2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

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

Moderators: David Leong, Andrew Forrest

Andrew Forrest
Site Admin
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:27 pm

2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Andrew Forrest » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:52 pm

Prior to the current points-based car classification system ("new") presently in use in GGR there was a two-dimensional classification system ("classic") based on car model on one dimension and degree of modification on the other. While no classification system is perfect the classic system has the virtues of isolating the impact of rule changes (in "new", tire point changes require everyone to review their class for example.), of making identification of competitors easier (not everyone is potentially a competitor), and avoids the inherent difficulties of modeling modifications as linear improvements whose value is the same in all contexts.

In addition, some feel competition has suffered in Time Trial because of the adoption of "new". Accordingly, on behalf of a number of members I am acting as the messenger to provide this proposal.

For those familiar with classic, the following changes have been made to bring it up to date:
1. class N added 987 Boxster, Cayman
2. class O added 987 Boxster S, Cayman S
3. class S added 996 Turbo
4. created new class P = 996 GT3, 997 GT3 GT3 RS + 997 Turbo
5. created new class Q = 996 + 997 GT2
6. added BSR, BSX
7. added NASA's 944 Spec, Cup, Super Cup
8. removed "prodified"
9. changed modified to PCA Club Racing classes

Please review the attached files for the details of the proposal.

Please disregard formatting issues but make constructive suggestions or ask questions if something isn't clear.
Attachments
2009_GGR_Rules_Appndx_B_r1.pdf
List of Classes
(73.73 KiB) Downloaded 177 times
2009_GGR_Rules_Appndx_A_r1.pdf
Tire and Wheel Sizes
(85.96 KiB) Downloaded 168 times
2009_GGR_Rules_Chapt_4-r1.pdf
Detailed classification rules.
(80.6 KiB) Downloaded 173 times
Andrew Forrest
2009-2015 GGR PCA Club Race Registrar GGRRaceReg@gmail.com
2015 GGR Vice President GGRVicePresident@gmail.com
2010-2014 GGR Webmaster webmaster@pca-ggr.org
Past GGR Driver's Ed/Time Trial Chair (2006 - 2008)

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:21 am

Andrew its a good start

Tire sizes and wheels sizes have much to be filled out.... what wheels and tires sizes allowed for each catorgory for the new cars?

If you look at the current tire market for tires available you'll see what I mean ... Also cars like the Cayman and Boxster you'll have to pay attention to aspect ratios .. they are odd sizes especially in the stock catorgory..


The tire and wheel part of the rules is way different than when the rules you guys wish to use was used.. It used to be simpler we only had 15 inch and 16 inch wheels and a small selection of tire sizes.. Now we 15,16,17,18,19,20 inch wheel sizes as common and multiply that out with all the tires sizes and wow ..

More later ..

Larry
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:37 am

I see a pretty big issue with Street Modified with wheels and tires as well

the spirit of the class was to allow any Size DOTR Compound tire and wheel to be used against Hoosier and Goodyear Cantelever Race tires ... stock wheels back then was at the widest 9 inches wide.. so to use race tires the Turbos and Turbo looks were the only ones allowed 10 inch wide rear wheels with Race tires. 911's were allowed 9 inch and early 911 and 914's were allowed 8 and 7 inch rims with race tires. Now with the newer 911's having up to 12 inch wide rear rims they could go to 13 inch wide wheels and race tires..and no DOT r compund tire would be competitive at that point.. It still boils down to the fact the rules need a major adjustment for the current tire market,,
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:56 am

I just looked up the Current stock Boxster wheel sizes available from Porsche for a new car ..
there are 9 different wheel styles available
basically they are in 6 different diameter and width sets.. ranging from 6.5 x 17 fronts to 8.5 x19 fronts, rears range from 8.0x17 to 11.5x 19

So per your rule proposal in the stock and Improved classes a Boxster with 255-40-17 rear tires on a 8.0 x 17 rim would compete with a car with 11.5 x 19 rims and a 305-30-19 tire...Just an example of what would happen .. this applies as well to the 911 side of new cars. The only newer cars nowadays with standard sizes is the Turbo's and GT3 and GT2 cars .. Porsche for the last ten years have all had this option choices for rims..
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

911st
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by 911st » Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:35 pm

Are we going back to the old system?

Not to sure about the tire chart dealing with tires for the Carrera and SC.

Looking at the tire chart for the 3.2 Carrera it alows, up to 7&8 wide rims, up to 225/245 width tires, and down to a 50 aspect ratio.

A 245/50/16 would be to tall for a 911. We would run a 245/45/16.

If this refers to a 245/50/15 this is a very non standard tire with only 3 posabilities on Tire Rack and 2 are DOT slicks.

A 225/45/16 has no gearing advantage over a 225/50/15 and weighs more.

Thus, aspect ratio may need to be changed to 45/50 for 16/15 or something.

Also looks like the SC can only run 16" (no 15's) rims and can go up to a 9" rear but the Carrera only gets a 8".

If the Speedster gets to run 7&9's, should a Turbo Look Carrera get the same chance?

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Keith

911st
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by 911st » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:00 pm

This is more personal opinion but Improved alows upgraded sway bars.

I am not a big fan of upgrading sways with out having done springs/torsion bars first from a safety point of view. This gives one confidence when cornering only to pitch under braking excessively on the track.

Sway bars can cost as much or more than springs so it is not much about cost savings.

If this could give the option of sways -or- torsion bars/springs, but not both, it might be in improvement.

911st
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:38 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by 911st » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:19 pm

I ran under the classic rules and this year under the new.

After thinking about it, I like the new index system much, much better.

Under the old system I used to be the only one in my class in my old car. It is nice to be able to put the car into almost any class where there are others to compete against.

Also, under the old rules, make one wrong improvement and you get bumped a class and will be uncompetitive or have to spend a bunch on other mods that you really do not want or cost a bunch.

One example -- I am really too tall for my SR car. I would like to go to Recaro shell type seats for more head room and safety on the track. My suspension, brakes, body and motor are all stock. Under the "classic" rules, this will put against gutted cars w fiber bumpers, race slicks, cams...

Thank you for any consideration but I do not think this is a step forward.
:wink:

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Sat Nov 01, 2008 11:16 am

you hit two key points of why the change was made... But there are still some who wish to only compete with their model of car.. But with Porsche there are so many models and the amount of cars built per model would make for many classes. Few people would have anyone to actually compete agianst. Currently I am the only RSA Owner Autocrossing so I would be a class winner everytime. The Old Recipe system worked very well till the amount of car models and changes per year changed. Everyone ran the same setup because that is what we did. Now everyone has a different idea and setup.
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Claude Leglise
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Claude Leglise » Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:41 am

Larry Sharp explained above why the rules were adopted in the first place. There was rational thought applied to the change at the time. Specifically, it was clear that the previous classification system had outlived its usefulness in light of the proliferation of models.

Rather than the nostalgic notion of "reverting back to the old system", we ought to have a conversation about whether the current system is broken in a fundamental way, or not. At the detail level, there are obvious needs for tweaks in the number of points allocated for this or that modification. Witness the healthy debate going on for 2009 rule changes to see that the system is working well for this purpose -- as was intended in the first place.

However, do we have a problem with the system itself? I believe that before we invest the time in devising new rules again, and all the TT participants invest the time and money to comply with the then new rules, someone should make a cogent argument about what is broken in the current classification system, and why a new system would be able to address the issues. Until we have some sort of consensus on that, I do not think this proposal is very constructive.

Claude

User avatar
Roger Haskin
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:34 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Roger Haskin » Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:46 pm

Claude,

Excellent point. Much thought was given to the new rules, in spite of which there appears to be significant dissatisfaction with them. Moving precipitately to radically different rules will most likely provoke even more dissatisfaction as their own problems are discovered.

I should probably say up front that, overall, I like the new system better than the old. I only ran two years under the old rules, but even with that limited experience could see the problems with proliferation of classes and the fact that trivial, straightforward "home mechanic" mods could put you into a radically higher class. Nevertheless, the new rules have their problems too. Let me suggest a few:
  • People still perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the rules disadvantage their particular kind of car, whatever it is. 914 drivers cite their inferior power-to-weight, 911 drivers their higher CG and poorer handling, etc. I think this is really most of what is behind the desire to be in classes with similar cars.
  • There are still too many classes, or more specifically, too few cars in each class. I think Showroom Stock was a big mistake from this standpoint. In AX, the SS and Fun classes are sucking the life out of the points classes. Even disregarding this, do we really need 15 AX classes and 22 TT classes? With 30 year old 911 Targas beating brand new GT-3's on a regular basis (in AX anyway) surely driving has more to do with time than whether your car has a strut brace or adjustable sway bar.
  • The modification rules are too complicated and poorly understood, and some are superfluous. Do we need a rule penalizing gas tanks smaller than 15 gallons for AX? Sure the empty tank weighs a little less, but what about the same car with a 100-pound driver vs. a 250-pound driver? No one worries about that. The suspension rules are inscrutable. M030 costs 20 points but (apparently) not M491. The same modification (RSR suspension) falls under both non-stock springs and torsion bars replaced with coil springs. Ingenious or confusing?
Nevertheless, it's probably easier to fix the problems in the current system than start from scratch (or from the old system which as has been pointed out is obsolete). Some suggestions, to get discussion started:

1. Cut the number of classes in half. If you find yourself at the bottom of your points class and think that makes you uncompetitive, either spend some money on go-fast goodies, improve your driving, or start that diet you've been putting off.
2. Eliminate the showroom stock classes. The point system already puts you in the appropriate class in which you're presumably competitive.
3. Radically curtail the fun class. It should be limited to non-Porsche cars (which people should probably also be discouraged from running on a regular basis, sorry Joe) and to an individual's rookie season when they are just getting started.
4. More thinking on the points. With fewer classes maybe some of the more fine-grain rules (say the 5-point ones) could be dispensed with.
5. Change the way modification points are computed. Base points are assigned on the basis of power-to-weight (as per Appendix A). Mod points that affect power-to-weight should be likewise scaled to the stock weight of the base car. A particular engine modification results in the same absolute horsepower regardless of whether it's done to a 914 or 911. If it counts as 100 points for a 914 (stock weight, say, 2100 pounds) the same mod to a 911T should count as 87 points (100pts * 2400lbs/2100lbs). This should go a long way towards addressing the perceived inequities of the points system to different types of cars (or at least start a whole new and more interesting thread of discussion).
Roger Haskin

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:52 pm

The classes point breaks were meant to be adjusted to have good size classes..the lower ones and higher ones can be increased to say a 75 point class spread to included cars the ones with say many cars such as AX11 can be reduced to a 25 point spread. That way it keeps the classes more competitive..I have always said that our rules will never be perfect but they do have to advantage of being easier to change without a overhaul by adjusting mod points or base points for each case found to be not correct. But it is up to the members participating to help make the rules better thru rule changes. The Showroom stock class is a great place for newer members who bring a stock car in and want to race against other stock cars.
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
Roger Haskin
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:34 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Roger Haskin » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:22 am

Larry,

You are right that the lower classes (roughly AX10 and below) seem well populated (as many as 10 cars in each). I think this is the number of cars we should be shooting for in all classes. This would indicate leaving the lower classes alone and expanding the points ranges of the higher classes. The result would still be fewer classes with more cars in each.

Regarding showroom stock, if it encourages new members then it's a good thing. However, if the goal of SS is to encourage new members, shouldn't it be limited to people of limited (say one or two years) experience? By then they should be ready to run in the points classes. Does it serve the purpose to let people of many years experience rule in what should be rookie classes?
Roger Haskin

User avatar
Claude Leglise
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:27 pm
Contact:

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Claude Leglise » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:32 am

I suggest it would be useful to write down what the classification system is supposed to accomplish, at a conceptual level rather than in the details. I just re-read the philosophy page and it does part of that, but my take is that we could do better. For instance, here is a rough concept:

"The Point Classification system is designed to:
1/ Encourage participation in competitive events by the maximum possible number of PCA members
2/ Create classes each with enough participants to allow for meaningful competition
3/ Accommodate the broad range of Porsche models and modifications
4/ Promote safety
5/ Place fun and camaraderie ahead of technicalities"

It would take some real work to get to the right wording, but the idea remains that if we had a high level set of goals like this, it would provide a filter to look at the rules and points. It is quite easy to get caught up in the debates about wheels width, compound rating and torsion bar diameter, while forgetting that this is supposed to be fun. In the end, having rules that the most people think are good enough should be the goal. Getting members to the track and having fun is the ultimate test of whether the rules are good or not.

Claude

User avatar
itacud
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: norcal

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by itacud » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:23 pm

I've been "developing" the car with the old (new) rules in mind. I'd hate to throw away all those wasted hours at work, spent staring at the modifications rules page, should the rule structure completely change for '09! :D

Oh, not to mention the money already spent... :cry:
--
Image

User avatar
PAUL LARSON
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: SAN CARLOS
Contact:

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by PAUL LARSON » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:08 pm

It is amazing to think about rules. Take a look at the link below
and schroll to the last pages. There are alot of people that get together
and finalize the rules.

http://www.pca-ggr.org/files/pdf/2007rules.pdf

I am just glad that they are doing this. We should just be
glad that the rules are so talked over. Sure, I would like some
changes but they may be self defeating. I am glad
that Dan and his friends are working on improving
the existing rules. I think that this is all we can ask.
Paul

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:39 pm

In my 20 years with PCA Zone 7, I have never seen anyone who is involved with the rules process try to make them worst than what they started with ..The common goal has always been to improve them , We cant improve them unless we have feed back from all members. I thank one and all who participate with the process..
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

User avatar
itacud
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 pm
Location: norcal

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by itacud » Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:46 am

We're all very grateful for the efforts taken by all of the PCA volunteers to create a system by which we can all enjoy competing against each other for fun. Though we must keep the fun in mind at all times, with all such competitions, time, energy, and money are expended by the organizers and by the participants. Looking forward to next year, it would be very helpful to know if the classification and modification system will remain in it's current form, with ammendments made according to many of the fairly logical proposals made, or if the system will be changed completely. Just as in any other form of competition, the effort spent in preparation would be better directed should the rules be known.
--
Image

Andrew Forrest
Site Admin
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:27 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Andrew Forrest » Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:32 pm

In response to Claude's first post in this thread http://comp.pca-ggr.org/phpbb3/viewtopi ... =471#p2953

As the outgoing TT Chair, I have often been urged in the past few years to make the change this proposal suggests. While I am not affected by the proposal personally (I run in a special class either way), I feel it is my duty to ensure that the proposal gets a fair hearing at the upcoming DEC meeting. If it is then defeated, that will be definitive. Accordingly, I offer some advocacy for the proposal in response to Claude's posting cited above.

I don't think it was clear that the previous classification system had outlived its usefulness, instead, its limitations were becoming a bigger irritant to some and its advantages were being forgotten. This is the nature of any solution to a situation which has only imperfect solutions.

The conversation as to whether the new system is broken in a fundamental way has been going on since before its adoption and is continuing today. Another way to interpret the "healthy debate going on for the 2009 rules changes [with respect to points values]" is that nobody can agree on a suitable value for model X or modification Y. In fact, this is the fundamental weakness with the points-based system -- modification Y is allowed only a single points value and that value must represent the modification's actual performance value for all cars from the most basic to the most zoomy and regardless of what other modifications may be working in concert with, or even against(!), it. That's ok though, any model necessarily simplifies the reality it describes, the only issue is, does it remain useful?

The fact that the points-based system is adjustable seduces one into believing it can be made fair when in fact it can't be. If it isn't fair then it's our own fault for not choosing points values wisely. The fact that the old system is somewhat arbitrary is actually an advantage. Too much choice is paralyzing.

The old system avoids this fundamental problem of the points-based system. It also isolates the impact of classification rules changes. With the points-based system a participant may have to purchase new class designation letters each year (because the value of a modification changes, their tires are valued differently, or even the thresholds for the class are moved). This complicates class stability over time greatly. One cannot steadily progress in class "Li" say for a number of years measuring oneself against the competitors and the recordbook.

The old system makes it much easier to determine who one's competitors are (admittedly because there may be fewer of them) but a much narrower knowledge of car models and modifications is required to verify class membership.

It's a myth that new models of Porsche automatically mean new and separate classes in the old system for everyone. New models may find (and have found) homes in existing classes in the old system if their basic power-to-weight ratios and innate handling capabilities are thought to be competitive.

In addition, there is the thought being entertained that the adoption of the new points-based system contributed to a decline in interest in Time Trialing. If it has (and I don't believe it has been a major factor) then surely that deserves consideration too.

Reverting is a recurring theme among veteran members.

Finally, I think consensus is a noble but far too high a bar for the adoption of a classification system -- certainly there wasn't consensus when the points-based system was adopted.
Andrew Forrest
2009-2015 GGR PCA Club Race Registrar GGRRaceReg@gmail.com
2015 GGR Vice President GGRVicePresident@gmail.com
2010-2014 GGR Webmaster webmaster@pca-ggr.org
Past GGR Driver's Ed/Time Trial Chair (2006 - 2008)

RPM
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 12:49 pm

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by RPM » Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:25 pm

In an e-mail from Andrew Forrest via the GGR announce system, which I believe is supposed to be used only for official communications from GGR, the outgoing DE/TT chair is polling members.

Andrew writes,
"What's missing from the discussion is a broad understanding of what the membership at large want. With that in mind, could you please reply to this email and indicate whether you want to

Stay with the current points-based car classification system; or,

Revert to the old (i.e. model X modification menu) car classification system"

I would like to see the complete results of the poll posted here, although as Andrew says, "Note: the results (if any) of this poll may not be binding."

Thanks,
Robert Murillo FWIW, I voted to keep the current poins system.

Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp)
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 7:49 am
Location: Livermore Ca

Re: 2009 Proposal: Revert Classification System

Post by Zone7Rep(Larry Sharp) » Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:12 pm

I have yet to see a rules change proposal for the past set of rules, that has been brought up to date with all the details needed to address its short comings. I vote to stay with the current rules
1993 RS America
Grand Prix White
Car #6

1974 911 Carrera (resides in Australia)
Light Yellow

1974 914-6 GT (resides in San Luis obispo)

1987 944 turbo (location unknown)

1979 911SC(Hummers have it)

1972 911T (location unknown)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest