Shaun_E

If you put the 8"rears on with 205 tyres and do nothing else with the setup of the car, it will probably understeer horribly at the limit. I went to 8" rears when I upgraded my 1.6SS engine to a 1.9 (a leap of nearly 100bhp) and it has taken some time to dial out the understeer (still not completely eliminated).

If you are really that worried about the looks then go for a taller profile tyre such as a Yokohama A048 in 60 profile - this will of course alter the gearing slightly and you may notice a change in the acceleration of the car. A048Rs are also much heavier than CR500s and you will notice this on the road.

Yellow SL #32

A CSR200 is quoted at 3.7secs but I think you'd be hard pressed to actually match that figure on the road.

My 227bhp on Avon CR500s gave me a best of 4.0 secs at Dunsfold using one of those AP performance meters (not the most accurate but I am sure it gives a reasonable idea). My 60ft times at sprints are around 2.4 secs (some room for improvement there) using the same tyres. The guys on ACB10s are quicker.

The 1900 scholar engine with the mods you are proposing is a nice torquey engine (mine peaks at 167lbft), easy to drive round town and extremely rapid once you start using the full revs. As Myles says the Scholar conversion will make HGF highly unlikely. They do an 1800 as well but the extra couple of hundred pounds for the 1900 is well worth it.Think about your choice of pistons - I have the Pistal pistons as supplied by Scholar but these are a slipper design and should be checked every 2-3 years (depending on use - more frequently if lots of races/trackdays). I believe that Omega now do an 82mm piston which could be considered - talk to Oily.

Sticking with hydraulic tappets is a good idea as it eliminates the need to regularly check/adjust the tappets - it's also a significant cost saving!

Yellow SL #32

If you want 4 sec 0-60 then the 220bhp is required. My 1900 is eaier to drive on the road than the previous 1600 supersport.

Yellow SL #32

Edited because I didn't read the question properly.

Yellow SL #32

Edited by - Shaun_E on 18 Nov 2006 10:46:37

It's pretty unlikley you'll get a discount on them so £95 each according to the web site which is about what I paid for my fornts earlier in the year. I believe some people may have got them slightly cheaper from BMTR or even from Cooper Avon direct.

Yellow SL #32

David - as Simon says, it would seem daft if the class 3 cars were quicker than class 5. Nothing against class 3, just think that it would be a more consistent approach.

Yellow SL #32

In class 2, the top 3 competed directly against each other in only 4 events but 11 events had at least 2 of the top 3 competing. I'm probably doing Mike Sankey a disservice here as he was pretty close to the top 3 in which case 11 events had 3 of the top 4 competing.

In class 3, 12 events had 3 of the top 4 competing.

Am I defeating my own argument here? 😬

Oh well, it's Friday afternoon and I'd rather be at home so debating with myself seems a reasonable way to spend it.

Yellow SL #32

Ah yes - Fiona should have been added to the list of competitors for Cadwell.

In class 5 you and Griff competed against each other at 4 events. Obviously Dave's engine woes altered the face of class 5 a bit. If Tony Abbatiello and Darren South had done a couple more events, things might have been a bit more competitive (and I wouldn't have come 3rd ☹️).

In class 4, Ken, Mark and Richard competed against each other in 5 events.

If you look at class 2 and 3 there are more regulars (the top 10 in both classes 2 and 3 all did 7 events or more) but there are still only a handful of people really in with a chance of winning (3 scored over 140 in class 2 and 4 in class 3).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that class 4 and 5 aren't that badly supported and it could easily change next year so that there are more events that the top competitors attend.

I would probably still support a merger of class 4 and 5 if ACB10s were banned but only if they were banned for class 3 as well.

Yellow SL #32

Simon - a fair point - especially as I managed 20.5 points at Wiscombe which, sadly, is not a normal score for me.

Perhaps we could look at it another way - entries per class per round

Other than Aintree, at all events there were the same number or more entries in both classes 4 and 5 than there were in class 1 and at every event there were the same number or more entries in both classes 4 and 5 than there were in 6 (other than at Loton Park where there were 4 class 5 and 5 class 6). There were 2 or fewer class 1 competitors at 7 events and 2 or fewer class 6 competitors at 7 events compared with only 3 events where there were 2 or fewer class 5 competitors and 3 events where there were 2 or fewer class 4 competitors.

There does seem to be a problem in the spread of attandance meaning that the actual competition in classes 4 and 5 might not have been so close.

figures:

Class:		1	2	3	4	5	6

Round:

Longcross 1 2 5 12 5 9 2

Llandow 4 11 17 5 9 5

Curbourgh1 8 18 22 9 10 4

Shelsy Walsh 2 5 5 4 4 3

Pembrey1 2 8 9 3 3 1

Pembrey2 2 6 8 2 2 0

Longcross2 3 5 7 3 5 3

Loton Park 4 12 12 7 4 5

MIRA 7 14 14 8 13 2

Curbourgh2 5 13 14 7 14 4

Aintree 4 9 4 4 1 1

Wiscombe 0 8 3 2 2 4

Cadwell 2 5 5 2 3 0

Harewood 0 11 13 6 5 1

Yellow SL #32

Edited by - Shaun_E on 10 Nov 2006 10:39:51

Having thought about things and looked at the list of comeptitors, why are we so worried about low entries in classes 4 and 5 when in actual fact classes 1 and 6 had far fewer registered comeptitors?

In class 1 there were only 8 registered competitors of whom only 4 did 7 events or more plus 1 who did 6 events.

In class 6 there were only 6 registered competitors of whom only 3 did 7 events or more plus one who did 6 events.

This compares with:

Class 4: 14 registered competitors of whom only 3 did 7 or more events but 5 more did 5 or 6 events

Class 5: 26 registered competitors of whom only 3 did 7 or more events but 3 more did 5 events or more

So not a huge difference really. The question we need to ask is why didn't more registered competitors do more of the events?

Time issues? Location of events? Car troubles?

Are we looking to solve a problem that doesn't really exist?

How do we encourage more modified cars to compete? Where are all the CSRs and other Duratec cars?

I am coming round to the idea of banning ACB10s but, if we do, it must be for the whole championship not just class 5. Is there any mileage in announcing the ban for 2008 in order to give people a chance to use up any existing tyres and think carefully about what class to compete in. If ACB10s are banned then the class 2 and 3 times will be much closer as will class 4 and 5 - does this make the list 1a/list 1b distinction less relevant?

Got to go to a meeting now so will post this and come back later to review.

Yellow SL #32

It's what I carry in the Caterham.

I doubt you'll be very popular with the tyre fitter when you come to replace the punctured tyre but who cares if it gets you home.

Yellow SL #32

I'm torn on this issue. My personal circumstances (i.e. driving to events) means a ban on ACB10s would suit me BUT part of me believes that class 5 is "the ultimate road going class" and therefore should not be restricted in any way other than what is road legal. As Martin says - what happens if a soft compound CR500 appears?

The fact I have bought a set of 15" wheels with Stunners does not cloud my judgement in any way .

Of equal importance in the discussions should be power. Classes 4/5 currently span about 100 horsepower. R300's and HPC's seem down on power in a class where 220+ seems required to be competitive (or a bike engine) and this probably puts some people off competing.

Having said all this, I would be reasonably happy with combining classes 4 and 5 and then restricting tyre choice such that it is possible to drive to an event on the same tyres that you will be using on the event. The risk here is that it will discourage the current top class 5 competitors from competing.

Tough choice really and we'll never please everyone.

Yellow SL #32

Having switched back to the class scoring system for the novice and ladies championship - which worked more fairly - I think that the overall championship should also be scored in the same way.

The other problem to overcome is the points scored at very low attendance rounds e.g. Pembrey. It worked in my favour at Wiscombe where I got 2nd place and therefore 20 points (plus the half for breaking the course record 😬) but this was not typical of my scores. I liked the system that BARC use where your score is relative to a bogey time. I appreciate this will be skewed by wet course vs dry course and don't know the details of how they set the bogey time but perhaps we could look into that.

Yellow SL #32

Fitting it into the screen is the easy bit - I just used a screwdriver to push the bead in. The hard bit is getting it to lay flat on the scuttle - I still haven't achieved that properly so if you manage it then I'll be interested in how you did it.

Yellow SL #32

The Stunner Scudo is the current list 1A sprinter's favourite but only comes in 15" rim sizes or larger.

Yellow SL #32

Edited by - Shaun_E on 8 Nov 2006 12:05:41

How about Stunner Scudos - less than £50 a corner (even lower if you shop around) and all the front running class 2 and class 4 (i.e. list 1A tyres) sprinters are using them. I haven't tried them yet though.

If you want the ultimate road tyre for a 7 then IMHO you can't beat CR500s but the ride height will drop about 20mm from your current setup according to gearcalc.

A048s do tramline a bit but that can be dialled out with some toe-in. They are decent on road but really come into their own on track. If you are only doing road driving then they are probably not optimal for you.

Yellow SL #32

In the post today.

Yellow SL #32

Dave - I can believe that but it's at least a starting point for investigations.

Yellow SL #32

Edited by - Shaun_E on 20 Oct 2006 12:09:21

The Zeta Lineas will possible be dropped from list 1A next year - check your 2006 blue book. I read about these being softer compound than Stunners and searched to see if anyone was using them but to no avail.

Stunners aren't really that soft at all - they have a wear rate value of 300 compared with CR500s value of 20 (essentially the lower the number the softer the tyre - or at least the quicker it will wear out).

Yellow SL #32

Guess it is just the format then. If Darren confirms it is DVD-RAM then I doubt anyone else can read it.

Of course we are all assuming that he didn't have a blonde moment and there is actually something recorded on the disk 😬.

Yellow SL #32

Darren - that's weird. Early DVD recorders usually only recorded one format but most modern players can read just about any format. Yours isn't a DVD-RAM by any chance? See here.

Yellow SL #32

Simon, I'm no expert on this stuff (just play around with Pinnacle a bit) but couldn't you just use your video capture software to capture the video from the disk. I assume you have checked that the disk plays in a normal DVD player.

Yellow SL #32

True bump steer is a factor of the change in camber as the suspension moves. This can be dialled out a bit on normal Caterhams by raising the steering rack a calculated amount. There are a couple of threads on how to do this if you search in Techtalk.

On my car, when I switched to A048Rs, bumpy B-roads became a nightmare and it wasn't bump steer as such but more to do with tramlining. This can be reduced by adding some toe-in. If the car is set up parallel or even with toe out then tramlining will do its best to throw you through the hedge.

Yellow SL #32

You can buy the plastic base (no foam or upholstery) from Oxted Trimming for less than £20 - thats what we used to make a foam seat for Gill.

Yellow SL #32

Standard AP is fine in my 227bhp K. Caterham have standardized on one clutch as used in the R500 I believe. Not sure whay you mean by "dowel location problem".

Yellow SL #32