PCA Club Racing Rule Changes posted for comment
07-29-2010, 02:08 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
".....the difference in performance is mind boggling". I like that. And this is a interesting discussion.
Fred, I understand the final drive ratio effect having made a similar change as well. But then how does one answer the question of allowing various 17" and 18" wheel/tire diameters with no similar restriction. Technically speaking, isn't that also "effective R&P prep"?
Fred, I understand the final drive ratio effect having made a similar change as well. But then how does one answer the question of allowing various 17" and 18" wheel/tire diameters with no similar restriction. Technically speaking, isn't that also "effective R&P prep"?
07-29-2010, 02:50 PM
#32
Drifting
Simple. The 275/35/15 rear tires on an SC or 3.2 are equivalent to improving the ring and pinion. As you know ring and pinion must be as supplied by the factory or it is a prep.... I went from 17s to 15s so to run these incredible tires... the difference in performance is mind boggling... 2:13.8 to 2:12.08 at WGI.... The improvement will be even greater at Road America...
Fred---full disclosure-- you made many other significant changes to your suspension set up. Implying that all of your lap improvement came from the 15" tires is misleading.[/QUOTE][/B][/I]
Busted! You are right, I made other changes (that i wouldn't call significant however) to accommodate the move to 15s in the rear. Frankly, I let myself get drawn into this discussion every time and I shouldn't. I couldn't care less since i run prepared already. That's why I won't write to the rules folks on this topic. I do want the 50 pound relief as a prep and I think 3.2s should be allowed to run closer to SC weights though
See you at TRAC !
07-29-2010, 06:35 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
07-29-2010, 09:20 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
07-29-2010, 09:55 PM
#38
Rennlist Member
07-29-2010, 10:02 PM
#39
Rennlist Member
07-29-2010, 10:16 PM
#41
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-29-2010, 10:23 PM
#42
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
) We've been racing in GTB1 up till now. There are several others who have been waiting to see what the PCA would do. Provided it gets adopted, I expect pretty quick growth in TX. California has had quite a few cars now for a couple of years racing with the POC.
07-30-2010, 11:03 AM
#43
Drifting
Unless you are kidding, I guess you think it is ok for an E stock Euro SC (204HP) to run 110 pounds lighter than a 84-86 E stock 3.2 (207HP)? I think competition would be improved (VS SCs and 944S2s and 944 Turbos) if 3.2s were given weight relief... I would also allow 3.2s to run without a rev limiter. I have no vested interest in any of this since i run one really well developed CT stock SC in E.
07-30-2010, 11:40 AM
#44
Rennlist Member
Unless you are kidding, I guess you think it is ok for an E stock Euro SC (204HP) to run 110 pounds lighter than a 84-86 E stock 3.2 (207HP)? I think competition would be improved (VS SCs and 944S2s and 944 Turbos) if 3.2s were given weight relief... I would also allow 3.2s to run without a rev limiter. I have no vested interest in any of this since i run one really well developed CT stock SC in E.
07-30-2010, 11:46 AM
#45
NASA Racer
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I agree with Fred. the 3.2's do need the help against the euro sc (especially euro sc's with 15's 
). the euro sc has always been the car to beat in E. i would also allow 3.2's to run without a rev limiter.
). the euro sc has always been the car to beat in E. i would also allow 3.2's to run without a rev limiter.