gt3cup

Dan, I second Mark Weining's sentiment on your comments. I agree 100% about the manner in which we communicate today lacking context. It also seems to breed a "keyboard warrior" mentality that rarely accomplishes anything positive. I also agree that we should make the class as inclusive as possible. That said, I will step into the minefield here with the goal of trying to help fill in some backstory for anyone attempting to sort fact from fiction....

A quick history lesson for any E competitors that I have not yet met, or that may not know the history behind 911CUP. My name is Mark White and I am a PCA Club Racer. My passion for the air-cooled 911 compelled me to open up a race/street shop. Accumoto focuses solely on the the air-cooled 911. During the TRAC '17 drivers meeting, Vicki Earnshaw asked for suggestions to help continue the growth and excitement of the Stock E class. I was the dumbass that raised my hand and suggested removing weight and grip. Everybody looked at me like I had 3 heads. (More on that in a minute) The reason I would suggest such a whack idea? Because Accumoto had worked hard over the prior couple of years to bring 12 drivers to the class, 9 of those being rookies who were not currently racing w/PCA. When I initially suggested running "old slow cars" vs the latest GT3 Cup to these new drivers, they looked at me like I had three heads... I convinced them to try E based on the competitiveness of the field, camaraderie and the low run costs. They tried the car/class and loved it! Herein lies the rub....

Being competitive in E and having low run costs are mutually exclusive. Period. As a shop we witnessed the run cost creep as our guys got closer to the front of the field. Pads, rotors and wheel bearings were consumed at an unprecedented rate. We were also alarmed by the rapid increase of structural cracks in the tub. Additionally, we discovered some pretty horrifying tears in the floor where the cars had 150# + of ballast bolted in. Suddenly, the low run cost flipped to a high cost and became a deterrent for some of the drivers and a gating issue for others considering joining the class. I saw the TD as a path to lowering these costs and creating something that could be even more inclusive as a result. A welcome bonus being the attenuation of the structural degradation. Diminished cost has absolutely been the case with the the TD vs the R7. Consumables rate of consumption has been cut by over 50%. The rate of growth on the cracks we were mapping in the tubs slowed dramatically. Seems like a win, right? Oh, and btw, the TD itself costs less, and wears similar to the R7. Who wouldn't want to spend less $?

In reference to your experience w/the tire Dan, you state that you "did not like the tire for racing". Did you not like it because you were racing against the R7? Were you able to compare it in a race setting with other similarly matched drivers on the TD? (same guys all looking for the same apex at the same time?) If this was not the case, I don't blame you for not liking it. I caution anybody that tries the tire to not only give yourself enough time to learn it (your mileage may vary) but also make sure that you are comparing your perceived performance to others on the same tire. How much do you think you would enjoy racing on the R7 if everyone else was on Michelin slicks?

Now, back to the issue with communicating today. I would like to clear up a couple of things...

• I have been involved with the 911CUP concept from the inception. In fact, Dan and I are responsible for creating the name and suggesting it to PCA.
• Dan instructed PCA that he no longer wanted to be part of the running of the Series for '19
• I have been pushing to remove weight from the very first conversation. Accumoto ran 8 different cars on the tire in '18 to provide data to support the request for the weight removal request.
• I called Clarke on multiple occasions in an attempt to involve him in the dialog/process. He never answered, nor did he reply to vm's.
• I had nothing to do w/excluding the other classes. I would absolutely welcome it. As I understand it, no actionable data was provided to allow change for '19.
• I had nothing to do with the schedule. I am not particularly in love w/it but I understand the logic behind it. I look forward to visiting a couple tracks we haven't been to in a while. Mid Ohio is a blast in our 911's regardless of the tire choice.
• I welcome a phone call from anyone who would like to discuss the tire. (My phone # was provided on the initial email blast) I'm ready to help with setup questions, etc. Or, we will be at Sebring during the DMTD prior the the 48. If you're curious about any of this, please stop by out trailer and we would be happy to share data and setup info. We can even get you in the right seat to experience the tire the tire for yourself.
• I have zero interest in cannibalizing E. I genuinely hope we can move past the "I'm going to shout the loudest" b.s. and have a positive, productive dialog that will continue to propel forward the best class in PCA.

deputydog95

Why not just put it to a vote with all the registered active E car drivers? Seems like an easy solution... There's already an email list.

Display all the pros and cons, present the tire/weight options, and let the popular vote decide. As a mid pack driver at best, I don't really have a dog in this fight and would happy to run either as long as everyone is running the same thing. Although the concept of the R7 with 150# of lead ballast removed from the car does sound very appealing.

I love the concept of the 911 Cup but I hate seeing the group splinter into two factions, watering down the overall numbers.

M_Weining

Mark/gt3cup: More great input and comments. Thanks for taking the time to share this additional background and information that many may not be aware of.

Between the input in this thread and input on the PCA E Class Facebook page there sure seems to be a lot of common ground despite the strong feelings about the TD tires. Need to make sure broad input is gathered from those impacted as lots of people have spent lots of money to be part of PCA club racing and it's easier then ever to find alternatives.

As a long time racer in E Class (arguably one of the largest and best race classes in PCA for many years) I am hopeful that come November 2019 we will have a solid plan in place that promotes larger and more competitive and fun classes, better in class racing, increased camaraderie, less wear and tear on these aging chassis and parts and lower operating costs.

Gary R.

Take 150# out of E and you better let D cars have unlimited weight and high compression pistons/cams/ etc. if you want them competitive in a combined Cup series..

rmag

Why not just remove 100lb across the board in all letter classes. Just about every letter class car runs between 50-150lb of ballast. I'm running over 120lb in H. If reducing weight will reduce wear on the car and make it more enjoyable to drive, and everyone can reap the benefits without much, if any, cost......

Gary R.

Quick answer, because that would do absolutely nothing to create parity between different classes. The problem becomes obvious when you look at lap records (use Watkins Glen to magnify the differences). The very best ever D Stock drivers are 5-6 seconds a lap slower than the top E Stock drivers. You lower E (2770+ and what do you do with D for parity? Lower it 250-300 from current 2702)? Not easily achievable and not sure that would bridge a 6 second gap. At best leaving E weight alone and dropping D 200+/- might work..

GT3DE

If you change the 3.0L SC to a Euro 3.0L then you change a D to an E.
Must change a few parts to get higher compression and fuel delivery thingy.
This is about 10k to 11k cost at most any shop.
My E used to be a D, that's how I know.
* my SC was a D, changed to 3.0L E, then changed to 3.2L E. I still have the E 3.0L and sometimes consider changing back...
Anyway, all you D cars can switch to E with engine mods.

GT3DE

My vm does not accept new message because it is full and has been full since 2012.
I have a cell phone, my only phone, and it does not accept vm. I have no home phone. I have no work phone.
It is impossible to leave me vm.

It is not necessary for us to speak about 911 CUP as we are diametrically opposed on the tire issue. I have seen, heard and read your TD story for the last few years and wish not to hear your sales pitch again.

rmag

Yea, my response was more an overall observation and in reference to the splintering of E and 911 cup by dropping 150lb to create less wear on the car. Was not made in regards to the d,e,f,g consolidation proposal.

Gary R.

But I thought the idea was to combine existing classes with weight adjustments and not to modify to meet a different class? Lap times/records are the final say, if E/F/G are running about the same no real big changes are called for. The big disparity is a proper D car, mine weighed about 2450 without ballast and not much left to do but gut doors and add CF hood and engine bonnet.. I also changed a D to an 3.2 E a few years ago and between brakes, new rebuild on engine, and incidentals it was a bit more than 15k at the time with me doing 90% of the work.

Carrera51

Too bad a home in the 911 Cup wasn't found for the F-H configured 964s. As a 964 owner, with the current state of G it doesn't make sense for me to put a cage in it and bring it back to the track to race it in G with the current car counts being what they are. Clarke's proposal to include it in the 911 Cup made it very tempting. But as The Boy stated, since I have two sets of 17s for it, and that every 964 I have ever seen race is either on 17s or 18s, the TD tire isn't an option.

hf1

GT3DE

The idea is to combine the letters. But D is the hardest... and you suggested engine changes for D.
So I merely mentioned easy solution to change a D to an E.
FWIW, Martinson holds a lot of track lap records and his car is a Euro 3.0L SC.

Jas0nn

This is precisely why we should all make consideration of the 911 Cup proposal a priority if we care about the future of aircooled cars in club racing. Its certainly more pressing (imho) than trying to appease a subset of E drivers.

destaccado

Of course the vast majority of people will run the R7 when their competitors are doing so. People don't typically want to race the slowest vehicle. That doesn't prove that they'd prefer to do it if they could run a spec tire that would reduce their costs and put less wear/tear on their vehicle.

I'm curious why Accumoto is getting so much hate? Less wear/tear means less business for a repair shop right? Are they profiting off the sale of these tires or something?

Reading between the lines it seems that hf1 basically summed up what's going on.