Grahame W

Hi Oli We had discussed this before so dates permitting add me to the list Grahame

Having had the benefit of reading others excellent efforts to pull together disparate and often conflicting issues my two pennyworth is Will compete next year in a 150bhp class on 1B's if that is what is decided. (New tyres needed anyway) Having effectively missed a chance for a fundamental rethink last year, and with external forces requiring us to rethink again this year am much in favour of having classes that are as inclusive as possible such as a 210bhp class 4 (I think most current competitors could make this with just a remap and it opens the class up to more standard current cars) A 175bhp class 3 on 1B's makes sense as also being more inclusive, is not too far from what we know a fully developed current class 3 engine can produce, so could provide for current class 3 competitors who want the stickiest available tyres or allows others to revert to class 2. However not sure how many 175bhp cars Caterham have produced over the years that we are currently excludinhg) Resetting of records is just a pain that has to be born as other than its use in determining the overall championship class records should merely reflect the latest iteration of class rules. For simplicity (if not good competition) would like to see 5 and 6 combined and can see no option other than to go Mod Prod.

This topic is possibly going to affect all of us who have not adopted HANS devices and clearly there are some issues with their use that are peculiar to Caterhams. I only have casual knowledge of some of the issues yet clearly there are those who have experience and knowledge that would be extremely useful to the rest of us having to decide what to purchase and how to fit it. Could it be possible to have one place maybe on here or in competitors corner where all the accumulated knowledge is held together to help us make good relevent decisions about type, fitting, etc Thanks

Mark It IS fun club level motorsport, thats why so many come back year after year. Unfortunately what you have picked up on is the unenviable dilema that Matthew and the others will now have to deal with in crafting next years regulations. We either have a rule book that ties down every last detail, (as the official Caterham race championships do) and if you don't then then there cannot be any bending of the rules if the rule did not exist in the first place, it is merely interpretation. Extrapolate that philosophy a little bit further and you end up at this years proposal of no rules just a maximum power figure.

Not sure its a mess but the last couple of weeks of posts do indicate just how difficult it is to craft a set of rules to be as inclusive as possible. The very fact that several of us have expressed doubt about our initially firmly held beliefs in the light of new evidence from others surely shows this has been a well worthwhile exercise especially in a year when such momentous change is being proposed I still favour just a single power limit purely because it makes the rules and the enforcement much simpler, the current rules are quite complex and still have not prevented laterally thought out modifications, if we really want to tie down the spec of cars it will take a huge tome similar to the old Roadsport A rules and regs right down to size and position of numberplate and when you can and cannot have gaffer tape between the windscreen and roll cage!

Richard Thanks for the treatise but would not the difference between a torquey car and a standard one still fall within all the other variables that have not been legislated for such as weight, gearing, set up etc? I don't know if anyone has any hard data on exactly how much torque such an engine might have but from the Northampton data we already are aware of a spread from 115 ft/lb for 1600K through 121 ft/lb for Sigma 150 to 130ft/lb for 1800 X power and Zetec and that does not seem to stop some pretty hot competition and multiple winners in class 2 Sorry to labour the point but including R300s solves one of our eligibilty conundrums, would fit with a power limit by any means rule and if it does not hand an insurmountable advantage to such a car then seems a reasonable way to go. The only problem then is for those cars in the 160-210bhp range but other than an R300D not sure what other standard cars are excluded.

If we were to go to a 155bhp by any means formula can someone more expert than me assess the impact of what seems to be everyones concern that is a 155bhp car detuned from a higher specific output and therefore with more torque. As it has been posted many times about the influence of the driver over the odd 5-10 bhp can the increase in torque (between 2 cars both rated at 155bhp) really have that much impact on the final times As this formula would include all the current contenders, allow in the one R300K that we know wants to compete (I believe the owner posted an RR result of 154bhp) and David with his 1800+TB option it seems the most inclusive. If the class 4 changes are adopted then admittedly somebody with 175bhp or so has nowhere to go but I have no idea how many potential competitors this may effect and how many Caterham models fall in this band. This may be ultimately an argument to split the class 3 max power from the class 2 figure or if the numbers justified it add an extra class.

I don't actually see how 155bhp by any means is any different to 155bhp under the current rules so I for one would not be either walking away or spending a small fortune to stay in class 3 The Northampton motorsport numbers showed that the basis of the existing rules were in fact extremely sound. An1800 giving 148bhp standard ported 1600's giving pretty much the same output, the cost to get to this level of power being reasonable and has been an accepted part of the championship for several years. At 6-7 bhp any gap in performance is likely to be at least as much the driver as the car and if anyone really wants to invest in the best engine possible then they should be free to do so as at present.

I have to agree that this is a valuable process and allows a far more considered review of the regulations than a quick 1 hour face to face meeting, especially in this year where those changes are broad and far reaching. If we return to decison by face to face meeting then presumably some form of agenda will have to be pre published and that will inevitably generate blatchat traffic anyway. A secure area for these discussions is a good idea although presumably the intention to date has been to encourage input from potential competitors who would now be excluded.

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

I have to agree with Alan that whilst I am not against allowing in R300's for a trial season I do not see why the regs should then prevent any of the existing competitors building a similar engine. Exposing my lack of knowledge on these things am I correct in thinking that a standard R300 has a programable ECU and if so cannot they tuned down to whatever the max power limit will be. And if so is that not what is already being done in some calsses anyway, or is the argument that in doing so you will end up with a torquey engine that will give an advantage.

I agree with Graham that if we are going to stick with standard plenums then it makes general sense to control the ECU as well Had we had power only regs as suggested my interest in developing the car was much more driven by an ECU that would allow me a 'pass the MOT' setting, and if really developing the engine to have a setting to compete in the sub 1700 HSA/SBD class with a bit more chance of being a bit nearer the quick guys

There have been several posts in different sections that admitted that in the past the final written regs did not always exactly tally with what had been discussed and agreed and from that some of the loopholes in the current rules were created. If the timescales permit may I suggest a process of a draft document being released for vetting by either a selected or the whole community before being presented as the finalised regs that we will all have to work to Whilst none of us want anybody to waste money, is there actually anyone out there who has already developed their car with a view to this years rules as presented last year. If not I feel we really ought to take the time to ensure that this major change in approach not only takes into account all the views expressed in the last week or so but leaves us with a final set of written regs that faithfully reflects what has been agreed.

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.

Simon For clarity I am not advocating a test prior to competition, but like Graham H I cannot see how you can have a power based formula without some kind of obligation to prove it if required Even if it was for class winners only such a requirement would have prevented the embarassment of the Northampton runs earlier this year

It would appear reading all these threads that quite a few unintended consequences have crept in over the years and those gaps have been exploited. Is there a way to add an extra step of checking the draft outcome of the technical forum before it becomes cast in concrete for the following years I'm also getting a little confused about what can discussed that will have an influence on next year and those topics where a final decision has clearly already been made. Finally whilst in favour of simple power only class limits it will inevitably open up a wider variety of ways to achieve that power. I still do not see anything wrong in proving that with a power run, then the rules can be applied and if you have a car that does not meet the class regulations you either get bumped up to the next class or find a way to comply with the regs as has been demonstrated this year.

With the change to a power only formula I cannot see that we can ignore the possibility of having cars tested. I agree that as we already have some data from Northampton that this should be the default choice and its reasonably central in England At the risk of repeating myself I do not see any problem with everyone having a power run done at some point throughout the year so that every one knows where they stand If as a result competitors ignore the advice of Stuart, Simon, David et al that driver experience and talent is far more important than a few BHP and go chasing the last couple of BHP then that is their choice

Whatever the number if we have a known rule before the event we all know where we stand. Most other championships I believe have a similar system although in most cases it is 2 or 3 runs.

As one of the purposes of any changes is to make the classes as inclusive as possible then it would appear that a move to 160bhp (which virtually guarantees TB's have to be allowed unless Richard builds all of our engines) solves the R300 situation, Sigmas will not be at a potential disadvantage and Zetecs are not limited. To me that seems a good number of additional cars could be attracted, leaves no major group of owners out on a limb and closes the gap to the new 210bhp limit for class 4 However as this will require investment from any competitor who wants to exploit the max power limit it does reduce the number of potential 'toe in the water' entrants. Therefore even if it cannot be this year, a small power split beteween Class 2 and 3 would ultimately attract the widest number of potential competitors, Class 2 being eminently suitable tyre and engine wise for a new entrant and Class 3 for those who wanted to take their commitment a bit further.

Hi Oli I'd like to keep this one on the agenda, noted that 'in date belts' also required don't know if that extends to race suits as well Looks like motoring and social fun

David/Richard By way of background when I posted my Northampton run numbers I was quite detailed in the description of the total spec of the car. As a result I got a lot of private blat mail from members who are not sprinters who wanted to understand the relative contributions of the various components that make up a 150ish bhp 1600/1800 K series. The fitting cost for my head from DVA was £330 so I still maintain that porting is a reasonably cost effective route compared to TB/ECU as clearly a wider audience than just we competitors read these posts For clarity like you both I am in favour of just a power limit for class 3 (by whatever means) and allowing R300's to evaluate for 1 season just how quick they may be However with comparatively open regulations I still believe what comes with that is a responsibility to prove what we've got so I still see no alternative but to ask you top running guys to provide recent power run data

Whilst not disagreeing with the fundamental logic of a max power by any means formula, factually £1500 to £3000 for TB's and ECU is not a cheaper way to extract power from a 1600SS than the £550 head cost on my admittedly 6 year old DVA invoice.

Oli Looks like the delights of Anglesey have overcome those of Ascot so it is definitely 2 for dinner please I fear it will end up costing a lot more than dinner for two however

Oli One definite for me please, and if possible can you hold a second place dependent on whether our lower horsepower interest is running at Ascot

Seems there were quite a number of different discussions happening in the paddock over the weekend regarding next years regs. From the ones I was involved in there were certainly a high percentage of people who missed the standard plenum reg and assumed it was free for all up to 155bhp Personally I like the simplicity of just a power rule, we need to be sure the class power limits sit well with the Caterham standard product range past and present (as is suggested for class 4) but as a consequence of such freedom I cannot see us escaping the need for either mandatory or class winner power checks on a specified rolling road (the additioonal cost in a season of competing is negligable)