Stuart Miller 7

I wonder if I should head this post up with "without prejudice" Aah... the problem with the written word! Sometimes things don't come accross the right way so before the thread is closed and this decends into an unnecessary argument: David calls a spade a spade (and sometimes a fork a spade too, but that's a different conversation?) and he does post what some others may think but don't post, in his own unique and subtle way I think the point that is trying to be made is that the last time we (as in the speed championship) dropped events, there was some discussion about it and a vote taken before the final decision; in particular Shelsley and Goodwood. I believe few wanted to go back to Goodwood after 2012 and also Shelsley after two major crashes - both cars requiring new chassis I seem to remember. This time we have a calendar that without any discussion, has Goodwood back on it (despite the vote to remove it) and Wiscombe in particular taken off. I have no objection to Goodwood re-appearing as it's a classic venue. There are however a number of class 4, 5, 6 and 7 cars that run out of revs at this venue and personally 130mph plus and no run off does not have much attraction for me (by the way its my closest venue) but this shouldn't mean others don't go. Prior to 2012 it was one of the best attended venues. Wiscombe on the other hand is a National A hillclimb, a fantastic and challenging hill and the setting is glorious, not to mention good catering, ice-cream and a bar. The entry this year was good, I think because those who have been once or twice know its a good one and made the effort this year because they don't want it to go. I for one will miss the venue - apart from the obligatory visit to Curborough it's my favourite. I don't quite understand why we'd replace a Nat A hillclimb with another sprint, let alone one that's not a proper racing circuit, especially as we've added Hethel which although a great test track, the sprint doesn't include the two best bits (and by the way, it's 132mph 3 feet from concrete armco). That's not a criticism by the way - just my own thoughts. I realise that it's a pain to get to for some but I can assure you that Harewood, Hethel and Anglesey are a lot further from me than Wiscombe is for the majority. In fact it's an easier drive to Doune for me than Hethel or Anglesey. Anyway, please don't let this detract from my thanks to those who have spent the time puting together the calender for next year. I know we all (and that includes TM) appreciate the efforts made by the team in running the speed champs. We are all free to attend the events we want to compete at (or not as the case may be) P.S. 4* you've changed your loggin? Look forward to catching up soon and good luck keeping us all in check!

Why does the site have to display whether we are "online" or "offline"? Can we opt out of this? Point of order really! It's nobody's b****y business but my own if I happen to be looking on the website or not. Just surveillance society extending into private life. It's bad enough that you look for or research something online now and your screen is bombarded by target advertising for the following three weeks. Bad day, but really.....

I'd expect to pay more than £420 plus VAT for a refresh? For a good engine builder I'm sure you're looking at £1K plus the bits by the time you pay VAT. Next season will be season 5 for me on this engine build and I have had zero oil use and zero power loss so I think your engine would have to be very tired or old to warrant a refresh. I can't see anyone doing it as "optimisation". Another question I have is what is the difference between tidying up the head (which is what was done to my VHPD head) and porting (as in what's banned in the rules for classes 1 to 3). I would say nothing as if you touch the internals with some emery paper then in theory, you've modified it and therefore it could be classed as "porting". I'm probably splitting hairs here and it's most likely irrelevant in the context of class 1. Anyway - back to work

Absolutely Graham I make my living racing, repairing, maintaining and servicing things - mostly within a set or sets of rules. The most successful are those that are restricted to mild modification like classes 1 to 3. Budgets go skywards if you're allowed to do what you like (good for business, maybe not the man paying the bill). The biggest difference in performance is the operator of whatever vehicle it may be. I reckon if you achieve a working rule for 90% of the people 90% of the time, that is an excellent result. I think we achieve more than this in class 1 to 3.

In for sale section for doors

David It wasn't personal - you know me better than that. I didn't sit down and count everything up so my guess at records was pretty good then. I think this online tech discussion has been useful but we should stop short of personal critisism of others. I am sure that if the two cars that have de-tuned slightly were to go on a dyno or rollers elsewhere, the results may have been different. The way I see it is that they dropped a fraction to fall in line compared to other runners and that was done in the spirit of the championship. I didn't see it make a blind bit of difference to the results. I think Danny (whom I have never met) has summed it up perfectly and I agree with him wholeheartedly - you have demonstrated this by records in you 1800ss car. I think we are all getting too bothered about a few BHP here or there. If you look at the results then it is very often the case where cars in lower classes beat those in one and sometimes two or three classes above them. I think it took me three years in C4 not to get beaten by class 3 cars! Anyway, enough said. Catch you for a beer soon. Stuart

I think we are over complicating this a little. I can't see what's wrong with the current class. The competition is close and so are the cars. Leave it alone. The caterham academy boys in their Sigma cars seem to be able to get in the 63's (which is a second quicker than most of the class at most of the Curborough's). I think leaving because you have a sigma is a poor excuse. If my memory serves me right, Al Gibbins barely made 100BHP and still made the podium at most events.

I'm with Alan I would say your car was "beautifully updated" Alan... My only other comments pertinent on class 2 / 3 would be that a standard R3 does not make 160. It is very lucky to make 155 - more likely 150 to 152 I would say. Much like my SLR didn't even get to 180, let alone the quoted 190. Therefore I don't see the issue with the R300's joining in (so long as their standard) This can be monitored anyway. Nothing meant to be personal Alan, I was just demonstrating a point. I personally would like to see what is good for the championship as a whole. I know it is a competition and we can take it as seriously as we like, HOWEVER, none of us should forget that this is run by volunteers (all the way from comp-sec, through scorer, through the marshalls on circuit) who put aside their own time for no charge and for our benefit. They don't need grief from those that should be supporting them. I'll get down now.

I would say, leave as it is...... If you want the detail, go to class 2 / 3 page. Equally happy if it changes though, just think it's better for the championship this way around.

Chris I don't know what we'd do without you but You clearly have far too much time on your hands

I have read and re-read many of the posts and discussion points on here. I think that class 2 and 3 should stay as they are. They have always been popular classes, competition is close and it seems a shame to alter things at this stage to allow "other cars" to compete. I don't see the "other cars" at the moment but I do think we should let standard R300's compete within class 3. (I do mean standard with TB's and a MEMS that has not been played with) If we don't do this and go to "155 by any means" then I fear this opens up a can of worms and the same issues that we have with class 4. As far as I know, I'm the only (200+ BHP) class 4 car that runs with the original rule i.e. original equipment TB's albiet different cams. If we change to 155 by any means in class 3, with a cam change and re-map this lets me into class 3. I could drop my rev limit by 1K and have a 3K spread of 155BHP and 140Lb/f. I can't think of anyone in class 2 or 3 who would want me there! This would be a cheap route for me to downgrade. It is not a cheap route for current class 2 or 3 upgrading. I know I'm on the class 2 /3 section, but similarly I'd leave class 4 where it is but I do think that unless you're close i.e. <10BHP over, it would be more in the spirit of club competition to compete in the class that your car naturally fits. For me and many others, this is 5. The only issue is the big power Duratec's (sorry Shaun) which should maybe be in the "do anything you like as long as it's road legal" class 6 otherwise nobody will want to be in 5. So, I think it is important as a club that we keep 1, 2 and 3, for standard or mildly modified cars as it is at the moment. I think the last thing we want is a class 3 like the current class 4 where we have cars built to the letter of the rule and perhaps not the spirit. If we end up with one or two "specialist class 3 cars" I fear that entries will drop further. And one for David - I think it's been proven that the current crop of class 3 cars do have small differences in both set up and power but it is the better driver on the day who wins, indeed your lowly powered class 3 car holds more records than the red car! I don't think we should discourage the example set by these long standing sprinters who are so willing to be open about their cars and generous with their time to help others. That's one of the many good bits about the Club Championship and half the reason I , personally take part.

You have mail. Thank you.

Mike In my experience a (standard) R300k is lucky to make 155 which I think puts it roughly in class 3. I also don't know who has an R300 currently competing. If there is one then if we compare times to the rest of class 3 then we'll know the answer. If we look at the results this year then the standard K's (and the occasional historic) are a clear margin ahead.

I agree with Mark and if it ain't broke...... Allow the R300 K's in too - despite the TB's I doubt they'll be over the power limit anyway.

Rob - talking of Rule 3.3 It specifically states that all driver aids are banned from classes 1 to 5.

And away from the power discussion.... - Regulations 3.3 clarification: 3.3 General Technical Requirements Cars in classes 1 to 6 must run in a fully road legal condition (i.e .with correct lighting and all other technical requirements, taxed, insured and MOT’d where applicable). Competitors are advised that they may be asked to provide documentary proof at an event. So it says "where applicable" and you don't need lights to be in "fully road legal condition". So as I read it, I can run with no lights and comply with the current regulations as the rule stands. OR Is this deemed "not in the spirit"? The car has no lighting fitted at present and I never drive on the road so I wasn't going to bother refitting. Just before I turn up and everyone moans at me....

Spoke with Steve Holland today - he's gone the big Hyabusa route, same as Simon Jenks. Maybe relevant to the high power Duratec vs Busa conversation is that the big Duratecs are in the 31's at Gurston and the Busa's can't touch them. Maybe we'll be having the conversation the other way around next year with the Busa boys complaining that they can't get near the Duratec's? Anyway ....

Agreed but: My point being that de-tuning a 185bhp car into class 3 or a 220BHP car into class 4 is perhaps not quite in the spirit, not that it shouldn't be allowed. Back to what I think everyone wants is reasonably fair and level competition. If we actually used "in the spirit" regulation then we might achieve this. e.g. If Mr class 3 ran 175BHP on throttle bodies he would be competitive in class 4 if he didn't have to compete against the 1.9scholar 220BHP car detuned down to 190BHP. Just a thought .......... would keep everyone's costs down too.

I held myself back and didn't comment on Kumho versus Avon Lyn ...... but as you mentioned it, yes it is an issue on the Avon. The tyres have "gone" by the final hairpin on the international circuit (that's 88 seconds). I'm just surprised at the vote considering prior double lap experience. The running is much slower and the risk of multiple cars getting baulked or re-ran is much higher. From what I have heard, Blyton 2 lap wasn't popular and the Goodwood (non-club) 2 lap was a disaster and they've gone back to 1 lap. Llandow is okay as it's so short. The Silverstone 2 lap we did was a hopeless - 1st practice was almost midday and it wasn't quite dark before we finished. I believe we would get less track time on the 2 lap configuration but I may be proved wrong. Saying that, I got 3 re-runs at Silverstone as I was Baulked / stopped so much so I ended up with I think, 7 or 8 2 lap runs in the end.

No rolling road - this is a club competition. If someone says they have x BHP then that is what they have - end of conversation. To me, apart from everything else, if you make someone go to the rollers, you are effectively accusing them of cheating. They could quite genuinly have set their car up to the power limit on any number of rollers or dyno and then go to Northampton on a day with different conditions / tyres etc and be over a class limit. There is undoubtedly a % difference between rollers and I can't believe we want to dsq someone because they happen to make 162 versus 158BHP on a different day at a different venue. Now if they're 6 or 7 mph quicker through a speed trap then that is different but I think this should be a case of someone having a quiet word and sorting it that way. Difficult to say this the right way but I think if you look at the results / winners etc it is the faster drivers who put in better times and not a reflection of power output.

I seem to have spent rather a long time typing my post so missed the other incoming. The other proposal also seems very sensible with a C5 limit of say 235BHP. In which case would it be sensible to "suggest" (as opposed to make it a hard and fast rule) that it would not be "in the spirit of the championship" to detune your car more than 10BHP or so, thus avoiding all of class 5 squeezing their cars into class 4 and effectively creating another class 4a and 4b situation? I think what everyone wants at the end of the day is to compete in a class where they are broadly similar to the next man (sorry girls ) and the competition is fair. Again, personally, I have no issue with a standard R500 in the same class as me with my 204BHP.

A contentious issue ! I made some comments on class 4 within our class structure a couple of years ago - can't remember how public they were at the time. From a personal point of view: I see class 4 as the difficult class when it comes to the rules - 3 seems easy as the cars are pretty standard - 5 is easy as you can do what you like (within reason). When it comes to 4 we are relying on rolling road / dyno measurements and we are somewhere in the middle. For me, that's fine - there's no point in winning or setting records if you don't comply with the rules - the only person you cheat is yourself! This is club racing and not F1! David and I competed in Class 5 this year. We run 209 and 204 BHP respectively on full map. I hope the C5 results have gone some way to demonstrate that we were fully compliant in C4 on our limited maps. I have over 30BHP losses between flywheel and wheels so I suspect that when in C4, power at the wheels was very similar accross the class. Nigel, I would completely disagree that there has been a "hatched plan by existing uncompetetive class 5 members". Certainly any conversation I have had with other members, comittee or not, has been centred on the concern to make the championship and classes as inclusive and fair as possible accross the board. I have never heard of any competitor trying to influence the rules for their own benefit. From a personal point of view (and I believe also David's view) the reason for the C5 entry this year was that several of the records were more achievable in 5 than they were in 4, and also partly to avoid this chat about reference power limits in the paddock. There will always be quicker drivers as demonstrated by Chris HH at Harewood, although not competing in our championships, running in the 59's - 1.5s quicker than David and I in C5 and over 2s quicker than everyone in C4. This in a 190BHP C4 car! Simon, I don't make the 210BHP but I would be happy to compete in C4 at that level. I would be equally happy to compete in C4 if the limit were to remain at 190BHP. £150 at the rolling road is not a lot in the grand scheme (I don't have a switchable map). I would also be happy for Graham and NotsoHot to compete in C4 - some will disagree with me but I think a 185 to 215 BHP spread is still fair competition. So, I would be happy with the majority decision on the C4 power limit and will be happy to compete in that class providing the "how much power we all have" discussion is not continued thoughout the season. If we decide that de-tuning 10 or 20 BHP to fit into a class is "not in the spirit" then I will go in C5 again and bitch and moan about how fast Shaun is in a straight line and take the moral high ground should I happen to beat him with 60BHP less.... On reflection, perhaps best to leave the C4 limit where it is. I doubt a factory R400 genuinly makes it's 210BHP anyway and someone with an R4 is hardly going to baulk at a trip to the rolling road.

Like I said - list 1a's = great, 1b's - not so good. Pretty unlikely to be quick on Sunday having trashed one's tyres the day before. It's all a little academic now but it's the deletion from the counting events that is the issue. We will get less runs too.

Shame.......... less runs, trash your tyres and the finishing order is highly unlikely to change. The biggest problem is that if it's a two lapper, then the National is deleted from the counting events for the championship so even less people will be turning up. Why would anyone want to make it a two lapper ??? Oh well........ I'm afraid it will end up a class one and two event only, in the future.....

Chris, you're missing something. Tyre warming as above means you are not applying the brakes whilst spinning the wheels. It would be more appropriate to delete the second sentence as left foot / heel toe braking with the rear spinning would be far kinder to the car. I do this at non-club events. It' the "excessive" bit that's the problem (Dai / Adrian et al.............)