2014 PCA Rule Change Proposals for comment posted
08-20-2013, 05:26 PM
#61
Rennlist Member
Doug - to the best of my knowledge all the things you mention are legal in Stock class, correct? You miss my point, I could care less if someone has triple adjustable Motons, glad they had $5K to toss away, and i'm 100% sure they won't beat me because they have Motons. I'm not happy with rules being enforced or not enforced at someone's discretion. If it's a rule, it's a rule. Case in point; A gentleman ran in D with a 72 911S for MANY years. It had 911SC flares. About 4 years ago someone decided he has to move to E because of the flares. Why wasn't HIS Genie already out of the bottle? Sorry, it's BS.
08-20-2013, 06:03 PM
#62
Rennlist Member
Doug - to the best of my knowledge all the things you mention are legal in Stock class, correct? You miss my point, I could care less if someone has triple adjustable Motons, glad they had $5K to toss away, and i'm 100% sure they won't beat me because they have Motons. I'm not happy with rules being enforced or not enforced at someone's discretion. If it's a rule, it's a rule. Case in point; A gentleman ran in D with a 72 911S for MANY years. It had 911SC flares. About 4 years ago someone decided he has to move to E because of the flares. Why wasn't HIS Genie already out of the bottle? Sorry, it's BS.
So if there was a D class SC that ran a Euro SC engine for years and was finally caught, you don't think there should be a penalty because they got away with it for so long?
Here is the shock rule:
C. Suspension
2. Shock absorbers are free providing they are of the same type, using the same pick-up points, as supplied by the factory.
So I guess the vagueness is with the word "type" in the rule.
What qualifies as the same type of shock?
This is not an case of one or two people having illegal equipment on their car.
If the intent of the rule originally was to make rr/adj shocks illegal, it is poorly worded and was never enforced.
08-20-2013, 06:29 PM
#63
Rennlist Member
In your example about the 72 911S-- while it sucks that he had to change classes, SC flairs on a 72 S is clearly a prepared class mod. The change only affected one person. Disallowing RR/adjustable shocks in stock class would affect a large percentage of stock class racers.
If the masses do it, then it is OK, let it slide, but if a single individual is doing it, then punish him...... that logic doesn't make much sense to me...... what's the point of the rules?
08-20-2013, 06:39 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
In your example about the 72 911S-- while it sucks that he had to change classes, SC flairs on a 72 S is clearly a prepared class mod. The change only affected one person. Disallowing RR/adjustable shocks in stock class would affect a large percentage of stock class racers.
So if there was a D class SC that ran a Euro SC engine for years and was finally caught, you don't think there should be a penalty because they got away with it for so long?
Here is the shock rule:
C. Suspension
2. Shock absorbers are free providing they are of the same type, using the same pick-up points, as supplied by the factory.
So I guess the vagueness is with the word "type" in the rule.
What qualifies as the same type of shock?
This is not an case of one or two people having illegal equipment on their car.
If the intent of the rule originally was to make rr/adj shocks illegal, it is poorly worded and was never enforced.
So if there was a D class SC that ran a Euro SC engine for years and was finally caught, you don't think there should be a penalty because they got away with it for so long?
Here is the shock rule:
C. Suspension
2. Shock absorbers are free providing they are of the same type, using the same pick-up points, as supplied by the factory.
So I guess the vagueness is with the word "type" in the rule.
What qualifies as the same type of shock?
This is not an case of one or two people having illegal equipment on their car.
If the intent of the rule originally was to make rr/adj shocks illegal, it is poorly worded and was never enforced.
08-20-2013, 06:56 PM
#65
Rennlist Member
Not to be argumentative but it's as clear as day to me. Triple adjustable, remote reservoir Motons are not the same "type" as what the factory supplied. Again, you are getting caught up in the specifics where I am just using the shocks to make a point. As for the gentleman in the 911S, it was at the Glen and every D driver there agreed that he should be left alone, at least for that race, and we were ignored as "the rules are the rules". Well, the're not.
That is why I said the rule is vague. It is your opinion that
"type" means triple adjustable shocks.
This is a stock class rule, not T-bar 911 rule.
Early 944's came with adjustable shocks.
So adjustable shocks were legal.
The rule was not specific and people started installing RR/adjustable shocks.
Now a majority of stock class cars have adjustable shocks.
08-20-2013, 07:09 PM
#66
Rennlist Member
Are you inferring that RR shocks are not legal and just not being enforced? That is not the case as they are legal *even though it is a poorly worded rule at best*. RR shocks are legal and this isn't even a grey area. It is black and white (although again poorly worded in the rulebook) and has been noted as such in PCA publications (outside of the rulebook) including a rules change for comment a few years ago making RR's a prepared mod (which didn't happen of course). Please see attachment.
I emailed Donna before I got mine as did the jaydubya did in this thread, please see post 3...and even back then people were complaining about the wording of the rule: https://rennlist.com/forums/racing-a...-question.html
This one notes that in a CR newsletter from 2004 that RR's are legal https://rennlist.com/forums/racing-a...ock-class.html
If you search "pca stock remote shocks" you'll find LOTS of debate on this over the years with an understanding that they are legal (I realize that is not official PCA).
It is too bad that "RR shocks are allowed" isn't in the rulebook as this would clear this up but as mentioned several "Rules Chairs" have stated that they are legal.
I agree that it is poorly worded and leaves a large interpretation for "same type" and I do think that they should HAVE been a prepared mod but they are legal in stock as they have been.
It was interesting reading a few of those older threads....same discussion has been going on for over 10 years.
08-20-2013, 07:17 PM
#67
Rennlist Member
So you are saying that if racers are found "bending" the rules, it is OK to punish just if it is only one person at fault, but unfair to punish "a large percentage of stock racers"?
If the masses do it, then it is OK, let it slide, but if a single individual is doing it, then punish him...... that logic doesn't make much sense to me...... what's the point of the rules?
If the masses do it, then it is OK, let it slide, but if a single individual is doing it, then punish him...... that logic doesn't make much sense to me...... what's the point of the rules?
F class and above the majority of cars have RR adjustable shocks.
Walk around the paddock sometime and you will find if it is not a T-bar 911, it probably has Motons,JRZ's,MCS,ect.
So you would essentially move the majority of stock class cars up one class to prepared...it would make no sense.
Seemingly the masses have spoken in PCA and the majority of racers want RR adjustable shocks legal in stock class.
08-20-2013, 07:30 PM
#68
Rennlist Member
I honestly don't think you really understand issue.
F class and above the majority of cars have RR adjustable shocks.
Walk around the paddock sometime and you will find if it is not a T-bar 911, it probably has Motons,JRZ's,MCS,ect.
So you would essentially move the majority of stock class cars up one class to prepared...it would make no sense.
F class and above the majority of cars have RR adjustable shocks.
Walk around the paddock sometime and you will find if it is not a T-bar 911, it probably has Motons,JRZ's,MCS,ect.
So you would essentially move the majority of stock class cars up one class to prepared...it would make no sense.
The majority of racers want the passenger seat out in stock class, does it make it legal to remove (without approval) because the masses want it out?......
08-20-2013, 07:37 PM
#69
Rennlist Member
Read forklift's post above.
08-20-2013, 07:41 PM
#70
Rennlist Member
Since we were just testing, don't know precise cost, but It sure isn't $10-15k. I believe it will be less than $3k. Street prices for ABS Pump and Brain (since they are stock BMW street units) I think are about $2k, then just need the custom wire harness and 4 brake line connectors. Hell, the system is cheaper than the stock porsche street unit which is about $4k! h
I can't see how putting in a different STREET ABS would be considered a competitive advantage. Not sure why the rules committee thought the unit I proposed was a motorsports unit. The way they worded it I can see how they would want to make it a prepared change.
My proposed change is:
1) Allow aftermarket street abs available in a production street car (or even further limit it to a street BMW ABS)
2) Must maintain existing stock master cylinder, vacuum, and wheel sensors
I can't see how putting in a different STREET ABS would be considered a competitive advantage. Not sure why the rules committee thought the unit I proposed was a motorsports unit. The way they worded it I can see how they would want to make it a prepared change.
My proposed change is:
1) Allow aftermarket street abs available in a production street car (or even further limit it to a street BMW ABS)
2) Must maintain existing stock master cylinder, vacuum, and wheel sensors
This (BMW street ABS) sounds like a good solution to a real problem. It seems to me that if this isn't allowed it is risking completely leaving out an entire 911 generation (997) from being able to race in PCA stock --safely.
08-20-2013, 07:44 PM
#71
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Deep Downtown Carrier, OK
Posts: 5,297
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
The more I ponder this slider thing the more pissed I get.
Does PCA have data which suggest the current rules are unsafe or is this another "gee whiz" thought. Are my perfectly good Recaro seat brackets up to snuff? The new sliders not good enough? Will I now have to weld plates onto a perfectly solid tub?
And....who the hell suggested that 110 rear wheel hp/liter is actually obtainable in an air-cooled 6?
Does PCA have data which suggest the current rules are unsafe or is this another "gee whiz" thought. Are my perfectly good Recaro seat brackets up to snuff? The new sliders not good enough? Will I now have to weld plates onto a perfectly solid tub?
And....who the hell suggested that 110 rear wheel hp/liter is actually obtainable in an air-cooled 6?
08-20-2013, 07:49 PM
#72
Rennlist Member
08-20-2013, 08:08 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
The more I ponder this slider thing the more pissed I get.
Does PCA have data which suggest the current rules are unsafe or is this another "gee whiz" thought. Are my perfectly good Recaro seat brackets up to snuff? The new sliders not good enough? Will I now have to weld plates onto a perfectly solid tub?
And....who the hell suggested that 110 rear wheel hp/liter is actually obtainable in an air-cooled 6?
Does PCA have data which suggest the current rules are unsafe or is this another "gee whiz" thought. Are my perfectly good Recaro seat brackets up to snuff? The new sliders not good enough? Will I now have to weld plates onto a perfectly solid tub?
And....who the hell suggested that 110 rear wheel hp/liter is actually obtainable in an air-cooled 6?
110hp/l for air cooled flat six? Factory race cars had that back in the day.
Here is way over 110hp/l on pump gas
https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...eferrerid=4234
Your engine-- while a very nice package, is more of a NASA GTS engine than PCA race engine.
I'm pretty sure you know a shop that could build you one
08-20-2013, 08:10 PM
#75
Rennlist Member
