Its a heck of a lot better than what PCA does currently, and gearing is one of the smallest factors of the bunch. close ratios, (which would be the extreme of the examples) would only effect the overall hp to weight ratios (actual hp available to the wheels) of about 6-8% gain.

the comparison of a GT3RS and ANYTHING else, unless another factory race car is compared, is pretty tough. just look at the comparison of times of a supercup GT3 vs a GT3RS, even if the GT3 has the speedvision upgrade. the best GT3 at road america right now, runs 2:15, while the GT3RS runs in the 2:10 range or faster. all the other factors were are talking about here come into effect. gears are actually pretty close between the two cars.

HP to weight is a great place to start, then fine tuning can begin. However, since there is such disparity between the factory hp ratings, the effects of certain mods on all the different models, etc etc, the current system fails badly.

Its basic physics here. ignoring all the minor issues, Hp to weight is 1/3 of the equation. braking and handling are the other 2/3rds that are both dependant on absolute weight. the other factors being uncontrolled, i could live with for a fair fight on any Sunday!

MK

 

I'm not suggesting PCA rules are perfect, as none ever are. But some are making them out to be pretty horrendous and that has not been my experience.
The bottom line is that if a rule is to difficult to enforce given the current level of scrutineering, it is a bad rule - even if it would make the playing field perfectly level. When rules got too complicated, they become impossible to enforce.
Making specific vehicle specs for every car would be wonderful in terms of competition, but look at the PCA rulebook and think about how difficult it would be to even make the rules, then the additional work to rebalance - which would likely take even longer.
PCA rules aparently started with HP/weight, then made adjustments. This necessity has been made clear over and over in this post.

I'm not sure Grand Am Cup is the greatest reference for this discussion. There are 2 primary reasons for this:
1. The rules are adjusted in between every race - typically small changes but enough to make a difference. This would be a nightmare for Club Racing.
2. These adjustments can be made inteligently (up for debate in some cases ) because every model of car has very strong drivers, so the driver can be eliminated from the equation when balancing cars based on performance. Not something you can realy do in Club Racing, as the level of drivers is more varied.

 

Cars classified close to what is already established. Allow HP/Weight ratio to be meet minimum guideline for cars within class. If this was done, most cars would be within 20% of each other on power, but be better levelled on terms of performance. Also guys would not be bolting 100lbs of ballast to the floorpan. A car 260hp weighing 2700 lbs would be more fairly matched with a car 285 weighing 2900 lbs. I still think this is easier to enforce and allows better driver competition in Club Racing.

 

The driving level is hugely variable. IMHO, the people that win do so because they are better drivers. The slower guys like to whine that it is all car, but when I've lost to Mike, Steve , Bill, Al , or Ernie , it is because they out drove or out raced me (or I f-ed up). Period.

The only thing I would like to see is an across the board weight reduction, not to change the competitive landscape, but to keep up with the fact that 95% of the cars are dedicated track cars. I think a small adjustment to the current weights (minus 5-7%) would be about right. And I would allow stripping of interiors and some more FG parts (I still wouldn't strip my interior).

 

I think hp/weight should be ok, but common sense should be applied also, which is subjective and seems to be difficult sometimes. My thought is to automatically take cars that were built for a competition series and/or in low numbers (less than 100?) to be automatically bumped a class. This way the “mass” production street/STOCK cars will have a fighting chance. Limited run specialty cars with obvious performance advantages should not be placed in the same class with “stock” cars of the same hp/weight.

 

No clean answer, but what im saying is that there is great inequality in the PCA rules now because of the weigth differences. I think if you based all HP ratings (another foundation for errors, as some of the stock cars put down as much to the wheels as they are rated for depending on the model)
But, say the factory hp ratings were accurate. just adjusting the classes for absolute weight would solve many of the problems. Hp to weight ratio is 1/3 of the major factors, and the other 2/3s being absolute weight due to effects on braking and handling.

as far as Grand Am Cup not being a good example, i dont entirely agree. IF some common sense was used in the beginning, many of the adjustments wouldnt have to be made. example. the new mustang. the 996 had to have the stock everything, 355hp, 3200lbs, while the mustang was a factory built race car, with a crate engine rated over 400hp. downside, solid rear axle.(this is a handling disavantage) but the 400hp wasnt real,it was more like 400 at the rear wheels and we all know the 996s were chipped to about 285rwhp. weights were heavier with the mustang and slowely got heavier until they equaled themselves out. were the best drivers running them? hard to tell. I still think they are faster than are being shown.

Point is, we all could have classed all the Grand am cup GS cars on this discussion and been closer out of the box for that series, using some common sense and some basic physics. The Series took the long way to get things evened out. Look at the cars, the drivers, the set ups, etc. they are so even because the cars have trade offs for HP and weight (and handling). the obvious attributes.

PCA/POC needs to get a grip on reality here. POC runs in R5 class. (the fastest of the orange group class, not requring fuel cells), 2200lbs 911s vs same hp to weight ratio 928s and 944Ts at 900 to 1300lbs more weight. who do you think is going to win , given two equal drivers?

I remember a good barometer for the situation. Thunderhill in 2000 or 2001 was the first time POC ran up there , and it was a new track to almost all of the club, except for me. (kind of a home track) running with the R5 cars, where i was always in the top 2-3 cars, i was not able to keep up with the leader, who made 4 major offs on one lap of a race where i was following and trying to pass. the car was so nimble due to the huge weight differences (2200lbs vs my 3330lbs), that it didnt mater what line he used, the weight was such a disadvantage. Later years, the drivers stared to really eat up the track, running much faster , even though we all had the same HP to weight ratios . it was obvious to me that weight was a major factor in the race cars performance, and not just HP to weight ratios.

MK

 

I think the biggest issue in PCA rules is the adhereance to stock curb weights and stock hp levels.

If you look at the classing they assume (for right or wrong) that stock cars will have stock hp levels. We all know that this true for some cars and not so much so for others cars. Problem is it rather hard to know how true this is for every car classed.

The big problem comes in that there is no good way to balacne this given the idea of sticking to stock published curb weights. Example 95 993 vs 96 993. The 96 cars were rated a few hp more, but the curb weights are both 3064. Well how in the hell is the 95 car ever expected to keep up with a 96 car, let alone the rest of the class? The easy way to solve this is to let the 270 hp 95 car run a few lbs lighter than the 96 + 282 hp cars. It would only take a few lbs to make this happen.

Then consider all the other cars in the same class determine if some cars could use 50lbs more and others 50lbs less. Doing this in a smart way with some cars being move up or down I believe would help greatly to balacne the performacne in class. This then gives you a way to deal with x51 cars. X51 cars could just carry xx lbs more to balance the standard cars.

However given the PCA stock class weights are set by the published crub weight and hp levels are assumed to be stock... well you will never get true balacne in any class. Even if you consider each class to have certain power/weight ranges if you assume a certain hp and fix the weight certain cars will always struggle. Allow a small weight adjustment (maybe +/- 5%) curb weight and I think there would fewer "cars to have" in each class.

 

Exactly!
I bet if you took a good, quickly adapting driver and put him in a 964 cup and immediately in a '95 993 (the accepted best and worst cars of D class), both cars to the limit of rules with new tires, ran 5 laps in each car and took the average... I bet the difference between the cars would be in line with the difference between MPSC and hoosier, maybe even old hoosier vs new hoosier.

I also would like to see PCA adjust minimum weights to equalize cars, but I can understand why they don't. As soon as you break their formula (Porsche published HP and weight) you open a door not easily closed.

 

 

I think the best place to start would be for PCA to bring in a dyno like NASA. We know that PCA classes cars based on hp/weight, so why does PCA only measure only ONE of those two factors? That causes the $$$ spending to gain hp without getting caught. A dyno would fix that.

PCA could introduce dynos with a means of protest, like many other race sanctioning bodies. If I lost to a guy who I know has illegal hp mods it would be good to be able to challenge that.

 

There will never be a dyno at PCA races, this is stupid. Take too long, results not repeatable, etc. Dynos are tools to tune, not to benchmark.

 

You've also go to look at NASA racing compared to PCA racing. NASA races for a year end championship, PCA does not. If a guy is cheating in NASA he loses contingency monies and possibly a title. If a guy cheats in PCA then he loses nothing except knowing that he won by cheating instead of skill.

 

The skill level in NASA GTS is not nearly what it is in PCA. The NASA Glen race is a good example, where Ronnie beat everyone by 4+ seconds. At least in PCA he has some competition.

Also, GTS is an emerging series, and the rule flaws are still being discovered.

 

As soon as people start building cars to take advantage of the NASA GTS rules(or lack thereof) I think you will see how that system really works. The only rules are hp/weight and safety, everything else is free. As long as people run their cars in basically the same configuration as they do in other series- PCA,BMW, ect. it will work.
I did not race with NASA this year, but it looks like there is some money to be made. The possibillity of money in combination with a championship is a recipe for some big time car development and $$$.

 

"The skill level in NASA GTS is not nearly what it is in PCA. The NASA Glen race is a good example, where Ronnie beat everyone by 4+ seconds. At least in PCA he has some competition"

Are you refereing to the NASA race at the Glen in May and does Ronnie drives a red 964Cup? If so, he is a very skilled driver, but you need more data than this race to make a general statement about the skill level in NASA.

What's funny is that I hear the same thing about PCA from NASA racers. The eyes of the beholder, I guess.

Nader