Planet 9

mooty · #81 06-16-2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by TahoeDriver

Wow, so many opinions. Here is mine...

Safety, safety, safety. Roll cage, fuel cell, fire system, kill switch, brakes, etc. Spend money on that, leave everything else alone. There are a million things one can do to make the car "better" for this or that, faster certainly, but those things just mean spending more money. If all the cars are the same, you have yourself a spec class. Who cares if the lap time is 4/100ths slower if the racing is good?!

The KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.

brilliant.
i certainly hope that this spec class included full cage and fire suppression system.

CaymanSpec Racing · #82 06-17-2009, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by mooty

brilliant.
i certainly hope that this spec class included full cage and fire suppression system.

Mooty,

Any class can include a full cage and fire suppression system. Just put it in the car, required or not. There is not an organization out there that will not allow a cage and bottle. Remember, CaymanSpec is a class (CSR), not a series, and will run within clubs.

You know that safety regulations are not class specific and are governed by the sanctioning body or club (PCA, POC, NASA, TCRA, etc.) through the GCRs. If each class had their own safety rules it would be a mess. The CaymanSpec Racing (CSR) class is no different than R5, GTS4, BSR, etc. and will be governed by the rules of the club. Yes, some class rules make mention of safety (GSR, BSR), but the sections are redundant and superseded by the GCRs anyway (as they should be).

I am not sure why this continues to come up. We expect the comments from some, but many of you have been around club racing long enough to know this is how it works (should work). We started down the path of trying to include an all inclusive safety spec as part of the class rules and it just made no sense.

Cheers,

RingSport · #83 06-17-2009, 09:04 AM

I'm sure it keeps coming up because it is a big concern for most. One thing to also consider while the GCR covers the requirements, some safety equipment needs to be car specific. Especially cages. For those who have been around racing for while we know that there are large variations in cage design and quality. While wall thickness and pickpoints may be madated I've found it best to have a very reputable builder put in a cage and have the scrutineers bless it as an example. I did this back in the 90s with two cars that had not prevously had cages for different sanctioning bodies. The Viper being a targa of sorts was especially challenging and had to be modified a few times until the safety, ease of installation and comfort balance was right. The Cayman is more straight forward and obviously there are quite a few running around with cages now. I know with the Elise Hypersport's design was blessed by the scca and basically everyone sent their car there because of the little intricacies involved with extracting what came as OE. Have you had any feedback by any sanctioning bodies as to acceptance?

TahoeDriver · #84 06-17-2009, 09:47 AM

Perhaps I need to clarify what I meant. It is a given that safety equipment be part of a race car, we all know that. What I mean is that we should limit the spending on the cars mostly to the safety equipment. There are other things, like suspension, that if you don't beef it up it will not take the abuse and you will be repairing it every outing, but other than that, leave the car alone. If you start spending on aerodynamics or increased horsepower for example, you force everyone to spend on that and it is not necessary. Fun and cool maybe, but not necessary for good racing.

Originally Posted by TahoeDriver

Wow, so many opinions. Here is mine...

Safety, safety, safety. Roll cage, fuel cell, fire system, kill switch, brakes, etc. Spend money on that, leave everything else alone. There are a million things one can do to make the car "better" for this or that, faster certainly, but those things just mean spending more money. If all the cars are the same, you have yourself a spec class. Who cares if the lap time is 4/100ths slower if the racing is good?!

The KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid.

CaymanSpec Racing · #85 06-17-2009, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by RingSport

I'm sure it keeps coming up because it is a big concern for most. One thing to also consider while the GCR covers the requirements, some safety equipment needs to be car specific. Especially cages. For those who have been around racing for while we know that there are large variations in cage design and quality. While wall thickness and pickpoints may be madated I've found it best to have a very reputable builder put in a cage and have the scrutineers bless it as an example. I did this back in the 90s with two cars that had not prevously had cages for different sanctioning bodies. The Viper being a targa of sorts was especially challenging and had to be modified a few times until the safety, ease of installation and comfort balance was right. The Cayman is more straight forward and obviously there are quite a few running around with cages now. I know with the Elise Hypersport's design was blessed by the scca and basically everyone sent their car there because of the little intricacies involved with extracting what came as OE. Have you had any feedback by any sanctioning bodies as to acceptance?

We completely agree that safety is the most critical item. So much so that we do not feel we are properly qualified to make the determination as to what is required. We also agree that anyone considering building a car seek out the most knowledgeable, qualified cage builder who will take the time to understand the chassis-specific requirements. Understanding that the minimum standard is that set by the organizer or club.

Personally, my car will have a top-of the line cage installed, independent of POC, PCA, etc requirements. We just do not think that this is scope of defining a race class.

Regarding organization acceptance - We have strong interest and support from the Porsche Owners Club (POC). Our proposed class regulations will be submitted to the Comp Committee early next month for consideration as part of the annual rules revision process.

Cheers,

CaymanSpec Racing · #86 06-17-2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by TahoeDriver

Perhaps I need to clarify what I meant. It is a given that safety equipment be part of a race car, we all know that. What I mean is that we should limit the spending on the cars mostly to the safety equipment. There are other things, like suspension, that if you don't beef it up it will not take the abuse and you will be repairing it every outing, but other than that, leave the car alone. If you start spending on aerodynamics or increased horsepower for example, you force everyone to spend on that and it is not necessary. Fun and cool maybe, but not necessary for good racing.

We agree that spending on aerodynamics and horsepower is not necessary.

I believe that the only concession that could be considered to add horsepower is the allowance for an open exhaust. However, this modification was allowed primarily to facilitate weight reduction (~15#) and thus improve reliability.

There are no allowances for aero modifications.

Cheers,

Cayman in 07 · #87 06-17-2009, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by CaymanSpec Racing

We agree that spending on aerodynamics and horsepower is not necessary.

I believe that the only concession that could be consider to add horsepower in the allowance for an open exhaust. However, this modification was allowed primarily to facilitate weight reduction (~30#) and thus improve reliability.

There are no allowances for aero modifications.

Cheers,

Admittedly I am very new to this and do not know much, but what about the factory aero kit?

CaymanSpec Racing · #88 06-18-2009, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by Cayman in 07

Admittedly I am very new to this and do not know much, but what about the factory aero kit?

Thank you for your comment.

We do not plan to allow any aerodynamic modifications. The factory Aero kit is a bit expensive, does not aid in reliability, is not adjustable (does not teach anything), and as long as no one has it the exclusion does not matter.

Cheers,

CaymanSpec Racing · #89 06-27-2009, 02:13 PM

Bump.

We will finalize the initial rule set this weekend and submit to the POC rules committee for approval by the end of the month deadline.

Please add your final comments for the 2010 season proposal.

Cheers,

CaymanSpec Racing · #90 06-30-2009, 11:47 AM

Final proposal submitted to the Porsche Owners Club for inclusion in the 2010 GCRs. Now the wait begins.

Cheers,

CaymanSpec Racing · #91 09-08-2009, 09:32 AM

All,

We continue to work towards a 2010 launch of the CaymanSpec (CSR) class within the POC. Hopefully other organizations will follow. While not official, informal feedback is that the class will be accepted as part of the 2010 POC General Competition Rules.

In the meantime, we would like feedback on possible changes to the current spec. Recognizing that it will take a couple of years to get a proper car count we are considering how to make the class more attractive and improve the on-track competition for those who develop a CaymanSpec car.

One proposal is to attempt to equalize performance with the developing 996spec class cars. There are about 6 or so racing or under development here in California and others in Texas. Creating head to head competition between the specs would allow racers to choose their platform and increase the effective car count. We are not talking about creating an identical spec, just making a couple of tweaks that should allow more equal performance.

Change 1 - Allow the installation of a "spec" wing similar in performance to the 996spec, POC V3, GT3 Cup wing (details would need to be tested). Changes to the front aero will also need to be considered.

Change 2 - Allow the use of a higher spring rate, up to a set maximum.

While these changes are not fully in line with the initial intent of the CaymanSpec, creating driver development cars, they were suggested by interested drivers and may be beneficial in creating early participation.

HP/weight of the two specs is similar, but the CaymanSpec may have an advantage with the mid-engine platform. This is balanced by the higher cost of a donor car and less industry knowledge about how to make these cars fast and reliable.

Please provide your thoughts.

Cheers,

i a motorsports · #92 09-08-2009, 05:46 PM

IMHO, the best spec race series for the Cayman would not be a 'race' series at all. As a former SCCA road racer there is simply too much risk of damaging equipment with overeager, undertalented buffoons, hyperactive Schumacher wannabees, etc. AND the regs drive up cost.

I think the best approach would be be to allow ONLY safety mods- otherwise the car should be bone stock except for tires and brake pads, and a low-restriction air filter /desnork. No carbon ceramic brakes, no LSD's, no aftermarket exhaust. minimum weight requirement to keep the ringers out of the mix. Run it like you bought it!

Set it up sort of like Autocross or SCCA rallycross - Here are my rules:
No more than 1 car on the track per 1km of track length (on a two mile track three cars out at a time). Send the cars out lapping 'alone' on the track, spaced appropriately, three lap maximum. Two practice sessions, three hot sessions. Norma flagging applies and you would only get involved in a pass if the car in front went off or broke. Run rain or shine. Trophies based on times Overall time positions awareded, and also class winners. MINIMAL to NO risk of contact, everyone gets plenty of room to get ballsy (or not )and experiment, and everybody gets to drive their car home (hopefully).

4 classes : Base Cayman street tires, Base Cayman race tires, CS street tires, CS race tires. Minimal investment beyond the car itself, and participation would be very large- much larger than fender-to fender racing. Better than Autocross because you get to drive on a real racetrack!

just a thought.. anybody ready to try it?

**Bodhii** · #93 09-09-2009, 01:19 AM

Hey i a motorsports, this thread is about the proposed Cayman Spec Racing Series only. Your post is about time trials stuff. You need to start your own thread for its proper discussion, and NOT try hijack the focus away from this intended Cayman Spec RACING series.
Time trials are cool, and racing is cool. This thread is about RACING.

CaymanSpec Racing · #94 09-09-2009, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Bodhii

Hey i a motorsports, this thread is about the proposed Cayman Spec Racing Series only. Your post is about time trials stuff. You need to start your own thread for its proper discussion, and NOT try hijack the focus away from this intended Cayman Spec RACING series.
Time trials are cool, and racing is cool. This thread is about RACING.

Thank you for the air cover and cleanup Bohdii!

All, as Bohdii reminds, please stick to the discussion topic. There are many organizations that promote time trialing, autocross, DE, etc. for the Cayman. With CaymanSpec we are looking to promote racing of the Gen 1 Cayman S.

Please see post #91 above regarding proposed spec modifications (wing addition and spring rate increase). Your comments are needed as driver involvement is the only way we will get this class rolling.

Cheers,

CaymanSpec Racing · #95 09-14-2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by CaymanSpec Racing

Please see post #91 above regarding proposed spec modifications (wing addition and spring rate increase). Your comments are needed as driver involvement is the only way we will get this class rolling.

Cheers,

In addition to the above changes, it appears that it may be necessary to allow removal of the primary catalysts as race fuel / race oil seem to be accelerating the failure of these items.

We are interested in your comments on whether we should allow a spec header or just allow modification of the stock header to remove the catalyst.

Please add your thoughts here.

Cheers,

sixisenuff · #96 09-14-2009, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by CaymanSpec Racing

In addition to the above changes, it appears that it may be necessary to allow removal of the primary catalysts as race fuel / race oil seem to be accelerating the failure of these items.

We are interested in your comments on whether we should allow a spec header or just allow modification of the stock header to remove the catalyst.

Please add your thoughts here.

Cheers,

How about STOCK wing and STOCK catylist and STOCK exhaust? How about NO RACE FUEL...just pump gas?

So to prepare a car, you strip the interior, put in a cage, put in race seat, harnesses, HANS device, and a fire extinguisher, add Nitto NT-01s or NT-05s or Bridgestone RE11s (Pick ONE) on stock 18" size wheels, race pads of your choice, no wheel spacers, ADD CAMBER Via GT3 control arms or equivilent so tires will last the length of the race and call it a day.

De-snork? Spec Wings? Remove catylists? Engine mods? WHY?

Keep it simple. If there is something I've forgotten that adds durability to the package AND doesn't cost too much, that would be the only exception to the "safety only" formula.

I also think sticking close to the Boxster formula already established makes sense.

-Six

sixisenuff · #97 09-14-2009, 03:24 PM

"Optional Tire is Hoosier R6?" Who is going to seriously run NT-01s if the competition can use R6's? Pick a tire!!!

-Six

CaymanSpec Racing · #98 09-14-2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by sixisenuff

How about STOCK wing and STOCK catylist and STOCK exhaust? How about NO RACE FUEL...just pump gas?

So to prepare a car, you strip the interior, put in a cage, put in race seat, harnesses, HANS device, and a fire extinguisher, add Nitto NT-01s or NT-05s or Bridgestone RE11s (Pick ONE) on stock 18" size wheels with stock 18" wheels, race pads of your choice, no wheel spacers, ADD CAMBER Via GT3 control arms or equivilent so tires will last the length of the race and call it a day.

De-snork? Spec Wings? Remove catylists? Engine mods? WHY?

Keep it simple. If there is something I've forgotten that adds durability to the package AND doesn't cost too much, that would be the only exception to the "safety only" formula.

I also think sticking close to the Boxster formula already established makes sense.

-Six

Six,

Thank you for taking the time to post. I assume you also took the time to read the rule set and the posts that brought us to where we are. Also, there is no need to shout (all caps). We get your point, and appreciate your thoughts.

The primary reason for each of these questions is that we hope to represent and test the desires of potential racers, most of which have requested one or more of these modifications to the draft spec.

I will try to address each of your issues:

Engine mods - Very simple, because the Gen 1 engines fail when raced without them. It will not take too long for the spec to die without reliability.

Catalysts - If you read the draft rules you will see that, as written, the spec requires the stock cats. We have not yet moved away from this, but want the opinion of people who are racing the car, or seriously plan to. The reason for the question is several cat failures in race-type cars. This may be a result of folks running race oil such as Redline that has a high zinc content, etc. or the higher exhaust temperatures potentially seen with higher octane fuel (not leaded race gas, but 98 or 100 octane unleaded). Maybe a combination. This is "pump gas" and at time may be the only gas available at the race track. For example, an upcoming event will not have 91 available because of AQMD permitting issues.

Wing - No real need for this in CaymanSpec pe se, but it may be helpful in attracting racers to the class. Again, it is not yet in the spec, but may be considered. The reason is, somewhat, the development of the new 996 spec class (which allows a wing) and the desire of some racers to run in a combined field of "late model spec" cars until the grid counts in both classes increase. It is just more fun to run against more cars and we are not likely to get them to give up their wings. You can also look at the Interseries Caymans as an example and/or competition. Same goes for spring rate.

Finally, these will not be inexpensive cars no matter how we draw the spec. We are trying to keep both build out and running costs down, but most of the real interest so far has come from folks who want the cars to look and feel like race cars. We have not yet decided where to go, but are committed to making this a driver-led class.

Again, thank you for your time.

Cheers,

CaymanSpec Racing · #99 09-14-2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by sixisenuff

"Optional Tire is Hoosier R6?" Who is going to seriously run NT-01s if the competition can use R6's? Pick a tire!!!

-Six

Six,

Please check your tone (multiple exclamation points?). We are trying to conduct a rational discussion, not a shouting match. We truly want your opinion, but no one here is your enemy. Maybe ask a question as to why a decision was made rather than judge so quickly (“pick a tire!!!). I will try to address your implied question- why the R6:

The tire issue is another area of the rules that may transition several times over the development of the class. Right now there are not enough (any) CaymanSpec class cars to even have a race, so any car built to the spec will be looking for another class to slot in to as the grid counts develop. During this time competitors will likely need the option to run Hoosiers to remain competitive in there chosen class (POC R5, NASA GTS, etc). When there are enough cars to actually form a class we can then re-evaluate the tire choice and may go with something like the NT-01 (great tire BTW). Another option is to allow regional differences, where the TX contingent can choose to run a different tire than the CA contingent (996 Spec is considering this).

Again, please keep your thoughts and criticisms coming (just try to be more constructive). They will be considered with all others as we evolve the spec over the coming year or so.

Cheers,

sixisenuff · #**100** 09-15-2009, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by CaymanSpec Racing

Six,

Please check your tone (multiple exclamation points?). We are trying to conduct a rational discussion, not a shouting match. We truly want your opinion, but no one here is your enemy. Maybe ask a question as to why a decision was made rather than judge so quickly (“pick a tire!!!). I will try to address your implied question- why the R6:

The tire issue is another area of the rules that may transition several times over the development of the class. Right now there are not enough (any) CaymanSpec class cars to even have a race, so any car built to the spec will be looking for another class to slot in to as the grid counts develop. During this time competitors will likely need the option to run Hoosiers to remain competitive in there chosen class (POC R5, NASA GTS, etc). When there are enough cars to actually form a class we can then re-evaluate the tire choice and may go with something like the NT-01 (great tire BTW). Another option is to allow regional differences, where the TX contingent can choose to run a different tire than the CA contingent (996 Spec is considering this).

Again, please keep your thoughts and criticisms coming (just try to be more constructive). They will be considered with all others as we evolve the spec over the coming year or so.

Cheers,

OK. Sorry. Didn't mean it the way it came out. It was kind of knee-jerk when I read the tire rules. That just seemed like a pretty glaring point to me as I just turned down a great deal on a set of jumbo used Hoosiers plus a set of new Hoosiers plus forged wheels for my CS. Thought it might be too much tire for the way I want to set up my car.

It looks to me like there are DE guys and racers. The racers are getting a kick out of kicking the rear engined tails of the 911 variants and 944s. I think you've got a tough road to hoe to get enough guys willing to equip their cars just to run against other CS's.

Good luck!!! Hope it happens.

-Six