Gary R.

PCA Club Racing - Rules suggestions for rules revisions and changes for 2014. The period of submission is April 1st - June 1st. Suggestions may be sent to crrules@pca.org

I'll keep trying....

I submit that, for Stock Class cars, the removal of the passenger seat is allowed. From a "Stock" standpoint, none of the cars running in the "Stock Classes" are showroom stock. All cars must make weight, it offers NO competitive advantage. What it does offer is better safety. Egress out the passenger side is faster without a seat to climb over. In a very bad situation it's one less thing to both burn and be bent over to block egress. Rear and right rear quarter vision is greatly improved. I also submit the exclusion of the use of remote reservoir shocks in stock class. People installed remote reservoir shocks, which absolutely were NOT available on our cars and they were allowed because by the time it was complained about no one wanted to rock the boat. Using that logic if I get everyone I know in a Stock class to remove their seat it will simply become allowed?

Quinlan

I hope those changes go through Gary. I have just submitted that we be allowed to remove the front vent window on 911's, for the same reason as you - ease of egress. With that window in the way, there is very little room to exit the vehicle through the driver's window in an emergency. Throw in a containment seat and it gets very tight.

BostonDMD

Sounds like a logical suggestion to me......

Gary R.

With my containment seat, forward seating position, and the door closed it's impossible for me to get out that side, which is part of my point for opening up access to the right side as much as possible. Removal of the false "vent window" bar would require removal of the window as that is the runner, is that legal? I believe you can gut a door to allow a larger cage but not sure about removing the window frame (or cutting it up) for any other reason.. I'm all for it though!

Quinlan

The vent window is easy to remove without cutting the frame at all. It is held on with a couple of bolts.

paradisenb

Removal of the passenger is a must add rule for all classes. It is simply a safety issue as is removing the front vent window. One option for the vent would be to remove the glass and replace with polycarbonate (I think this is already legal) and be able to fabricate a window track that is easily removed with moderate pressure. It is a fact, with my containment seat, I cannot get out of that window even though my seat is on sliders.

Astroman

Ahhh yes, time again to submit my rant, err I mean proposal, about the passenger seats.

I'm ashamed to admit that I finally gave up on the remote-res shocks rule reversal. But Gary, I'm happy that you're still keeping that flame alive.

Gary R.

It blatantly spits in the face of the "Stock" rule. I understand removing or allowing the addition of things for safety, but all this does is give an advantage to someone with a few $K burning a hole in his pocket. NOT in the spirit of PCA Stock Racing.

Streak

I suggest adding 100lbs to D and E class 911's

BostonDMD

.....while reducing the spec box by 200 lbs.....

Streak

Astroman

You're preaching to the choir here. I just don't think PCA can undo what has already been done. And BTW it's a LOT more than "a few $K"!!!

Gary R.

BS, they can at least move the car up a class and outlaw it from now on. They had no problem moving a 72 911S that had been racing in D for 15 years up to E after "noticing" it had SC flares on it! Time to "notice" external reservoir shocks.

d15b7

hi. just an observation (I don't actually own or race a P car; Japanese and English for me haha). why not compromise and offer a rules change request stating 'no remote reservoir shocks in Stock Class; 'grandfathered' cars already log booked and equipped with remote reservoir shocks will now carry a weight penalty of 100 lbs. or some such agreed upon fair weight penalty. I'd think that this would be a fair compromise to all involved?

Todd
ReidSpeed

flatsics

So is the problem just the remote reservoir? Adjustable shocks? Expensive shocks?
Too me, it is not a well thought out argument against Remote Res. adjustable shocks.

You can have adjustable shocks without the remote reservoir.

Cost? Really....
So hoosier comes out with a 275/35/15(not a size available on any stock porche;-) and everybody runs out gets custom 15" wheels made. That change was inexpensive.

Stock cars came withe rubber suspension bushings, non slotted rotors,soft torsion bars/springs,4x4 ride height,mufflers/cats,ect....there is not much stock about our stock class race cars.

Just because you have adjustable shock does not guarantee any performance advantage.
They have to be adjusted right, I would argue that they are a wash for most people and actually detriment for some.

For the majority of people a set of bilsteins valved by a top shop would be a much better choice.

I'm not trying to say that adjustable shocks aren't a performance advantage-- they can be in the right hands, but they are a bit over hyped in terms of performance gain.

If you put on adjustable shocks and pick up 2-3 seconds , then you had a pretty crap set up on the car before the change.