mark kibort

Yep, just when i thought I understood it, there are more angles to consider.

Hey, your GT3 in my book. I think what mike was saying was that they are not allowing the 996 bodied cars in the GT classes. (if you read into the rules)

Sorry, i mis-spoke about the 3.4 993s. Yes, those were 3.6 liters and the last of the aircooled. 3.4L were the later engines in the first 996s.

jrgordonsenior

Paul the intent of the GTB class is to facilitate the 996 and 997 Koni Challenge cars. They are allowed to use a lightweight flywheel so I can't imagine PCA intending to have owners replace them with dual mass flywheels....

Carlos: Let us know if you ever hear back from Donna Amico, PCA head of Technical and Rules....

Paul 996

Yes, that is exactly what I told Carlos.

karlooz

with Donna's permission, here is her response:

Hi Carlos,

Yes, you are correct that the 3.4L 996 motor is the Boxster-based M96 motor, and consequently the car should be classed in GT based on a theoretical horsepower/liter of 135. Consequently, your minimum weight for GT3 would be about 2520 lbs with you and all your gear (calculated actual displacement 3.387L from the bore and stroke of the 3.4L).

You should print out this e-mail and bring it with you. I'm not sure which scrutineer is working the race; it may be one that doesn't know all the engines in the M96 family. I'll also make a note to clear up the language in the rules.

Regards,
Donna

mark kibort

There you go, GT3 as we thought!!!!

There, with PCA, you are going to get romped on, just like me in GT2. I think Masuro has a GT3 rig and runs 1:42 at sears point with PCA.

Someday, it will be all hp/weight and absolute weight!

mk

karlooz

ya, in PRC3 i will get my *** handed to me by masuo and PJ but if they raced with pca, they'd have to ballast up to stay in GT3...if they don't they would probably be in GT2. anyhow, there are a few other slugs like me that i can play with and that was the whole point of classiing my car in GT3 anyways.

you mean absolute power. PCA uses weight/(theoretical HP/L* displacement) for a performance index. there is still numbers crunching with PCA but at least quite a bit more fair than in the past.

so let's just call this little side track settled.

i still want to know where i can race in SCCA, other than ITE. i can't find my car in the SCCA CCR.

mark kibort

If you can run a 2:00 at Thunderhill, you can run with all sorts of competition in SCCA!
In SCCA, you are ITE. if you are not, you could run in GT2, but you would be basically pawning yourself off as a GT3 cup. (albeit, detuned)

PCA is silly. that entire classing thing was a move in the right direction, but a poor job at any type of fair classing. I have to laugh at the chart and formula. They are assuming that displacement determines HP. If they really wanted to do it right, they would use hp, or expected hp for given mods. It is nice that they pulled weight into the equation, as that is a big factor, but it doesnt address a light car vs heavy car has a huge advantage in braking and cornering, at the same HP/weight. watch a WC GT or Touring race lately, all the cars are differnet makes, but they seem to get it right for some close racing. If i race mark anderson and his 520rwhp 928, what do you think it will do to me in my 370rwhp 928? all that would have to be done would be adding a factor for cams, heads, and intake mods. Or, just do the GTS method, and give a factor for some weight range. (e.g. 2500lbs, 3000lbs, etc)

Just random thoughts. Hey, glad you got it worked out. Come out to the SCCA Laguna race and prepare for some real close, safe racing for you there, with probably about a 50 car field.

mk

Mahler9th

Its Masuo, not Masuro. And both Masuo and PJ, along with Jim Paugh and other current PRC runners are almost certainly heavy enough to run in GT3 with the PCA rules, WITHOUT BALLAST. Masuo has run 1:38-1:39 at Sears Point.

Glad the PCA has clarified things.

karlooz

good to know. i knew PJ would 'nt need ballast but i thought masuo was underweight. based from pit gossip his car weighed less than 2000 with driver. my mistake.

i'd better order my 11x13 slicks then and ballast up to GT4.

i thought

Mahler9th

Pit gossip... yikes. I doubt Masuo's car weighs 1800- 1830 pounds without driver. He claims somewhere around 2000 without driver. And a well prepped GT4 car (using the current PCA rules) could go almost as fast. Craig Watkins has a GT4 car, and I'd bet if/when he starts back racing, he could stay in GT4 and nearly this fast... also Gary Boss. Even if for them modest ballast was required.

mark kibort

thats why the rules are SO lame, even now. If Masuo can run as is in GT3, and be as fast as any GT2 car, doesnt that point to a rule issue? AND, if you say Craig Watkins car in GT4 can run 1:39 at Sears, well, why even have rules or classes! I remember gary Boss's car, and it was light and fast too, but GT3 as I remember.
anyway, someday, they will "Get it". Now, not so much.

change the rules! HP /weight with a total weight factor. Keep it simple too.

How about this For new PCA rules for REAL fairness:

1. You state your own rear wheel hp and weight it can be challenged at the cost of the dyno ($70) to the challenger if it passes, winner pays if it doesnt. Weights taken for top 3 places.

2. DOTs give .5 hp/weight advantage adder.
3. slicks give a .5 hp/weight disadvantage subtractor.
4. over 2500lbs gets a .5 point of HP to weight advantage
5. under 2500lbs gets a .5 point of HP to weight disadvantage

mk

Mahler9th

I don't think that PCA or PRC rules are lame. I don't see a problem in having GT2 and GT3 overlap.

When I started developing my original car for more performance on the street, in AX and on the track, I changed the DME and KLR (boost control) chips. This gave great performance increases for the $$ spent. Later when I looked into PCA Club racing, I discovered that that car (a 3000 pound 951 with about 300 bhp) would be in PCA GT3 class because of those changes. I didn't like it, but I didn't suggest they make a change because of my car or cars like it. They set the rules, and I could decide to run what I brung, change the car, or race elsewhere.

I am not an expert on racing rules, but have observed that even in spec classes, there is a difference between the have's and have not's.

I also think that rules makers need to hear cogent arguments from proposers of changes.

mark kibort

Yes, there is some difference in the have nots vs the haves in racing, but thats where classing can help differntiate and mitigate those dollar advantages.

Nothing wrong to have classes overlap, but when the classes leaders are the same, that is a problem. Can you imagine in WC, if they ran GT and Touring together and a Touring car actually won, or had the fastest time? Well, as crazy as that sounds (and as impossible as that might be), in PCA, it happens for 3 of their classes, not just 2! Thats lame and PRC is more lame as it has the abiltiy to modify the rules, but doesnt and uses them in their raw form anyway.

So, clearly, the system doesnt work. the latest attemp is a bandaid to the issues the club has had with classing via stock weights and displacment. POC, who had a TON more experience in classing racing, as seen by their rule book, still admitted some unfairness with the root of the classing system, and made changes.

The problems fall in the common misundersanding of race car physics. Hp/weight needs to be close for acceleration. Absolute weight effects handling and braking (2/3s of the entire performance package). Sure, driver, set up, suspension , tire size, etc have effects, but lets address the main ones and the others can be fine tuning.

The rules makers want to have close racing and rules that are easy to enforce. You can have both if you get away from the roots of where the rules came from in the first place..............rules formed on the foundation of the owners manual specs.

Personally, I have no problem getting beat by a car with more money tossed at it, but if you want a race, you have to have someway of "classing" the performance of the cars in the race. Take your 944 turbo. 3000lbs and 300hp. is it fair that you run against a 220hp, 2000lb 911 in the same class? If you think so, your racing with the right club.

karlooz

damn talk about a disparity.

at the TH ITE race, 2nd place quali was 1:51.6, 3rd place quali is you at 2:00. that's worse then if you were to race in PRC2 or PCA3. you mention fairness, is this fair?

mark kibort

There is no "classes" with ITE, its anything goes. besides those two superproduction cars that put on DOTs to run by themselves, we have some VERY close racing. its a great place to race because there are a bunch of cars near the same performance.

PCA is not fair because they try and class cars and end up with the same exact disparity that you mention regarding ITE.