GGR/Zone 7 rules proposals, here is what I have received, is yours here |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
GGR/Zone 7 rules proposals, here is what I have received, is yours here |
DanT |
Jul 9 2007, 06:10 PM
Post
#1
|
Going back to the Dark Side! Group: Members Posts: 4,300 Joined: 4-October 04 From: Auburn, CA Member No.: 2,880 Region Association: None |
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. 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. |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 05:26 PM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |