Tech Forum - Review of Classes 2 & 3

[robmar]

David - where there not speed traps at Harewood (ont he final straight), shelsy (over the line), aintree (I am guessing)

 

I understand your concerns tho on innapropriate cars, however I think the only way to go about resolving this in the way that is in accordance with what i perceive to be the club ettiquitte which is to use the spirit of the regs. However maybe we need, like what i think Simon is suggesting is a more robust/defined way for questioning where we think there is a break of those spirits, rather than a quick word in Marks ear....and a transparent process for having that conversation and potentially appealling any decision.

 

(but lets not end up on the back pages of the MSA mag 😳 😬)

 

I for one in the past have argued against the big bhp cars, but have softenned my stance as I have slipped further down the results and old age has set in and am now not that sure how big of a problem it really is.

 

I know some take it (sprinting) far more serious than me, but it should be first most for all of us FUN, if your not having FUN why do it and I understand the seriousnous some people put on this topic....

 

Rob

 

 

 

[Simon.Rogers1]

Exactly Rob.

 

But I do like reading the back pages - very entertaining 😬

[neil.cavanagh]

Interesting discussion...

 

Yes a stripped out carbon-fibre everything 1.6 or 1.8 K with c. 140bhp will quiet possibly be faster than a narrow track g/f everything tuned up x-flow. BUT the x-flow driver is allowed to add lightness to their car, and work on the suspension.

 

I KNOW from personal experience that a 180bhp x-flow in similar spec to my 140bhp K SV IS significantly quicker. Especially when acclerating up steep hills.

 

Simon made a VERY good point by saying:

"We need to think whether by removing one type of car from one class we are simply creating another problem in the next class?"

 

I think he is right... the afore mentioned 180bhp x-flow would be unfairly competitive in class 2/3, BUT will be outclassed in 4/5.

 

I do also think a lot of people are put off sprinting in class 4/5 as they see that they need a 230+ car to compete. There are lots of people out there with 160-190bhp k-series who I'm sure perceive there to be no competivtive class for them. You and I know that once they get into sprinting they will realise it is about FUN and the driver more than the car. BUT the barrier to entry is there.

 

In a perfect world I think the classes would be run on BHP limits:

 

Class 1: upto 120bhp : Edited 'cos they do have the power to pull the skin off a grape...

Class 2&3: upto 160bhp

Class 4: Upto 200

Class 5: over 200

Class 6: Nutters

 

BUT this would rely on people being honest with power outputs... which is always hard!

 

Edited by - neil.cavanagh on 10 Nov 2006 10:16:08

[mikes]

Ok, so I am bored at work on a Friday morning.

Does all this mean I will have to try and get my now rebuild 'all steel' xflow down to 160bhp for next season? ☹️ ☹️

I didn't know that Paul and I in class 2 had you lot that rattled 😬

Not sure quite how to lose that much horsepower though.......

Mind you, at least it will spare me some of the additional chassis changes I need to cope with it .

I still think we should introduce some form of compensation for the age of the driver - and I don't mean making it easier for the whipper snappers!

Mike

 

[Graeme Smith]

Class 1: upto 110bhp

 

Erm...Academy cars are 130bhp

[robmar]

compensation - is your Old age pension not enough 😬

 

howabout for every year over 40 you are allowed 1 extra BHP

[Mark Durrant]

how about for every year over 40 you are allowed 1 extra BHP

 

Rob

 

In Mikes case that is not possible as I have not seen a xflow making more than 220bhp 😬 😬

 

Mark D

Comp Sec

 

[Simon.Rogers1]

I thought it was about tweaking the class structure.

 

But why not

 

1 - as is/proposed

2 and 3 completely standard ex factory cars (as produced - engine wise any way) up to and including Supersports on whatever plemum the were supplied with. Tough luck etc BUT NO MODS !

4 = up to 180bhp or 190 whatever is decided.

5 = above 180 road going

6 - as is.

 

My reasoning that all the guys in front of Class 3 probably only need an aftermarket ecu to add major bhp - they have all had the headwork done. (i know I'm generalising).

 

We have to keep the classes competitive numbers wise.

 

By leaving class 2/3 as is and simply setting 4 up to be an upto 190bhp class there will be even less people there to compete than last year.

 

The idea/principle I agree with but I don't see it happening numbers wise on the events.

[robmar]

can I still run acb's 🤔

 

Bugger just sold my emeald ☹️

rob

[RichardO]

Class 1 up to 110 bhp? I think that would eliminate all but one of this years entrants!

 

Graeme; I thought academy cars were supposed to be 120 not 130? Or has the number changed again? Mine was rated at 115 when I got it, but mysteriously the spec for the following year changed to 120 without any changes to the engine

 

 

R

[neil.cavanagh]

ok... 120 for class 1. You should all know I'm a bit fick by now! *eek* 😬 😬

[david nelson]

So it all about FUN and should not take it to serious.

 

well are people say that if you want to do a serious champoinship do not do the club champoinship as its only for fun?? I thought the club champoinship was the premiar 7 champoinship in the UK.

 

Yes it is for fun but we need to have a class system that shows of driver skill not how much bhp you have.

 

in the spirit of the regs: If a quite word is not approprate then a formal solution needs to be made. I had hoped that this would not be needed, but if the over disissison is this is what is needed then fine.

 

*wink* *wink* (ADDED AS EMILY AGE 3 TOLD ME TO PUT SOEM SMILE ON THE PAGE)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[david nelson]

Neil

 

I think your post a fewdown has some very good points

 

 

David

[Grahame W]

Have only just logged on so had the opportunity to read all the comments so far, so sort of covering all my disparate thoughts at the same time.

 

Firstly is there a concensus as to whether the championship is to attract as many club members as possible to feel the excitement of fully extending themselves and their cars, or is it effectively a one make championship for the super competitive who otherwise would be doing one of the national or regional championships?

 

If the former then should the class structure not be biased towards the minimum of modifications and maybe more classes to cope with the wide potential power spread between standard and modified cars.

 

This inevitably also raises the subject of tyres which seems mostly to have been aired in the class 4-5 thread. 1B tyres can just about be justified as a road/race tyre on longevity, grip, and driveability basis. I am not sure ACB10's meet the same criteria yet clearly are essential to be competitive in class 3 and 5

 

Therefore would we attract more competitors with an any tyre except cross plies class structure, the reduction in classes being compensated by more classes based on power as discussed elsewhere to minimise the power spread per class.

 

If however the championship is aimed at the super competitive then as with most motorsport, the greater the spend the more likely the success

 

 

[Steve Robinson]

Coming in late to this due to a busy week. I've been in an odd position this year as I have always felt that the powerful cars should be not be allowed in class 2/3 as it should provide an entry point in for people with standard cars.

 

But then, I turn up this year with a car that clearly makes as much power as the top k series cars and I'm way off the pace. Fact is that to win you need the power, the car set-up properly, talent and the time to focus on getting everything right.

 

Would I have won this year driving a 180 BHP x-flow? I very much doubt it. The people at the top are there due to a combination of factors, not power alone.

 

My concern though is that things have got so serious in class 3 it will possibly put off newcomers from coming and having a go. It seemed this year that there was much less friendly banter and more battles and people pushing the limits of the rules and possibly going over the top. Took some of the fun away for me I have to say.

 

Steve

 

 

[Simon.Rogers1]

Graham

 

I think the answer to your first point is unfortunately/fortunately - BOTH

 

Steve

 

Not sure about the lack of "banter" - I thought there was more 😬

[Steve Robinson]

Simon - there was still a lot of banter. But this year seemed more negative at times as people pushed (and in one case at least broke)the rules.

 

My impression from the 4 events I did was that class 2 remained the same friendly banter as always but class 3 seemed to get way more serious than previous years.

 

Steve

[Jason Plato]

my thoughts for all classes ....

 

Try and keep it simple and rules such that they can be enforced

 

Drop the overall points system and just use the class system, keep the brucey bonus for breaking a record ( I still think the system of benchmarking vs records would work as I suggested last year - then you are benchmarked against the record and not against who else happens to attend a round, but the question remains on what to do if it rains )

 

Ammend to make it that you have to have more than 5 in class to score maximum points.

 

Drop minimum point scoring rounds by 1

 

Allow R300's and VVC's into class 3 /2 . Leave Dave and Caspers xflow alone - they rae great competition. all we need to do is remove one spark plug 😬

 

Ban cross plies - but only from 2008 to alow people to use the £500 of tyres they have in their garages for next year. This is a big change and would wipe out all the points system relative to records in class 3 & 5 for the next 2 years.

 

Drop the questionaire of which events you are entering at the start of the season - people are annoyed when they then dont recieve regs for rounds they didnt think they could do in January when they completed the form but can do them in August.

 

Dont make too many changes in one sweep as this will further confuse and dilute the appeal of entering.

 

Promote the championship more in LF - we need to raise awareness !. Entries are dropping and people dont understand the rules or the points system, whats required for safety or how to prepare the car.

 

Maintain the clubs own organised rounds and weekends as these were the most popular and were a good source of new entrants ...... ☹️ I'm very, very disapointed in the decision to drop the Llandow weekend of speed despite their being offers to organise the weekend by members. Many of us would have rather seen some effort to promoted it and raise numbers.

 

Have another go at doing an introduction for beginners - but allow a little more time and notice if help is required ( pleased to help)

 

dave

 

 

 

 

here is C7 TOP

South Wales AO

[Richard Price]

Firstly is there a concensus as to whether the championship is to attract as many club members as possible to feel the excitement of fully extending themselves and their cars, or is it effectively a one make championship for the super competitive who otherwise would be doing one of the national or regional championships?

I believe that the original concept of the club speed events, was to give potential competitors the opportunity to compete to "dip a toe in the water", with the idea that, if they liked it, they could go and compete on other clubs events or championships.

If I recall correctly, the first "Championship" year contained just the clubs own 4 events (Llandow, Curorough, MIRA, ans Curborough), but then grew by an event or two each year that made it a championship to compete in instead of anything else, rather than as well as say a single venue or regional championship.

Unfortunately, the championship has become a victim of its own success. But it has become a championship with very close competition where a class win is an achievement to be very proud of, and certainly won't have been achieved by having a significantly better car than your opposition.

For class 1,2 and 3 cars, our championship is the only place that they can be truly competitive. The up to 1700cc classes of other championships have no limit to modifications, so we would be up against cars with up to 180-200bhp (compared to say 150bhp for a modified class 2/3 1600K) . Power isn't everything, but 40-50bhp is difficult to make up through chassis set up and driving skill.

Unfortunately, I don't think the club championship can go back to it's roots, but I would be sorry to see it grow even more.

Simon's point about the limited times he has compete against Andy Griffiths, is a good point. With more rounds but the same number to count, it is increasingly likely that some one could win a class, but never compete against each other.

I would favour a fewer events, but maintain the current number of rounds to count.

 

I also feel that the clubs Curborough events have lost a little of the "Special event" atmosphere that I recall from my first few events, and maybe a few more people may be encouraged to attend the sprints were combined with , say, an autojumble? Or even a concourse event for the polishers amongst us (That's not me!!). Bringing more spectators into the events, may encourage more to try competing.

[Steve Robinson]

I agree that the championship has to got too big in terms of number of rounds.

 

I only did 4 this year and lost interest early on when I realised I didn't have a prayer of completing enough rounds for a championship placing.

 

I'm sure if it was 5 to count then I would have managed to find the time to do 5 rounds or maybe even a sixth to drop a score. Didn't have the same motivation to do 5 or 6 when it would still have left me with no championship result.

 

Steve

[Richard Price]

Allow R300's and VVC's into class 3 /2

I don't think VVC's are too much of a problem, but I think that roller barrel throttle bodied R300's would have too much of an advantage!

Whilst a modified class 2 1600K may have close to the quoted POWER of an R300, they don't have the spread of torque or the drivability of an R300.

A better comparison is to compare a standard 1800's 140bhp with the R300's 160bhp. No, the R300 has too much power (and torque) for class2/3.

 

I don't really wont to get involved in the ACB10 dispute, but I'm sure more people would compete if the tyre choice was between the practical road tyres of CR500's, A048's, R888's etc. Bu any cahnge should be decided NOW, but not introduced until 2008.

 

Agreed that the introduction to sprinting was a very good Idea and it would be good to do it again, but we need to plan and promote the event NOW for a spring date. (yes - I would be please to be involved again!)

 

 

 

[Jason Plato]

blimey , me and Richard in agreement

 

Roller barrels often produce less torque and power then a similar capacity plenhum car below say 5500 rpm so it may not be so clear cut....

 

I think it would be good to see how R300's get on in class 2 / 3. It wont be long now before we have to also include the new sigma engined cars in a class somewhere. We cant just ignor them . There has to come a time when we have to move from using the 1800 K @ 140 bhp as the class benchmark.

 

Its impossible to include such a diverse raage of engines and 2 types of tyres into just 5 classes without there being some upset ☹️ but we have to consider how the championship can become more inclusive to a wider range of engiens to allow the opportunity for entries to increase.

 

I dont think sticking a toe in the water and seeing how R30's and VVC's get on for 2007 would be too bad. If someone got up off their bum and put some 1227 cams in and had it remapped then we would have to enforce the "spirit of the regs clause"

 

here is C7 TOP

South Wales AO

 

 

Edited by - Dave Jackson on 11 Nov 2006 12:56:52

[Simon.Rogers1]

I agree with Dave on the tyre issue. ie ACB10's out for all classes from 2008.

 

But if class 4 and 5 are to merge then it is probably more practical to do it now for this new class as otherwise those in class 4 will have to get acb's for just one year.

 

I also think our top class 3 guys will see off any R300's or vvc's anyway.

[david nelson]

So are you all saying R300 and vvc in class 2 and 3?

if so can a 1.8 ss put on rollerbarrals and a new map and still be in class 2 or 3?

would this resolve the high power x-flow problem?

 

David

 

Edited by - David Nelson on 11 Nov 2006 14:27:58

[Simon.Rogers1]

I think it would or just allow supersports to run an alternative ecu.

 

I think you will find i have suggested this elsewhere previously.

 

Trouble is it just makes people "have to " spend money to be competitve. So you may as well run in 5.