Larry Herman

Seemed to me like you were playing a little more than devil's advocate on the subject. My mistake.

hdemas

Brian:

To me the stock classes ceased to be stock as soon as race springs were allowed. While you may be ok with driving to the track on them, and I know others as well who are, I think a car with race springs doesn't really qualify as a car that you can "drive to the track" according to most people's definitions. If it does, then it is only "to the track" and not much otherwise. As I think you illustrated in your response to Larry, I don't think anyone has discussed any changes to the rules that would prevent you from continuing to drive to the track. I'm all in favor of continuing to have the rules based on stock motors, and as long as that continues to be the case the cars will remain very street driveable (able to pass emissions tests for those of us where they test that sort of thing).

Harry

Brian P

What do you mean by "race springs"?

hdemas

Brian:

There isn't a bright line that you can define, but I think the term "race springs" is generally used to refer to springs with very high spring rates that work great on a smooth race track but not so good on the street (are actually too stiff for the street). These are the springs people in club racing typically use with Motons, JRZs, Bilstein Motorsport and other shocks that fall into the "race shock" category--also not exactly a bright-line category but I think people generally know what is meant by this as well. These springs are usually linear (not progressive), have a 2 1/4 or 2 1/2 ID and are frequently used with helper springs. The springs that come with the more track-application JIC's and KW's also would fall into the "race spring" category. "Race springs" are higher in spring rate than the street "sport" springs that, for example, H&R and Eibach sell or come with the PSS9s and PSS10s coil-over kits. The "sport" springs work really well on the street, but if you were building the ultimate track car you would want something significantly stiffer that would have reduced performance and comfort on the street but provide superior performance on the track. From what I have seen nearly all the stock/prepared class cars use race springs, though I can only speak as to what I have seen at races in California and at Miller.

As to why not drive a car with race springs on the street...their stiffness means the chassis is forced to absorb much harder hits when you hit the large bumps and potholes you encounter on the street. This is the primary reason I don't drive my car on the street--I just don't think it is very good for the chassis, the wheels, the suspension components or the shocks as there isn't enough compliance for the larger bumps you encounter on the street. The second reason is the car isn't very comfortable. A light car can run race springs and on smooth roads it is fine...I've driven Lotus Exige and Elise MkI racecars (light weight...1500 lb or so) with race springs/shocks (way stiffer than stock) in France (smooth public roads) and it was perfectly tolerable. My 3000+ lb 993 on anything but the smoothest of California roads (most are pretty bad) makes me feel like I am destroying the car, and at the same time my lower back starts to hurt from the impacts after about 1/2 hour (and I'm 34 in very good shape without any back problems otherwise, so probably more tolerant of the abuse than the average). On the track, though, race springs provide an extra bit of cornering speed as well as superior responsiveness and control (key when you are in close proximity to other cars) over the sport springs.

Harry

hdemas

One more thing I forgot to mention...in addition to the race springs, PCA "stock" cars can (and many of the compentitve cars do) use solid, or "metal-to-metal", bushing in the suspension. This is not something you can just reverse for the weekend, and turns the car completely into a race car. GTC2 and GTC3 cup cars don't even use solid bushings in most locations (they use firmer rubber bushings). The solid bushings were used in the GT3RS and GT3RSR racecars. The solid bushings would be stiff, noisy and unpleasant on the street, and not be good for the chassis, so you really are stuck trailering if you know what is better for yourself and the car. Once again, the "stock" classes are far from stock.

jscott82

Just to add more fuel to the "PCA Stock class cars are not street cars" fire....

Recommending (requiring) door bars precludes doing anything more that driving to and from track.... Anyone care to enter or exit their race car at the local supermarket ? So even if you were to make the argument that you can drive on the street, I’m not sure how much value there really is anyway unless you drop the door bar requirement (which I would not recommended). So in addition to springs, bushings, ride height, airbags, mufflers, cats, tires, and tools... add in door bars.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

M758

Well in Arizona you can register a car for the street if it passes tail pipe emissions. Heck even then it is only Phoenix area. If you are are in other parts of the state there is no emissions testing or even inspections. So if you have working headlights that don't attract too much attention, turn singnals, and liablity insurance you are fine. They don't inspect much around here.

So street legal is really a relative term. BTW.. my 944 is not street legal for three reasons. 1) no headlights 2) no cat 3) no insurance. I could easly fab in enough headlights to be ok and swap a cat in for testing. The insurance to me is a waste of money.

M758

I agree on the idea of "race springs" vs performance sport springs.

However I also feel while it is pretty easy to know what is a "streetable" suspension vs a "race only" suspension putting that in rules is very hard. So hard in fact that unless you spec a spring rate and shock it is nearly impossible. 944 spec cars are sort of odd in that respect. We use spring rates that really are nice street performance springs. Same for Koni yellow shocks. However we allow stripping the interior as a means to increase performance for little cost. This lower weight effectivly increase spring rates. We also do not allow metal suspension bushings. Now the reason we have these limits is not for keeping the cars street driven, but to limit costs.

So are we more race vs street? Well yes for our cars we are slanted to race only. Most cars are not street registered and those that are don't see street miles other than maybe the occasional drive to the track. Our cars can legal on the street, but not really pleasant on the street for any one other than those alittle crazy.

In end when you allow open changes to springs , shocks, and bushings you will get full race type syspensions on cars. There is no clear way to limit the upgrades to mild street performance stuff unless you specifically spec parts. That won't work with as many cars as PCA needs for stock.

So I think that while any number of PCA stock class cars could be driven on the street the percent of cars who are driven on the street for much more than to the track or to the shop is pretty small. Anyone who decides to make a car that will be compeitiive in class has a car that will see very very limited if any street miles.

Nader Fotouhi

I have read this thread and others like it over the years and I am actually posting against my better judgement to get involved in this debate because it always seems like it ends up with a lot of discussions about rule changes because specific cars are at a disadvantage or allow removal of the carpet because race cars are not street cars. I have known/seen a few guys that drove to the track to race. The biggest reason they no longer do that is because they do not want to drive a car with a full cage on the street, so many have decided to stop racing.

Most of us do not plan to go racing. It is a evolution of DE which means that in most cases we start racing using the car we have because we either do not 1) have as much money or want to spend the money to buy/build the "Class" dominant car, 2) think far ahead about desire to race to look at the rules and be aware of #1 above, or spend enough time/money on our driving to make up for not having done #1.

With the exception of a Spec series, I do not think that the purpose of any racing series including PCA is to have a equal palying field, but a level playing field. I am in E which consists of 3.2 Carreras, base Boxters, FEWC, and Euro SC with 3.2 Carreras probably at most disadvantage. If someone studies the rules and buys tha best performing car within the "Class" and can afford to spend $$$$K to build a blue printed engine , figure out how to maximize camber, or stuff a bigger tires under the body to run up front, as long as they do it within the rules, it does not mean that the rules were wrong.

I think that the PCA has actually done a very good job to "Class" different cars. Although I did not followed the rule changes related to various 996 cars, it appears that the new rules are well received and within E Class, a well driven 3.2 is not at a big disadvantage With a few exceptions which as most have stated would include allowing stripping the cars (I'd like to go beyond carpets to door panels, rear seats, and even dash) or removing other items such as A/C compressor, I do not see any reason to change the stock or prepared rules.
My $0.0. Hopefully I make sense.

Streak

^^
Nader, you make no sense. None at all. E Stock rules should abslutely favor the 3.2 Carrera. Specifically the 86 3.2 Carrera

How is it that the car that was supposed to be the fastest evolution of its era among the available cars of the day is at a disadvantage on the race track with the previous model? Seems like there should be some tweeking.

Alas, I don't know enough to know why the rules are the rules yet. I also am not in contention for a podium finish yet. Somethings do seem silly like why we have to leave the carpet and door panels in? I could take out my power windows and clean up the inside a little, lose the AC that doesn't work anyway. None of that prevents a streetable car. It is akin to a canvas topped Jeep at that point.

For the record, my car has a full cage with nascar bars and a valid state inspection. I could drive to the track. In fact I do drive it sometimes but not for groceries.

Brian P

I used to do 8 hour drives with "race springs" and "race shocks" back when I did DE's all the time. The shocks were Ledas and the springs were 500 pound and 800 pound linear springs. Setting the Ledas to full soft made the ride very streetable. I do agree that it probably wasn't the best thing for the car or for the suspension, but it was doable. The main reason I stopped driving to the track was that it was a huge pain to bring the family as they had to take a separate car, so I got a tow vehicle and a trailer to be family friendly.

Flash forward a few years, and I have switched out that suspension and went with even heavier springs. I decided to let the registration lapse on the Porsche and made it a track only car. So, for me personally, I wouldn't care if the rules were modified to make the cars look more like race cars and less like street cars.

But, I still think it's a very slippery slope when we start using the excuse that these cars are no longer streetable and we should pass XYZ rule because of it. Using that logic, it won't be too long before the GT classes and the stock classes are nearly identical.

Ray S

I find it amusing that the 3.6 997 is classed with the 3.4 996 in "H", but the 3.6 996 must compete with the 997 3.8 in "I".

A.Wayne

Stock class cars should be street legal , driven to the track and raced on the same tires ,

yah know , Budget cuts , 2 tier system .....