Bull

Lite weight!

Robert Henriksen

You're married to Nicole Richie?

Sorry, couldn't help it!

JR944

I thought it would be great for PCA to finally do the right thing and start weighing cars with drivers. Using a realistic average weight for our program (I'm guessing 180-200lbs) would have been fair to all.

Even though the proposal was presented as using 200lbs as the factor, the rules now came out at 150lbs. I'm sure those of you over 150lbs (about 95% of racers), and running ballast are happy as clams. Those of us who were already running at the class minimum weight and happen to personally weigh more than 200 got screwed. I'm now looking at spending something like $1,500 to install a lexan windshield, fiberglass rear bumper (that will do absolutely no good in an accident compared to the factory one), and lightweight (lower capacity) battery to now get within about 30lbs of my minimum.

By comparison, a 200+lb competitor in a 964 C2 can now remove another 50+lbs AND run a lightweight flywheel!!!!?????? WTF!!!!!

Does anyone know the rationale for allowing just these cars to run a lightweight flywheel? Why not make it a progressed change or let ALL of us run one?

Thanks for reading. I feel just a little better for typing this.

Joe
Looking for a different sandbox to play in with my 2,760lb 944 S2 Firehawk

John H

The dual mass flywheel was not made for and cannot withstand track use. A DMF in a 3000 lb race car will last about as long as a set of brake pads.

Anyone really know what the effective difference is between a good DMF and a lightweight flywheel on lap times? I doubt it would even register. I think PCA did it because of the wear problems.

analogmike

How do you figure that??? Say you have a 3000 pound spec car and you weigh 250.

In 2005 you were on the track at 3250, with no way to make the total lighter.

Now you have the chance to run at 3150 while a little guy like me isn't allowed to remove any of the 100+ pounds of ballast in his car. I think the small guys are the ones who suffer more now (we used to have an advantage so I guess it's fair).

At least we are using a reasonable number of 150. I lobbied for 100 pounds driver weight to reduce the excessive ballasting in most cars. If it were 200 pounds it would have been insane for us skinny guys to have to run that much extra ballast on top of what we already need.

have fun!

Oddjob

Dont know; would need to get some real data on that, otherwise its all speculation - either way.

PCA must have assumed it was a performance increase, or they would not have made it a progressed mod up to this point, and still a progressed mod on non-DMF cars.

38D

I wrote in against the 200lb number, proposing a lower number instead. Using 200lbs would have forced roughly half the racers to add ballast to their cars in order to meet weight. By using 150lbs, most people can remove ballast if they have any. The more you weigh, the more you can remove. It will also allow people to do more mods (lightweight battery, etc) without having to add ballast.

I think if you take a minute to think about the bulk of racers you will realize that 150lbs works very well. For the heavier folks, it is certainly an improvement over the old rules.

Russ Murphy

That's a puzzler to me too. I don't recall the production numbers offhand, but it's probably reasonable to assume that there are more 996's still on the road than all the previous 911 variants combined. The car because of the vast numbers produced and the dropping of values is begging for a spec. class of it's own. Maybe that's the way to get those "100,000" on the track. What do you think about a 996 spec class?

gt3skea

great change in the gt ranks... lets acknowledge an issue, then do nothing.

M758

POC has done that for the boxster 2.5L cars.

Figure it to be slightly faster, more expensive version of 944 spec.

JR944

Hi Mike:

>How do you figure that??? Say you have a 3000 pound spec car and you weigh 250.

OK, that's a fair set of assumptions for the purpose of discussion

>In 2005 you were on the track at 3250, with no way to make the total lighter.

OK

>Now you have the chance to run at 3150 while a little guy like me isn't allowed to remove any of the 100+ pounds of ballast in his car. I think the small guys are the ones who suffer more now (we used to have an advantage so I guess it's fair).

Ok, but what if my car is already fully (legally) stripped to get to that 3,000lb weight where my competitors car can still take that 100lbs out of his car. Now, I'm at 3,250 and he's at 3,150 plus a lightweight flywheel!

In my opinion, the "problem" with many people running a lot of ballast is a separate one than the issue with weighing cars with drivers.

The problem with cars running a lot of ballast should have been addressed separately from the weighing cars with drivers issue. Frankly, I thnk a lot of folks are running a lot of ballast because having that ballast low on the right/middle of the car is advantagous compared to having it elsewhere (bumpers, speakers, seat belts, rear seat backs, fuel tank, etc). If everyone left their cars REALLY "as-built" and started with full fuel tanks, the average amount of ballast would be reduced.

For the few cars that have a spec. weight that is grossly high, those cars could have been allowed a weight decrease substantial enough to put their Power/weight ratio in the middle of the next higher class.

I'm working on data on the lightweight flywheels. Doing a quick search just on Rennlist though would indicate that for track use, it is a noticable and worthwhile performance improvement.

Joe

esscape26

I voted for 150.

Some models (w/o driver) are over stated curb weight generally; others need ballast--but if they let you go lighter, go lighter....

Not good for me, but good for most, especially now that we can have 120 minute enduros--less wear and tear over the course of race.

Like I said, I am putting the 'phat' driver in last for ballast.
PM

JimB

I think a spec series is interesting. I know the right answer isn't to have them race against low volume European race cars like the 993 RSCS, MK1 GT3 CS or now the 964 3.8 RS where they have no chance of winning.

I really think the right move was to move them to D. If PCA thought they would be slightly too fast they should have added 50 lbs. (PCA says they don't adjust weight)

Put the 3.4L 996 in D and it instantly becomes the best class in club racing. Leave it in C and the watch them disappear.
Jim

BluemaxxRacing

Amen to that, Jim! You are exactly right!

38D

Agreed. Here's what I would do:

1.Still move X51s to B, allowing all other prepared mods
2.Move 3.4 996s to D, but do not allow LSDs (not available on Cayman).
3.Move the following cars to a new class (called "GTL" for low volume cars):
- 993RS - 2 cars
- 964RS - 2 cars
- 964 USA Cups (wth interior) - 4 cars
- 964RS 3.8s - 0 cars
- GT3 Mk1 - 2 cars
- 944 Turbo Cup - 2 cars

I would balance out GTL by reducing weights of the lower hp cars, and/or allowing some additional mods as well (maybe gears and or brake changes for the lower hp cars).

I think this make the stock classes better for 99% of people out there, get gives the 12 lucky owners of these rare cars a decent class to race them in. D would be a legit place for RSAs, 964 turbos, 3.4 996s and Caymans. All would have a chance to win. C would be all 996s, which would be good. B would have GT3s and X51s. I think a 345hp X51 with a cup car wing, cup brakes, big wheels, LWFW, chip, and a R&P really could challenge a GT3.

Anyway, that's how I would handle it. It would also discourage people from trying to import class killers just to try to win.