sjfehr

Thanks, Tom! Is it too late to change the wording to be a little more generic to also cover other Porsches with defective IMS bearings? Regardless, the precedence is pretty clear, and this may help future questions as well.

abqautoxer

There is no need. 13.1's common sense repairs is now clarified to allow IMS in general. That was the point of this, so any 996, or 987.1 can do it safely under that clarification.

yeha22

I'm catching up on this thread for... reasons.

Anyway, looking at MCS' website now it looks like things have changed. They have non-remote doubles listed for the Boxster/Cayman. They also have stock spring perches available for the 911s, but I guess that doesn't help the mid engined cars.

I drove a Type-R at the Atlanta Match Tour last summer that had non-remote doubles and I really liked them. It would certainly be my option if I didn't want to spring for 3-ways.


So where are y'all with development on these cars? What's holding you back? If given a place to play, would the ST ruleset help with the challenges or just add more cost/hassle?


edit- lol @ "New User" title with a join date of 2007. Guess this is actually my first post here.

cretinx

A few comments.

1 - You don't really need doubles to be competitive in the Street class. A well valved single is more than enough. There's been plenty of people who have won national championships on off-the-shelf Koni Yellows. Lee Grimes over at Koni is more than happy to revalve your Yellows to whatever specifications you tell him.

2 - Classing for Porsches is punitive. Classing is designed to give the popular cars a place to play and make sure the popular cars don't get their asses kicked. If/when used Porsches become popular cars they will get properly classed.

996 in AS against the C5 Z06?

986 in BS against the NSX and C5?

944 in ES against the MR2 Spyder? Meanwhile the 240SX, which is basically the same weight, more power, with a better suspension is classed in HS?

sjfehr

Non-remote MCS were listed for Boxster/Cayman on MCSs website when I was looking, too, but when I tried to order, they weren't available. You could put remotes in the rear and non-remotes in the front, but the perch is still an issue.

My development has unfortunately stalled for lack of money.

yeha22

1. I, personally, would like doubles. I recognize that the improvements are within driver noise, but I like the ability to change the feel to my liking. It's easier to create repeatable performances if the car behaves more like what you want. Stock/Street classes are all about driving around issues anyway. Plus, having something like MCS doubles would mean a greater ability to tune should I ever want to go beyond Street classing.

2. I'd argue the point on whether it's "punitive", and proffer that classing is "fearful" instead. I'm on one of the ACs, and even with a progressive mindset it's difficult to buy in to doing anything that might upset the current balance.

"Car to have" or not, I think I would still enjoy a 986 or a 996 overall. I could enjoy competing and not feel like I'm hopelessly outclassed. Once I've finally pulled the trigger on something I hope to test that hypothesis out. Ultimately, there's not many Street class eligible cars that I'd be excited about over a 911. I think they're still too much of an unknown for the SAC to justify a classing change though.


Interesting. And I totally understand the stalling.


So, realizing that this is a thread about Street, if there was a place in Street Touring to play would any of you with Caymans, Boxsters, or 996es do it? Assume reasonable competitiveness in classing.

burglar

I'd do an STU 996 or an STR 986 non-S and wrote my letter to that effect.

sjfehr

When I talked to Lex, he explained that the exhaust on the Boxster/Cayman is too close to the strut and cooks the canister. Which is especially an issue for autocross which has a lot of heat soak potential between runs. The OEM Bilsteins are designed to withstand it, but I'm not sure how Konis would hold up.

SST would be an awesome class. I know one friend who would run it in a heartbeat; I might be tempted to as well.

DOUGLAP1

You bet, we have been bitching forever to get the 986 accepted into STR, where it would still be under-tired. But now that STU is open to non grocery getters, that is even a better place for a Boxster to play.

Do search for Boxster and STR on this forum and you can find the official bitch thread I started a couple of years ago. (I would give you a link but cannot figure out how on here)

PedalFaster

https://rennlist.com/forums/autocros...-boxsters.html

sjfehr

I wrote a letter trying to get the 986/986S into STR a few years ago, and then another letter trying to get it into STU, but the original Street proposal honestly gave me all I really wanted: street tires and camber. Alas, camber was removed but I'm content to play in Street. The fear is probably founded that giving these cars springs and adequate camber would make them potential overdogs in STR/STU, but SST's where it's at. GT3 is essentially a Street-legal ST car with the coilovers and camber and all, and an SST built around the GT3 and giving the rest of the Porsches camber would go a long way towards leveling the playing field as well as giving other sports cars (corvette) a good place to play in ST trim. Might also be a good place to let GTR and some of the other overdog supercars play since they (arguably) would get little advantage from the ST* allowances.

I daresay there are a few cars in SS now that might be more appropriate on the Street exclusion list but a solid place in Street Touring.

cretinx

Yeah, this is a no brainer.

Instead of going to ASP and getting your *** handed to you by Subies and Evos you might instead stand a chance against them in STU.

Gimme the link to the Solo Board and I'll write a letter too.

cretinx

Well yeah, I'd take doubles too; with remote reservoirs. But from a budget standpoint the returns are diminishing.

The powers that class came right out and said they don't want to class cars that will beat the popular ones - that's why the TT went to BS but the WRX stayed in DS, that's why the 968 went to BS but the 350Z stays in CS, etc etc etc. Just wait, they'll move the RX8 out of CS after it kicks the **** out of the FRS/BRZ for another year (honestly, my RX-8 raw times most of the BS cars locally anyways).

I just don't get why they put the 986 in BS - I ran a 986 and a 944S2 in CS for a few years (on R-comps) and they both fit perfectly in that class.

For 2016 I'll be campaigning my 996 nationally so we'll see what happens when I get my *** handed to me by the C5 Z06 at every event.

knfeparty

You want a codriver? I took my 40th in 2013, but it was too much trouble trailering from FL so I codrove an S2000 last year.

cretinx

This is an ongoing discussion we can have.

This year I have a paying co-driver in my CS RX-8 and we're committed to a few national-level events but not Nationals.

The big thing is I'm putting in an AIM data system. We're just gonna use the year to develop the drivers. The car is already fully developed.