How PCA racing needs to reorganize
05-12-2009, 11:32 AM
#46
Rennlist Member
I am almost certain that there will be a dyno at the Watkins Glen event, because it is being run in conjunction with NASA. NASA equalizes our classes by P:W, and there is a lot of suspicion floating around right now over who is cheating, who is light, who is overboosted, etc....so we're all asking the scrut's to closely evaluate everyone in the 944 classes.
05-12-2009, 02:05 PM
#47
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with what Joe said. The classes really should be set up such that the weight is used to properly handicap the cars relative to the other cars in the classes. If this were done properly, the stock classes could be made to function well again. Using the Porsche published weight isn't helpful at all.
Gasser hit the nail on the head for why the 993s aren't competitive in G or H. The rulemakers need to look at what the power is not purely stock, but assuming all the modifications in the class are made. The 993 already has a well optimized motor from the factory, and it is hard to improve on it with any of the stock modifications...headers make no difference, and balancing and blueprinting would make little. In comparison, the 964 RS Americas are rated at 247 but if you replace the very restrictive headers that came from the factory with a good set of aftermarket headers, the power ends up very close to the 993's power. I have also heard that if you go further and shave the heads down to the "stock" published compression ratio, then you can get even more power, further closing the gap with the 993. As a result, even though the cars should be even on power/weight according to the factory published weight and horsepower, the cars end up being very different. I have a 993 in H with nearly all the allowed modifications in prepared and have raced against a well prepared 964 RS America several times. That car has headers and a built motor. My car has a purely stock varioram motor. In a straight drag race down a long straight I would lose a good 7+ car lengths. One time I was 5 feet off his rear bumper coming out of the corner and from about 60mph to 120mph I still lost about 2 car lengths notwithstanding the draft. This was due to his weighing 200+ lb less than me and having similar horsepower because the "stock" class mods help a 964 a lot more than a 993. I'm sure similar situations exist for other cars.
In sum, the stock class rules need to be based on the maximum power that can be achieved using the available modifications for the class, and then adjusting the weights to equalize the cars on power/weight, with small adjustments for other factors that may make one car easier to drive than another. Using the factory published weight and the factory published power just doesn't make sense.
Given the size of the PCA organization and the number of races each year, there should be plenty of data available to enable the stock classes to be fixed.
I'm also in favor of allowing carpet removal, and for consolidating down to fewer classes. Nobody wants to be in a class by themselves, and if a better job was done in handicapping the cars with realistic power/weight numbers the competition could be very good.
Gasser hit the nail on the head for why the 993s aren't competitive in G or H. The rulemakers need to look at what the power is not purely stock, but assuming all the modifications in the class are made. The 993 already has a well optimized motor from the factory, and it is hard to improve on it with any of the stock modifications...headers make no difference, and balancing and blueprinting would make little. In comparison, the 964 RS Americas are rated at 247 but if you replace the very restrictive headers that came from the factory with a good set of aftermarket headers, the power ends up very close to the 993's power. I have also heard that if you go further and shave the heads down to the "stock" published compression ratio, then you can get even more power, further closing the gap with the 993. As a result, even though the cars should be even on power/weight according to the factory published weight and horsepower, the cars end up being very different. I have a 993 in H with nearly all the allowed modifications in prepared and have raced against a well prepared 964 RS America several times. That car has headers and a built motor. My car has a purely stock varioram motor. In a straight drag race down a long straight I would lose a good 7+ car lengths. One time I was 5 feet off his rear bumper coming out of the corner and from about 60mph to 120mph I still lost about 2 car lengths notwithstanding the draft. This was due to his weighing 200+ lb less than me and having similar horsepower because the "stock" class mods help a 964 a lot more than a 993. I'm sure similar situations exist for other cars.
In sum, the stock class rules need to be based on the maximum power that can be achieved using the available modifications for the class, and then adjusting the weights to equalize the cars on power/weight, with small adjustments for other factors that may make one car easier to drive than another. Using the factory published weight and the factory published power just doesn't make sense.
Given the size of the PCA organization and the number of races each year, there should be plenty of data available to enable the stock classes to be fixed.
I'm also in favor of allowing carpet removal, and for consolidating down to fewer classes. Nobody wants to be in a class by themselves, and if a better job was done in handicapping the cars with realistic power/weight numbers the competition could be very good.
05-12-2009, 02:13 PM
#48
Rennlist Member
The problem with Dynos is that they are inconsistent. My buddy got his 86 carrera dynoed locally and they told him he was 212 at the wheels which, unless he's cheating is more than it comes with at the crank according to the factory. It was re-done at our mechanic's shop which showed 188 at the wheels which should be about right.
NASA does have a good system with HP to weight ratio but that is not always fair either in my opinion. In GTS class you can have a 911 running at the optimum weight without ballast running against a newer M3 that is loaded with ballast that has far better brakes, and is just an overall more sophisticated car.
If PCA adopted any HP to weight ratio system I would like to see classes remain close to what they are now as opposed to 911's running against 993's with 500lbs of ballast.
NASA does have a good system with HP to weight ratio but that is not always fair either in my opinion. In GTS class you can have a 911 running at the optimum weight without ballast running against a newer M3 that is loaded with ballast that has far better brakes, and is just an overall more sophisticated car.
If PCA adopted any HP to weight ratio system I would like to see classes remain close to what they are now as opposed to 911's running against 993's with 500lbs of ballast.
05-12-2009, 02:20 PM
#49
hdemas, I like the direction you are going on this... The only problem is what HP should be used in order to tweak the weights? If we look at class winners, we'll probably get something that has a blueprinted engine with all of the tweaks that you can do and still be in a stock class. It would be unreasonable to ask everybody to build their car to such a level. However, if you use a car that hasn't had everything done, then someone can go out and do everything and gain an advantage.
I think the only solution is to set a maximum power to weight ratio for a class and then dyno the guys on the podium (if time permits, the whole class can be checked). If we wanted to get more complex, we could establish power to weight ratios for each car to offset the cornering advantage that lightweight cars will have.
I think the only solution is to set a maximum power to weight ratio for a class and then dyno the guys on the podium (if time permits, the whole class can be checked). If we wanted to get more complex, we could establish power to weight ratios for each car to offset the cornering advantage that lightweight cars will have.
05-12-2009, 02:22 PM
#50
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Got a real lesson in the GTS power to weight classification. Not a good lesson either. The power to weight rule lends itself to big money races. Since you can modify the car anyway you want there is no limit to the amount of money you can spend.
The other thing is like good hands said, you may find yourself pitted against a much faster more advanced car with ballast. IMHO ballast is not the equalizer it is supposed to be.
If PCA does adopt something like this they should limit the classes to cars that should be appropriate to each other sort of the way they have the stock classes set up. In other words they could have all E class cars run power to weight and all F cars etc. That would prevent a ballasted 996 with lots of HP and ABS from running against 200 hp 25 year old cars.
just a thought
The other thing is like good hands said, you may find yourself pitted against a much faster more advanced car with ballast. IMHO ballast is not the equalizer it is supposed to be.
If PCA does adopt something like this they should limit the classes to cars that should be appropriate to each other sort of the way they have the stock classes set up. In other words they could have all E class cars run power to weight and all F cars etc. That would prevent a ballasted 996 with lots of HP and ABS from running against 200 hp 25 year old cars.
just a thought
05-12-2009, 02:39 PM
#51
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian:
I generally like the dyno idea, though it makes things more difficult for the organizers.
I actually don't think the horsepower variation between stock class motors is all that great. If you had some policing with occasional dyno checks that would be helpful, though. I think if you took two 993 motors, one a well-running, low-mileage one that came from the factory and another that had been balanced and blueprinted, I would be surprised if the horsepower difference was more than 10hp. This is assuming everything else is the same. Let me know if you think I am incorrect on this. Such a difference on a 3000lb car isn't really all that much and isn't a huge issue. Still, I think you need to look at what a well-built car would produce because as the cars get older and are raced, that is the direction all of the cars go.
What I was referring to in looking at what a well-running car has is the modifications that are allowed in stock. Things like headers are allowed and make a huge difference for a 964, but make no difference for a 993, and the factory published number assumes stock headers but nearly all the cars have headers. I think the rules need to assume that all the modifications that can be done have been done.
On your second paragraph...power/weight to offset cornering advantage of lightweight cars, I really think this needs to be done. All the cars in any given class really should have similar power/weight, and be at least fairly similar in weight, but if you really want to make things fair you have to make some adjustments for weight, weight distribution, aero, track width and general technological advancement (multilink rear versus semitrailing arm). I am also convinced that in racing conditions water-cooled horses are more powerful than air-cooled horses--not just because of cooling, but also because of things like Variocam (which enhances the torque corve).
Scott:
I'm with you on keeping things fairly close to the way they are for stock classes. They just need to be consolidated some. Mixing the modern tech cars with the older, lighter cars is difficult, and I am not a fan of having cars in the same class with wildly different weights.
Harry
I generally like the dyno idea, though it makes things more difficult for the organizers.
I actually don't think the horsepower variation between stock class motors is all that great. If you had some policing with occasional dyno checks that would be helpful, though. I think if you took two 993 motors, one a well-running, low-mileage one that came from the factory and another that had been balanced and blueprinted, I would be surprised if the horsepower difference was more than 10hp. This is assuming everything else is the same. Let me know if you think I am incorrect on this. Such a difference on a 3000lb car isn't really all that much and isn't a huge issue. Still, I think you need to look at what a well-built car would produce because as the cars get older and are raced, that is the direction all of the cars go.
What I was referring to in looking at what a well-running car has is the modifications that are allowed in stock. Things like headers are allowed and make a huge difference for a 964, but make no difference for a 993, and the factory published number assumes stock headers but nearly all the cars have headers. I think the rules need to assume that all the modifications that can be done have been done.
On your second paragraph...power/weight to offset cornering advantage of lightweight cars, I really think this needs to be done. All the cars in any given class really should have similar power/weight, and be at least fairly similar in weight, but if you really want to make things fair you have to make some adjustments for weight, weight distribution, aero, track width and general technological advancement (multilink rear versus semitrailing arm). I am also convinced that in racing conditions water-cooled horses are more powerful than air-cooled horses--not just because of cooling, but also because of things like Variocam (which enhances the torque corve).
Scott:
I'm with you on keeping things fairly close to the way they are for stock classes. They just need to be consolidated some. Mixing the modern tech cars with the older, lighter cars is difficult, and I am not a fan of having cars in the same class with wildly different weights.
Harry
05-12-2009, 02:50 PM
#52
Race Director
I think Harry and are on the same page. The stock classes have rules that can be helpful or problematic. However any series has them. There are many PCA stock guys thinging GTS is so fantastic since it is all power/weight. Well in PCA stock the chassis mods a all pretty similar so the biggest factor in power/weights in each class. However in GTS that is the only thing limits you. So you can make a really fast car using trick suspension, super wide tires and aero down force. Heck in GTS you can legally take a 2009 GT3 RSR complete with squential shift box and spend the $$$ to mate a 964 motor to it and then probably run itin GTS3 or maybe GTS2. Now it would be super expensive, but my guess be unbeatable and fully legal too.
So before you ditch all the PCA stock ideas why not hit the big issues in PCA.
1) ditch the carpets
2) Allow class weights to adjust for real power to balance the cars in class.
I have a feelin that doing this will make stock much more competitie and take the edge off the "cheater" mindset that some PCA guys feel exists. Sure thier may be some cheating, but alot of the "pulling away" comes from two things. Class weights which aid certain cars more than others and the fact that some guys area faster and have more momentum.
So before you ditch all the PCA stock ideas why not hit the big issues in PCA.
1) ditch the carpets
2) Allow class weights to adjust for real power to balance the cars in class.
I have a feelin that doing this will make stock much more competitie and take the edge off the "cheater" mindset that some PCA guys feel exists. Sure thier may be some cheating, but alot of the "pulling away" comes from two things. Class weights which aid certain cars more than others and the fact that some guys area faster and have more momentum.
05-12-2009, 03:09 PM
#53
King of Cool
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Well my answer for this is simple. Allow the pre 75 cars less weight to accomodate the small power gains from standard race mods.
Really if we were talking about mix marque racing it would be near impossible to give a certain car a special allowance. However PCA deals with relativly few cars and most are very well known interms of what is realy possible from the car. As such it is not really that hard to determine what is right weight for every car in PCA stock such that it has be best chance of competing in that class. If a car needs to run a bit lighter than the rest due to old t-bar suspension and no provision for fat tires then so be it. PCA has the history to really understand this and ensure there really is a place for all Porsche's to race in semi compeitive enviroment.
The problem now is race weights are linked to curb weight and not the right weight for the class. As such you can't argue that the 95 993 is too heavy to be competitve in class. The response is tough. However I am sure if you just let 50-60lbs out of the car it will be easy to make it competitive in class. We all know the chassis is sound so let the weight adjust. Heck same for 2.5L boxsters vs 2.7 or 3.4 996 vs 3.6. This even make X51 stuff easier since you can just say X51 = 60lbs or something rather than the ony option being a different class. The freedom to tweak the racing weight of a car is essential in creating good competition betweens cars that are not idendicatal. IMHO this is the biggest change that needs to happen to PCA stock class racing. (Oh that an removing carpets to allow for easy weight reductions where needed.)
Really if we were talking about mix marque racing it would be near impossible to give a certain car a special allowance. However PCA deals with relativly few cars and most are very well known interms of what is realy possible from the car. As such it is not really that hard to determine what is right weight for every car in PCA stock such that it has be best chance of competing in that class. If a car needs to run a bit lighter than the rest due to old t-bar suspension and no provision for fat tires then so be it. PCA has the history to really understand this and ensure there really is a place for all Porsche's to race in semi compeitive enviroment.
The problem now is race weights are linked to curb weight and not the right weight for the class. As such you can't argue that the 95 993 is too heavy to be competitve in class. The response is tough. However I am sure if you just let 50-60lbs out of the car it will be easy to make it competitive in class. We all know the chassis is sound so let the weight adjust. Heck same for 2.5L boxsters vs 2.7 or 3.4 996 vs 3.6. This even make X51 stuff easier since you can just say X51 = 60lbs or something rather than the ony option being a different class. The freedom to tweak the racing weight of a car is essential in creating good competition betweens cars that are not idendicatal. IMHO this is the biggest change that needs to happen to PCA stock class racing. (Oh that an removing carpets to allow for easy weight reductions where needed.)
05-12-2009, 03:21 PM
#54
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Beyond power to weight, another thing to think about is multi series participants. I am struggling with running in Nasa GTS and PCA Stock. If I go PCA prepared I'll be a back maker (I currently reside at the back but one day . . .) as far as potential with the car. In order to maximize my car for Nasa GTS I would have to run Prepared with PCA. It's a conundrum.
Do I drop PCA for Nasa? Nasa has a race I can get to at least once a month. PCA has 3 races I could get to all season. No doubt that ease of participation and frequency is on Nasa's side but I've always been a Porsche guy and love the PCA.
What to do?
Maybe the rules could allow dual series cars (any car really but as an example a dual series car) to remove every scrap of interior or any other weighty item from the car and use ballast to qualify minimum weight at a PCA race. This would be easy. Rather than put my AC back on, put the metal doors or door panels back on etc, just add ballast in a safe manner to bring the car back up to weight.
I could drop over 150 lbs for Nasa and stay in the GTS2 class.
In tis economy participation is down and if racers have to chose . . . .
Do I drop PCA for Nasa? Nasa has a race I can get to at least once a month. PCA has 3 races I could get to all season. No doubt that ease of participation and frequency is on Nasa's side but I've always been a Porsche guy and love the PCA.
What to do?
Maybe the rules could allow dual series cars (any car really but as an example a dual series car) to remove every scrap of interior or any other weighty item from the car and use ballast to qualify minimum weight at a PCA race. This would be easy. Rather than put my AC back on, put the metal doors or door panels back on etc, just add ballast in a safe manner to bring the car back up to weight.
I could drop over 150 lbs for Nasa and stay in the GTS2 class.
In tis economy participation is down and if racers have to chose . . . .
05-12-2009, 03:40 PM
#55
Race Director
Well here you have it a problem NO SOLUTION. It is impossible to make one single car optimal for different classes. Especially ones as different as GTS and PCA stock. It just won't ever happen.
Consider an optimal GTS2 car. What would it be?
Lets think.
Power/weight = Optimized to limit in rules. Probably one with a fat torque curve to give you the widest power band with the least peaks.
Tires = DOT tires to be sure, but go widebody to stuff 275's in the front and 335's in the back. 18 wheels really wide to make those tires work.
body work- As much flare as it takes to cover those giant meats
Aero - Big giant front splitter and nice rear wing.
Brakes - play around with the ideal set-up for stopping and minimum weight. Given the modest power masssive rubber and aere downforce you may need much for brakes cause the fast way may be to never slow down.
Gearbox - you could go sequential, but for now get 2-3 different boxes with ratio optimized for each track you run. Hey you may have the same hp as everyone else so playing around with the power band be very handy to maximize it.
suspension - adapt as much pro race stuff including modifying all the pick-up points to optimize the geometry for any ride height and alignment Don't forget about fancy dampers either.
So optimizing for GTS2 can be really really expensive. Now sure nobody is doing that now, but there is no way to stop them. Heck I if had the $$$$ I might find it fun to see if I can make GTS1 car run faster laps than a winning GTS3 car. It would take work and alot of money, but I bet it could be done.
05-12-2009, 04:21 PM
#56
Rennlist
Basic Site Sponsor
Basic Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
It seems like there is no one good solution to the problem. Every method (i.e. PCA classes or NASA P/W) has it's drawbacks, and some cars will just not be as competitive as others. Additionally, the spending of big money will yield a faster car, regardless if it is the fine-tuning of the motor, or the maximization of the suspension.
Specific to Harry's arguement, the 993 has always had an unfair shake in PCA and they should pay closer attention to that. The cars that had the most production should be the ones that run at the front, and the rules should be adjusted to make that happen. I always felt that it was unfair to allow a stock 993 RSCS to be a class leader, considering that there are only a few real ones in the country and yet a generic 993 doesn't have much of a chance. However, as the prior owner of one such fully prepared RSA that Harry talked about, I can tell you that I would get my headlights sucked out by a "stock" 3.4 996 when it was setup properly. And 3.4 996s are a dime a dozen. So there will always be "the car" for a particular class, though that may change track to track.
What I originally wanted was for the stock classes to get more restrictive to try and bring that cost down some, the prepared classes to get less restrictive as that probably will not increase costs much over what they are now, and the "street tire option" in the race classes to go away (or get an equivalency factor). I do think that PCA racing should be different from other venues, just for that reason, and after all of the good discussion that I have read here, I still feel pretty much the same.
Specific to Harry's arguement, the 993 has always had an unfair shake in PCA and they should pay closer attention to that. The cars that had the most production should be the ones that run at the front, and the rules should be adjusted to make that happen. I always felt that it was unfair to allow a stock 993 RSCS to be a class leader, considering that there are only a few real ones in the country and yet a generic 993 doesn't have much of a chance. However, as the prior owner of one such fully prepared RSA that Harry talked about, I can tell you that I would get my headlights sucked out by a "stock" 3.4 996 when it was setup properly. And 3.4 996s are a dime a dozen. So there will always be "the car" for a particular class, though that may change track to track.
What I originally wanted was for the stock classes to get more restrictive to try and bring that cost down some, the prepared classes to get less restrictive as that probably will not increase costs much over what they are now, and the "street tire option" in the race classes to go away (or get an equivalency factor). I do think that PCA racing should be different from other venues, just for that reason, and after all of the good discussion that I have read here, I still feel pretty much the same.
__________________
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
05-12-2009, 04:24 PM
#57
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
05-12-2009, 04:35 PM
#58
Drifting
05-12-2009, 04:40 PM
#59
Mr. Excitement
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
gonna happen unless you quit real soon.another note I like the dyno at the track idea but... I was tech chair for some years and just getting and maning a set of scales to the track for CR was a bear at times. a dyno is a whole level up from scales.
05-12-2009, 05:16 PM
#60
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: VIR
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the one thing we all need to take into consideration is that the PCA Club Racing organization is a volunteer based operation. Grand Am and ALMS have people who are paid to review all after race data to look at performance through out each class. Depending on what they find that is where they add or subtract weight from different makes and models to even out the field. By the middle of the season you usually have some pretty close racing once the changes settle in.
The people at PCA usually have day jobs that keep them rather busy - i know when I am bugging Donna about the rules she gets back to me when she can but it is usually after business hours.
I am sure I am not saying anything that every body did not already know - but it is a factor in why some things get muddy over time. I was glad to see a trial rule change on the 13/13 but it is my feeling that the people at PCA do not like a whole lot of drastic change at once and are usually pretty comfortable with where things are. I feel the 13/13 rule change was due to them trying to get their numbers back up and bring some people back to the fold. This might be the time to strike whil the iron is hot - if they feel that some changes might up their event numbers.
It takes a lot to set up something like the new GTB class, hence the reason why the rules and regulations are pretty much a cut and paste of Grand Am's Koni Challenge rules.
I agree that some changes would be great but it might take us actually volunteering our time to help make the changes and to stick with it.
Who knows, something to think about.
The people at PCA usually have day jobs that keep them rather busy - i know when I am bugging Donna about the rules she gets back to me when she can but it is usually after business hours.
I am sure I am not saying anything that every body did not already know - but it is a factor in why some things get muddy over time. I was glad to see a trial rule change on the 13/13 but it is my feeling that the people at PCA do not like a whole lot of drastic change at once and are usually pretty comfortable with where things are. I feel the 13/13 rule change was due to them trying to get their numbers back up and bring some people back to the fold. This might be the time to strike whil the iron is hot - if they feel that some changes might up their event numbers.
It takes a lot to set up something like the new GTB class, hence the reason why the rules and regulations are pretty much a cut and paste of Grand Am's Koni Challenge rules.
I agree that some changes would be great but it might take us actually volunteering our time to help make the changes and to stick with it.
Who knows, something to think about.