Class and tyres debate

[OliW]

OK Simon, here we go...

I think the class structure is pretty much alright and that we ought to make minimal changes.  I will likely go with Alan's proposal number 1 but think that class 5 should probably also go mod-prod, as per David's proposal number 9.

So, 1,2,3,4 to be road-going, 5,6,7 to be mod-prod.

 

 

[david nelson]

I believe the clubs championship has failed the membership and has maintained people's self interest.

class 1 makes sense and I think this fits well with current and past cars produce by Caterham.

my 1st issue comes with class 2,3,4.

to work backwards class 4 should have been changed to 210bhp many years ago. I do not think there are many SLR, R400 or modified k's that are producing 190 bhp. Caterham also have not produced a 190 bhp for years. 210bhp would provide a class for these cars to be comeditive. 210bhp vs 262bhp is just daft.

we have also not provided anywhere for the R300 and roadsport 175bhp. This subject has been discussed for years but never addresses to include them in a satisfactory way. This is not my thoughts, but fact. One of the very few r300 runners stopped and has told me it was that his car was not comeditive and the cost to upgrade that helped him to decide to stop. We have also had someone recently ask about VVC's again no class.

this then leaves me to the current class 2 and 3. Why do we provide the came class structure rules where all 150 bhp cars can go yet exclude others. 

 

A bold rethink is needed. We have the opertunity lets not waste it.

 

David

Ps The joining of class 5 and 6 see my proposal 

 

 

[robmar]

David so where do you draw that line?  there will always be car spec that are just marginally not catered for be it 150, 160, or whatever...

I have no issue in re-setting of the notional power limits per class, as if there is ever a time to do it, it is now what with all the other changes re tyres/records/scoring

http://www.lotus7.club/regulation-change-proposals-2016

the only drawback I can see with Alans proposal is for those in class 3 who want to remain on 1c, there is no competitive class for them 150 bhp vs 260 bhp... 

[OliW]

Rob,

I don't know but I'm not sure many of us in class 3 would want to split the class.  Richard would be prepared to go with 1b tyres, as would I.  Can any other class 3ers comment?

I personally don't know whether any power limits ought to be changed.

[robmar]

thats a fair point, if there are no current class 3 staying on 1c it is a moot point...

[Stuart Miller 7]

I mean the following constructively:  

David, I think you'll find that 190bhp versus 262 is not an issue at Lys y Fran or Wiscombe but I agree that anywere "power" biased then clearly the extra helps.  

5 and 6 to amalgamate would be sensible.  1C if you must - why not just go to slicks?  Can't think of anyone currently in this class without a trailer.  

Re the power band for class 4:  200 or 210 running on 1B tyres would be fine and likely include more prospective sprinters.  In my opinion, anything from 180 to 220 would be fair competition especially considering the reduced grip.  It would also mean that many past and current competitors would run their engines tuned properly as opposed to having a flat 190bhp for the last 1500 or so RPM.  By the way, I'd be happy to turn up in this class with a sorted out R300 as I think the power will make even less of a difference on the 1B tyres - just look at the current class 3 versus 4 times at various events (40bhp difference)

Classes 1 to 3 to remain how they are with 3 to run list 1b.  However, given that the last time I drove my car on CR500's I thought I'd bolted my van wheels on, maybe 2 and 3 should just be amalgamated.  This would give a very strong class 1 and 2.  

Class 7 - no restrictions and no restriction on tyre compound because anyone in class 7 is likely to have spent the money already and why would you want to slow the car down?  Also, would preclude most people running mod prod in other championships.  

Finally, I think we should write in our reg's that A24 compound / crossply (except for class 7) is not permitted in the championship, before I turn up in a 1988 car with a set of 24 compound and CR28's when it's raining.  

 

[robmar]

Stuart - I think the concern about going to slicks is the amount of effort that the stickiest rubber takes to keep clean, hence Simons proposal, that if we got consensus and enough competitors I would back...

Are there many considering slicks besides myself...

agree on the acb10 issue

[Shaun_E]

Would consider slicks depending on the outcome of the vote on other things but don't agree with limiting the compound as this defeats the "unlimited" aspect of this class and would make the car less competitive in another championship. 

[Simon.Rogers]

I am happy we the sticky tyres.

They are a right pain in the proverbial though - hence my proposal.

However if more run on slicks then maybe we can get someone at the line to strip the wraps off.

Ther may even be value in a branded line of sweeping burushes!

[Simon.Rogers]

Can we have some comments on the other wider proposals - such as my own.

I just want to hear the views.  

It certainly tries to cater for all tyre compounds and users.

Personally I think we will miss a trick if we don't merge 2 and 3.  I know this is a huge decision and affects the largest number of competitors but in a few years time I believe it sill happen anyway.

[Jeff S]

I would also be happy to run 1B's in class 3.

I'm sure the difference between 1A's and 1B's would still be great enough to warrant two different classes it would however (hence my proposal) require the scrapping of class records and a new overall championship scoring system.

As Mark D states we have been through these changes before and managed well enough using the current class scoring method until new class records can be set

Jeff.

 

[OliW]

If 2 and 3 were to be merged then I would merge them on to 1B tyres, since that is what Caterham sells cars on.

[Jeff S]

Class 3 competitors have got to buy new rubber next year regardless (unless we go modprod),

Class 2 can keep their 1A's.

If 2 and 3 are merged on 1B's then both classes have to buy new rubber!

I do agree though Oli, what Caterham sell on their cars is an important factor.

 

Jeff

[Shaun_E]

I think it's too early to consider merging 2 & 3. As above, many standard Caterhams come with 1B so these would be forced to buy new tyres and possibly wheels. We don't know what will happen to the tyre lists - we could see the merging of lists 1A and 1B. As 2 & 3 are, generally, the best supported classes, it seems wrong to merge them at this point.

[robmar]

Agree - don't merge 2/3 just yet  these are the 2 most well supported classes and work now.

I get that in a few years time list b might be defunct but in that time maybe there will be tyres equivalant to 2016 1b in the 'E' spec...

Rob

[david nelson]

Jeff 

I too proposed a merger of class 2 and 3 but guess there was no point in duplication.

I think we will see a class for 150bhp cars on road going tyres in the future.The writing is on the wall with the changes with F rated tyres. 

I feel we have an opertunity to set out a class structure that is an improvement on our current one. we should embrace change how and make the championship more inclusive.

David

[Tony Smith]

For what its worth, I am happy with class 3 on 1B tyres.

Tony

[punch]

As a happy Class 3 competitor , my vote will be for 1 b tyres, and a 150hp limit with a 5hp leeway.

In regard to the scoring system i will let wiser heads prevail, but thats because i'm not quite sure how it works now!!

Philip

[Jeff S]

My original idea of merging class 2 and 3 was to help with the scoring and class records currently used. Reading the thread on scoring I'm of the mind that this is not necassary as there seems to be easier proven ways of handling the scoring.

Merging may, as suggested, happen in years to come as tyre lists change further, but while there is a big enough difference between 1A's and B's lets keep them apart.

So the concencus seems to be keeping classes 1and 2 as they are, class 3 on 1B's all road legal.

How do the competitors in higher classes feel about tyres, going mod prod and classes?

 

Jeff

[robmar]

Jeff my personal view / proposal (on higher power classes) is that

1. We need a class structure for said cars that are road legal and run on the tyres out of the factory (list1b) this was my class 4. Although I put down 190bhp I am agnostic on that number being moved up or down.  Plus a class 5 for above that number, running 1b / road legal  no restrictions/exclusions.

2. If there is a desire form enough competitors to have a class(s) running 1c then we should have one (these classes to be road legal state, even if down as 'mod prod' for MSA purposes)  .  THis was my proposed class 6.  The intention being to see how many people still wanted to run on those tyres, if it was popular then maybe that could be split, but it sounds like from other comments those in class 3 at least are heading 1b route.  I would rather not have an extra class as 7 already is maybe 1 too many.

Personally I am wavering between slicks and 1c and really waiting to see what we decide and where the competition is heading (my preference to be in a more populated class).  It is unlikly I would go to 1b, but never say never I guess...

Rob

[Mark Durrant]

I would personally like to see classses 1 & 2 remain on 1a with classes 3-5 on 1b. The majority of club members are likely to already have 1a or 1b tyres and if we were to make classes 3-5 1c, then the requirement for an FHR is another cost likely to deter someone entering the championship. In addition, we do have a few club members who also compete in other championships where the tyres will be restricted to 1b so going 1c will mean another set of wheels/tyres and an FHR.

I realise F rated tyres are likely to be removed in the future however, I would not be surprised to see tyre manufacturers adjust their compounds to meet the EU regulations and hence 1b tyres to remain, albeit with a differewnt compound.

 

 

[david nelson]

Let's look at the big picture. Currently we have 2 classes that are the same other than tyres. We do not have a class for R300 or roadsport 175.

why would we not provide a class for these car? I think we are failing members who have these spec cars. 

Why are people hung up about keeping the current class structure?

 

[Geoff Corker]

As a newbie in Class 3 this year I feel that there is still a need to differentiate between Classes 2 and 3 as there are a lot of runners in these.  I would go with Class 3 on 1b tyres, then see what pans out in the years to come.

Geoff

[CaterBram]

Big picture re class 2 & 3

highest percentage of competitors who have chosen to compete in either 2 or 3

so do we force all 2/3 onto list 1a and alientate a good percentage or force class 2 onto 1b and likewise alienate a good percentage of class 2 , both classes are competive within themselves and are quite different in technique.

We don't know what developments or changes will happen down the road. Leave 2&3 alone and concentrate on sorting the higher classes

 

 

 

 

[Graham Howard]

I think we should seriously consider merging 2 and 3 but not next year. Let's see how much difference there is between the new 1b tyres and 1a tyres. Thus should become apparent early next season.

David makes a valid point about the being no class for cars around 175bhp. This could be the new class 3 on 1b tyes with class 2 at 150bhp also on 1b tyres. There would then be a good spread of power limits from class 1 to class 4 with any road going car able to be competitive.

Personally I would not walk away if forced to buy new tyres and I think it would be the same for all regular competitors who are similarly addicted.