2009 PCA rules changes posted
11-14-2008, 01:05 AM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
2009 PCA rules changes posted
didn't see a thread on this, but the adopted rules for 2009 have been posted
http://www.pca.org/clubrace/docs/200...%20Adopted.pdf
http://www.pca.org/clubrace/docs/200...%20Adopted.pdf
11-14-2008, 01:58 PM
#6
Rennlist Member
"11. Limit updating and backdating to models sharing the same basic underlying chassis. Using 911 models as an example, updates or backdates would be allowed up to 1973, but not across 1973 to 1974, updates or backdates from 1974 – 1989 would be allowed. 964s, 993s, 996s and 997s each form a separate chassis group. Cars converted before 2009 would be grandfathered."
So what, exactly, is the grand difference between a '73 and a '74? I can see the SWB v. LWB distinction. I can see the 915 v. G50 (hell, even 901 v. 915) distinction. But to call them not the same "basic underlying chassis" is laughable when you can freely substitute pretty much every single suspension or driveline part from '69 to '89 (save rear torsion bars on G50 cars).
So what, exactly, is the grand difference between a '73 and a '74? I can see the SWB v. LWB distinction. I can see the 915 v. G50 (hell, even 901 v. 915) distinction. But to call them not the same "basic underlying chassis" is laughable when you can freely substitute pretty much every single suspension or driveline part from '69 to '89 (save rear torsion bars on G50 cars).
11-14-2008, 05:15 PM
#7
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Tequesta, FL & Park City, UT
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused about GTB. Any idea what these weights will be for 3.4, 3.6 and 3.8 liter cars? I sure wish PCA would have split GTB into at least 2 (preferrably 3) classes. Oh well. Any insight would be appreciated.
Trending Topics
11-14-2008, 07:57 PM
#8
Race Car
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this is good and bad.
E-85 is an easily viewable fuel considering there is at LEAST 15% gasoline in there. So, problem solved.
Next is the consideration of weight/lb. Well, if the gasoline guys can use C116, then there's no advantage. our octane rating is 104.. Dis-advantage E-85. Then, if they want to change HP/Liter, then let us be lighter because we will have to fuel up with 30% MORE fuel to carry the same distance. it's not majic fuel. it just frees up expensive C116 fuel cash $13/gallon vs $1.60/gallon - for other things.
2009 rules
"Issues under Study"
"2. GT-class E85 Conversions: Superclass Rule 2.C. limits allowable fuels to gasoline. We are working on rules to allow conversion to E85 by GT-class cars only. The fuel system modifications are straightforward. Concerns have been raised with regard to visibility of fuel fires with high alcohol fuels, availability of fuels with consistent alcohol content, and whether the existing GT class HP/L factors would need to be adjusted for E85 conversions. E85 is purely a GT-class issue. Stock class cars must retain the stock fuel system as delivered with the car."
E-85 is an easily viewable fuel considering there is at LEAST 15% gasoline in there. So, problem solved.
Next is the consideration of weight/lb. Well, if the gasoline guys can use C116, then there's no advantage. our octane rating is 104.. Dis-advantage E-85. Then, if they want to change HP/Liter, then let us be lighter because we will have to fuel up with 30% MORE fuel to carry the same distance. it's not majic fuel. it just frees up expensive C116 fuel cash $13/gallon vs $1.60/gallon - for other things.
2009 rules
"Issues under Study"
"2. GT-class E85 Conversions: Superclass Rule 2.C. limits allowable fuels to gasoline. We are working on rules to allow conversion to E85 by GT-class cars only. The fuel system modifications are straightforward. Concerns have been raised with regard to visibility of fuel fires with high alcohol fuels, availability of fuels with consistent alcohol content, and whether the existing GT class HP/L factors would need to be adjusted for E85 conversions. E85 is purely a GT-class issue. Stock class cars must retain the stock fuel system as delivered with the car."
11-15-2008, 10:19 AM
#9
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
"11. Limit updating and backdating to models sharing the same basic underlying chassis. Using 911 models as an example, updates or backdates would be allowed up to 1973, but not across 1973 to 1974, updates or backdates from 1974 – 1989 would be allowed. 964s, 993s, 996s and 997s each form a separate chassis group. Cars converted before 2009 would be grandfathered."
So what, exactly, is the grand difference between a '73 and a '74? I can see the SWB v. LWB distinction. I can see the 915 v. G50 (hell, even 901 v. 915) distinction. But to call them not the same "basic underlying chassis" is laughable when you can freely substitute pretty much every single suspension or driveline part from '69 to '89 (save rear torsion bars on G50 cars).
So what, exactly, is the grand difference between a '73 and a '74? I can see the SWB v. LWB distinction. I can see the 915 v. G50 (hell, even 901 v. 915) distinction. But to call them not the same "basic underlying chassis" is laughable when you can freely substitute pretty much every single suspension or driveline part from '69 to '89 (save rear torsion bars on G50 cars).
I agree with your assertion however. The updating/backdating thing has been going on for a long time. Not sure why PCA is pushing this so hard. Seems kind of like the carpet and passenger seat retention requirements for Prepared cars.
Toby
11-15-2008, 11:18 AM
#10
Rennlist Member
Exactly. What they call significant and structural is no more than a hood, and front and rear bumpers. The fender flaring allowance has been in the rules since day one. I made a '68 into a 930 wannabe when I was 20 back in the early '80's, crappy LA chopper gun fiberglass and all. All cosmetic. Seems this is all a solution in search of a problem.
11-15-2008, 01:57 PM
#11
We should just get the rules modified so that anything applying to Caymans applies to Boxsters and vice versa. It's a bit annoying that the ABS changes allowed for Caymans don't apply to Boxsters (not that it matters much as I don't think there is a good replacement yet)
01-12-2009, 01:00 PM
#13
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Baltimore Md.
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jared how are you making out?
I spoke to Donna saturday night and she said that they are still working on the weights for the "Koni" cars running in GTB. Im guessing it's going to be something in the range of this, w/driver (my .02)...
996 3.4 2800#s
996 3.6 3000#s
996 3.6 X51 3100#s
997 3.6 3150#s
997 3.8 3200#s
997 3.8 X51 3275#s
We also discussed the whole GTB being an ex Koni car class and she agreed that this is an urban myth. It was a class designed for GT cars with stock motors and transmissions that would not be able to compete in the GTA field and be competative.
One other Major point discussed was the addition of a larger oil sump to avoid the dredded oil starvation issue and she said that YES it was allowed.
Hope this helps some and I'll keep you posted if I hear anything else.
Tim
I spoke to Donna saturday night and she said that they are still working on the weights for the "Koni" cars running in GTB. Im guessing it's going to be something in the range of this, w/driver (my .02)...
996 3.4 2800#s
996 3.6 3000#s
996 3.6 X51 3100#s
997 3.6 3150#s
997 3.8 3200#s
997 3.8 X51 3275#s
We also discussed the whole GTB being an ex Koni car class and she agreed that this is an urban myth. It was a class designed for GT cars with stock motors and transmissions that would not be able to compete in the GTA field and be competative.
One other Major point discussed was the addition of a larger oil sump to avoid the dredded oil starvation issue and she said that YES it was allowed.
Hope this helps some and I'll keep you posted if I hear anything else.
Tim
01-12-2009, 02:33 PM
#14
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
First of all, I thank you so much for talking to me on the phone while I was in the hospital, nurses going in and out and in and out. I owe you a beer, for sure. That place was driving me crazy! I'm at home now, constantly stuck on the couch. Just trying to heal up. It seems like everything I do hurts the shoulder.
Anyway, I was going to PM you and ask about your conversation with Donna. Then, I thought about calling. I'm glad you posted on here for us.
Here's my reaction: Although I don't know what I would do differently if the goal was to make all of those cars compete in one single class. With that being the goal, all I can say is that it sucks that cars like mine (997 3.8) have to be 3200lbs, which will feel lethargic incomparison to the 3.4, just so they can compete with cars like that. That's a lot of weight, and not exactly what I think a "race car" should feel like. I mean, we have to go full-on with these cars. They aren't streetable. We go after it so we can have a good, modern race car that doesn't have all the maintenance expense of a Cup Car, but still will feel 80-90% like one, being a nimble REAL race car. But now, we have to have these cages, full race prep, and then weigh in at 3200. I'm not sure I get that. At all. Thank you so much for looking out for us though and sharing with us what you learned. I speak for all of us when I say, THANK YOU TIM!
First of all, I thank you so much for talking to me on the phone while I was in the hospital, nurses going in and out and in and out. I owe you a beer, for sure. That place was driving me crazy! I'm at home now, constantly stuck on the couch. Just trying to heal up. It seems like everything I do hurts the shoulder.
Anyway, I was going to PM you and ask about your conversation with Donna. Then, I thought about calling. I'm glad you posted on here for us.
Here's my reaction: Although I don't know what I would do differently if the goal was to make all of those cars compete in one single class. With that being the goal, all I can say is that it sucks that cars like mine (997 3.8) have to be 3200lbs, which will feel lethargic incomparison to the 3.4, just so they can compete with cars like that. That's a lot of weight, and not exactly what I think a "race car" should feel like. I mean, we have to go full-on with these cars. They aren't streetable. We go after it so we can have a good, modern race car that doesn't have all the maintenance expense of a Cup Car, but still will feel 80-90% like one, being a nimble REAL race car. But now, we have to have these cages, full race prep, and then weigh in at 3200. I'm not sure I get that. At all. Thank you so much for looking out for us though and sharing with us what you learned. I speak for all of us when I say, THANK YOU TIM!
01-12-2009, 03:26 PM
#15
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Baltimore Md.
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jared,
Glad to see you're home and getting better!!
All I can say about the weight thing is hang in there a little longer since the weights I posted are really of my own design and not that of PCA Nationals. Im confident that Donna and her crew will have something for us shortly and maybe they will turn out to be a little more to your liking. Again I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.
Tim
Glad to see you're home and getting better!!
All I can say about the weight thing is hang in there a little longer since the weights I posted are really of my own design and not that of PCA Nationals. Im confident that Donna and her crew will have something for us shortly and maybe they will turn out to be a little more to your liking. Again I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.
Tim