Jason Plato Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 OR ......... serious suggestion ..... 2003 class winners or 2004 individual event winners , 2nd place and 3rd , should carry lead weight ?? How about 1st 50KG 2nd 30Kg 3rd 15Kg This would spice things up dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powderpuff Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Why not just make them run with a navigator...actually that could help 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Richard Price Posted September 10, 2003 Area Representative Share Posted September 10, 2003 Whilst I can see the threat from powerful X-flows, the future would appear to be more K orientated. Of the powerful X-flows Barry Hunts car has already gone, and the same car now has a K fitted to it. I feel that evolution will see the X-flow threat diminish further. As far as modified K's go, I think that keeping policing of the modifications must be of prime importance. However I don't think anyone would like there engine stripped to check it's eligibility. Whilst the head modifications and cam changes can result in significant power changes, they are limited by easily policed external components, namely ECU, PLENUM and EXHAUST. By sticking with the STANDARD ECU, PLENUM and EXHAUST, any significant head work and cam changes are much less likely to work effectively, and we would have any easily policed specification. Whilst it would suit me to introduce this sooner rather than later, I would support simply allowing standard 1.8 K's into class 2/3 next year, and further limitations for 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 or how about that idea they had in F1 where the winner gets to drive the slowest car from the previous event eg schuey in a minardi 😬 rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattj Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Im just happy as long as I can beat Gordon 😬 😬 Adjustable shocks?! Could your new tyres be Re720's by any chance?? hahaha Spare a thought for the poor guys last year in the 85hp x-flow (who could STILL beat Gordon 😬) True its having fun that counts, its not as if theres any cash prizes for winning.. Just a lame suggestion: could people with too much power for a class (i.e. 180hp xflow in class 2)have the option of going up into a higher class if they wanted to, surely theyre only cheating themselves!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 i think the exhaust would be hard to swallow for most, even if the others ECU/plenum may be acceptable to some... what happens when your exhaust fails, are you forced to get the caterham part 🤔the same could be said of the ECU. These parts may (ha!!) be more expensive than alternative but just as good components. And why not force the xflows to use a caterham supplied exhaust as well we seem to be moving to these changes because they are easy to police not because they are the best/fairest way forward ☹️ which would be wrong IMHO rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powderpuff Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Re the 3 bits people are looking at on K's 1) Plenum, this need to be changed to open up the power beyond 165 - 180 bhp - so make it mandatory to keep it, power is then capped 2) Exhaust, depending on the age of your car it may or may not have had a cat on it when it came out of the factory, it could be 4-1 (inside engine bay), 4-1 Competition, 4-2-1 SLR....all these are factory options....so it seems unfair to regulate against exhausts 3) ECU, if power is ultimately capped by the plenum, then why regulate ecu useage? if an 1800 K can be made to produce 180bhp with standard plenum, I think this is pretty close to what you could get out of a 1800 x/flow, it's up to you which route you take, new type or old type of engine. 1600K 160bhp, not far off what you can get from a 1700 x/flow.....just different means to the same goal. If someone has spent time and money on producing a car for the 7 club regs, and this has been a K, if the regs had been different, would they not possibly have gone down the x/flow route if that was best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 PP 1) agreed but it needs to be clear this is the plenum not the TB's there has been a lot of debate about this on the past and we won't go over old ground again 2)agreed 3)agreed , I think the idea was to keep the k'sters to a band of power and the easiest/simplest way was to force the standard mems that wouldn't work too well if you made other mods to the engine. OS hence by doing this no one would bother to make any changes as it would make little or no difference, or even make your car worse. rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Perry Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Powder puff, Exactly, if 180 BHP is viewed as being the limit for Plenum K's it is also similarly the practical limit for Crossflows (unless you spend about GBP15k) so surely it would be best to consider this the class for cars of up to say a nominal 180BHP. K's are normally slightly lighter than Fords so once the best K's are running that sort of power the best ford powered cars will really be challenged. K's are now beating crossflows regularly (I didn't win at all this year) and surely that must be the way of progress. As I said before just let the 1800's into class 2 and then let the crossflows wither on the vine of time. In my own view that is the only change that is needed. As long as K has a stock plenum and is under 1800 that is the only change we need make as it is so easy to police. Forget restricting the injectors/cams/emerald of K's it will upset too many people. Also consider changing the points in the championship, so that those of us who don't participate, don't pinch someone elses points regardless of where we finish. I can see that when someone sits down to write the definative history of the Caterham Seven there will be a large chapter titled ' The class 2 question ' 😬 Edited by - Graham Perry on 10 Sep 2003 12:53:40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikes Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 I am not sure I fancy withering on a vine - or swallowing an exhaust come to that As Richard indicated it seems unlikely that anybody would go for class 2 with a monster of a xflow now - wouldn't they want to at least have the 1B tyres? I know I will be unable to resist buying some new things for next year but it certainly won't be a huge upgrade of my xflow - honest! Anyway, to answer Guy's question - my terminal speed on the last run was 104mph - and you are probably right about the headwind. I am pretty sure my earlier runs were around 103mph (even in the wet) but I was on fullpower much earlier round Beechers on that last run. Although the aero was a complete waste of time in trying to catch Colin - you are right about the visibility - particularly in the wet it was so much better. My other main worry now is how to keep the car to myself and prevent my Aintree support team from having a go!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 if you wanted to compete outside of the champioship then yes you may build a big xflow and run on list 1a tyres. It may be unlikely but it is entirely possible, wether anyone would is another subject rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper Jnr Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 So if we restrict class 2 cars by the above measures then looking at results from loton and curborough you class 1 cars will be setting as fast or faster times as class 2 (based on class 1 cars would have come second in class 2 at loton). This means that Class 2 cars will be welcome in Class 1 and that modified class 2 cars will be in class 4. Which leaves no class 2 😳 Problem Solved Rob (Running very fast in the opposite direction) 😬 Ford: Engineered for life - built to rust!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgrigsby Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Seems fair to me 😬 ok yes although I shouldn't be saying this it does seem a bit unfair to have standard K's competing against monster Xflows, having said that they don't seem to be doing to bad a job at it!! (ignoring Lydden!!) Having said that if people can get a K up to 180BHP on a plenum then I guess it's all pretty much even. Cheers Rob G Edited by - rgrigsby on 10 Sep 2003 14:00:35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper Jnr Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Sorry, My point being that we need the tuned cars in class 2 to differentiate the classes. Class 4 will beat class 2 as class 2 should beat class 1 if this does not happen then the class system is wrong. This is why the standard 1.8 K-series cars should be moved as they do not beat class 2 cars. Rob Ford: Engineered for life - built to rust!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Ranson Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 ISTM that the class structure should favour standard spec cars, especially those that don't fit well with the standard classes elsewhere. Modifications that optimize for the class structure and that differ from those that would be performed for the same investment without the class constraints should be discouraged. But I don't see any way for a 'spirit' to be enforced except by an eligibility god who will use the finish line speed trap figures from Curborough as a determinant of actual power... Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy. N Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Blimey - you turn your back on Blatchat for a nano second and look what happens!!!! FWIW, here's my tuppence....... - On a personal level i'm glad to see that 1800 K's (standard and SS) are being given serious consideration for classes 2 and 3 - Peter C's proposed class structure refers to the plastic plenum. As noted by others the later cars coming out of the factory have an alloy plenum. If this is going to be an issue in any future regs can the powers that be please recognise it, and frame the regs accordingly (eg "Standard plenum as it left the factory, either the plastic or alloy type") - i'm all for evolution rather than revolution, and keeping things as simple as possible for all concerned - we don't need to align our class system with any other championships - the SPIRIT of classes 2 and 3 should be for largely unmodified cars - I wouldn't want to be in BB's shoes for all the tea in China 😬. Keep up the good work Graham. Andy Nicholls C7 AJN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Paul ISTM that the class structure should favour standard spec cars, especially those that don't fit well with the standard classes elsewhere. if this is for all engine types then I agree, however the main point being discussed here is that in classes 2&3 we could have non modified K's against heavily modded x-flows, so where do you draw the line as to standard spec 🤔 also I think the original regs where drawn up when there was only ever 1 or 2 events a year, now thanks to BBand others we have 7 plus and a fantastic sereies so maybe they need be looked at... not saying the original ones are wrong, far from it, I think they are spot on bar the 1.8 K rule rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Paul ISTM that the class structure should favour standard spec cars, especially those that don't fit well with the standard classes elsewhere. if this is for all engine types then I agree, however the main point being discussed here is that in classes 2&3 we could have non modified K's against heavily modded x-flows, so where do you draw the line as to standard spec 🤔 also I think the original regs where drawn up when there was only ever 1 or 2 events a year, now thanks to BBand others we have 7 plus and a fantastic sereies so maybe they need be looked at... not saying the original ones are wrong, far from it, I think they are spot on bar the 1.8 K rule rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper Jnr Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 How many Heavily modded crossflows are there? The Perry's have a decent car but they did not thrash everybody in class 2. Give people like the Perry's more respect that just booting them into another class. They have spent years perfecting their out of date engine into a winning car. Give them a chance to enjoy their moment. As for class 3 I was talking to the McFarlands at Curborough and they informed me that they only have around 130bhp . As Dave proved at Loton in Bacon Butty's car he is a quick driver Rob Ford: Engineered for life - built to rust!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipper Jnr Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 How many Heavily modded crossflows are there? The Perry's have a decent car but they did not thrash everybody in class 2. Give people like the Perry's more respect that just booting them into another class. They have spent years perfecting their out of date engine into a winning car. Give them a chance to enjoy their moment. As for class 3 I was talking to the McFarlands at Curborough and they informed me that they only have around 130bhp . As Dave proved at Loton in Bacon Butty's car he is a quick driver Rob Ford: Engineered for life - built to rust!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 but Dave is planning much more than 130 for next year ☹️ but I guess the issue I see is not how many where this year, rather there is potential for any of the xflow boys to go further maybe I am harping on too much about this and my beef is not with the highly modded xflow boys, it is rather that I will have to dump my minor upgrades plan to be a little more competitve, only looking at around 150 bhp but the new rules would not allow me to think of any of them... rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Kipper Posted September 10, 2003 Author Share Posted September 10, 2003 A preview of the headlines from tomorrow's papers has just been sent to me. Times: " Lotus 7 Club in class row" Telegraph: "Can Blair be trusted to sort out L7C row? Troops on standby" Guardian: "Catreham club in class dispute" Daily Mail: "Pick new Lotus 7 Club class structure and win £100,00 a year for life!" Sun: "We don't care who wins class 2 as long as they have big t*ts" Sport: " **** this for a game of soldiers!" Kipper Fun is not a straight line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenEvans Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Bacon Butty's in for a nice surprise, he hasn't been on since 16:53 last night - all these posts to read, comprehend and sort out the good ones from the bollox (mine) 😬 Edited by - KenEvans on 10 Sep 2003 16:08:14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powderpuff Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Kipper - 😬 Bacon Butty - good luck RobM - it'll save you money if Emerald's are outlawed ☹️ Myself - I'm off to class 5 where I can basically do what I like 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Perry Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Kipper Jnr, Good point and as I am only doing two events a year out of seven and am not in the Championship it does seem like a lot of hot air. Perhaps the debate should be about Modded K 's v Unmodded K's. Anyway, by the time the Modded plenum K's are getting near to 180 BHP they are getting highly modified themselves. I think we are beginning to talk ourselves into circles though. One further comment and that is that 1700 crossflows have always sat in the second from slowest class since I first started sprinting with the club 10 years ago. Why move them to a higher class now after all these years particularly as there are getting fewer and fewer of them every year ? For a change has anyone got any issues re the higher classes 🤔 Great informed debate guys Edited by - Graham Perry on 10 Sep 2003 16:42:18 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