2015 Tech forum - Class 1

[Matthew Willoughby]

Please see below a link to the proposed 2015 regs as drafted at the end of last year.

http://www.lotus7.club/sites/default/files/images/Docs/SpeedChamp/2015%20Championship%20Regulations%20-%20Draft%202.pdf
 
Suggested items for discussion:
 
Increase power limit to 130BHP – K Series cars can have this amount already so it seems unfair to limit other engine types to less.
 
Should we add a ban on direct to head throttle bodies?  This was missed in the draft regs and should have been in there.  No engine derivative should need them to reach 130BHP and allowing them would enable somebody to build an extremely torquey 130BHP unit.
 

[CheshireCat]

As a novice and entering the Club Championship for the first time this year, the appeal of Class 1 was the use of standard 120/125 bhp engined cars either K series or Sigma. With ex academy cars  and roadsport cars being popular.

From what i had read before entering the Championship both these standard K series and Sigma cars were competitive and after my first year of competition, have not seen anything different and can see no need to change the regulations from 2014 to 2015 to move towards an anything goes 130 bhp limit. 

I did not know whether i was going to enjoy competing or for how long and the knowledge that i could compete in a standard engined car was important in deciding whether to enter, especially not having to spend money on the engine to compete.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stef]

I completely understand the idea that to make all cars 100% equal a simple power limit works but I think it is important that we realise the effect this may have. I signed up to class 1 on the understanding it was the 'standard car' class. Introducing the power limit,and some people spending significant money on getting their cars to that power limit,  will give people the impression that to be competitive in any class of our championship they need to upgrade their car. Effectively we would lose the 'standard car' class.

Personally I feel that having a class that is accessible to any basic caterham without having to spend money on anything other than safety kit is important and if we lose that then we lose some of the appeal of a club championship.

Clearly as the owner of a k series car, this will come aross as me not wanting others to have as much power but this is honestly not the case. I bought my car as a good track ready car (didn't know I would be sprinting at that point) and in all honesty I would have bought a sigma if I could have afforded one because they are newer. 

[CaterBram]

Assuming that Northampton's rolling road is correct, a number a Class 1 cars with standard sealed engines at the begining of the season achieved achieved between 125 and 129 BHP, hence the proposed change to the limit, rather than a race to achieve 130 BHP, it's a case of many cars already being there and providing the opportunity for those cars substantially down on power to upgrade to come closer.

 

[CheshireCat]

130 bhp is not a widely recognised Caterham power level. 125 bhp is a recognised standard power level. Caterham build a Roadsport 125 and Academy cars are quoted as 125 bhp and the source of many Class 1 cars.

increasing Class 1 to 130 bhp could indicate that standard cars with quoted 120 / 125 bhp are not competitive in Class 1. 

However, Class 1 events were won in 2014 by a mix of K and Sigma standard cars across the range of measured bhp figures. So it appears standard K and Sigma engines are competitive with the current regulations.

I also understand that speed traps are monitored through the season and am not aware of significant speed variances in 2014 with the different bhp cars running in Class 1.

If we increase the limit to 130 bhp. What if a car measures 131bhp is that ok ? 133bhp ? 135bhp ?  

Why not keep the max power figure at 125bhp for standard cars , however accept a maximum 5% variance for standard cars.

This would cover bhp figures seen this year for some competitors standard and sealed engines and allows for rolling road variances as well as keeping a meaningful and attractive Class 1 125bhp figure.

[magister]

I agree with Stef and CheshireCat  - keep Class one as standard as possible. If people want to spend money upgrading engines etc,  then other classes are available.

PaulB

[andrew mckay]

I must admit I'm in agreement with Stef and Clive. The attraction was a standard car shod in class 1 tyres all ready to go.  I'm sure talk of ECU mods, plenum removal, exhausts, intake mods etc by other competitors to guarantee 130bhp would have made me consider just entering class 2 or 3. As it happens my car came out on the high end on a different dyno but  it doesn't appear to have any higher top speed at places like Aintree, though that might be related to my ability.

[Simon.Rogers]

Having initially thought that a power figure was the best way to go and somewhat contradictory therefore to my thoughts on the other classes I now believe that the class 1 rules should remain as currently written in the 2014 regs.

It this perception thing again.  

[OliW]

I agree that C1 should be for standard unmodified cars, so 130 should not be specified as a power limit.  Perhaps Simon is right that the rules should remain as they are.

Cheers,

Oli

[Mark Durrant]

This class is for standard cars so I recommend the regs remain unchanged. There is no need to increase the power limit as I suspect on a warm day in May the same cars on the Northampton Motorsport rollers will make 125bhp.  Speed trap data will indicate if anyone has a significant power advantage.

[garybee]

I think the wording relating to 'super-grad' spec engines needs amending to remove the requirement for them to be sealed. A bit nit picky, but in theory it stops me upgrading mine and at least one current car would be moved to class 2 if this rule were applied. 

[Steve Causey]

I also support keeping the Class 1 rules as they were for 2014.

Over the last few seasons we have seen close competition between the K-Series and Sigma engined cars and we've been able to attract some novices who have been competitive (curse you Mr Marsden!).  From my perspective 'it ain't broke' so I don't see a need to 'fix it.

[garybee]

I meant to reply to caterbram's post (post 4) earlier.

It would be a mistake to use the figures from the rolling road to set a power limit for the class. We don't have any way to verify their accuracy so can't be sure if the Ks are making any more than their stated 125bhp. All you can realistically use them for is to understand the difference between power outputs of different cars and decide whether or not other engines should be allowed cheap fettling to bring them up to the same power.

[robj]

The aims must surely to be inclusive, forward looking and fair.

The most inclusive is a simple power restriction. I agree ideally that should be 125bhp as this is what Caterham advertise their cheapest sigma as having. However that would exclude most of the current class 1 competitors, if last year’s rolling road figures are precise (I will come back to that), in addition it would mean that several Class records have been set in non-compliant cars. Clearly this is not inclusive and not reasonable.

To be forward looking we must encourage those with newer cars to compete, hence the sigmas. I know of only a few sigma owning class 1 competitors since I have been competing, and two have stopped, one certainly as he felt the car was uncompetitive. This was partially due to the lack of LSD and partially due to the lower speed trap times for all sigmas meant he felt even with an LSD he would not be competitive. We must not make it seem like a k series only class.

So as Gary has suggested would it not be fair to enable an owner to fettle the power up to closer to the most powerful cars in the class, after all this can be confirmed by speed trap data (currently at Curborough the sigma cars are 2mph (over 2%) down on the k’s.) I agree with him that measuring engine power is prone to many inaccuracies and so can only be used as a comparison (the data from last year gave sigmas (121.5 and 119) and k’s (130.1, 123.7, 128.2 and 127). So it would be fairest to say, as Clive suggests, 125 +/-4% to allow for errors in rolling roads, methods of measurement, atmospheric conditions etc.

Robert

[robmar]

If you are going to say +-4% you may as well say the limit is 130 (125+4%)

Also no pont having a minus percentage what happens if I have -5% of 125, where do I compete..

Just saying...

[Stuart Miller 7]

I think we are over complicating this a little.  I can't see what's wrong with the current class.  The competition is close and so are the cars.  Leave it alone.

The caterham academy boys in their Sigma cars seem to be able to get in the 63's (which is a second quicker than most of the class at most of the Curborough's).  I think leaving because you have a sigma is a poor excuse.  If my memory serves me right, Al Gibbins barely made 100BHP and still made the podium at most events.

[Stef]

I agree that it is becoming over complicated. Before I had competed this would have put me off.

As a potential novice, all I wanted to know was which was the class for standard, base level caterhams.

Before we allowed the sigma tracksport mod (I may have the term wrong), it was suggested that there would be an influx of people with sigmas wanting to join us if we allowed it. This did not happen. 

A far more important message to interested parties should be that the difference in power we are talking about will make a negligable, if any, difference and 99.9% (that's an estimate, I'm not very good at maths...) of the difference comes down to the driver, followed maybe by car set up. 

I would propose that this can be seen clearly by the many occasions we have seen when the quickest in class 1 (inc Sigmas) are posting times that would be very competitive in class 2, despite the class 2 cars having a chunk more power. 

[CaterBram]

Agreed, I'm happy if I come close to the Class 1 times, whilst in Class 2   . And do a victory dance if I manage to go quicker than Class 1......  

[robj]

Steff, I agree, so why not make it simply 125bhp with an allowance for rolling road measurement error (say 4 or 5%)? As this includes all the standard cars described and allows some currently excluded, and hence is more inclusive. This would not detract at all from achievement of getting close to times set by Class 2.

Rob, I agree it should be 125 + Delta not 125+/-Delta.

Robert

P.s. to clarify the owners of the two tracksport sigma’s who would have competed in 2013 had they been allowed, sold their cars before the regs were changed...

[Stef]

Hi, 

Basically the figure quoted doesnt actually bother me but the spirit in which the regs are taken does. 

We both want class 1 to be as inclusive and simple as possible to encourage existing competitors to continue and new ones to dip their toe in the water. 

Your thought on how to achieve this is for a BHP limit which will enable competitors to spend thousands of pounds on engine work to ensure that all cars are 100% equal. 

As stated above, I don't have a problem with having a BHP figure, but my understanding of the class 1 spirit would be that this is a guide so people know which class their standard cars fit into. The reality is that our championship is trying to cover 50 years of cars and specs. The cars in class 1 currently are all pretty evenly matched and anyone can turn up in a standard caterham and be competitive.

I believe using this figure as an absolute limit rather than a guide and so spending thousands on engine work in class 1 will actually have the opposite effect and indicate to people that there is no point in competing unless they do the same. Thus making class 1, and so the entry level to our championship less attractive, to both new and existing comptitors. 

As per a post higher up, class 1 has always been about fundamentally standard, basic level caterhams, be those sigmas, K series, 1600 vauxhalls etc. My understanding is that all of these have been and continue to be competitive and we have a nice entry level class for our championship. Classes 2 and above are for cars with increased levels of performance.

Anyway, I don't believe we will ever agree on this, it is just our differing perception of what will make the class most attractive for both new and existing competitors and our thoughts on what is within the spirit of a standard class in a club championship. We will just have to wait for the 'boss' to digest the opinions on class 1 and indeed ther others, and conclude the way forwards.

Cheers

Steff

 

 

 

[CheshireCat]

Just to be clear on my thoughts. Class 1 is competetive in its current format for both K and Sigma engine cars with standard engines and should continue on that basis. I do not agree that we should start allowing changes to engines in search of a few bhp.

[robj]

One obvious issue is that 'super-grad' spec engines are not standard engines, and the cost to do this is not insignificant, but similar mods to non k 's are prohibited. So do we ban super-grad spec cars?

[Alan Bowler]

I thought super-grad was a standard 1600 K engine?

(grad being a xflow or 8V Vx, and mega-grad being a K series supersport)

[Matthew Willoughby]

Alan, yes, but in rebuilding them for racing certain modifications were allowed.  Skimmed head for example.

[Richard Price]

Yes. Supergrad is standard 1600 K series.

MegaGrad is 1600 supersport, with Xpower Plenum and 52mmTB with stock short 4 branch exhaust. They originally quoted that this would give 150bhp, but, as they're all the same, the actual number does not matter.

Mega would definately be class 2/3