Rule changes for 2015

[Cookie Monster]

Keen to know when the Tech Forum (?) will consider/finalise the rule changes for next year? Also when deliberations will be published?

Vested interest re throttle bodies & class grading freely admitted but I want to compete with like powered cars not hopelessly outclassed by 200 bhp cars just because of TB's.

Thx,

Phil

[sjmmarsh]

I don't know, but have had confirmation from the MSA that Snell 2000 helmets WiLL be illegal from 1/1/15 and the BS6658 A/FR ones from 1/1/16 (rules currently say 'may').

Steve

[CaterBram]

Tech Forum is normally sometime from late October or upto the the end of November.

I'm sure the comp sec, will publicise in due course.

[david nelson]

Would be good to get the tech forum up and running.

 

I thought it was going to be simple

 

class 1 up to 130bhp

class 2 up to 155bhp

class 3 up to 155bhp

class 4  up to 210bhp

class 5 over 210bhp no restriction

class 6 bike engine

class 7 no road going

 

No other rules required re power, no driving aids in class1, 2, 3,4 and 5. Driving aids for class 6 as they can not drive like real men

 

job done.  move on to next topic

 

David

[Blue_SV]

Hi

I would like to add a 'vote of support' for Phil's post on class definitions and Throttle Bodies. We 'dipped our toes' into sprinting this year and now keen to join next year but potentially going to end up very uncompetitive in class 4 as we have a basic K-series 1.8 SV that has TBs. We have not other upgrades and it pushes out ~158bhp (tested earlier this year). My understanding of the proposed rules for 2015 would pitch us against much more powerful cars. I know that power is not everything and in the first few seasons you compete against yourself to improve, but it would be more encouraging to be in a class where one might have some opportunity of having some competition. Setting class limits by power alone would seem to give more opportunity but then I am only a novice... Nevertheless, it is not a great incentive to join the series knowing that it is highly unlikely we can compete in the class during the year.

 . 

Jon

 

 

 

, 

[Richard Price]

I think the most contentious class break issue over the last few years has surrounded the K series  R300 level of power that Caterham sold as 160bhp.

These cars are very clearly out classed in straight line performance by the current crop of 190bhp class 4 cars, where most have the potential to produce more than 190bhp, but have had maps tweeked on a dyno to cap top end power.

However, as results have shown on a few occasions, existing class three cars have matched or exceeded the performance of class four cars, so power  does not provide all of the answers.
Whilst I feel that the formula that we’ve had for the last ten years seems to have worked quite well (barring the R300 issue), where, predominantly, K series,  ported 1600’s have run against non ported 1800’s running stock ECU’s and plenums, has worked quite well, I do agree that it’s time for a change to allow more cars to compete.

The “ideal” car for the new class would be an 1800 K on throttle bodies. It could have great mid range torque, but would need to have its top end power capped.
As was shown at the rolling road session earlier this year, where most of the class 1 spec cars appeared to make closer to 130bhp that the rated 120bhp, it seems to me that there is not actually that bigger difference in power between class one, and class 2/3 cars, particularly when it is being proposed that class four power level should be 210bhp from the current 190bhp.

Maybe, the class 2/3 power limit should be lifted from the originally suggested 155bhp, to 160bhp, and all other restrictions should be removed?

Both of the above posters would then sit clearly in class 2/3, and would not be out classed on power.

[Alan Bowler]

• Do we have any speed trap figures for "stock" K series R300s (TB variant and VVC variant) on 1As / 1Bs at venues we compete at? Depends on the driver/conditions etc. but would be interesting to compare.
• Do we have a RR plot for a stock R300 (both variants). How much torque compared with existing class 2/3 engines?
• One concern is to try and keep budgets sensible in 2/3. Opening up the class to TBs and fully programmable ECUs adds £££ to costs (TBs + Emerald + Mapping + mild porting?) and makes the route from class 1 to 2/3 more difficult.
• Sigma 150s already have TBs (I think), but K series cars still seemed to have the edge this year - but it is close. Allowing even faster K series cars isn't going to encourage new standard Sigma 140/150 entrants (or those with standard 1.6/1.8 K series cars). We should be looking to encourage more Sigma engined cars in 1, 2 and 3 as that is the future.
• How difficult/costly/time consuming is it to swap off TBs for a standard ebay sourced K series plenum and ECU? Cheaper and less disheartening than getting a 160+ car re-mapped back down to 155?

• And yes I know a well driven standard 5 speed 1.6K would still be quicker than me in 1.8K with TBs mapped on a low reading RR to 154.9 / 159.9 plus alot more torque. Faster on any course with corners, anyway - which is most of them! (its all about perception, right?)

• If we are making significant rule changes, any reason to keep class 2/3 engine specs aligned with only tyres making a difference? (another can of worms probably...)

Runs away and hides... 

[Richard Price]

Alan,

I'd certainly want to keep budgets sensible.

I really don't think that I would consider fitting TB's and programable ECU to any current class 2/3 car. Whilst it should be possible to gain a little torque, the top end would need to be capped. It would be a lot of money for very little gain.

for those that already have R300's, they would have to devalue their cars by making them non standard. They would need a plenum and TB, a MEMs ECU and immobiliser, and a replacement engine loom.

it would be a very costly excercise for them to knock a few bhp off.

maybe, if the proposed rule change turned out to be a mistake, it could be reviewed at the end of the season?

From a selfish point of view, I would be pushing for the rules to stay exactly as they have been for the last few seasons, but I see the need to simplify the rules so that we do not exclude anyone, and encourage more to join in.  However, we can't have a class for every spec of car, so we have to try to make it as simple and as inclusive as possible.

unfortunately, there has to be some compromises somewhere :-(

 

 

[Alan Bowler]

Agree that its been demonstrated to be possible to get 160bhp from a K without TBs/Emerald, so to add it onto an existing class 2/3 car, and then detune doesn't make complete sense. Unless you are out to build the perfect engine for the regs with no expense spared, or happen to have the components in your garage anyway.

So swapping TBs with a standard plenum looks quite involved, and not a friday evening swapover job. Fair enough.

A comparsion between stock 1800 SS and an 1800 with TBs here: http://www.dyno-plot.co.uk/dyno/dynoplot/190_187/index.htm (via DVA Power : http://www.dvapower.co.uk/ )

From a selfish point of view I agree - keep the rules as they are.  Also its in everyones interests to keep costs down and encourage more standard cars (Ks and Sigmas).

If we allow R300s in the spirit of keeping the rules simple to encourage more entrants, aren't you also discouraging those with, say a standard 6 speed 1600/1800 K? Probably alot more of those around than R300s.  At least you will be competitive by just fitting some hotter cams and an SS map currently. Not sure if a 1600SS would be competetive against a slightly detuned R300, and there are surely alot more 1600/1600 SS engines out there than R300s.

 

[Richard Price]

I think that makes DVA's K04 kit look a bigger step that it really is....

Essentially, an 1800SS and a 140 X power (like Graham Howards car) are the same thing apart from the cams and ECU. The 1800SS has slightly better cams than the 140, and the SS ECU has a rev limit of 7600rpm rather than 6800rpm.

The 1800SS is better all round than the X power 140.

The plot that you link to shows an 1800SS making 135bhp, where Grahams Xpower140 made over 145bhp at the rolling road session earlier in the year.

I think it's likely that a good, standard, 1800SS (maybe with a better exhaust) would have made a few bhp over 150bhp on the same rolling road on the same day that Grahams car made its 145bhp.

according to DVA's site, the K04 kit can be supplied with a choice of three different cam profiles. I would think the plot linked to would have been produced with at least piper 633 profile cams. Again, these offer another small advantage over SS cams.

DVA originally offered 633's as an equivalent to SS cams, but having measured both profiles, I think 633's are a little better than SS cams as they have very similar duration, but a little more lift.

I ran 633's from 2004 to last year, but swapped to a pair of SS cams after the rolling road day.

I agree that allowing R300 spec cars into class 2/3 may discourage some with closer to standard 1600/1800 K's, but I also feel that folks with closer to standard 1600/1800 K's have got a better change of competing with an R300, than an R300 has of competing with a 210bhp class 4 car.

Personally, I don't like the way R300's drive. To me, they feel like they're strangled at the top end, unlike a ported 1600 that wants to sing to the limiter. Detuning would make them horrible to drive.

 

[Matthew Willoughby]

 

Sorry for not responding on this thread for a while, I have been in France for a week or so.  The 2015 regs as proposed 12 months ago will shortly be uploaded onto the website.  I will then start a thread on here for each class to have a discussion plus another thread for items that don't relate to a single class.  Please bear with me for a few more days.

[Graham Howard]

What we all know is that the same car tested on different rolling roads can give results varying by quite a large amount. I am sure that my car last year did not give more power than an 1800 ss! The tests referred to by Alan obviously are from a RR which reads a lot lower than the one at Northampton Motorsport.

Phil, can I suggest that you get your car tested at Northampton Motorsport, then we will have a good comparison between an R300 on throttle bodies and the other class 2 and 3 cars. This will be good information for the Technical forum and the basis of  the rules for 2015.

Graham

[Cookie Monster]

My car was tested at the two Steve's at Track N' Rd on 23rd June this year with 154.9 bhp. I have the graph plot. Does that help?

 

 

[Matthew Willoughby]

Phil,

Not really!  Many cars from 1, 2 and 3 were tested at Northampton Motorsport earlier this year and that is the benchmark that we have.  We are all aware that different rolling roads can give vastly different results so we are trying to establish what the relative performance of a K Series R300 with TBs is compared with the existing Class 2/3 cars that have already be tested at Northampton.  The only way to get close to that is to test a standard tb equipped K Series R300 at Northampton Motorsport (even that isn't perfect but it's as close as we can get).

[Leg]

I am not sure that we can send Phil to Northampton Motorsport because a number of cars from Class 1,2 & 3 went there last year. The readings mean that you are all the same in relation to each other, but not that the data is any more accurate than any other Caterham garage.

I think that if you asked around Class 4 most of them have a reading from the Two Steves; so if I compare Phil's reading to mine from the same garage, yes, he is well down on power. If we are accepting that no system is perfect, why can Phil's reading from them not be accepted?

We know from when Clive competed in Class 4 that the R300's are not equal in power to the other Class 4 cars, if we are really going to go to 210bhp in Class 4 (boo hiss*soapbox*), the R300's will be unable to compete.

If the idea of the new rule changes for 2015 was that it was on 'power only', lets stick to that very simple rule. I can not see why this is the only exception to this principal.

(Yes, I know I have loads of info about throttle bodies heading in my direction!)

[Mark Durrant]

I see little point in Phil going to Northampton Motorsport as there is very little between the rolling roads at Northampton and Track N Road something Shaun can probably confirm. I suggest we allow R300's in classes 2 & 3 for 2015 as they rarely make more than mid-150 bhp (in the same way Zetecs were allowed) and review at the end of the season once we have speed trap data.

I see little point in changing the way the regs for classes 1-3 are written as costs should be kept to a minimum otherwise competitors will feel they need an MBE/TB's etc when in reality the best driver wins the class....just ask AB  

[Cookie Monster]

Seems I have sparked quite a debate - my motive was purely self interest for my & similar cars to be completing on a like for like basis - I hope I made that clear in my first post.

I would be happy to go to Northampton Motorsport if that would settle the matter but I'm not sure it would?

The sensible solution to me would be to base everything on power output but having only competed in one season (& a lot less events than I would have liked) I appreciate the view of the rest of you with your far wider experience than me

I shall await your collective deliberations with interest.

 

Finally, thank you to everybody who put their time  effort into making my foray into sprinting such a great experience. Roll on the spring

 

[CaterBram]

Excuse my ignorance , but is there an engine size & power output difference between the R300k & the R300D as looking at the R300D this appears to be a 2litre with 182PS (180 bhp) which would deffinatly be outside the spirit of class 2/3

 

cookie monster is your stated BHP at the wheels or Flywheel ? As the stated 155bhp is the flywheel output

[Mark Durrant]

My understanding is we are only talking about the R300 K which have mid-150BHP at the flywheel

[CaterBram]

Just answered my own question, R300K was a 1.8 litre quoted as 160 BHP where as the R300D was a 2.0l quoted as 180 BHP.

 

[The Hat]

So what class will an R300D be competetive in from next year?

 

 

[CaterBram]

Unfortunately there can't be a class for every car then we'd all be competitive.........

But whilst we are focusing on what I think would be a limited impact of the possibility of a few R300K cars on Class 2/3,  I think the changes within Class 4 / 5 have far greater impact on both Class 4 & Class 5 competitors, but unfortunately no matter what is decided, there will be those who benefit and those who are disadvantaged.

Whilst we all have individual agenda's, what we all need to consider when setting the regulations is the bigger picture, what is best for the championship, for without sufficient numbers of competitors who want to compete and have a chance of being competitve then the robustness of the Championship and the enjoyment we all feel from close competition we all enjoy will be muted and may be lost, to become a poor shadow of it's former self.

 

[The Headmaster]

I think Class 1 should be for standard K and Sigma cars - no tweeks other than the slightly raised rev limit for the Sigma's.

Class 2 should be for standard Supersport K's. No porting of heads on any capacity. No Z and F stuff as produced from the factory and would include Sigma cars also all on 1a tyres.

Class 3 would encompass all the evolved k's etc up to 160bhp anything goes on 1b tyres.

Class 4 - leave it alone.

Class 5 - upto 230 bhp which catches most big K including R500 and all H pattern boxes.

Class 6 absolutely anything goes. Supercharged, Bike and sequential boxes. but 1b tyres.

Class 7 as it is.

[CaterBram]

So "Dad" on that Basis i'd be in Class 3..........  So would probably not compete at all as my car would need substantial investment or replacement to survive class 3 let alone be competitive .......

bearing in mind that the current Class 2 & 3 are currently the most popular  and the above would probably decimate class 2 what's being gained ?

I agree that Class 2 & 3 engine specs don;t need to be the same but the changes need not only to provide a relativly competitive playing field but also one which attracks the widest number of competitors.

 

[david nelson]

Class 2 and 3 should allow TB and programable ecu's.

I can think of 2 class 4 owners who also have class 2/3 engines. I for one would pop my 1.8 ss in if i needed to. For me the cost would be the same just a  trip to the roles.

I also think it allows R300 into the class as currently and historicaly no class for them. I can see no reason why 155bhp by any method is not ok with everyone. We know the 1.6k with ported head can make this and run a cat.

Then its the rest that need looking after. The 1.8 X-power, R300, 1.8 SS, xfows, 1.6 SS and the fords.

 

Re 1.6 SS. After hearing how much it cost to build a 1.6 with ported head it must be a cheaper way to fit TB and a new ecu to get to 155BHP. A set of TB and an ecu is going to be less than 3K. I guess its about £1100 - £1450.  The thing I like about bolting on TB and an ECU is its simple and most of us can do this with little help. Porting is a diffrent game.

 

David