Possible changes in class structure next year?

[Colin Heseltine]

Graeme, I think your idea re novice award as a percentage of class time is fairer than fastest time overall.

 

As regards the upgrades to my car for this season, I felt that I was in similar position to Guy, trying to compete against BH and the Perry's in cars with much greater bhp. Add to this the fact that as it was in bits following blown head gasket it would have been criminal not to make it faster 😬.

 

Regards,

 

Colin.

[robmar]

I just did some thinking whilst at he gym, with regard the class 3 no mods to k-series.

 

This year 6 out of the 7 events in class 3 where won by x-flows in various states of tunes, and the only k victory was at a wet curbugger where luck of the draw played the most part in determining times. So X-flows are the engine to have in class 3. Unless of course us k boys are too slow 😳

 

So it would seem you are not restricting the right engine

 

rob

[No Nuts]

Colin, so, er, what did you do to the head? No wonder you were so damn hard to beat!!!

😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬

 

Guy

 

NN 😳

Lotus @ Herts

[Eric McLoughlin]

I agree with the overall sentiments concerning Class 1. Although I never expect to make any sort of impact on this class with my humble 1600 Crossflow Classic (and my inept driving)- if the spec for Class 1 was upgraded it would not be worth my while turning up.

[Manxseven]

Graham,

 

Maybe should start a new topic with this question 🤔

 

Will the number and type of events for next year follow same format as this year 🤔

 

 

 

[robmar]

I think from a previous post Graham has suggested that it would be very similar...

 

rob

[Peter Carmichael]

It doesn't make any bl%dy difference. I'll still only come second...

 

FWIW, I think alignment with non-L7C events is not an issue. The L7C events are a fantastic starting point for sprinting with a place in each class for standard factory spec cars. There are anomalies, but generally this works out. The rest of the world will eventually catch up with the factory trends, but the rise in number of aeroscreened cars is unaddressed by general competition classes. A standard 1.6 Superlight would have to run in "mod prod" because of its list 1b tyres and aeroscreen and if you "do a Bees" you do it for the purpose of winning, rather than competing. L7C events are not really in that mould.

 

As with any class structure, the class breaks will favour some and hinder others. The format of the competition allows people to fight for position and take scalps in tussles further down the field. Maybe there is scope for a driver of the day award as a rather more relevant award than FTD.

 

I would favour putting the K-series Academy cars in with class 2 rather than class 1. If interest in class 1 fizzles out in a couple of years time then so be it, but I think there is still a need for the basic crossflow to have a place of its own to compete.

 

If the super-crossflows in class 2/3 prevail, then it is testament to the bloody-mindedness required to make a museum piece perform. So be it.

 

I seem to be in favour of dropping the 1.8K (ordinaire and Supersport) into class 2/3. An aftermarket mapped ECU upgrade is rarely undertaken unless the aim is for higher performance, so standard ECUs would be required for class 2/3. The standard plenum also. I don't think an upgrade to a 52mm throttle body change needs to be kicked up a class as long as the standard ECU is retained. Also fiddling with cam timing should be allowed. It might be difficult to enforce any other limitations such as cam spec, but the ECU and plenum constrains the ultimate power potential.

 

The VVC is the poor cousin in all of this and is resigned to valiant efforts in class 4/5.

 

So...

 

Class 1:

Lotus or Caterham Sevens powered by

single cam engines up to1600c.c.

Tyres to be List 1A only.

Vehicles powered by non car derived

engines are not allowed in this class.

 

Class 2:

Lotus or Caterham Sevens powered by

single cam engines of 1601c.c.and

greater.

Also all Lotus Twin Cam engines and

Rover K 1400c.c. engines.

Rover K non-VVC engines up to 1800c.c.

provided induction is via the standard production

plastic plenum and the fuelling/ignition is controlled

by the standard Rover MEMS ECU.

Tyres to be List 1A only.

 

Class 3:

Engine spec as per class 2.

Tyres to be any road legal E-marked tyre

or in List 1B.

 

Class 4:

Any Lotus or Caterham 7 not meeting the

engine requirements of classes 1, 2 or 3

Tyres to be List 1A only.

 

Class 5:

Any Lotus or Caterham 7 not meeting the

engine requirements of classes 1, 2 or 3

Tyres to be any road legal E-marked tyre

or in List 1B.

 

Class 6:

Any Lotus or Caterham Seven not meeting

requirements of any other class.

---

[No Nuts]

While I'll still come to some events if I do end up in class 4, the thought of not having a hope in hell of winning really doesn't appeal to me. It takes the need to push as hard as possible (and often scaring myself a little) away I think. Maybe (I'll regret saying this) I'll get more involved with the organisational side of it, but that's not really what I want. I'll not downgrade my car to comply with proposed class 2 changes if they do happen.

 

But, the majority preference has to be the one to go with, whatever it is, whether it suits me or not.

 

Damn, I wish I could articulate better, I'm writing all of this with a smile on my face because I think the whole debate is right, but I just don't get why 140bhp cars should be in the same class as 180bhp and above. Problem is, it could be taken that as I seem to have benefitted from the current class structure that my comments are not really fair and I'm just scrabbling to retain a chance of winning class 2 again next year.

 

Looking back at the season's results and the time differences between class 2 and 4 make quite depressing reading. I really don't want to go TBs and I certainly don't want to ditch the Emerald and go back to the standard MEMS (non supersport) ECU and can't afford to buy yet another ECU (supersport MEMS) so feel like I'm going to be stuck a bit in no man's land. Sorry, just wibbling out loud here.

 

I mean, why are we looking at changing the class structure (as I've said before, 1.8's in class 2/3 seems a great idea). The cross flow guys are able to do whatever they please to the engine. The K boys are possibly going to be very very restricted in class 2/3. If the idea is to keep costs down then I don't see how that works. The DVA supersport kit (which is effectively what I have) is less than the Caterham one.

 

What about gearboxes? I would dearly love a 6 speed, they are allowed in class 2/3. What about LSD's (I have one)? Where do you stop?

 

Hmm, time to shut up I think and have some lunch.

 

😬

 

Guy

 

NN 😳

Lotus @ Herts

[Mark Durrant]

Peter

 

Well said...your proposal gets my vote

 

Mark D

Su77on Se7ens

Avoiding the Kerbs

[barry.h]

As an ex-owner of a reasonably quick X-flow and because I see my name mentioned once or twice, may I make a couple of observations?

 

Firstly I agree with Peter. You have to work hard to get the X-flow to perform and whilst it is possible to extract big BHP ( in the case of mine, 164 bhp) it is not as tractable as a K.

 

Secondly, as was observed in a similar thread a month or so ago, bhp alone does not account for everything. Peter C has put in some superb times with 150 bhp - but with a well sorted, well balanced car.

 

Thirdly, if you want to restrict X-flows how are you going to do it? There is no such thing as a standard X-flow.

 

Of course you could insist that this year's class champs have to go up a class next year , wait for the howls, but in its way that is no different from pushing this year's class winning cars up a class.

 

I think what BB has come out with is pretty fair and quite balanced. Certainly there does not seem to be a shortage of players even as it stands.

 

Barry

 

 

[Powderpuff]

If the plenum is the ultimate restriction on a K, then why not allow mapable management units?

 

Would the ultimate BHP not be somewhere in the region of,if not less than a mega crossflow?

 

Maybe someone could ask Oilyhands (or already has) just what the limit is on a K with a stupid bit of black plastic in the intake side of things

[No Nuts]

Barry, funily enough, pushing the champs up a class, I think, is a very good idea, so long as you have the chance to come back down again!

 

Or, some sort of handicap system, you have the chance of being competitive on the day while having to work harder still for the points. Or maybe something as simple as weight handicaps?

 

Secondly, as was observed in a similar thread a month or so ago, bhp alone does not account for everything. Peter C has put in some superb times with 150 bhp - but with a well sorted, well balanced car.

---

 

Which is why I ask for any recommendations on speed event training as my driving is certainly a weak link in the chain I think.

 

I think the bit that hurts most (I know it's not a cheap sport) is having decided on a route to upgrade the car from bog standard Academy spec (heck, I wish I'd left it if they are going to end up in class one - actually, no I don't, there's no challenge in that) which now appears to be to wrong one. That's life I guess. I thought I was picking the most sensible / economical way at the time.

 

Guy

 

 

NN 😳

Lotus @ Herts

[No Nuts]

PP - I think DVA reckons with a worked head, 52mm TB the plenumed engine is good for some 160bhp. Whether you have to go silly cams with solid followers and so on too (and potentially destructive revs) I don't know. I'll stick to 7000 revs thanks as I know my engine (should) last (listen for the bang!!)

 

Guy

 

NN 😳

Lotus @ Herts

[Graeme Smith]

Wacky suggestion:

Class 1 - upto 110bhp, 1A tyres

Class 2 - upto 130bhp, 1A tyres

Class 3 - upto 160bhp, 1B tyres

etc

 

Or perhaps bhp/tonne would be better...

[robmar]

Barry - I wasn't suggesting you restrict the xflows, becasue as you say what is a standard xflow... however you could say what was factory spec (ie cams, engine size, ign etc)

 

I also take you point about peter c with not much power getting good times, however for us less talented there is no substitute for those extra horses 😬

 

Also your point about number of players will no doubt be not a problem, I suspect there will still be not enough places at the curbugger events for all...

 

PP - I agree with your sentiments with regard the fact that the plenum is the restricting factor,

 

so I do not understand why we are planning to make the extra changes to the standard mems, cams and TB now

 

rob

[Graeme Smith]

Curborough? Make the first event non-championship and the second the championship finale, with priority for the first week going to registered championship competitors. Just a thought...

[Graham Perry]

Another alternative would be to ignore non-championship contenders from the points equation. I won't be in the championship next year as I can only do typically two events but may have a serious go in 2005 if I get a new car or engine. However, I do still wish to compete next year as do other non-championship contenders. If we were ignored from the points equation it wouldn't effect the championship in any way what position we finished in at an event.

 

yet another alternative which hasn't been mentioned is to have a crossflow class and a K series class and keep them separate, but I doubt thats a runner.

 

Edited by - Graham Perry on 9 Sep 2003 16:23:39

[Silver 21]

Been out to lots of meetings and come back to loads of postings......., Kipper put that can opener away

 

You could restrict X Flows by following the standard applied in non Lotus 7 Classes which is up to 1700cc in Class 2/3, Anything over in 4/5, it is impossible to put together what is a standard spec for a Xflow.

 

If it can be proved that that Plastic Plenum restricts cars to around 155 - 160bhp then I am more that happy to accept this and leave the 1.6's in Class 2/3 however I've been led to believe (righlty or wrongly) that they can produce 180 with the bit of plastic in place.

 

Guy , I've also done the sums at MIRA you would have come 6th and at Curb 2 11th if you were in Class 4.

 

I'm happy with Peter C's approach but as mentioned above if they can only produce these figures then does it matter if its got MEMS or Emerald

 

 

 

Graham

 

Competition Secretary

Lydden , Curborough , MIRA , Llandow , Loton Park , Curborough *thumbup*, Aintree

[robmar]

if we went with the 1700 rule, that would mean the sensible decison to allow 1.8K's in would be a nonsense

 

I have no idea if 180 is available from a standard plenum, where is oily I am sure he will give the definitive answer...I suspect that there would be other trade offs with regard drivability.

 

which of course begs the question if you wanted 180BHp on a K why keep the plenum, it is relatively easy to get 180 on TB's and head work etc. In fact the only reason I can see to retain the standard plenum if upgrading is to stay in classes 2 & 3 of the L7 championship

 

of course by not allowing k upgrades in these classes you are giving me a great excuse for not doing well 😬 again ❗

 

rob

[robmar]

you could of course make the rule that the head has remain standard rather than the mems, plenum etc

 

but it would be hard to police I guess

 

rob

[Graham Perry]

I think its best if we stick with the Clubs own structure rather than go the route that the regional series use of under or over 1700, as that would bring even more inequality than we have aleady. ie 100 BHP Vx 8vs in the same class as 1600/1700 TB cars on 1a's running 210 + BHP. We have more cars of the same type than the regional classes so we need greater stratification inside the club championship to make it interesting for all concerned

 

Edited by - Graham Perry on 9 Sep 2003 17:47:17

[Lawrence_Z]

This is all great stuff

 

Class 1 looks fine as is

 

I'd go with plastic plenum plus rover mems as the cut off point for 16K and 18K, cos it's so easy to see.

 

Those who want an after market ecu, should go a bit further and have individual TB's anyway.

 

and if there are more than 20 championship entries in any class, then subdivide it.

 

%age novice and lady scoring is a superb idea, cos anyone can buy a fast car.

 

and there should be a ladies scoring championship, again based on class winning times

 

and BB, will you please add a round at Doune hillclimb

 

Lawrence

 

 

[KenEvans]

Just a thought - I know a radical change probably isn't on the cards but how about bhp/1000kg ratio combined with list 1A/list1B tyres? As we know, a Caterham's performance is dictated by its weight as much as by its power and this isn't taken into account in the current class system.

 

I think we could all work out our own figures to within +-3% approx.

 

OK, it would require a degree of honesty but we're all mates in the L7 club aren't we, and anyway perhaps there could be the promise of arrangements being made to do a random check of weight and power on a few of the leading competitors' cars during the season(I recall a club rolling road session down in Glocs. or somewhere that couldn't have cost much per car).

 

How about 6 classes on 1A or 1B tyres....

 

400 bhp/kg

 

Simple eh?

 

Like I said, just a thought

 

Edited by - KenEvans on 9 Sep 2003 18:08:20

[MikeW]

I REALLY hope you leave Class 1 alone. As it stands there is nothing beteween the cars which makes it great fun to compete .We are all basically running the Classics and there are no non 7 club events where we can compete on equal terms like this. The only reason the class wasn't better supported at some events was that they happened to clash with race meetings and the like.

 

MikeW

1600 VX Black/Ali Race No 134

Membership No 6582

[Graeme Smith]

Ken - that was my idea!

 

Doune - yes please! (But a bit far for most). On the subject of venues it migt be nice to have a few changes, although I guess there's the "they've been so friendly and helpful" side to many of the current venues.