38D

Here's some numbers from the same races I posted before:

Sebring
E: 16
F: 21
G: 12
H: 2
I: 8

Lime Rock
E: 10
F: 11
G: 5
H: 4
I: 5

Watkins Glen
E: 21
F: 29
G: 16
H: 6
I: 13

Mosport
E: 10
F: 15
G: 6
H: 3
I: 10

Road America
E: 15
F: 21
G: 4
H: 4
I: 5

Daytona
E: 20
F: 31
G: 13
H: 5
I: 11

Averages:
E: 15 (92 total)
F: 21 (128)
G: 9 (56 total)
H: 4 (24 total)
I: 8 (52 total)

So, H is defintiely thin, but the other are all pretty well attended. And these are the classes where 944s and boxsters fit.

I do agree there are some classes that are rarely attended (J, K, GT6). One thing I would do it get rid of the S/R difference in the GT classes. That alone would make a difference.

I just see the sp[ec thing as easy to get out of control: boxster spec, Carrera spec, SC spec, RSA spec, 911 turbo spec, etc, etc. Where does it end? And what do you do with all the cars currently built for the letter classes?

I can definitely understand the appeal of spec classes (heck I now run in one!). BUt i'm just not sure how to integrate BSR/BSX into the existing classes without diminishing the E & F fields.

Larry Herman

I absolutely agree with that. With the increasing perfromance of R tires, and the minor cost difference between Hoosiers/MPSCs and slicks, there is little reason anymore for splitting up the race classes.

richard glickel.

Don,

I think you're correct. By running in SP3 instead of "F" this year I can make some permitted changes to my 968 that I need to do for '44Cup (Supercup) - performance chip, big red brakes, rear hatch lexan (a safety mod), bigger wheels & tires, delete rear torsion bars, a/c and passenger's seat delete.

This year I can campaign the same car with PCA/SP3 and in 944 Cup. I can't say whether that will save me some money or not. With the permitted changes I'm considering, it looks like it will cost me more than I will save. I hope to participate in NASA, PCA and EMRA events and maybe one or two "vintage" events.

See you out there.

944Cup

So 3 of 5 heavy hitters are under 10. And when u factor in the all the PCA classes (sprint races) the averages really drop:

CMP: 3 cars per class
NP: 3 per
RR: 2 per
Daytona: 7 per
Summit: 3 per
RA: Under 5 per.

Adding SP classes worsens the average and adds to class bloat, but by PCA standards , 5 cars for SP classes per would be in line by comparison to the other classes. Then again, here on the East Coast, PCA events are a very well attended overall and have been for a long time, so PCA is doin' somethin' right.

richard glickel.

Dave,

Also, 1/2 of the cars in "F" are 944 S2's or 951's (with an occasional 968 in there), and nearly all of the "I" cars are 944's and 924's. At Watkins last June, Chris Brady - alone in SP2 - had a nice little competition going with an "I" class 944 during the sprint race. And I was having fun with a Canadian Rothman's 944 (until he broke something).

Unfortunately, 356's and 914's are rarely seen at (non-vintage) club races anymore.

Getting back on point, there aren't many 986's competing in PCA. I feel that a Boxster spec would serve to change that. As the 944's and 911's begin to dwindle, we will see more boxsters and 996's on track (there's already plenty of 964's). To the extent that a boxster spec would result in increased participation and welcome new faces to club racing, I feel that's a good thing overall for the program.

944Cup

I would tend to agree with you Richard about the Boxster. To the point where I've been working with NASA about a Boxster series in the not to distant future. Just agreeing with Colin about PCA and that at some point you just get to many classes for the number of cars racing.

M758

Guys the reason people pick spec classes to race in only partially about car count.


Years ago I when with 944 spec because firstly the class fit in my budget. Beyond that it also provided the racing experinece I was looking for.
That was racing equally prepared cars that allow the driver's skill to make the different rather than dollars or certain natual rules advantages.

If you look at PCA classing nothing really fits any of those objectives. GT classes are money pits and the stock class still have big tire bills. Even beyond that the Stock rules are not set out to make the cars equal in the class, but only "sort of close" One only needs to take a look at all the discussion we have had about classing the 3.4L 996, 3.6L996, 993, X51 cars,etc to see that there are clear "best cars" for each class.

In a spec class you pretty much know that if you spend XXX on the car doing YYY mods it will be competitive with all the other cars. Getting that way is the job of the driver. The rules makers also have the luxury of taloring the rules to the specific car thus potential improving the performance vs dollar ratio this making the car a little more fun. One major reason for allowing the 944 spec cars to be stripped (no interior, no a/c, no heat) is improve the performance vs dollar ratio. The cost is very little to strip the car yet provides a very nice performance & reliablity gain since we are dragging around some 350lbs less than PCA I weights. This means not just a faster car given equal mods, but less stress on components.

So Boxster spec is really no different. The rules can be tailored to the cars and a great example is the ECU. Boxster ECU's can be flashed so why not flash with a common program. This keeps everyone the same and makes compliance easy. In doubt flash them and be done with it. Of course if you want to flash to a "performance" vs stock map great. The one car class allows for this with ease thus increasing performance at a very marginal cost.

Also things like spec tire are very easy to do when you just have 1 tire & wheel size. If properly selected a spec tire can really low tire bills for the bulk of the racers.

So spec type classes have alot of things going for them. The major downsides are two. 1) Racing the same old cars is not something everyone wants to do. 2) No tinkering or very limited tinkering with performance. Spec classes are NOT places to innovate and come-up with creative performance enchancements. For some this IS their objective when racing. That is certainly a cool thing to do, but it has no place in spec class.

Now should PCA adopt boxster spec as SP4? At this time probably not. They have SP1, 2, 3 and might as well just see how the boxster thing takes off in POC. 944 spec (sp1) has shown to be a good formula as shown by the growth in NASA. The numbers in all 3 SP classes for 2006 were pretty good considering that they were introduced about 12 months ago.

Larry Herman

Joe, you make a lot of good points, and a very clear description of the reasons for spec racing.

38D

I don't think cost control ultimately works in spec classes. Look at spec miata. What started as a cheap class now takes serious $s to be on the podium. Guys are buying new shaved toyos for every race, $10k special motors, trick parts. And then, everyone that is not on the podium whines that the top guys are cheating (even tho' they rarely are...). That seems pretty much exactly like PCA .

There are plenty of pro series that are able to make different car models compeitive within the same class. In most cases, I think the different car models are competitive within a given class. There are certainly some issues such as D RSAs vs. D USA Cups, 964RSCSs in D, 993 RSCS in C, 3.4 996s in C, etc. But from F down, the classes seem pretty well sorted. With some evolution of the current rules, I believe these issues can be fixed as well.

I do agree that stripping a cars should be allowed without having to go to GT. Maybe a 2 class bump would be a good idea for allowing a ~10% reduction in weight.

For spec Boxster, I think the idea of racing boxsters is a great. They are getting quite cheap, and they handle very well.

richard glickel.

Well that (SP4) would be nicer than "BS".

blueillusion97

I am loving the idea of BSR. And im planning of buying a boxster making it ready for bs-X at first and later for BSR. At the beginning I was thinking of 944 but BSR attracts me so much more for many reasons. So I will follow the news on this closely