Graham Howard

I agree about having a specified rolling road. But I think excluding R300k's is being a bit protective of current competitors and discouraging others who may want to join but be hopelessly uncompetitive in class 4. I like Richard's proposal that only cars origanally supplied with TB's will be eligible in classes 2 and 3. This would allow in Sigma 150's and R300k. Could we also ban any adjustment of the ECU on these cars? I am afraid I don't know what ecu an R300k has and whether it is easily programmable. Some of us may have also already embarked on modifications to reach the 155BHP limit proposed last year.

Off topic I know, but.... The software on most rolling roads will apply a correction factor taking account of atmospheric pressure and temperature so that you get comparable results regardless of weather conditions. But tyre pressures and the coast down method to measure transmission losses can introduce some error.

Matthew Thanks for you reply about power and rolling roads. I think most of us will be happy that speed traps are closely monitored and action taken if necessary. I think I went a bit over the top in my orginal posting and was a bit surprised by the strange reply from Simon. All of us want to compete with others in cars of similar performance and there is no satisfaction in winning with a car that has a clear power advantage. The closeness of the competition class 2 this year between cars probably having between 145 and 155 bhp is how our series should work.

Well done Alan. You put into words exactly what I was thinking.

I think that 155 (Norhampton MS) BHP is a sensible limit. This will include all current competitors and encourage those with Sigma 150's to join in. I think all seasoned competitors know that a few bhp either way makes little difference. Driver ability and car setup are much more important factors. Does anybody havea view on the phrasing of the regulations? See my posting in the overall tech regulations thread.

Agreed that this is a friendly competition and I do not believe that any competitor would deliberated break the rules to gain an advantage. But I find it extraordinary that we are basing the engine rules on a measurement (bhp) that we are never going to check. I am only suggesting a rephrasing of the rules, not mandatory rolling road checks for every car. Does anybody else have a view on this?

I think the majority are in favour of power limits for all classes, except for possibly class 1. The rules are a little bit vague as to how these power limits are to be enforced: Cars which have technical modifications deemed by the Eligibility Scrutineer not to meet the basic spirit of the technical regulations will be allocated to the most appropriate class. The reference maximum power limit for Classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are guideline limits in power for these classes. Cars with engines deemed to have a higher power level will be moved to another class. We all know that rolling roads can roduce markedly differing results, this one referenced by in another thread shows an 1800 SS producing 135 BHP on the Emerald rolling road. My 1800 X power which is supposed to be a bit tamer gave 146 BHP on the Northampton Motorsport rolling road. That is a variation of about 8%. So a car producing 155 BHP at Emerald may well give 167 BHP at Northampton. Would that car be legal in class 2 and 3? I am happy that the eligiblity scrutineer ( who I assume is the Comp Sec.) can deem a car to have too much power but some people get very competitive and I think we need to define a rolling road (and have it written in the rules) where power can be measured to settle any disputes. I suggest Northampton Motorsport as we already have quite a lot of data from there. This is a very friendly series and I wouldn't expect anybody to go outside the spirit of the rules but a stricter definition of how we may enforce power limits would avoid any possible disputes. One other point....... Why don't we ban tyre warming altogether? It would be the same for everybody and save wear on tyres and transmission. Graham

What we all know is that the same car tested on different rolling roads can give results varying by quite a large amount. I am sure that my car last year did not give more power than an 1800 ss! The tests referred to by Alan obviously are from a RR which reads a lot lower than the one at Northampton Motorsport. Phil, can I suggest that you get your car tested at Northampton Motorsport, then we will have a good comparison between an R300 on throttle bodies and the other class 2 and 3 cars. This will be good information for the Technical forum and the basis of the rules for 2015. Graham

I have a metric cage fitted to my imperial car. Not sure if this the same as the current academy cage but the fittings should be in the same place. The major difference is in the cups above the rear dampers. They are deeper and larger diameter on an imperial chassis so a metric cage will need spacers. Graham

At this years event tyre warming was banned for the 3rd practice run as an experiment. If I remember correctly everybody was slightly slower, but there were no major offs at hollow. I don't see a problem with this as it is the same for everybody and it would be a pity to lose such a good venue. Graham

Well done Andrew for winning class 2, you must now be celebrating in your holiday villa.http://www.lotus7.club/sites/all/libraries/ckeditor/plugins/smiley/images/regular_smile.png And Alan, you nearly did it.........a great effort by the hat. Looking forward to next year already..... Graham

Now it is all becoming clear. The driver of car 530 has multiple identities and the comments here give a clue to the rather inconsistent performances achieved by the driver officially known as Alan Bowler. I thought I spotted a bearded chap on the Welsh weekend and at Loton skulking round the paddock stig style without removing his helmet. I believe this to be above mentioned Damon. Obviously he was not available at Curborough or Aintree ( Sky F1 commitments) which would explain the average results achieved. I too will not be competing any more events, but will watch with interest to see if the hat can be pegged. Graham

Congratulations Paul, you were quick all day but were obviously the most committed on that last and only fully dry run. A good days competition in class 2. Graham

Hi Paul I have changed mine several times. It is much easier if you remove the wishbone completely then you can drift the bearing out with it resting on a solid surface. I have never had to resort to heat. Tap the new bearing in with a smear of loctite. You should be able to re-use the circlip. Graham

Simon, yes the car felt nicely balanced and more predictable. My times might also have been helped by the driver training that all of the first 4 in class 2 did. Well done Andrew for the win. Now looking forward to Curborough where I will be trying to reverse our positions! Graham

Agreed to buy Paul's. Thanks John. Hope your car is better and see you on Thursday.

Thanks for the advice. Looks like I may have found a replacement now which would probably be a better option. Graham

Thanks John. Found the ad. And I have emailed Paul.

Thanks Jonathan. Is there a specialist you would recommend?

Last week I had to replace a front hub as the bearings were moving in the aluminium hub. On checking the car after a day at Blyton I have noticed that the wheel rim is bent causing the tyre to run eccentric and suppose this might have caused my hub problem. I have put an ad in wanted for a replacement wheel. Does anybody have any experience of wheel straightening service on a 7? Does this weaken the wheel and would it be safe on track? The wheel is a 10 spoke anthracite. Ant thoughts or experiences appreciated. Thanks Graham

Single wheel as above wanted. Must be straight, appearance not important. Thanks Graham

The bolts above the damper mountings are M10 x 30. You will need to reduce the heads on these. Fittings for a 2004 car will have unf thread. The from mounting bolts screw into the chassis from both sides. You will need 7/16 UNF x 3/4. Graham

I don't think ground down bolts are available for the metric cage as they are not needed on the metric chassis, more clearance above the dampers. Quite easy to thin down the heads yourself with a file.

Adam On my car I needed 15mm spacers, but it is probably worth offering up the cage to check. I guess you could use a stack of thick washers. You are correct about the front mounts

Yes. I have one fitted to my 2005 imperial chassis. You just need spacers under the rear mounts above the dampers. Graham