KaiB

Disagree.

The very nature of GT "encourages" spending. At some point, all of us stop shelling $$ out, but to discourage the use of slicks seems to be baseless.

I agree with Paul, why penalize slicks when we don't add weight for anything else. If I spend $10K more on my engine than you, should I be forced to add weight?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on a budget, but tossing some arbitrary number of pounds back into the car seems fruitless and not in keeping with the spirit of GT.

NaroEscape

^^ Couldn't agree more KaiB. My point all along...

NaroEscape

and btw,...they don't make DOT's in all sizes, so some of us really don't have a choice.

Juan Lopez

yes there are other options... Go with narrower fenders!

KaiB

....and add 63.54 pounds ballast because your drag just went down.

rstrahota

Race classes that do not successfully address economic realities eventually rot away and then die. Perhaps we are seeing this occur in PCA GT classes?
On your point about equating additional spending on the motor (or any other engineered item, for that matter) with additional spend on tires, I would make the argument that investment in the further development of the car and its capabilities has been the essence of GT. I am not suggesting changes there. Perhaps we are in agreement on that. I would also say that just because you may spend more on the motor does not automatically mean you have gained a performance advantage. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows. But if you have gained, good on you!

I do not hear anyone argue that slicks do not give a clear performance advantage, assuming the driver is skilled enough to exploit them and proper car set up. But since tires are purely consumable items, it makes economic sense to me for the rules not to encourage their use as much as I think they do now. So I am making a distinction between car development (essence of GT, imo) and extra spend on consumable items.

Having said that, I would be equally happy with going back to S/R classes the way it was prior to this year.

ds

KaiB

You know, THIS just might be the answer.

If this slicks thing grows too much hair (as I believe there are many of us who just hate the thought of adding weight...I'm running a very weak GT3 this year, for example, as I refuse to add weight) - we may be better off with the S/R thing.

On a race by race basis, we could then run slicks or not, depending on budget, tire inventory, and those others in our classes.

rstrahota

agreed - Perhaps we should "offically" suggest this to PCA rule committee. IMO, the change this year was made for the convenience of the organizers, not driven by or requested by the racers in these classes.
ds

SoClose

Having competed on both R and S tires for years, I have a strong opinion that the difference is that a R6 will be there on the opening few laps, and one can make up several places that he/she should be able to sucessfully defend by the end of a race if not overdriving, and overheating, the R6. I went to slicks for this reason- because I tend to slide oo much.
As Bob previously mentioned, what is the performance advantage of a synchro H pattern vs a sequential? Or PDK? Nothing in the current rules, but significant on the track- more significant that tire choice, IMHO.
It is a class defined by the displacement formula/weight (although that clearly isn't everyone's ideal).
I spoke with Walt at COTA (before dropping a cylinder) and I assue you that he's not convinced about the 50lb penalty.
If you are a Club Racer and want something changed, please write in to the Rules Committe. This site is great for sharing ideas, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't carry weight with them- if they even read it.

KaiB

I'm writing in as soon as I finish chores this AM. I'll be as nice as I can be.

1) Requesting that the tires (slicks v. Rs) become free, without penalty, for the GT classes.

2) Requesting that, as a minimum, name brand double locking sliders (Recaro, Schroth...) are allowed and the clarification (i.e. my tub is the exact same as the factory RSR, why on earth should I go weld on it) is made regarding reinforcement of the attachment areas, and...

3) Requesting that the passenger seat ruling for alphabet cars is abandoned.

Any suggestions on how to phrase the above?

KaiB

I can't disagree with the comment regarding R tires for the first few laps - this is most certainly true for A6s.

Nader Fotouhi

Does anyone have or knows where I can find the language of the proposed rule from last year to increase the weight of 964 RSA in stock/prepared classes?

KaiB

OK I've written a nice note.

And yes, I did beg for relief from the passenger seat requirement for you alphabets.

danielyonker

Dude - nice new avatar, but hasn't anyone told you that ain't the quickest way through a corner?

How about mentioning all races should be points races. you da' man

KaiB

It was our local DE. Only two cars in my run group, me and a 6Cup (he pointed me by...).

Track was newly resurfaced and greasy as all get out. I was drifting through the corner in front of the grandstands on old tires.

Show off...but it sure was fun.

If yer selling your car, then why should I care about points...my goal this year was to race you.

Edit: Just sent a note regarding all races = points. I'm sure I'm not the only one who leaves early often (certainly if Boxsters are around....)