2009 PCA rules changes posted
01-13-2009, 04:11 PM
#61
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I don't mean to open a whole new can of worms, but I have this question and I really want to know the answer.
Why does PCA consume themselves with writing so many rules for classes... and loopholes for those rules... rules trying to close the loopholes... only to end up with so many classes that there's often one or two classes at each race with one or two racers in it? Why do they do this instead of going with a "class by power-to-weight ratio" system? This is such a clean way to do it, it seems to me. It would make it fun, instead of always being a bitchfest over what the rules were intended to do when they were written. Also, in this way, there's not really a glaring way to cheat. Random wheel dynos and weighing. If you can engineer a way to keep your engine from blowing up, you can do it. I think it'd be fine to honor the PCA passion of making sure that the cars represent the cars as they were produced to a large degree. They should only be able to use Porsche engines and transmissions and chassis. They of course would make tube chassis illegal in most classes or whatever. But don't you guys think it would be so much more fun to be free to run in a class where everyone is running at the same power to weight ratio as you, but some might be rear engine, others mid-engine, others front engine... some turbo and heavy... some NA and light... But all Porsche. Ballast would be elective! How many of you are like me in that when you first heard of ballast you thought it was a stupid idea. I did! I STILL DO! If you say, why not just run NASA, well, I intend to. I agree with Roger though when he says that he'd like to run both to be able to run at a nearby track once a month every month of the year. That's my goal too. It's not why I want the PCA rules changed though. Surely you see that their rules make VERY little sense. It's a rulebook that's 1/2 an inch thick but has another 2 inches of bandaids stacked on it. I don't understand all this hassle that PCA goes through just to have a system that always has SOMETHING broken in it, where there's always someone waiting on a rulebook update, that divides all of us drivers up into far too many classes, that has senseless rules in it, that has so many ways that people can cheat, and that, at the end of it, produces threads and conversations like this one? If PCA segregated us based off of power to weight ratio for the most part (no reason to get into the obvious exceptions and caveats... let's talk about the overall idea here) and we could have many different types of Porsches running in each class and each class would be larger and more competitive, less restrictive and without the dreaded "checkbook racing" (think about it, it would really get rid of a bunch of that)... it seems like THIS SYSTEM would be an incredible Porsche racing experience. No car manufacturer could pull off such a club racing setup as this like Porsche could. Yet, we have this (frankly) senseless system. Again, I've never even raced a race yet. I am a self-professed beginner and newbie to all this. But I also am still a bit on the outside of it looking in.
In the end though, I'm sure that my thinking has 101 holes in it. If not, we'd all be campaigning for this, and we're not. So, help me out here please.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me.
Jared
Why does PCA consume themselves with writing so many rules for classes... and loopholes for those rules... rules trying to close the loopholes... only to end up with so many classes that there's often one or two classes at each race with one or two racers in it? Why do they do this instead of going with a "class by power-to-weight ratio" system? This is such a clean way to do it, it seems to me. It would make it fun, instead of always being a bitchfest over what the rules were intended to do when they were written. Also, in this way, there's not really a glaring way to cheat. Random wheel dynos and weighing. If you can engineer a way to keep your engine from blowing up, you can do it. I think it'd be fine to honor the PCA passion of making sure that the cars represent the cars as they were produced to a large degree. They should only be able to use Porsche engines and transmissions and chassis. They of course would make tube chassis illegal in most classes or whatever. But don't you guys think it would be so much more fun to be free to run in a class where everyone is running at the same power to weight ratio as you, but some might be rear engine, others mid-engine, others front engine... some turbo and heavy... some NA and light... But all Porsche. Ballast would be elective! How many of you are like me in that when you first heard of ballast you thought it was a stupid idea. I did! I STILL DO! If you say, why not just run NASA, well, I intend to. I agree with Roger though when he says that he'd like to run both to be able to run at a nearby track once a month every month of the year. That's my goal too. It's not why I want the PCA rules changed though. Surely you see that their rules make VERY little sense. It's a rulebook that's 1/2 an inch thick but has another 2 inches of bandaids stacked on it. I don't understand all this hassle that PCA goes through just to have a system that always has SOMETHING broken in it, where there's always someone waiting on a rulebook update, that divides all of us drivers up into far too many classes, that has senseless rules in it, that has so many ways that people can cheat, and that, at the end of it, produces threads and conversations like this one? If PCA segregated us based off of power to weight ratio for the most part (no reason to get into the obvious exceptions and caveats... let's talk about the overall idea here) and we could have many different types of Porsches running in each class and each class would be larger and more competitive, less restrictive and without the dreaded "checkbook racing" (think about it, it would really get rid of a bunch of that)... it seems like THIS SYSTEM would be an incredible Porsche racing experience. No car manufacturer could pull off such a club racing setup as this like Porsche could. Yet, we have this (frankly) senseless system. Again, I've never even raced a race yet. I am a self-professed beginner and newbie to all this. But I also am still a bit on the outside of it looking in.
In the end though, I'm sure that my thinking has 101 holes in it. If not, we'd all be campaigning for this, and we're not. So, help me out here please.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me.
Jared
01-13-2009, 04:15 PM
#62
Nordschleife Master
01-13-2009, 04:21 PM
#63
Nordschleife Master
Hey, I don't mean to open a whole new can of worms, but I have this question I really want to know an answer.
Why does PCA consume themselves with writing so many rules for classes and loopholes for those rules... rules trying to close the loopholes... only to end up with so many classes that there's often one or two classes with one or two racers in it... why do they do this instead of going with a class by power-to-weight ratio? This way, there's no way really to cheat. If you can engineer a way to keep your engine from blowing up, you can do it. I think it'd be fine to honor the PCA passion of making sure that the cars represent the cars as they were produced to a large degree. We could make tube chassis illegal in most classes or whatever. But don't you guys think it would be so much more fun to be free to run in a class where everyone is running at the same power to weight ratio as you, but some might be rear engine, others mid-engine, others front engine... some turbo and heavy... some NA and light... But all Porsche. If you say, why not just run NASA, well, I intend to. But I don't understand all this hassle that PCA goes through just to have a system that always has SOMETHING broken in it, that divides all us drivers up into far too many classes, that has senseless rules in it, that has so many ways that people can cheat, and that, at the end of it, produces threads and conversations like this one? If PCA went off of power to weight ratio for the most part (no reason to get into the obvious exceptions and caveats... let's talk about the overall idea) and we could have many different types of Porsches running in each class and each class larger and more competitive, less restrictive and without the dreaded "checkbook racing"... it seems like THAT would be an incredible Porsche racing experience. No car manufacturer could pull off such a club racing setup as this like Porsche could. Yet, we have this (frankly) senseless system. Again, I've never even raced a race yet. I am a self-professed beginner and newbie to all this. But I also am still a bit on the outside of it looking in.
In the end though, I'm sure that my thinking has 101 holes in it. If not, we'd all be campaigning for this, and we're not. So, help me out here please.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me.
Jared
Why does PCA consume themselves with writing so many rules for classes and loopholes for those rules... rules trying to close the loopholes... only to end up with so many classes that there's often one or two classes with one or two racers in it... why do they do this instead of going with a class by power-to-weight ratio? This way, there's no way really to cheat. If you can engineer a way to keep your engine from blowing up, you can do it. I think it'd be fine to honor the PCA passion of making sure that the cars represent the cars as they were produced to a large degree. We could make tube chassis illegal in most classes or whatever. But don't you guys think it would be so much more fun to be free to run in a class where everyone is running at the same power to weight ratio as you, but some might be rear engine, others mid-engine, others front engine... some turbo and heavy... some NA and light... But all Porsche. If you say, why not just run NASA, well, I intend to. But I don't understand all this hassle that PCA goes through just to have a system that always has SOMETHING broken in it, that divides all us drivers up into far too many classes, that has senseless rules in it, that has so many ways that people can cheat, and that, at the end of it, produces threads and conversations like this one? If PCA went off of power to weight ratio for the most part (no reason to get into the obvious exceptions and caveats... let's talk about the overall idea) and we could have many different types of Porsches running in each class and each class larger and more competitive, less restrictive and without the dreaded "checkbook racing"... it seems like THAT would be an incredible Porsche racing experience. No car manufacturer could pull off such a club racing setup as this like Porsche could. Yet, we have this (frankly) senseless system. Again, I've never even raced a race yet. I am a self-professed beginner and newbie to all this. But I also am still a bit on the outside of it looking in.
In the end though, I'm sure that my thinking has 101 holes in it. If not, we'd all be campaigning for this, and we're not. So, help me out here please.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me.
Jared
The stock classes (if they can even be called that anymore) create a far different type of racing. We have MANY more restrictions on what we can and can't do to the car unlike a darn near open class structure like NASA has with the power to weight ratio.
Once again, it all comes down to what you are looking to get out of Club Racing. There is a class for everyone. You just have to figure out what class is right for you. As I have told you many times in our long phone calls, you don't start with the car, you start with the class, then build the car. You seem hell bent on making your 997 a "mini-cup" and it just so happens it would slot into GTB.
Do we need to go back to the drawing board?
01-13-2009, 04:22 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
I am jumping in late on this thread. Like Tim said, the season hasn't started. Let's see what a 3.4 Koni car will do. My guess is, with the driver being the x-factor, there will be guys driving ex Koni/GA Cup 3.4 cars who will be right in the mix with the 3.6 996 because of their skills as a racer. Personally I think we should all wait and see what the time sheets say, have a beer at the Oak Tree Tavern. My guess is that PCA will look at the times between the 3.4 996, 3.6 996, and the various 997 cars and make adjustments based on the race results.
01-13-2009, 04:23 PM
#65
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I proofread and edited a bunch while you were making your smiley faces. Reread it a bit. I hadn't proofed it and was doing so while it was up. Once I finished editing it, I saw your stuff.
There's always a way to cheat. I know that. But you don't even have to provide a dyno sheet with PCA, right? Am I wrong in saying that it would cut much of the cheating out if there was random dyno testing and weighing (much easier way to challenge someone than having a scrute look over the engine).
There's always a way to cheat. I know that. But you don't even have to provide a dyno sheet with PCA, right? Am I wrong in saying that it would cut much of the cheating out if there was random dyno testing and weighing (much easier way to challenge someone than having a scrute look over the engine).
01-13-2009, 04:25 PM
#66
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Dell. You rock and are a great driver. Buy a GTB car, make it light and let's race.
Jared. I like the research you've put into this thing. Don't get discouraged. Rules will be out soon and you'll build one heck of a car. Put that much effort into your driving and you'll be an awesome competitor.
Tim. That thing is a pig. Get some weight out of it and it will fly. Take your car to the Autometrics tent at Sebring and let them look at it and suggest what to do. You can hire them or do it yourself at that point. Or, you can give me a buzz/email and I'll be glad to help.
Guys, doors and hood are good targets for weight reduction as they don't offer much protection or crumple zones. Also, people gut their doors anyway and it ends up having the strength of a beer can. BUT, please stay away from CF fenders and body parts...not worth the risk are make up your car's crumple zone.
Jared. I like the research you've put into this thing. Don't get discouraged. Rules will be out soon and you'll build one heck of a car. Put that much effort into your driving and you'll be an awesome competitor.
Tim. That thing is a pig. Get some weight out of it and it will fly. Take your car to the Autometrics tent at Sebring and let them look at it and suggest what to do. You can hire them or do it yourself at that point. Or, you can give me a buzz/email and I'll be glad to help.
Guys, doors and hood are good targets for weight reduction as they don't offer much protection or crumple zones. Also, people gut their doors anyway and it ends up having the strength of a beer can. BUT, please stay away from CF fenders and body parts...not worth the risk are make up your car's crumple zone.
__________________
.
The apex of performance, comfort & safety since 2011.
All new racewear available now→ traqgear.com
.
The apex of performance, comfort & safety since 2011.
All new racewear available now→ traqgear.com
01-13-2009, 04:30 PM
#67
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all seriousness Jared, there isn't a perfect system out there and the power to weight system is what NASA uses. That system has it's flaws as well. We have a "close" system to that called GT1-6. GTB was an afterthought and bless it's heart, trying to gather steam. I'd be happy to get on board with GTB if it could just get a proper identity.
The stock classes (if they can even be called that anymore) create a far different type of racing. We have MANY more restrictions on what we can and can't do to the car unlike a darn near open class structure like NASA has with the power to weight ratio.
Once again, it all comes down to what you are looking to get out of Club Racing. There is a class for everyone. You just have to figure out what class is right for you. As I have told you many times in our long phone calls, you don't start with the car, you start with the class, then build the car. You seem hell bent on making your 997 a "mini-cup" and it just so happens it would slot into GTB.
Do we need to go back to the drawing board?
The stock classes (if they can even be called that anymore) create a far different type of racing. We have MANY more restrictions on what we can and can't do to the car unlike a darn near open class structure like NASA has with the power to weight ratio.
Once again, it all comes down to what you are looking to get out of Club Racing. There is a class for everyone. You just have to figure out what class is right for you. As I have told you many times in our long phone calls, you don't start with the car, you start with the class, then build the car. You seem hell bent on making your 997 a "mini-cup" and it just so happens it would slot into GTB.
Do we need to go back to the drawing board?
Please help me understand what I want to understand, not focus on trying to figure out what my "real motive" for being involved in the conversation is. I have the PCA rulebook printed out before me, as well as the NASA one. I've read them each many times over, just like most of you guys have. When reading them beside each other, I just get this feeling of waste and nonsense from the PCA one. However, PCA is very popular. I would like to hear why their heavy-ladened system works.
I don't have the illusion that I could come on here and argue my way into making my car fit into the class I want it to at the weight I want it to. Your responses seem like you actually think that's what I intend to do.
01-13-2009, 04:30 PM
#68
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
01-13-2009, 04:31 PM
#69
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am jumping in late on this thread. Like Tim said, the season hasn't started. Let's see what a 3.4 Koni car will do. My guess is, with the driver being the x-factor, there will be guys driving ex Koni/GA Cup 3.4 cars who will be right in the mix with the 3.6 996 because of their skills as a racer. Personally I think we should all wait and see what the time sheets say, have a beer at the Oak Tree Tavern. My guess is that PCA will look at the times between the 3.4 996, 3.6 996, and the various 997 cars and make adjustments based on the race results.
01-13-2009, 04:33 PM
#70
Nordschleife Master
I am jumping in late on this thread. Like Tim said, the season hasn't started. Let's see what a 3.4 Koni car will do. My guess is, with the driver being the x-factor, there will be guys driving ex Koni/GA Cup 3.4 cars who will be right in the mix with the 3.6 996 because of their skills as a racer. Personally I think we should all wait and see what the time sheets say, have a beer at the Oak Tree Tavern. My guess is that PCA will look at the times between the 3.4 996, 3.6 996, and the various 997 cars and make adjustments based on the race results.
Thanks Rog for the kind words. Trust me, I really want to come race with you in GTB. I'll have to wait and see what the final results are on the weights though. And of course, sell my G stock RSA.
01-13-2009, 04:36 PM
#71
I proofread and edited a bunch while you were making your smiley faces. Reread it a bit. I hadn't proofed it and was doing so while it was up. Once I finished editing it, I saw your stuff.
There's always a way to cheat. I know that. But you don't even have to provide a dyno sheet with PCA, right? Am I wrong in saying that it would cut much of the cheating out if there was random dyno testing and weighing (much easier way to challenge someone than having a scrute look over the engine).
There's always a way to cheat. I know that. But you don't even have to provide a dyno sheet with PCA, right? Am I wrong in saying that it would cut much of the cheating out if there was random dyno testing and weighing (much easier way to challenge someone than having a scrute look over the engine).
In the end, I don't think there is rampant cheating in PCA. The leaders get checked often enough that we can be reasonably sure they aren't cheating. The back of the pack guys might be cheating, but since they are in the back of the pack, they don't get looked at as closely.
I think the stock classes in PCA do a pretty good job of making sure that any car in the class has a potential of winning (with the right driver).
01-13-2009, 04:43 PM
#72
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tequesta, FL & Park City, UT
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I like the fact that this topic has become heated because quite frankly, the GTB Class needs some serious help. I have been sitting in the background on this topic waiting to see what happens and Tim, Dell and Roger all have good points that if put together and considered properly, a good GTB class should come out of it. The fact remains that Tim, Roger and I have all purchased and invested considerable amounts of money into different 996s with different engines and different modifications and we are all concerned about not being competitive in GTB. Trust me when I say that there are a lot more racers out there watching this post in anticipation that PCA can do something to make us all competitive.
First, let me point out that I am one of the 3.4 liter 996 drivers who have modified their cars beyond the H Stock Class. This means that I only have the GTB class to look forward to should I choose to race with PCA. But also know I am also not someone who will spend any unnecessary time or money going to a PCA racing weekend if I do not have a reasonable chance of winning my class. Being a back marker is not my idea of fun.
Right now, GTB is a catch-all class and my car simply does not stand a chance against 3.6 liter 996 or 997 cars. Please don’t start the whole, “depends on the driver” argument because I can hold my own ability and experience wise with anyone out there. That being said the argument of excluding the 3.4 liter 996 is really ridiculous! There are a lot of these cars out there that are looking for a good GTB class structure from PCA and right now, it is not there. The GTB Class needs to be split as soon as possible but quite frankly, splitting GTB into just 2 classes is not enough! In my opinion, GTB needs to be split into 3 classes:
GTB1 = 3.4 liter 996
GTB2 = 3.6 liter 996, 997
GTB3 = 3.6 liter 996 X51, 3.8 liter 997.
Weights can be adjusted accordingly. Who cares if there is not a ton of cars racing in a certain class right now? There are already a ton of classes with very few (if any) competitors in them. To make things fun, the organizers can always group classes where they feel a certain class will be properly grouped. As for GTB, all of the races I have seen this past year has placed GTB with the GTC3-4 cars and that is just stupid. None of the GTB cars were competitive with eath other and they were always back markers in that group. I think GTB should be grouped with the H-J stock cars. This way the stock racers can see what they are up against and also determine if they too would like to modify their cars beyond stock. This would be healthy for growing GTB in the future.
Unfortunately, my arguments for splitting GTB have fallen on deaf ears with PCA. This idea of keeping GTB as one class is not a good one at all for many more reasons I can’t go into in this post. As it stands right now, I am not going to enter my car in any PCA Club Races until I can see a clear direction with the GTB class. No need to be a back marker in GTB when I can competitively race with NASA in GTS3 and PBOC in R4 with my car. I am definitely not the only one thinking this way either. Hopefully, one day I will have the option to race (and be competitive) with PCA again in my car.
Rich
First, let me point out that I am one of the 3.4 liter 996 drivers who have modified their cars beyond the H Stock Class. This means that I only have the GTB class to look forward to should I choose to race with PCA. But also know I am also not someone who will spend any unnecessary time or money going to a PCA racing weekend if I do not have a reasonable chance of winning my class. Being a back marker is not my idea of fun.
Right now, GTB is a catch-all class and my car simply does not stand a chance against 3.6 liter 996 or 997 cars. Please don’t start the whole, “depends on the driver” argument because I can hold my own ability and experience wise with anyone out there. That being said the argument of excluding the 3.4 liter 996 is really ridiculous! There are a lot of these cars out there that are looking for a good GTB class structure from PCA and right now, it is not there. The GTB Class needs to be split as soon as possible but quite frankly, splitting GTB into just 2 classes is not enough! In my opinion, GTB needs to be split into 3 classes:
GTB1 = 3.4 liter 996
GTB2 = 3.6 liter 996, 997
GTB3 = 3.6 liter 996 X51, 3.8 liter 997.
Weights can be adjusted accordingly. Who cares if there is not a ton of cars racing in a certain class right now? There are already a ton of classes with very few (if any) competitors in them. To make things fun, the organizers can always group classes where they feel a certain class will be properly grouped. As for GTB, all of the races I have seen this past year has placed GTB with the GTC3-4 cars and that is just stupid. None of the GTB cars were competitive with eath other and they were always back markers in that group. I think GTB should be grouped with the H-J stock cars. This way the stock racers can see what they are up against and also determine if they too would like to modify their cars beyond stock. This would be healthy for growing GTB in the future.
Unfortunately, my arguments for splitting GTB have fallen on deaf ears with PCA. This idea of keeping GTB as one class is not a good one at all for many more reasons I can’t go into in this post. As it stands right now, I am not going to enter my car in any PCA Club Races until I can see a clear direction with the GTB class. No need to be a back marker in GTB when I can competitively race with NASA in GTS3 and PBOC in R4 with my car. I am definitely not the only one thinking this way either. Hopefully, one day I will have the option to race (and be competitive) with PCA again in my car.
Rich
01-13-2009, 04:49 PM
#73
Nordschleife Master
Holy crap! 3 classes? Are you saying that GTB3 should be 3.6x51, 3.8, and 3.8x51? I didn't see 3.8x51 on your list.
Sorry, but 3 classes is just not going to happen. 2 makes sense (996 and 997). There is just not enough people to support 2, let alone 3 classes. Heck, there is barely any support for 1 class!
I think we all agree though that SOMETHING has to be done to get this ship pointing in the right direction.
Sorry, but 3 classes is just not going to happen. 2 makes sense (996 and 997). There is just not enough people to support 2, let alone 3 classes. Heck, there is barely any support for 1 class!
I think we all agree though that SOMETHING has to be done to get this ship pointing in the right direction.
01-13-2009, 04:53 PM
#74
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 2,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tranny has more to do with the car than you might think.
01-13-2009, 05:29 PM
#75
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Personally, I like the fact that this topic has become heated because quite frankly, the GTB Class needs some serious help. I have been sitting in the background on this topic waiting to see what happens and Tim, Dell and Roger all have good points that if put together and considered properly, a good GTB class should come out of it. The fact remains that Tim, Roger and I have all purchased and invested considerable amounts of money into different 996s with different engines and different modifications and we are all concerned about not being competitive in GTB. Trust me when I say that there are a lot more racers out there watching this post in anticipation that PCA can do something to make us all competitive.
First, let me point out that I am one of the 3.4 liter 996 drivers who have modified their cars beyond the H Stock Class. This means that I only have the GTB class to look forward to should I choose to race with PCA. But also know I am also not someone who will spend any unnecessary time or money going to a PCA racing weekend if I do not have a reasonable chance of winning my class. Being a back marker is not my idea of fun.
Right now, GTB is a catch-all class and my car simply does not stand a chance against 3.6 liter 996 or 997 cars. Please don’t start the whole, “depends on the driver” argument because I can hold my own ability and experience wise with anyone out there. That being said the argument of excluding the 3.4 liter 996 is really ridiculous! There are a lot of these cars out there that are looking for a good GTB class structure from PCA and right now, it is not there. The GTB Class needs to be split as soon as possible but quite frankly, splitting GTB into just 2 classes is not enough! In my opinion, GTB needs to be split into 3 classes:
GTB1 = 3.4 liter 996
GTB2 = 3.6 liter 996, 997
GTB3 = 3.6 liter 996 X51, 3.8 liter 997.
Weights can be adjusted accordingly. Who cares if there is not a ton of cars racing in a certain class right now? There are already a ton of classes with very few (if any) competitors in them. To make things fun, the organizers can always group classes where they feel a certain class will be properly grouped. As for GTB, all of the races I have seen this past year has placed GTB with the GTC3-4 cars and that is just stupid. None of the GTB cars were competitive with eath other and they were always back markers in that group. I think GTB should be grouped with the H-J stock cars. This way the stock racers can see what they are up against and also determine if they too would like to modify their cars beyond stock. This would be healthy for growing GTB in the future.
Unfortunately, my arguments for splitting GTB have fallen on deaf ears with PCA. This idea of keeping GTB as one class is not a good one at all for many more reasons I can’t go into in this post. As it stands right now, I am not going to enter my car in any PCA Club Races until I can see a clear direction with the GTB class. No need to be a back marker in GTB when I can competitively race with NASA in GTS3 and PBOC in R4 with my car. I am definitely not the only one thinking this way either. Hopefully, one day I will have the option to race (and be competitive) with PCA again in my car.
Rich
First, let me point out that I am one of the 3.4 liter 996 drivers who have modified their cars beyond the H Stock Class. This means that I only have the GTB class to look forward to should I choose to race with PCA. But also know I am also not someone who will spend any unnecessary time or money going to a PCA racing weekend if I do not have a reasonable chance of winning my class. Being a back marker is not my idea of fun.
Right now, GTB is a catch-all class and my car simply does not stand a chance against 3.6 liter 996 or 997 cars. Please don’t start the whole, “depends on the driver” argument because I can hold my own ability and experience wise with anyone out there. That being said the argument of excluding the 3.4 liter 996 is really ridiculous! There are a lot of these cars out there that are looking for a good GTB class structure from PCA and right now, it is not there. The GTB Class needs to be split as soon as possible but quite frankly, splitting GTB into just 2 classes is not enough! In my opinion, GTB needs to be split into 3 classes:
GTB1 = 3.4 liter 996
GTB2 = 3.6 liter 996, 997
GTB3 = 3.6 liter 996 X51, 3.8 liter 997.
Weights can be adjusted accordingly. Who cares if there is not a ton of cars racing in a certain class right now? There are already a ton of classes with very few (if any) competitors in them. To make things fun, the organizers can always group classes where they feel a certain class will be properly grouped. As for GTB, all of the races I have seen this past year has placed GTB with the GTC3-4 cars and that is just stupid. None of the GTB cars were competitive with eath other and they were always back markers in that group. I think GTB should be grouped with the H-J stock cars. This way the stock racers can see what they are up against and also determine if they too would like to modify their cars beyond stock. This would be healthy for growing GTB in the future.
Unfortunately, my arguments for splitting GTB have fallen on deaf ears with PCA. This idea of keeping GTB as one class is not a good one at all for many more reasons I can’t go into in this post. As it stands right now, I am not going to enter my car in any PCA Club Races until I can see a clear direction with the GTB class. No need to be a back marker in GTB when I can competitively race with NASA in GTS3 and PBOC in R4 with my car. I am definitely not the only one thinking this way either. Hopefully, one day I will have the option to race (and be competitive) with PCA again in my car.
Rich
But, I really appreciate you chiming in here. I think we should continue to keep the 3.4's in. A few questions if you don't mind...What does your car weigh? Is it as light as it could be? What could you get your car down to? What do you weigh?
I've tried to picture myself with a 3.4 and what I would do with it. I would certainly get it as light as humanly possible and run in GTB. I would not want to have a heavier car and have stock class cars beating the crap out of me.