2015 Tech forum - Classes 2 & 3

[Matthew Willoughby]

Please see below a link to the proposed 2015 regs as drafted at the end of last year.

http://www.lotus7.club/sites/default/files/images/Docs/SpeedChamp/2015%20Championship%20Regulations%20-%20Draft%202.pdf

Items for discussion:
 
Increase power limit to 160BHP so that we include K Series R300s.

Delete ban on direct to head throttle bodies either for just Sigmas (who probably need them to get to 155bhp) or all cars.
 

[CaterBram]

I'm assuming that the 160 BHP limit with no restriction on how it's achieved applies to all engine variants, this appears to be how the proposed regulations are drafted.

At present a 1.8l zetec is restricted to DCOE Webers where I know of other zetec 1.8 owners who are not on webers would like to compete but don';t want to run in class 4.

So providing that the restrictions are the same regardless a engine variant then i've no issue with the proposed power  limit  or the deletion of the direct to head throttle bodies on all cars. 

 

[Richard Price]

I propose another topic for discussion.

Do the rules for class 2 & 3 have to be the same apart from tyres?

Maybe the power limit could also be slightly different?

Historically, there are not that many folks who have swapped between the two classes (I can only think of four cars over the last six or seven years, myself included), so why keep the technical regulations the same apart from tyres?  

[CaterBram]

I don't think Class 2 & Class 3 have to be the same, at the moment it appears to be the comfortable option, but Class 3 could become more of a step between class 2 and Class 4.

As a class 2 competitor class 2 feels right at somewhere between 150 & 160, but how does class 3 feel  to class 3 competitors ?

[Matthew Willoughby]

For 2015 the rules for 2 and 3 will be the same apart from tyres.  That need not be the case in the longer term but I would suggest that is a discussion for another day.

[CaterBram]

So some though for class 3 competitors for 2016.........

[Grahame W]

As one of the purposes of any changes is to make the classes as inclusive as possible then it would appear that a move to 160bhp (which virtually guarantees TB's have to be allowed unless Richard builds all of our engines) solves the R300 situation, Sigmas will not be at a potential disadvantage and Zetecs are not limited.

To me that seems a good number of additional cars could be attracted, leaves no major group of owners out on a limb and closes the gap to the new 210bhp limit for class 4

However as this will require investment from any competitor who wants to exploit the  max power limit it does reduce the number of potential 'toe in the water' entrants.

Therefore even if it cannot be this year, a small power split beteween Class 2 and 3 would ultimately attract the widest number of potential competitors, Class 2 being eminently suitable tyre and engine wise for a new entrant and Class 3 for those who wanted to take their commitment a bit further.  

[CaterBram]

If a power split is something which is to be considered in future years then we need to ensure that noone is doing wasted investement.

If 155BHP would not require changes and investment for the majority of competitors then this would be the best set for class 2 with a higher limit for Class 3 which would enable R300's to compete in class 3.

Do we think that competitors with R300 would want to run on 1A Tyres ?

 

[Simon.Rogers]

I believe the need to retain the plenum was an oversight when crafting the 2015 regs and was supposed to have been removed.

I was at the meeting. It was the last of my tenure.  I say this as it is clearly in direct contradiction of the current TB's on sigma 150's.

The open 155bhp is therefore meaningless.

My aim of these "open" rules are to allow as many people to compete in a class as possible.  The least rules in a class the better from my viewpoint.

I would also suggest retaining the 155bhp limit for 2015. But allow R300 of K series. I would ask any duratec R300 to show some power plots.  I do not have enough knowledge to include them as a matter of course.  I suspect they will become the model that falls into the least competitive category.

If you wish to split power of the classes I would actually try to reduce class 2 a little and increase 3 a little but I fear that would put people off.

Personally I would limit both classes to 150bhp. Far closer to standard power of the production cars still based on the no rules format. Unfortunately I think this affects 2 cars already over the limit and R300's but would prevent all the others spending anything else!

Any future power alterations of the rules should always give a minimum of 12 months notice.

[mikecocker]

Is it correct that DTHTBs are not allowed in class 2 but are allowed in class3? Why would this be the case if both classes have a limit of 155 bhp?

In my ideal world the class limits would more naturally follow the cars as produced by Caterham, past and present.  There has obviously been considerable 'power creep' in the classes over the years, which we can see again this year with the R300k trying to 'downsize' itself into class 2/3.

125, 150, 180, 210, and the rest, would be my preferred limits which  I think would encourage more people with stock cars to have a go without feeling hopelessly outclassed.

 

[Simon.Rogers]

Mike. Class 2 and 3 are the same and the current proposal is the same.

The future could be different?

Personally I don't have an issue with your figures over any others.

I think the difficulty is we can all just pick figures.

I would go with your figures but Class 2 @ 150, 3 @ 160 then just pick your others.

[RogerLegg]

The main thing that encouraged me to purchase a Caterham rather than one of the competition was the ability to find competition with similar cars. In my local championship and, indeed in the Westfield (wash my mouth out) championship it is often the amount that you spend on the car that decides the winner. This makes it impossible to get competition with competitive cars if you have a standard car. 

Classes 1 and 2 should allow the best driver to win the class with a "standard" car on road tyres. Class 1 has managed this with most cars being standard road cars or ex academy versions. Class 2 is allowing more and more mods. 1.8 engines clearly have more torque and thus an inbuilt advantage over 1.6 engines. The concept of limiting classes by power is a good one and I guess that we have to apply the current proposals for next year.

We should be encouraging more new entrants who have unmodified cars and would like to have a go without being outclassed by cars that are more competitive in the same class. We also need to satisfy the current competitors. It will not be possible to get a completely level playing field but Mike's suggestion to have 130bhp for class 1 and 150 for class 2 in the future would equate to the cars that have been produced by Caterham recently and might encourage more new entrants. Those that want to modify their cars would then have ample opportunity in the higher classes. I would suggest that a higher limit could be allowed in class 3 (probably 160) thus providing a route for those members of class 2 who could not get their cars down to 150. 

[Cookie Monster]

I think my views on this proposal are well voiced - I would support the 160bhp limit & an allowance on TBs. I can see no reason not to do this & hopefully this will attract more competitors in similar cars to mine 

[mikecocker]

Simon, I'm sure you're right, but.....

Class 2:
Lotus or Caterham Sevens with an engine capacity of 
no more than 1800cc and a power output of no more 
than 155bhp
Rover K series engines must retain induction via the 
standard production plenum.
No cars may use engines fitted with direct to head 
throttle bodies.
Tyres to be listed in the current MSA Technical 
Regulations Permitted Tyres (L) Lists 1A – radial tyres 
only. Maximum tyre width 205mm.
Cars powered by non-car derived engines or equipped 
with sequential gearboxes are not allowed in this class.

Just saying  

Cookie Monster, 

I'd like a class limit of 140 and only yellow and black cars eligible, but I doubt it'll happen  

 

 

[Alan Bowler]

150 for class 2, and 160 for class 3 seems a good compromise.

I accept I need to get my car tested (and looks like I need to pay a visit to Northampton for that) as most of the existing class 2 frontrunners have been there already. Andrews car was slightly over IIRC, and I would hope it could be tweaked (vernier timing?) to get to 150, as I surely want revenge next year  . If its not simple, then 155 for class 2 (i.e. no change) as it will make little or no difference other than a slightly bigger gap between classes on paper. I wouldn't want to see a 2/3 rule change where any of last years entrants were excluded. Perhaps 155 for class 2 2015,with notice served that it will be 150 for 2016?

I would like to keep the TB rule as is for class 2. That way Sigma 150 and K Series R300 aren't de-tuned to get more torque and 149.99 bhp to exploit the class 2 rules which isn't really in the spirit. My understanding of how the existing rule was written was that is was quite deliberate, and not at all an accident. I wasn't there when it was discussed though. 

(selfish mode) class 2 is very well supported at all events, very close and competetive, and would be a shame to change what isn't broken, plus I don't think we have anyone with a R300 who wants to enter class 2 (end of selfish mode) As far as I know... (and stand ready to be corrected) we don't have any TB'd cars in class 2 yet (the Sigmas are 140s?). Although 10 bhp is a small gap, the number of Caterhams around this power mark is probably quite high (e.g. Sigmas, mildly tweaked/supersport Ks, Zetecs, Xflows) which justifies a smaller gap than between 4-5-6. Also, tweaks to power on cars with locked ECUs aren't always quite so simple. I very much agree with Caterbrams points above regarding investment, and R300s on 1As. Is there a point where 1As really aren't a sensible tyre for the torque/power available? 

I am also very consious of Matt's email and that a few of us use this forum alot more than the majority of competitors. Suggesting 160 and TBs for class 3 may well offend quite a few competitors there. More opinions please! 

AB

 

[Matthew Willoughby]

Please note that direct to head throttle bodies will be allowed in classes 2 and 3 for Sigmas.  A standard 150BHP Sigma has them so they need to be allowed for.  Excluding throttle bodies for Sigmas was a error on my part.

[Andrew Willoughby]

 

Pleased to see you're up for another battle, Alan - I'm looking forward to it already!  

From a selfish point of view, I'd like Class 2 to stick with the 155bhp limit.  When I got my car's head ported by Dave Andrews it was expected to achieve just over 150bhp.  As revealed at Northampton, it was 157!  Shedding those 2bhp by making numerous adjustments (including adjusting verniers) cost a lot of money and just ended up with the car not running properly.  In the end, we put everything back to square 1 and I replaced the 4-2-1 exhaust from Simon with the standard one, which did the trick.

I find Class 2 with the current amount of power really exciting on 1a tyres, and personally I like it far more than I did Class 3 with the stickier 1bs.  I don't think I can get my car down on power without considerable expense and would be disappointed to have to change classes.  

[Simon.Rogers]

So playing the old devils advocate. (And I don't think it should happen next year as I have said previously - always one years notice of a power change in a class)

Why should we keep the rules at 155 in class 2 just toinclude 1 car that currently falls outside of the power limit. We should write the to suit the majority.  Said for the sake of promoting discussion. Sorry Andrew.

[Alan Bowler]

Andrew - just leave your engine with me for a weekend. I'll work my magic free of charge, and soon have it down on power. 

 

[Andrew Willoughby]

Thanks for the offer, Alan.  If you were a bit nearer to Lincolnshire I'd definitely take you up on it offer, but as it is ...  

No problem with you opening up the discussion, Simon.  I agree that you can't write rules just based upon one competitor.  However, I wanted to gauge opinion to see if there were other Class 2 competitors who don't want to see a power limit reduction in Class 2.    There are lots of Class 2 competitors who haven't yet expressed a preference.  

[Graham Howard]

I think that 155 (Norhampton MS) BHP is a sensible limit. This will include all current competitors and encourage those with Sigma 150's to join in. I think all seasoned competitors know that a few bhp either way makes little difference. Driver ability and car setup are much more important factors. 

Does anybody havea view on the phrasing of the regulations? See my posting in the overall tech regulations thread.

[OliW]

I think 155 is the limit we should have, and allow DTHTB for all.  Mine is the only Sigma 150 in class 3 and I would be well down with a 160 limit and have no way of getting there.

Oli

[Richard Price]

There is never going to be regulations that suit everyone :-(

whilst I'd like to include as many folks as possible, I'm now having second thoughts about the TB's thing.

an 1800SS on tb's (r300) may only make a few bhp more than Oli's  150 Sigma, but it will have way more torque everywhere.

the 150 sigma has very poor torque in comparison to ANY of the K's.

A well driven K R300, with the right tyres, and well set up, WOULD be quicker than any existing class 2 or 3 car.

However, experience, confidence, preparation, knowledge etc. will often make up for quite a few ft/lbs or bhp.

Didn't Matt Jenkins beat all of the class 4 cars  at Curborough 2?........

 

 

[Notsohotcams140]

Matt beat a few Class 5 cars too. 

I know these regs are supposed to be for the future but should we look at what we've got and see how we can best fit the majority? If a R300 k on TB's is the minority do we carry on as we are? I do feel for anyone who hasn't got a direct competitor because you don't have a person to learn from after a run or to have the banter, or in my case ply with multiple excuses.

Class 2 is currently a well populated close class with battles all the way through it. Ideally all classes should be like this. 

Having been at the back of Class 3, myself and Phil Matchwick had a great time learning tracks and beating each other by hundredths. We know we aren't going to get close to the top runners but trying to worry Oli at Llys y Fran was also enjoyable. There is more to life than class wins. 

[OliW]

Trying to worry me? You did mate! You're quite right, it's not all about winning. It is fun further down the time sheets too.

I'll defer to Richard's knowledge on Ks but I would like to see Phil Cook able to join us in 3.

Oli