Calling all SpecBoxers...
11-30-2011, 06:13 PM
#48
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I would add a few comments being that I served as the BSR National Rules Committee Chair for several years and was one of the early adopters of the Boxster Spec effort.
In my opinion there isn’t a rules split as much as the sanctioning bodies taking the BSR concept into their own organizations and doing what they see fit to do. This could lead to similar rule sets or unique ones, time will tell.
Originally, the backbone concept of Boxster Spec was to provide a rules set that was supported and administered by a group independent of sanctioning bodies. We wanted a low cost, Porsche car platform that a home garage builder could build and campaign. The parts picked for the car were to enhance the fun factor without breaking the bank. In the early days, donor cars were still $15K+ and if the price point for a completed car was $30K, it left $15K for parts. As the donor costs came down, it was thought that other goodies for longevity and fun would/could be added and still keep the $30K price point.
One of the main arguments that the BSR founders tried to convey was that a rules committee outside of any particular sanctioning body would look after the interests of the Spec, not the sanctioning body, thus allowing the car owner the maximum number of races to participate in regardless of who they ran with. A case in point is my own personal situation. In 2011 I participated in 4 PCA Club Races, 2 POC Club Races and 12 NASA Club Races. 18 races over three different sanctioning bodies with a common rules set, not withstanding the square versus staggered differences, which should not be an issue in 2012. As a driver, that flexibility of schedule is one of the major attractive aspects to owning a Spec Boxster.
As far as a split in ranks or rules, it really isn’t all that complicated in what transpired. PCA Club Racing argued that they adopted the BSR spec to better represent the interests of their racers and that the Rules Committee was not representing PCA’s best interests. NASA had similar comments, although in NASA’s defense, they were very open to input and rules administration from the Rules Committee. And POC, PRC and SCCA left it to the Rules Committee to administer.
I do agree with both PCA and NASA that sometimes the Rules Committee would not side with the individual sanctioning body. This was due to a philosophy of “give a little to gain a lot.” My argument was that a common rule set favored all parties (drivers, sanctioning bodies, shops) as it allowed maximum participation. My case is a perfect example. Common rules = 3 different sanctioning bodies receiving my money, versus a divergent rule set that may have me picking to stay with a limited number of sanctioning bodies or at the very least, running in a different class depending upon the rules.
In the end a couple of things led to the original committee disbanding. First and foremost, the Rules Committee was a volunteer effort and was not a sanctioning body. We were dependent upon the sanctioning bodies agreeing with our vision. Without that agreement there was nothing for the original committee to contribute. Secondly, PCNA “notified” the Boxster Spec series website owners to cease and desist anything Porsche / Boxster. Anyone that has been “notified” by PCNA knows what I am talking about.
The Rules Committee put together our recommendations for 2012 and provided them to all the sanctioning bodies to be used or discarded as they saw fit. And we ceased existence. Going forward each body can do what they want. In my opinion, that is best for everyone given the circumstances.
Regarding a central website, I agree that Brad’s site is sorely missed. In the early days, almost every car builder and driver posted there. Great technical information resided there. It was sad to see it shut down. But again it was a private person supplying the bandwidth and footing the bill. And when it disappeared so did the primary place for BSR drivers to congregate.
Moving forward the West Coast BSR drivers are coming together under the POC website. The Texas contingent were the early adopters of a regional BSR website with the texasspec.com site. It serves their regional members well and the West Coast drivers are co-mingling events between POC, NASA(PRC) and PCA. This arrangement should help us keep in touch and coordinate our fun.
As far as RL hosting a site, I agree with Mike Globe and others that a joint 986 Spec / 996 Spec would be of benefit if it can get up off the ground. I personally believe the time of one site is over for Boxster Spec, but a joint 986/996 Spec site would be nice.
Finally, I would like to comment to those who are on the fence about joining Boxster Spec. Do it! I agree with Steve Watkins that the rules have been very stable over the past couple of years. The changes have been evolutionary, not revolutionary. I also agree with Eric Oviatt that the rules need tightening up, but this will happen in one form or another going forward. Now that the sanctioning bodies own the rules, the drivers need to be the advocates talking with their race bodies, not the old committee.
All I can say is that driving a BSR is fun. Ear to ear grinning fun. While not everyone is in agreement on the parts list or what is this or that, there is no disputing that these arguments occur because the class is a winner. If you believe the Spec should never change, fight for it. If you believe tweaks should be made, fight for it. But join Boxster Spec. I believe you’ll be happy you did. It’s too much fun to pass up!
Best Regards,
Bill Pickering
NorCal Spec Boxster #16 (NASA, PRC, POC, PCA, SCCA)
In my opinion there isn’t a rules split as much as the sanctioning bodies taking the BSR concept into their own organizations and doing what they see fit to do. This could lead to similar rule sets or unique ones, time will tell.
Originally, the backbone concept of Boxster Spec was to provide a rules set that was supported and administered by a group independent of sanctioning bodies. We wanted a low cost, Porsche car platform that a home garage builder could build and campaign. The parts picked for the car were to enhance the fun factor without breaking the bank. In the early days, donor cars were still $15K+ and if the price point for a completed car was $30K, it left $15K for parts. As the donor costs came down, it was thought that other goodies for longevity and fun would/could be added and still keep the $30K price point.
One of the main arguments that the BSR founders tried to convey was that a rules committee outside of any particular sanctioning body would look after the interests of the Spec, not the sanctioning body, thus allowing the car owner the maximum number of races to participate in regardless of who they ran with. A case in point is my own personal situation. In 2011 I participated in 4 PCA Club Races, 2 POC Club Races and 12 NASA Club Races. 18 races over three different sanctioning bodies with a common rules set, not withstanding the square versus staggered differences, which should not be an issue in 2012. As a driver, that flexibility of schedule is one of the major attractive aspects to owning a Spec Boxster.
As far as a split in ranks or rules, it really isn’t all that complicated in what transpired. PCA Club Racing argued that they adopted the BSR spec to better represent the interests of their racers and that the Rules Committee was not representing PCA’s best interests. NASA had similar comments, although in NASA’s defense, they were very open to input and rules administration from the Rules Committee. And POC, PRC and SCCA left it to the Rules Committee to administer.
I do agree with both PCA and NASA that sometimes the Rules Committee would not side with the individual sanctioning body. This was due to a philosophy of “give a little to gain a lot.” My argument was that a common rule set favored all parties (drivers, sanctioning bodies, shops) as it allowed maximum participation. My case is a perfect example. Common rules = 3 different sanctioning bodies receiving my money, versus a divergent rule set that may have me picking to stay with a limited number of sanctioning bodies or at the very least, running in a different class depending upon the rules.
In the end a couple of things led to the original committee disbanding. First and foremost, the Rules Committee was a volunteer effort and was not a sanctioning body. We were dependent upon the sanctioning bodies agreeing with our vision. Without that agreement there was nothing for the original committee to contribute. Secondly, PCNA “notified” the Boxster Spec series website owners to cease and desist anything Porsche / Boxster. Anyone that has been “notified” by PCNA knows what I am talking about.
The Rules Committee put together our recommendations for 2012 and provided them to all the sanctioning bodies to be used or discarded as they saw fit. And we ceased existence. Going forward each body can do what they want. In my opinion, that is best for everyone given the circumstances.
Regarding a central website, I agree that Brad’s site is sorely missed. In the early days, almost every car builder and driver posted there. Great technical information resided there. It was sad to see it shut down. But again it was a private person supplying the bandwidth and footing the bill. And when it disappeared so did the primary place for BSR drivers to congregate.
Moving forward the West Coast BSR drivers are coming together under the POC website. The Texas contingent were the early adopters of a regional BSR website with the texasspec.com site. It serves their regional members well and the West Coast drivers are co-mingling events between POC, NASA(PRC) and PCA. This arrangement should help us keep in touch and coordinate our fun.
As far as RL hosting a site, I agree with Mike Globe and others that a joint 986 Spec / 996 Spec would be of benefit if it can get up off the ground. I personally believe the time of one site is over for Boxster Spec, but a joint 986/996 Spec site would be nice.
Finally, I would like to comment to those who are on the fence about joining Boxster Spec. Do it! I agree with Steve Watkins that the rules have been very stable over the past couple of years. The changes have been evolutionary, not revolutionary. I also agree with Eric Oviatt that the rules need tightening up, but this will happen in one form or another going forward. Now that the sanctioning bodies own the rules, the drivers need to be the advocates talking with their race bodies, not the old committee.
All I can say is that driving a BSR is fun. Ear to ear grinning fun. While not everyone is in agreement on the parts list or what is this or that, there is no disputing that these arguments occur because the class is a winner. If you believe the Spec should never change, fight for it. If you believe tweaks should be made, fight for it. But join Boxster Spec. I believe you’ll be happy you did. It’s too much fun to pass up!
Best Regards,
Bill Pickering
NorCal Spec Boxster #16 (NASA, PRC, POC, PCA, SCCA)
11-30-2011, 06:39 PM
#49
My car, as well as all by built and campaigned my shop, just got DQ'd for removing our immobilizer/anti-theft system. It was found to be non-performance enhancing, but against the "spirit of rules". Those unprinted rules that exist I guess.
We held 1st and 3rd on the championship podium going into this weekend. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend and run in BSR. I will donate my time to help the rules for next year, but I won't be running in BSR ever again.
Over $100k in cars, tires, trips, track fees, going down the toilet during the last weekend of the year. They were both specifically built to run this season.
Hope things improve moving forward and I can help keep this from happening to someone else.
11-30-2011, 06:59 PM
#51
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I'd protest before you throw in the towel:
16. Interior:
"...16.12 ALL interior items may be removed except as noted..."
Its an item and its interior...and it sure as hell isn't noted to stay...
16. Interior:
"...16.12 ALL interior items may be removed except as noted..."
Its an item and its interior...and it sure as hell isn't noted to stay...
11-30-2011, 07:14 PM
#52
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
What did PCNA have to say about what?
Bill, nice to hear from someone who was involved. I agree 100% at this point that it is up to the drivers (read payers) to push the common rule across bodies.
Bill, nice to hear from someone who was involved. I agree 100% at this point that it is up to the drivers (read payers) to push the common rule across bodies.
11-30-2011, 07:41 PM
#53
What part of ALL INTERIOR or UNRESTRICTED is violated.
And yes Scott, the rule I was quoted to have broken was the one you stated. I guess I better not install a track view mirror, window banner, or fuzzy dice because those aren't listed in the rulebook either.
Appeals have been placed, and denied. Season over, game over, BSR over. Passed every inspection, dyno test, and scrutineering performed. Except the concept of being "kind-of" illegal.
11-30-2011, 07:47 PM
#54
If there is a rule that says:
"The choice of which non-performance systems/accessories to remove, in order to lighten the vehicle, is unrestricted"
And they say the removal of the "immobilizer/anti-theft system" was "found to be non-performance enhancing", how can they say you broke a rule, much less the spirit of the rules????
Scott
"The choice of which non-performance systems/accessories to remove, in order to lighten the vehicle, is unrestricted"
And they say the removal of the "immobilizer/anti-theft system" was "found to be non-performance enhancing", how can they say you broke a rule, much less the spirit of the rules????
Scott
11-30-2011, 07:57 PM
#55
Because there is an immobilizer computer chip inside the ECU box that has to have a bit changed so the car doesn't need a signal from the immobilizer to start the car. Completely separate chip and system from the DME and engine management portion of the computer. The DME is stock, the dyno test the day before, and every dyno ever done on the car has shown that to be true by max numbers and A/F.
The rules do say the "engine management must remain unmodified" and it is. But the "spirit of the rules" says they don't want the box touched. Even though that isn't in the rules...
The rules do say the "engine management must remain unmodified" and it is. But the "spirit of the rules" says they don't want the box touched. Even though that isn't in the rules...
11-30-2011, 08:07 PM
#56
Well, it sounds like they didn't want anything in the ECU box touched so that no one else would have to figure out how to do exactly what you have done. So I at least understand where they are coming from on this.
Did you run this by the rules folks before you did it?
Scott
Did you run this by the rules folks before you did it?
Scott
11-30-2011, 08:14 PM
#57
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
THIS is the BullSh!t I'm talking about. If you threw this out in front of the racers they would be pissed royal. Not to mention getting a whole season DQed is just meanspirited. I'm sorry to see this. I can understand the issue of cracking the ecu. I think the ones here locally are going to be in trouble since stripping out the wiring is pretty common.
11-30-2011, 08:17 PM
#58
Well, it sounds like they didn't want anything in the ECU box touched so that no one else would have to figure out how to do exactly what you have done. So I at least understand where they are coming from on this.
Did you run this by the rules folks before you did it?
Scott
Did you run this by the rules folks before you did it?
Scott
Rules folks I talked to about modifications give me the "if it isn't performance enhancing and improves reliability it is OK".
An issue where the people writing the rules, aren't the people enforcing the rules, or interpreting the rules. All you can really go buy is the black and white on the paper. And I would contest that I did that.
It's been in my build threads(pelican parts, renntrack, planet-9) since May of 2010. Not something I tried to hide. It's listed in the customer build sheets i hand out looking for builds too.
My issue is over and done with...but would be nice to have a central place to discuss stuff like this.
