Tech Forum - Changes to Classes for 2007

[Bilbo]

Hi BB

 

Your not alone 😬

 

I MUST loose some weight in the next few months the suits more like a corset 😳

 

'Can you hear me running' ......... OH YES and its music to my ears 😬 😬 😬

1988 200 bhp, 146 ft lbs, 1700cc Cosworth BD? engineered by Roger King, on Weber's with Brooklands and Clamshell wings, Freestyle Motorsport suspension.

[markc]

just a quick question

 

What class would a 1600bdr be in ?????

Std gearbox 😬

 

MarkC

 

edit to add bhp 155bhp ish

 

 

 

Edited by - markc on 21 Dec 2006 18:47:54

[martin b]

Mark

You would be in Class 4

I started this year with my bdr in a few rounds, a lovely sounding car

 

Martin

[Peter Carmichael]

Quoting 0.15s advantage per gearchange is horesecrap of the finest order. Even when out of gear, your car is rolling at speed - the advantage only comes about if the speed could otherwise be greater by being in gear and acccelerating. Last time I looked, a speed event was a race over a fixed distance, which makes my comment entirely pertinent. With a light flywheel, the gearchanges can take as little as 0.2s on a H-pattern anyway.

 

You calculate the advantage by integrating the time spent at a marginally higher speed in any following straight. no straight= no advantage.

 

Now look at Curborough.... Off the startline, one change that makes any difference before paddock - any second upchange is not followed by a straight. Downchange (no advantage into molehill). No long straight, no advantage up to fradley. One gearchange of any note on the run to Flagpole. Downchange (noadvantage). Nothing significant on the run to molehill or fradley. One more gearchange back down the straight...

 

By my reckoning three gearchanges with any chance of an advantage and that advantage being the minor differences in speed in the following straights. i.e. (mathematically speaking) the square root of sod all.

 

 

[david nelson]

Peter

 

I am sure you are right. I had thought it would give some advantage. At Curborough I am normally changing into 3rd at paddock and hold this to the mole hill then 2nd at this point I never know if it best to hit the limiter in 2nd or change into 3rd and then back into 2nd for fradley. on the 1st lap i think i get into 4th( just)or hold 3rd then 2nd round the hairpin. on the 2nd lap harpin to mole hill is always at the higher end of the rev range the the same problem from molehill to fradley.

 

I used to think i was quick at Curborought (59.67) till Dave J did his time this year 58.??. Anyway i will have to relearn it all if i fit a 3.92 diff

 

 

David

[Peter Carmichael]

At Curborough I am normally changing into 3rd at paddock and hold this

---

 

But you don't accelerate for any length of time following the change into 3rd, hence there is minimal/no advantage for the change being made quickly.

 

to the mole hill then 2nd at this point I never know if it best to hit the limiter in 2nd or change into 3rd and then back into 2nd for fradley.

 

But you don't accelerate for any length of time following the change into 3rd, hence there is minimal/no advantage for the change being made quickly.

 

on the 1st lap i think i get into 4th( just)or hold 3rd

 

But you don't accelerate for any length of time following the change into 4th, hence there is minimal/no advantage for the change being made quickly.

 

You get the idea. 😬

 

 

 

[Bilbo]

Well think I agree with Peter (OH God I agree with Peter 😬)

 

One thing thats been missed in all of this is the gear ratio anyone's using and even more if you think about the variations of diffs. Me I currently running 2.2 as 1st others run 2.04 both are non standard to a Caterham 5 speed box and its a Quaife close ratio anyway. I might before the season starts change the LSD diff to a 4.11 or even a 4.44 from 3.92 this should get me faster on the power band and able to stay there, it needs a overhaul anyway as I think the LSD is shot.

 

Additionally the last power run was about 190bhp so I could just about squeeze into class 4 but the props a bit knackered and the diffs seen better days so my transmission losses are currently high. Hopefully both will be restored by the Spring but I could turn up with a graph showing the current low reading 😬 All that ignore that its just the best estimation at the RR session.

 

Given all the above and it could apply to any of us and the quicker change of the sequential boxes seems to make a very small gain. Ok its more than likely those that have a sequential box should have sorted thier transmission losses but the variations of gearing will count on more than a few sprints and some of us could or can change ratios to suit the track ❗

 

Then there is the real factor of power to weight ratio in any group especially now in group 4

 

It seems very unfair to dump Peter who is one of those that have really promoted the clubs sprint days in class 5 or 6 with his current engine. A simple solution for him and other would be to give a very modest time penalty to each track say 0.1 to 0.2 sec and only on a dry track. I sure some agreement could be reached and it would not really impact on the the work for thoese doing the timing.

 

Why only on a dry track well all this drops to meaningless with a drying or getting wetter track and then again power to weight ratios. Anyway as I have said often before its sprinting and not racing with all the cars out at the same time in the same conditions or for that matter sealed engines.

 

I do understand Marks commitment to making the club sprints more open in the desire that more will go sprinting and we will need to see as the year progresses if his hard work makes a difference.

 

Mark that's not a criticism far from it but it could just be a case that few additional club members wish to sprint.

 

Its a fact that I am last in group 5 and could be if you let me run in a lower class but I always enjoy the days for many reasons.

 

All I need to do now is loose enough weight to get into my race suit thats shrunk after getting soaked at Longcross last year well that's the official reason and 50% true 😬

 

'Can you hear me running' ......... OH YES and its music to my ears 😬 😬 😬

1988 200 bhp, 146 ft lbs, 1700cc Cosworth BD? engineered by Roger King, on Weber's with Brooklands and Clamshell wings, Freestyle Motorsport suspension.

 

Edited by - Bilbo on 22 Dec 2006 20:25:16

[Jason Plato]

what a load of tosh

 

One thing thats been missed in all of this

 

is the fact that a discussion is being based upon 3 gear changes within a 15 [??] round championship at a venue which is a handling and balls course not a power course.

 

despite all this I think sequential gearboxes should be allowed ( sprinting and hillclimbing has always been about development and trying new things and simply making a car go quicker) and if you want to ban bike engines then just ban bike engines.....

 

hohum ....back in tha garage to do the head on the nail today

 

here is C7 TOP

Taffia Area Rep

[Bilbo]

Hi Dave

 

As ever succinct and to the point

 

Well I must say that I was thinking the same about different track as I wrote but chose to kept it relative to the above posts.

 

Still I do think it could be made to work on a track by track basis. I also not wish to make this into a massive new argument for Mark, it just seemed to me a solution to those that do have sequential boxes who may have thought about sprinting but might not now as there uncompetitive in class 5. That rather goes against the idea behind the new regulations.

 

I still say given all the other variables its not that a big advantage. Oh one that I missed out was how many times you had been to a track that's worth the odd second or more anywhere 😬

 

'Can you hear me running' ......... OH YES and its music to my ears 😬 😬 😬

1988 200 bhp, 146 ft lbs, 1700cc Cosworth BD? engineered by Roger King, on Weber's with Brooklands and Clamshell wings, Freestyle Motorsport suspension.

[Peter Carmichael]

It seems very unfair to dump Peter

 

I don't mind at all the way the rules are cut. Life isn't fair. In this instance it might be that I have ended up taking a mauling at the hands of rule changes, but I haven't exactly been a contender for the last three years. The spirit of the rule changes is entirely sensible.

 

 

[Davey Bee]

It's the execution

 

R600 VX here

[metal mickey]

Ohh Jackson, whats all this about banning bike engines, you want to exclude all the competition

[Jason Plato]

Mikey

 

I dont want to "ban" anything, but if the intention was ( and I think it was, but to be honest I've lost track of it all and I'm realy not interested any more)to ban BEC's with the statement "no sequential boxes in class 4" then simply change it to "no BEC in class 4" and allow conventional engines in with sequentials........ that was all I was saying . I dont think I have ever wanted to exclude any "competition" 🤔

 

sorry if your touchy on this topic .

 

 

Edited by - Dave J on 27 Dec 2006 08:40:46

[Graham Perry]

Agreed, The club has to be inclusive and to ban something would be daft. Instead just reclassify it 😬

[metal mickey]

Dave, not touchy just fishing 😬 Actualy I agree with your sentiments regarding class 4, I think the underlying reason to exclude seqential boxes was infact to exclude bec's but as I was not intending on competing in that class i'm not effected. I am even more perplexed at the tyre regs being introduced, yes I know the stated reasons but in my opinion they simply don't stack up. As for introducing new blood into sprinting then I'm all in favour of that but have never particularly noticed a lack of competitors at venues i've attended. I watch with interest and despite my opinions probably not falling in line with the majority I have a very high regard for the people and associated helpers that make the club sprinting possible.

[Davey Bee]

I watch with interest and despite my opinions probably not falling in line with the majority I have a very high regard for the people and associated helpers that make the club sprinting possible.

I second that.

 

R600 VX here