Championship Class Structure

[GrahamV]

In a previous post I asked the question whether we should consider redefining the class structure/rules for the Speed Championship. I was asked the question ‘What’s wrong with the current ones?’. So, rather than highjack that thread I thought I’d start a new one......

 

History / Background:

I think the current regulations and class structure reflect the wide usage of the XFlow and K-series engines – as new tweaks and upgrades were applied to these engines then clauses were added into the regulations to ensure we kept a level playing field. (examples are clauses in the Regs on cubic capacity, re-bore maximum on Kent engines, 5/6 speed gearbox usage with specific engines, plenum chamber, etc). As different engine varieties come into the mix then I think the Regs are going to get more complex – I am thinking Zetec, Sigma, Duratec, etc. I believe I’m right in saying that in the current Regs we have a situation where a 125 bhp Zetec on list 1A tyres would have to compete in Class 4? (Thinks - I know of two 2010 competitors who are upgrading from XFlow to Zetec over the next few months).

 

Principles:

The principles of the Regs and the Championship class structure should fulfil some basic objectives:

 

1) Group competitors into classes (with equal machinery) to allow a fair contest;

2) Comply with the MSA Regulations and definitions;

3) Ensure appropriate safety standards are met or exceeded;

4) Ensure that costs are contained or even reduced if possible.

 

My proposal:

1) I think it would be wrong to make massive changes overnight so any changes would not come into effect until, say, 2012 or they could be staggered over a longer period.

2) Class structure to be more orientated to BHP (not engine / gearbox combination)

3) We introduce sliding-scale limitations to reduce costs (e.g. Class 1 would have the tightest rules regarding fancy shock absorbers);

4) Tighter safety regulations for the faster cars (e.g. full roll cages)

5) Speed Championship to be based on the broad MSA definitions of –

- Road Going Specialist Production

- Modified Specialist Production

 

So a simple straw-man Class structure would be –

 

Class 1 – Entry level class - max 125 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, FIA roll bar and petty strut, no adjustable shock absorbers, road tyres only (List 1A).

Class 2 – Max 175 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, FIA roll bar and petty strut, single adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres

Class 3 – Max 200 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, full roll cage, single adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres

Class 4 – Over 200 BHP, any gearbox, any engine, full roll cage, double adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres, bike engined cars in this class only.

 

If justified by the actual number of entries then class 3 and 4 could be subdivided between ‘Road Going’ and ‘Modified’ (as per MSA definition) – this would allow Nigel to run without tax / insurance on List 1B tyres and Graham Ford with his super-duper machine to also compete in the championship on ‘slicks’. I note that seat belts for ‘Modified’ cars must be in-date.

 

In summary a simple 4 class structure based on engine BHP with a few tweaks to allow some flexibility in the interests of saving money. The thresholds of 125, 175 and 200 BHP are of course easily changed – e.g perhaps 150, 175 and 200 is a more realistic spread ?

 

Steps back and waits for the flack…….

 

Graham

 

 

Edited by - GrahamV on 15 Sep 2010 10:33:21

[CaterBram]

Hi Graham,

 

I think this post will generate lot's of discussion both here and at the tech forum. 😬

 

I agree that the classes need looking at but would still like to see a list 1A class for those on more than 125BHP .

 

Class 1 – Entry level class - max 125 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, FIA roll bar and petty strut, no adjustable shock absorbers, road tyres only (List 1A).

Class 2 – Max 160 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, single adjustable shock absorbers allowed, road tyres only (List 1A).

Class 3 – Max 160 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, single adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres

Class 4 – Max 190 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, double adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres

Class 5 – Over 190 BHP, any gearbox, any engine, double adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres,

 

where bike engined cars sit havn't a clue....

 

as your say the power value's are arbitary but there is already power limit's set so why change, but agree totally on the problems with the X/Flow upgrade to Zetec issues and the wider issues regarding engine eligibility to a class.

 

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. .CaterBram on Facebook

 

Edited by - CaterBram Jnr on 15 Sep 2010 12:33:58

[robmar]

hmmm

 

I think what we have in general works, with close competition across all classes so I would be loathe to change anythigng at this stage.

 

We do amend them every year to accomodate anomalies and new specs of cars from caterham so they have an appropriate class, so new sigma cars etc are accomodated.

 

sorry I know of no 125 bhp zetecs aren't they in there lowest state of tune around 160bhp

 

rob

[robmar]

oh and btw changing class structure will lead to most/some having to spend more money and not less in getting there car to the optimum for the class rules, so you have not hit principle #4

 

also we have another simple principle / goal of the championship which is to allow new competitors to be able to easily get a start in motorsport. With continual major changes this will not make this any easier.

 

I think making a roll cgae mandatory is not a good thing, it should be highly recommended. What happens for someone who buys an r500 new with an FIA bar and uses it on the road, they now have no class to be in by these rules

 

Class structure is BHP orientated already, we just have additional regs to make certain specs of car be in a a more appropriate class.

 

 

[GrahamV]

Chris

 

as your say the power value's are arbitary but there is already power limit's set so why change ?

 

Understood - as a starting point I was just thinking about aligning the Classes to the BHP of current engine range - 125, 150, 175, 200 and 263 (i think).

 

Regarding Tyres - I'm not sure how long we will have a split between List 1A and List 1B tyres. I think the MSA regs now allow 'Specialist Production' classes to now use List 1B.... but dont quote me on that

 

G

[CaterBram]

Rob's,

 

A bog standard 1.8l escort zetec is 115BHP, has been done by several people including a series 4 to my knowledge. this is the cheapest form of upgrade to the x/flow, as they are readily available from donor car's for a couple of hundred.

 

the zetec range is tunable right through to over 220 BHP 😳

 

but the typical "Race" packages available from one company are 160,190 & 210 on carbs or 180,200,220 on injection

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. .CaterBram on Facebook

[CaterBram]

Graham,

 

I was thinking of minimizing the cost to those already competing whilst allowing easy access to those entering with a newer car, but as you say lot's to consider.

 

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. .CaterBram on Facebook

[Mark Durrant]

Graham

 

Over the years our championship regs have evolved to where they are today and in my opinion our existing regs meet your four principles. The class structure is based on the existing and previous models and is designed so that anyone wishing to compete will have to make minimum changes to their cars.

 

My comments on each of your proposed changes are as follows:

 

1) I think it would be wrong to make massive changes overnight so any changes would not come into effect until, say, 2012 or they could be staggered over a longer period. -Agreed

2) Class structure to be more orientated to BHP (not engine / gearbox combination)

- We already use BHP for each class and we only allow sequential boxes in classes 5 & 6 in order to keep the costs down and to allow standard factory cars in the lower classes to remain competitive.

3) We introduce sliding-scale limitations to reduce costs (e.g. Class 1 would have the tightest rules regarding fancy shock absorbers); - It is proposed that classes 1-4 will be restricted to 1 way adjustable dampers and this is to be discussed at the Tech Forum. Again the idea is to keep costs down for classes 1-4.

4) Tighter safety regulations for the faster cars (e.g. full roll cages) – Disagree – This will stop people with a class 4 or 5 car from potentially joining the championship due to the additional cost. The FIA bar is approved and sufficient for the MSA and any use of a full roll cage should be voluntary

5) Speed Championship to be based on the broad MSA definitions of –

- Road Going Specialist Production

- Modified Specialist Production – We already follow the MSA Blue Book however, our classes should fit in with the existing as past models.

 

I am sorry but I think your proposed class structure is flawed as all the changes result in significant increase in costs and will prohibit newcomers competing in your classes 3 & 4. My comments are as follow:

 

Class 1 – Entry level class - max 125 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, FIA roll bar and petty strut, no adjustable shock absorbers, road tyres only (List 1A). – Some cars already have adjustable dampers and the idea of this class is that an ex-Academy car is competitive. To allow any gearbox will increase cost as competitors will feel the need to upgrade to the six speed manual (£2k) or worst case a sequential (£6k)

 

Class 2 – Max 175 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, FIA roll bar and petty strut, single adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres – This will make existing class 2&3 uncompetitive and the only car that fits this BHP figure is the new Duratec of which none currently compete. Existing competitors will be left facing expensive engine and gearbox upgrades plus tyres if currently competing in class 2.

 

Class 3 – Max 200 BHP, any gearbox, any car engine, full roll cage, single adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres – A roll cage will prohibit novices or the person who enjoys the occasional sprint from competing and the power limit will result in expensive engine upgrades plus the cost of sequential gearboxes. When you chose to come and join us would you have fitted a full roll cage 🤔

 

Class 4 – Over 200 BHP, any gearbox, any engine, full roll cage, double adjustable shock absorbers allowed, List 1B tyres, bike engine cars in this class. A roll cage will prohibit novices from joining.

 

I believe the existing class structure works and the evidence is in how close the results are across all classes.

 

In my opinion the only changes I would like to see debated at the Tech Forum are to allow a Zetec in class 3 (if restricted to 160bhp) and the restriction on 1-way adjustable dampers for classes 1-4 to keep the costs down.

 

 

Mark D

[david nelson]

My undaerstanding was the regs are BHP based.

 

Looking at the current 7's from CC

Classic 105 BHP K series

Roadsport 125BHP Sigma

150 BHP

175BHP

SL 150BHP

R300 175

R400 210

R500 260

 

loking at our class the Academy and 125 roadsport are in class 1

SL + Roadsport 150 in class2 and 3

r300 class 4

r400/r500 class 5

 

The r300 is at a disadvantage in class 4 but has more power than any of the class 2/3 cars.

 

I think the club has it about right, but good to discuss

 

David

[Z3MCJez]

As I understand it, cars have to be taxed, unless they're in class 6. That would be an impediment to me doing a one-off event as I'd have to go through the additional cost and palaver of taxing and insuring it. What about allowing cars that are SORNed, but capable of being taxed, to run in the class that they would otherwise be in?

 

Then, if I could borrow some 1A tyres from someone, I could have a run out in class 1 next year

 

Jez

[Alan Bowler]

A minor tweek to try and stop me and others turning up with slicks to score points/win pots (when Graham Ford hasn't entered) would be to base the

score on the fastest time in the entered class and all classes below it

i.e. I'd have to beat all of class 5 and below as well to get 100 points. Which

would be unlikely.

 

But then would someone really run for a season in class 6 just to win pots 🤔

 

Otherwise, given the incredibly close times/scores, I think the current system

works very well, plus as said above, changes to championship regs always

seem to end up costing more than they save (other than the valid MOT question).

 

Oh yeah - and can we have 5 points for driving to an event, and 10 if it p1sses down?

 

AB

[CaterBram]

Mark,

 

Thanks for your thought's , like you say will need discussion at the tech forum, I did email you & simon last week on this topic regarding allow zetec's in class 2&3 providing they meet the 160BHP limit, and how to go about including it in the discussions for the tech forum but recieved no response from either.

 

hopefully next year i'll be running a 160BHP Zetec on Carb's and list 1A tyres in class 2.

 

fingers crossed for the tech forum.

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. .CaterBram on Facebook

[Nigel Fox]

In my view we are priviliged to compete in the most successful one make speed championship that I am aware of, and the format is a credit to all those who have contributed to it, past and present. We need to be careful not throw the baby out with the bath water.

If there are anomolies with individual cars, for example low power Zetecs if they turn up, or throttle bodied K's, perhaps there should be an annual eligibility committee to review and clasify them.

My own issue is that of tax and insurance, would it be possible for cars to be either road going or mod prod? Roadgoing would be as is, mod prod still to require an MOT and MSA log book, all other requirements as appropriate class rules?

 

Full time class 4 Zetec

[Mcalvert]

Interesting comments.

 

I would be in favour of allowing Zetecs into Class 3, so long as a fairly level playing field is maintained. This needs to take into account more than just "peak power", as I believe is recognised by the fact that currently, 1800 Ks in class 3 are capped at 140 bhp, compared to other smaller capacity / 8 valve engines being allowed 160 bhp.

 

I have no personal experience of driving a Carb equipped Zetec, but would be concerned that a 2L 16V engine may have a significant advantage over other types?

 

Michael.

[CaterBram]

A 160 BHP 1.8l Zetec on Carb's produce 115 Lb/ft of torque on a bench power run which was done to my future zetec engine.

 

A 150 BHP 1.6l Sigma on injection produces 120 lb/ft of torque base on Caterhams figures.

 

And I agree with nigel that it is a great championship and I do feel privilaged to benefit from the hard work of a great many people in establishing a fantastic club and championship. Hence why I originally emailed Mark & Simon to ask for advice without posting anything on here.

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. .CaterBram on Facebook

 

Edited by - CaterBram Jnr on 15 Sep 2010 13:24:01

[Mcalvert]

Looks like the distinction between 1.8 Zetec and 2.0 Zetec might come into play them. Raceline quote peak torque of 146 lb/ft for their 160bhp 2.0l

 

Michael.

[Sgt Pepper]

As one of those who is changing from x/flow to Zetec my decision has been based on the existing class structure.

 

As I understood it a 160bhp Zetec would have taken me out of Class 3 into Class 4 and probably put me at not insignificant disadvantage bearing in mind that the limit in Class 4 is 190bhp.

 

As a result of trying to remain competitive due to my forced change I have decided to go for a Zetec 190bhp on carbs and head for Class 4 with all guns blazing 😬 (in reality this will be nearer 180 as I'll be running with my old Weber 40s and not 45s as recommended). To be honest I may well have upgradedto the 190 spec anyway

 

WRT full cages, I know the risk...but my 7 is predominantly a touring car (and dare I say it sprinting is secondary) and as such SWMBO (and who is helping finance my upgrade ) would not enjoy scrambling in and out of a caged 7. So, if cages were mandatorily introduced I'd regrettably have to wave goodbye.

 

just my 2p worth

 

Currently powered by Fresh air ☹️ 😬

[robmar]

on a more important but related note we need to discuss the unbanning of acb10's now that you can get the other Avon tyre cr32? in the A24 compound 😬

 

rob

[David Lynch]

I have been informed that current thoughts on Dampers are to limit Class 1-4 to one way adjustable only to prevent a costly Ohlins migration.

 

I do have an vested interest as my Class One car is running a second hand set of Leda's with a single adjuster and adjustable platforms (and springs that are too hard designed for a Vauxhall). I don't fancy the costly step of sourcing some new Pre '96 fit Bilsteins and platforms. Others are also running AVO and Gaz units with a simple single click adjuster.

 

As for Class One the variety of potentially competitive cars/drivers with 100 to 128bhp makes it a great place to be. We all have to overcome varying perceived car weaknesses and in my case I will keep pushing Alistair and Andrew (who both pedal incredibly hard and neat) to work even harder for their wins 😬...One day.... (was nearly Llys Y Fran)

 

EN Yorks 7's Flickr

[robmar]

Luddite question for you. If the rules had said you could have run a lower spec Zetec engine and be competitve in class 1-2-3 would you have gone down that route 🤔

 

David - yes it is very much from a cost basis and back to one of the principles of the championship, of course there are rumours of a single way ohlin damper on the way

 

Rob

[skydragon]

just to throw in another 2p's worth.

 

The L7C rules as they stand work for me and my focus has to be on improving my driving skills, to be more competitive.

 

However, in saying that, we band classes by BHP, not as most MSA events do by CC of engine.

 

This means that a 1600cc car can be competing against a 1900cc car and although the BHP may be similar, the torque certainly won't

 

If we were to fiddle with the classes (and I'm not saying we should just yet) I'd like to engine CC taken into account.

[rgrigsby]

On a completly selfish note it wouldn't be that handy to limit Class 5 to double adjustable dampers as some people have accidentally ended up with 3 way adjustable ones (not that they have any idea how they work!).

 

As for the overall rules, the classes do seem to be quite competative at the moment even where there is a variety of engines and specs in play. I suspect whatever you do will play into someones hands and someone else will be disadvantaged. Other than the proposed damper change for class 1-4 I can't see the benefit of other regulation changes as it just seems that it will incurr more costs for someone that wants to be competative.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Rob G

 

[apjenkins]

To clarify 'one way adjustable shock absorbers', is a SPAX or AVO (and others) with an adjustable spring seat platform and one adjustable screw/knob a one way or a two way item?

@ndrew

[CaterBram]

As far as i'm aware a 2 way shock absorber can adjust the rebound without causing effects on the compression and the at the same time the compression can be adjusted without effecting the rebound.

 

So adjustable platforms and single adjuster is a 1 way shock absorber.

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. .CaterBram on Facebook

[Simon.Rogers1]

Good grief. A full day out of the office and look waht happpens.

 

Andrew J - A one way damper is one that adjusts the rebound and compression together. An adjustable spring platform is only considered a ride height adjustment and therefore a Std Bilstien and adjustable spring platform is a non adjustable damper (if that makes sense )

 

First of all Chris B sorry I haven't replied yet. Still trying to catch up with everything.

You sent and excellent and usefull email the contents of which will be used at the tech forum.

 

Graham V - thanks for the ideas and starting the thread.

 

Mr Margel - how much has TM paid you to say that 😔

 

I'll be playing the same role as Mark has done in the past and witholding my own opinion to try and remain as impartial as possible. I will be watching and making notes though

 

I do have one opposing point of view to Mark with regard to the dampers. I will post it below so that it is there for discussion. I will make no further comment on it after that point but would welcome others to do so.

 

Prior to the Tech forum I will post up an adjenda/topic list.

 

=================================

Damper Specification Restriction

 

Whilst taking on board Mark's comments and in part agree with them I also feel that the restriction should only be applied to classes 1 -3.

 

Reasons - Ohlins cost £2.5k ish. Expensive for dampers but would someone with a R300 be surprised at an invoice for £2.5k for an engine upgrade to 190bhp ?????

 

Why should we say that to go faster you can only spend £2.5k on engine and carbon etc not dampers - 7 Tips can sell Race Spec 1 way Ohlins/Penske dampers that cost £1800.00 are they to be priced out also?

 

I hope you can see the reasoning. Quite clearly there is also a conflict between 7 Tips Racing and this discussion also. So if someone would like to play devils advocate on my behalf for the sake of argument/discussion again I welcome it. I will say not more.

 

Competition Sec

Management Team Member

 

If in doubt.......Flat out!