the ECU programming the same between PASM and standard? If a dealer can go in with their tool and enable/disable PASM with a punch of a button, does that constitute OEM-documented method to defeat the resulting fault/error code? Or is this a potential killer right here?

Q2. Precedent in ST* has been to add ballast to make up the weight when aftermarket parts are lighter than otherwise permitted; would that apply here as well? How much does a PASM electronic module weigh? A PASM module rules $400 IIRC, but four quarters and a tube of superglue will only cost $2 at the dollar tree...

abqautoxer

My unofficial answers:

A1. Re-Programming would result in the ECU and other control modules operate as if they were factory delivered in that manner would be acceptable. This means a fully functioning PASM system.

A2. If you are converting to PASM, you must have the complete PASM system. You cannot C&C that away, not sure why you would think you could with section 13 allowances.

- SAC member

sjfehr

Retrofitting the complete PASM option package should be indistinguishable from starting with a car that came with PASM from the factory, correct?

So, let's assume we start with a PASM car. Existing rules permit removing PASM shocks and replacing with non-electronic, and the new clarification permits cutting the cables to disconnect them. One swaybar can be replaced. The electronic modules would have to remain, per this clarification. Which leaves the PASM button, programming and wiring harnesses. C&C permits removal of the button, does it not? If not, it could be left along (added) easy enough, just seems a bit silly to do so.

The ECU would have to be programmed for PASM; this would presumably throw a code/warning light that PASM is malfunctioning. If there was an OEM method for disabling this light (for instance, plugging in the dealer's version of durametric and telling the computer PASM is no longer present), would that be legal? I'm not sure what would happen with PSM and ABS if PASM was failed.

Which just leaves the wiring harness. I may be mistaken, but I thought there was an allowance for that as well. The allowance to cut the cables handles part of this, at least.

Or was it SAC's intent that the above not be legal? I don't want to spent a lot of time and money retrofitting 99% of PASM only to have the rule clarified again to render what I just did illegal. It's frustrating, though; I've spend 2 years searching for a 987.2 with PDK, PASM and Sport Chrono and they simply don't seem to exist in the wild.

abqautoxer

Correct

Why would a button removal that is required for a package to be complete be C&C item? package/option conversions must be complete. The button would need to be present and work other than the fact a wire is cut somewhere that prevents it from doing so. Read the bold again:

Per the SAC, add to Appendix F under Street, as follows:
“The following is provided to clarify rule 13.5.A.5 which permits electronically controlled shocks to be replaced with non-electronically controlled shocks: Option package conversions must be complete including ECU programing and any/all applicable electronic components. You may disconnect or cut a wire connection at the shock absorber but you may not remove or reprogram any other related electronic components. A resulting error message, code or dashboard light is allowed but it should be noted that some cars performance may be limited post shock removal due to OEM ECU or stability control programming. Non-OEM documented methods used to defeat any resulting fault/error codes or otherwise fool the ECU into thinking the original shocks are still attached are not authorized.“

Per the SAC, add to Appendix F under Street, as follows:
“The following is provided to clarify rule 13.5.A.5 which permits electronically controlled shocks to be replaced with non-electronically controlled shocks: Option package conversions must be complete including ECU programing and any/all applicable electronic components. You may disconnect or cut a wire connection at the shock absorber but you may not remove or reprogram any other related electronic components. A resulting error message, code or dashboard light is allowed but it should be noted that some cars performance may be limited post shock removal due to OEM ECU or stability control programming. Non-OEM documented methods used to defeat any resulting fault/error codes or otherwise fool the ECU into thinking the original shocks are still attached are not authorized.“


Cutting a wires does not equal removing a harness...

It was the way to clarify while keeping the situation more universal than a one off clarification. When people ask why Porsches seem classed tougher than they need be, this is why. A golden version of the most competitive version exists and thus they are classed by that since they are all line items. Finding one for sale isn't on the burden of the SCCA but rather another reason why it seems bad to risk allowing a car to be a top dog when so few can be acquired/duplicated. So no, we are not trying to disallow anything, we are trying to prevent new loopholes from a clarification so it is on the conservative side.

all unofficial, my personal opinion, etc.

sjfehr

Thanks, Tom. Always helps to have a little insight behind the language, even if the answer isn't the one I was hoping for.

Still, given that the unicorn options cars are classed for are, well, unicorns, it would be nice to have a little leeway in recreating them. I don't think this is necessarily a Porsche-specific problem, but I do get the need to avoid unintended consequences.

I can add the $582.25 electronic control unit and $199.25 acceleration sensors; I can add a $97.25 button if the rulesmiths say deleting a 1oz button isn't in the spirit of C&C; but I shudder to think of the difficulty involved in replacing the wiring harness. Isn't there some way to avoid that? Some sanity allowance somewhere?

What can be done about the programming that's within the rules? If the dealer is capable of flipping whatever EEPROM tells the car PASM is installed to "no", then it's implicit that this setting is documented by the manufacturer, else this would be impossible. Does such a setting change constitute ECU reprogramming, or just disabling the warning light? It can't change the performance of the car, since it's merely disabling electronic shocks that no longer exist; it's just correcting the fault that the removal incurred. It seems as though this is within the rules allowance. The net result of this is that 987/997 owners would be able to recreate a competitive option package that's not readily available on the used market.

edfishjr

I think it's clear what answers you are going to get. I'd stop worrying about re-creating unicorns with slightly stiffer springs and spend your money on a set of ultra-light 8.5/10 inch wheels (18" or 19") and custom shocks on any direct-injection base Cayman or Boxster and go kick some Corvette butt in A-street.

sjfehr

After about 2 years of searching, I'm eyeing up a PDK 2010 Boxster S at the moment; it's got sport chrono plus (which is rare) and the sport design package, but not PASM (which I'm not sure even exists) or LSD (about as rare as PASM). There's much debate over the eLSD, but my gut is that the eLSD is as good as the LSD for autocross where brake fade isn't an issue. I plan to give it a nationa-quality prep. Might even run it at nats this year if it's ready. I still think 987.2S car would more appropriately be in AS with the 981 and 987.2S than SS (any chance it may end up there in 2016?), but with street tires tightening the field, I'm hoping to prep it to within spitting distance of the GT3s, Elises and Boxster Spyders in SS. I've looked at my wallet and there's just no way I can retrofit PASM on my budget now that SAC/SEB have clarified they do not interpret the electronic bits as part of the shock assembly.


Q. Does *anyone* make Street-class legal shocks, or am I going to have to drop koni yellows in some junkyard struts? Who'd be able to fab some up for a not-astronomical sum?

edfishjr

SRSBSNS prepping of a car for SS is what I'd call risky, no matter the brand. So far, it looks like a failure Nationally, while AS and BS look to be successful. I mean, one car at Spring Nats, zero cars at New Jersey, one car at Wilmington, one car at Texas. There were 4 cars (all Porsches) at San Diego, but hey, that's California. And wouldn't the GT3 be a better choice anyway if you want to win?

If it's the car you want, okay, and if you're fine running locally against thin competition and on the PAX, but you seem to have National ambitions. I think I'd wait until after Nats and see if anyone shows up in SS. If attendance is zero or almost zero, it would seem to be a class ripe for elimination given the present climate.

PedalFaster

I have yet to encounter anyone who feels that any Porsche (or any other brand's, for that matter) eLSD is effective in an autocross setting. That includes me -- I ran a 986S with the eLSD for two years.

Having said that,

LSD should be retrofittable.

This. You'd be buying a long shot car for a nearly nonexistent class in a year where the SEB's explicitly said that the entire class structure is subject to revision at the end of the season. If you've got money to burn and really want to try a 987.1, then go for it, but don't do so because you think it'll be competitive in SS.

mopar bob

There are 2 Elises and me with a 997 C2. One of the Elises run Olins shocks and have two drivers. When you look at a class like CS there are 13 to 16 drivers. So would they be looking to move the cars to AS? Those S2000's are bad a## in that class. There are only 5 or 6 cars in AS here in Colorado so the big class's are CS and lower.

sjfehr

My '04 986S has a number of problems, but open diff wheel slip ain't one of them. eLSD seems to be working just fine.

My biggest problem is that my present car is optioned all wrong for national level autocross, and I had always planned on selling it to buy a 987. My "SRSBZNS" build will essentially be sway bar, shocks and wheels. I do not harbor any illusions about winning a jacket in any car, but I'd love to stand on that podium. Really, I hope to be competitive enough that I could best a lesser driver in a "better" car.

As for SS/SSR, you can't just go by attendance at this year's national events, not when nobody is developing new cars due to all the flux; most entrants seem to be inertia from years past, with the vette guys favoring r-comps, as we all fully expected. What really surprises me are how many vettes are running in BS & AS- that should be telling. SSR might be eliminated in 2015 if it fails to draw 35 competitors, but there's been no indications of SS going away in 2015. For 2016? Who knows. Stock has historically gone year by year and I doubt the future will be any different. If things stabilize, I might get a 981, but I'm certainly not dropping money on one now.

abqautoxer

Incorrect, that is exactly what we go by, FYI.

sjfehr

Why? Something like 95% of your members run locally, not nationally.