Mr Locust Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 There has been significant discussion of the class 2 sprinting rules and how the 'spirit' being to restrict 1800 k-series to 140bhp due to their more favourable torque characteristics when compared to smaller displacement engines with similar engine dress. 1400 k-series appear to be free on induction. So where do we stand on 1600 k-series, particularly in respect of; 1. the latest 'standard' Caterham spec X-power manifold? 2. 52mm and larger throttle bodies? 3. Non-MEMS ECU setups. [stands back for the firework display] 5....4.....3.....2.....1..... Ian Green and Silver Roadsport 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver 21 Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Ian, Just don't go there 😬 😬 😬 😬 😬 Graham Competition Secretary 2005 Speed Championship - 13 Rounds with 7 counting towards the championship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Ian - from my understanding...and I could be wrong 1. the 1600 K's should have, the original plenum the engine was supplied with, if that was the new x power manifold then that should be ok 2. there is no mention of larger tb's in the current regsso you should be fine 3. there is no mention about orginal ecu's in the current regs so prog ecu's are allowed as BB can now testofy having driven back to back 1600 and 1800 SS the 1800SS have a distinct power advantage rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david nelson Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 ''1800SS have a distinct power advantage'' Well Rob its a bit early in the year to come up with reasons why you are slower than the 1.8 K's I think you find it the power is similer between the 1.6 and 1.8 only about 6hp diffrence 😬 David 😬 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 *tongue*well maybe we should let BB repeat his comments about the power delivery and overall superior performance of the 1800SS anyway this is a discussion about 1600's so you should butt out 😬 rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyR Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 David, 1.6SS Max Torque 110 lbsft at 5000 rpm 1.8SS Max Torque 124lbsft at 5250 rpm Rob, I suggest we recommend inlet restrictors for 1800's this season 😬 Tony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 a rolled up copy of the sunday times wedged dopen the tb's sounds a good idea 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Locust Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 BB can now testofy having driven back to back 1600 and 1800 SS the 1800SS have a distinct power advantage Exactly the reason for clarification as to what is allowed within the spirit of the regs for 1600 cars and what is not. If the latest X-power plenum, for instance, gives a revised torque/power characteristic as with the 1800 X-power 140 cars and is a listed Caterham part then I would like to see a sensible discussion as to the exact definition of; Rover K series 1400cc engines. Rover K series 1600cc engines - provided induction is via the standard production plenum. Rover K series 1800cc engines (up to 140bhp only) - provided induction is via the standard production plenum. As I understand it (flame me if I'm wrong), the X-power 140 1800K is an absolutely stock Rover 45 specification engine with a VVC style aluminium plenum and a standard 6800 rpm rev limit i.e. it is not a Supersport cam/ecu engine. The 1800K thing has been done to death and has (as I understand it) ended up with X-power/1800ss spec allowed provided they are as they come out of the transit frame from Caterham Cars. The absence of anything to the contrary in the wording of the 1400K part of the regs appears to allow anything, presumably including DTH TB setups. So what is permissible development of 1600K cars? There is a perception of a sliding scale of modification from 1400 unlimited to 1800 none with 1600 sitting in the middle but for now the words for 1600 and 1800 are the same and do not reflect it. It is generally accepted that head work and alternative exhausts are permitted on 1600 cars and as many existing competitors have these already so it is not practicable to change this. So what about the critical items that must be used to make a 1600 K car eligible for class 2. What about a proposal that items 1,2 and 3 in my original posting are allowed for 1600cc cars to start the ball rolling i.e. TB up to 52mm, inlet manifold of a standard Rover plenum/single TB type (VVC/X-power/plastic types allowed) and ecu free. The whole point of this discussion is to avoid finger pointing etc and to make it easy to enforce by picking the easily recognisable external engine components which will limit performance as the basis of the class breaks. Sorry Graham I seem to have gone there. It's the discussion that wasn't had at last years tech forum. Ian Green and Silver Roadsport 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david nelson Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 If you have a 1.6k then you can have head work change cams use big TB use programable ECU change exhaust ''It is generally accepted that head work and alternative exhausts are permitted on 1600 cars and as many existing competitors have these already so it is not practicable to change this.'' I did not realise that there were lots of people with heads that had work doen on them At some point the amount you have spent on the upgrades you might as well go to class 4 or 5. Lets not forget that class 2 and 3 need/should be for all club members to have a go, be competive if you what a 160-180 bhp 1.6k fine. If you have 180BHP and in class 2 or 3, are you taking part in the club spirit 🤔or just in the sprint 🤔 David 1.8k SL standard engine and complying with class 2 and 3 Regs 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Richard Price Posted January 17, 2005 Area Representative Share Posted January 17, 2005 I know of two modified heads on 1600K's running in class two - mine and Colin Hessltine's. Having said that, Mark Durrant was quicker through the speed trap at MIRA, Curb2 and Aintree, with his 1800 with a standard head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 Hmm, if it wasn't for the fact that I've just built myself a modified 1.8k, I'd probably want to run my ex-Academy 1.6k as stock this year. I'd be rather put-off the idea of competing if I thought my measly engine was up against cheque-book racers... Part of the fun would be benchmarking my progress against broadly identical cars - which would go straight out of the window if large mods were allowed. Project Scope-Creep is underway... Alcester Racing 7's Equipe - 🙆🏻™ Alcester-Racing-Sevens.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Locust Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 Evening David, Richard, Myles. You boys have been resisting well 😬 David I did not realise that there were lots of people with heads that had work doen on them Not mine personally, but it was the L7GB championship you were running in last year wasn't it 😬 Richard this thread went up last night where have you been - I thought you must have left the country I quite agree that speed trap figures are pretty telling on this. The only thing they cannot discern is talent from horsepower / torque. Myles you have missed my point. To give some kind of balance to a class which contains a wide variety of cars, I believe the 'spirit' of the regs is to allow a sliding scale of modification which limits everyone to a similar level of performance which (rightly or wrongly) I am trying to open up the discussion on to the general forum. This is set against a background where the need for a relatively simple class structure which keeps the class numbers up and the competition (and the banter healthy). You have to accept that given these constraints, the smaller displacement cars will generally be disadvantaged so more mods should be allowed. If you want to run an academy car under sealed engine rules then the academy IS in fact the place to do it. Part of the fun would be benchmarking my progress against broadly identical cars - which would go straight out of the window if large mods were allowed. If you looked around the class 2/3 paddock last season, how many TOTALLY unmodified cars did you see? Tinkering is part of the Seven condition. My whole point is to quantify what is allowed more fully. The concept of class 2/3 is that large mods are not allowed. It's just a case of which small ones are....................... Ian Green and Silver Roadsport 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Locust Posted January 17, 2005 Author Share Posted January 17, 2005 BB you are keeping a very restrained distance. Are we 😬 or are we Ian Green and Silver Roadsport 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 IMO - the only ways we will ever settle this debate (and even then I am not sure we ever will) is to have some sort of 'notional' limit or cap to horsepower in class 2 & 3 so if for example we say it is 145-150 bhp we could have the following 1. 1800K's must be as they come out of the factory engine wise, no mods to plenum, tb, ecu but exhausts free aprox 140-145BHP 2. 1600K's must run standard plenum and no head mods* tb, ecu, exhausts free aprox 140-150 bhp 3. 1400K's must run standard plenum every thing else is free including head mods aprox???? 4. X-power 140 BHP, no idea what changes would allowed to get up to 145-150 bhp * - we must allow something for head skims due to head gasket failures or we could just got he other way and say every k has to run standard (as it came out of factory) pleum tb and ECU. and just accept that the larger engines have an advantage. Lets not forget that the leading car in class 3 last year was a 1600 so that extra 200cc is not always neccersary. So anyone runnign non standard parts (tb's, plenum, ecu, cams) must get bumped up a class...not sure about inluding other items such as exhausts/verniers etc as that is a can of worms[:S] or I have suggested this a few times but not had much support but maybe I will suggest it again, have a class 2b/3b that allows any modification as long as running on a plenum for k's and in class3b make this the only class that can run acb10 24 compound. This would allow those wanting to mildy tune there car an option rather than class 4 or 5 where a plenum car would have no chance.. (also this would allow a logical place for higher output xflows and twinks) I don't think anyone in class 2 or 3 really wants to go and spend a fortune just to win the class, and if we want to keep to the spirit of the regs then we should not make them so complictated that they are not enforcable... rob PS did I mention that the regs allow all these cars to rub against all steel twinks and x-flows 😬 ☹️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 forgot to add - any changes would be for 2006, i don't think introdcuing any major changes now would be at all fair I am sure BB will tell us all to sort it out ourselves especially now he is not in class 2 or 3 rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver 21 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Ian & All I'm away working at the moment but have just had a quick catch up on this mail, I'm neither 😬 or Class 2 & 3 were originally designed for 'standard' cars, Ie Plenum, TB everything, unfortunately the original regs were very vague and some competitors have now exploited this to their own gain (and I'm not having a go before anyone leaps in) Personally I think mods should be kept to a minimum and within the spirit of the regs, ie mimimal mods. If people want to modify their engines I personally think they should play in 4 & 5 not in 2 & 3 😬 😬 😬 At the end of the day guys I can inforce the changes but all I will get is flack, I tried to get a forum going last year to discuss all of this and very few people interested in taking part. I am happy to make changes but only with the buy in of all concerned and this is unlikely to ever happen. Once again I suggest we set up a technical forum to discuss this for 2006 not 2005. Graham Competition Secretary 2005 Speed Championship - 13 Rounds with 7 counting towards the championship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Graham - I agree with what you say and that the original regs where for standard cars in class 2&3, however much has changed since then, and I think maybe there is an opportunity to refine them What ever is decided there should still be a place for standard cars I am still happy to volunteer for the technical forum , but if this is difficult to logistically setup then i recommend that ew start to discuss this inmore detail say at the first curbugger event (and not just becuase the troublemaker can't make tha ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 And if you run in class 2 or 3, you should be in road legal trim - as such, many of the K engined cars *should* be running a Catalytic converter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 that is applicable to all road going classes surely not just 2 & 3 rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 OK, all road going classes, cars over a certain manufacture date whould be running catalytic converters, however the discussions were centering around class 2 & 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 just pointing out that that can of worms effects more thanjust 2 and 3 and would have a lot of implications for a lot of competitors, which is why I try and ignore it when discussing this topic rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Richard Price Posted January 18, 2005 Area Representative Share Posted January 18, 2005 To quote RobWhat ever is decided there should still be a place for standard cars But what constitutes a standard car? I think that any technical regulations should easy to police ❗ Whilst I do belive that 1800K's do have an advantage, that advantage was not profoundly clear last year. If we were to simply stipulate any standard Rover plenum and MEMS ECU, we would effectively cap the power at around 160bhp and have an easily policed standard. Whilst I understand what Graham is trying to do by saying that 1800's can't have head mods, bigger TB's or alternative ECU's, how can you tell from the outside if an engine is 1400,1600,1800 or even larger? Lets keep it all as simple as possible! I also belive that any technical changes should be decided by a committee rather than any one individual (Graham, thats not a critisism, but an attempt to lift some of the burden!). Again, as Rob points out, any further change should be for 2006 (I'm sure championship regulations will be with the printers by now!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmar Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 standard = as it came out of the factory, or as supplid by rover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver 21 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Richard I think there has to be an element of trust and self control of behalf of competitors, it has been known in other championships I have competed in for cars to have their engines inspected to prove eligability. I do not want us to have to go down this route, perhaps one route could be to carry out a survey of the spec of cars that compete in 2 and 3 to see what variations there are. I am not suggested this is published but used to define how big/small the problem is. Again this would have to be an honest survey, owners need to be honest with themselves and each other, we are all in this for fun as well as the competition, I think sometimes people are not open enough about what changes they have made and then the only people they are folloing is themselves *confused* Graham Competition Secretary 2005 Speed Championship - 13 Rounds with 7 counting towards the championship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Williams Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 OH NO NOT AGAIN *eek* Listen To BB (the voice of reason) set up a technical forum and resolve for 2006, my vote goes to Robmar as class 3 rep but I doubt we'd be able to agree on that either. Remember, the original spirit of class's 2 & 3 was for standard low powered cars to encourage new blood into the sport. We're supposed to be doing it for fun Adrian 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