Class 2/3 power trorque update post lunch

[david nelson]

Dear All 

All I want is a level playing field equal power /torque across all engine types. 

next weekend we will be discussing our regs. 

I would like to discuss the current restrictions on 1.8SS 

My 1.8 SS (k) makes 144 BHP and 115 lb-ft and under current regs I am unable to do anything to my engine. The argument has always been the 1.8 has more torque than the 1.6's

 

Let us look at the facts from the RR in 2014

Class 2/3 

Andrew Willoughby - ported 1.6 K Series Supersport 157.1 bhp @ 7,550 RPM 123.2 lb ft @ 5,650 RPM

Rob Spencer - ported 1.6 K Series Supersport 139.2 BHP @ 7,050 RPM 110.9 lb ft @ 6,300 RPM

Roger Cumming - ported 1.6 K Series Supersport 146.1 BHP @ 7,300 RPM 114.3 lb ft @ 5,600 RPM

Richard Price - ported 1.6 K Series Supersport 163.2 BHP @ 7,600 RPM 122.9 lb ft @ 6,150 RPM 

Graham Howard - 1.8 K Series X-Power 146.4 BHP @ 6,850 RPM 129.2 lb ft @ 5,200 RPM Graham Howard - 1.8 K Series with Z&F ECU 147.7 @ 7,000 RPM 130.1 lb ft @ 5,250 RPM

Chris Bramall - 1.8 Zetec on twin 40 Weber carbs 134.7 BHP @ 5,800 RPM 131.9 lb ft @ 4,600 RPM

Oli Wright - Standard 1.6 Sigma Superlight 150 151.3 BHP @ 6,950 BHP 120.2 lb ft @ 6,100 RPM

 

Class 2 & 3
The Current regulations within Class 2&3 provide a reference power of 150BHP, together with specific requirements for engine restrictions. Competitors for who we have reference power data within Class 2&3 are spread across the range of 135 BHP to 154 BHP.
Maximum engine capacity shall be 1800CC.
The exception to the following choices shall be that all single cam engines, Lotus Twin Cam and Cosworth BD series engines, shall have the power for these engines limited to 160BHP.
The options to be considered for all other engines are :-
1. Reference Power to remain at 150 BHP plus allowance.
2. Power Limit to be fixed at 150 BHP
3. Power Limit to be fixed at 155 BHP.
Option 1&3 will have no impact on current competitor eligibility, Option 2 will require several competitors to either change class or reduce their engine power to the new limit.

Out of all the class 2/3 at the rolling road my engine is in the bottom group with regards to both BHP and lb-ft. How lets be frank its never been a problem for me to have a lower powered car than others as I have done pity well in the past, however it looks as if I could be 11 BHP and less torque down by the end of next week. 

All I want is a level playing field equal power /torque across all engine types. 

Why can we not just have a power limit like class 4 and able to us any cams ecu's ect.

David 

[Grahame W]

I have some sympathy with just having a power limit for class 2/3 as this capacity/power area has always been one of the most popular and numerous of the Caterham options and so is and will continue to be a difficult class to legislate true equality.

The advantages as I see it are

Any newcomers with a modified car can be included if they meet the power requirement

No existing competitors are excluded

Covers all of the currently available 1600/1800 engines

Newcomers need not be put off if they first enter with a less than optimal car as there is plenty of historical evidence of cars with under 155bhp being tolerably competitive (eg David himself)

There is no limitation for those competitors who feel the need to exploit the rules to the maximum

The only problem I can see (and have expressed in earlier discussions) is that there should be an obligation to prove or be willing to prove that the most competitive cars meet the power limit regulation as the speed trap regulation is hardly adequate for what would now be a pretty open specification.

Grahame

[Richard Price]

David,

I think it highly unlikely that, if your car were run on the same rolling road, on the same day, by the same operator, your car would be anything like as far behind as you perceive.

Whilst the peak power figure sounds plausible, the torque figure is well down.

Graham Howard's Xpower 140 produced 129.2 lb ft @ 5,200 RPM. The Xpower 140 cams are are milder than your SS cams. Your SS cams should produce more torque in the mid and upper range than Xpower 140 cams.

Unless there is something wrong with your engine, or your cams are timed differently, I'm sure, on the same day, on the same rolling road, with the same operator, your engine would have made more that Grahams Xpower 140.

[Mark Durrant]

I agree with Richard and the way the regs are currently written keeps the costs down and has produced very close competition over many years. I therefore see no reason to change, oh and what was the engine in the class 2 winning car

[OliW]

Tricky this - there are so many engine specifications that it's difficult to find a suitable limit for all.  With a reference power, how do you decide how much leeway to allow?  I am broadly in favour of a power limit of 155 which would catch all, although that might also cause problems for some.

[Richard Price]

Tricky indeed.

K's are a well known formula, and has produced some very close competition for many years including this year. Why change anything?

The Sigma's are still a little unknown to some extent. The factory standard upgrade specs don't seem to make such good torque as K's, and where Oli's peak torque figure looks reasonable, its way up the rev range at over 6krpm, but maximum revs are only 7k rpm, so it hasn't got enough revs to produce a better headline power figure. A 150 sigma with a 5 speed 'box must be horrible.... ( a little like a 1400 supersport and 5 speed)

The latest generation of variable valve timing Sigmas are even more unknown, but, as factory variable valve timing is more about achieving acceptable emissions with minimal loss of performance, it may not offer the advantage that a K VVC offers with its larger valves and ports AND better cams.

Maybe it's just too early to tell with the latest generation of Sigmas? If someone chose to use a custom modified Sigma, and proved to be dominant, then maybe that competitor would be deemed to be outside the spirit of the championship by the championship elders, and receive a tap on the shoulder, and asked to make changes or change class (Like I did after the 2014 rolling road day, where I was very surprised by the results.........)

 

[Simon.Rogers]

This is only a comment - observation.

I have the 150 Sigma with TB's in my SV hire car.  Goes well but needs to be kept over the 5000rpm or else it is as dull as dishwater.

No comparison to a K.

I then had the opportunity to drive a 140 Sigma at Anglesey - It completely changed my view of a Sigma.  It wants to rev as freely as the K did/does.  I would no longer look just for a K in order to compete.

Brilliant.

[johnpbransfield]

No pressure there then Simon!

 

[Simon.Rogers]

No names mentioned JOHN !

[Dannyboy]

David

My observation is thus: I've almost the same spec engine as you and would suggest similar power output. My speed trap data is showing a little bit down on others nothing massive at all. Torque and power wise - I really didn't notice much difference driving Jeff's car at Curborough. 

With the class regulations as they are currently set no one really has to take an engine apart or do modifications that could be relatively expensive in order to be competative. The disadvantage of power means you have to drive harder is the simple answer.

If we go the route of limiting power then we should also look at minimum weight limits for car and driver as we had racing... That way you racing snakes can lose the advantage of not having to haul a lardy arse and beer gut about...

This is about cheap, enjoyable grass roots motorsport. You and I have both proved that the newest and best equipment, biggest power, newest tyres etc aren't required to compete and at times upset the applecart. Going to different Cams, ECU's etc would I think discourage many people in standard Caterhams from competing knowing that they would have no chance of being competative. I never entered Class 3 in the ACB10 era purely because I though sprint specific tyres a waste. If I had to spend thousands on the engine to compete I'd stop and go back racing.

So why change something that isn't broken? If someone cheats... well, where's the fun in competing in class for them? At this level the fun is in competing not winning.

We are all fairly self regulating, noting our competitors sector times and speed trap figures.. If someone stands out then we question it.

[Mark Durrant]

Dan

[Englishmaninwales]

 I know much of this has been already said  

Whilst I would generally tend to look to simplify regulations, the current rather complicated engine regulation has produced competitive times for different engines, albeit with some engines suited more to either sprints or hillclimbs.

As said, having a 'bhp' limit only for a class, regardless of engine type/induction/ECU specification, would require some form of screening to ensure compliance. The first rule of screening is the requirement of a test with low false positive and false negative rates. The wide variability of bhp testing would cause us serious grief and argument.

Also, for fairness, all cars would need to be tested. Year on year. This would entail significant cost to all.

I would conclude, much as I would love to fit my Jenvys and Emerald and enjoy getting more bhp and torque from my engine, my view is that we should leave the regulations, in this respect, as they are.

Now then, where is my high fat low carb snake diet sheet

Malcolm

[punch]

There is obviously some disquiet over various engine powers, could we  not agree that  in the most popular classes , 1-2-3 to agree 130 / 155 hp limit and have  class winners visit rolling road at end of season for check? I do not know the costs involved, and i`m sure it must have been suggested before but without the facts good or bad the unease will carry on. 

Philip

[Dannyboy]

Just to aid fuel to the fire then... Assuming I'm say 35kg heavier than certain drivers... No smirking there at the back!!! And as there is no carbon my car also weighs 15kg more with heater and carpets/ fibreglass wings and normal alloys not lightweight... Assuming the car plus driver weigh 630kg ish... My power to weight- which is a much more important influence on acceleration than pure bhp is 7% less... Equating to over 10ish bhp..

or... We self regulate... As stated- power testing is not even half of the story regarding performance in a seven... It's why every single make race series have minimum weight limits to give parity 

[Englishmaninwales]

Phillip

I was trying to point out,the RR test is too variable, from RR to RR, day to day or even tyre to tyre. Plus the cost, location, fuel, time off work etc., etc. 7 classes = 7 RR fees. Add that cost to your entry fees.

And why only test the winner? As you are aware, there are individual battles all the way down the classes (remember you lost overall in class to me by only a tiny margin ). You might want to contest my engine.

Although it's not perfect, he formula has worked for a number of years, giving close competition.

Malcolm

[Dannyboy]

Not that close Malcolm 

[Simon.Rogers]

630kg 

Mopping up the tea I just spat out  - hi Dan 

[Dannyboy]

Look.. stop tekkin the P*ss... I can lose weight.... you will forever be bald and welsh...

[david nelson]

Mark 

I realise that my engine has won class 2 and class 3 in the past however I wonder how much quicker I would be in a 1.6 at super sport with ported head .  Historically we have seen over optimisation of this engine and although it has been deemed to be within the regulations I'm on clear how the club is currently regulating this. The relevance of K-series or Sigma level playing field is important. Despite my concerns previously no investigation actions were taken by that then competition secretaries.

 I find it encouraging that the rules were tightened up last year and that alterations to cars were made in the reduction of power. My concerns are for the future that new people make over optimise their cars And that we have no real control over this. I hear that the rules are broken however there was an ability to detect or act on cars previously with significantly more power than others. Therefore the question is how do we stop this from occurring again.

 Dan I agree with your statement and fully that this is only club motorsport. I for one have little desire to spend significant amounts of money on making my car competitive.  I do however want to play on a relatively level playing field.  If I had the drive or the desire I know I can always change the engine on my car to maximise its performance. At the end of the day this is only meant to be fun and hence the reason for only doing eight rounds and this year as the outcome  was either going to be favourable or not. We all set for financial limits to this fun we are having and you are correct that normally money in Motorsport hates people to win. Whether this be in  The number of events people undertake or modifications to engines and suspension. 

 What fails to be explained or regulated is someone buying a 1.8 super sport unknown origin and we find that they had has been ported all the cancer been changed and therefore fails to meet the class 23 regulation . Unless this person is a driving God we would not know until they get home the skills within sprinting and then questions were likely to be asked.

 

 Unless this person is a driving God we would not know until they get home the skills within sprinting and then questions were likely to be asked.

 

We have seen cars that have competed in class three Yet to been advertised on piston heads as an obvious class for car. Again  I have seen no robust system in place to resolve these issues. Historically is been taken that this is just for fun and that bending the rules or exceeding the rules has been okay. all I look for is a level playing field when no one is taking additional advantage weather on purpose or by accident.

David

 

 

 

 

[Mark Durrant]

David

The regulations allow the Comp Sec to move a competitor to another class and in the past where competitors have not complied with the regulations this has been dealt with by the Comp Sec. This has been done in confidence and resolved. I know because I had to do so when I was Comp Sec.

The regulations are designed for Speed Events not a one make race championship and work. I keep an eye on speed trap data (I am sure others do) which will highlight excessive power and I have seen nothing of concern and if I did I would have a discreet word with Chris B. You do not need to be a driving god to drive a car quick in a straight line.

I remember the day when the club followed MSA regs for classes with a 1700cc limit so a 1.8k Superlight was in the same class as a Superlight R and when the regs were changed to the class structure we have now 1.6K with a ported head was allowed to even the competition with the 1.8K.

I see no reason to change the regs and incur competitors unnecessary cost.

[david nelson]

Are that will be the  ported head and  supersport cams then. 

[david nelson]

What has the speed committee decided about cams? Supersport cams are they still made? If not what cams can be used? If there is a designated replacement cam ? We have seen the difference between different cam profiles. 

Current proposals will allow 150 plus or minus or 155 bhp. 1.8 ss engines are locked down and remaining standard with a cam change due to wear would this mean the next class up even when the bhp will be below 155?

 

just asking the question

 

 

David 

[Grahame W]

Mmmm

Having kept my head down after first post this all makes interesting reading.

In my naivity when having my first engine built back in 2005 I read the regulations as intending you could modify a standard supersprint 1600 by porting the head to a known standard so that meant leaving the supersprint cams in and going to Dave Andrews for the head.

The outcome of that along with the requirement for a catalyst meant a 148.4 BHP maximum at Northampton Motorsport albeit some months after the original group power test 2 years ago versus an original outcome of 138 BHP with a 3 BHP window under the rules of the Roadsport A championship where all engines had to be rebuilt dyno'd and sealed by Minister.

The only way we could have prevented the more liberal interpretations of the regulations would be to have ended up with a rule book the size of an encyclopaedia something that should not be needed for low level club motorsport, and would be impossible to construct with the multiplicity of engines in our classes.

So continuing as we are seems the only sensible option as anything else would be total overkill for a fun amateur championship, BUT the variety of concerns raised by a number of people of whom David is often the first to put his head above the parapet clearly indicates unresolved concerns.

 

[Mark Durrant]

If any competitor has reasons to doubt the eligibility of any competitor then they should raise it 'in confidence' with the Comp Sec.

[david nelson]

Have done in the past . Result = nothing done 

this is all in the past and does not need to be dragged back up

david