Simon.Rogers

It used to be resolved by a forum after the awards dinner years ago - and it would litterally come down to a show of hands on a rule. This was stopped when the forum took to long and some of us used to get the odd slap around the head when others wanted to go home We have recently moved to internet forum basis like this and although you can get a wider range of views its very hard arguing a point of view without being face to face. I do not know what Mathew has planned this year. What I did in the past was for those items that are close to call I drafted a proposed rule in a new thread and asked for avote either way in a set time frame - counted them up. For the ones that are pretty one sided I would just accept the majority view point and draft the rule accordingly and list it as passed. There is a little more difficulty this year as we said some rules would be comming into force for 2015 last year (providing 12 months notice) - effectively they have already been argued and approved. Now we are discussing them again (Which I think is fair enough by the way) - but it does mean some people may have already planned works based on the fact that the rules were agreed last year. We need to be mindfull of that.

YHM

But the following line said

If anyone is interested in a good technical read about a range of car handling characteristics then I suggest Autocross to Win all on the web. No need to purchase. Well written, easy to read and light hearted. From my understanding and recent experience I can find nothing to argue with strongly in the book. Autocross seems to be a cross between sprint and autosolo in North America.

I'll have the pads Steve. No Rush. Catch you at Autosport perhaps.

Glad to see Microsoft do actually employ some sensible people

What we must not forget is that it is a competition and that those who do take it more seriously should not be penalised either. I do think the R300 K's should be in Class 3. However someone is always going to be at the bottom of the power stakes in a class - unfortunately thats life.

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

Shaun If thats a way forward - fine by me. Rob and Mark are the ones who want to compete with equal cars. I may not be there that often next year anyway as the www.caterhamhirewales.com business is established. People will want to collect the cars on the weekend so I may not get to the events in time. There will be a reverse box in the car so i will fit in where needed. Like you its the competition on the day that does it for me now and aiming for past PB's and records.

Lets all chip in and buy Shaun a sequential box = 6 = sorted for now

Rob I think they intended that all cars should have a reverse gear - but its not clear IMHO. I agree with your further comments about tin cups and classes.

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.

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.

Unfortunately its all Shaun's fault He has driven to fast this year Seriously. I see it both ways - That 190bhp catches many many cars that have "light" power upgrades. Its been one of the most popular classes for a few years. It seems a pitty to change it. Then again its also been shown this year that on most of the venues this year Shaun has a very very significant advantage (proven by speed traps) over the 210 bhp cars. I would suggest that there isn't an issue between 210 and 240bhp K's A good driver will be able to win in the lower powered car. I fear we have reached a point where another new class is the perfect answer - 191 - 240bhp H pattern 'box. But I also think thats wrong as we would end up like many other series with 2 cars in each class. Handicap system ? OK that could work but then we get into the realms of target times etc - LETS NOT GO THERE! I just do not see this working for all. So lets look at what I have said about other classes - we shouldn't write the rules for the few but for the majority. There are a couple of cars to my knowledge now that V11 UFO has left that fall into the 210 trap. Perhaps they should have upgraded more sensibly with the rules that existed at the time in mind. Perhaps they upgraded with the power that others had at the time in mind. I do not know how to resolve this. Lets have a count of which cars fit where. Currently the only cars that can run the 210 bhp formular with zero cost (ie existing maps) David Nelson, Mike Sankey and Stuart Miller. I do not know of any others. I don't know what to do.

Lyn I didn t know MSA had split 2b. I think this I poor timing given the onset of big power Supercharged duratec etc. I think it would be very very tight between the big Busa and all that supercharged smoothness. Shaun has shown what 260 can do. Imagine 330+ Luke Algar and Richard Kerr ran their Supercharged Westy at Anglesey on 1bs and at their current 310 bhp (it can go to 370 I understand). Simply obliterated Shaun's times. Over 2.5 sec faster on the short circuit!!!!!! The Bus a won't get anywhere near. In Mag 7's they have lowered the class for the Bus as as they are out powered. I'm not suggesting it would be fair for Shaun against me at Curbs. But at Anglesey I think it would be bloody close. I just do not think its possible to get it correct for all. Class 4 next year though will be very verry tough.

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.

So playing the old devils advocate. (And I don't think it should happen next year as I have said previously - always one years notice of a power change in a class) Why should we keep the rules at 155 in class 2 just toinclude 1 car that currently falls outside of the power limit. We should write the to suit the majority. Said for the sake of promoting discussion. Sorry Andrew.

I don't agree with the limit. It happens very rarely and we have always sought value for money. I doubt an experienced competitor would take a non competitive run. Seems a waste. I do understand the view point but don't agree.

Having initially thought that a power figure was the best way to go and somewhat contradictory therefore to my thoughts on the other classes I now believe that the class 1 rules should remain as currently written in the 2014 regs. It this perception thing again.

Chris you are correct. That is exactly my point. I understand the intention but how can reverse gear remain operational if my engine and gearbox were never manufacturer with one? Its really not worth arguing over. Let's just use the MSA words.

Its not my idea to do this next year. I am looking at the future - purely on a numbers basis. Shaun I do not mean to change the requirement for a reverse box in general. More that we follow the blue book. It would have allowed me or anyone to argue the toss :-)

I'm pretty certain I know what the MSA meant. But what is meant and what is written are different things. I have a replacement box now so its not an issue. Its more to allow someone in the future to continue in the same scenario. They are all known to have a weakness and all the manufacturers are known not to necessarily keep parts or replacements.

Mike. Class 2 and 3 are the same and the current proposal is the same. The future could be different? Personally I don't have an issue with your figures over any others. I think the difficulty is we can all just pick figures. I would go with your figures but Class 2 @ 150, 3 @ 160 then just pick your others.

Mike. Stuart only means it would not be able to count toward the overall champion not the class champs. We don't allow a particular track or layout to count toward this until there have been 3 dry events to set representative records. No easy record to beat.

I opted for a double lapper. I enjoy longer runs. Its all very subjective.