2014 PCA Rule Change Proposals for comment posted
11-12-2014, 09:53 PM
#166
Rennlist Member
There is an AeroKit wing on our G Class 993. The PCA had questioned the legality of the wing on 993 based on its availability on the US cars. There is an email from the former PCA technical chair to the previous owner of the car in the log book saying the wing is legal. and the car has always been in stock class.
11-12-2014, 10:02 PM
#167
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Show me in the rules where it states that all optional equipment is legal.
From the rules:
6. Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T.
Dual element aero kit wings should not have been allowed, that is a prepared change.
From the rules:
6. Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T.
Dual element aero kit wings should not have been allowed, that is a prepared change.
This one is a head scratcher to me.
11-12-2014, 10:46 PM
#168
Rennlist Member
Show me in the rules where it states that all optional equipment is legal.
From the rules:
6. Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T.
Dual element aero kit wings should not have been allowed, that is a prepared change.
PCA has not done the best job of policing the "gray area" stuff in the past.
I'm not really sure everyone is on the same page with what is legal or not.
There are too many official/unofficial rule interpretations being made, for example... allowing hybrid PCCB brakes in the past.
From the rules:
6. Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T.
Dual element aero kit wings should not have been allowed, that is a prepared change.
PCA has not done the best job of policing the "gray area" stuff in the past.
I'm not really sure everyone is on the same page with what is legal or not.
There are too many official/unofficial rule interpretations being made, for example... allowing hybrid PCCB brakes in the past.
Doug, seeing as you were a big proponent of this change, what is your take on how it was written. Do you believe GT3s should get a free pass. Every other cars running in stock classes would have to run prepared to use a wing vs spoiler because the GT3 was the only model it was NOT an option. An option is not the same as a modification, so if we are saying wings are a prepared change regardless of how it was delivered from the factory, then GT3s should not be allowed to run one in stock class as well.
11-12-2014, 10:52 PM
#169
Pro
I'm honestly not sure of the technical reasons, but if i had to guess it is likely due to the amount of downforce each produces (or how much it reduces lift) - spoilers generally less effective, a wing or aerokit presumably more. But there is a technically difference in the terms ...
11-12-2014, 11:51 PM
#170
Rennlist Member
But the few 997s that have been running the PCCB parts have been within the rules because the rules have allowed for steel rotors to replace the PCCB ceramic discs. And PCCBs were an option on the 997. There's a racer here who has a bone stock launch edition 997 and it has PCCBs on it.
I have no dog in this hunt, but feel that the option of purchasing all the factory correct PCCB parts that came on production 997s is there for all to spend the money and install the parts on their cars. Since this rule has been changed after the cat was out of the bag, then one could argue that the rules should also be changed to make remote reservoir shocks a "prepared" modification. The PCCB rule change has in a way set a precedent for this to happen down the road.
I have no dog in this hunt, but feel that the option of purchasing all the factory correct PCCB parts that came on production 997s is there for all to spend the money and install the parts on their cars. Since this rule has been changed after the cat was out of the bag, then one could argue that the rules should also be changed to make remote reservoir shocks a "prepared" modification. The PCCB rule change has in a way set a precedent for this to happen down the road.
11-13-2014, 07:59 AM
#171
Rennlist Member
The grouping of cars in stock class have all ways been based on published hp/weight ratio. It doesn't take into account the differences in brake or tire size, suspension geometry, aero, gearing, rpm ect. between the cars in the same class. It would be very difficult to start taking all those potential differences into account. At a similar power/weight ratio, a 993 will have the advantage over an early torsion bar 911 in suspension geometry, tire and brake size but they might be in the same class. That is the problem and difficulty of making the classes based on hp and weight alone. Some car will all ways have an advantage. If a particular car come from the factory with better parts or can be ordered from the factory with better parts than that becomes that particular cars advantage.
Changing the rules to force a car that has been running legally in its class in previous years to either change classes or spend a large amount of money to comply to the new rule doesn't seem appropriate. Adding or removing to a cars base weight seems like a much better idea.
The differences between a spoiler and wing is that a wing has air passing over/under a surface to make a pressure change to provide lift/downforce. (like the taco wing on the 997's) The iroc deck lid has probably been the best choice for a legal spoiler on the early 911/964's. Technically couldn't it be considered a wing since its so wide that air passes under it's outer edges? The outer profile has a wing shape for sure. Once you start nit picking all the possible details it starts to become extremely difficult to make things "fair". One of PCA racing's attractiveness is the simplicity of its rule book. We need more cars in fewer classes. Not spreading out the field so in the end every car has its own class.
Changing the rules to force a car that has been running legally in its class in previous years to either change classes or spend a large amount of money to comply to the new rule doesn't seem appropriate. Adding or removing to a cars base weight seems like a much better idea.
The differences between a spoiler and wing is that a wing has air passing over/under a surface to make a pressure change to provide lift/downforce. (like the taco wing on the 997's) The iroc deck lid has probably been the best choice for a legal spoiler on the early 911/964's. Technically couldn't it be considered a wing since its so wide that air passes under it's outer edges? The outer profile has a wing shape for sure. Once you start nit picking all the possible details it starts to become extremely difficult to make things "fair". One of PCA racing's attractiveness is the simplicity of its rule book. We need more cars in fewer classes. Not spreading out the field so in the end every car has its own class.
11-13-2014, 09:09 AM
#172
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
guys...Am i correct in stating that the RSR rear deck on a 964 is illegal as stock IF it has the wing blade plate in it? My understanding is because the blade element is not only a 'wing' vs spoiler as Cory described, but it's angle is adjustable. Isn't that the same as the aerokit wing on a 996/997? We see many 964's with the RSR deck without the wing element...
someone correct me if I'm wrong here...I have no dog in the fight obviously...I'd rather you all just run GT and be done with it!!
someone correct me if I'm wrong here...I have no dog in the fight obviously...I'd rather you all just run GT and be done with it!!
__________________
Bob Saville
Getting You On Track!
www.naroescapemotorsports.com
704-395-2975
'07 SPC
'71 914/6 Huey
'04 GT3
Bob Saville
Getting You On Track!
www.naroescapemotorsports.com
704-395-2975
- Data Analysis & Coaching
- Drivers Gear
- Crew Gear
- Car Gear
'07 SPC
'71 914/6 Huey
'04 GT3
11-13-2014, 09:21 AM
#173
Pro
guys...Am i correct in stating that the RSR rear deck on a 964 is illegal as stock IF it has the wing blade plate in it? My understanding is because the blade element is not only a 'wing' vs spoiler as Cory described, but it's angle is adjustable. Isn't that the same as the aerokit wing on a 996/997? We see many 964's with the RSR deck without the wing element... someone correct me if I'm wrong here...I have no dog in the fight obviously...I'd rather you all just run GT and be done with it!!
I run an RSR wing with the blade in E, but I'm running prepared. The RSR wing is the benchmark for the height restriction.
11-13-2014, 11:41 AM
#174
Rennlist Member
guys...Am i correct in stating that the RSR rear deck on a 964 is illegal as stock IF it has the wing blade plate in it? My understanding is because the blade element is not only a 'wing' vs spoiler as Cory described, but it's angle is adjustable. Isn't that the same as the aerokit wing on a 996/997? We see many 964's with the RSR deck without the wing element...
someone correct me if I'm wrong here...I have no dog in the fight obviously...I'd rather you all just run GT and be done with it!!
someone correct me if I'm wrong here...I have no dog in the fight obviously...I'd rather you all just run GT and be done with it!!
Here is my $0.02. Rules, unless very specific, are always open to interpretation. For example, I (and I believe many racers and the Technical Committee) interpret this section of the stock class rule implying US cars only (that makes me wonder if I can install a 993 RSR transmission for Mosport race).
without specifically saying street legal in US or being capable of registration in US. If this was a law passed by congress, it would have been adjudicated in the courts to decide the intent of the law.Any vehicle in the stock classes, including “prepared” vehicles, must compete with full road equipment and, with the exception
of exhaust/emissions, be street legal as designed by the factory, capable of being registered for street use in the condition of
the car when presented at scrutineering, and capable of being driven to and from the event. “Euro-spec” cars will automatically
progress up one stock class.
The 964 RSR not being available in the US, makes the RSR rear deck not meeting the above and "below" requirements from the rule book for the stock class, thus making it illegal, again assuming the rules imply as supplied by the factory to allow the car being street legal and capable of being registered in the US.
A. Chassis/body, with the exception of bumpers and spoilers, must be the same material and configuration as supplied by
the factory. Sheet metal modifications in the rear deck, trunk, and spare tire compartment as required for installation
of a fuel cell are allowed. Aftermarket reproduction body parts may be used for repair as long as they are of the same
material as the factory parts, are identical in configuration, and of the same thickness and weight.
However, aerokit wings meet all the above and the following part of the rule, because they are/were available as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and year [in the US].
Definitions of terms used in the rules:
• Factory parts: Parts sold by Porsche as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and year.
• OEM: Parts equivalent to the parts sold by Porsche as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and
year, except that the parts are from the supplier that made the parts for Porsche.
• Aftermarket: Parts from sources other than Porsche or OEM.
I am not complaining or criticizing the rule, as it must received enough support from other racers to pass. Some things get noticed after the fact, like the fender flare on a 77 911 that has run in D for many years, being bumped to E as prepared, because the flares were not available on any stock class 77 in the US. Knowing the racer, he is having as much fun running in E as running in D.
BTW, even if running GT class, the my car owner will make me keep the passenger seat and in-date harness in the car because the car does a lot more DEs than races.
11-13-2014, 12:05 PM
#175
Rennlist Member
GTC3 rear wing rule change is ridiculous! Lemme guess, some jackass chopped another car on corner entry and blamed it on the wing being in the way. Give me a break. Thousands of these cars have been racing all over the planet just fine for over a decade and PCA decides that the wing is in the way and now everyone has to f* with factory correct cup cars and add new wing uprights to stay competitive.
GTC
GTC
11-13-2014, 05:22 PM
#176
Rennlist Member
The grouping of cars in stock class have all ways been based on published hp/weight ratio. It doesn't take into account the differences in brake or tire size, suspension geometry, aero, gearing, rpm ect. between the cars in the same class. It would be very difficult to start taking all those potential differences into account. At a similar power/weight ratio, a 993 will have the advantage over an early torsion bar 911 in suspension geometry, tire and brake size but they might be in the same class. That is the problem and difficulty of making the classes based on hp and weight alone. Some car will all ways have an advantage. If a particular car come from the factory with better parts or can be ordered from the factory with better parts than that becomes that particular cars advantage.
Changing the rules to force a car that has been running legally in its class in previous years to either change classes or spend a large amount of money to comply to the new rule doesn't seem appropriate. Adding or removing to a cars base weight seems like a much better idea.
.
Changing the rules to force a car that has been running legally in its class in previous years to either change classes or spend a large amount of money to comply to the new rule doesn't seem appropriate. Adding or removing to a cars base weight seems like a much better idea.
.
11-13-2014, 06:06 PM
#177
Rennlist Member
Show me in the rules where it states that all optional equipment is legal. Show me where it states factory options are illegal!
Doug, seeing as you were a big proponent of this change, what is your take on how it was written. Do you believe GT3s should get a free pass. Every other cars running in stock classes would have to run prepared to use a wing vs spoiler because the GT3 was the only model it was NOT an option. An option is not the same as a modification, so if we are saying wings are a prepared change regardless of how it was delivered from the factory, then GT3s should not be allowed to run one in stock class as well.
Doug, seeing as you were a big proponent of this change, what is your take on how it was written. Do you believe GT3s should get a free pass. Every other cars running in stock classes would have to run prepared to use a wing vs spoiler because the GT3 was the only model it was NOT an option. An option is not the same as a modification, so if we are saying wings are a prepared change regardless of how it was delivered from the factory, then GT3s should not be allowed to run one in stock class as well.
CAR REQUIREMENTS
6. Any modification not specifically listed is not allowed. In other words, if the rules don’t say you can do it - DON’T.
Who said I was a big proponent of the aero kit rule?
I did not propose it, nor did I send in comments for it.
I have personally never thought that aero kit wings should be allowed in stock class, but did not feel strongly enough about it to send in a rule change proposal.
The rules are very clear, how they have been interpreted on a great many things in the past has not.
I really don't understand why there are so many comments that infer because something was optional, that makes it legal.
That is not how the rule book is structured.
X51 or other higher hp engine packages are an option, but they are a prepared change. Same for Euro models with higher HP than NA models.
Why is that? Because it is a performance advantage.
Wings,bigger brakes,R&P are all prepared mods.
PDK is an option...it gets a weight penalty.
Why should there not be a penalty for running a dual plane wing or bigger brakes in stock class?
The 996 taco wing that everyone acts like is no big deal came on the first gen cup cars.... Porsche must have thought it was doing something.
Last edited by flatsics; 11-13-2014 at 07:02 PM.
11-13-2014, 06:17 PM
#178
Rennlist Member
My rule change proposal email:
1. PCCB hybrid brake systems should not be legal for stock class cars.
PCCB brakes as delivered by the factory (using stock PCCB rotors) should not be a "free upgrade" in stock class. This should be a prepared change as are all other brake upgrades.
What are PCCB hybrid brakes?
It is the use of PCCB calipers with steel rotors. It also includes the use of PCCB uprights and master cylinder.
There is a reason that upgraded brakes move a car up to prepared class.
It a performance advantage, like other performance options that bump a car up one class. An example of this is X51 engine option. Most other major performance upgrades are a one class bump. The PDK caries a weight penalty.
This is the section in the PCA rule book regarding brakes on stock class cars:
"4. Brakes
A. Brake pad material is free. Insulating and radiating plates may be installed between pad and piston.
B. Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle. 911s which came with the aluminum S caliper may substitute the iron A caliper for pre-1984 911s. Caliper pistons of alternate material are allowed.
C. Grooving/slotting/cross drilling of rotors is allowed.
D. Ducting of air to brakes is allowed. Blower motors may be installed to pump air to brakes. Water may not be used to cool brakes.
E. Removal of dust shields (backing plates) is allowed. Openings in hubs may be blocked.
F. Brake fluid is free.
G. Master Cylinders must be as supplied by the factory, except that early production cars may update to a tandem master cylinder to provide the safety of a dual circuit system. Adjustable brake bias may not be added to cars not originally equipped with it.
H. Rubber brake lines may be replaced with stainless steel braid covered lines.
I. 914s may use aftermarket rear brake bias adjusters and relocate them to more convenient position for bleeding as long as they cannot be adjusted by the driver while driving."
I'm guessing that this is the section that is used to justify that PCCB hybrid brakes are legal.
"B. Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle. 911s which came with the aluminum S caliper may substitute the iron A caliper for pre-1984 911s. Caliper pistons of alternate material are allowed."
Going strictly by the wording of the rule, you have to use the rotors that were available for the type of car you are racing.
The rule uses the word "type". That should be changed to model.
Type is not the correct word, or all 911's could use turbo brake set ups as they are the same "type" of vehicle.
What is currently being done, is to use PCCB calipers with rotors that were not available as an option for the vehicles they are being used on.
For example: The most common application is to use PCCB calipers with 997 turbo rotors on a base 997 or Cayman S.
PCCB calipers are essentially the same as the brake calipers used on Porsche Cup cars, with slight differences. This is a substantial advantage in stock classes for cars with the available PCCB brake option, racing against cars that never had PCCB brakes as an available option.
A 997/987 that installs turbo calipers and rotors is bumped to I class, but a PCCB hybrid set up is legal....does that make sense?
The other part of this is, there are zero guidelines in the rules presently on what parts must be used for PCCB hybrid set ups. What rotors are legal to use? Why is a turbo rotor legal,but not GT3 cup rotor? Neither rotor was available on a 997/987.
I agree that an alternative would be to make brakes "free" in classes where PCCB's are legal. Really seems the only fair thing if it is continued to be allowed.
Maybe we need to designate that only H or I class and above can use the PCCB brakes or brakes are free in a certain class and above?
Personally I think it should be I class if that was the best way to do it.
I know that it difficult to fairly class every Porsche because of all the variables involved.
The newer Porsches that are classed in F,G,H mare making it more difficult, as there is a large discrepancy in technology and performance that is available between the newer and older cars in the classes.
2. Allow removal of the driver's side "vent window" on 65-98 911 variants in stock /prepared classes when a head restraint type seat is used.
Reason:
When a head restraint seat is installed in a 65-98 911 there is not enough room for most people to be able to escape through the window, if the door is not able to be opened in a accident situation. The only situation that would allow enough room, is a short person that uses a seat slider and no seat back brace.
I am 6'2" and do not use a slider. My seat is placed as far to the rear as possible and still use a seat back brace. With a head restraint seat There is simply no room to escape through the window opening, with the vent window in place.
3. Allow removal of passenger seat in stock/prepared classes. This is a safety issue.
I use a right side net in my car. If there was a failure of the latching mechanism and the net would not release, I could not crawl under the net to escape with the passenger seat installed.
Spec Boxster,996,911, and all of the SP 944's do not require a passenger seat. Why do we still require it on stock/prepared cars?
Even in stock/prepared classes the interior space is minimal and very complex.
Head restraint seats
Right side nets
On board fire systems
Cool suit systems
Ballast
This is not a trivial issue. There are real reasons to remove the passenger seat in stock/prepared classes.
I think if we required racers to have to escape from there vehicle fully belted and netted in a certain amount of time(like NASA) we would have many failures. There are multiple scenarios in an accident where you cannot open the driver's door to escape.
Thank you,
Doug Crossman
Springfield,IL
G Class #92
1. PCCB hybrid brake systems should not be legal for stock class cars.
PCCB brakes as delivered by the factory (using stock PCCB rotors) should not be a "free upgrade" in stock class. This should be a prepared change as are all other brake upgrades.
What are PCCB hybrid brakes?
It is the use of PCCB calipers with steel rotors. It also includes the use of PCCB uprights and master cylinder.
There is a reason that upgraded brakes move a car up to prepared class.
It a performance advantage, like other performance options that bump a car up one class. An example of this is X51 engine option. Most other major performance upgrades are a one class bump. The PDK caries a weight penalty.
This is the section in the PCA rule book regarding brakes on stock class cars:
"4. Brakes
A. Brake pad material is free. Insulating and radiating plates may be installed between pad and piston.
B. Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle. 911s which came with the aluminum S caliper may substitute the iron A caliper for pre-1984 911s. Caliper pistons of alternate material are allowed.
C. Grooving/slotting/cross drilling of rotors is allowed.
D. Ducting of air to brakes is allowed. Blower motors may be installed to pump air to brakes. Water may not be used to cool brakes.
E. Removal of dust shields (backing plates) is allowed. Openings in hubs may be blocked.
F. Brake fluid is free.
G. Master Cylinders must be as supplied by the factory, except that early production cars may update to a tandem master cylinder to provide the safety of a dual circuit system. Adjustable brake bias may not be added to cars not originally equipped with it.
H. Rubber brake lines may be replaced with stainless steel braid covered lines.
I. 914s may use aftermarket rear brake bias adjusters and relocate them to more convenient position for bleeding as long as they cannot be adjusted by the driver while driving."
I'm guessing that this is the section that is used to justify that PCCB hybrid brakes are legal.
"B. Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle. 911s which came with the aluminum S caliper may substitute the iron A caliper for pre-1984 911s. Caliper pistons of alternate material are allowed."
Going strictly by the wording of the rule, you have to use the rotors that were available for the type of car you are racing.
The rule uses the word "type". That should be changed to model.
Type is not the correct word, or all 911's could use turbo brake set ups as they are the same "type" of vehicle.
What is currently being done, is to use PCCB calipers with rotors that were not available as an option for the vehicles they are being used on.
For example: The most common application is to use PCCB calipers with 997 turbo rotors on a base 997 or Cayman S.
PCCB calipers are essentially the same as the brake calipers used on Porsche Cup cars, with slight differences. This is a substantial advantage in stock classes for cars with the available PCCB brake option, racing against cars that never had PCCB brakes as an available option.
A 997/987 that installs turbo calipers and rotors is bumped to I class, but a PCCB hybrid set up is legal....does that make sense?
The other part of this is, there are zero guidelines in the rules presently on what parts must be used for PCCB hybrid set ups. What rotors are legal to use? Why is a turbo rotor legal,but not GT3 cup rotor? Neither rotor was available on a 997/987.
I agree that an alternative would be to make brakes "free" in classes where PCCB's are legal. Really seems the only fair thing if it is continued to be allowed.
Maybe we need to designate that only H or I class and above can use the PCCB brakes or brakes are free in a certain class and above?
Personally I think it should be I class if that was the best way to do it.
I know that it difficult to fairly class every Porsche because of all the variables involved.
The newer Porsches that are classed in F,G,H mare making it more difficult, as there is a large discrepancy in technology and performance that is available between the newer and older cars in the classes.
2. Allow removal of the driver's side "vent window" on 65-98 911 variants in stock /prepared classes when a head restraint type seat is used.
Reason:
When a head restraint seat is installed in a 65-98 911 there is not enough room for most people to be able to escape through the window, if the door is not able to be opened in a accident situation. The only situation that would allow enough room, is a short person that uses a seat slider and no seat back brace.
I am 6'2" and do not use a slider. My seat is placed as far to the rear as possible and still use a seat back brace. With a head restraint seat There is simply no room to escape through the window opening, with the vent window in place.
3. Allow removal of passenger seat in stock/prepared classes. This is a safety issue.
I use a right side net in my car. If there was a failure of the latching mechanism and the net would not release, I could not crawl under the net to escape with the passenger seat installed.
Spec Boxster,996,911, and all of the SP 944's do not require a passenger seat. Why do we still require it on stock/prepared cars?
Even in stock/prepared classes the interior space is minimal and very complex.
Head restraint seats
Right side nets
On board fire systems
Cool suit systems
Ballast
This is not a trivial issue. There are real reasons to remove the passenger seat in stock/prepared classes.
I think if we required racers to have to escape from there vehicle fully belted and netted in a certain amount of time(like NASA) we would have many failures. There are multiple scenarios in an accident where you cannot open the driver's door to escape.
Thank you,
Doug Crossman
Springfield,IL
G Class #92
11-13-2014, 06:24 PM
#179
Rennlist Member
Bob,
Here is my $0.02. Rules, unless very specific, are always open to interpretation. For example, I (and I believe many racers and the Technical Committee) interpret this section of the stock class rule implying US cars only (that makes me wonder if I can install a 993 RSR transmission for Mosport race). without specifically saying street legal in US or being capable of registration in US. If this was a law passed by congress, it would have been adjudicated in the courts to decide the intent of the law.
Any vehicle in the stock classes, including “prepared” vehicles, must compete with full road equipment and, with the exception
of exhaust/emissions, be street legal as designed by the factory, capable of being registered for street use in the condition of
the car when presented at scrutineering, and capable of being driven to and from the event. “Euro-spec” cars will automatically
progress up one stock class.
The 964 RSR not being available in the US, makes the RSR rear deck not meeting the above and "below" requirements from the rule book for the stock class, thus making it illegal, again assuming the rules imply as supplied by the factory to allow the car being street legal and capable of being registered in the US.
A. Chassis/body, with the exception of bumpers and spoilers, must be the same material and configuration as supplied by
the factory. Sheet metal modifications in the rear deck, trunk, and spare tire compartment as required for installation
of a fuel cell are allowed. Aftermarket reproduction body parts may be used for repair as long as they are of the same
material as the factory parts, are identical in configuration, and of the same thickness and weight.
However, aerokit wings meet all the above and the following part of the rule, because they are/were available as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and year [in the US].
Definitions of terms used in the rules:
• Factory parts: Parts sold by Porsche as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and year.
• OEM: Parts equivalent to the parts sold by Porsche as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and
year, except that the parts are from the supplier that made the parts for Porsche.
• Aftermarket: Parts from sources other than Porsche or OEM.
I am not complaining or criticizing the rule, as it must received enough support from other racers to pass. Some things get noticed after the fact, like the fender flare on a 77 911 that has run in D for many years, being bumped to E as prepared, because the flares were not available on any stock class 77 in the US. Knowing the racer, he is having as much fun running in E as running in D.
BTW, even if running GT class, the my car owner will make me keep the passenger seat and in-date harness in the car because the car does a lot more DEs than races.
Here is my $0.02. Rules, unless very specific, are always open to interpretation. For example, I (and I believe many racers and the Technical Committee) interpret this section of the stock class rule implying US cars only (that makes me wonder if I can install a 993 RSR transmission for Mosport race).
without specifically saying street legal in US or being capable of registration in US. If this was a law passed by congress, it would have been adjudicated in the courts to decide the intent of the law.Any vehicle in the stock classes, including “prepared” vehicles, must compete with full road equipment and, with the exception
of exhaust/emissions, be street legal as designed by the factory, capable of being registered for street use in the condition of
the car when presented at scrutineering, and capable of being driven to and from the event. “Euro-spec” cars will automatically
progress up one stock class.
The 964 RSR not being available in the US, makes the RSR rear deck not meeting the above and "below" requirements from the rule book for the stock class, thus making it illegal, again assuming the rules imply as supplied by the factory to allow the car being street legal and capable of being registered in the US.
A. Chassis/body, with the exception of bumpers and spoilers, must be the same material and configuration as supplied by
the factory. Sheet metal modifications in the rear deck, trunk, and spare tire compartment as required for installation
of a fuel cell are allowed. Aftermarket reproduction body parts may be used for repair as long as they are of the same
material as the factory parts, are identical in configuration, and of the same thickness and weight.
However, aerokit wings meet all the above and the following part of the rule, because they are/were available as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and year [in the US].
Definitions of terms used in the rules:
• Factory parts: Parts sold by Porsche as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and year.
• OEM: Parts equivalent to the parts sold by Porsche as the stock parts appropriate for the specific car model and
year, except that the parts are from the supplier that made the parts for Porsche.
• Aftermarket: Parts from sources other than Porsche or OEM.
I am not complaining or criticizing the rule, as it must received enough support from other racers to pass. Some things get noticed after the fact, like the fender flare on a 77 911 that has run in D for many years, being bumped to E as prepared, because the flares were not available on any stock class 77 in the US. Knowing the racer, he is having as much fun running in E as running in D.
BTW, even if running GT class, the my car owner will make me keep the passenger seat and in-date harness in the car because the car does a lot more DEs than races.
11-13-2014, 07:39 PM
#180
Rennlist Member
Just for the record, I don't want people to think i have some bone to pick with Ryan.
That is not the case. Ryan's a good dude,great racer, and built a bad *** car.
I fully agree that it sucks to build what you think is a legal car, and have to change it to maintain your present class.
I do feel strongly about the hybrid PCCB brakes not being legal in stock class.
They were available on the 2005 Boxster S, so they were an option on every 987/997 variant from G class up.
That affects a lot of cars that do not have an optional brake upgrade available to them.
To me this is a very different issue than "remote reservoir" shocks.
Everyone can put on upgraded shocks if they so choose.
Not allowing "Remote reservoir" shocks in stock class would affect the majority of racers, not just a few that have changed their brakes.
The notion that getting rid of "remote reservoir" shocks would make things more fair or "cheaper" is ridiculous.
You don't need "remote resevoir" shocks to have adjustable race shocks.
Are we going to make adjustable shocks illeagal? Certain Porsches came from the factory with rebound adjustable shocks, then you have the cars with PASM to consider.
Pic of some 4 way adjustable Ohlins....
Are the fronts remote resevoir...the rears certainly aren't.
Think this would be cheaper than what most racers are currently using???
Race shocks? What is the definition of a race shock?
That is not the case. Ryan's a good dude,great racer, and built a bad *** car.
I fully agree that it sucks to build what you think is a legal car, and have to change it to maintain your present class.
I do feel strongly about the hybrid PCCB brakes not being legal in stock class.
They were available on the 2005 Boxster S, so they were an option on every 987/997 variant from G class up.
That affects a lot of cars that do not have an optional brake upgrade available to them.
To me this is a very different issue than "remote reservoir" shocks.
Everyone can put on upgraded shocks if they so choose.
Not allowing "Remote reservoir" shocks in stock class would affect the majority of racers, not just a few that have changed their brakes.
The notion that getting rid of "remote reservoir" shocks would make things more fair or "cheaper" is ridiculous.
You don't need "remote resevoir" shocks to have adjustable race shocks.
Are we going to make adjustable shocks illeagal? Certain Porsches came from the factory with rebound adjustable shocks, then you have the cars with PASM to consider.
Pic of some 4 way adjustable Ohlins....
Are the fronts remote resevoir...the rears certainly aren't.
Think this would be cheaper than what most racers are currently using???
Race shocks? What is the definition of a race shock?