Dunlop Porsche Cup - new series from the CSCC
Discussion
Yes it was a great day. A bit windy and wet at times. We really enjoyed it. Everybody was very friendly, A big thankyou to EMC for there help and advice. We just need to get more cars out out on the track. Chris is doing a fantastic job running the series.I know there are plenty of cars registered for the series. So lets see if we can get a full grid at brands.And put on a good show. Bazz
BAZZ69 said:
Yes it was a great day. A bit windy and wet at times. We really enjoyed it. Everybody was very friendly, A big thankyou to EMC for there help and advice. We just need to get more cars out out on the track. Chris is doing a fantastic job running the series.I know there are plenty of cars registered for the series. So lets see if we can get a full grid at brands.And put on a good show. Bazz
Glad you had a good day, agree with everything you say. Need to encourage a few of the FC and MC Porsche racers to have second/ third races. Must be a deal to be done!!On two day events we would prob run our 1980 SC in this but we are 2 drivers and can only enter 1, mainly as we have split costs to be there and so it would be unfair for one of us to go out and nail the car even more than we do (we already do both FC and MC). I understand why this is the rule would but it prevents us from entering when we might otherwise.
This is cost effective racing that's the point, start entering another race and the cost increases....I hope the Porsche series picks up but I think it's lacking a USP, it needs to,stand out and be different...Porsche drivers are spoilt for choice these days. I enjoyed my race at Snett but personally I want the 40mins and pit stops.
Boxster66 said:
andy97 said:
JM, you can't seriously tell me that you can tell the difference in measurements from those 2 shots???
I can tell too, if the rule is to enforced then it does need moving back at least 10cms....andy97 said:
Apologies to the Porsche guys for us being off topic but I stood in front of that car on 3 occasions this w/e and the splitter does not extend forward 10 cm total let alone 10cm more than the road car. Somebody else moaned to me that the engine was illegal, which is odd seeing as we have very few engine rules, and the preparer showed me round the engine bay. Maybe, just maybe, the guy is quick.
AndyThe OEM GT splitter is adjustable anyway, both up and down and forwards and backwards so you can get more projection.
We had a great first race on Sunday with the MC guys. Cheers all.
shim said:
andy97 said:
Apologies to the Porsche guys for us being off topic but I stood in front of that car on 3 occasions this w/e and the splitter does not extend forward 10 cm total let alone 10cm more than the road car. Somebody else moaned to me that the engine was illegal, which is odd seeing as we have very few engine rules, and the preparer showed me round the engine bay. Maybe, just maybe, the guy is quick.
AndyThe OEM GT splitter is adjustable anyway, both up and down and forwards and backwards so you can get more projection.
We had a great first race on Sunday with the MC guys. Cheers all.
Will Sharpe is a very quick driver and the Smith car was 2.2 secs faster and that's a huge amount over a short track.
and glad to hear the Moulton-Smith is fine after that accident.
woof said:
OK - totally cool with that then. But i think the car needs to be re classified then.
Will Sharpe is a very quick driver and the Smith car was 2.2 secs faster and that's a huge amount over a short track.
and glad to hear the Moulton-Smith is fine after that accident.
When you have few regs you get the chance to make big changes. It's the fun and also the long term problem as it becomes an arms race!Will Sharpe is a very quick driver and the Smith car was 2.2 secs faster and that's a huge amount over a short track.
and glad to hear the Moulton-Smith is fine after that accident.
I thought the series had penalties for a class win for the next race.?
By the way the Kuhmo class winner Evo 3.2 would have been 2 secs even faster and still been eligible for Class A CSCC
shim said:
When you have few regs you get the chance to make big changes. It's the fun and also the long term problem as it becomes an arms race!
I thought the series had penalties for a class win for the next race.?
By the way the Kuhmo class winner Evo 3.2 would have been 2 secs even faster and still been eligible for Class A CSCC
CSCC regs (not the Dunlop POrsche series) can result in an arms race in theory, and some have always spent more money than others but the silhouette rules do limit things as best we can; you can't have bigger wheel arches than standard so it limits wheel and brake sizes and that does tend to limit the power that people want to use.I thought the series had penalties for a class win for the next race.?
By the way the Kuhmo class winner Evo 3.2 would have been 2 secs even faster and still been eligible for Class A CSCC
Also the fact that we are not a Championship does seem to mean that people don't always want to enter or spend lots of money unless they have bought in to the CSCC way of doing things!
There is no pretence it's perfect, there is no pretence there's a balance of performance; it is what it is and has the same philosophy as all the other CSCC series which have worked pretty well for 10 year. People tend to pick their opponents no matter what class they are in, the pit stops and 2 drivers do also give an element of unpredictability and one driver of two can often be slower than another.
There are 30 second penalties for the rest of the season for Overall winners only, and this does tend to share tings out at the front.
If anyone has any bright ideas to adjust the regs for next season then I will happily listen to them, but they have to be simple to implement, they have to be roughly in line with other CSCC series/ philosophy and not result in any cost increases for competitors. We have already considered and rejected a number of times power to weight ratio formulas because a) You need a dyno at every race = expense, b) If you only dyno once a season racing drivers cheat so its meaningless.
We run a series of club series and the emphasis is on getting as big a grids out as possible so that everyone has someone to race and enjoy themselves against, as cost effectively as possible. Ron Dennis and Alan Gow are not watching. The smaller engined classes with MX5s or 924s (ie cars at the cheaper end of the race car range) are just as important to us as the guys in BMWs and Porsches.
Edited by andy97 on Tuesday 13th May 09:29
Boxster66 said:
This is cost effective racing that's the point, start entering another race and the cost increases....I hope the Porsche series picks up but I think it's lacking a USP, it needs to,stand out and be different...Porsche drivers are spoilt for choice these days. I enjoyed my race at Snett but personally I want the 40mins and pit stops.
I'm not sure whether I prefer the 2 x 20 or 1 x 40 minute race. The only drawback with the two races is that it guarantees a long day...But you're right, with a 944 S2 we can enter Future Classics (albeit have no hope against Olsson's Esprit); Modern Classics (albeit have no hope against 3.0 M3s) and now the Dunlop Porsche series.
andy97 said:
BAZZ69 said:
Yes it was a great day. A bit windy and wet at times. We really enjoyed it. Everybody was very friendly, A big thankyou to EMC for there help and advice. We just need to get more cars out out on the track. Chris is doing a fantastic job running the series.I know there are plenty of cars registered for the series. So lets see if we can get a full grid at brands.And put on a good show. Bazz
Glad you had a good day, agree with everything you say. Need to encourage a few of the FC and MC Porsche racers to have second/ third races. Must be a deal to be done!!I am trying to persuade the office that FC, MC and Dunlop Porsches (and possibly TT)should race on the same day to give max opportunity for more races for those that want but it may be too late for this year.
Competitors already get a discount if they enter a second race, maybe we could make that slightly bigger.
Competitors already get a discount if they enter a second race, maybe we could make that slightly bigger.
andy97 said:
I am trying to persuade the office that FC, MC and Dunlop Porsches (and possibly TT)should race on the same day to give max opportunity for more races for those that want but it may be too late for this year.
Competitors already get a discount if they enter a second race, maybe we could make that slightly bigger.
I was a little bit concerned that doing the Dunlop Porsche Series and the Modern Classics in one day would be a little too much but physically it wasn't a problem and don't think the car suffered anything from it. Competitors already get a discount if they enter a second race, maybe we could make that slightly bigger.
2 suggestions
Get Dunlop to give drivers an introductory deal
Allow Modern Classic times to qualify for the Dunlop Porsche series - so you don't need to do both quali sessions.
andy97 said:
If anyone has any bright ideas to adjust the regs for next season then I will happily listen to them, but they have to be simple to implement, they have to be roughly in line with other CSCC series/ philosophy and not result in any cost increases for competitors. We have already considered and rejected a number of times power to weight ratio formulas because a) You need a dyno at every race = expense, b) If you only dyno once a season racing drivers cheat so its meaningless.
I agree with you that CSCC is a better system than PCGB, where running costs are guaranteed to be mega. However, I disagree with your comment on classification by power to weight because MSVR/MSVT use this system and it works brilliantly. They don't take a rolling road to every meeting, but the deterrent for cheating is the threat of a rolling road at any meeting without notice. They have done this a few times. Cheats have been exposed and removed. They also apply very strict parc ferme rules, and always weigh the leading cars in each class, randomly weighing the rest. They also outlaw multiple engine maps. This keeps the costs down and the class racing close. Edited by andy97 on Tuesday 13th May 09:29
I personally found CSCC MCs frustrating because I could not possibly compete against the modified M3's in my class without spending an absolute fortune to join their arms race. Entering races without a hope of winning my class, just because my engine is standard, isn't very appealing. It typically came down to racing Luke & Bazz, somewhere behind the M3s.
Incidentally, what tests were done pre-season to all the cars entered in the Dunlop Porsche Champs, and how is it policed at meetings?
Interesting points Steve. Worth considering but no idea how you impose Parc Ferme rules practically when we have a very small number of staff/ helpers - everyone wants to work/ check cars between sessions, even me! Remember we routinely have 300+ cars over a race weekend and we will want a consistent approach across the series.
How do you ban multiple engine maps - how do you know they are there? A little story: several years ago POrsche 944 Turbos were allowed to race in the Porsche club series; the rules allowed something like 250 Bhp + 2bhp tolerance and the cars had to be tested on Bob Watson's rolling road at the start of the season, or randomly as required.
The 944 Turbos were always within tolerance on the RR; on the track they blew everyone away. The organisers suspected cheating and multiple maps but could not prove it. In fact there were multiple maps but they were on some form of rotary switch on the front wheels. On the rolling road the front wheels were not turning so it was the standard map. On the track the front wheels were turning and it was a different map giving something like 300 Bhp.
They ended up banning all 944Ts.
Maybe we'll just put all the over 2.8 litre BMWs in to the top class instead of all the >3.0 litres?? Difficult to frame rules that are equitable for all. On sunday, I even had BMW drivers complaining about the legality of other BMWs.
No idea how the Dunlop POrsche series have managed their rules - ask Chris Clark, their co-ordinator.
How do you ban multiple engine maps - how do you know they are there? A little story: several years ago POrsche 944 Turbos were allowed to race in the Porsche club series; the rules allowed something like 250 Bhp + 2bhp tolerance and the cars had to be tested on Bob Watson's rolling road at the start of the season, or randomly as required.
The 944 Turbos were always within tolerance on the RR; on the track they blew everyone away. The organisers suspected cheating and multiple maps but could not prove it. In fact there were multiple maps but they were on some form of rotary switch on the front wheels. On the rolling road the front wheels were not turning so it was the standard map. On the track the front wheels were turning and it was a different map giving something like 300 Bhp.
They ended up banning all 944Ts.
Maybe we'll just put all the over 2.8 litre BMWs in to the top class instead of all the >3.0 litres?? Difficult to frame rules that are equitable for all. On sunday, I even had BMW drivers complaining about the legality of other BMWs.
No idea how the Dunlop POrsche series have managed their rules - ask Chris Clark, their co-ordinator.
woof said:
Allow Modern Classic times to qualify for the Dunlop Porsche series - so you don't need to do both quali sessions.
I have suggested that, would also help those cars with 2 drivers as one could do the 1st Porsche race and one could do the second Porsche race having both qualified in MC.There's probably a blue book rule about qualifying out of session though????
Talk to Chris Clark to see if there is an chance of an introductory discount on tyres from Dunlop.
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff