2015 Tech forum - technical regulations affecting multiple classes

[Stuart Miller 7]

Rob - talking of Rule 3.3

It specifically states that all driver aids are banned from classes 1 to 5.

[robmar]

Stuart - so it does*thumbup*

[Grahame W]

Matthew

Thanks for the response, I see your point on certain areas not being moved too far from last years proposals, I guess I had seen it then as a heads up that change was in the air and to hold on any upgrades until the exact rules were decided now.

As a proponent of RR power runs I agree that this is club sport, they do not need to be mandatory for everyone and the impracticality to use only one road is a problem. The speed trap rule has been in the regs for years and as none of us believes a fellow competitor would deliberately cheat it will never be used.

Regarding the headline power quoted for the classes are we being channelled down a route because we are using the number we have from Northampton and does that RR read high. If so in Class1 we could still use the headline standard car figure of 125BHP to ensure no newcomers turned off but the regs can give a +5% band to allow for the actual measurements we have. Then 2/3 could be 150BHP (as that is where most of the cars actually are)  unfortunately the class4/5 divide which seemed such an easy and sensible decision last year is mired with problems. 

 

[Graham Howard]

Matthew

Thanks for you reply about power and rolling roads. I think most of us will be happy that speed traps are closely monitored and action taken if necessary. I think I went a bit over the top in my orginal posting and was a bit surprised by the strange reply from Simon.

All of us want to compete with others in cars of similar performance and there is no satisfaction in winning with a car that has a clear power advantage. The closeness of the competition class 2 this year between cars probably having between 145 and 155 bhp is how our series should work. 

 

 

 

[Simon.Rogers]

Sorry Graham 

Didn't mean it that way.  Remember I am no longer the Comp Sec - my opinion has the same value as anyone elses.

Just for clarrity the eligiblity scrutineer is Gerry Walton.  I would however suggest that he will be guided by whatever the Comp Sec says 

 

[Mark Durrant]

The existing regs work and the detail of standard plenum etc has guided competitors and ensured close competition. If you just set a power limit 'standard' cars will eventually end up uncompetitive and people will either be faced with an engine upgrade bill or will chose to compete elsewhere.

Remember rolling roads only give the power at a set day/time and many factors will influence the peak power recorded including air temperature, tyre pressures etc so they are only a guide. Speed trap data at an event will show which cars are the fastest and have more power.

[Graham Howard]

 

Off topic I know, but....

The software on most rolling roads will apply a correction factor taking account of atmospheric pressure and temperature so that you get comparable results regardless of weather conditions. But tyre pressures and the coast down method to measure transmission losses can introduce some error.

[CaterBram]

FWIW The coast down readings on two seperate visits to Northampton earlier this year were only a knatts whisker apart despite the 2 months betweenbthem.

[OliW]

Is there dispensation in the regs, or should there be, to allow people to apply to enter a class with a particular car, even if in the way it is sold it does not necessarily fit the regs precisely? 

For example, if a car was advertised by Caterham as being a 1.6k with 160bhp, but actually it only made 148 when tested, should they be allowed to apply to the Comp Sec to enter class 2 or 3?  Then, if thought to be viable, could a vote by class members go ahead to allow that person in?  Such a mechanism may have allowed Phil Cook to compete in our class this year.  He would likely have done more events then and if he turned out to beat everone through the speed traps then the decision could be reviewed.  Instead he was moved, rightly as per the regs at the time, out of class 3 and in to 4 and then we didn't see much of him.

Just a thought.

Oli

[rob spencer]

On the topic of tyre warming, I thought the rule we had a few years ago whereby in the case of duel drives, the faster driver would compete first on the cold tyres was very sensible.  That's not how the running order has been set in the past couple of years and I think an unfair advantage has been handed to some already very competitive drivers when it needn't have been.

I'm not saying a faster driver is more important than a slower one, such that the faster driver's competition is more important than the slower driver's, but it is true that the margins at the sharp end of the competition tend to be smaller than further back in the rankings and therefore small advantages have a greater effect.

I've heard the argument that the faster driver is best kept with the main class runners (running later) to ensure evenness of conditions, i.e. it would be unfair for the most competitive driver running first to enjoy a fast dry run just before a shower wets the track for his/her competitors.  But that doesn't wash as a fast drying track will have an opposite effect - and it doesn't happen very often.  Tyres warmed by the first driver will give the more second driver an advantage every time.

We should reinstate the fastest driver first rule

Rob

[robmar]

Rob - however the inverse is likely true if you are running ZZR soft tyres, where they can be better to run first as they can get too hot for the second driver.  So the rule doesn't always give the percieved advantage that you are talking about.

Maybe you need to find a friendly tyre warmer to duel drive with

[garybee]

I see that the requirement for cars in class 1 to 6 to have an MOT remains unchanged.  Can this be changed to a full MOT before anyone turns up with a daytime MOT and no headlamps?

[garybee]

As tyre warming has been mentioned earlier in this thread...

Is there any mileage in a 'no spinning of wheels before start' rule?  It would help to keep costs down and I wouldn't have to watch a couple of cars that seem likely to mow down a marshal prior to every run.

[david nelson]

Self regulation does not work. Regulation by comp sec does not work. I expresed by thought about Richard's 7 being much quicker down the hill at Gurston than others in class 3 including me. I was told to get back in my box. We then do forward a while and what do we see at NM roling road.

we also saw a x-flow in recent times in class 3 that was mean to be below 160bhp had higher speeds than others and was sold stating more than the 160 bhp. Again nothing done about it.

It is club motorsport and the bending of rules have never been managed well by the comp secs (excluding BaconButty as he was only there for my 1st year). To much smoothing over and no action.

 

In the big picture is just mean to be fun. Dual drives get an advantage thats life, as i have said before, I would much prefer a family to spend the day together and dual drive than not compete. Its a family club

 

David

ps tyre warming. sound good to me. just need to get some colour smoke sorted

[OliW]

True David, it's human nature to push the limits in a competitive environment and that is why I support some provision to prove power as necessary.  I wonder whether we ought to have torque limits for some cars hoping to enter particular classes too. 

[Grahame W]

David

One of the earlier posts from Matthew requested effective and close monitoring of max speed info, that is supported by your post that if ineffectual then you may as well not have the rule at all.

I have posted several times about power testing, whilst accepting now that no one wants it to be a prerequisite for entry I still see no problem with class winners being expected to prove what they have got at some point throughout the year.

Before anyone suggests that the power run could be taken with a different spec to that used in competition then firstly I do not believe anyone I have met through the club would do that and if anyone did then well they have to live with it

[Notsohotcams140]

If we want torque limits it would have to be for all in the class and someone has got to work out what's acceptable. It's a good idea as it makes a difference but might take a couple of seasons to get the rules prepared?

i know this is clubman motorsport but a feeling of injustice stays with people and if rules exist there should be an enforcement structure. Most people judge there performance by looking for the closest spec car to them and mentally adjusting the differences.

[Simon.Rogers]

I propose that this online forum is dropped for next year and that we return to the discussion after the awards event. It may not please our partners but hey this is not good!

If you want any say you need to be at the awards.

[Mark Durrant]

I agree with Simon we need to revert to a meeting as few cannot be trusted to post responsibly despite Matthew reminding us all 'The forum is our shop window for potential new competitors so please bear this in mind when writing your posts'

Some of the views expressed are not representative of the championship and are very disappointing

 

[OliW]

Mark, have I missed something?  What's been wrong with the discussion so far?

[Nigel Fox]

I understand the comments of Simon and Mark.

I think this discussion is very valuable however. I understand other competitors views much better, and have probably changed my view in some areas. This forum is an important preparation for a face to face meeting. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

Sorry I can't make the presentation but work beckons.

[CaterBram]

The other option with the Tech Forum is to have a private area for these discussions which is only visible to registered competitors, 

Some people will have strong feelings on certain subjects and in all honestly there has been more open an honest discussion on the forum than I think you would get compressed into a short period. 

I think going forwards that a combination of the two might work best, a private online forum as a discussion group, then a formal agreement of any changes at a Tech Forum proir to the Awards. 

 

 

[garybee]

Put it in the 'members only' area by all means but I think this process needs to stay too.  For the reasons Chris has given and also that it allows more time to consider suggestions/responses.

[Leg]

I fully support going back to a face to face discussion forum,it is much easier to put ideas across and also to understand the pros and cons of the discussion when you are all together.

 

[Richard Price]

I think that there is much valid opinion that has come to light in this process, and that there have been responces that have been given once these opinions have been "slept on".

However, I agree that this dicussion should be restricted to registered contenders and out of general club memberships views.