Curious, does the proposal to move the 987.2 down to AS encompass moving the 987.1 cars to BS?

 

I would think no.

 

987.1 is already in BS.

I suggested in my letter we lower 987.2S from SS to AS and base 987.2 from AS to BS, both of which would mirror 987.1. My argument is that they are so similar that it makes no sense to separate them, and they're way slower than a C5/C5Z anyway. No idea what SAC/SEB is actually leaning towards, though.

If you feel strongly, write a letter!

 

Got it. Has there been a response yet? I don't remember seeing one and this is a 2017 thing if it hasn't gone out for comment yet?

I guess I feel it would be nice if the more affordable and accessible 987.1 S was more aggressively classed. I'm indifferent to moving the 987.2 as I feel it's still not going to be in a real position to trophy in the class. If I wanted to own the car I think I'd rather race against the current SS completion than the competition currently in AS.

 

People in the know have hinted that SAC/SEB is still mulling the 987.2S issue and that while it won't be changed for 2016, but may be changed for 2017. Write your letters!

And while I would much rather have the AS pax for local competition, SS nationally does seem softer than AS; I daresay I'll have a better chance at a trophy in SS than AS.

 

I think we need to write the SEB to address the slave cylinder issues in 996 TTs. I know that if I was going to own one, I would be really peeved if I had to keep replacing $600 hydraulically-assisted slave cylinders every couple of years just to remain street-class legal. The gt2 slave cylinder mod should be allowed in the car from the get-go.

 

I'm not aware of the SAC / SEB ever legalizing a specific reliability modification for a specific vehicle before, and I can't imagine them starting now, especially for a vehicle as rare in SCCA competition as an SS Porsche. Living with known, expensive weak points (clutches in S2000s, synchros in RX-8s, suspension bushings in Corvettes, etc.) is a fact of life in Street.

 

Does the slave cylinder offer any possible performance improvement? There's a chance you could do it under as an industry standard repair (like with IMS bearings), but if there is any difference, like shaving an ounce off OEM, it's a no-go. If you ask formally, you're almost certainly going to get a negative response. If you don't ask, it remains a gray area and a protest committee issue.

 

Well, I imagine it would go in Appendix F - street category clarifications, although admittedly it would really be an exception rather than a "clarification." The IMS bearing addition to Appendix F was a welcome one and is an example of something that is really more of a common-sense exception than a "clarification," yet is in Appendix F anyways. I will admit that the GT2 slave cylinder mod is a much more significant modification than IMS in that it does effect how the car drives (pedal feel), and I would understand if the SEB didn't allow it.

I still think we should at least ask. The 996TT is really at rock-bottom depreciation now (way less purchase price than the other players in SS right now) and there's a potential that they would be great "also ran" fun cars.

 

When they classed the 996TT in SS, I assume they took the best of bread approach, which then includes the Turbo S version? Or is that not allowed?

X50 option is fine, as that was available on all years, and the S version is really just a bundle of all the Options normally available on the 996 TT.

 

Wording is this:

So it's out for comment (not official yet.) Also the "Porsche Exclusive Options" clarification earlier in the year would mean X50 is ok.

 

Add the X73 suspension to lower the car 30mm and you have a 996TT that is a tad stiffer than GT2 spring rates, and just as low. It also includes stiffer motor mounts.

I can see that car being pretty competitive with a 996 GT3. Definitely good for the Pro Solo.

 

I know x73 and x74 are exclusive options, but aren't they all dealer-installed only? They were techquipment right? I think the euro gt3 seats you could maybe get away with since they were factory-installed at least in some countries, but I don't think x73 and x74 appeared on a window/option sticker anywhere?

 

It doesn't matter if they were dealer-installed in the real world -- if they had an X option code, then they were Porsche Exclusive options and could theoretically have been installed at the factory if you'd asked. At least that's what you'd argue when you got protested.

 

too bad they release this decision AFTER every set of x73 and x74 suspensions on the planet have sold

Part of me wants to say "screw it" and show up with an XSF/XSE/XSN euro gt3 seat and rear seat delete setup, with x74 springs, a GT3 wing, sunroof delete, XRR 9 and 11" wheels...

What an expensive 996 that would be to make. Also a great way to end up bumped to SS.