PCA Rules - comment period ends 6/1
#46
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Okay... i see a lot of valid arguments on both sides. It would suck to have built a car to the top of current GT class standards and then have everything change. At the same time, it sure would be nice to have better parity in the GT classes without having to spend >$40,000 on a grenade engine. I guess, I'll just keep running in NASA for the juice and PCA for fun. Perhaps one day (when old faithful finally kicks the bucket and it's time to rebuild), I'll take my medicine and have Peter Dawe build me an engine that can compete in both series.
#47
Race Director
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I've had those installed in my car countless times at NASA So Cal races and at the 2010 Nationals where a unit lived in my car. Every time they'd download them and tell me my car has excess of 300 WHP when I'd just dyno'd at 272 or in the case of the Nationals 280 (3 times in 3 days). Either I'm the greatest cheater around or those things are full of crap. So Cal stopped using them last year...
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
BTW... The onboard GPS would be nice if it worked. I am not confident that the systems have right now do that.
#48
Race Director
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
... But right now, just as an example, in GT4S, there is an identical car to mine in almost every way (chassis, aero package, wheels, suspension) that has in excess of 100 HP more than what I'm putting down at the wheels... totally within the rules and fair. I'd just prefer a way to have parity without having to write a $40,000 check and then rebuild every 50 hours.
Of course the reason for this was getting tossed from stock due to the weight reducton and interior removal. So when PCA moved to this formula at least it helps cars like mine where getting 300 hp from a 2.5L 944 motor is just not going to happen.
#49
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here's mine for this year.
(1) GT Class: Allow non-porsche motors, class automatically GT1.
The LS1 in a 944 is a popular setup as a great combination of
power and reliability. Many of these are getting
built and raced, just not in PCA.
(2) GT and Stock Classes
Base class assignment assumes DOT R tires.
Race Slicks move one class faster
Tires with tread UTQG >= 80 move one class slower
Drivers that run RA-1's or NT-01's could cut their tire costs
by a factor of four vs Hoosiers.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that would race more if tires
were cheaper.
(1) GT Class: Allow non-porsche motors, class automatically GT1.
The LS1 in a 944 is a popular setup as a great combination of
power and reliability. Many of these are getting
built and raced, just not in PCA.
(2) GT and Stock Classes
Base class assignment assumes DOT R tires.
Race Slicks move one class faster
Tires with tread UTQG >= 80 move one class slower
Drivers that run RA-1's or NT-01's could cut their tire costs
by a factor of four vs Hoosiers.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that would race more if tires
were cheaper.
#50
Burning Brakes
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I put my changes suggestions in.
Spec tires for stock classes or min tread wear. I too am getting tired of the Hoosier costs and the ridiculously short life. I am with Ron, I too would rather have more track time. I now rarely do Friday test and Tune, to preserve valuable race rubber. At the last Club Race at Heartland, some competitors only ran the two points races of the 4 races in total, to limit tire wear. Makes no sense prepping, then travelling long distances and not wanting to go on track. Something has to change.
I also put in for no engine adjustments for stock cars, ie no cam, ignition, fuel pressure or boost, or trick headers.
I was also considering requesting reclsssification or adding weight to 911 Euro's in E stock, to try and even up the competition!
Spec tires for stock classes or min tread wear. I too am getting tired of the Hoosier costs and the ridiculously short life. I am with Ron, I too would rather have more track time. I now rarely do Friday test and Tune, to preserve valuable race rubber. At the last Club Race at Heartland, some competitors only ran the two points races of the 4 races in total, to limit tire wear. Makes no sense prepping, then travelling long distances and not wanting to go on track. Something has to change.
I also put in for no engine adjustments for stock cars, ie no cam, ignition, fuel pressure or boost, or trick headers.
I was also considering requesting reclsssification or adding weight to 911 Euro's in E stock, to try and even up the competition!
#51
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![popcorn](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif)
#52
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Perhaps I should know the answer to this but I don't...so would someone please tell me who is on the "Rules Committee" and are there any competitiors ,even in an advisory (non-voting) capacity?
Tom B.
Tom B.
#53
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
When E class cars (several) are running as fast or faster laps than the fastest H class cars it might be time to reconsider classifications and/or weights. (And definitely driving lessons for me....
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#55
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Okay... i see a lot of valid arguments on both sides. It would suck to have built a car to the top of current GT class standards and then have everything change. At the same time, it sure would be nice to have better parity in the GT classes without having to spend >$40,000 on a grenade engine. I guess, I'll just keep running in NASA for the juice and PCA for fun. Perhaps one day (when old faithful finally kicks the bucket and it's time to rebuild), I'll take my medicine and have Peter Dawe build me an engine that can compete in both series.
The HP to Weight argument has been around since at least 2006/2007. I was screwed trying to run a 993 in G and in GTS3 where I was so frustrated I went out and bought the aforementioned GT car that fell perfectly into both GT4S and GTS4 (with 60 lbs of ballast). Like I said, it was awesome while it lasted. But as they say, all good things must come to an end, especially since I have a NASA budget, not a PCA budget. So the GT car went bye-bye.
#56
Burning Brakes
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not sure the car is the biggest factor here as I am bringing up the rear with this set up. The drivers dominating E with this set up would likely be dominant in any other class and have been in some cases. Jim B in spec box and Fred C in D are two examples.
#57
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The Euro SC is "the" dominant car to have in E class... no doubt about it. But it doesn't help that the dominant racers drive them as well. It's a double whammy. Jim, Fred, and Mark could probably still win E class in an '85 928. We're all screwed.
FWIW, I think if PCA started to enforce the rev limit "rule" on the SCs (USA and Euro), that would take some of the advantage away from those cars.
#58
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I doubt it would slow them down much, especially when running the 225/50 tire, but they should require the 7000rpm rotor to be used. It has a different shape than the "no limit" rotor and can be visually inspected for compliance in less than 10 seconds.
#59
Three Wheelin'
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
No kidding. I've seen dyno sheets for some of those Euro SC's, and they're putting out about the same RWHP as my car, whch has all of the legal mods. Yet they get to run at 2,702 lbs, and I have to run at 3,236 lbs. It makes no sense at all that the Euro SC's run in E class with those numbers.