PCA Club Racing - Proposed Rule Changes for 2018
08-29-2017, 11:35 PM
#1
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
PCA Club Racing - Proposed Rule Changes for 2018
Here is your chance to provide commentary to the proposed rule changes:
Comments may be submitted to crrules@pca.org through September 17th, 2017.
STOCK
1) Proposal: Allow removal of 1974-1989 911 rocker panel side skirts and rubber.
A number of 911s of these models racing in Stock/Prepared - mainly E - are running without these bodywork pieces, which were a prominent part of the style changes from the long hood cars and the change to the EPA bumpers. No rule allows this.
Proponents say they like the "look," and others feel that deletion of parts not affecting performance on a race car naturally should be allowed to be deleted. All agree there seems to be no competitive advantage one way or another. For those who did not retain these parts the cost of replacements from Porsche and painting might be around $600. The weight loss is perhaps 8-10 pounds overall, but these cars can easily reach minimum weight.
Because there is no appreciable effect on performance, those running without these parts in Stock/Prepared, including those with a logbook notation requiring the parts be put back on, need not do so for the remainder of 2017.
2) Proposal: Reduce the minimum weight of the 2.7 Boxster in E from 2929 to 2829 pounds.
The proponent believes this model is inherently uncompetitive in E.
3) Proposal: Reduce the minimum weight for the 996 Turbo in J from 3546 to 3346.
The proponent believes this would lead to this car being raced - to date this year no 996 Turbo has raced in J.
GTB
4) Proposal: Add the following to the GTB bodywork rules:
H. The 987.1 and 987.2 Cayman may add front fender flares. Front fenders with flares may not exceed the width of the corresponding installed 997 Cup Car parts as allowed in Section A above. Flares must be a Porsche or high quality aftermarket part and have an installed professional appearance.
This is a way to allow a 987 Cayman to add flares to the Cayman front fenders, rather than switching to 997 fenders (which requires a 997 GT3/Cup bumper cover) to add the already allowed add on Cup flare. In other words, it is an alternate, and can be a less expensive, way to reach the already allowed bodywork width of the front fender and accommodate a higher load rating front tire.
5) Proposal: Allow the 981 3.4S motor to act as a "long block" backdate into a 987.2 GTB1 Chassis.
If the 981 3.4S is retrofitted with the 987.2 intake plenum and mass air flow sensor (the 981 uses a manifold absolute pressure sensor), water pump console (the 981 has an elaborate electronically controlled thermostat and water cooler distribution system), oil filter assembly, and front engine mount console, the 981 engine will physically fit into the 987 tub and be recognized by the CAN bus and related electronics as a 987.2 engine.
Some with expert knowledge of these motors see the 981 as a long block to have these parts retrofitted, and thus in a practical sense "the same engine." Bore, stroke, and compression ratio are the same, and it appears port, intake manifold, and valve sizes are also the same. In GTB, the ECU flash is free, and this accounts for most, if not all, of the factory horsepower ratings for the engines in the various models of the same displacement.
Others, equally knowledgeable, do not see it this way. Among other changes which may or may not be of consequence, Porsche noted three particular changes in the 981 (for both the Cayman and Boxster) and 991 base model 3.4 liter engines. The VarioCam Plus cam timing adjuster increased its range from 40 to 50 crankshaft degrees, and its vane component was changed from steel to aluminum. And the camshafts changed from the traditional single piece casting to an assembled cam: the lobes are separately cast and hardened, and are then assembled on a tube. This means the lobes are more durable (can be made harder without making the assembly brittle), and means the camshaft is significantly lighter and there is some effect on the moment of inertia. One estimate is three to four pounds of mass for each of the four camshafts. The lobes and lobe separation are assumed to be the same, but so far data for this has not emerged. It is suggested that converting all these parts, and especially the camshafts, involves so much change that it would not be economically advantageous to convert the 981 into an identical 987.2 motor.
The result is that a motor with the minimum conversion necessary to work in the earlier chassis does not meet the update/backdate criteria of meeting all specifications of the vehicle to which it is converted, ie. it is a duplicate in all regards.
Hence this proposal to change the rules to allow doing this conversion for GTB1 Caymans with the specified parts retrofitted in this class. The proponent views this as an economy measure for racers with a 981 tub which cannot be repaired and anticipates obtaining a roller 987, but there may be broader implications.
6) Proposal: Reclassify the 981 GTB2 Caymans to GTB1 at a base minimum weight of 3050 pounds.
GTB2 was created when the 981 Cayman 3.4S appeared. It was theorized that it was not practical to make them heavy enough not to be too fast for B1, nor light enough for B3, so a single model class was created. Experience suggests these cars may not be that inherently faster, despite being newer, with a longer wheelbase, better aero, and an upgraded motor and PDK controller. Adding 300 lbs (400 if PDK), which happens to be the Stock I weight and thus is not unrealistic as a starting point, means they would be 100 pounds heavier than the 987.2 DFI Caymans in GTB1. Comment based on experience with the 981 will be especially helpful.
GTC5
7) Proposal: Make GTC5 shocks and springs free.
Proponents point to the fact that when the 997 Gen 2 car was raced in IMSA, those rules were promptly changed to allow a shock more compatible with the (often) bumpier US tracks than the smoother European tracks. They also note or predict an end soon to the availability of the original Sachs shock. Similar arguments are advanced concerning the currently mandated springs and rates.
They note that running in GTA2 against cars with all the modifications allowed in that class is unappealing.
They also note that, despite the ease of spotting a remote reservoir, cars with this modification have been issued logbooks and raced without comment. This, however, is not an appropriate reason for allowing a change to a clear rule which affects a car's competitiveness. Racers can be expected to know all the rules affecting their cars. Scrutineers cannot be expected to have memorized all the rules affecting all the cars which can race in PCA, and to check for all of them all the time. That is why the racer signs his or her name to the forms attesting to the car meeting all the requirements of the class in which it runs.
In addition, GTC really started with the 996 Cups, which were viewed as a bargain when purchased from European Carrera Cup teams as the cars timed out of that series, or were simply replaced with a newer one. As a result, they arrived meeting the spring and shock specifications.
Proponents of this change note that in order to import these cars new from Porsche, they had to be run in a recognized race (basically professional) series, which meant they were raced in IMSA with its allowances, and hence face considerable expense in reverting to Carrera Cup Germany specifications.
GTC3 and GTC4 cars are allowed alternative adjustable shocks, with some limitations, but there is no provision for allowing different spring rates for these, or the GTC5, cars.
On the other hand, there are plenty of GTC5 cars which are running the spec, non-adjustable, shock. At some time, age and parts availability can necessitate changes in class rules. Is this class there yet on shocks and springs?
MULTIPLE CLASSES
8) Proposal: Allow substitution of the Porsche Motorsports Air/Oil Separator for the stock component for all M96 and M97 motors.
Making the stock AOS function in a racing environment calls for a difficult balance of engine oil levels: too low, and crank and rod bearings suffer under hard cornering. Too high, and the AOS can't handle it and oil gets into the combustion chamber. Proponents believe adding this part is cheap insurance, not to say of a benefit to other racers who are following a smoking car.
Note that this would apply to SPB and SP996, as well as Stock/Prepared. SPC already contains this allowance.
9) Proposal: Require a rear facing video recorder in all cars.
Video has been of great assistance to the stewards in dealing with incidents, but often the forward facing video of the car in front does not help as much as rearward video from that car would. Resolving incidents quickly and fairly is extremely important.
10) Proposal: All cars must have a driver controlled LED rain light of at least a 15 watt bulb equivalency mounted appropriately for its purpose on the rear of the car. Experience with rain events has shown the need for such a light in some if not all PCA classes. Please comment on this as you see it affecting your racing.
Comments may be submitted to crrules@pca.org through September 17th, 2017.
STOCK
1) Proposal: Allow removal of 1974-1989 911 rocker panel side skirts and rubber.
A number of 911s of these models racing in Stock/Prepared - mainly E - are running without these bodywork pieces, which were a prominent part of the style changes from the long hood cars and the change to the EPA bumpers. No rule allows this.
Proponents say they like the "look," and others feel that deletion of parts not affecting performance on a race car naturally should be allowed to be deleted. All agree there seems to be no competitive advantage one way or another. For those who did not retain these parts the cost of replacements from Porsche and painting might be around $600. The weight loss is perhaps 8-10 pounds overall, but these cars can easily reach minimum weight.
Because there is no appreciable effect on performance, those running without these parts in Stock/Prepared, including those with a logbook notation requiring the parts be put back on, need not do so for the remainder of 2017.
2) Proposal: Reduce the minimum weight of the 2.7 Boxster in E from 2929 to 2829 pounds.
The proponent believes this model is inherently uncompetitive in E.
3) Proposal: Reduce the minimum weight for the 996 Turbo in J from 3546 to 3346.
The proponent believes this would lead to this car being raced - to date this year no 996 Turbo has raced in J.
GTB
4) Proposal: Add the following to the GTB bodywork rules:
H. The 987.1 and 987.2 Cayman may add front fender flares. Front fenders with flares may not exceed the width of the corresponding installed 997 Cup Car parts as allowed in Section A above. Flares must be a Porsche or high quality aftermarket part and have an installed professional appearance.
This is a way to allow a 987 Cayman to add flares to the Cayman front fenders, rather than switching to 997 fenders (which requires a 997 GT3/Cup bumper cover) to add the already allowed add on Cup flare. In other words, it is an alternate, and can be a less expensive, way to reach the already allowed bodywork width of the front fender and accommodate a higher load rating front tire.
5) Proposal: Allow the 981 3.4S motor to act as a "long block" backdate into a 987.2 GTB1 Chassis.
If the 981 3.4S is retrofitted with the 987.2 intake plenum and mass air flow sensor (the 981 uses a manifold absolute pressure sensor), water pump console (the 981 has an elaborate electronically controlled thermostat and water cooler distribution system), oil filter assembly, and front engine mount console, the 981 engine will physically fit into the 987 tub and be recognized by the CAN bus and related electronics as a 987.2 engine.
Some with expert knowledge of these motors see the 981 as a long block to have these parts retrofitted, and thus in a practical sense "the same engine." Bore, stroke, and compression ratio are the same, and it appears port, intake manifold, and valve sizes are also the same. In GTB, the ECU flash is free, and this accounts for most, if not all, of the factory horsepower ratings for the engines in the various models of the same displacement.
Others, equally knowledgeable, do not see it this way. Among other changes which may or may not be of consequence, Porsche noted three particular changes in the 981 (for both the Cayman and Boxster) and 991 base model 3.4 liter engines. The VarioCam Plus cam timing adjuster increased its range from 40 to 50 crankshaft degrees, and its vane component was changed from steel to aluminum. And the camshafts changed from the traditional single piece casting to an assembled cam: the lobes are separately cast and hardened, and are then assembled on a tube. This means the lobes are more durable (can be made harder without making the assembly brittle), and means the camshaft is significantly lighter and there is some effect on the moment of inertia. One estimate is three to four pounds of mass for each of the four camshafts. The lobes and lobe separation are assumed to be the same, but so far data for this has not emerged. It is suggested that converting all these parts, and especially the camshafts, involves so much change that it would not be economically advantageous to convert the 981 into an identical 987.2 motor.
The result is that a motor with the minimum conversion necessary to work in the earlier chassis does not meet the update/backdate criteria of meeting all specifications of the vehicle to which it is converted, ie. it is a duplicate in all regards.
Hence this proposal to change the rules to allow doing this conversion for GTB1 Caymans with the specified parts retrofitted in this class. The proponent views this as an economy measure for racers with a 981 tub which cannot be repaired and anticipates obtaining a roller 987, but there may be broader implications.
6) Proposal: Reclassify the 981 GTB2 Caymans to GTB1 at a base minimum weight of 3050 pounds.
GTB2 was created when the 981 Cayman 3.4S appeared. It was theorized that it was not practical to make them heavy enough not to be too fast for B1, nor light enough for B3, so a single model class was created. Experience suggests these cars may not be that inherently faster, despite being newer, with a longer wheelbase, better aero, and an upgraded motor and PDK controller. Adding 300 lbs (400 if PDK), which happens to be the Stock I weight and thus is not unrealistic as a starting point, means they would be 100 pounds heavier than the 987.2 DFI Caymans in GTB1. Comment based on experience with the 981 will be especially helpful.
GTC5
7) Proposal: Make GTC5 shocks and springs free.
Proponents point to the fact that when the 997 Gen 2 car was raced in IMSA, those rules were promptly changed to allow a shock more compatible with the (often) bumpier US tracks than the smoother European tracks. They also note or predict an end soon to the availability of the original Sachs shock. Similar arguments are advanced concerning the currently mandated springs and rates.
They note that running in GTA2 against cars with all the modifications allowed in that class is unappealing.
They also note that, despite the ease of spotting a remote reservoir, cars with this modification have been issued logbooks and raced without comment. This, however, is not an appropriate reason for allowing a change to a clear rule which affects a car's competitiveness. Racers can be expected to know all the rules affecting their cars. Scrutineers cannot be expected to have memorized all the rules affecting all the cars which can race in PCA, and to check for all of them all the time. That is why the racer signs his or her name to the forms attesting to the car meeting all the requirements of the class in which it runs.
In addition, GTC really started with the 996 Cups, which were viewed as a bargain when purchased from European Carrera Cup teams as the cars timed out of that series, or were simply replaced with a newer one. As a result, they arrived meeting the spring and shock specifications.
Proponents of this change note that in order to import these cars new from Porsche, they had to be run in a recognized race (basically professional) series, which meant they were raced in IMSA with its allowances, and hence face considerable expense in reverting to Carrera Cup Germany specifications.
GTC3 and GTC4 cars are allowed alternative adjustable shocks, with some limitations, but there is no provision for allowing different spring rates for these, or the GTC5, cars.
On the other hand, there are plenty of GTC5 cars which are running the spec, non-adjustable, shock. At some time, age and parts availability can necessitate changes in class rules. Is this class there yet on shocks and springs?
MULTIPLE CLASSES
8) Proposal: Allow substitution of the Porsche Motorsports Air/Oil Separator for the stock component for all M96 and M97 motors.
Making the stock AOS function in a racing environment calls for a difficult balance of engine oil levels: too low, and crank and rod bearings suffer under hard cornering. Too high, and the AOS can't handle it and oil gets into the combustion chamber. Proponents believe adding this part is cheap insurance, not to say of a benefit to other racers who are following a smoking car.
Note that this would apply to SPB and SP996, as well as Stock/Prepared. SPC already contains this allowance.
9) Proposal: Require a rear facing video recorder in all cars.
Video has been of great assistance to the stewards in dealing with incidents, but often the forward facing video of the car in front does not help as much as rearward video from that car would. Resolving incidents quickly and fairly is extremely important.
10) Proposal: All cars must have a driver controlled LED rain light of at least a 15 watt bulb equivalency mounted appropriately for its purpose on the rear of the car. Experience with rain events has shown the need for such a light in some if not all PCA classes. Please comment on this as you see it affecting your racing.
08-30-2017, 10:53 AM
#3
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,465
Received 3,276 Likes
on
1,584 Posts
One of the rule changes I am going to submit is that I think bonus points should be earned for every car that starts a race in your class, not that finishes the race.
08-30-2017, 11:34 AM
#4
Rennlist Member
08-30-2017, 11:50 AM
#5
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by LuigiVampa
One of the rule changes I am going to submit is that I think bonus points should be earned for every car that starts a race in your class, not that finishes the race.
08-30-2017, 12:01 PM
#6
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,465
Received 3,276 Likes
on
1,584 Posts
08-30-2017, 12:26 PM
#7
Rennlist Member
Trending Topics
08-30-2017, 12:28 PM
#8
Instructor
How about this rule change request:
If a registered (and paid) car class has 20 or more cars at an event - that class gets a split start for all sprint races and not enduro races.
This would encourage the development of classes and would help PCA with revenue. Case in point if this rule was in place and there were 18 cars in a class registered for a race, there would be a substantial recruiting effort to get those final 2 cars (or more) filled so the entire class gets a split start. Enduro races would be too hairy IMO as they usually are combined run groups and you have more time to sort things out.
It's a great way to encourage more drivers to race. It also is a lot more fun racing for all involved.
If a registered (and paid) car class has 20 or more cars at an event - that class gets a split start for all sprint races and not enduro races.
This would encourage the development of classes and would help PCA with revenue. Case in point if this rule was in place and there were 18 cars in a class registered for a race, there would be a substantial recruiting effort to get those final 2 cars (or more) filled so the entire class gets a split start. Enduro races would be too hairy IMO as they usually are combined run groups and you have more time to sort things out.
It's a great way to encourage more drivers to race. It also is a lot more fun racing for all involved.
08-30-2017, 01:28 PM
#9
Rennlist Member
No changes for 996/997??
08-30-2017, 01:41 PM
#10
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
08-30-2017, 01:49 PM
#11
Banned
Is the door closed for submitting new change proposals?
08-30-2017, 04:33 PM
#12
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
08-30-2017, 05:43 PM
#13
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,465
Received 3,276 Likes
on
1,584 Posts
08-30-2017, 06:56 PM
#14
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by LuigiVampa
Cheater emgines use more fuel! 
Hey now, he is fast due solely to talent and superior coaching
08-30-2017, 07:04 PM
#15
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,465
Received 3,276 Likes
on
1,584 Posts
Matt has less patience than me trying to watch Game of Thrones with my wife asking a question every 30 seconds!