Tech Forum - Review of Classes 4 & 5

[Mark Durrant]

This year has seen a reduction in the number of entries in Class 5 and a lack of close competition in both classes where one or two drivers were absent. The competition in both these classes has certainly not matched that in classes 2 &3.

 

One suggestion I have received is to merge the classes and to restrict tyres to radials only (no ACB10’s) from List 1a and List 1b. This regulation has been adopted by other championships and would help numbers and closer competition in an amalgamated class.

 

Another suggestion is for Class 4 cars to be upto 200bhp with anything above going to Class 5 again restricting tyres to radials only (no ACB10’s) from List 1a and List 1b. I am not sure that this will address the problem of the small entries in each class and will be difficult to 'police' but it is worthy of consideration.

 

As I competed in Class 4 it would be unfair for me to comment any further and I wish to be guided by you. As ever let’s keep the contributions constructive.

 

 

Mark D

Comp Sec

 

[martin b]

As a newbie this season I happily competed in class 5 in an uncompetitive car (and driver).

Didn't stop me competing for the fun anyway but it could be a little disheartening if I was a long way back.

In principle splitting the classes by power would allow those with R300/Superlight R spec cars to be competitive would be a good idea but I can't remember seeing other novices with this spec car so perhaps we may just create similar numbers split into 2 classes again. However my new car has 199 bhp and I would be keen to wangle myself a head start 😬

I personally don't have a problem with losing ACB10s as I drive the car to/from some events and would stick with radials anyway, but where would the regs go if Avon bring out A24 compound CR500s 🤔 it would have to be specific to exclude them but if they were allowed I cant see the difference with having ACB10s, another option would be a control tyre but i'm not too keen on that personally, would create a more level playing field though, just suspension and engines left to play with

May be a few 15" wheels for sale soon ❗

Should there be a special class for SV owners, particularly those with over 1900cc

Realistically one class running radial tyres could be enough change for one season, review again at the end of next season.

 

Martin

[john powell]

Class 5 ideas are obviously very interesting ❗ My considered( ) view is that the tyre issues do warrant further debate. I personally don't think 1a's in class 5 are a good idea. Who makes list 1b's in 13 inch radial form though 🤔 I myself wouldn't consider going to 15 inch rims. Whilst ACB10 24 compounds are expensive they will last a season and as we are at 'clubman' level me thinks £500 per season for tyres is not OTT.

On engines, everybody knows my view. Them BEC's belongs in class 6. Thats a full stop there

JAP.

[Shaun_E]

I'm torn on this issue. My personal circumstances (i.e. driving to events) means a ban on ACB10s would suit me BUT part of me believes that class 5 is "the ultimate road going class" and therefore should not be restricted in any way other than what is road legal. As Martin says - what happens if a soft compound CR500 appears?

The fact I have bought a set of 15" wheels with Stunners does not cloud my judgement in any way .

Of equal importance in the discussions should be power. Classes 4/5 currently span about 100 horsepower. R300's and HPC's seem down on power in a class where 220+ seems required to be competitive (or a bike engine) and this probably puts some people off competing.

Having said all this, I would be reasonably happy with combining classes 4 and 5 and then restricting tyre choice such that it is possible to drive to an event on the same tyres that you will be using on the event. The risk here is that it will discourage the current top class 5 competitors from competing.

Tough choice really and we'll never please everyone.

 

Yellow SL #32

[Mark Durrant]

John

 

List 1b tyres in 13" are CR500's, Yoko 48R's etc take a look in the Blue book .

 

Shaun

 

I do not think Avon have any plans to produce CR500's in the A24 compound (I am happy to check) as the wear rate on a tyre with such small tread blocks would be horrendous. I think this rumour was started last year as a wind up by a well known Class 3 competitor . I could name him but it would be unfair 😬

 

 

 

 

 

OK it was Rob Margel

 

Mark D

Comp Sec

 

[neil.cavanagh]

As someone who is considering running in Class 4/5 next year or the year after I also have some interest here.

 

Part of the pleaseure of the L7CGB events to me is the whole idea of being able to drive to the events, compete, and drive home all withint making any changes to the car. This means class 5 is out for me due to 'needind' to run ACB10s to be competitive, but these not being suitable for road work.

 

So I would agree with the idea of radial tyres only. There is plenty of choice in 13" and 15" sizes. Yoko 048s, 032s, R888 or others. All at reasonable prices.

 

As for the power... I agree that the 160-200bhp cars have no where to go at the moment. They can't run in 2/3 and wont' be competitve in Class 4/5. It means people with engines like my current one (140 x-pwer 1.8 K) if they want to be competitive have to make a big jump (power and financiall) to step up from class 2/3 to 4. If we had class 4 and 5 split by power it would allow a more gradual upgrade path!

 

So:

Class 4 as cars with upto 190bhp on list 1a or 1b radials

Class 5 as card over 190bhp on list 1a or 1b radials

 

Class 6. Nutters on slicks.

 

BUT we have small numbers of competitors, and as we all know the driver really makes more difference than the car, so maybe the class 4/5 split is one too many and we should combine?

[john powell]

Mark,

Sorry my comments regarding 1b's were meant to be sarky Having been kicked out of a 1A class when I turned up with CR500's at my first event has meant I am now quite up to date with tyre specs

All i'm saying is CR's are just as expensive as ACB's and to my mind don't offer the same fun factor as them. I had forgotten about the yoko's however and as they are cheaper they could be the way to go if we are looking at things from an expenditure viewpoint. One point though, if people think they can do a season of sprinting together with normal road mileage with just one set of 1B's Ithink they are very much mistaken. My CR's got cobbled at places like Llandow on a hot summers day.

Horses for courses

JAP.

 

[neil.cavanagh]

JP,

I can get 2-4 track days and 3000 road miles out of a set of Yoko 032s or 048s so a season on one set is quite possible. Depends how many smoking burn outs you do ala Mr Jackson at Harewood.

 

One other thought. Splitting class 4/5 as I suggested based on power would give the high power x-flows somewhere to go when we kick them out of class 2/3.

 

I'm thinking of one 'novice' for next year with a 180bhp x-flow. If he can't run in class 2/3 then he would stuggle in current regs in class 4 or 5 due to 'only' 180 ponies vs the 230+bhp beasts.

[david nelson]

the way forward???

 

I like the idea of class 4 being 150bhp to 200bhp and class 5 above 200 bhp.

 

Why???

 

Well there always seam to me that people are upgrading the 7's. DVA is a populer route and his conversions without going mad would put these 7's into class 4. I do not know many club members this would effect but also fill hte gap for high powered X-flows,lotus twin cams, r300 and vvc's .

 

If we only consolidated class 4/5 into 1 class with radial tyres this would not resolve the gap between class2/3 and class 5.

 

Tyres: If the classes are made by bhp then not having ACB 10's would give all compeditors an equal footing. no advantage for those with trailers and no disadvantage for those how drive.

 

 

 

David

[Richard Price]

It's all very well us class 2/3 runners helping to change class 4/5 rules, but would the changes really encorage more people to enter speed events? I'm not sure that it would.

Apart from the powerfull XFlow issue, we have a set of technical regulations that are easy to police.

What makes a standard 190bhp SLR look any different from a heavily modified 1900cc 250bhp monster? I think it may cause a great deal of ill feeling and give the organising team a lot of hard work.

 

[Simon.Rogers1]

I like the idea of splitting the classes by bhp as it does provide a place for R300 big x/flow etc.

By the way what exact bhp does an R400 have. Look how close Darren was to me at MIRA. And don't say it was the Driver cos I've seen his video (from other events) The man can't drive straight 😬 *thumbup* *thumbup*

But

 

I want more competition. I would rather have a good day come 6th behind say Mark, Griff, DJ? Richard Anderson, Ken,- how many more places do I need? with a few tenths between us than run around places like Pembrey with 5 secs in hand. Sad but true. (its the adrenaline rush that pressure brings that does it for me)

 

And hey what a class - some may say more competitive than 2 and 3.

 

Also by combining classes on less sticky rubber this will have some affect on the need for power. Similar to driving in the rain - power will have less of an influence. We have seen at most circuits/climbs that class 3 isn't that far behind with 140bhp? So an R300 with 160? Might be quite close.

 

I do see one problem. Our top notch class 5 cars with 230bhp etc completing a course ina slower time than Class 3 on ACB10

 

Having at first been concerned with the cost of switching to ACB10 A24 I would now put less of a marker against the issue but it has to be a good thing to run on say 048's in the week and leave them on for the sprint rather than have to swap over. And there is a cost implication of I'd say on my experience of £1000 saving over 3 years so £333pa

 

It's a lot to consider but above all lets have some competition isn't that what its about.

[Jason Plato]

I think this rumour was started last year as a wind up by a well known Class 3 competitor. I could name him but it would be unfair

---

 

It was an honest conversation I had with Brian at Avon regarding the possibility of and A24 compound CR500 , it wasnt a wind up. It was at the same time that the tyre regs were being resolved for the C/R400 and Euro cup with Caterham and it was being considered as a wet tyre. But the stumbling block would have been the E mark certification to make it a road tyre and hence suitable for our use.

 

 

 

[Mark Durrant]

Dave

 

Thanks for the clarification

 

Robmar

 

I did you a disservice for which I humbly apologies 😳

 

Mark D

Comp Sec

 

[robmar]

and there was me thinking it was the TM you where referring to

 

I must admit to passing on DJ's disussion with avon

 

rob

[Mark Durrant]

Rob

 

In that case apology withdrawn and lets keep TM out of this otherwise he will be wanting a rule about foggy conditions .

 

Mark D

Comp Sec

 

[Simon.Rogers1]

Judging by the recent video he sent me his vision is a constant blur anyway 😬

[Peter Carmichael]

So 155bhp with ACB10s will be a class 6 drive then?

[Mark Durrant]

Peter

 

Unfortunately there is no set of regs that will suit everyone and anyway its about time you put that big engine back in your car

 

Mark D

Comp Sec

 

[DSL]

Simon, that's rich coming from you 😬 😬

 

 

Mmmm, tricky one this

 

Me, I rather like the ACB10's. Class 5 is supposed to be the ultimate unlimited road going class, surely it deserves a tyre to match

 

People have a choice at the moment, there's always class 4 for the seriously unhinged who insist on spending a fortune on more powerful cars / engines, whilst getting away with about £50 a year on tyre's 😬

 

Perhaps there should be a 200hp limit on class 4 for safety reason's 🤔

 

Perhaps we should ban ACB10's, as many other championships already have 🤔

 

Me, I'm happy with things just the way they are *thumbup*

 

 

 

[Mr Locust]

If you really want some banter go for one big class and a handicap formula which factors engine spec (cams, headwork, exhaust, catalyst, ecu), suspension mods, tyre type, windscreen type etc................................?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stands back

 

Ian

 

Green and Silver Roadsport 😬

[david nelson]

I think it is inportant for class 2/3 to have a say about class 4/5. If I felt like more power for track days, i would go to DVA and get this done. What options would I have? There are many 7's with 160 to 200bhp out there but do not sprint this might encourage more to join us.

 

We need to look at the diffrent types af 7 that members have. Then try to include as many of them in a compeditive format.

 

This is why I think the BHP by class is worth a go.

 

 

David

[Richard Price]

This is why I think the BHP by class is worth a go.

Ah - a good point - I'll stick with my 130bhp then

[Shaun_E]

Having thought about things and looked at the list of comeptitors, why are we so worried about low entries in classes 4 and 5 when in actual fact classes 1 and 6 had far fewer registered comeptitors?

In class 1 there were only 8 registered competitors of whom only 4 did 7 events or more plus 1 who did 6 events.

In class 6 there were only 6 registered competitors of whom only 3 did 7 events or more plus one who did 6 events.

This compares with:

Class 4: 14 registered competitors of whom only 3 did 7 or more events but 5 more did 5 or 6 events

Class 5: 26 registered competitors of whom only 3 did 7 or more events but 3 more did 5 events or more

So not a huge difference really. The question we need to ask is why didn't more registered competitors do more of the events?

Time issues? Location of events? Car troubles?

Are we looking to solve a problem that doesn't really exist?

How do we encourage more modified cars to compete? Where are all the CSRs and other Duratec cars?

I am coming round to the idea of banning ACB10s but, if we do, it must be for the whole championship not just class 5. Is there any mileage in announcing the ban for 2008 in order to give people a chance to use up any existing tyres and think carefully about what class to compete in. If ACB10s are banned then the class 2 and 3 times will be much closer as will class 4 and 5 - does this make the list 1a/list 1b distinction less relevant?

Got to go to a meeting now so will post this and come back later to review.

 

Yellow SL #32

[Simon.Rogers1]

Agreed Shaun but the figures you quote become watered down once you factor in the number of events. People seemingly drove at different events.

 

I only drove against Griff @ Shelsley MIRA Loton and Longcross. (i think) Yet I did 9 events and drove agains my main competiion (not) on less than half the occasions. And those were the ones where I was plainly giving him a chance! The events where Griff new I would be quicker than him he simply avoided 😬

 

Although not true the above scenario would be possible in reality.

[Shaun_E]

Simon - a fair point - especially as I managed 20.5 points at Wiscombe which, sadly, is not a normal score for me.

Perhaps we could look at it another way - entries per class per round

Other than Aintree, at all events there were the same number or more entries in both classes 4 and 5 than there were in class 1 and at every event there were the same number or more entries in both classes 4 and 5 than there were in 6 (other than at Loton Park where there were 4 class 5 and 5 class 6). There were 2 or fewer class 1 competitors at 7 events and 2 or fewer class 6 competitors at 7 events compared with only 3 events where there were 2 or fewer class 5 competitors and 3 events where there were 2 or fewer class 4 competitors.

There does seem to be a problem in the spread of attandance meaning that the actual competition in classes 4 and 5 might not have been so close.

figures:

Class:		1	2	3	4	5	6

Round:

Longcross 1 2 5 12 5 9 2

Llandow 4 11 17 5 9 5

Curbourgh1 8 18 22 9 10 4

Shelsy Walsh 2 5 5 4 4 3

Pembrey1 2 8 9 3 3 1

Pembrey2 2 6 8 2 2 0

Longcross2 3 5 7 3 5 3

Loton Park 4 12 12 7 4 5

MIRA 7 14 14 8 13 2

Curbourgh2 5 13 14 7 14 4

Aintree 4 9 4 4 1 1

Wiscombe 0 8 3 2 2 4

Cadwell 2 5 5 2 3 0

Harewood 0 11 13 6 5 1

 

Yellow SL #32

 

Edited by - Shaun_E on 10 Nov 2006 10:39:51