View Poll Results: Allow Remote Res Shox in Stock classes AS IS
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
07-18-2015, 07:44 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Shocks
07-19-2015, 12:12 AM
#18
Rennlist Member
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
I am really upset. After running an increasingly uncompetitive 911 at 3100 pounds with a 3.6/x51 in gtb1. I opted to rebuild to 3.8 ( I had to rebuild anyway - engine way shot). And what else was I going to do? Sell a rolling chassis for not much more than the price of three way shocks? But What's the logic in turning my car into a rolling tank? Add another 100 pounds ? WTF??!
I'll take some responsibility for the 100 pound weight reduction for 3.6 911's. I had been suggesting this as a way to keep 911 in GTB1. I had been making the point that we were seeing the disappearance of 911's in gtb1. At least let them go lighter. That was my suggestion because I predicted that if they didn't do anything all there would be are older letter cars, caymans, boxsters and cup cars. Guess what? One 996 gtb1 competitor bought a cayman. Another sold his after buying a cup. Count the number of 911's in the last race and see where they placed.
You can buy a low hours 10 or 11 cup for far less than people are building cayman GTB1's for. This is Insanity. And soon there would be no iconic 911's
My suggestion was to allow to 3.6 911 to go lighter ( fiber doors hood and roof) in lieu of the disappearance of the 911. Reducing weight is not easy, but my suggestion was to do that as an alternative to late model 911's all but vanishing from the field.
Me? My engine needed a total rebuild. I had it rebuilt to 3.8. Rebuilding again to 3.6 would have been a waste of money. Just finished. Just got the bill. What do I get? A 100 pound weight penalty. Crazy
Do they WANT anyone to run a 911????
Meantime. I see no logic in putting gen1, gen2 and now gen3 caymans together. All the guys who dumped their gen1 Caymans for gen2 are now screwed.
None of this makes any sense. Maybe nasa has it right.
But hey - they are willing to let people get rid of DOT approved baby seats. That's one positive
None of this make sense (cept for the baby seats)
I'll take some responsibility for the 100 pound weight reduction for 3.6 911's. I had been suggesting this as a way to keep 911 in GTB1. I had been making the point that we were seeing the disappearance of 911's in gtb1. At least let them go lighter. That was my suggestion because I predicted that if they didn't do anything all there would be are older letter cars, caymans, boxsters and cup cars. Guess what? One 996 gtb1 competitor bought a cayman. Another sold his after buying a cup. Count the number of 911's in the last race and see where they placed.
You can buy a low hours 10 or 11 cup for far less than people are building cayman GTB1's for. This is Insanity. And soon there would be no iconic 911's
My suggestion was to allow to 3.6 911 to go lighter ( fiber doors hood and roof) in lieu of the disappearance of the 911. Reducing weight is not easy, but my suggestion was to do that as an alternative to late model 911's all but vanishing from the field.
Me? My engine needed a total rebuild. I had it rebuilt to 3.8. Rebuilding again to 3.6 would have been a waste of money. Just finished. Just got the bill. What do I get? A 100 pound weight penalty. Crazy
Do they WANT anyone to run a 911????
Meantime. I see no logic in putting gen1, gen2 and now gen3 caymans together. All the guys who dumped their gen1 Caymans for gen2 are now screwed.
None of this makes any sense. Maybe nasa has it right.
But hey - they are willing to let people get rid of DOT approved baby seats. That's one positive
None of this make sense (cept for the baby seats)
Last edited by dan212; 07-19-2015 at 02:16 PM.
07-19-2015, 01:07 AM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NC - One headlight capital of the world
Posts: 1,820
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
10 Posts
Sachs makes a 4 way adjustable through rod shock that doesn't have a remote reservoir. They cost a lot more than 5K a set and would still be legal because they aren't remote reservoir. PCA would have to disallow all adjustable shocks. Teams would then just have multiple sets of shocks with different valving. Someone will all ways find a way to spend money on what they feel would be an advantage. In the end it would end up costing people more.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
This.
07-19-2015, 01:09 AM
#20
Rennlist Member
This old premise that a guy (or gal) takes their street car to a DE and then progresses to club racing with only mandated mods (cut-off, extinguisher, roll bar, seat) is nonsense. I am sure someone has an example but I personally have not seen anyone in the last few years drive a car to a race and race it, much less race a car they drive on the street.
Too many ways around a shock rule with no remote res. All of which will be more expensive and time consuming and totally necessary to win.
Too many ways around a shock rule with no remote res. All of which will be more expensive and time consuming and totally necessary to win.
07-19-2015, 02:03 AM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Sachs makes a 4 way adjustable through rod shock that doesn't have a remote reservoir. They cost a lot more than 5K a set and would still be legal because they aren't remote reservoir. PCA would have to disallow all adjustable shocks. Teams would then just have multiple sets of shocks with different valving. Someone will all ways find a way to spend money on what they feel would be an advantage. In the end it would end up costing people more.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
07-19-2015, 07:46 AM
#22
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
PCA PROPOSED RULE NO REMOTE RES SHOX STOCK CLASSES
I am really upset. After running an increasingly uncompetitive 911 at 3100 pounds with a 3.6/x51 in gtb1. I opted to rebuild to 3.8 ( I had to rebuild anyway - engine way shot). And what else was I going to do? Sell a rolling chassis for not much more than the price of three way shocks? But What's the logic in turning my car into a rolling tank? Add another 100 pounds ? WTF??!
I'll take some responsibility for the 100 pound weight reduction for 3.6 911's. I had been suggesting this as a way to keep 911 in GTB1. I had been making the point that we were seeing the disappearance of 911's in gtb1. At least let them go lighter. That was my suggestion because I predicted that if they didn't do anything all there would be are older letter cars, caymans, boxsters and cup cars. Guess what? One 996 gtb1 competitor bought a cayman. Another sold his after buying a cup. Count the number of 911's in the last race and see where they placed.
You can buy a low hours 10 or 11 cup for far less than people are building cayman GTB1's for. This is Insanity. And soon there would be no iconic 911's
My suggestion way to allow to 3.6 911 to go lighter ( fiber doors hood and roof) in lieu of the disappearance of the 911. Reducing weight is not easy, but my suggestion was to do that as an alternative to late model 911's all but vanishing from the field.
Me? My engine needed a total rebuild. I had it rebuilt to 3.8. Rebuilding again to 3.6 would have been a waste of money. Just finished. Just got the bill. What do I get? A 100 pound weight penalty. Crazy
Do they WANT anyone to run a 911????
Meantime. I see no logic in putting gen1, gen2 and now gen3 caymans together. All the guys who dumped their gen1 Caymans for gen2 are now screwed.
None of this makes any sense. Maybe nasa has it right.
But hey - they are willing to let people get rid of DOT approved baby seats. That's one positive
None of this make sense (crept for the baby seats)
I'll take some responsibility for the 100 pound weight reduction for 3.6 911's. I had been suggesting this as a way to keep 911 in GTB1. I had been making the point that we were seeing the disappearance of 911's in gtb1. At least let them go lighter. That was my suggestion because I predicted that if they didn't do anything all there would be are older letter cars, caymans, boxsters and cup cars. Guess what? One 996 gtb1 competitor bought a cayman. Another sold his after buying a cup. Count the number of 911's in the last race and see where they placed.
You can buy a low hours 10 or 11 cup for far less than people are building cayman GTB1's for. This is Insanity. And soon there would be no iconic 911's
My suggestion way to allow to 3.6 911 to go lighter ( fiber doors hood and roof) in lieu of the disappearance of the 911. Reducing weight is not easy, but my suggestion was to do that as an alternative to late model 911's all but vanishing from the field.
Me? My engine needed a total rebuild. I had it rebuilt to 3.8. Rebuilding again to 3.6 would have been a waste of money. Just finished. Just got the bill. What do I get? A 100 pound weight penalty. Crazy
Do they WANT anyone to run a 911????
Meantime. I see no logic in putting gen1, gen2 and now gen3 caymans together. All the guys who dumped their gen1 Caymans for gen2 are now screwed.
None of this makes any sense. Maybe nasa has it right.
But hey - they are willing to let people get rid of DOT approved baby seats. That's one positive
None of this make sense (crept for the baby seats)
You get to lose 100
Gen 2 cayman add 100...
07-19-2015, 08:24 AM
#23
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
911 3.8 x51
dan, as i read the rules and weight requirements the 3.8 x51 already carried a 100 lb addition . this put it at 3050 lbs . what is unclear to me is if the new rules want to add an additional 100lbs to 3150
07-19-2015, 09:48 AM
#24
Rennlist Member
I am really upset. After running an increasingly uncompetitive 911 at 3100 pounds with a 3.6/x51 in gtb1. I opted to rebuild to 3.8 ( I had to rebuild anyway - engine way shot). And what else was I going to do? Sell a rolling chassis for not much more than the price of three way shocks? But What's the logic in turning my car into a rolling tank? Add another 100 pounds ? WTF??!
I'll take some responsibility for the 100 pound weight reduction for 3.6 911's. I had been suggesting this as a way to keep 911 in GTB1. I had been making the point that we were seeing the disappearance of 911's in gtb1. At least let them go lighter. That was my suggestion because I predicted that if they didn't do anything all there would be are older letter cars, caymans, boxsters and cup cars. Guess what? One 996 gtb1 competitor bought a cayman. Another sold his after buying a cup. Count the number of 911's in the last race and see where they placed.
You can buy a low hours 10 or 11 cup for far less than people are building cayman GTB1's for. This is Insanity. And soon there would be no iconic 911's
My suggestion way to allow to 3.6 911 to go lighter ( fiber doors hood and roof) in lieu of the disappearance of the 911. Reducing weight is not easy, but my suggestion was to do that as an alternative to late model 911's all but vanishing from the field.
Me? My engine needed a total rebuild. I had it rebuilt to 3.8. Rebuilding again to 3.6 would have been a waste of money. Just finished. Just got the bill. What do I get? A 100 pound weight penalty. Crazy
Do they WANT anyone to run a 911????
Meantime. I see no logic in putting gen1, gen2 and now gen3 caymans together. All the guys who dumped their gen1 Caymans for gen2 are now screwed.
None of this makes any sense. Maybe nasa has it right.
But hey - they are willing to let people get rid of DOT approved baby seats. That's one positive
None of this make sense (crept for the baby seats)
I'll take some responsibility for the 100 pound weight reduction for 3.6 911's. I had been suggesting this as a way to keep 911 in GTB1. I had been making the point that we were seeing the disappearance of 911's in gtb1. At least let them go lighter. That was my suggestion because I predicted that if they didn't do anything all there would be are older letter cars, caymans, boxsters and cup cars. Guess what? One 996 gtb1 competitor bought a cayman. Another sold his after buying a cup. Count the number of 911's in the last race and see where they placed.
You can buy a low hours 10 or 11 cup for far less than people are building cayman GTB1's for. This is Insanity. And soon there would be no iconic 911's
My suggestion way to allow to 3.6 911 to go lighter ( fiber doors hood and roof) in lieu of the disappearance of the 911. Reducing weight is not easy, but my suggestion was to do that as an alternative to late model 911's all but vanishing from the field.
Me? My engine needed a total rebuild. I had it rebuilt to 3.8. Rebuilding again to 3.6 would have been a waste of money. Just finished. Just got the bill. What do I get? A 100 pound weight penalty. Crazy
Do they WANT anyone to run a 911????
Meantime. I see no logic in putting gen1, gen2 and now gen3 caymans together. All the guys who dumped their gen1 Caymans for gen2 are now screwed.
None of this makes any sense. Maybe nasa has it right.
But hey - they are willing to let people get rid of DOT approved baby seats. That's one positive
None of this make sense (crept for the baby seats)
07-19-2015, 01:17 PM
#26
Rennlist Member
Yup already 3050 right now.
The way I read it: Add another 100 pounds
Otherwise why say it? And I am pissed.
The way I read it: Add another 100 pounds
Otherwise why say it? And I am pissed.
07-19-2015, 04:17 PM
#27
Addict
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Sachs makes a 4 way adjustable through rod shock that doesn't have a remote reservoir. They cost a lot more than 5K a set and would still be legal because they aren't remote reservoir. PCA would have to disallow all adjustable shocks. Teams would then just have multiple sets of shocks with different valving. Someone will all ways find a way to spend money on what they feel would be an advantage. In the end it would end up costing people more.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
If the argument is stock means stock, then what about aftermarket limited slips, wheels, dot "r" tires, adjustable sway bars, performance exhaust ect....... PCA stock classes are way too far along to make a dramatic change. If someone wanted to race their bone stock car with just the required safety equipment, perhaps they can run one class lower than the listed stock class.
PCA has already significantly, and perhaps irreversibly, redefined 'stock'. As my father-in-law often says..."you can't put the poop back in the horse". It might be better to change the name and not call these classes stock anymore - that might alleviate the heartburn that some have.
I will add that for PCA to cling to the passenger seat requirement in part because of the "...spirit of stock class racing..." (words of PCA race steward) is almost laughable given all of the things that are permitted.
I sold my F car...playing with Radicals & a Stohr right now...will probably come back to PCA in a GT or Spec class at some point.
Cheers,
Rick
07-19-2015, 09:17 PM
#28
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
I wonder if Walt's inbox is up over 500 emails yet on this subject.
07-19-2015, 09:54 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
I'm one of the few people left with old timey shocks so it would be fine with me to see the Stock class shock rule fixed. However, I did not propose this rule change. And I'd rather not see all my E class racing buddies move to F class.
My guess it that PCA is putting this out there to settle it once and for all. And my guess is that nothing will change.
Someone who knows much more about this stuff than I do suggested this rule "adjustment:" Allow single and double adjustable (remote reservoir or not) in Stock, and make triple and quad adjustable a Prepared change.
My guess it that PCA is putting this out there to settle it once and for all. And my guess is that nothing will change.
Someone who knows much more about this stuff than I do suggested this rule "adjustment:" Allow single and double adjustable (remote reservoir or not) in Stock, and make triple and quad adjustable a Prepared change.
07-19-2015, 11:35 PM
#30
Racer
Based on the above simplistic argument we should also run stock seats and seat belts, tires, brakes, etc.
Back in the early (earlier?) days of of PCA racing "Stock" meant shocks and sway bars were free. Meaning if you could bolt it to the stock mounting pointing points anything was allowed.
Then someone decided they didn't like driver adjustable sway bars. So I put a lock on my cockpit adjustable sway bars when I was on the track so they were not adjustable by the driver.
Then that was deemed insufficient and I had to move the sway bar adjusters so that the driver could not reach the bars from the driver seat.
So $1K+ later I was compliant and it didn't change sh*t. Once the bars were set for the weekend, they were never changed and my lap times were the same as they were with driver adjustable sway bars.
Now I need to take out my 2-year old Motons for even more expensive adjustable, but non-external reservoir shocks? This is just another example of a rule change that just adds expense with no (little?) effect on lap times.
There are bigger issues with Weight to Power ratios that determine if a car is competitive is class. But the rules committee was not interested in addressing that issue this year.
YADRCP (Yet Another Dumb Rule Change Proposal)
Greg
Back in the early (earlier?) days of of PCA racing "Stock" meant shocks and sway bars were free. Meaning if you could bolt it to the stock mounting pointing points anything was allowed.
Then someone decided they didn't like driver adjustable sway bars. So I put a lock on my cockpit adjustable sway bars when I was on the track so they were not adjustable by the driver.
Then that was deemed insufficient and I had to move the sway bar adjusters so that the driver could not reach the bars from the driver seat.
So $1K+ later I was compliant and it didn't change sh*t. Once the bars were set for the weekend, they were never changed and my lap times were the same as they were with driver adjustable sway bars.
Now I need to take out my 2-year old Motons for even more expensive adjustable, but non-external reservoir shocks? This is just another example of a rule change that just adds expense with no (little?) effect on lap times.
There are bigger issues with Weight to Power ratios that determine if a car is competitive is class. But the rules committee was not interested in addressing that issue this year.
YADRCP (Yet Another Dumb Rule Change Proposal)
Greg