2015 Tech forum - Classes 2 & 3

[Alan Bowler]

So if, after a couple of seasons being thrashed by R300s, I once again forget the correct advice that "its all about the driver", and my piggy bank has enough pennies for TBs and programmable ECU so I can bring my car up to equiv R300 spec.

But I'm not even permitted to? I have to sell my lovely Roadsport and look for a genuine unmolested R300K ?

If we allow R300s (if....) then lets not actively penalise existing competitors.

Also, of those 3 (?) who have posted with TBs and 2/3ish levels of power, am I right in thinking 1 is a factory R300 (in) and 2 are Roadsports upgraded to R300 spec (out). Thats not very inclusive either.

What about an R300K with verniers? Or one that once had a remap to optimise it? Or a 1600K on Jenvey TBs/Emerald? How do you draw the line and stay inclusive?

I'm starting to come full circle to the idea of "155 bhp no matter how you make it" on a trial basis. If you are quicker through the speed traps than a car known to have 155bhp (and we just so happen to have one in class 2 at the moment, and I think in 3?) then the poor beleagured comp sec "has a quiet word" and the benefits of class 4 or a visit to the rollers are explained.

The trial is useful in case we find that a genuine 155 but with more torque from TBs makes a huge difference and needs reviewing before existing competitors consider an upgrade.

AB

 

[Grahame W]

I have to agree with Alan that whilst I am not against allowing in R300's for a trial season I do not see why the regs should then prevent any of the existing competitors building a similar engine.

Exposing my lack of knowledge on these things am I correct in thinking that a standard R300 has a programable ECU and if so cannot they tuned down to whatever the max power limit will be. And if so is that not what is already being done in some calsses anyway, or is the argument that in doing so you will end up with a torquey engine that will give an advantage. 

[Simon.Rogers]

Ah he sees the light!

I realise there may be more optimum solutions but I would hate to see the rule book.

And that is the  point. 

[Cookie Monster]

Re Grahame's point above my R300k does not have a programmable ECU it has a MBE one which AFAIK is not programmable. I don't think R300k's had programmable from factory fit but stand to be  corrected.  

[Simon.Rogers]

Sorry but the R300 MBE is programmable.

It is probably pin locked. Most of the pin numbers are known but it any case it can be wiped and started/mapped again.

Back to a single figure.

[David Horne]

If we cannot reconcile this, should we be looking to leave things for classes 2 and 3 as they are, establish a separate class for R300s and comparable cars, sat between Class 3 and 4 - and encourage even more R300s in that way?

Or am I missing something which means that isn't an option?

[david nelson]

Hello everyone,

 

I will try to be as constructive as I can on the regs for class 2/3.

We have a few options:

1.  To only allow standard factory engines and inlets and ecu's with no modifications. This would keep the class accesable to all club members and has the widest posible uptake of potential compeditors.

This would then exclude all modifided k-series like ported head work. I hear the cry from the few but this is about the many.

2:  If the few are unhappy then the class should be open to any modification upto a given BHP. The BHP is less relivent as everyone will try to get to it, however I would prefer it to be 155BHP. This is due to the fact that it should not cost too much to gain this without engine rebuilds. This would include TB and programable ecu's.

a further option is to do both 1 and 2.

Class 2 for standard cars

Class 3 for those who want to go with more BHP.

 

Where do i stand with both these ideas?

well having lost a overall championship to a modified 1.6k the current rules do not hold up and leaving as is would be a poor option.

 I would either leave the engines per standard (vernias and 52mm TB are ok but no ducting of air to the TB). This is the best option for the club but not for inderiduals if not then anything goes upto an agreed BHP and I would like to see 155BHP so members who do not want or can not spend money on upgrades do not feel to disadvantaged.

If my option 3 was in place I would just pop my 1.8ss in and go to class 2 as it is the cheapist option although I have TB a programable ecu and the cost diffrance is about £400. 2/3 the cost of tyres for the year.

 

I have no confidence that this prosess will acheve anything as over the years our rules have been to flexable and unregulated. This is club motorsport it should be as cheap as posible and with cars as close to standard as they can.

 

I can hear you saying what about dampers? well the vast majority of current compeditors do not run standard dampers and there are many club members who also own non standard dampers. To return to standard dampers would be a mistake as it would exclude too many members.

 

Just my thoughts

 

David

 

[RogerLegg]

Looking to the future, if we want to encourage new members to class 2 then we must make it appear as though they have a chance of success. I guess many of the potential sprinters will, by now, have Sigma engines. The standard upgrade from Caterham was to 150 bhp and now to 140 bhp, both having 120 Nm of torque. Interestingly Caterham quote the same 0-60 time for the 140 as the 150! To get any more than this will involve considerable expenditure.

A big selling point of the club championship is that there are classes for all Caterhams but we are in danger of having only one class for "standard" cars, namely class 1. Anyone who has a Roadsport 140 or a Supersport will only have 140 bhp and may well be put off class 2 if they are up against modified cars with more power and torque. It would seem sensible to have class 2 catering for these potential recruits.

I would not wish to lose any of the current competitors but I see no logical reason why class 3 has to have the same engine specification as class 2. By having a higher power limit in class 3 provides an upgrade path for those wishing to modify their cars. We must not put off new recruits who have a standard package as supplied by Caterham so I would support a power limit of 150 bhp in class 2 starting in 2016. Most of the current competitors will be able to meet this.

As regards power testing, we don't want to put off potential recruits, so we shouldn't be asking for these to be done by everyone. We could request power runs from a competitor who appears to have more power than the rest of the class from either speed checks, or from results, at the discretion of the Competition Secretary or a small sub committee.

[CaterBram]

I should point out that both Sigma's and Zetec's were specifically allowed to have 155 BHP last season.

Whilst I didn't get there until towards the end of the season and still need the carbs resetting and a power run to get there, effectivly I think i'm already capable of 155BHP.

A number of people have invested money in tweeking there cars to fit within the 155BHP when they had undertaken permitted modifications which resulted in being of the 155BHP but not in breach of the regulations as no power limit was specified within the 2014 regulations for these cars. 

So whilst they have been gentleman and complied with an implied limit which was unenforcible I feel that it would be unacceptable to reduce the power limit below the established 155BHP. 

By all means restrict what modifications can be made if appropriate but don't penalise those who have already invested and complied with last years regulations both stated and implied.

 

[Englishmaninwales]

If we regulate for the standard plenum and 52 mm TB  for the K series, will the 1400 SS plenum with its forward facing 56mm TB, as supplied by CC, continue to be allowed as previously?

[Richard Price]

The more that I think about it, the more that I think "155bhp how ever you like" would lead to most existing competitors spending a lot of money, or simply walking away.

Unfortunately for K R300's owners, there does not appear to be a fair way of allowing them into class 2/3 without causing existing competitors to spend significant sums of money to make around the same power, but more torque.

Maybe class 2/3 should stay exactly as they are? (with a notional 155bhp guideline power)

 

 

[Grahame W]

I don't actually see how 155bhp by any means is any different to 155bhp under the current rules so I for one would not be either walking away or spending a small fortune to stay in class 3

The Northampton motorsport numbers showed that the basis of the existing rules were in fact extremely sound. An1800 giving 148bhp standard ported 1600's giving pretty much the same output, the cost to get to this level of power being reasonable and has been an accepted part of the championship for several years.

At 6-7 bhp any gap in performance is likely to be at least as much the driver as the car and if anyone really wants to invest in the best engine possible then they should be free to do so as at present.

[david nelson]

R300 is a 1.8ss with TB. We saw in class 4 how the rules were bent. Class 4 had been SLR spec with origanal swan neck TB. 

So what is stopping someone going to CC and getting the Supersport R upgrade? If you can do that  why not Jenvys. 

The more i think about it we should have class. 2 standard and class 3 to allow mods and include the R300. There are already some big powered k's 157 - 162 bhp out there.

 

I would set class 3 as 175BHP,  I think we should have a class were club members with standard car should compete. 

I am in favor for the club management to make up the classes. The club management not the comp sec should have the vested intreast for all the members and will not be worried if someones car get moved from one class to another. This is the clubs  speed championship for club members. Too many people are looking after there on intreasts 

 

 

David

 

 

[CaterBram]

But David in that lays the crux of the matter.....

how many standard 7's are there.

Class 1 might still have a couple but other than that i'd doubt theres many in class 2.

just like in the wider 7 land not many 7's stay standard, so if Class 1 & 2 are going to be standard it's going to be a very quite championship. 

[Richard Price]

"There are already some big powered k's 157 - 162 bhp out there"

Not any more, I don't think.

I've been running a pair of supersport cams rather than the Piper 633's my car was tested with.

The SS cams have less lift (9.3mm rather than 10.0mm), and around the same duration. Less lift = less torque.

 

I agree. I believe class 4 is much more "broken" than class 3.

Class 4 has crept up from SLR's running MEMS making about 190bhp (if you were lucky) to most cars being specifically mapped back from over 200bhp to 189.99bhp.

We're currently at risk of breaking class 3 in the same way :-(

I'd still class class 2/3 cars as "lightly modified". There are very few that run a standard short 4 branch exhaust that would have been "standard" on all K series Roadsports and Superlights.

Keeping a K on a standard Plenum and MEMS ECU has been reasonably effective at limiting performance.

Unfortunately, that does not help K R300 owners :-(

 

[david nelson]

My 1.8 ss has not been basterised as its not in the current rules. Its the same engine as left the factory just with vernias and 52mm TB.  There are unmolested car out there.

From a personal point of veiw i can run the following engine/bhp

1.8ss as per factory 140BHP

1.8ss with programable ECU BHP ?? but i guess more than 140BHP

1.8 ss with TB at whatever can be gained 155 -165bhp

1.8 with TB @ 189 BHP

1.8 with TB @ 209 BHP

so what ever is decided the only one that i am not covered is 155BHP with plenam and standard ecu. I guess this will be the one that goes a head as to many people will get upset if you allow TB and programable ecu in class 3.

Please carry on saying what is best for you.

When Simon said we should go to BHP no rules I thought this was a good idea, I still do if we are not going to run standard cars. Class 2 and 3 have been shown to be outside the rules/ the spirt of the championship and self regulation has failed.

David

 

 

[Grahame W]

If we were to go to a 155bhp by any means formula can someone more expert than me assess the impact of what seems to be everyones concern that is a 155bhp car detuned from a higher specific output and therefore with more torque.

As it has been posted many times about the influence of the driver over the odd 5-10 bhp can the increase in torque (between 2 cars both rated at 155bhp) really have that much impact on the final times

As this formula would include all the current contenders, allow in the one R300K that we know wants to compete (I believe the owner posted an RR result of 154bhp) and David with his 1800+TB option it seems the most inclusive.

If the class 4 changes are adopted then admittedly somebody with 175bhp or so has nowhere to go but I have no idea how many potential competitors this may effect and how many Caterham models fall in this band. This may be ultimately an argument to split the class 3 max power from the class 2 figure or if the numbers justified it add an extra class.  

[Richard Price]

Grahame,

It's a spread of torque (twisting force) that that actually accelerates the car, so the greater the spread of torque, the better.

A typical ported 1600 K has peak torque very close to peak torque. (at NM, I think my peak torque was at 6500ish rpm, and peak power at 7500rpm)

Of the current crop of class 2/3 cars, the 1800's accelerate very well in the mid range, but start to feel breathless with higher revs, where a typical ported 1600 just gets better and better as its reved.

Through a typical speed trap can be used to indicate power, but at, lets say Curborough, a car with superiour torque will accelerate better out of Fradley. It may not attain the same terminal speed, but it is more likely to arrive at the speed trap sooner.

Again, for those corners where you're using around 4500 rpm in 2nd gear. It's not really a 1st gear corner, but a 1600 will not pull paricularly well in 2nd, where an 1800 has significantly greater spread of torque, and will easily tolerate these lower revs.

An 1800, with a ported head, Throttle bodies and mapable ECU, could produce enough torque to make 155bhp all the way from 5500rpm to 8000rpm. It would accelerate very strongly.

Simply allowing 1800's to have a ported head would make the competition less equal, but the 1800's would then find it even more difficult to stay below the notional 155 bhp class limit.

Does that help you to understand why two cars both with 155 bhp can be quite different?

 

 

[PaulCo]

My thoughts are that we should run classes 2 and 3 at 155bhp for 2015, but then go to 150bhp for class 2 and 160 for class 3 in 2016. I take Alan's point about allowing TBs to fitted to anything, but I really can't support this. By all means let in cars that had them as OE, but for these classes, I see this as a mod (and therefore expense) too far.

Paul

[Graham Howard]

We need some stability in the rules to encourage new competitors and keep costs down for those already competing. If we have 155 bhp in 2015 then 150 for class 2 and 160 for class 3 in 2016 that will be 3 years with different engine rules.

I am still in favour of 155 bhp by any means. All current competing cars fall into this and it opens things up a bit for others. 

Also there is not enough difference between 150 and 160bhp. We have to accept that there won't be a class for every car otherwise we have too few in each class.

Richard's point about the torquey 1800 would be relevant at any power level and the only way to prevent this is to keep the current style of regs with specified mods allowed for each engine type, a difficult task as new engines are introduced.

 

 

[Grahame W]

Richard

Thanks for the treatise but would not the difference between a torquey car and a standard one still fall within all the other variables that have not been legislated for such as weight, gearing, set up etc?

I don't know if anyone has any hard data on exactly how much torque such an engine might have but from the Northampton data we already are aware of a spread from 115 ft/lb for 1600K through 121 ft/lb for Sigma 150 to 130ft/lb for 1800 X power and Zetec and that does not seem to stop some pretty hot competition and multiple winners in class 2

Sorry to labour the point but including R300s solves one of our eligibilty conundrums, would fit with a power limit by any means rule and if it does not hand an insurmountable advantage to such a car then seems a reasonable way to go.

The only problem then is for those cars in the 160-210bhp range but other than an R300D not sure what other standard cars are excluded.

[Stuart Miller 7]

I have read and re-read many of the posts and discussion points on here.

I think that class 2 and 3 should stay as they are.  They have always been popular classes, competition is close and it seems a shame to alter things at this stage to allow "other cars" to compete.  I don't see the "other cars" at the moment but I do think we should let standard R300's compete within class 3.  (I do mean standard with TB's and a MEMS that has not been played with)

If we don't do this and go to "155 by any means" then I fear this opens up a can of worms and the same issues that we have with class 4.  As far as I know, I'm the only (200+ BHP) class 4 car that runs with the original rule i.e. original equipment TB's albiet different cams.  If we change to 155 by any means in class 3, with a cam change and re-map this lets me into class 3.  I could drop my rev limit by 1K and have a 3K spread of 155BHP and 140Lb/f.  I can't think of anyone in class 2 or 3 who would want me there!

This would be a cheap route for me to downgrade.  It is not a cheap route for current class 2 or 3 upgrading.

I know I'm on the class 2 /3 section, but similarly I'd leave class 4 where it is but I do think that unless you're close i.e. <10BHP over, it would be more in the spirit of club competition to compete in the class that your car naturally fits.  For me and many others, this is 5.  The only issue is the big power Duratec's (sorry Shaun) which should maybe be in the "do anything you like as long as it's road legal" class 6 otherwise nobody will want to be in 5. 

So, I think it is important as a club that we keep 1, 2 and 3, for standard or mildly modified cars as it is at the moment.  I think the last thing we want is a class 3 like the current class 4 where we have cars built to the letter of the rule and perhaps not the spirit.  If we end up with one or two "specialist class 3 cars" I fear that entries will drop further.

And one for David - I think it's been proven that the current crop of class 3 cars do have small differences in both set up and power but it is the better driver on the day who wins, indeed your lowly powered class 3 car holds more records than the red car!  I don't think we should discourage the example set by these long standing sprinters who are so willing to be open about their cars and generous with their time to help others.  That's one of the many good bits about the Club Championship and half the reason I , personally take part.

[Alan Bowler]

What a mess.

For the ported 1.6SS vs. 1.8 discussion: I've run a DVA ported K 1.6SS, Mike Sankeys K 1.8SS, and my own K 1.8SS (refreshed internals). All bastardised with verniers, 52mm TB and long primary exhaust.  Standard springs/dampers. Went a little bit faster each time, but I put this down to experience/confidence and tyres. From a seat of the pants feel, the 1.8 feels quicker coming out of the corners, but the 1.6 kept on pulling on longer straights, which is backed up by the theory. The 1.6 was more fun, until it exploded. I managed two wins against two different ported 1.6's by 0.01s this year, one on a track, one on a hill, so it couldn't be much closer, and the Zetecs and Sigmas are definititely competive IMHO under the current rules. I also know that a well driven class 2 car of any spec (proven by Matt W in a ported 1.6, Mike S in an unported 1.8, Matt J in a Xflow dammit) will wipe the floor.

For the "TB or not TB" discussion:. On the one hand, a well driven 1.8 on TBs should be a smidge quicker than a 1.8K without, which in turn implies will be a smidge quicker than a ported 1.6K and the Sigmas and Zetecs as well. So we potentially impact all existing competitors. On the other, we need to be inclusive and have simple rules. I don't like saying "155 limit but TBs on K series in class 3 only please" as it smacks of self-interest. Saying yes to nominally 160 bhp R300s, but only if they detune to 155 is a fudge as well. But do we have anyone with and R300ish car who actually wants to compete in class 2? A lot of torque on 1A tyres becomes even more of a handful.
 

I think the arguments for and against are now clear and understood. Time for some candidate rules and a vote, before it gets (more) personal. My tastefully enhanced Roadsport is already hurt at being described as "bastardised" , plus I can see why current & previous comp. secs will be getting a bit tired of the squabbles in the playground.

(any chance of a postal/email vote please?)

AB

 

 

[Stuart Miller 7]

I'm with Alan

I would say your car was "beautifully updated" Alan...

My only other comments pertinent on class 2 / 3 would be that a standard R3 does not make 160.  It is very lucky to make 155 - more likely 150 to 152 I would say.  Much like my SLR didn't even get to 180, let alone the quoted 190.  Therefore I don't see the issue with the R300's joining in (so long as their standard)  This can be monitored anyway.  

Nothing meant to be personal Alan, I was just demonstrating a point.

I personally would like to see what is good for the championship as a whole.  I know it is a competition and we can take it as seriously as we like, HOWEVER, none of us should forget that this is run by volunteers (all the way from comp-sec, through scorer, through the marshalls on circuit) who put aside their own time for no charge and for our benefit.  They don't need grief from those that should be supporting them.

I'll get down now.

 

 

[Grahame W]

Not sure its a mess but the last couple of weeks of posts do indicate just how difficult it is to craft a set of rules to be as inclusive as possible.

The very fact that several of us have expressed doubt about our initially firmly held beliefs in the light of new evidence from others surely shows this has been a well worthwhile exercise especially in a year when such momentous change is being proposed

I still favour just a single power limit purely because it makes the rules and the enforcement much simpler, the current rules are quite complex and still have not prevented laterally thought out modifications, if we really want to tie down the spec of cars it will take a huge tome similar to the old Roadsport A rules and regs right down to size and position of numberplate and when you can and cannot have gaffer tape between the windscreen and roll cage!