Proposed 2022 Regulation Changes

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
david nelson
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Roy Blyth

Sorry but disagree with you. Good thing we live in a country where we are aloud to have differences.  If you happy to turn up and have a bit of fun that's great each to there own.

For me I want a far as possible , level playing field. Many years ago when I was relatively quick having a tyre warmer was an advantage, I am sure it is still so today. Sprinting is a competition, not a primary school sports day where everyone wins.  If I want fun I go skiing, or fishing or something that is not a competition. 

Just show we all do thing for different reasons.

Engine power has also been a topic I enjoy discussing, but lets just say the current rules mean that we all can all have a level playing field; class 1 130BHP, Class 2,3 155BHP, Class 4 TBC ? 210 or 220BHP Class 5: ect ect . The ambiguity of I have these cams, with this ecu and should make X has been removed. Each competitor has a duty not to cheat, and to abide to the rules. 


" The Legend" Low flying Oct 2021


Dobson_justin's picture
Last seen: 3 days 4 hours ago
Joined: 27/04/2016

I agree with Richard's and Rob's comments on the proposed change to dual driver order, so support the change. 

Englishmaninwales's picture
Last seen: 5 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

I agree with the proposal, even although my tyre warmer beat me 50% of the timeRofl

Roy, you're talking Blabla


rob spencer
rob spencer's picture
Last seen: 21 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

I agree that whilst sprinting and hillclimbing is fun, it's also more than that; I agree with David's comments #22. 

Warm tyres have a marked impact on grip, and at the sharp end of the classes can provide a significant advantage to the "second" driver.  There will be relatively few occasions when changing conditions will impact an "out of class" driver, and then it will be win some, lose some.  Warm tyres give an advantage every time.  I support the spirit of the change proposal however it is worded to ensure the principle is achieved. 

I also agree with the proposed power limit of 220bhp for Class 4 for the reasons AB has given.


Wrightpayne's picture
Last seen: 55 sec ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

How will engine power be ascertained?

Comp Sec
Comp Sec's picture
Last seen: 21 min 14 sec ago
Joined: 14/01/2015

As you can probably gather we are a friendly championship and we rely a lot on the honesty of competitors, which works as the competition is very close. We keep an eye on speed trap figures and if we saw any car was significantly faster on the straight than others in the class we would have a word with the driver. Then he would either move to a higher class or ask him to reduce his engine power.

We have never yet asked any competitor to verify the power of their car, that would only be a last resort.

Most seasoned competitors know that engine power is only third on the list of ingredients for success after driving talent and car setup/tyres.

Graham Howard - Competition Secretary   Northampton Motorsport Caterham & Lotus Seven Club Speed Championship 2022    
IanJ's picture
Last seen: 2 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Some good suggestions and ideas here! Debbie and I have the following comments:

Dual Drives

We would prefer the faster driver to go first. I have always been uneasy about sending Debbie out to test my setup changes. If a change is detrimental then I would prefer to make that discovery and give her a heads up before she goes out. RobJ's suggestion to mitigate any weather advantage seems like an excellent one if organisers can facilitate it.


Scoring against the class record, rather than the winning time on the day effectively means that rather than doing 5 events, ladies need to do 5 dry events to be competitive in the championship. It's not representative of performance on the day if the weather happens to be unkind. Not sure why this was changed in the first place, but Debbie would prefer points to always be calculated in relation to the winning time on the day.


We'd prefer just one practice run.

Ian & Debbie

Alan Bowler
Last seen: 1 min 9 sec ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

For second driver running after the main batch, yes, in an ideal world. But expecting event organisers to break the habits of half a lifetime may cause issues and likely further confusion and wrong order (based on my experience). Prefer we keep it as simple as possible by just assigning our numbers appropriately. 

For ladies scoring, thanks for raising. The thought process behind the change was primarily to align (and simplify)  the scoring for ladies, veterans and novices. Veterans certainly take class wins regularly, and so do novices giving us problems with tied scores. Ladies scoring should be the same (that was the thinking anyway). We also have issues when there are very small classes overall or at an event, making 100 points an inconsistent benchmark to score  - so better to use the record time. For the championships that span classes the record time is a true measure, not the class winning time which depends on who enters.

But its not perfect, as pointed out, if a lady, novice or veteran only competes 5 times and one event is wet for all runs. Overall, I think the revised system used this year is fairer for all competitors - but we can change it back (for ladies only) if that is the consensus.


Dannyboy's picture
Last seen: 1 hour 12 min ago
Joined: 18/04/2014

No futher comments from me - the suggested changes appear eminently sensible. 

Class 6 - given no-one is likely in the near future to enter would it be worthwhile parking this class and/ or running as an invited class only? If there were sufficient interest the class could be resurrected. 

Same with Class 1 for the 3 cylinder cars - if sufficient interest was gained from owners - could there be an invitation class that could be standalone in future years. I only ask this as a 120bhp academy car will always have an advantage over the Suzuki 3 cyl cars - perhaps run/ advertise this class only at the 2 club events and see whether we could tempt owners to have a go at competing. 

I do recall in 2005, my first year in the championship there was a rolling road at Curborough for some reason and someone paid for my car to go on the rollers to verify it's power output.... No one ever owned up.

magister's picture
Last seen: 1 month 19 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

We support the proposed dual drive change, and it would be even better with the faster driver running in class  - assigning the slower dual driver a higher number would ensure they ran at the end of the class. 

We would agree with Debbie's sentiment with regarding the scoring of the Ladies Championship, and have never really understood the rationale behind the current scoring system.

Perhaps this decision should be passed over to the Ladies in the Championship. 

Paul and Bec