Championship Class Structure

[Shaun_E]

My 2p worth:

The banning (what a horrible word) of expensive kit is for one reason only - to remove any perceived barrier to entry. It is the perception that is important, not the reality.

In my early days of competition (when ACB10s were all the rage ) I believed that, to be competitive, I needed ACB10s and would need to set the car up appropriately - this was beyond my means and ability at the time and could easily have put me off competing (luckily it didn't). The reality is that I had several seconds to find as a driver before tyres/dampers/set-up would really become important.

This perception that certain (possibly expensive) pieces of kit are required to be competitive is the thing that is most likely to put people off competing and therefore is the thing we most need to address in the technical regulations. For this reason I agree with Mark that we should limit class 4 and below to 1-way adjustables as it addresses the perception that 2-ways are required to be competitive.

The reality is that class 4 are not so far off class 5 times and that the expensive dampers give less benefit than people might think. A well set up car on 1-way adjustables (or even non-adjustable Bilsteins) will be better than a poorly set-up car on Ohlins 2-way adjustables - that doesn't change peoples perceptions though.

My thought's on ACB10s are that they are still significantly more expensive than even ZZRs (and require a different car set-up). Should someone decide to run with them and suddenly run faster than before then we would create the perception that ACB10s are required to be the fastest taking us back to square one.

It can be very difficult to convince a driver that they have much to learn in order to go faster - it is easier for them to think that they have a sub standard car (I know I did) and that the answer lies in tyres/dampers/engine. It is only once people have been competing a for a while that the truth dawns on them but we need to address the perceived barriers in order to get people competing in the first place.

 

Yellow SL #32 - member of Drowned Rat Racing

[robmar]

are ZZRs significantly more expensive than acb10's 🤔

 

 

[Stuart Miller 7]

Agree with all you say Shaun and thanks for clarifying the position RE ACB10 Mark.

 

In my (limited) experience I think it is nice to know that one's car and setup is on a level playing field with others in your class and limits on cost expecially in the lower classes are a good thing.

 

What I have learnt in the last two years is that it's mostly about how you drive. If you look at the last event, Mssrs Price and calvert in class 3 run quicker than all but two in class 4 and that's without adjustable dampers, the extra 50BHP and on tyres that do twice the mileage! So the best upgrades are driver ability and experience - and you can't buy these.

 

Rob, in my earlier post I put the costs in - ACB more than £600 - Kumho and ZZR £50 different. (a set of 4)

 

Stuart

 

 

[Offspring]

I'd be happy to test a set of two way dampers to help illustrate how little a difference it might make

 

Anyone got a set I might borrow ? 😬

 

A

[David Lynch]

Al, they might be heavier

 

EN Yorks 7's Flickr

[Offspring]

Ah, that is the point though, does the extra weight counter any performance gain - though there would be less unsprung weight as the work upside down....

 

[Adrian Williams]

First of all SHAUN ELWELL for Prime Minister, what a brilliant explanation of perception and reality. If it isn't already obvious I agree with everything that Shaun said.

 

In my view the current class regs are pretty much perfect and the very reason why competition is so close throughout the field. At the end of the season it has been the best driver that wins the class NOT the best car, I can think of no one that has 'bought' a championship during the years that I've been competing in it. To my mind that is the whole point of our championship, when I leave an event having been beaten I know I've been out driven and not that someone else has deeper pockets than me.

 

The Westfield Championship is structured around MSA type classes where as ours is based around Caterham's model range, a course of action that is probably denied our counterparts at Westfield due to the differences between the two manufacturers. In essence we have a showroom type structure where you can buy a standard car put the right set of tyres on it and turn up and win, indeed I did just that 3 years ago when I joined class 5. Motor sport simply doesn't get any cheaper than that and it means that other members who are tempted to join in aren't put off by their perception and the rest of us all get very close competition into the bargain.

 

Occasionally the class structure will need a tweak to make sure it's as inclusive as it needs to be and it sounds like the Zetec issue is one of those cases. It does seem a little harsh to be faced with an engine change from a x-flow to a Zetec and to have to immediately think of having to make it produce 180bhp or so. However class's 2 and 3 are NOT limited to 160bhp they're based around a standard 1800K and ported 1600K (to level a 1600 with an 1800) which is what most of the competitors in those classes use. The 160bhp limit is related to a x-flow as it was thought that there were loads of them out there some with over 150bhp and that class 2 or 3 was the right place for them bearing in mind the greater weight and a 4 or 5 speed box etc. A 160bhp 2 litre Zetec is a completely different proposition and would have a lovely spread or torque that might well make it an unbeatable combination which is not the object of the exercise. By all means tweak the rules to allow them into 2 and 3 but they should be closer to the 140bhp that a standard 1800K makes in order to maintain the level playing field. I'm sure we can consult with a Zetec 'expert' to come up with an appropriate set of rules which puts them into the right class.

 

Adrian

[david nelson]

This year the tyre or lack of tyres khumo's was a problem for some. No super softs then no softs then no tyres( full stop). If ACB 10 had been allowed this would have ment that we would have had another option, instead of no option.

 

Cost and set up: well my SL came with cross ply ears so no cost there. If you get your 7 set up ( i should have this year (see poor resultsand already pointed out by Rob)) the cost for set up either coss ply or radial is the same.

 

I might run with ACB10's if they were allowed. Why? I still think they are quicker than the Khumo's. They are light and look good. As for cost, spending money with a UK manifacture, looking after our work force and a compony that puts time and effort into UK Motorsport has got to be the way to go. I guess the perseption is they just to fast to race so ban them.

 

 

David

 

[Jeff S]

Shaun, excellent post, couldn't agree more.

 

Jeff

[CaterBram]

Adrian,

 

As one of the poor fools looking at the options of either trying to work magic to keep an X/Flow running without a) blowing up, b) braking down, c) leaking oil onto everyone else while still battling for last place. i've got to admit i'm looking at the Zetec option

 

I take on board the fact that a Zetec upgrade to 2 litre, especially on the later black top engines would provide an uncompetive advantage, i'm looking at a 1800 silver top running on Carb's.

 

I'm not out to gain an unfair advantage, if I wanted to do that i would have run in class 1 this year with no one the wiser. however i am interested in having a car I know is more likly to run than brake down.

 

Those of us who are new to the scene don't know all the background & try to ask the questions to confirm what we think we know and understand from the regulations, i've got to admit when i first read the current reg's I missed the fact that a zetec would not be eligible for class 2. & bought an 1.8 zetec with the intention of running in class 2 and to those without the background the regulations give the appearance of a 160 BHP limit. It was only after spotting a few other posts that I asked Simon for confirmation, hence why i'm running on an oil slick of a boat anchor rather than a zetec...... and keeping my fingers crossed to still be running at the end of day 2 at Anglesey.

 

Everybody goes on about Zetec's having much more torque and would be an unfair advantage however , A 1.8l ported Zetec on Throttle bodies will produce 166.4 BHP at 5500 with 118.7 Lb/ft at 5000, these were university dyno power runs which was done to my zetec engine prior to my obtaining it. Running on Carb's as I intend to in order to keep the costs down would produce something less than this. Based on what information I can find the carb to injection swap makes around 15 BHP of difference but without putting the engine back on a dyno it's suposition.

 

for comparrison a 150 BHP 1.6l Sigma on injection produces 120 lb/ft of torque base on Caterhams figures,

 

I take on board your points regarding the k series 1600 supersport and the 1800 standard and would be interested if anyone had the power / torque curves for either of these engines or the 150 BHP Sigma which I could compare the curve to the zetec.

 

Please don't shoot me for asking if a change is possible, I've had a great time so far this year in a great championship, even if the only event I could actually get a class win was a close battle with a 1.6l k series with a 6 speed gearbox 😬, with both of us with slower times than class 1 😳

 

 

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. But hopefully a Class 2 150 ish BHP Zetec in 2011. With a Dual Drive :-)CaterBram on Facebook

 

Edited by - CaterBram Jnr on 17 Sep 2010 07:09:47

[Simon_Rogers]

I think we should have a gentlemans agreement in class 5 and let David run on slicks as this will give him the best opportunity of posting a competitive time 😬

 

 

[david nelson]

I tried that this year as there were no tyres avalable. Still slow. so slow. my class 3 times were quicker.

[The Headmaster]

Oh well if its not the car then it must be the driver 😳

 

 

[CaterBram]

Or in my case the car and the driver ........ 😔

 

 

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. But hopefully a Class 2 150 ish BHP Zetec in 2011. With a Dual Drive :-)CaterBram on Facebook

[Adrian Williams]

Hi Chris

 

I wasn't trying to 'shoot' you, indeed I fully agree with the idea that a Zetec shouldn't automaticaly be placed in 4. I was pointing out the back ground behind the '160bhp limit' so that the same parameters can be used again when assesing the Zetec so that it also fits into the right class.

 

Adrian

[CaterBram]

Adrian the Shoot me was in jest as I know your a top bloke,

 

Nothing like an open and frank discussion to stimulate thoughts.

 

I'll be doing a bit more digging and research to bring to the tech forum.

 

At the end of the day what will be will be 😬

 

Q469 WET, 1990 1690 Xflow Long Cockpit in Ali except for the red bits. But hopefully a Class 2 150 ish BHP Zetec in 2011. With a Dual Drive :-)CaterBram on Facebook

[GrahamV]

Oh dear – as the originator of this thread I feel a bit embarrassed – just got back from my weekly trip to Germany and found 5 pages of posts 😳

 

Having spent some time going through the replies I think there are some common themes:

 

1) We are all unanimous the Speed Championship is a great series and this reflects the hard work the organisers and the Club have put into it;

2) I (and I’m sure several others) have learned a lot from the detailed comments and responses;

3) The overwhelming majority feel that the current class structure is about right and should not be changed for 2011;

4) Three areas will probably deserve more debate at the Tech Forum (tyres, shocks and Zetecs);

 

I will go and hide in the corner now…..

 

Graham

 

[Adrian Williams]

Not at all Graham, I think you've been very effective at coming up with an agenda for the Tech Forum. 😬

[david nelson]

1 way or 2 in class 4, 3,2, and 1.

 

I can agree we should chap motorsport expences and 2 ways are a bit more than one ways. Lets say someone with 2 ways has an engine failer. What class do they go too?

 

If the champoinship whats to make cost saving let us reduce the rounds?

 

 

[david nelson]

Cost savings

 

Currently the champoinship has many rounds and you need to do 7 rounds but in reality 9 if you do a few bad ones.

 

The cost of this is significant, and could be perseved as a barrier to members starting or returning to sprinting.

 

I have asked for the last 2 years that we change the way the champoinship is formed.

I would like to see a hill climb champoinship(HCC), sprint champoinship(SC) and an overall champoinship.

 

for those with limited funds HCC could be 4 out of 6 events count or for the SC 6 out of the 9 events.

 

I think this would keep some of us competing as we are all getting squezed financaly.

 

I have discussed this around the paddock and it has some intreast from others. What do you think??

 

David

[cskip]

David,

 

I have been waiting for someone to mention the number of events..

 

I would support an idea around reducing the number of entries. I have enjoyed the events I have attended this year and want to do more. But the time and financial commitment have made me very seriously consider other championships for next year. This is a great shame, as I doubt they will be as friendly and fun. I would much prefer to do the club championship.

 

I like the idea of HCC.

 

Skip

[The Headmaster]

You only need to compete in 7 to qualify.

 

Some competitors eat, sleep and breath for the Lotus 7 Club Speed Champs. They would all require a check in to rehab if there were any less! 😬

[Racing Snake]

Need an unlimited class for slicks etc

 

---

Mad Hatter The Dura Mentalist 😬 Carl @ Penn 7's Caution - May Contain Nuts !

[Mr Happy]

Whats the point in qualifying?

[rgrigsby]

Some sort of reduced number of events championship would be quite tempting, I've really struggled with both the time and financial commitment this year, next year won't get any better so it would be nice if there was a subset that I could compete in but still had a reasonable goal at the end.

 

Cheers

 

Rob G