Fastrack June 2017 - Boxsters to STR
06-13-2017, 03:00 PM
#16
1st Gear
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://dk1xgl0d43mu1.cloudfront.net...pdf?1495549751
Since nobody built one for STU, proposal is out to slot the 986, 986S, and 987.1 base to STR. Still 255s max, max wheels drop to 9.0".
Write your letters.
Since nobody built one for STU, proposal is out to slot the 986, 986S, and 987.1 base to STR. Still 255s max, max wheels drop to 9.0".
Write your letters.
Going forward in STR, please allow the original manufacturer supplied wheel and tire sizes for the Porsche Cayman/ Boxster and S variants of same. With the current rule, the tire width limitation at 255 on max 9-inch rims is going to disinterest anyone from running these cars because they will not be competitive in STR. The gearing is far too tall in these cars, the torque and hp curve sweet spots are too high up the rev range, and the tires will detune any horsepower advantage the cars may be perceived as having. The older 987.1 and 987.2 Porsche cars are not pricey on the used market anymore. They are a bargain these days.
I would like to know the thinking behind having people buy skinny, nonstock wheels and tires to run in STR. It can only be concern that they would otherwise dominate... I feel this is unwarranted.
Or, is it also cost? Having been on a classification committee for SEB in my life, I can attest that cost has often been part of the reasoning in classification. Because of this well intentioned desire to keep things affordable, there was a bit of anti-high dollar car bias back in the day in classing when it came to cars like the GT3, Viper, Ferrari, Porsches, some BMWs, etc. The thinking was cost oriented, broad scale, and not wanting the classes in which they could be competitive to be dominated by high dollar cars to the exclusion of all others. It was a well intentioned, but exclusion oriented practice. At what cost to participation going forward? We created a fix for that, and it was ST.
Stock cars still need an ST class into which they can competitively migrate. I remember the creation of ST classing. We did it because Stock classes and Street Prepared classes were not diverse enough and were not meeting the enthusiast market where it lived- minor, lower cost mods. The incorporation of ST was a huge success.
Please let this philosophy of "meeting the market where it's at" and inclusion (rather than exclusion) guide the classing structures to the largest extent possible.
Thank you for your efforts. I know from experience how difficult it can be.
Best,
Rich Fletcher
06-14-2017, 04:28 PM
#18
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my letter to the SEB (SCCA Solo Events Board):
Going forward in STR, please allow the original manufacturer supplied wheel and tire sizes for the Porsche Cayman/ Boxster and S variants of same. With the current rule, the tire width limitation at 255 on max 9-inch rims is going to disinterest anyone from running these cars because they will not be competitive in STR. The gearing is far too tall in these cars, the torque and hp curve sweet spots are too high up the rev range, and the tires will detune any horsepower advantage the cars may be perceived as having. The older 987.1 and 987.2 Porsche cars are not pricey on the used market anymore. They are a bargain these days.
I would like to know the thinking behind having people buy skinny, nonstock wheels and tires to run in STR. It can only be concern that they would otherwise dominate... I feel this is unwarranted.
Or, is it also cost? Having been on a classification committee for SEB in my life, I can attest that cost has often been part of the reasoning in classification. Because of this well intentioned desire to keep things affordable, there was a bit of anti-high dollar car bias back in the day in classing when it came to cars like the GT3, Viper, Ferrari, Porsches, some BMWs, etc. The thinking was cost oriented, broad scale, and not wanting the classes in which they could be competitive to be dominated by high dollar cars to the exclusion of all others. It was a well intentioned, but exclusion oriented practice. At what cost to participation going forward? We created a fix for that, and it was ST.
Stock cars still need an ST class into which they can competitively migrate. I remember the creation of ST classing. We did it because Stock classes and Street Prepared classes were not diverse enough and were not meeting the enthusiast market where it lived- minor, lower cost mods. The incorporation of ST was a huge success.
Please let this philosophy of "meeting the market where it's at" and inclusion (rather than exclusion) guide the classing structures to the largest extent possible.
Thank you for your efforts. I know from experience how difficult it can be.
Best,
Rich Fletcher
Going forward in STR, please allow the original manufacturer supplied wheel and tire sizes for the Porsche Cayman/ Boxster and S variants of same. With the current rule, the tire width limitation at 255 on max 9-inch rims is going to disinterest anyone from running these cars because they will not be competitive in STR. The gearing is far too tall in these cars, the torque and hp curve sweet spots are too high up the rev range, and the tires will detune any horsepower advantage the cars may be perceived as having. The older 987.1 and 987.2 Porsche cars are not pricey on the used market anymore. They are a bargain these days.
I would like to know the thinking behind having people buy skinny, nonstock wheels and tires to run in STR. It can only be concern that they would otherwise dominate... I feel this is unwarranted.
Or, is it also cost? Having been on a classification committee for SEB in my life, I can attest that cost has often been part of the reasoning in classification. Because of this well intentioned desire to keep things affordable, there was a bit of anti-high dollar car bias back in the day in classing when it came to cars like the GT3, Viper, Ferrari, Porsches, some BMWs, etc. The thinking was cost oriented, broad scale, and not wanting the classes in which they could be competitive to be dominated by high dollar cars to the exclusion of all others. It was a well intentioned, but exclusion oriented practice. At what cost to participation going forward? We created a fix for that, and it was ST.
Stock cars still need an ST class into which they can competitively migrate. I remember the creation of ST classing. We did it because Stock classes and Street Prepared classes were not diverse enough and were not meeting the enthusiast market where it lived- minor, lower cost mods. The incorporation of ST was a huge success.
Please let this philosophy of "meeting the market where it's at" and inclusion (rather than exclusion) guide the classing structures to the largest extent possible.
Thank you for your efforts. I know from experience how difficult it can be.
Best,
Rich Fletcher
10-23-2017, 12:50 PM
#19
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Looks like it's going through for 2018.
Although I already thought it went through...
#21796 Please evaluate and reclass Porsche 986S and 987S
The STAC is recomending the following proposed class changes for Porsche MR
platforms.
Move from STU to STR:
Porsche
Boxster (986 and 987.1) (1997-2008)
Boxster S (986) (2000-2004)
Cayman (987.1) (2006-2008)
The STAC is recomending the following proposed class changes for Porsche MR
platforms.
Move from STU to STR:
Porsche
Boxster (986 and 987.1) (1997-2008)
Boxster S (986) (2000-2004)
Cayman (987.1) (2006-2008)
10-24-2017, 06:09 PM
#20
Drifting
Hope y'all like running 255 rears on your Caymans. This classing is worthless without fixing the tire allowances, they might as well have just left 987.1 on the ST exclusion list because it still pretty much is.
We need SST.
We need SST.
10-26-2017, 11:50 AM
#22
Rennlist Member
A hoot - but not competitive. I genuinely don't think a 986S can get it done in STR - it is probably a very good second tier candidate (in the way my 128i is in STX) that would be regionally competitive.
In my mind, now that the ND has mostly eclipsed the S2000 after only two years of development, it is reinforced that suspension design and tire-to-weight continue to be the most important qualifications in ST* classes.
The S2K makes more thrust everywhere than the ND and yet it runs the same sized tires and weighs more - and is slower. I recognize the mid-engine is the "unknown" advantage for the 986S but it seems hard to believe that a car that is worse than the S2K on most metrics would be able to catch the ND.
I'd love to drive one though - it seems like a truly awesome car when I think about it...
-Mark
In my mind, now that the ND has mostly eclipsed the S2000 after only two years of development, it is reinforced that suspension design and tire-to-weight continue to be the most important qualifications in ST* classes.
The S2K makes more thrust everywhere than the ND and yet it runs the same sized tires and weighs more - and is slower. I recognize the mid-engine is the "unknown" advantage for the 986S but it seems hard to believe that a car that is worse than the S2K on most metrics would be able to catch the ND.
I'd love to drive one though - it seems like a truly awesome car when I think about it...
-Mark
10-27-2017, 10:53 AM
#23
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
I agree with most of that. Pretty sure the ND has more thrust in STR up to about 45mph. I could be wrong. Also, the S2k is still right there, course dependent. In Lincoln the trophies were almost 50/50 split between ND and S2k, with Shane and Justin still getting in done in an NC. Yom had a bad event, looks like he had the speed on one course.
I'm not saying I think a 986 could win, but I do think a well set up & driven one could do well enough not to be written off completely. Plus I also have a thing about wanting a perceived underdog in grid, really enjoy that.
I'm not saying I think a 986 could win, but I do think a well set up & driven one could do well enough not to be written off completely. Plus I also have a thing about wanting a perceived underdog in grid, really enjoy that.
04-07-2019, 10:22 PM
#28
Didn't have a chance to talk to Jeff Stuart, but did quickly eyeball the car this weekend. It has some STR parts, but didn't appear fully prepped upon casual inspection. Had wheels and 245s (not 255s?) all around. Couldn't see a width marking on the wheels. Ohlins struts with Swift springs, but couldn't tell model or spring rate. Had more camber than stock, but was still sitting pretty high -- had stock-like fender gaps. Forgot to explicitly check the exhaust and seats, but it didn't sound particularly loud, and I think I would have noticed racing seats given that the top was down when I looked at it.
04-08-2019, 08:24 AM
#29
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
You were standing right next to a Boxster that almost won STR last weekend and that's the best reporting we can get? 
2.1x 60' means it likely wasn't getting it done on pro launches, anyways. Did you get a chance to watch the car on course?
2.1x 60' means it likely wasn't getting it done on pro launches, anyways. Did you get a chance to watch the car on course?
04-08-2019, 01:55 PM
#30
Yeah, I took a quick peek while walking by, but it didn't occur to me that people here would be interested (and would want more detail) until after the fact. Oops.
Didn't have a chance to watch the car on course. Jeff didn't finish where you'd expect him to end up, though, either in class or on the overall index. Not sure how much should be attributed to the Boxster platform versus this particular car's apparent relative lack of prep.
Didn't have a chance to watch the car on course. Jeff didn't finish where you'd expect him to end up, though, either in class or on the overall index. Not sure how much should be attributed to the Boxster platform versus this particular car's apparent relative lack of prep.