Proposed 2022 Regulation Changes

[Wrightpayne]

How will engine power be ascertained?

[Comp Sec]

As you can probably gather we are a friendly championship and we rely a lot on the honesty of competitors, which works as the competition is very close. We keep an eye on speed trap figures and if we saw any car was significantly faster on the straight than others in the class we would have a word with the driver. Then he would either move to a higher class or ask him to reduce his engine power.

We have never yet asked any competitor to verify the power of their car, that would only be a last resort.

Most seasoned competitors know that engine power is only third on the list of ingredients for success after driving talent and car setup/tyres.

[IanJ]

Some good suggestions and ideas here! Debbie and I have the following comments:

Dual Drives

We would prefer the faster driver to go first. I have always been uneasy about sending Debbie out to test my setup changes. If a change is detrimental then I would prefer to make that discovery and give her a heads up before she goes out. RobJ's suggestion to mitigate any weather advantage seems like an excellent one if organisers can facilitate it.

Ladies

Scoring against the class record, rather than the winning time on the day effectively means that rather than doing 5 events, ladies need to do 5 dry events to be competitive in the championship. It's not representative of performance on the day if the weather happens to be unkind. Not sure why this was changed in the first place, but Debbie would prefer points to always be calculated in relation to the winning time on the day.

Curborough

We'd prefer just one practice run.

Ian & Debbie

[Alan Bowler]

For second driver running after the main batch, yes, in an ideal world. But expecting event organisers to break the habits of half a lifetime may cause issues and likely further confusion and wrong order (based on my experience). Prefer we keep it as simple as possible by just assigning our numbers appropriately. 
 

For ladies scoring, thanks for raising. The thought process behind the change was primarily to align (and simplify)  the scoring for ladies, veterans and novices. Veterans certainly take class wins regularly, and so do novices giving us problems with tied scores. Ladies scoring should be the same (that was the thinking anyway). We also have issues when there are very small classes overall or at an event, making 100 points an inconsistent benchmark to score  - so better to use the record time. For the championships that span classes the record time is a true measure, not the class winning time which depends on who enters.

But its not perfect, as pointed out, if a lady, novice or veteran only competes 5 times and one event is wet for all runs. Overall, I think the revised system used this year is fairer for all competitors - but we can change it back (for ladies only) if that is the consensus.

 

[Dannyboy]

No futher comments from me - the suggested changes appear eminently sensible. 

Class 6 - given no-one is likely in the near future to enter would it be worthwhile parking this class and/ or running as an invited class only? If there were sufficient interest the class could be resurrected. 

Same with Class 1 for the 3 cylinder cars - if sufficient interest was gained from owners - could there be an invitation class that could be standalone in future years. I only ask this as a 120bhp academy car will always have an advantage over the Suzuki 3 cyl cars - perhaps run/ advertise this class only at the 2 club events and see whether we could tempt owners to have a go at competing. 

I do recall in 2005, my first year in the championship there was a rolling road at Curborough for some reason and someone paid for my car to go on the rollers to verify it's power output.... No one ever owned up.

[magister]

We support the proposed dual drive change, and it would be even better with the faster driver running in class  - assigning the slower dual driver a higher number would ensure they ran at the end of the class. 

We would agree with Debbie's sentiment with regarding the scoring of the Ladies Championship, and have never really understood the rationale behind the current scoring system.

Perhaps this decision should be passed over to the Ladies in the Championship. 

Paul and Bec

[Allumy]

Hi Comp Sec,

regarding Class 5/6 - would it be possible to consider the amendment of Class 5 regulations to exclude the requirement for an operational reverse gear? If there is a potential advantage (e.g. weight) in not having a reverse gear then this is somewhat negated by there being no power limit on cars in Class 5. I am not aware if there are any other reasons to insist on an operational reverse gear - are there?

This would then allow the use of motorbike engined cars (without reverse gear) in Class 5 rather than these cars being restricted to Class 6 (where you expect minimal entries). I appreciate that there is always the option to move up to Slick (unrestricted) tyres and run in Class 7 but this is not attractive for occasional event entries.

Cheers, Roy Allum

(unsuprisingly Hayabusa engined car 591!)

 

[Simon.Rogers]

Roy - I thin it has to remain for Class 5 - MSUK Blue book requirement for specialist production cars - road going.

It is up to the club for class 6 as it is not road going.

[Comp Sec]

I think Simon is correct....

10.9.1. For Road Cars-and Standard Cars, the reverse gear must remain operable at all times.
 

I have asked the question to our eligibility Scrutineer.

[AMBO]

No problem with the dual drive proposals for us. As Ian said, it's got to be best if I drive first and rather than Julie being the test pilot!

Looks like we'll have to get the car on a dyno though. Our car was allegedly 226bhp, when set up in 2001 ish, so if thats still the case, we'll be even less competitive in Class 5, than 4! Although we are not competitive at the moment in Class 4, as far as being at the sharp end is concerned, we have competition with other newcomers. I suspect that would not be the case in Class 5, especially if someone rocks up in a 620 or similar, especially with gadgetry attached!

Maybe we'll have to get the car de-tuned, once we've ascertained the power...

 

[david nelson]

With a 226bhp engine you should be able to loss 6bhp or more . When I was in class 4 190BHP many moons ago my engine made 210bhp and was detuned/ optimized to 190 bhp. You should know what the power is for class 4 when the regs are sorted. 

[Gill E]

Dual Drivers

It would appear that I am looking at this from a totally different angle ....

Speaking as a regular dual driver, going first allows me the ‘luxury’ that all you solo drivers have of being able to take my time to get into the car, making sure that I am comfortable, settled and feel safe.

As those of you who have had the dubious pleasure of being in a paddock position close to Shaun and I will know, I like to get into the car early as I have to use 2 separate seat pads to be able to both reach the pedals and be able to see the front wheels; because of my ‘booster seats’, it take additional time to get the 6 point harness adjusted before I get into the car.  It is easier and quicker for me to get out of the car and remove my ‘driver aids’ than it is for me to install them.

I firmly believe that the 500 driver should run in class in number order because they have been judged the competitive driver and numbered according to their position in the class’ competition. I have always tried to put myself in the running order to allow enough time to carry out the driver change over and for Shaun to slot comfortably into his class position, allowing time for the tyres to cool (not that I ever get them warm for him!). Whenever I have felt that there was not enough time, I have spoken to the organisers to try to move my position further ahead in the running order.

I can see that there are a lot of people who feel strongly about the “warm tyres” aspect to dual driving, but no one seems to be taking into account how this proposal might affect the 600 driver.

I have always felt that we have an inclusive championship and that everyone is welcome – in the past I have tried to encourage ‘pit crew’ to have a go (the same as people did to me), because I feel that people have been patient and supportive of me.

If I started to feel under pressure and that I did not have enough time to feel safely installed in the car I might start to think about whether I wanted to compete at all.

What we should be looking at is getting the 600 driver running a suitable distance ahead of or after the 500 driver, to allow tyres to cool and to allow the second driver sufficient time to safely get into the car both physically and mentally!

[Simon.Rogers]

Having given this more thought - always dangerous - I am not so sure Class 4 and 5 should be split.

DO we know how many of the Current Class 4 are over the 220bhp?

We could see Shaun, Gill and possibly Roy move class to be with larger numbers of competitors from Class 6 down to 5 only to be on their own again as my "feel" is that most of the current cars are below the 220bhp?

Having competed in a 218bhp car against all the big K's of the time I am not sure that they had any advantage when tyres are not so sticky.

I think it should be considered that the class split is unnecessary and waters things down.  Not sure if Shaun and Roy would agree.

[Nigel Fox]

According to the handbook 5 of the 18 Class 4 entries were above 220bhp. One of them didn't appear during the season.

[Shaun_E]

It's true - we will likely end up with class 5 just being this year's class 6 competitors with maybe one or two who are currently in 4 and over the 220bhp. For me, that would not be a good situation as part of the reason to move classes is to be with more competitors.

[Comp Sec]

We deliberated this for a considerable time before putting the proposal forward.

 

One thing we did was to make list of class 4 and 6 competitors in 2021 with their declared power to see how many would have been in each class had the rules applied this year. The result was 13 in class 4 and 9 in class 5. That does not appear to be too diluted.

 

The other issue is that if you have a 160 bhp car the only place to compete is class 4 and you could be up against cars with 300 bhp. The thinking is that class 4 should be for  standardish 420R and R400’s just as Class 2 and 3 should be for the 310R and Class 1 for Academy cars. Class 5 would be for anything goes road going.

 

We are always going to have small classes for the most powerful cars. We want to encourage newcomers and I think if you have a 360R for example you would be put off competing in an unlimited class 4.

 

If  the majority of class 4 and 6 competitors want a single class we will do it, but the silence on this from existing class 4 competitors signals support for the proposal.

And our eligibility Scrutineer has advised that we will  be able to remove the requirement for a reverse gear in  class 5. So Roy you can join class 5.

[Drumster]

As a Class 4 competitor, who has found this year to be very competitive (at least for the top 6) I agree with the proposed changes. The only hard bit was trying to compete with Nigel's 250bhp(?) on ACB10s (quirk of the regs). 

If the proposed Class 5 (current Class 6) then dropped into Class 4 this would then leave a power band range of 100bhp (160bbhp lower limit to Shaun's 260bhp). That to me seems to be too large a range and most likely will discourage any newcomers with less than (say) 220/230bhp from entering in the future?

 

[david nelson]

I think class 4 and class 5 should be separate. I could produce some data but its too early in the morning. What i do remember was that when I was in class 5 the difference between my 210 bhp and Shaun's Durtec was significant.

Gurston down I was quicker till the last corner and Shaun's additional power pulled the time back and went ahead. I think it was a pull back and gain of 0.8 sec. Looking at Goodwood my 210bhp was competitive vs an R500 but big power not a hope. 

I am sure on some events it will make little diffrence, but Antree, Goodwood, Gurston, or any on the places you can use all the bhp it will. 

[mikes]

I agree with David and Chris - I think we should try the 220bhp limit in Class 4 for this year at least.

Whilst it might be fun to see how well those with 220+bhp do on the 1B tyres in the same class - I certainly found it interesting*eek* when I went back to harder tyres when the change to 1B  and 1C first came in.....  Confirming Trouble maker's point, even with pretty equivalent power output the characteristics of a Duratec are worth about 0.3 sec at Gurston on the final climb after Ashes compared to my poor old K series......

I think it will be worth looking at the comparative times after next year and revisit the position if necessary. 

Mike

[Simon.Rogers]

If the 13/9 split is how the numbers fall then my reasoning does not apply.

Happy days.

I am not sure about the reverse gear - you can not remove its necessity if MSA rules say it must be fitted.. Don't get me wrong it will be great if not required.

10.9. Transmission

10.9.1. For Road Cars-and Standard Cars, the reverse gear must remain operable at all times.

10.9.2. For all other Categories a reverse gear is recommended

[Comp Sec]

Competitors Vehicles

J 5.11.2  Be equipped with a reverse gear in normal working order unless stated in Specific Technical Regulations.

I have been advised that  we can add to the regulations:

"A reverse gear is not required in this class"

 

 

[Comp Sec]

So there appears to be a remarkable amount of agreement to these changes,  . We all know that we cannot agree 100%! 

After some minor changes to the wording below is what we plan to go ahead with.

For the Ladies Scoring I have only had 1 reply to my email and we set a deadline of tomorrow. Please let us know how you would like the scoring otherwise we will just leave it as it is.

Technical

 

Class 1. Simplify the engine regulations as we have already successfully done in classes 2 and 3 with a simple power limit.

 

This class is for Lotus or Caterham Seven, road cars – specialist production and has a maximum power limit of 130bhp.

They shall be powered by:

1. Any normally aspirated car derived engine up to 1600 cc
2. A 3 cylinder turbocharged 660cc engine as fitted to the Caterham 160, 165 and 170 models.

 

Class 2 and 3.

 

Further simplify the engine regulations by removing the higher power limit for single cam engines.

 

Remove

“Single cam engines of 1601cc and greater. Power for these engines is limited to 160bhp”

 

Class 4 and 5

 

We now find ourselves in a tricky situation with class 4. The lack of supply of the preferred list 1C tyres means that just about everybody with engines producing more that 155bhp will end up in class 4. We propose putting a power limit of 220bhp (no tolerance) on class 4 and making class 5 an equivalent class for cars with more than 220bhp.

 

The most difficult part of this is what to use as a basis for records of the new class 5 needed for overall championship calculations. We have looked at the times achieved by the 3 drivers competing in class 4 in 2021 who previously competed in class 5. Comparing these shows an average time loss of 2% between 1B and 1C tyres. We propose therefore to add 2% to class 6 records and use these as notional records in the new class 5. We will review this before  2023. For Veterans, Novice and Ladies Championship calculations we will use the winners time on the day.

 

Class 4:

Any Lotus or Caterham Seven, road cars – specialist production and has a maximum power limit of 220bhp.

All cars must be fitted with an operational reverse gear.

Tyres to be listed in the current Motorsport UK General Regulations Permitted Tyres (L) Lists 1A and 1B .

Cars powered by non-car derived engines or equipped with sequential gearboxes are not allowed in this class.

 

Driver Aids are not permitted in this class.

 

Class 5:

Any Lotus or Caterham Seven, road cars – specialist production not meeting the engine requirements of Class 4 including those with forced induction.

A reverse gear is not required in this class.

Tyres to be listed in the current Motorsport UK General Regulations Permitted Tyres (L) Lists 1A and 1B .

 

All Driver Aids are permitted in this class.

 

Classes 6 and 7 to remain unchanged, although we are not expecting any entries in Class 6.

 

 

Nominated events for overall championship scoring.

Add Aintree and  Blyton Outer

 

Dual Drives:

 

The driver who finished higher in the previous year’s championship will run first or in the previous batch wherever possible.

This is to reduce  any possible advantage for the faster driver by running on warm tyres.

 

Eligibilty for scoring championship points.

 

Only drivers entered in the Caterham and Lotus Seven Club Classes on the day at the championship round will be eligible to score points.

This is to reduce the likelihood of competitors competing in different conditions

 

 

 

 

Scoring for novices, veterans and ladies.

 

Based on whichever is the faster time of the existing class record or the class winning time in the day. 

This avoids situation at 3 Sisters this year where existing records were set in wet conditions.

 

[Nigel Fox]

The following is cut and pasted from the 2021 Blue book. The applicability statement in section J makes it clear that the all vehicles must comply with the specific technical regulations. This makes S 10.9.1 a mandatory requirement.

 

 

Technical
5. The following technical regulations are mandatory and
apply to vehicles in all forms of competition (other than

Karting). In addition vehicles must comply with the appropriate

Specific Technical Regulations. Where there are several

regulations concerning any particular subject it shall be taken,

as a general principle, that one does not override another

unless specifically stated.

5.11.2. Be equipped with a reverse gear in normal working
order unless otherwise stated in Specific Technical Regulations.
Racing Cars of Periods A to E are exempt from this requirement.

 

 

Specific Regulations for Sprints, Hill Climbs and Drag Racing (S)

10.9.1. For Road Cars-and Standard Cars, the reverse gear
must remain operable at all times.

 

[david nelson]

Graham and team; i thank you for all your hard work and will be good to seeing how next year pans out. 

As an older person having been around can i ask have we not just returned to a class structure of years gone by. 

Class 2/3 are more or less the same through the ages

class 4 was list 1A tyres with R500 competing , class 5 list 1b. up to r500 spec

I think we then split class 4 to list 1b with limited bhp (not able to remember 190bhp) and class 5 was up to 230bhp? 

class 4 was in place to give sevens like R300, VVC , SLR a home. not knowing the current sprint cars or the current caterham car line up I appears there is no natural home for these. It may very well be they non left as all been modified. 

I am sure this has been considered as does not effect me but 156 bhp is a long way off 220bhp. 

 

David 

 

[Nigel Fox]

It's been pointed out to me that the regs proposed require cars to be entered into the Lotus 7 classes to score points. This being to reduce the likelyhood of having different conditions.

The Lotus 7 club has always been very flexible previously which has allowed me to compete in multiple championships. The proposal would affect 4 or 5 of us who compete in other championships.

If changing conditions are such an issue the why allow double drives? The are equally likely to be affected and can change the condition of the car as well!