Mike Molloy Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 That nice Mr Walker (of Emerald and RR fame) wrote some wise words in his column in this month's PPC magazine: "Who at the MSA came up with the idea of forcing all 'production based' race engines to run a cat system for next season's racing? If you run the mixture that the engine needs to make power the cat is doing just about nothing and will not be long lived. Technically the idea is ludicrous so I can only assume this is a PR stunt thought up by some clueless p**ck of a pen-pusher who has never built an engine is his (or her) life." Well said that man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon.Rogers1 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Yes but we all know that its politics. If we don't do this some silly EU idiot will ban motorsport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil.cavanagh Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Sorry Simon I disagree. What the MSA SHOULD have done is put a £10-20 levy on each race license and use this to buy C02 'credits'. Either through the utilities carbon credits trading scheme and scrap them or through the various carbon sink schemes that plant trees to remove C02 net from the environment. Focing us to install cats, which will get destroyed very quickly either by the emissions of the engines, or through crashes will have a significant negative effect on the environment. This rule can only have been thought up and approved by a group of people who were ONLY thinking about the narrow-minded political focus, and without the back-bone to do the RIGHT thing. Correctly pitched an announcment that the MSA have looked at all ways to minimise their impact and decided against enforcing cats, and rather going for the CO2 compensation route would help the image of the sport. I am seriosuly considering what I will do next year as being forced to install a cat to my car goes against my 'green' principles (of which I have more than some people would give me credit for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon.Rogers1 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Thats the point exactly though Neil. The MSA have to cater for the thoughts and lack of understanding of the masses. It is nothing other than being seen to be doing something. Imagine the cost of operating such a scheme and publicising it and proving that it works etc etc. Its cost them nothing to say CATS for everyone. Job done and justifyable. And where were you yesterday when some of us were fighting next door and in the sheds??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david nelson Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I had a cat put in this year. Lets face it from a se7en prospective. Most 7 post 1999 should be running cats. Its needed for the MOT and to be legal on the road. We know that it politic but let us not get all whipped up about this. Was this a FIA idea? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil.cavanagh Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 sorry Simon, stuck in India with pooh interweb connection so missed the fun upstairs! As for the MSA/Cat thing... I still strongly disagree. Doing something just 'to be seen' to be doing something when it has a significant cost impact on competitors AND a LARGE impact on the environment is dispicable in my book. I can't see the positive side in this move at all. Sorry. I'd love to see the proper justification for it when the negatives look so strong to me. And Mr Angry, how much was your cat? and legally you do NOT need to run a cat on the road. Just meet the emissions regs, (ok v/ hard to do without a cat, but you said legal..). Plus how many cars are driving around with buggered cats? I know I did for 2 years in the old tintop with it just scrapping through emissions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david nelson Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Neil hope India is going well. the cat cost nothing? it was the old one from the origanl system. A cut and shut job, so to speak. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Sadly....As it's been ratified by the MSA, if you want to compete in an MSA approved series, post 1999 cars will have to run cat's.... nothing we can do about it... Luckily classic grads are pre 99 chassis, even the last few so, no need to fit them to these..but if this wasn't the case then I'd have to fit one to the classic grad car too....I can imagine a cat lasting..ooohh 5 mins on that.. There are debates about cheaper/ other ways than fitting a caterham standard cat system on mega's and supers at the moment, mainly due to the cost of the standard caterham system......but they've still got to be fitted.. Of other interest...ratified now..have you all painted your towing eyes a bright contrasting colour???? a new ruling that was introduced very recently! Dannyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrelevant Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 my 'green' principles (of which I have more than some people would give me credit for). Green principles, on top of missionary work in the colonies . . . . I think Sam Beckett has been unfortunate enough to have quantum leaped into the Caravanner's body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil.cavanagh Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 "nothing we can do about it..."... good attitude there Dan. Lets just roll over and let the 'powers that by' shaft us every which way they want. I agree that the likelihood of the MSA over-turing the regulation is slim. But then they haven't tried to enforce it yet at the grass roots level.... Will they be resorting to take peoples exhausts apart to prove if there is/isn't a cat? And what is a catalytic converter? Does it have to work? (doesn't say so in the regs). Does it have to be a certain size?? talk of checking the external temperature of the zorst to see if one is present. But that can't be conclusive evidence either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardO Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Will they be resorting to take peoples exhausts apart to prove if there is/isn't a cat? Yes. They already have this power for any component they choose to inspect. And it will be at your expense too. And what is a catalytic converter? Does it have to work? (doesn't say so in the regs). True. But you'd have to argue that one in front of the national court as technical issues go straight to them. The appeal fees are quite large. I raised all these points when the change was first proposed - and a good many others besides. I also tried to drum up some interest on here about it too. That was the time for a grass roots backlash. Campaigning against this when they begin to enforce it is just going to cost you a lot of money - the scrutineers will have no discretion, so it's straight to national level. R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 As Richard has said Neil...the time to appeal/ make voices heard is not ONCE the rule has been put in place. It's been well documented both on here and in the MSA magazine, which....you are supposed to read to ensure you are up to date with current regulation changes during the season.... At the end of the day Neil....no-one rolls over, but, to compete in the sport you have to abide by the regulations and as Richard says, this rule isn't discretionary for the scrutineer now! Maybe the MSA will overturn the ruling once the effect on 'club' motorsport is noted...but, that isn't going to be in the immendiate future! Dannyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Molloy Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 So... Serious question... My car has a bike engine that was not designed to run a cat and has never had one fitted. It was built in 2000, so I guess I fall foul of the new regs. The dustbin sized Raceco silencer fills up the entire space between the headers and the rear wing, so adding a cat in line is going to mean a complete revision of the exhaust system. I recall reading somewhere about a "rent-a-cat" kit provided by a BEC specialist (can't remember who) in order to get customers through the SVA. It consisted of a cat (obviously) plus some sort of ECU to provide closed loop control. Sounded like a short term bodge only... I also note that later models of 'Bird actually do have catalysts in the silencers. Maybe they could be adapted? Oh, and another thing. Has anybody had to fit the new fuel dry-break system? I can't quite figure out which categories it is mandatory for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 On a related issue, how are they going to interpret 'manufactured after 31/12/99' My car left Caterham in kit form in November '99 and was then assembled at some point between then and Feb 2000 when it was SVA'd and registered so is it 1999 or 2000? Also, is there any indication on the club's stance on this? When the rule was first mooted I seem to recall a suggestion that organising bodies would simply impose a blanket requirement to run a cat regardless of age to ensure a level playing field? Finally if my worst fears are confirmed, does anyone make a cat for a 1.6 vx classic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardO Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 they should go by chassis number (which includes a date) so you should be OK.... assuming the scrutes are clued up on the exceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil.cavanagh Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Dan, If you look back on previous posts I was fully aware of the issue before hand and said all my opinions on here. Mark asked us (if I remember correctly) NOT to contact the MSA individually as he would raise our issues from the clubs perspective. I DO read the MSA mag.. the new rules and court battles are the only interesting bits. BUT the MSA chose to ignore all the negative feedback from it's members and go ahead with the change. Just like the Labour government did with road-tax increase. But at least we get to vote them out. How do we get to vote the MSA authorities who made this decision out???? I think I will probably choose to run in class 6 next year at this rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Willoughby Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Greg, The Chairman of the Grads club posted the quote below on their website forum some time ago so it looks like we should be ok. "I understand that forcing cats onto our carburettor-fuelled Classics is almost pointless because they will be very ineffective. These cars also demonstrate that the MSA's stated reason for this rule - that "All production cars have been fitted with cats since the mid-nineties" - is actually wrong! Although I should add that Caterham Cars have confirmed that our most recent Classics are those built for the 2000 Academy year and they should all have chassis plates which show that their "year of production" was 1999 - thus escaping the MSA's cat requirement. (The tenth letter of the chassis number indicates the year: 1995 = T, 96 = U, 97 = V, 98 = W, 99 = X.)" Hope this helps. ASBO orange 1.6 VX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Thanks for that Matthew, I was wondering what the Grads' stance on this would be. I agree it would be a fruitless exercise to fit a cat to one of these cars, it wouldn't last 10 minutes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Oh Neil....you are good sport sometimes 😬 😬 😬 Dannyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin b Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Now calm down, calm down Neil, does your blood pressure no good. When your misfire is sorted you'll be in at least 5 anyway 😬 Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Perry Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Local organisers (rarely the MSA) do strange things like this periodically, then are often forced to step down or change the rule again in a more 'positive' way when registrations are threatening to drop off significantly. One of the local championships here in East Anglia has mandated roll cages for next season for cars on 1b tyres. The result as you can imagine is people saying their cars will be reverting to 1a's or most likely taking their cars off to other championships for 2009. 😔 Edited by - Graham Perry on 11 Aug 2008 23:29:45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now