david nelson

looking for a sigma engine and exhaust please email thanks

Thanks to Chris for all his hard work as comp sec. I was worried he was going to stand down as comp sec when I saw the last slide. thanks agian David

I would like to thank Chris for the clarification of the lunch yesterday. I was quite surprised to find that the Sigma engines had open ECU's and could use throttle bodies. This allows them to maxamise power. This was definite surprise to me. It does make the discussion with regards to K-series as somewhat silly in terms of the restrictions that allowed. It's obvious that you can produce a super slick engine in class 2/3 engine and current regs and look forward to seeing whether equalisation across the engine class will be allowed. Also thank Chris for the clarification on what standard supersport means. My understanding the standard 1.8 supersport was, a standard engine with standard cams. It it would appear that it should just be 1800 K series. I'm sure that is the Reg had lost for words standard super sport I for one would of understood the rags and read them differently. I look forward to hearing of any changes to the regulations and the beginning of the fettling season shall begin

Mark more than happy to have the whole championship with the same power to weight ratio including driver. Then no classes would be needed.

Alan like you I have no issue but was unaware of the change. Richard and Andrew got good results from 633 cams. As stated no issues just did not know I can use any cams I like. This includes grinding my own profile . Re 2 ways voted in last year

So cams are free. When did that happen? The original discussion had supersport cams only as 1.8 as had to remain standard. I guess this got dropped and 1.8's are no longer needing to be standard so this will give me more bhp and torque. Great news

Alan thanks for your post. It highlight the confusion re cams. My understanding was 1.8 with only supersport cams. When did the 633 cam get allowed? "I bought a pair of Piper 633 cams as an equivalent to SS cams. Only after I measured a pair of SS cams three or four years ago, did I realise the advantage 633's give (particularly with a ported head). 633's have 10mm of lift and 264° of duration. The SS cams that I've just fitted to my engine have only 9.3mm of lift, and pretty much the same duration as the 633's" david

Have done in the past . Result = nothing done this is all in the past and does not need to be dragged back up david

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

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

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

Is this like Brexit? A vote happened and it was agreed to use the 2016 times from 2017. Now we are voting on it again. How can we use historic records when 1: tyres have changed 2: Some records are held by cars that are now outside the current regs. In class 2/3 some records are from cars who had 157.1 bhp @ 7,550 RPM 123.2 lb ft or 163.2 BHP @ 7,600 RPM 122.9 lb ft. 3: There is no tyre warming Class Records Class Records are currently not used for scoring purposes, other than the Curborough record for the overall championship final tie break. It was voted in 2015 that the class records were not to be used for scoring and would be reset to the 2016 fastest times due to starts and tyre changes, this has received a mixed reaction from various competitors, Our current records have a long standing history, however with changes to specification, tyres & tyre warming there is the perception that these may not be representative and be largely unbreakable. However, it is proposed to leave records as they stand. If records are considered for using in overall championship scoring in future, then they can be rebaselined from 2016 in a few years. Options to consider :-  Leave Records using the historical records since 2004  Reset the records to times set in 2016. David

Chris trying to get people discussing pro and cons before the meeting. Oli's 151.3BHP and 120 Ib ft should be a class 2/3 car every day of the week. what I can not get my head round is there are cars this just under 155 will others are just about or closs to 140 BHP. Simon proposed last year that we should just have a power limit. This has always been a sensible option in my opinion. From my prospective if I currently want more power and Torque I have to get a 1.6 K series then take it to a rolling road and optimism it to meet the regs. Again madness David

What does this mean? Are we discussing a max power by any means for all engines or removal of restrictions for some engines? As in my other post does this equal 1.8 ss allowing to use any ecu to get to agreed power? There have also been requests for clarification and engine modifications permitted under the regulations. At present we have a mix of engine restrictions between different engine types and sizes.Often owners are not fully aware of what internal modifications have been undertaken to a car and can find themselves being ineligible. Currently any K Series engine with variable valve timing are prohibited however the new Sigma engines are as standard fitted with variable valve timing. Separate throttle bodies are acceptable on Sigmas but prohibited on other engine specifications. The options to be considered are :- 1. Engine restrictions within Class 2&3 shall remain as present 2. Engine restrictions shall be reviewed applied equally across engines of similar CC 3. Engine restrictions shall be reviewed and where appropriate removed to reduce restrictions Option 1&3 will have no impact on current competitor eligibility, Option 2 may require several competitors to either change class or modify to comply.

How can we vote to remove drives of sigma 150 bhp out of class 2 or 3. Oli Wright - Standard 1.6 Sigma Superlight 150 151.3 BHP @ 6,950 BHP 120.2 lb ft @ 6,100 RPM This would be madness

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

Matt's drive yesterday was outstanding. To be quicker than all the high powered sevens with a time of 44.?? was magic. my driver of the day. David

my run unable to find how to do the link thing. I hate this web site.

LOL

Chris I am currently not coming to Anglesey, but hope you all have a great evening. David

Well done Shaun on the overall championship.

just to say thank you of coming down to this fantastic little hill climb. It is so difficult and challenging. I love it. also it's really appreciated that so many come so far, Thank you

No finals here either

Chris as someone who is not in the EDward Lewis group due to class jumping my observation The current class 6 is the same as the old class 5. Same tyres same spec cars just with FHR. The championship has just changed the class number not the spec. if I got this wrong sorry. i can see the logic of keeping all PB in all classes. Class 1 and 2 should be slower due to no tyre warming. class 3 slower due to tyres and no tyre warming class 4 more bhp but less grip tyres and no tyre warming class 5 new class so no EL class 6 as per old class 5 class 7 same as old 6 I do however think class records need resetting as they no longer representative of the classes. david

Just had a chat with TM about class 3. So the tyres are not a sticky as last year. Is this why the old class 2 boys (now in 3) are taking top spots? Have they been clever and knowing what the EU have had planned, are in fact enjoying the extra grip? Should more of class 2 moved to class 3? Its not too late? Do you agree or disagree with the EU? Have your say on the 23th June? posted on behalf of TM. The above views are not necessarily the views of the poster.