All the 2008 proposals in one spot!

Use this forum to discuss rule proposals, other than the points proposal, which has its's own forum

Moderators: David Leong, Andrew Forrest

Post Reply
User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

All the 2008 proposals in one spot!

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:11 pm

GGR and Zone 7 folks.
Please read thru as much of this as you can and make comment,s suggestions, changes, extensions etc.
thoughtful comments are always appreciated.
remember any or all of these could be included in next season's rules.

If you want to make comments directly to me then do so by emailing me at http://www.docdanracy@sbcglobal.net



From Peter Venturini.
I am suggesting a rule change for 2008 and I also have
a suggestion for consideration by the rules committee.

1. Rules change Proposal:

Modify Section 2.2 T to also accept valid and
current NASA Competition License.

2.2T Time Trial (only)

All drivers in Time Trials, other than students and/or
provisional Drivers, must hold a valid Golden Gate
Region Time Trial Certificate, PCA Club Racing
License, NASA COMPETITION LICENSE, Nationally Trained
PCA Instructors, POC Competition License, IMSA
Competition License, (not provisional) or SCCA Racing
License. This certificate must be displayed when
registering at a Time Trial. Requirements for
obtaining a GGR Time Trial Certificate are: (Note:
Suggested change in bold).
I recommend this change to allow those of
us that race with PRC (which requires NASA Competition
License), to also be able to participate in GGR DE/TT
Events. Because of schedule conflicts, it is
difficult to get in the minimum two time trials per
year to maintain ones certificate.



2. Suggestion:

Define what is meant, in GGR context, novice
driver. I note in Section 2.2D b. that novice drivers
are required to attend on classroom lecture. So what
is a novice driver - one that has never participated
in a GGR track event? One that has not participated
in a GGR DE for XXX years, or ???.
Suggest committee clarify what is meant by novice in
this Section.
-----------------------------------------------------------
from Bill Dally.

Proposed Rule Changes for 2008

1. Base points for 914s:

Proposal: Change the autocross base points for all
models of 914 to be 50 points more than their time
trial base points.

Rationale: The current AX base point assignments for
mid-engine cars are not appropriate. A base point
assignment in line with the 2005 PAX scores would be
more fair. A 914 2.0 (Class had a 2005 PAX score
of 0.881 which less than the 0.885 of a 911T (class G)
which is currently assigned 250 points. The 2.0L 914
has a power to weight ratio comparable to an early 924
which is assigned 150-175 points or a 912 which is
assigned 175 points.

The argument that 914s deserve a 100 point
differential from their TT base points for autocross
because they handle well is not valid. Under the
current rules, car modifications such as springs,
torsion bars, and sway bars are relatively inexpensive
(in terms of points) making it easy to achieve
balanced handling on all cars. Thus penalizing a 914
by 100 points for balanced handling puts it at a
serious disadvantage compared to a 912 or 911T with
suspension modifications.

This proposal does provide a “mid engine” penalty over
and above the TT base points for 914s but makes this
penalty a more reasonable 50 points for a 2.0L 914.


2. Base Points for Boxsters:

Proposal: Reduce the time trial base points for the
986 Boxster S by 25 points and then change the
autocross base points for all models of Boxsters and
Caymans to be 25 points more than their time trial
base points.

Rationale: The current AX base point assignments for
mid-engine cars are not appropriate. A base point
assignment based on the 2005 PAX table or on
power-to-weight ratios would be more appropriate. A
Boxster (old class T) had a PAX weighting of .907 and
a Boxster S .917. This puts a Boxster between a 964
(425 points) and a 993 (450 points) and a Boxster S
equal to a 993. On a power-to-weight ratio basis, a
2000 Boxster is comparable to a Carerra and a Boxster
S is comparable to a 964.

This proposal does still incorporate a “mid-engine
penalty” of 25 points for all Boxster models. This is
a more reasonable penalty.

The time trial base points adjustment for the Boxster
S is based on its power to weight which is comparable
to a 964. Note that the real weight of a Boxster S is
3050 lbs empty and dry (this is based on corner
weighting my 2002 which has only PSM and heated seats
as options). The power to weight calculations used by
the point system have used an unrealistically low
weight for the Boxster S.


3. Adjustable Spring Perches:

Proposal: For cars with coil springs, adjustable
spring perches should carry no penalty.

Rationale: Cars with torsion bars can adjust ride
height and corner balance with no point penalty. It
is only fair to allow cars with coil springs the same
penalty-free adjustment.
------------------------------------------------------------
From Andrew Forrest.

2008 GGR Rule Change Proposal - AJF-0
Proposal:
(Procedural) Permanently adopt the rules in effect for
track events this year (aka "2007b rules") as a
baseline for all rules change proposals for 2008. The
rules in effect for track events this year restrict
the effect of Time Trial rules (as opposed to Driver's
Education rules) to the portion of a track event in
which timed runs occur. At all other times during a
track event, Driver's Education rules are in effect.
The reason this proposal is made is that the 2007b
rules are temporary due to their being issued as a
"Tech Bulletin" as a consequence of the late date in
2006 at which they were proposed. If the 2007b
rules are not adopted permanently (or as a baseline to
which other 2008 rules change proposals are
applied) then the rules revert to the set published
just prior to these being adopted ("2007a rules").
Rationale:
This proposal is a procedural necessity to avoid the
2007b rules from experiencing a "sunset". The
2007b rules themselves are a response to the changing
nature of track events in general and our club
membership's cars in particular. A few years ago we
passed the mark where more than 50% of our
members now have liquid cooled cars (not considering
944, 968 or 928 models even). These cars are
of a vintage that invariably contain passive
restraints like airbags, additional driver's aids (ABS
as a
minimum) and a higher luxury component than earlier
cars. These cars are intrinsically safer in an
impact than earlier cars at the same time that their
owners are more likely to drive them on a daily
basis and less likely to wish to modify them for the
track. Requiring members to prepare their cars as
required by the Time Trial rules from 2006 and prior
is an impediment to new participants joining us
where they would get the excellent instruction we can
provide.

2008 GGR Rule Change Proposal - AJF-1
Proposal:
Rescind the term limits for the Driver's Ed/Time Trial
Chairman and Chief Driving Instructor: Eliminate
rules 2.1T (2) and (5) which read:
2. Driver's Ed/Time Trial Chairman shall serve no
longer than Three years. (Reasoning: to
encourage change and to have a set time of change.)
5. The Time Trial Chief Driving Instructor (CDI) shall
serve no longer than Three years. (Reasoning:
to encourage change and to have a set time of change.)
Rationale:
This is a volunteer club and it is rare for election
or appointment to a position to be contested. It seems
pointless to arbitrarily limit the participation of a
member who is presumably willing and able to
contribute -- especially when the club's Board of
Directors has the absolute power to override
assignments already. (Note: if the inclusion of rule
2.1T (2) in this proposal is deemed a conflict of
interest [the DE/TT Chair is making the proposal],
then the proposal should be read to apply to the CDI
only.)

2008 GGR Rule Change Proposal - AJF-2
Proposal:
Incorporate PCA National's new Driver's Education
Minimimum Guidelines rule #3, "Harness Systems"
("Rule 3"), reproduced below, into GGR rules 3.3D and
3.3T and qualify the necessity for such
harnesses to apply only to certain cars; namely those
without functioning airbags or those with more
than 250 (450?) modification points.
Move the definition of "Restraint System" from 3.3T
© to 3.3D (e) so that it can be used in the DE
discussion:
e. The term "Restraint System" shall refer to belts,
harnesses, straps and all their associated
mounting hardware.
Add the following items from "Rule 3" to 3.3D:
f. Both student and instructor shall have
substantially the same restraint system. All vehicles
must
be equipped with a properly installed lap and shoulder
restraint system.
g. If a participant uses a multi-point harness system
(five or six-point; four-point systems are not
allowed) then
i. the harnesses must include a antisubmarine strap or
straps which are mounted in an
approved manner consistent the manufacturer’s
instructions. Two inch FIA approved lap
belts or 3-inch lap belts, 3-inch shoulder harnesses
and 2-inch antisubmarine straps are
minimum.
ii. the harness system must be used in conjunction
with a seat which has the supplied
routing holes for the shoulder belts and, for five
point harnesses, the anti-submarine belt.
iii. All pieces of the restraint system must be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions.
Either move items from 3.3T (f) to 3.3D (f) and update
sub-items viii and x.:
iv. Hardware to meet or exceed the strength of DOT or
SAE approved type. Example: forged eyebolts
with 7/16" SAE threads.
v. Attachments must be to the car or roll bar, and not
to the seat structure or seat frames. Lap belts
may be secured to the factory seat belt locations
using Brey-Krause mounting hardware (P/N
R9001) for cars with 450 or fewer mod points with
stock seats.
vi. Attachments to sheet metal portions of the car
must have adequate backing plates.
vii.Lap belts should be mounted so as to approximately
bisect the angle between the thigh and the
spine as viewed from the side.
viii.Competition shoulder harnesses should be mounted
so that the rearward horizontal portion
leaves the shoulder at an angle of approximately 90
degrees to the spine (at most 40 degrees
down from horizontal) as viewed from the side.
ix. Shoulder harness mountings that depend upon the
seat back, either for position or support in a
crash, will not be permitted.
x. Where the anti-submarine belt does not pass through
the seat cushion (which is the
recommended approach where seats have a pass-through
provision) the anti-submarine belt may
be a single belt anchored on the floor, centered in
front of the seat, or may be a two-strap design
that anchors at or near the front corners of the seat
or passes under the driver and is anchored at
or near the lap belt attachment points. The single
forward sub-belt mount is preferred.
xi. All belts and bolts should be adequately fastened.
Examples, cotter keys, double nuts and/or lock
nuts. Additionally, any belts attached to eyebolts
with spring clips must have the spring clips
positively secured closed through the use of cotter
keys, hitch pins or similar approaches.
xii.Good restraint system installation practice should
include, but not be limited to, the above
guidelines.
Or, (preferred), eliminate the items from 3.3T (f)
entirely (see rationale).
And conclude 3.3D with:
h. Because the addition of the harness system means
that the occupants are fastened upright in
the vehicle, a properly padded roll bar or roll cage
is strongly encouraged to complete the
SYSTEM. The use of one without the other may result in
an unsafe environment and is not a
COMPLETE SYSTEM.
Change 3.3T (d) from
d. Entrants and passengers must use competition belts,
harnesses and anti-submarine straps; 2
inch FIA approved lap belts or 3-inch lap belts,
3-inch shoulder harnesses and 2-inch
antisubmarine straps are minimum
to
d. Drivers and passengers in cars that lack functional
airbags or have 250 (450?) or more
modification points must use multi-point harnesses.
Change 3.3T (e) from
e. Restraint systems of questionable condition,
design, material, mounting or which are in any way
unsafe will be disallowed. All seat belts must display
a manufactured date not more than seven
years earlier than the current year.
to
e. Restraint systems of questionable condition,
design, material, mounting or which are in any way
unsafe will be disallowed. Harness webbing must be
replaced every five years (OEM three-point
belts excepted).
Rationale:
Safety Equipment is a complicated area. The extent of
GGR's expertise in this matter does not exceed
that of the safety equipment's manufacturers nor does
it exceed that available to the national body of
the PCA. Accordingly GGR rules should defer to these
two authorities in specifying safety equipment
requirements. This approach "future-proofs" the rules
by eliminating explicit details that may
eventually be contradicted as more is learned by the
safety community. Examples of areas that have
been contradicted include whether tops should be up or
down on open cars and whether five-point
harnesses are safer than three-point with most stock
Porsche seats (the latest thinking is they are not
-- see Schroth).
The other substantial change in this proposal is to
allow modern, stock cars to participate in timed runs
without installing multi-point harnesses (and
appropriate seats). The rationale for this essentially
the
same as that for the proposal to make permanent the
2007b rules (AJF-0): The 2007b rules themselves
are a response to the changing nature of track events
in general and our club membership's cars in
particular. A few years ago we passed the mark where
more than 50% of our members now have
liquid cooled cars (not considering 944, 968 or 928
models even). These cars are of a vintage that
invariably contain passive restraints like airbags,
additional driver's aids (ABS as a minimum) and a
higher luxury component than earlier cars. These cars
are intrinsically safer in an impact than earlier
cars at the same time that their owners are more
likely to drive them on a daily basis and less likely
to
wish to modify them for the track. Requiring members
to prepare their cars as required by the Time
Trial rules from 2006 and prior is an impediment to
new participants joining us where they would get
the excellent instruction we can provide. We can
discuss the modification points threshold for
requiring
multi-point harnesses.
Finally, the rationale for the minor detail changes:
• changing harness webbing every five years instead of
seven - PCA National Minimum Guideliness
for DE requirement
• original rule 3.3T f (ii) may contradict the new
rules if the stock seats do not possess the
appropriate pass-throughs.
• ditto for 3.3T f (vii).
• additionally for 3.3T f (vii), the Brey-Krause says
P/N 9030 requires a seat with a "anti-sub strap
pass-through", contradicting the requirement that
equipment be installed according to the manufacturer's
recommendations.
• it's hard for me to believe that a single sub strap
anchored in front of the seat (without passthrough)
is safe but then again, see the 1st paragraph of this
rationale.
PCA National's new rule #3 from the Driver's Education
Minimum Guidelines ("Rule 3")
3. Harness Systems: If the participant chooses to
install a 5 or 6 point driving harness ( four point
systems are not safe and therefore not allowed)
several changes to the automobile must be made to
create a safe occupant restraint system. Harnesses
must include a antisubmarine strap and be mounted
in an approved manner consistent the manufacturer’s
instructions. The Harness system must be used in
conjunction with a seat which has the supplied routing
holes for the shoulder and anti-submarine belts.
All pieces of the restraint system must be installed
in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
This means that a seat is required to have the proper
routing holes for the harness as supplied by the
seat manufacturer for the shoulder and anti-submarine
straps. The shoulder straps should be mounted
at 90 degrees to the axis of your spine or at most 40
degrees down from horizontal. Because the
addition of the harness system means that the
occupants are fastened upright in the vehicle, a
properly
padded roll bar or roll cage is strongly encouraged to
complete the SYSTEM. The use of one without the
other may result in an unsafe environment and is not a
COMPLETE SYSTEM. Due to UV degradation and
wear the harness webbing must be replaced every five
years.

2008 GGR Rule Change Proposal - AJF-3
Proposal:
This proposal is in two parts (which may be
independently adopted or rejected):
Part A: Move the many constraints on car numbers from
rule 2.6T (a) to 2.6T © and make them
subordinate to the idea that the tech inspector has
final say on whether a car's numbers are adequate
(i.e. describe them as guidelines). Change 2.6T (a)
from
a. Car numbers (both) and competition class letters
(TT-only) must be on the car and correct for
the driver at all times in order for course personnel,
event officials and your fellow competitors
to identify cars and their drivers. Numbers must be a
contrasting color, and distinct from a
distance. Reflecting numbers are discouraged and shoe
polish is not allowed. No numbers on
windows. Numbers must be from 8 to 10 inches high and
1-1/2 to 2 inches wide and must be
securely attached. The number on the rear may be only
half the regular size but still legible. The
car classification letters should be half the size of
the competition number and placed after the
number on both sides of the car.
to
a. Car numbers (both) and competition class letters
(TT-only) must be on the car and correct for
the driver at all times in order for course personnel,
event officials and your fellow competitors
to identify cars and their drivers. Numbers must be a
contrasting color, and distinct from a
distance. Reflecting numbers are discouraged and shoe
polish is not allowed. No numbers on
windows. Numbers must be from 8 to 10 inches high and
1-1/2 to 2 inches wide and must be
securely attached. The number on the rear may be only
half the regular size but still legible. The
car classification letters should be half the size of
the competition number and placed after the
number on both sides of the car.
AND change 2.6T © from
c. Location, style, legibility and mounting of all car
numbers are subject to approval of the Tech
Inspector.
to
c. Location, style, legibility and mounting of all car
numbers are subject to approval of the Tech
Inspector. Examples of considerations the Tech
Inspector may employ in approving a car's
numbers include (but are not limited to): Numbers must
be a contrasting color, and distinct from
a distance. Reflecting numbers are discouraged and
shoe polish is not allowed. No numbers on
windows. Numbers must be from 8 to 10 inches high and
1-1/2 to 2 inches wide and must be
securely attached. The number on the rear need be only
half the regular size but still legible. The
car classification letters should be half the size of
the competition number and placed after the
number on both sides of the car.
Part B: Change 2.6T ( (Car Numbers) from
b. Numbers shall be placed on both sides of the car,
on the front and the rear of the car.
to
b. Numbers shall be placed on both sides of the car
(required), and on the front and the rear of the
car (recommended).
Part C: Change 2.6T (d) (Car Number Suffix) from
d. The driver number is your GGR Certification Number.
Drivers sharing a car may use the same
car number but with the suffix 'L' attached to the
number in one case to distinguish the drivers.
to
d. The driver number is your GGR Certification Number.
Drivers sharing a car may use the same
car number but with an alphabetic suffix (e.g. 'L')
attached to the numbers on both sides of the
car to distinguish the drivers.
Rationale:
Part A: Having a huge, undifferentiated list of
constraints on car numbers obscures the main goals of
car numbers: legibility and identity. Should GGR
really have a rule about stroke width for car numbers
if these main goals are otherwise satisfied? (No).
Making these constraints explicitly subordinate to the
Tech Inspector's approval and re-casting them as
guidelines gives GGR the flexibility to approve car
numbers that meet our goals while still providing
members with good advice about how to achieve the
objectives. Persons with questions about car number
suitability should be encouraged to view online
photos of cars with numbers acceptable to GGR.
Part B: Having numbers on all four sides of a car is
an unusual requirement for Driver's Education
events. This change would make GGR's rules more
aligned with those of other regions. Given the
increasing frequency with which GGR hosts events that
are adjacent or in conjunction with other
regions, alignment of rules and elimination of
gratuitous differences is a worthwhile goal.
Part C: Changing from 'L' to any alphabetic suffix
generalizes this technique and updates an otherwise
anachronistic rule.

2008 GGR Rule Change Proposal - AJF-4
Proposal:
Replace the car classification system (for TT only?)
with the previous model/degree of modification
based system (the "old system") subject to the
following updates:
• apply to the old system, all rule changes relevant
to classification that have been made in the
interim since the adoption of the points-based system.
• create new classes for any new car models that have
been introduced since the adoption of the
points-based system (Cayman?)
• revise all other rules that make reference to a
modification points threshold so that they
continue to work with the old classification system.
Rationale:
The purpose of this proposal is to get this change on
the agenda of the current DEC so that it will
investigate and evaluate this proposal. Making the
proposal is not necessarily an endorsement of the
proposal, rather it reflects a desire for an open
discussion and independent evaluation of the two
competing classification systems. Some veteran time
trial participants have indicated that the pointsbased
system is a deterrent to participation. If we are to
continue having a TT series, this possibility
needs to be taken seriously and, should it be deemed
true and serious enough, a change may be
contemplated. In order to effect the change, a
proposal has to be submitted so here it is. Needless
to
say, change comes at a cost so flip-flopping between
classification systems is not something to be
taken lightly. Likewise, there are other reasons why
TT participation is down (TT participants
"graduate" and new members have newer cars which they
are reluctant to prepare as described
elsewhere). All classification systems are imperfect
by nature but the particular imperfections matter.

from Rob Woollen.

I wasn't sure if this was intentional or a typo in the
rules. If it was intentional, then consider this a
suggestion for a change.

964T (3.6) has base points of 525

993TT has base points of 575

996TT has base points of 550

997TT has base points of 600

It looks to me like this was a typo and the 993TT
should have 550 base points and the 996TT should be at
575. The 996TT is definitely slightly faster in all
the data I have. I don't see any reason the older car
would have more base points.

From Larry Sharp.

add PCA National rules in autocross for Showroom stock
rules.

Reasoning: Most newer cars are running stock
configuation and street tires for the first few years
the members try autocrossing. The Showroom stock rules
will greatly enhance a newer drivers fun factor with
out worrying about too many rules since they can only
run extremly stock cars.

Add 25 points to the base points for a RSamerica for
both ax and tt rules

Reasoning: car is better than a standard 964 C2
---------------------------------------------------------
From Dan Thompson

1)An increase in the granulairty of the points
assessed for tire types/wear ratings would help move
some cars into a more competitive class.
Currently in AX taking a totally stock car and placing
any R rated tire on it for competition moves it up
essentially 3 classes ( assuming that the points
spread for each class is 50 points)


tire points
>/=200 WR 0 points
<200 but >100WR 25 points
</=100 but > 40WR 50 points
</=40 WR 100 points
full race slicks 175 points

In this way an upgrade for any given car would only
potentially move it up one class, for the first
division of R rated tires.
DOT R tires such as R/A3S06 Hoosier, Kumho V710s have
a decided traction advantage over DOT R tires such as
Toyo RA1s, Kumho Victoracers, and Nitto NT01s
Initially when the points classification was proposed,
one of the talking points was not to have any one
modification move a car into a class where it became
uncompetitive.
Make the points totals for AX and TT the same.

2)Then I would make the points hit smaller for
increases in wheel width. I think the tire width has
more to do with the performance increase than the
wheel width does.... up to a certain point....when the
tire is absolutely too wide to perform correctly for a
given wheel width. Like 205s on a 5.5" rim, being the
limit.

10 points per inch instead of the current 25.

3)The PCA minimum DE Standards for harness/seat
systems need to be included in our rules.
Harness Systems: If the participant chooses to install
a 5 or 6 point driving harness ( four point systems
are not safe and therefore not allowed) several
changes to the automobile must be made to create a
safe occupant restraint system. Harnesses must include
a antisubmarine strap and be mounted in an approved
manner consistent the manufacturer’s instructions. The
Harness system must be used in conjunction with a seat
which has the supplied routing holes for the shoulder
and anti-submarine belts. All pieces of the restraint
system must be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions.

This means that a seat is required to have the proper
routing holes for the harness as supplied by the seat
manufacturer for the shoulder and anti-submarine
straps. The shoulder straps should be mounted at 90
degrees to the axis of your spine or at most 40
degrees down from horizontal. Because the addition of
the harness system means that the occupants are
fastened upright in the vehicle, a properly padded
roll bar or roll cage is strongly encouraged to
complete the SYSTEM. The use of one without the other
may result in an unsafe environment and is not a
COMPLETE SYSTEM. Due to UV degradation and wear the
harness webbing must be replaced every five years.

4) The starting points for a 914 for Time Trial needs
to be reduced.
Currently a 2.0L 914 classed in TT11 is potentially
running against 987Ss, 986Ss, 964s including RSAs,
986s, 993s and a host of other high horse powered ,
modern suspensioned Porsches. There is no way that a
100HP 914 can be competitive with these cars at the
tracks we visit. All 4 of the tracks that we
potentially use are arguably horse power tracks...
Points for 914-4s need to be reduced at least 75
points to get them into classes where they can be
competitive.
------------------------------------------------------------

Cars shall be placed into “base classes” according to
the following schedule:
A) All 356 (push rod), 912, 914 1.7 & 1.8

C) 914 2.0, 912E, 924

F) All 4-Cam 356, ‘65-‘68 911/L 2.0, ‘69-‘71 911E 2.0
& 2.2, ‘68-‘73 911T 2.0,2.2, & 2.4.

G) 944 2.5 & 2.7, 924S 2.5, 924 Turbo 2.0, 944S 2.5

H) '67-'69 911S 2.0, '70-'71 911S 2.2, 914-6 2.0, '74
-'77 911/911S 2.7 , '74-'75 911,Carrera 2.7

I) ‘78-‘83 911SC 3.0, ‘72-‘73 911S 2.4, ‘72-‘73 911E
2.4. ‘78-‘84 928 & 928S

J) ‘84-‘89 911 Carrera 3.2, European 911 Carrera 2.7 &
3.0, 924GT, 911 ClubSport, 911 Speedster, ‘86-‘88 944
Turbo 2.5, ‘85-‘86 928S, ‘89-‘91, 944S2 3.0

K) 930 Turbo Carrera 3.0 thru ‘77, ‘87-‘95 928 (all),
‘88 944 Turbo S, ‘89 944 Turbo, ‘89-‘94 911 Carrera
2&4 (964), 968, ‘90 and later Turbo Look, ‘90 and
later 911 Speedster, ‘92 and later 911 America
Roadster

L) Boxster 986

M) 986 Boxster S, 987 Boxster, Cayman

N) 930, 911 Turbo 3.3 ‘78-’92, All Carrera ’95-‘01
(993, 996), 987 Boxster S, Cayman S

O) All Carrera ’02 and on, 996, 997

P) 911 Turbo 3.6 ’94 on (including Turbo S/Twin
Turbo), 996 GT2, 996 GT3, 997 Carrera S, 997 GT3, 997
GT2

Q) 2003+ All Cayenne models (AX only)
------------------------------------------------------------
#65 Springs and torsion Bars. Currently 30 points for
TT and 45 for AX for changing springs or torsion bars.
A car such as a 914 is assigned the same # of points
regardless if the car has only slightly upgraded
springs such as 100#s or 140#s or if the car has 250#
springs.
Just as in the tires I feel there need to be some
granularity.
I know this will be tough but maybe it needs to be
done as a % increase over stock for all cars. So for a
914 an increase to 140# springs should be ~ a 40%
increase....
so we make an increase in spring rate of 0-40% worth
10 points
40-100% would be 20 points
over 100% would be 40 points
someone can come up with a different perspective.
I just think there needs to be a different points hit
for a car with only a slightly increased spring rate
VS. a car that has big increases in spring rates.

------------------------------------------------------------

From Paul Larson

I would like to see points for different tires. Here
is the list.

street -- 0 points

RA1's, Victoraces. Pilot Sport Cups, Yoko A048 -- 50
points

Hoosiers, 710S, Avons -- 100 points

Full Race Slicks -- 150 points
____________________________________________________________________

From Demick Boyden

Last year, the 914-6 was given an exemption on wheel
sizes to allow for 6" wide wheels to be used with no
points penalty. The Rationale was that these cars
shipped with the same wheels as the early 911's which
have an allowance for six inch wheels with no penalty,
and 5.5 inch 5-bolt wheels are difficult to find. For
more info see:

http://comp.pca-ggr.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=121

I propose this year that the same exemption be given
for the 914-4.

Rationalle is that although the 914-6 shipped with
different wheels than the 914-4 (5-bolt vs. 4-bolt),
the wheel sizes were the same. So if the 914-6 is
allowed 6" wheels, the 914-4 should be allowed 6"
wheels without penalty too.

Currently, the point penalty on this is unfair to the
914-4: Base points of a stock 914-6 with 6" wheels vs.
a 914-4 2.0 with 6" wheels currently is:

914/6 with 6" wheels: 275 points
914/4 2.0 with 6" wheels: 250+50 = 300 points.

Applying this 6" wheel exemption to 914-4's along with
the 914-6's will even the playing field. :D
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:50 pm

well folks :? :? :?
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

Ken Jones
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:07 pm
Location: Pleasant Hill

Post by Ken Jones » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:29 am

Even though I chose not to be a voting DEC member, I absolutely applaud your efforts to keep the ball rolling and to accommodate the people that have concerns and suggestions.

It's a bit of a shame that it looks like once again there will be few to be as conscientious as you before the vote, with many more probably "speaking up" after the vote.

I'll spend more time on the proposals and see if there's anything I can think of to be more constructive and offer them up.

kj

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:29 pm

thanks Ken.

I really would appreciate your's and anyone else's thoughtful suggestions, concerns, comments.
Better before the vote than after. :)
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

dtfastbear
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: San Anselmo, CA
Contact:

Post by dtfastbear » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:21 am

Dan, when is the public meeting when the proposals will be discussed?

Cheers,

Dean
Faster than the average bear...

User avatar
Dan Thompson
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:18 pm
Location: Auburn, CA

Post by Dan Thompson » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:30 am

Hi Dean.

Probably early October....haven't decided on a final date yet. But most likely either the 6th or 7th
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

dtfastbear
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: San Anselmo, CA
Contact:

Post by dtfastbear » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:37 am

Excellent. I'll watch the forum and the GGR website for the final date.

Props for running a very organized feedback process, Dan.

Cheers,

Dean
Faster than the average bear...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest