The vast majority of people I know who seriously aim, and are contenders for, SCCA national championships buy the car for the class regardless of brand, rather than limiting themselves to one make.

I'm not in that esteemed company, but using myself as an example: I love Porsches and have owned four, but I ran a BMW in FS this year, a Toyota in GS the previous year, and a Honda in BS the year prior, because those were the cars to have in those classes.

For better or worse, per-car allowances have never been a part of the Stock / Street classing philosophy, and are unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future.

Also, looking at the options list for the latest 911, there's probably at least a half-dozen options that you'd want on an all-out build, and I imagine the likelihood of someone actually building that unicorn car (all of the performance options with none of the luxury options whatsoever) is extremely low.

 

Porsche was at least good about the ala carte stuff, so a lot of the unicorn options can be retrofit, if one is so inclined.

 

I thought one goal was to have diverse classes. Having one "car to have" that is protected amounts to a handful of different spec series. And it seems that with the possible exception of the GT3, that spec car is not allowed to be a Porsche. If you'd like to run one so that I can also compete in PCA competition, you're certain to be SOL... Remind me how that's "perceived" bias?
It seems this rule penalizes Porsche in particular, because they class the unicorn. Do you understand the reasoning- they are purely trying to limit rules complexity?
Sure, but it's what, a 10-15k proposition to retrofit PCCB, stock lightweight seats, sports suspension, etc, to a car that might be 15k buy. One of the knocks against Porsche in the classing system is that they are too rare and expensive, but simultaneously the rules require doubling the car's price to make a competitive car? You think?

 

That's a good reason to ensure a unicorn Porsche is never "the car to have". I'm not advocating bumping faster cars up so that Porsches will start winning AS & BS jackets at nationals, but there's no reason to bury them where they're 1+ seconds slower than "the car"; makes car more sense to class them more appropriately where they're more like a half second behind "the car" instead, and make everyone happy.

 

I think you have it right, except perfectly backwards. SCCA does want diverse classes, and that's exactly why they are generally careful about putting possible overdogs into the class. SSR, for example, has great balance - three different Corvettes are competitive, two GT3s, the Viper, and also the Elise has gotten it done in the past.

And the spec classes are getting demolished. STS (2 car class) and STC (Spec 89 Civic Si) are getting merged. FS went from spec Mustang to having 4 or 5 viable cars. HS (Spec Mini) just got hit with a Fiesta ST / LSD Civic Si / who knows what else will be fast stick.

More or less, yes. The rulebook is already too long and complex, as it turns off new people. I hear complaints that it's too confusing all the time. Adding exceptions and special rules for every single car would be exhausting. Keep in mind, majority of the participation is done on Sundays by people in their DD. The SRS BZNS folk are a small subset.

IMHO, it sounds to me like you're being a bit selfish. I want my car to be classed the best. In the grand scheme of things, everywhere other than Lincoln there are Porsches that can win in every class they are allowed. I'd also venture to say that Porsches can even win at Lincoln in many classes if they are the right car, with the right prep, and the right driver. Some of the "car to have" beliefs are more herd mentality.

For example, look at Bryan Heitkotter and his STX 300zx. Not even on the radar as a competitive car option in a killer class. He builds the car in a year, does limited testing, and ends up coming in second against 66 other people who thought you needed an FR-S or RX8. Granted, he has insane talent, but put him in a Boxster, or 997, or whatever you think is "unfairly" classed and I bet he would make you think twice. It's ultimately a driving competition.

You'll drive yourself crazy worrying about classing. You can ease your mind by being a sheep and just buying what the supposed car to have is. Or you can drive what you've got and not let the car be your crutch. Or you can get a CM, FM, or KM car where the cars have been exactly the same for years.

 

If you look at it that way, yes, Porsches do suffer because of this philosophy. That doesn't mean that the SCCA has an anti-Porsche bias though -- it just means that Porsche's recent proliferation of options runs afoul of a well-founded classing philosophy which long predates said proliferation.

It's impossible to craft a rule set that's completely fair to every single car, and while I like Porsches, I support the SCCA's goal of keeping things simple and accessible and thus accept the fact that the Porsches I'd most like to own aren't top dogs in their respective classes. Personally, my desire to win greatly exceeds my desire to campaign a Porsche, so I drive other cars instead. If the opposite were true, I'd run more PCA events and fewer SCCA ones.

 

With so many cars, the SCCA has an unenviable job of classifying cars, and I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Naive or not, I believe those involved are trying to do what's best for the sport, and any time you make a change, you're going to step on some toes. Prime example is the recent change from Stock to Street, which I was strongly in favor of for overall growth of the sport.

I don't view the SCCA as anti-Porsche but more pro-less expense / popular cars. Unfortunately, I do think there are times when perceived expensive/exclusive cars like the 986 Boxster get classed a bit harshly, but not every car will be nationally competitive. I also think a lot of cars get overlooked because of the lemming effect, so sometimes there's a perceived 'it' car when perhaps there are others that would also do well in the class. The Heitkotter example above is a great one.

At this point, with all of the recent big changes in Street class, e.g., the move from Stock to Street and the recent car class changes, the main thing I'm looking for now is stability. Let things settle for a while and then step back to see what, if anything, needs to be tweaked.

 

I simply don't agree with the rules as written. We all know that if you're serious, you buy one of a couple cars for the class. We also know that under 50k, none of those cars has a Porsche emblem, despite the fact that 98% of used Porsches cost less than that, and there are many recent Porsches that could be great competitive cars to run on a budget. We also know that if you do manage to find one of those lower priced Porsches that is competitive in class, you're likely to be moved. I see that as simply unfair, and no I don't own one of the cars I'm talking about.

I understand the rules were written long before this Chinese menu option system existed. I know that's not SCCA's fault. However the fact is that there are lots of budget Porsche options, but SCCA's rules simply do not give them a place to be competitive. Intentional or not that's it in a nutshell: SCCA is biased against Porsche. And I don't like that.

You suggest that this situation only effects a small number of people that want to win at nationals, but I don't agree, because the fact that these cars can't compete at the top means they don't start at the bottom. Even PedalFaster, while defending the rules, admits he's not running a Porsche for this reason. And you're running a Porsche despite the fact that you'll never win.

Rules need to adapt to changing times, and they need enough complexity to do what's intended. SCCA wants to increase participation, limit costs, and make competition more even? Ok, do it. The rules are confusing? Bring them into this century. How hard would an active outline document/ smart phone page be that shows you only what you need to know for your car/ class be?

Even without that, I still think it's a decent idea to look at a ban on PCCBs on Boxsters, Caymans and maybe Carreras. It's a 10k option with a <10% (?) take rate on those cars. Banning it will instantly make the majority of those cars more competitive and reduce the cost of having a competitive Porsche by 5k, and I remember that at one point ceramics were supposed to be banned.

 

At one of the driving schools that the local put on. Thay came out and told me that I had the best brakes out there because I was driving a Porsche. I drive a C2 not a S so no big brakes for me and there were car with 6 piston calipers out there but I had the best brakes sure what ever you say and there is no bias against Porsche.

 

Hey, my car is getting there. I don't have the benefit of a 4,000 post crowdsourced setup thread like the s2k and NC Miata guys do, and I'm on a tight budget. I don't have the driving chops to win in Lincoln, but I do have a goal of earning a trophy with it. I don't think it's totally impossible.

What Porsches do you want in what classes? Really the only thing I see that's totally hosed is the 986 non-S. Should have stayed in CS. Scanning over the rest, and they look ok to me. I'd rock a 997 C2S or Cayman R in SS, or a Cayman S in AS. BS is pretty tough, but I think the 370z will be able to float, so I don't see why a 986S couldn't. The fast kids gave up on those in the Hoosier days, maybe the camber limitation isn't as important on 200tw.

 

Petevb, as mentioned earlier, there exists a club where every Porsche can be relatively competitive in its class -- it's called the Porsche Club of America.

Making many / most / all Porsches competitive in their SCCA classes would not only be impractical with only nine Street classes (and there are calls to reduce this number) -- it would also by definition be unfair to the fans of all the other marques out there.

Reread your own posts, except substitute "Corvette" or "Miata". Doesn't sound so great, does it? Now consider that both sell in vastly greater numbers than Porsches do.

Classing literally hundreds of cars is hard, and it's impossible to achieve perfect parity for all of them. With all due respect, in my opinion it's a bit naive to assert otherwise.

 

Huh? I'm "admitting" what now?

I can say with near absolute confidence that I could win my local class in pretty much any Porsche made in or since the '90s. People fixate too much on the half second differences between the top and midpack cars when they're seconds behind the top drivers...

 

I tried saying this concept in three posts in this thread, but you said it well better than I did.

 

I'm not asking for all to be competitive. Porsche has lots of models, you can't make them all competitive. But I don't believe that having some of that 98% of affordable used Porsches be competitive is too much to ask. If it is than I think you've made my point- SCCA rules disproportionately penalize Porsche.

Sure, if you're just getting wet behind the ears bring whatever you've got. If you're serious, though, or plan to get that way, the smart guys want to chose a platform with legs. And that means they get a GT3 or don't run a Porsche. Because we know what happens if you do: you invest 10k+ into a Cayman S, time, money and effort getting it set up, traveling to national events, etc, you finally trophy with it at nationals... And then it gets punted up a class, and your left with a car without a class to run in. Ditto the 968 M030, but he didn't even get to national trophy before they punted him, regional was enough- I race with that guy too. So you go back and spend a small fortune on a GT3, get a couple national trophies and a podium, and hope they don't punt that next.

You know this, so you're not dumb enough to run a Porsche. burglar either hasn't figure it out yet or doesn't care.

Meanwhile anyone with half a brain that's sitting on the sidelines would be silly to make that type of time and money commitment in a Porsche with the expectation of the rug getting yanked out. But I guess that passes for "fair", and if someone calls it otherwise it's "perceived" bias against Porsche. What surprises me is that you're both resigned to the situation. Porsche will get the short straw in SCCA, because "that's the way it needs to be". That's the way it's been. That doesn't mean it can't be improved on.
Good luck, hope you manage it, and I hope they don't move you if/ when you do and set you back to zero...

 

Classing matters, and index matters. We all know PAX is horrible for street this year, especially on concrete. In SS locally, I routinely beat the GT3, Elise and C2S that show up. By PAX, I occasionally do well, but I'm typically closer to the bottom of our top 10. But if we consider 987.2S is more of an AS car, and index by DAX which is supposed to be way better for concrete, I'm podium event event, usually 2nd only to a damned fast DS driver who took a close 2nd in RTA at nationals last year, was picked to win DS this year, and I fully expect he'll do it next. Do I suck, as the SS PAX results show? Or am I a good driver as the AS DAX shows? I was hoping I'd find out at nats this year, but I made the mistake of showing up in a car I'd only had for 3 months and not quite sorted out yet, and then I drove like ****. Not that running against GT3s and Elises are a very good metric anyhow. Benchracing puts me just out of the AS trophies, but AS had different weather than SS.

Am I a good enough driver to trophy if my car was more favorably classed? I really have no idea; I have no reasonable metric for judging my actual driving skill aside from being pretty sure I'm not an alien. For a sport that supposedly measures driver capability, we're sure not doing a very good job of it. I shouldn't have to sell my porsche and buy a BRZ to know how I compare as a driver. Speaking of which, said DS driver and I codrove a BRZ two days ago neither of us had drove before; bastard got me by 2 tenths!


My local PCA hasn't had an autocross in years, and even then it was a joke; more of a novice school than a real autocross.