RJay

First, I'm an outsider looking in at the moment, I've yet to do my first club race which I suspect won't happen at the earliest until the end of this year, so if this seems like a stupid question, well, it probably won't be the last. I'm wondering how those of you currently in PCR feel about the notion of at least GT classes moving more toward a system like that of the GTS challenge which bases classification on measured power to weight rather than displacement. It seems as one of the uniniated, like a great idea for those of us who unwittingly or otherwise (I knew what I was doing when I put my 993 motor in). Seems silly to me that a gutted 924S would have to run against my 911 if I wind up stuffing the 2.8 race motor I'm contemplating. I can understand opposition to this in stock classes, but why not for GT?

http://www.gtschallenge.com/Rules/2005rules.htm

They seem to have a reasonable system worked out for challenges and protests. I like the idea, but I'm curious as to the downside.

Lothar

RJay,

Aren't the stock classes essentially grouped by weight/hp as listed in the PCA GCR? However, there seems to have been some adjustment over the years based on experience.

In GT classes, I think the idea has a lot of merit. How 'bout adjustments to ballast during the racing season similar to Grand AM Cup?

924RACR

Being one of the guilty parties responsible for the GTS rules, I have to admit I'm very interested to see the feedback here. I will keep my thoughts to myself other than to point out that the PCA Stock classes and the GTS Challenge have a VERY different purpose... Not to mention that I find the rulings on gutted interiors in PCA a major impediment to my racing in that arena. But hey, I have an IT car anyway, so it's not like I planned to race it in PCA...

38D

For GT classes, it would seem to make sense. The current GT setup forces you to run a grenade engine in order to be at the top. The are many people who have stock 3.6s in 911s that run decent times, but wouldn't be competitive in GT2S because it is based on displacement.

kev

If there were a flat weight/hp classification, how would you define stock vs. GT? Non-stock motor, slicks, % weight reduced?

My complaint with PCA is their inflexibility with the stock rules. No stripped interiors, impartial backdate/update rulings, only factory weights and hp. Any changes addressing these item would be welcomed.

M758

Well,
This big pain for me.

I don't run GTS since I have 944-spec, but do believe this brings up a question about PCA rules and PCA Club Racing in General.

The say there is class for every car, but not really.

Stock classes are fine classes to have. No doubt about it. They are roughly based on power to weight already. I also think the GT classes are nice since they allow pretty much anything to go.

The problem lies in between. Better stated there is nothing in between stock and GT. Prepared does not cut it. My personal beef is with cars that are prepared to stock class rules, but with a gutted interior. The car is a bit faster due to less weight, but must run a in class were one has no hope of competiting. Stock motor swaps are another. I know of a DE friend of mine with a gutted 80 SC with stock 964 3.6 in it. He has no really class in PCA. He is good enough to race, but fiugures why? He has no chance in GT2S and can't run anywhere else. He does not have the money to built a proper GT2 car.

So I have considered a way to help out stock cars with gutted interiors. My idea is a 1 or two stock class bump for a 10% weight reduction from stock. That would put a 944-spec car in H or G where it has run with field. Some quick calcuation seem to show that based on power to weight reducing a cars weight by 10% would put it squarely in the next class up's power weight range.

Now that does not address the issue of stock motor swaps. I don't have as clear a picture of that. I do know that POC has very different rule structure where various points are assigned for certain mods. A stock motor swap would give you xx points that would place you in a class were you should not be that far off. I still think that even there they issue too many points for interior removal, but that is another discussion.

So,
I do think the PCA rules can and should be adjusted to lessen the gap between stock and $$$$$$$$$$ party in GT classes. I feel that many many racers would love to do a little more than stock, but can't bring the cash to run in GT. I am not certain that power to weight is best. Mostly because I don't think you can accuratly asses engine power. Weight is easy, but it seems like there are too many way to mess around with engine power and bend or break the rules without being caught. Even an Impound Dyno test can fooled with good electronic controls.

So that leave any power to weight classing system with the problem of legal power verification. It may not be an issue GTS right now, but folks think there are more than few guys breaking the rules PCA now, a "power" limit in the rules will see alot more folks doing it with virually now chance to prove it.

Geo

As an outsider looking in (I am not interested in racing in either NASA or PCA) it would seem to me that what PCA desperately needs is a "prepared" class between stock and GT. I would envision something similiar to IT or 944 Spec rules. Gut the interior, allow external engine mods (intake, exhaust, pulleys, and the sort) along with some suspension mods such as bushings (or even spherical bearings maybe), coilovers, no remote reservior dampers (while they can be had reasonably cheaply, they open up a "sky's the limit" price range), etc. Basic mods with a gutted inerior I think would be an extremely popular class without the dyno games of pure hp/wt.

John Brown

Geo I would tend to agree with you except that PCA cars mostly ALREADY have most/many of the mods you mention in stock classes. If there were truly a 'stock' class I would love to run it. My understanding is the POC has such a class. But PCA is fixated on the interior while letting the suspension mods run wild (read expensive).

However, based on the number of participants they apparently are serving the membership's desires.

JCP911S

Bottom line, All racing rules are inherently arbitrary. The question is not whether they "make sense" but whether they are fairly enforced. Every racer has the option to spend the time/effort/money to build the optimum car taking maximum benefit of any given set of rules.

Problem here is guys trying ot run a car in multiple series where the rules differ. You cannot build a car that is optimum for two sets of rules. PCA interior requirement is not a problem is you race only in PCA. Does it make sense? No. Is it the rule? Yes.

Should PCA change their rules to mimic some other series... maybe it would be nice, but why should they?

I agree that the PCA GT rules encourage granade motors. My response? Pay to play dude.... if you don;t like the expense, run in stock with a stock motor. Nobody is forcing you to run GT.

Personally, I do not favor changing racing rules all over the place. Once you have your car built, rules changes simply impose more cost and risk on you.

Adding a third class to PCA is fine, but what would it accomplish? To me, simply divide the fields. Instead of 12 cars running in G Stock, you have 6 cars in G Stock and 6 in G "Prepared". Personally I i favor more cars in fewer classess... makes for better racing. If you have 27 classes with two cars in each.... what satisfaction is there in getting a "podium".

M758

Well,
My car's first race in fact was in PCA not for "another class". What some of the PCA club racing folk seem to have is an inability to be flexible and understand the where folks are coming from.

Simply put the currnet stock PCA class rules are not condusve to the vast pool of DE folks out there. The basic premis for stock class rules are not condusive to what most folks would like to run. What is real premis for stock and prepared anyway? GT is clear. Very few rules open to just about any mod anything you can throw at it. That concept is fine with me. GTC classes are based on a preservation of the various Cup cars in factory racing trim. Again fine with me.
What about stock classes? The premiss is certainly not low cost. It is not "showroom stock" racing either. Is it dual use race/street cars? The prep levels in stock classes are really a cross between full-up race cars and street stock cars. Must have full interior, factory A/C, two seats and run full stock weight, but can run monoball suspension, full up racing dampers, superlight racing wheels and use tires are that are good for a weekend maybe two.

Geo

I understand that and agree with you completely. As a member of the SCCA Improved Touring Advisory Committee I am involved with recommending new rules and changes to rules all the time. I often think exactly what you said.

My comment, out of ignorance for actual PCA rules, was based upon what appears to me to be a demand for something a bit beyond the "stock" classe, but not as intense at the GT classes. There does appear to me to be some demand for this, but not being connected in any way or paying any attention to PCA racing other than what is discussed here, I don't know how much relatively speaking. I just made an observation.

FWIW, we get a lot of interest in creeping IT rules up as well. There is a fine balance rules makers must have in this regard. It's really easy to keep making allowance right up to the point that nobody wants to race much anymore because the costs for the class have gone out of sight.

JCP911S

Geo... yeah... racing rules are like shoveling water some times. Competition and "rule creap" are two sides of a coin. The only solution is to open racing to only people who do not want to win.

Ease of objective enforcement often create bright-lines that seem (or actually are) inflexible or illogical.

M758.... everthiing you say is true, but I think the point is that PCA rules (or any rules) don't have to be conducive to anything but racing. As I said above, I believe alot of the PCA rules are written as they are to establish clearcut enforcement guidelines.... not to accomplish some "goal". For example the stock rules are not written to help reduce costs.

When I decided to plunge into PCA Racing I had to retire my DE car and buy a PCA racecar. It would have been impractical to bring my DE car into compliance. I wasn't happy about it, but that's the way it is. You want to play you have to play what the dealer calls.

If you kind of look at the structure of the PCA stock rules the philosophy seems to be that something is either 100% stock or 100% free. I believe this is done primarily as an aid to enforcement. It is very hard to have a rule that says you can modify it 35%... how do you measure whether something is "35% modified"?

Obviously in any form of racing, once you open any area to modification, competition is going to focus effort there. When the PCA rules were written, you would have been hard pressed to spend $1500 modifying a 911 suspension. Today a whole cottage industry exists to sell hugely exotic racing suspension parts to PCA racers.... you can drop $10K in a heartbeat and still not be the nuts...demand creates supply and in racing demand created expensive supply.

having spent that money, however, I would be hugely pissed off if PCA went to a 100% stock philosophy for suspensions... that would just cost everybody more money to modify their cars back.

IMHO the whole concept of racing is illogical. So logic really isn;t much of a factor.

joey bagadonuts

I like the weight/hp format but I think NASA/GTS could take it a step further. Classification is generally based on the Factory hp spec. However, some cars may be generating slightly more grunt than the Factory number, so the Factory spec may not be the right number.

I believe the GTS organizers should require a dyno plot with the entrant's application to determine class assignmnets and ensure fair play. And it appears that they are already headed in this direction:I'm actually signed up for NASA's Road America licensing school and race weekend, 4/8-4/10, and plan to compete in a number of GTS races this year. I think a mult-marque series based on wgt/hp is a great concept and I'm really looking forward to it.

BTW, Big thanks to Vaughan (924RACR) and Jeff Curtis for helping me through the application/car prep process.

JCP911S

Maybe I'm missing something, but seems to me that using actual hp as a classification tool is difficult to enforce.... can you say sandbagging? Wouldn't be too hard to get a 350Hp car to generate 310Hp on a chassis dyno. I clever driver could use the extra power just in those few places where it made a difference and not attract too much attention. What, are they going to dyno the podium cars after each race?

John H

I think that since the rules are out there and rarely change in any significant way, I can only blame myself for buying the worst power to weight ratio car in PCA stock D class. If I tore out the interior because the rules allowed it and everyone else did the same thing, I still have the worst hp to weight ratio car in the class. The last race I was at there were only three D cars so tearing out the interior to run D prepared isn't too attractive to me personally.
I agree that some of the suspension stuff you can get away with in stock classes is ridiculous. If I were King of PCA, stock would be only what you could order from the factory in that model's production run.