I agree with you Bill

Use this forum to discuss the Points Proposal

Moderator: David Leong

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

I agree with you Bill

Post by Dan Thompson » Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:33 am

But since the adhoc Comm. doesn't seem to reply, it is hard to get a grasp on where they are coming from.
Boxsters also get the shaft on wheel sizes compared with the cars they are running against.
This is the problem when you start having dissimilar cars running against one another.
Guess we need to be at the DEC meeting. And hope for a few promised tweaks.
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 » Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:29 pm

Sorry if we've been unresponsive, Dan. The last correspondence we had, if memory serves, was me responding a couple months ago to a long list of concerns you had/have, to which you never responded. We acted on several of your suggestions, including but not limited to the "exotic fuel" restrictions that were mistakenly ommitted in last year's proposal. The one big issue that I know that you have related to the no-points wheel sizes for the Boxster remains unchanged. I know this won't make you happy. We maintain that it doesn't matter what "stock" is, but rather what is important is where the cars end up after accumulating their points - are they competitive? We arrived at the wheel chart we have proposed after a LOT of experimentation and discussion. I still believe in the wheel sizes on the chart as it stands. We tried moving the Boxster wheel sizes up, and it quickly gained competitive advantages that we didn't see as fair. We could have increased base points, but then those Boxsters that came with smaller wheels would have been outclassed in stock form (see Bill's post - we still want to protect those with bone stock cars!).

Let me know if you still have open questions (besides the Boxster wheel sizes - I think we just need to agree to disagree on that one :) ). I'd be happy to respond quickly about why we made the decisions that we did. As I mentioned in the response to Bill's post, though, the proposal is submitted and so it is now up to the DEC to decide to accept the proposal, reject the proposal or accept the proposal with changes. You should bring your suggestions to the DEC meeting.

Thanks,

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 Aug 19, 2005 9:13 am

Dean,
Since no changes have been made during the season, unless the proposal is already changed as presented to the DEC no further changes can be made. This is especially true once the text is distributed to the members for perusal before the DEC meeting.
That is why we wanted running changes during the season so folks could see what worked best.
As it stands it sounds like very limited changes have been made.
I think that is unfortunate, but I guess that is what we will get.
Hopefully the exotic fuels and additives such as Nitrous, Alcohol, and Nitromethane have been eliminated.
I also still believe that certain modifications should have a lesser or greater points value depending on the car it is on.
Points should also be broken down for spring rates.
A 914 with 140 rear springs is given the same amount of points as a 914 with 200+ pound rear springs along with larger front torsion bars.
IE: Bi and BP cars are given the same amount of points for greatly different spring rates and additional changes on the BP cars.
So you end up with a BP and BI car in the same points category. Bi car is screwed without making additional changes ($$$) to their car to remain competitive.
Same for I and P Boxsters.
A lowering spring does not give you the same competitive advantage as as a higher rate spring such as on a PSS9 system or other racing type springs...but the get the same number of points.

:(
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 Aug 19, 2005 2:11 pm

We've been through this all before, but again, all these arguments are hypothetical. Point to the cars that are completely uncompetitive with each other that are in the same class for a more constructive argument.
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 Aug 19, 2005 3:30 pm

Dean,
What needs to be separated is the driver from the car's potential.
Just because a cars points total puts in a certain class, it may be driven very well or very poorly and look good on paper but in actuality be very uncompetitive if the reverse were true.
I will come up with some examples.
Larry and Terrys cars are being driven very well to their potential where as other cars with as much or more potential are not being driven as well but it still looks good on paper.
More to follow.
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 Aug 19, 2005 5:46 pm

Hey Dan,

We definitely agree on that point! :)

I just hope that finding a few examples of cars that are in the same class that aren't perfectly matched isn't the grounds for saying the proposal is unworkable, because there are many, many, many examples of that in the current rules. This is one of the main reasons that we undertook this exercise. We think this is a better base to build off of, so let's make sure that we evaluate the system against the current rules, not against an imagined perfect system that doesn't exist.

See you at the DEC meeting if not before.

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 Aug 19, 2005 6:16 pm

Dean,
I guess we will never agree totally on this proposal as it now stands.
I am disappointed that adjustments were not made real time during the season as we had discussed at last years DEC.

Are there more cars per class...yes

Does this lead to more competition...unknown

Does this proposal lump cars together that do not belong together...yes

How will a well driven 914/2.0L compete with a well driven 993..impossible
At an AX maybe, on the big track...no way

At this point I feel the proposal is an attempt to make an across the board PAX that we will all have to live with.

Do I think that a points system can work...yes
Is this the one that will work over time...not yet

Of course these are my opinions, and are not proven with hard data.
And as of yet, I do not think there is enough data to support your proposal either.

There are a lot of cars classed that have never and probably never will be AXed or TTed.

Personally after seeing what the timed runs have looked like at the last two Timetrials, I think it is time to evaluate whether we want to continue competition in that venue at all. Maybe it is time to turn our series into a DE series.

Maybe these proposals should be tweaked so they will be compatible our AX series.

In their current form I think they fit AX better than they do TT.

See you at the DEC.
Dan Thompson
GGR DE/TT/CR Racecontrol

User avatar
jrdavid68
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Castro Valley

Post by jrdavid68 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:54 am

As a "victim" under the current system, I welcome the new points system. Under the current rules, our car is now in LP because we have an early Turbo tail. If we had a period correct tail, we would still be in LI. Under the new rules we, and most of the LI'ers, end up in TT10.

Because of the tail, our competition are Dean and Laura and their very competitive Euro Carrera. So, when you separate the driver from the car's potential, we would still need to spend a bunch of money to get the cars equal. In the new points system, Dean and Laura are in TT08.

New points system = more competition? Well, for us it would. We would at least be in a class where, while we won't be at the top due to our current driving skills, we would have some in our class running competitive times with us.
Ross Johnson
'86 Iris Blue 911

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

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:21 pm

Ross,
Under our current system all you would have to do is to submit a rules change proposal concerning your spoiler issues.
If you check the competition most all of the current Li cars are running Carrera/turbo tails.
If the rules are read very precisely, all of the Li cars running tails are really LP cars.
Tails/spoilers are not allowed in Improved unless it is a car such as a 964, 993,996,986,951,968 that every car in the series had a factory installed tail. Not just a factory option.
You should be protesting the cars in Li that have tails and see what the competition dircetor and the DEC have to say about it.

At least that is what I would do. Just a suggestion.

Ross also check out the cars and the modifications that are on them you will be running against in the points system, not just the drivers.
Then imagine any of those cars being well driven and matched against your car. I think your tail issues will pale in comparison.
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 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:34 pm

I did a quick check of TT10. You will be competing against will driven Boxsters, RS Americas and 993s not to mention a bunch of other various cars. I think your tail is the least of your concerns. For you and the others in Li.

Again this is just my opinion. There are others like yourself that are in favor of the points system.
Do yourself a favor and look at the entire system, not just a particular modification or car type.
I agree that our current system has some inequities but I think there are also some glaring inequities in the points system.

Not many folks like to protest another competitor but it is the only way to keep any system fair and equitable.
Even in the points system protests will be needed to keep everyone honest and above board.
Ross,
What does a 550 point car look like? At least under our current system you can walk up to an Li car and pretty much know if it is a legal car or not.
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 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:11 pm

Dan, the problem with your argument of just submitting a rule change if a single modification puts you into the next higher class under the current system is that eventually, when everyone does this for their "one" mod, you'll end up with only ONE classification level - Street Modified. Ross has just a tail that puts him in Lp, so why not make any tail legal in Improved? Well lasts year, the Boxsters and 993's complained that their aftermarket springs put them in Production, so now springs are allowed in Improved. Doug and Dana Ambrisko are in Production because of just a racing seat, so let's allow racing seats in Improved. After all those things are legal in Improved, then the only thing that will put our car in Production is larger torsion bars, and I should really be able to argue that if stiffer springs are allowed in Improved, then stiffer torsion bars should be, too... Well, there goes the argument that you've made on other people's behalf that folks have to spend $$ to stay competitive if the rules change.

Under the current system, our car should not be competitive in Lp, Ross (and Dan). We don't have exhaust mods, we don't have a chip, we don't have a lightened flywheel and we don't have aftermarket swaybars. If someone (like Mike Forrest) showed up with a proper Lp car, he'd smoke us off the track and into the weeds. Talk about having to spend $$ to make a competitive car - I don't have the thousands of dollars to make a competitive car in the current system, so I have no choice but to voice my support for the points system.

Dan, borrow a 993 on street tires, Ross will loan me his Carrera on Hoosiers and let's race for pinks at Thunderhill... :)

Dean
Faster than the average bear...

User avatar
jrdavid68
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:26 am
Location: Castro Valley

Post by jrdavid68 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:58 pm

dtfastbear wrote:Dan, borrow a 993 on street tires, Ross will loan me his Carrera on Hoosiers and let's race for pinks at Thunderhill... :)

Dean
If Dean wins, do I get the 993? Hmm...
Ross Johnson
'86 Iris Blue 911

eostly
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:10 pm
Contact:

Post by eostly » Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:12 pm

In priciple, I don't have a problem with restructuring the class structure system to allow for different models competing with each other and reducing the number of classes. It is fun to have the different models competing together and I'm not a big fan of classes with only 1 or 2 cars. It has been this way for years in the POC and it works well.

However, my current concern is the breakdown of newer vs older cars and how they are combined with their baseline points. With my FM class 914-6, I'm in class TT7. This class has older 911, 914-6, and 944 models but also includes 993 Turbo, 996 C2, 993 C4S and 996 C4S. I appreciate that the new cars will have fewer mods allowed to remain in TT7 but even as stock they are very fast. I instructed a first time student in a stock 996 C2 with full street tires and no suspension tuning (ie: lots of understeer) and he turned a 2:14 at THill running CCW. Even if he made no component changes and simply changed the suspension setup to clean up the understeer, put on Toyo or Kumho tires, and improved his driving, this car was easily into the 2:11s if not better. This is only an example of a 996. For a comparison, at the last event, rather hot that it was, I was running 2:13 (which was a second or two slower than I normally run).

If I'm reading the above posts, the class structure is fairly well defined. I hope this isn't the case. While I'm not against mixing newer and older cars, I'm not sure it is reasonable that an inexperienced driver simply arrives with a newer car and they are right away at the fast end of their class. I don't want them to be discouraged when they start out, but this seems to be a bit much. I also understand that the newer cars offer significant performance improvement vs the older cars, but I'd like to see a better grouping of them based on what an experienced driver would do in the car.

Thanks,

Erik Ostly

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

Post by Dan Thompson » Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:40 pm

Well said Eric.

Dean, Ross's argument was he had the wrong type of tail to stay in Li.
The reality of it all is that every car in Li that is running any kind of tail is missclassed and belongs in LP with our current rules structure.
If no one protests including the competitors in that class, the competittion director or the TT chair, nothing will be done. Yes the majority of them have Carrera tails but that doesn't make it legal.
By the way I'll take Bill Winklers RSA with sticky tires and you can have Ross's car with stickies :)

So in the points system I put on a Carrera tail and some one else puts on a 3.8 cup tail with the extensions and higher cross section...still 5 points?
Some one puts on 140# springs for 30 points and I put on 600# springs for 30 points....talk about spending money to stay up with your competitors!
Both sytems have their faults. We are going to change one problem for another?

:o

Dean, on another note...are you the only Adhoc Comm member that wants to discuss this stuff?
Are you going to be the sole representative at the DEC meeting for the Adhoc Comm?

If I haven't said it before, let me say I think that the points proposal as it currently stands would probably work fairly well for AX.
But I still think it comes up short for the TT series.
Others have told me the same.
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 » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:23 am

Dan,

What language, specifically, are you referring to in the current rules that makes all the cars in Li with a wing illegal in Improved? I don't see anything that excludes wings offered as optional equipment on any models in Improved. As many faults as the current system has, I don't think this is one of them.

I'll take a stock 86 Carrera with 9" rear wheels (I have 25 points to play with) against an RSA, on the autocross course on the track. When shall we line 'em up?

It's probably not worth arguing over again and again, because you certainly aren't going to change your point of view and I've got mine pretty solidified, too, but any SINGLE modification can be argued by itself and might not seem reasonable, but the truth of the matter is that this is not how our members build their cars. With ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a car with 600# springs *might* be faster than one with lighter springs. However, folks don't put full race springs on otherwise streetable cars, and folks with race cars tend not to put on soft springs. So, the car with the 600# springs is very, very likely to have many other mods on it and end up in a very different class than the car with the 140# springs. If you think putting 600# springs on your boxster is going to be the hot setup that allows you to dominate the competition who all show up with more balanced cars, go for it.

You can argue these hypothetical, theoretical arguments all day long, Dan, and I'm just totally worn down trying to point out to you that they just aren't practical or realistic. So, have at it.

I take a different approach. I look at the cars that show up at our events and I look where they end up when classified. I'm very happy with the competition the way it has played out in the parallel results. Sure there are one or two cars that might be slightly out of place, but how is that different from the results under the current system? Are we trading one set of problems for a different set? Yes! What's wrong with that? Do you only replace problematic systems with perfect ones? If you think so, then I guess you didn't vote for the current rules 10 years ago (which you admitted has many faults) and I'm afraid you're stuck with the current rules forever. There is no perfect classification system!!

For every theoretical argument that you want to make, I'll remind you that if I show up to an autocross with my STREET WHEELS AND TIRES, I end up in Km under the current rules. If you think that is less ridiculous than any of the issues you've pointed out with the proposed system, well, then we just can't see eye to eye on this.

To answer your last point, I seem to have a little more free time than the other Ad-Hoc members right now (I'm on vacation!) There will be others at the DEC meeting, but I really don't think we're going to sit and argue mod by mod like we made the mistake of doing last year. Like I said, the *real* argument is more fundamental - do you believe that the points system results in better competition across the board and is more competition something that we want to achieve? Maybe it isn't - maybe we are headed for throwing out TT for DE. That's worth debating.

But, I think the DEC is the WRONG place to make all of your arguments about whether springs should devided into 2 gradations or whether boxsters should be allowed 8 inch instead of 6inch wheels. But, it is an open meeting, so say whatever you'd like.

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 » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:28 pm

Dean,
I can see you have had enough so I will relent for now.
I am not the only one with these questions, just the only one willing to voice them.
As I said I think the system may be pretty close for AX but not for TT.
I say this due to the cars that are grouped together.
Racing for Pinks is not going to solve the problem.

As far as wings in Li cars. Check our current rules. If it doesn't say you can do it...you can't.
No where in the rules for improved cars does it say that you can have an aftermarket or factory option wing.
In Production wings are specifically spelled out as being a legal modification.
Therefore under our current rules, wings are not allowed on cars such as '84-89 911s or any other specific car running in improved other than cars that specifically came with the automatic wings, such as Boxsters, 996s etc.
Bottom line is that all the cars in Li, Ki etc that are running wings (factory or not) are classed incorrectly.

On the last point...what venue do you think is proper to discuss specific modifications and their point values? If not here, and not at the DEC then where?

See you at TH in a few weeks?
:)
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 » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:06 pm

Hey Dan,

Absolutely will be at Thunderhill!!

Regarding the current rules, even though the basis of the current rules is that "you can't do it unless it is specified", I don't believe that optional equipment is excluded. I've always, and I imagine others have too, assumed that optional equipment IS legal. I don't know that much about new porsches and what's optional equipment versus original since I've never bought one new. But, I think that if asked for a ruling on this by the DEC or the Competition Director, (like the supreme court for rules?) they would say that optional equipment is legal.

If you look closely at the definition of a "stock car", it doesn't exclude optional equipment. It certainly doesn't define a stock car as one with no factory options. I think this would be a tortured interpretation to say that no optional equipment is allowed. Do you disagree?

Yeah, we can debate the individual mods here, or at the meeting, but I'm not sure what outcome either of us would hope for. The ad-hoc committee believes the wheel chart is fine as proposed, and you have a couple changes you'd like to see. So what's the result likely to be after heated discussion at the DEC meeting? We agree to disagree? :)

Anyway, as always, still friends and no malice intended or taken. Just pushing hard for my point of view...

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 » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:08 pm

Dean, below is an excerpt from the beginning of the current rules section with regard to wings. I think it is a logical interpretation with respect to Li or Ki cars as well.

"The '75 911 Carrera and the 911 Weissach (SC) may not time trial in the Stock or Improved Categories (due to the rear wing) unless they elect to run against the stock or improved 911 3.2 Carrera, which they may do, or they remove the wing and substitute a standard engine cover."

The last 2 years when I was Comp director I would have interpreted the rule as I have stated earlier and this is the section I would have used to make that ruling. LI,KI no wings.
Take a Ki 911 with a wing and it runs against Carrera with no wing as I read this section.

Again not my call anymore but that would have been my interpretation and years ago when I had my first Carrera that is the way the rules were used.
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 » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:50 am

Ok, but what about "similar equipment in class"? The turbo-look Carrera is part of L. The Weissach car is specifically called out to NOT be part of K, but not so the turbo look in L. I thought this is why wings have always been allowed in L(i) but not in K(i)...

If it is indeed the case that one does get bumped straight to Production in L for showing up with a car the way that most of them were delivered from the factory, we've once again stumbled on a ridiculous example of stock cars being completely uncompetitive because of one small issue under the current rules. The points system would tag on 5 or 10 points for this equipment. Furthermore, under the current rules, this bumps them into a category where a rollbar is now required. If we're trying to find ways for the GGR series to be "competitive" in the DE/track day market, this sure as heck is a good way to discourage people from running with GGR.

Again, I don't believe that the original assertion is true - that wings aren't allowed in L or Li - but if that is true, it is another great example of why the current rule system is so fundamentally flawed and doesn't follow reason or logic.

Dean
Faster than the average bear...

Ken Mack
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:53 pm
Location: Almaden Valley

Rules

Post by Ken Mack » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:11 pm

Hey guys allow me to throw in my two cents worth on the rule interpretations. Take a good close look at our rule book under 4.0(d)(e) and 4.1(ee) This may help clear this up.
Ken...
PCA member since 1970 (SPAF) Silver Porsches are FASTEST

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests