2015 Tech forum - technical regulations affecting multiple classes

[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

In simplifying the rules we have removed regulations such as limiting the type of dampers allowed in certain classes.  Please use this thread to discuss any ideas regarding the technical regulations that affect all, or multiple, classes.
 

[CaterBram]

Just reading the new regulations and stumbed accross the tyre warming paragraph which has been in previous years.

 

Tyre warming before a run must not be excessive. It is not permitted to apply the brakes whilst spinning the wheels.

 

I know a number of competitors do several short , spin, brake, spin, brake, spin.... move to start line

the above seems to prohibit that form of tyre warming or am I missing something.

Also should it also be there that tyre warming is only allowed when explicitly permited by the event organisers.

[Stuart Miller 7]

Chris, you're missing something.

Tyre warming as above means you are not applying the brakes whilst spinning the wheels.  It would be more appropriate to delete the second sentence as left foot / heel toe braking with the rear spinning would be far kinder to the car.  I do this at non-club events.

It' the "excessive" bit that's the problem (Dai / Adrian et al.............)

[Matthew Willoughby]

Chris, Stuart is right, the regulation is there to stop people spinning there wheels while, at the same time, holding the car on the brakes so that it barely moves forward.  The rule was brought in following excessive tyre warming at Loton Park in 2007.  I'm happy to review if enough people want us to.
 

[CaterBram]

That's fine, and I thought that it was something like that but first time i'd actually thought about it.

 

[Simon.Rogers]

After some competitors this year continued to ignore this rule I spotted them using the brake even when the lights did not come on.

However it came to my attention half way through the year that it is kinder to the car if we were to remove this rule given we are now approx 7 years down the road from the infamous Loton Park.

I discussed this with a few competitors throughout the year. I therefore propose that the rule is removed and it should follow the standard MSA rule that simplynstates that forward momentum should be maintained.

So that one clutch bite/use age a little brake and warm tyre.  Excessive smoke will be penalised by the spirit of the champs rule and a bloody great big stick!

 

[Simon.Rogers]

For the Future.

Should we consider merging Class 5 and 6 for the sake of competition.

Not for 2015 or even for 2016.

[Graham Howard]

 

I think the majority are in favour of power limits for all classes, except for possibly class 1. 

The rules are a little bit vague as to how these power limits are to be enforced:

Cars which have technical modifications deemed by 
the Eligibility Scrutineer not to meet the basic spirit of
the technical regulations will be allocated to the most 
appropriate class. The reference maximum power limit 
for Classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are guideline limits in 
power for these classes. Cars with engines deemed to 
have a higher power level will be moved to another 
class.

We all know that rolling roads can roduce markedly differing results, this one referenced by in another thread shows an 1800 SS producing 135 BHP on the Emerald rolling road. My 1800 X power which is supposed to be a bit tamer gave 146 BHP on the Northampton Motorsport rolling road. That is a variation of  about 8%. So a car producing 155 BHP at Emerald may well give 167 BHP at Northampton. Would that car be legal in class 2 and 3?

I am happy that the eligiblity scrutineer ( who I assume is the Comp Sec.) can deem a car to have too much power but some people get very competitive and I think we need to define a rolling road (and have it written in the rules) where power can be measured to settle any disputes. I suggest Northampton Motorsport as we already have quite a lot of data from there.

This is a very friendly series and I wouldn't expect anybody to go outside the spirit of the rules but a stricter definition of how we may enforce power limits would avoid any possible disputes. 

One other point.......

Why don't we ban tyre warming altogether? It would be the same for everybody and save wear on tyres and transmission.

Graham

[Grahame W]

With the change to a power only formula I cannot see that we can ignore the possibility of having cars tested.

I agree that as we already have some data from Northampton that this should be the default choice and its reasonably central in England

At the risk of repeating myself I do not see any problem with everyone having a power run done at some point throughout the year so that every one knows where they stand 

If as a result competitors ignore the advice of Stuart, Simon, David et al that driver experience and talent is far more important than a few BHP and go chasing the last couple of BHP then that is their choice  

[Simon.Rogers]

We are a friendly club competition.

I do not want to see people having to go to the rolling road prior to or during the season. Not even once. Its an unnecessary cost.

If someone tells me they have 149.9 or 154.999999 bhp I will believe them. 

We are now losing sight that this is fun. Opening the rules up to be more inclusive of all engine types is is supposed to encourage more entrants not put people off.

The existing rules were tweeked over a number of years and worked well and balanced.  I have never said they do not do that.

A small error crept in on the cams in 1600 K's. It should have remained with Caterham Supersport cams.

However moving on opening up the rules on a power format is the way forward as different engines appear. 

No testing should be required as a matter of course. 

[Graham Howard]

Agreed that this is a friendly competition and I do not believe that any competitor would deliberated break the rules to gain an advantage. But I find it extraordinary that we are basing the engine rules on a measurement (bhp) that we are never going to check.

I am only suggesting a rephrasing of the rules, not mandatory rolling road checks for every car. 

Does anybody else have a view on this?

[robmar]

In the regs class 6 it specifically states

Driver Aids - All driver aids are permitted in this class.

In no other class does it mention driver aids, does that mean they are / are not allowed?  For clarity and the sake or argument we should make it clear

a. what driver aids are

b. what is and what isn't allowed in any class

 

rob

[Simon.Rogers]

We also need to specifically include or exclude Supercharged and turbo charged cars.

I am of a mind that as we are power capped in classes rather than capacity capped they should be included in the necessary class.

EG if someone arrives with a suppercharged Busa - they do not run in 7 but run in 6.

[robmar]

Simon - agree if it is just BHP based it relly doesn't matter how you get there, and as class 6 is unlimited then...

as the regs are proposed do we even have to mention it?

e.g.hypothetically if someone turns up with a supercharged K with 250 bhp they are in 5, if they have 300 bhp they are in 6

Rob

[Grahame W]

It would appear reading all these threads that quite a few unintended consequences have crept in over the years and those gaps have been exploited. Is there a way to add an extra step of checking the draft outcome of the technical forum before it becomes cast in concrete for the following years

I'm also getting a little confused about what can discussed that will have an influence on next year and those topics where a final decision has clearly already been made.

Finally whilst in favour of simple power only class limits it will inevitably open up a wider variety of ways to achieve that power. I still do not see anything wrong in proving that with a power run, then the rules can be applied and if you have a car that does not meet the class regulations  you either get bumped up to the next class or find a way to comply with the regs as has been demonstrated this year. 

[Simon.Rogers]

Grahame

I know Matthews day job sometimes delays replies.  If you have something to question then you should do so.  Don't hold back.

I understand your thinking for a rolling road run but personally don't want to obligate people to pay for one prior to competition.

However if a Class 3 car starts to go 2 or 3 mph faster than other cars through a speed trap they could well be asked to visit the nominated rolling road.

If i was entering it would not just be a fee for a power run but a full day to get there and back and £120 of fuel.

[Grahame W]

Simon

For clarity  I am not advocating a test prior to competition, but like Graham H I cannot see how you can have a power based formula without some kind of obligation to prove it if required

Even if it was for class winners only such a requirement would have prevented the embarassment of the Northampton runs earlier this year

[Leg]

I think that we are in danger of taking our rules too far. I for one wont be taking my car to Northampton Motorsport - its simply too far, and I can compete in other series without this added expense. We can simply accept  competitiors own judgment regarding where they sit in the power based formula - you can always tell if a car is not in the right class because it's speed across the finish line will be out of kilter with the rest of the class.We will keep loosing competitors to other series if we add rules over and above the MSA rules and make it all too serious - when I think back over the winners of our championship they have all just been very good drivers - so I am happy to leave things as they are.

 

[Alan Bowler]

Something at the end like: "The Comp Sec can advise on a cars class eligibilty based on engine spec, tyres and general specification. Where classes specify a BHP limit, comparative speed trap data will be monitored to validate the correct class is entered and the spirit of the regulations are followed. For power verification in cases of uncertainty or dispute, Northampton Motorsport Rolling Road is the reference."   ?

AB

[Graham Howard]

Well done Alan. You put into words exactly what I was thinking.

[Stuart Miller 7]

No rolling road - this is a club competition.  If someone says they have x BHP then that is what they have - end of conversation. 

To me, apart from everything else, if you make someone go to the rollers, you are effectively accusing them of cheating.  They could quite genuinly have set their car up to the power limit on any number of rollers or dyno and then go to Northampton on a day with different conditions / tyres etc and be over a class limit.  There is undoubtedly a % difference between rollers and I can't believe we want to dsq someone because they happen to make 162 versus 158BHP on a different day at a different venue.  Now if they're 6 or 7 mph quicker through a speed trap then that is different but I think this should be a case of someone having a quiet word and sorting it that way.

Difficult to say this the right way but I think if you look at the results / winners etc it is the faster drivers who put in better times and not a reflection of power output.

[OliW]

Tyre warming - I agree with Simon, this should be in line with the MSA rule of maintaining forward motion.

Re proving power limits - I think anyone should be willing to prove the power of their engine if required and if it is justified, but not arbitrarily.  I also think the rolling road choice should be open.  No further stringency should be necessary as minor power differences make little difference in my view. 

[Matthew Willoughby]

Grahame, please discuss anyhing you want.  I don't want anybody to hold back a genuine idea because they don't think it will be listened to.  I have no agenda here (I will no longer be competing) so just want to leave the Championship in as healthy a state as possible, for everybody else to continue to enjoy as much as I have done over the years.

My only reservation is that having announced the basis of the 2015 regs a year ago, people will have made plans and spent money on the basis that they won't significantly change.  We have to bear this in mind, but the main priority has to be to maximise entry number in all classes in the future, which is never going to be easy.  It's always going to be a very difficult balancing act that can never suit everybody.

The rolling road issue is a nightmare as they vary so much from location to location.  Classes 1, 2 and 3 have Northampton as a benchmark but 4 does not.  Speed traps are a sensible way forward but they must be closely monitored and action must be taken against any car going way faster than the rest.

[OliW]

Matthew, your third para...

I agree and think the burden shouldn't be too high in proving what one has.

[Stuart Miller 7]

And away from the power discussion.... - Regulations 3.3 clarification:

3.3 General Technical Requirements
Cars in classes 1 to 6 must run in a fully road
legal condition (i.e .with correct lighting and all other technical requirements, taxed, insured and
MOT’d where applicable). Competitors are advised that they may be asked to provide documentary proof at an event.

So it says "where applicable" and you don't need lights to be in "fully road legal condition".  So as I read it, I can run with no lights and comply with the current regulations as the rule stands.

OR

Is this deemed "not in the spirit"?  The car has no lighting fitted at present and I never drive on the road so I wasn't going to bother refitting.  Just before I turn up and everyone moans at me....