Steward B.

The rule changes for PCA Club racing have been posted for comment at:

http://www.pca.org/Activities/ClubRa...singForms.aspx

Note as always that these are proposals and likely not all of them will be adopted this fall for next year. Also note that the rules committee does not read Rennlist but rather only reviews comments sent to: crrules@pca.org

This will be the last year for Donna Amico as rules chair. She is slowly turning her duties over to Walt Fricke. All of us in PCA club racing owe a huge debt of gratitude to Donna for the countless hours and emails she has devoted to a sport we are all passionate about.

BostonDMD

-removal of passenger seat.......
-50 lbs. reduction in prepared classes.....

Sean F

Nice - there are some really good proposals in there

Chris M.

John H

I like the idea of lowering the earlier 993 allowable weight to offset the HP of the later motors.

Circuit Motorsports

There is a new FIA head restraint standard not in the rule changes.

FIA 8858-2010

Now with Safety Solutions Hybrid as well as HANS

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/782C162EC4681517C1257760005B9C4D/$FILE/8858-2010_Frontal_Head_Restraint.pdf

TRT41

Spec Classes

3. Add new spec class based on Spec 996 for 1999 – 2004 996s with 3.4L or 3.6L engines

mglobe

This seems like a pretty good idea to me.

ninjabones

Proposed, but not adoptable as written: Give a weight break to the E class Carrera 3.2s and G
class 993s. Instead, please comment on each of the following, and yes, they are different:
• whether all stock weights should be adjusted so all cars in a class have similar weight/HP
ratios (easy)
• whether stock class weights should be adjusted to better equalize competitiveness of cars
within a class (harder; model competitiveness within class seems track-specific in some
classes)


Equalize real (not theoretical) HP to weight ratios within each class.

In a perfect world, PCA would require annual dynos and randomly enforce with Dynos at the track. However, I understand that the logistics of this might be onerous to our volunteer organizers.

At the very least, PCA could outline specific dyno requirements and perhaps even provide a list of "certified" shops by region. A dyno sheet could be required with annual tech. And, yes I do see many possible problems with this approach... but it would certainly be a step in the right direction as a compromise. This would give back some competitive ability to cars with older/tired engines, prune back the performance of cars with crazy rebuilds, and would also perhaps neutralize some of the obvious disparity problems with certain models. It is obvious that with certain models, the horsepower listed in the rule book does not acurately reflect the final effect of allowable modifications. For example, with headers/exhaust a 964 will essentially put down the same HP as a similarly modified 993, but listed weights provide a definite advantage to the 964 (200 lbs).

PCA, as a general policy, does not like to create rules that specifically improve/worsen specific model cars. However, equalizing real HP/weight would be a huge step in leveling the playing field. In the example above, a 964 owner could keep the stock headers and run pretty close to the listed weight. However, by adding headers and exhaust, they would likely have to add 200 lbs of ballast to accommodate for the 20 HP improvement. Similarly, if a 993 starts losing compression and is low on HP at the rear wheels, he/she could drop some ballast and potentially stay competitive.

FredC

+1 on the 50 pound weight reduction for prepared.
+1 on weight reduction on 3.2 carreras.

As for 15s in D, E, etc... I think the overall rolling diameter at the rear should be no less than the smallest rolling diameter at the rear as supplied by the factory. If not, then it is a prep. Hey I remember I suggested this last year and it went no where.... seems like it is headed for the same place

Gary R.

Comment by 10/1 on the changes you feel are beneficial to all!

These are mine..

Stock Class
"2. Allow the following items to be removed from stock class cars (each is a separate proposal).
• Interiors except dashboard and passenger seat."

Will everyone that agrees that removing the seat will add to safety in both view and egress in the case of certain types of accidents and add absolutely NO advantage in any way please comment to crrules@pca.org before 10/1/10.

8. Proposed, but not adoptable as written: Add a minimum tire diameter for D&E class to combat gear ratio difference between low profile 15” tires and the tires on 17” rims tires. Instead, please comment on whether there should be a limit on the percentage reduction from “as delivered” tire diameter on stock class cars, and what that percentage limit should be.

I'm looking for real data.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsc...ml#post5478596

10. Proposed, but unlikely to be adopted as written: Make remote reservoir adjustable shocks a “prepared” change for any stock class car where remote reservoir shocks could not be ordered from the factory. Please comment on whether adjustable shocks, regardless of reservoir type or location, should be a “prepared”.

Of course they should, just because it "slipped by" until now is no reason to allow it. Jeeez, good ol Joe Needam ran in D (was G) for over 10 years in his 72 and last year got bumped to E for having SC flares (which were always there!). Can't enforce one rule and not the others.

FredC

[/QUOTE]
Of course they should, just because it "slipped by" until now is no reason to allow it. Jeeez, good ol Joe Needam ran in D (was G) for over 10 years in his 72 and last year got bumped to E for having SC flares (which were always there!). Can't enforce one rule and not the others.[/QUOTE]

good point.

John H

was there a new rule disallowing SC flares, or was it the enforcement of the longstanding rule about body modifications?

There has never been a rule restricting use of remote reservoirs in stock classes. I think the example may be apples and oranges.

BTW, I run JIC's so it doesn't effect me.

Carrera51

Yes, make remote reservoir shocks a prepared mod.

Sure I would love a 50lb weight reduction for prepared cars

Regarding the use of 15" wheels to play with gear ratios, leave it alone. Others have the option of buying some 15s if they want to. ( I don't have a stake in this one since I have to run 17s to clear my brakes).

John H

Mark,

your logic is flawed. people can buy remote res. shocks just like 15 in wheels.