Greetings fellow competitors!
Hopefully you will all have received the proposed rule change info which LHD sent out last week.
If not I have copied it below for easy reference.
I don’t know if there are any other proposals on the Agenda for consideration and perhaps Dave could clarify this, but in the meantime I will use this new posting to allow any comment….for those of us who are willing to stick their head above the parapet.
If it goes some way to give a flavour for the general feeling of the drivers and also reduce the length of the drivers meeting…all well and good!!
Naturally I am happy to start the ball rolling and will place the first comment, which will deal with mainly the class A regs as that is the one I attempt to participate in.
Proposed regulation changes for 2010 season.
Generally the championship seems to be working well with ten rounds and a number or those as double header events.
The RAC MSA has indicated that the championship will be granted a permit for 2010 and a set of ‘Draft’ regulations will have to be submitted very shortly. This does not mean that the items below will or will not be adopted as default.
The drivers still have the chance to vote on amendments at the drivers meeting.
There are undoubtedly some changes that will appear to the MSA driven part of the regs, for instance the safety car amendment will be rolled into the main document.
All classes (sporting, not technical)
Clarification of grid times used to set two grids from a single qualifying session
Use of first and second fastest times. Trying to avoid inconsistency if championship
has some classes running in another race.
Points scoring to only use official posted race results. No more point for entry on in time. Easier for those that want to keep score for themselves. Also with many completing the season entry form it has become irrelevant to its original purpose of encouraging people to enter before the closing date.
However, it is still felt by MGCC that this is an incentive worth keeping so perhaps we put the season entry list up on the website or push for closing date entry lists from the club.
Class A
Clarification of Shock absorber mounting regs.
Make it very clear that the shockers can only mount on existing mounting holes, no
extra holes or alternate mountings like turrets.
Fibreglass panels may only replace bolted panels.
No fibreglass rear wings or rear valences etc. However no replacement of doors
whether cage has door bars or not.
Restriction on cylinder head mods.
As well as valve size restrictions we could specify inlet/exhaust port/gasket
dimensions.
Allow MGC to run a non standard cam.
Currently the MGC is restricted to a standard cam and it has been asked if a
sportier option could be allowed. If the engine is built to the limit of the current
regulations will it be slower than an MGB?
Class B
Restrict MGB V8 models in Class B.
3.5 litre engines only? Do we continue to allow 3.9 engines? Several people are
looking at building/buying cars and have 3.9 engines. Do we set the 3.9 weight
higher as per the MGR V8?
Move MGB V8 models to Class C.
Same comments as above.
Restrict MGC models.
Two main areas where MGC is possibly ahead, induction and tyre size
Reduce tyres back to same as B variants on 6inch rims.
Restrict carbs to production SU HS or HIF 6.
Restrict class B current popular cars to encourage Midgets.
How do Midget times compare? Similar to MGC above we could restrict the carbs
or tyres on MGBs. This would be at odds with the Cockshoot regs and would not
allow a progression from class A
Should any form of differential other than original be allowed?
Currently the MGB and V8 are allowed limited slip but not locking differentials,
should this continue, should it extend to other models?
Class C
V8 to be 3.5 litre only
See class B point above. Currently class B allows 3.9 litre engines and if we put all
V8’s in class C what engine maximum is allowed.
Further clarification of K series regulations.
Clarify the spec of the K series engine.
Delicious
Digg
reddit
Facebook
Stumble Upon
Technorati Favourites
Subscribe to feed
203 visitors commented in " PROPOSED RULE CHANGES FOR 2010 "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback1. Shock absorber regs = if this is just clarification then fine, “keep it simple” is my motto.
2.Fibreglass panels = I don’t really see that we need this (can of worms opened) so long as weight limits are complied with, although I have no intention of ripping off my rear wings at this stage!
3.Cylinder head mods = Lets not over complicate matters here! Gas flowing is already allowed and to retrospectively impose port sizes could make all current heads illegal potentially? Also in my view class A is generally working very well, do we need this reg? I am also concious that some other classes are getting quicker -which I do not have a problem with- but if new class A measures slow us down then we will get lapped more often reducing the amount of racing we get for our money!
4. MGC…do we have a class A MGC? If so why not see how it goes before relaxing cam rules…I would imagine a C would be quicker than a B, but let’s see how it goes first?
What say the rest of you??
Is there some overall theme behind the changes and if not, should there not be some consideration as to what any changes are designed to achieve, whether it be to prevent excess costs, supply better value, bring the classes closer together, attract cars from other series etc. Is there some plan as to where the series wants to be over the next few years and how rule changes will achieve that?
Here we go…….
For me, Snetterton changed everything regarding the K series boys. With Ollie lapping in the low 1.23s, still sporting a novices yellow cross then going on to win the race outright, clearly they will pi$$ it next year if we don’t slow them down a bit…..
Have a look at my videos on youtube for a birds eye view of their pace.
Over to the rest of you for your opinions…
Vic
Further to my initial thoughts, I would also say that I do look at Class B as a progression from Class A and there is an argument for moving the V8’s out as it does seem the 4 pots are unlikely to be able to offer any challenge here.
Also I do not see why we need to make our rules taking into consideration the other series rules, Cockshoot etc, I know some drivers like to compete in both but should our rules not reflect OUR series and not be dependent on the rest…we should lead and they should follow perhaps???
**I have received a response from Team Neaves**
That’s a can of worms Barry…
Are you talking about Dan in the K Series Metro as well? Simon Cripps and Dan have been in a class of their own this year, lapping up to 2 seconds faster at Cadwell for example. Surely if you’re talking about slowing us down then we’ve got to be slowing them down too?
Understandably there are a lot of people worrying about these cars being too powerful. We have 190bhp at the fly – James and Johnny Wheeler have a quoted 210bhp with the B Series. If you’re interested we can show you the power graphs which incidentally were sent to Dave Brooke when they were done.
There is a definite need for some good regulations to cover the engines, but I certainly don’t think we have too much power.
Let’s see how we go next year, if we are running away then that’ll be boring for everyone, and in that case we’d be happy to take on the weight. But I’d request that the aforementioned applies to all of Class C, V8’s included. After all, close racing is the key to enjoyment.
Dan
I have found from experience that trying to get a car to fit into more than one championship can be very difficult, but not impossible if the will is there. Unfortunately, if not, there can be a lot of politics involved, some that I was not aware of, and infact I found that being an instigator of change can lead to one being branded as “difficult”.
Regarding V8s vs 4 cylinder in class B, let me remind you of this…. Lofty’s best time at Cadwell in his class C V8 was 1.45.7 (Dan Ludlow 1.44.7). The very next week, the 4 cylinder class B eligable Lofty 4 pot, (that I drove at Cadwell in the PBIC) clocked a 1.43.7 driven by Russell McCarthy. So I believe they belong in class C, along with the V8s and Andy Youngs MGC. This is based on published times, that are there for all to study.
A truly “standard” 3.5 litre V8 is a good match for a fairly standard 4 pot (no cam belts etc that can be built for reasonable money). I know because I’ve been there.
One last thought, before Blaine Ollie & Dan mention Lofty’s times in his V8 compared to their cars, let him drive a K series & see how fast they really go……no offence lads but there is not much difference between mine & Loftys cars, but the times show how much difference the driver makes!
That lot should provoke some lively debate!
Cheers
Vic
I was not allowed to run in class A due t engine size, very surprised that you want ported polished mgc’s in class A.
In my humble opinion class A should be as near to standard as possible to attract new cars and drivers to series.
I have asked that MGZR 1.8 (120 spec) non vvc be allowed as the 1.8 ZS is currently. We have a ZR owner wanting to join us as metro cup have spat the dummy that a 1.4 nearly won (a last lap retirement meant it came second on count back) Metro cup have always been anty anything other than mg metro’s.. I would hope we would allow Jonathan to run with us.
I have no issue with the class C boys being quicker as if they want to spend the money then fine but too deep for my pockets. But would make sense that our races are timed not laps so we all get value for money.
However I would say that the BCV8 cars are quick as we saw with the 2 yellow mgs that ran at Mallory great to see but really a bit quick for class B.
Dave put up some kerb weight figures why not look at power to weight on cars? works well in other series?
I would like to see a weight adjutment to ZS in class B my car with plastic side windows was on the mark weight wise with qtr of tank of fuel thats with normal battery and 2 steel frames seats. I would imagine if a 1.8 version was weighed it would be way under due to 2 less cyclinders.
Could I suggest same weight as class B v8’s
Vic, it would seem the debate has well and truly been provoked!
Interesting comment re Class B at Cadwell, which may just go to show that some cars are better on different circuits?
Or do we base the Classes on lap times alone…? Is that a realistic way of going about things?
PS.In fairness to Dan “Other web sites are available”, but I have kept this string going to avoid confusion!
Thats a tricky one, as Cassey my guest driver showed at Silverstone in the relay first time in my car it would of been at the front in PBIC. However I am not a ards instructor and she has a 6 stone weight advantage on me….. Thats why 2 throphy cars punted her off as they did not like being overtaken by a bigger heavier car off the line (thanks Doug Cole thanks Malcolm Gammons) so it possible to beat a works 190 vhpd just depends on driver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVZTeDVmRM8 13 seconds in
There is no point making any of the current cars ineligible, those joining should fit the rules of championship.
VHPD engine will be here to stay, I see no issue with them. I have watched Dans metro for years and remember some very close racing in PBIC against Simon midgets This is what it is all about old vs new great stuff.
Racing is expensive and a vhpd conversion is a lot cheaper than a hot B series 4 or 8 pot engine. Time to embrace the future.
Why not allow a 1.8 k series (120) spec in a B in class B engine £100 quid ebay ford type 9 £100 new prop and mount £300 engine refurb £200 bargain still plenty of change from cost of warm B series pushrod engine.
For the record I have never said I wanted to see a ported & polished MGC in Class A!!!!
Pete makes a good point in his last post though, I think one of the strengths of this series is the clean racing and I would not like to see us go the way of some of the others we all know are out there, I am talking about the drivers who have no qualms about punting you off as they budget to replace a few panels each race.
That’s not the sort of racing I want.
“I was not allowed to run in class A due to engine size, very surprised that you want ported polished mgc’s in class A.”
Pete,
Firstly, it was felt that the ZS 180 would be competitive in class B because it was modern and naturally faster than the older cars, maybe we were wrong - want to go back to the initial spec and run in class A?
Second, I have tried to represent drivers requests without colouring them with my own opinions since I want a debate between drivers not you all shouting at me !!!
Dave
I always thought the shouting was the best bit of the drivers meeting…
Dave I have no issue being in B, likewise I have no issue with vhpd’s in C but i cant see point of banning your car. If we allow 3.9’s then fine. However I do think V8’s should be in same class and the bcv8 4 pots should be in C.
Jonesey,
I seem to spend too much time talking when the bar is open in another room…..
Fortunately, I started my MG involvement with a Midget so I’m good at ignoring the shouting…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6265762/Convertible-cars-could-damage-hearing.html
Dave
I hear there’s been a big can of worms opened up here.
I agree with Jonesey 100% on class A.
Ive been competing in the Phoenix, Total Butler, PBIC, for 12 years and ive enjoyed every minute of it.
The regs in class A are pretty much the same, as they was then.
There’s a saying, “If ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
Well that’s in class A anyway.
As for classes B and C, theres a lot of things to be discuss.
The performance of modern cars and engines,in comparison with older cars and engines.
What we need is an even playing field for everyone.
How we arrive at that is another question.
Ballast could probably be used to even the field, as used in the BTCC.
I hope all of this doesn’t get to messy and bent out of shape.
As for races for next year, I prefer one day races for double headers and other circuits I like races at are Castle Combe, Mallory Park, Donington Park and Croft.
Excuse me im half a sleep.
It’s suppose to read I think there’s been…
Blimey, he does’nt say much but when he does you can’t stop him!!
You can’t fault the Carrot Cruncher on this one…I agree with his comments including the double-header options too!
How about putting all of the key,s in a hat . then every one pulls a key out and drives that car for that race?
or am i thinking about a diffrent hobby
dave
Joke
I have received several anonymous comments in favour of your key in hat suggestion
I agree with the Carrot Cruncher, Class A seems happy enough - why shake it up?
At last years meeting we were keen to see some sort of ballasting system introduced as we were worried about the V8s - I’m still in favour of it. The question would be what the quantities of weight are and how its decided who gets it…
It could be decided on a laptime percentage who would get the ballast, then maybe do it in 20kg chunks for the chosen car(s)?
Or is that getting a bit complexed?
Now now lads, I love all this
Firstly, re BCV8 class B 4 pots.
Have a look here at their lap records, to see why they belong in PBIC Class C
http://www.bcv8.co.uk/downloads/20090711%20FASTESTLAPS.pdf
you will see for instance that at Snetterton its 1.22.30 at Cadwell its 1.42.90. And so it goes on…… they actually need to be slowed down for PBIC class C…. I rest my case for making them Class C next year. No brainer.
Re Ollie & Dan? Consider which headline would fit in Autosport?
Two Brilliant Novices take the PBIC by storm and battle to the front with a superb drive! Or….. Two Novices show the old man the way in their over spec’d MGB K series hybrids? (Although I must admit they drove well,congratulations boys!
Correct me if I’m wrong, I thought the idea was to keep up with BCV8 4 pots with their 12 grand engines, but at a more reasonable price? Again, look at the BCV8 times for that weekend, the best they could do was 1.24.229, Ollie put in a 1.23.40, nearly a second faster. I hate to admit this guys, but these are proper seasoned campaigners who eat gravel for breakfast & would beat the pants off a novice in the same car…..Team Neaves, you blew it guys, the cars are too quick. You don’t have to be Einstein to work it out, you are 40 kilos lighter on big fat 15 inch rims with slicks if you want? Pleeeeeeeese!
Again before you bring up Lofty, take note that he took pole in BCV8 class B in his car, so proved how fast he is in ANY car. He doesn’t need me to defend him, just read the Mallory report again if you can’t remember how good others think he is, I wasn’t even there to witness it, shame.
On a lighter note, I would like to stress that I get on really well with the Neaves clan, so none of this is intended as personal or bitchy, just the way I see it! Thats why I try to back up what i say with stats…..its there in black & white, feel free to prove me wrong.
(That should save me from a duffing up in the toilets at the Dinner Dance)
Re the Metro? I don’t know enough about the car or driver to give an informed opinion, other than it look very quick, so Blaine, Ollie & Dan, I leave that debate to you.
Love Vic
This key thing sounds interesting…..how about everybody posts a photo of their partner before we vote on it?
Here’s mine……..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2005/04/29/gurning_07_470×317.jpg
Vic
Have you seen the price of lead….
Barbell weights could be an option, which should workout cheaper.
Barry, I think you may be missing the point here, who cares how fast we are compared to the BCV8 lot. I think your jumping the gun a bit, I was 0.5 secs slower than Simon, had he kept it on the black stuff I would not have won. You’re saying that we need to be slowed down before we have actually got a better lap time? If Dan Ludlow was at Snett he probably would have been in the low 1.22’s yet nobody complains about that.
Agreed Simon is a good driver, should we all just give up and race for 2nd place then?
You can come up with facts and figures to prove anything, 5% of all people know that!
To reitterate what Barry said none of this is personal, and we are quite enjoying this too…
Love Ollie
Doesn’t need to be lead.
We could suggest that all drivers race with their partner in the passenger seat.
Having not seen Dan or Ollie with a young lady can I suggest a stand in or two….
http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/FatFaeries.jpg
Just my own tuppence worth….
A ’standard’ class car should be, wherever safe and practical, standard. I’m limited to running a standard (not gasflowed, overbored or raised CR) engine with the original final drive ratio, on original wheels, on standard thickness brake discs, with all steel bodywork. As it’s running in a roadgoing class that doesn’t give me a problem but other cars are allowed oversize engines, fully flowed heads, race cams, high CR pistons, their choice of diff ratios, wide wheels and tyres, uprated brakes, and can have entirely plastic bodywork. Some consistency of what’s allowed would level the playing field.
The alteration of the camshaft rule for Class A has lead to MGB’s being allowed to run all but two of Pipers cam profiles, or any race cam that Kent produce. The engines are developing 60% more power than the factory spec, I think we have perhaps gone a bit too far…
By comparison the quoted A series lift allows only a 731 profile - Piper don’t even produce a cam with so little lift. Anyone wondered why we don’t have Midgets racing any more? (cars that is)
As for ’slowing a car down because it’s faster then me’ - the current target may be the K series B, a couple of years ago it was the V8, before that the MGC and it’s even been the midget. So every car that runs has been identified as going too fast by someone or other. The problem is knowing how fast a particular specification can be made to go - rather than how fast a specific driver goes in a car. Why don’t Barry, Rob, Brian, Terry, Pat and Dave all go as fast as Simon…they’re all in V8’s?
When comparing times between races at Snetterton would people please specify the day on which the time was set. Saturday was 1.5 seconds slower so being selective isn’t really much of a comparison - why not use times from last year in the wet! It has been the case for some years that the front running BCV8 4 pot’s have been faster than anything in the PBIC - had Russ, Spence, James or Jonnie turned out reguarly then the current argument would be about how to slow them down - not about giving them free reign in a class where nothing else could be competitive.
You get quite a lot for tuppence these days!
I am still with the C/Cruncher though….leave Class A as it is!!!
“Barry, I think you may be missing the point here, who cares how fast we are compared to the BCV8 lot. I think your jumping the gun a bit, I was 0.5 secs slower than Simon, had he kept it on the black stuff I would not have won. You’re saying that we need to be slowed down before we have actually got a better lap time? If Dan Ludlow was at Snett he probably would have been in the low 1.22’s yet nobody complains about that.”
Ollie
I’m saying that you are indeed too quick for a “novice” so the cars are clearly too quick…. as for the Metro, as in my last post I said that you are the K series gurus, not me, so you will have to argue the case for me….& yes he is too quick in my opinion!
I see you guys as fair & honest all the same, because anybody who wasn’t would have backed off at Snetterton, which I don’t beleive you did or possibly know the meaning of the term…..ask Dan Ludlow he will tell you what it means….;)
Vic
BTW I wish to apply for the attached modification, as already fitted to Loftys car….
http://www.ananova.com/images/web/1220049.jpg
What can the mg,s have please?
The F,s weigh 1020ks with out driver.
The Zr the same with out driver.
The engines are standard as are cam,s wheel size gear box ect
Need i go on it seems to me that nearly every one wants to go faster ,
As i can see it does seem that there are actualy very few true road going cars and i could be wrong but i believe that the mgf 18i is allowed a diffrent cam.
My point if the f,s stay the same and the class a,s then every other class moves on these 2 classes start to slide down the grid
If you look at the lap times the ZR160 sits pretty much in class A, where does that leave a 105 or 120, let alone the heavier ZS?
Does the 6R4 get to run on on list 1A tyres then?
How about if everybody is allowed one go at cheating per season, but if you get caught you have to take my wife (see photo in previous post) on a weekend to Brighton?
That should keep everybody in order…….
And before you say it Jonesey, yes that’s how I ended up with her in the first place……
I’m her second husband, the first bloke drove a car with a K series engine in it….
Here comes the brass section…
The perception seems to be that the classes mean the following:-
Class A = Standard, Class B = Modified running on tread, Class C = Modified running on slicks.
This might have worked OK for B’s and Midgets where the cars in standard trim were probably not too dissimilar in power-to-weight/handling/lap times and similar modifications to each brought similar performance gains. The problem we have now is that someone may try and bring out a 180BHP 2.5 litre ZS in class A because the engine is ‘standard’ and race it against a 1275 midget with one third of the horsepower. This is also why the MGF runs in its own class as it is deemed too quick for class A and too slow for class B. We can’t have classes for every single type of car so what we now have to do is group cars together that have similar performance regardless of their modifications.
We currently have six classes, which I think should be replaced with something based as follows:-
Class A = Standard Up to 1400
Class B = Standard Up to 1800 + Modified 1400
Class C = Standard Up to 2500 + Modified 1400 & 1800
Class D = Standard Up to 3000 + Modified 1400, 1800 & 2500
Class E = Modified 1800, 2500 & 3000
Class F = Modified 2500 & 3000
You move up through the classes the more modifications you make.
e.g. slicks = +1 class, Change of carbs = +1 class, Change of cams = +1 class
You would only be allowed LSD, bigger brakes or change to suspension types if you had already moved classes up because of engine mods.
If there were still discrepancies between the models then that’s where weight would be used to equalise. Difficult I know due to different drivers giving different lap times, but should be somewhere near.
Probably too radical to implement for 2010 but surely a system like this would give the championship direction and should be considered for 2011 onwards?
And personally, I believe cars should only be allowed to run with an engine block of the type originally fitted to the model. Nothing to do with arguments about K series B’s being too fast or anything, but where will it stop? Can I put a KV6 in my MGF? How about a V8 Midget? Eventually the modifications will go beyond a competitors engineering skill and would be dangerous. We should stop it NOW. Sorry if that upsets the three cars that have been out this year, but there is a general feeling of unhappiness with the majority of the competitors running conventional cars on the way this could go.
is there any chance that Ollie may actually be quite good? Give the guy a break, the car didn’t drive itself. There are plenty of series where a novice exceeds expectations and one win proves very little, except that Blaine is history.
Dave,
The F’s have always mixed it well mid field, it has taken me 2 years to get in front of them.
There will never be a happy medium unless we have a class for each car type that would be a nightmare.
However the points awarded mean that goods scores are possible due to class size.
F’s could run in class B?
F’s with vhpd could run in C?
Can I just point out that Class A is for road going cars, ie those that should be able to pass an MOT and be road legal…it doesn’t say standard…look at Primrose which actually is taxed and tested.
Car 44 was originally Class E as I recall but was incorporated into Class A due to lack of other Class E competitors….and it has taken me 2 years to get in front of him!!!!!
Oh no we are too late!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/albertsbite/2414091931/
Cheers pete
I normally khow what times to expect from the f when all is well ,and like all race cars when all is not quite right you can end up any where.So far the point,s system has always worked well as have the reg,s may it continue to do so.
All this debate is facineting and im sure will continue to be so.
As far as my cars go they will roughly stay the same untill further fund,s can be sourced possibly even trying to sell a car.
well done for the good season and keep it up.
dave
In reference to Al’s comments on the ZR 160, the lap time’s show that they are about 1.5 to 2.0 seconds a lap quicker than class A times.
This calls for class Z.
At this rate we can do the whole A to Z of the alphabet.
I think this can of worms is getting bigger..
I have notified the Guinness Book of Records that we look set to break the World Record for the longest drivers meeting ever….I have booked my room for another night & arranged for Red Cross food parcels to be sent in.
Might I suggest a variation on Trombones class structure with only four classes…..
A) Road
B) Fast Road
C) Road/Race
D) Race
It might be that some cars are even on standard form too fast for A and get pushed up a class, they would find themselves restricted even in the Race class.
I was indeed in Class E when I was using up the remaining bakelite slicks, in order to establish how the car compared to the existing classes. Once it was clear that Class A wasn’t under threat the DMMetroCup ruling of list 1A tyres only was considered too restrictive, so I was allowed to procure cheaper tyres…
as for cornering like a Metro - the end of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcctUpi6wCs shows what you can get away with!
Do you actually brake for any corners????
Looking forward to racing with you next year in Class A Alan….maybe
Jonesey, This must also be a record for the longest post on your site as well!
Sticking to the class A regs for a minute.
As previously stated I rhink class A is working well. Any changes are for clarification only and should not affect any of the existing cars. Its there to make it eaaier for any new entries to know what they can and cant do. There is also no point in specifying something in the regs and not be able to check that you are complying. Which is why we changed the cam spec from a cam profile to a lift. We had no way of checking the cam profile other that getting piper to confirm, but we can check lift.
Regarding the K series cars, They are quick there is no denying that. But they are well built, drive nicely and Ollie drove it very well. We have the option of adding weight during the season, and if any car starts to run away at the front then we can add weight to slow them down.
We shall have to be more vigalent in applying this next year if it happens.
The only issue with this is more frequent weighing of cars after the race…. :o(
James.
This has turned out to be quite a hot topic, but the record number of posts made last year is still holding….just
I don’t see that class A is working for the Metro, after watching Al’s video it’s clear he has too much of a straight line speed disadvantage to ever challenge Lew or James W. I’m not sure it works for Midgets either as we never seem to attract them in decent numbers?
Oh, and as for ballast – my car was 50Kg overweight a Snetterton and John’s was 20Kg over if I remember correctly. John’s fastest lap was 4/100th of a second faster than me. I think Kevin’s car was more or less on the correct weight, his fastest lap was 3/100th faster than John. So just how much ballast do you need to add to make up 1 or 2 seconds difference? (And class F is measured WITH the driver before you ask – 1100Kg)
I actually agree with “76 but no trombones” regarding non original blocks, as all
the non original K series cars are generally looked at with some level of dislike from most people I speak to in the MGCC.
That said, the ones that are in should be regulated properly & allowed to stay, they have spent much time & money creating these cars, all with the best of intentions & they are a great bunch after all! Just a little misguided, thats all…
Mind you, some people don’t like V8s, “one mans meat” as they say…..
K series powered MGBs were allowed in, I beleive, to keep up with BCV8, rather expensive, 4 pots at half the cost.
They seem to have exceeded that rather easily!
There was a much simpler answer & that was to put the super fast “mod sports” type cars with non MGB parts such as cam belts etc in a different class, rather than keep up with them.
Lastly, Daves suggestion of classes
A) Road
B) Fast Road
C) Road/Race
D) Race
seems really sensible, I just want to know who will work out which cars belong in which class!
Over to you lot….
Vic
The MSA will frown upon wholesale changes for 2010, so weight adjustments and tidying up or clarifications are OK. A new class definitions set could be adopted in 2011 if we can agree it soon.
Are the current class A MGB’s really fast road with their cams and flowed heads?
How many seconds a lap is a reasonable increment from one class to the next.
I agree with 76 but no trombones, in reference to Al’s metro.
He could do with a bit more straight line speed, because he driving the nuts of his shopping trolly through the twiddly bits, only to be out done on the straights.
I also agree with Vic Reeves on BCV8 class B 4 pots going in class C.
There is a sudden outbreak of agreement occurring as I also accept that 44 is unable to match many of the B’s in a power circuit like Snett, but it is also fair to say we should not just take one circuit in isolation as different circuits suit different cars, if they did’nt we would all be driving around together!
That is the whole concept of having a mixed series isn’t it?
Road - standard engine internals no electronic ignition for modern MG’s standard ecu’s
Fast Road - + cams standard ecu and elec ignition
Road Race - + porting polishing forged bottom ends trick ecu / electronic ign’ +
Race- + Throttle bodies carbs free (webbers etc) slicks
To be fair if the V8’s dont like the modern engines maybe they should fit the original mg lumps the note the later engines. The club and series needs racers the vhpd engined cars have one series only to race in but the v8’s have at least 3, so if they dont like it they could go?
As for standard engines then I could fit (not that I have the budget 4K) a ex btcc engine in mine with 300bhp, fitted to all the works MGZS and as they are 2ltr now that would upset people but would fit class c and allow me to run throttle bodies ecu and big brakes)
Its great to see a good mix of cars out, however the level modifications allowed in the past have made the classes very wide. But until people understand that different drivers can drive at different pace then there will be a lot of arguments.
There is a MGZTT in the offing with a 1.8T K series for class C looking to join us, as it is a standard MG it should be allowed as should the the 6r4 which ran at Snetterton.
As for novices winning race great good to see and they have caused any big accidents or damaged anyones cars well done.
Class A lap times haven’t really changed to much over the years.
I know that my B is not the fastest on the straights.
My speed mainly comes from carrying more speed through the corners.
So I personally don’t think its all about flowed cylinder heads and fast road cam.
The regs in class A have been pretty much the same for years.
Plus new tyre technology has helped to improve performance.
I have to say I am reluctant to make any major changes to what I think is a great Class….and can of worms number two…should voting on rule changes per Class be limited to the drivers actually in that class?
After all in effect we are running 4 or 5 races all at the same time, and what business is it of mine what the other classes do so long as we all get the same amount of track time?
I agree with you 100% Jonesey.
Guys,
The Peter Best / Total Butler / Phoenix has always catered for all MG’s and is about variety. FIA racing is for the purists, not the PBIC - although all are welcome. What if MG bought out a new model? Would we ban it because it’s too modern, no, we’d find a way to accommodate it.
Also, I may be stating the obvious here but here goes… If you pick up a copy of Practical Car Performance you’ll see a bunch of people who like modifying their cars. Just count how many engine conversions you find. That’s what Fully Modified is these days, and such cars should be allowed in our Fully Modified Class - the times have changed.
These cars have generated a lot of good publicity for the championship this year, and will continue to do so, not to mention that they promote cheap racing for younger people. The point being I hope everyone is thinking of the bigger picture here.
Also a fresh point…
I am aware of a couple of sponsorship proposals that have been presented in the past that haven’t been pursued by the club. What is more they haven’t been passed on to the drivers. Surely we have the right to decide what to turn away?
I agree with what James D said, so let’s clarify the ballast rules and use them if necessary. Would it be an idea that Class reps monitor and have this power as the committee have not used the rule so far…
PS. Thanks Pete
Well said Jonesey see you at the bar……
For those who want to experience the vhpd B come and pay £40 quid for the stroke association supercar saturday at Combe or for a run im my ZS
All for a good cause
I’d just like to point out that I get urinated on down the straights at every other circuit too!
This is not a comment as chairman……
Lap times have changed radically with the recent generations of ‘road tyre’ like the Yoko 008, 032 and 048 series. As a result class lap times have fallen and the standard guys are closer to the full race guys than they were in the past.
I think the input of all drivers are relevant, those in a class might wish to change something that those on the outside can see will disrupt a balance.
And importantly ’standard’ cars will be to a spec that is/was type approved, not a standard race car spec - so no btcc replicas in class A.
Alan, why not put in any proposals for consideration then?
…and also tell me how to get my car to corner like yours!
“To be fair if the V8’s dont like the modern engines maybe they should fit the original mg lumps the not the later engines. The club and series needs racers the vhpd engined cars have one series only to race in but the v8’s have at least 3, so if they dont like it they could go?”
Great idea, lets all fit the original engines that the cars came out of the factory with…… who seconds this idea?
Vic
Clive,
Point 1. more straight line speed for me, or less for the cars that go too fast. To make the 1400 quicker would require things like more cam lift (need to change followers, valve springs etc) more revs (need to change pistons, rods) more airflow (modified head and lose the plenum inlet). Working the engine harder will increase cost and reduce the reliability, so an option might be to swap for a larger capacity but still standard engine. The 1600 and 1800 would gain me 9 and 15 HP respectively.
*thinks* with the power that front running B’s are developing in an 862 kilo car, my 808 kilo car should be allowed about 143HP to achieve parity of power/weight - how about letting me have a VVC?
2. be committed (some might say I ought to be!)
I don’t think your committment is in doubt!
As for the performance improvements that will be for the techy types to thrash out but I am sure there is a solution which is agreeable to all.
You could always go the Sandbag route as it seems to work for him……or am I entering the K debate again?
Keep away from the K debate Clive, I’ve promised Blaine that it’s somebody else’s turn for the Spanish Inquisition…..
http://blog.willamette.edu/people/klutz/journal/archives/spanish_inquisition.jpg
I wasn’t expecting that…!
Nobody does…….boom boom!
I hope these reg,s can be sorted soon, so that i can start to prepare next years car like i normaly do ,ie none at all.
Just a ouick question?
If the classes were split like at cadwell would this at least show class diffrences a little easier.
How do we all feel about the sponsorship that the club is getting from the Peter Best Insurance?
Being that we are paying members of the club, I assume we should have access to information, stating what money is paid and where it is spent. The reason I bring this up is that I am aware of a couple of sponsorship proposals that were put forward last year. Both seemed to be offering much more than the Peter Best are currently getting in terms of both finacial support and raising the profile of the club. Yet from what I gather, they either got no response or were turned away!
We had a proposal from a tyre supplier who wanted to sponsor us in addition to the Peter Best Insurance, supply cheap tyres, bring a van to events to change tyres, and hand over a wad of cash, but he could not seem to get any response from the MGCC so he took his buisness elsewere.
Maybe all sponsorship propsals should be run past the drivers reps for a decision as it seems they go nowhere at present! Who currently decides on these things?
Ollie
I have to say I liked the split grids & “The Committee” has said where possible they would do this again….we just need to fill the grid up!
As far as I know the sponsorship currently covers the costs of the trophies, so I guess if you win one then the sponsorship is worthwhile, if you don’t then it’s of no benefit to you.
We had just over 300 race entries this year, so we’d need £3000 cash in sponsorship to reduce the entry fees by just £10 per race. I know money is tight but I don’t think we would suddenly be inundated with entries if our races were £10 cheaper next year. If we received £10,000 that would potentially knock £30 off each race, but what would a sponsor want in return for £10k? For £30 per race I’d rather be able to choose what tyres I run, not have to mess on with stickers and sun visors on the car, not loose some say in how the championship runs etc. If there’s a sponsor out there with £30-40k to chuck at us then that might be a different story, but would it last? What impact would it have on the championship when they leave and the entry fees shoot up again?
Tyre sponsorship is a difficult one as it could force everyone to buy new tyres of a certain type. I’ve had two seasons out of my tyres and I intend to start next season with them, so it would cost me money if I couldn’t use them anymore. I’ve tried tyres from different manufacturers and because the MGF is relatively heavy some tyre types have a very short life span. So there’s a potential to end up buying more tyres and spending more money than I currently do.
I’m not saying sponsorship is a bad thing but it has to be thought out very carefully, especially in terms of what the individual competitors have to do to ‘earn’ the money.
Paul, first of all the tyre sponsor was happy to supply all tyres at less than retail prices, not just the one tyre. Therefore toyo, avon, yokahoma etc etc would have been available at a discount. He was aware that we did not want a one make tyre series as this could put some people at a disadvantage, for example Simon Hutchinson who pays about a tenner for a set of part used slicks……jammy bugger!
As for stickers, who cares it’s a race car i’m sure some people like having stickers to cover up battle scars and rust etc.
No matter how you look at it, an extra £1500 in the pot and cheap tyres with track-side support can’t be a negative thing.
Ollie, everyone will have a different view on what has value. Personally, I’ve never paid full retail prices for race tyres and a fiver a race is neither here nor there. So I don’t think it’s a big deal about this sponsorship offer being overlooked.
Can you tell me where you get your tyres please???
With, for example, a 5k sponsorship deal the club would be able to buy bigger grids and get better deals when buying circuit time, it simply gives the club a higher capital to work with.
So actually, everyone benefits, and no potential sponsorship deal should be overlooked.
A tyre shop Jonesey!
Dan, with the greatest respect what you’ve said there makes no sense. The ‘Club’ i.e. MGCC pay tens of thousands of pounds to hire a circuit for one day. The size of the grid is determined by the MSA licence for the venue and not by how much we pay them. £5k is a drop in the ocean compared to the sums involved for the club to put on a race season for one year so won’t make any difference to the clubs working capital or the deals we get with the circuits. If the £5k came to the ‘Championship’ as opposed to the club, then that’s still only around £15 each competitor per round. Ok that’s a little something for us but I don’t see it as enough to attract lots more new competitors.
The technical regs need more focus than sponsorship deals. If two competitors drop out because they are not happy with the regs then losing their entry fees would wipe out £5k of sponsorship.
With the ’sponsorship’ can we please get the distinction between championship and club sorted out.
The cost of buying a race is dependant on the track time duration including practice, grid sizes don’t matter since the organiser is guaranteed his money!
I don’t believe any one pays retail price for tyres, but do you get them fitted and balanced for free?
Fair enough.
Paul what are your views on 3.9 V8’s?
What about all V8’s moving from Class B to Class C?
Alan - a VVC sounds sensible, if too quick we can slow you down easily, where as it would be more costly to make you go faster if your engine didn’t have enough power. Definately agreed you are mugged on every straight!
I read down the comments and Paul’s 7:26 one was not there when I typed mine…..
Just to put a little more perspective on costs, for the snetterton weekend I bought 75 litres of diesel and 100 litres of petrol and yes I know many of you drive a lot further to snetterton than I do.
Sponsorship - look what the trophy boys get from sponsor hospitality
Pete, what do they get?
Some pig in a bun, now that’s what I call worthwhile sponsorship!
I think having a vvc engine in class A, in a Metro is a non-starter.
Reason, power to weight ratio.
I think a K series 120 bhp would be more inline with the B’s power.
Dan, what I’m trying to say about the classes is that they should group together cars of similar performance. So you will get cars with small engines and lots of modifications racing against cars with larger engines in more standard specification. I don’t know enough about V8 engines to say if the 3.9 block or heads are so vastly different from whatever was fitted as standard by the factory. If it’s a case that these engines were never manufactured until a number of years after the MGB went out of production then my personal view is that they should not be allowed. If it’s just a case that it’s the same block bored out then that’s fine, the resulting performance should determine what class they are in. I know even less about tuning the B series, so I would have to defer to lap times from comparable cars and I have better things to do than trawl through those, Mr. Homes appears to have highlighted the relevant information anyway.
Ahh yes Holmes…but what does Watson have to say about this?
The game is afoot!
So time for some honesty then what power and weight are we all then:
1125 kilos with 185 bhp + 17 stone of ballast (driver)
185BHP? Seems a bit conservative! Ok then that gives you around 150BHP/tonne
I’m 162BHP and 1150Kg giving 141BHP/tonne
Looks to me that the game’s more than a foot, that boot has got bloody great hob nails in it !!!
Of course it could be a game of two halves but I prefer a pint.
Pete - do we weigh all drivers at the drivers meeting and raise all the class weights by a value that includes most drivers. It would speed up scrutineering if the fuller figured drivers can remain seated. How many people left their helmet in the car when it was weighed?
Jonesey, are we the longest thread yet?
Carrot Cruncher wrote:-
I think having a vvc engine in class A, in a Metro is a non-starter.
Reason, power to weight ratio.
I think a K series 120 bhp would be more inline with the B’s power.
Will that give the Metro an advantage against the MG ZS 120 that is allowed in class A? Do we allow the MG ZR 120?
About 1/6 HP and 12 stone!
However the car has 103HP and 93lbft in 808kg.
The small capacity modified engines running against larger standard ones gets tricky to regulate. Hellier performance will build FIA rally engines with 155hp which could therefore run against 160VVC’s but they’ll last hours rather than seasons. Controlling the degree, or success, of modifications is a black art, allowing a defined and known specification of engine - albeit of increased capacity or non-original type does allow greater understanding of potential performance. A second hand 1800 VVC is 2 seasons worth of entry fees cheaper than 1400 built to comparable output. I know which route i would choose (I couldn’t afford beer otherwise)
Pete raises a good point re power to weight ratio, which should perhaps be given more consideration re the correct class for a vehicle. Since you ask, 980kilos (yes really) for 120bhp if I’m lucky.
It seems to me that we should take the chance to completely review the rules/classes which appear to have been devised over several years and in many areas are cut and pasted from other series’ rules, probably because that was a quick fix at the time. The regs are all over the show in both layout and content and there is no logic to much of them…. why for example should some class A car weights include the driver and others don’t? There are numerous illogical and irregular parts which, if actually challenged before the MSA would be open to wide ranging and contrasting interpretation. Given the strength of the series at present, it would be an ideal opportunity to sort them out once and for all, with a clear description of exactly what each class is supposed to represent etc. Part of the problem is most people are only interested in the rules that affect their particular car, but if the series is to progress, all drivers really need to be encouraged to comment on the rules and regulations as a whole, so that every competitor has a fair chance of overall victory, regardless of their class and to some degree budget. If that means a revamp of the class structures as per one or more of the above suggestions then we should put it to the vote. Whilst this will mean more time and effort and a longer meeting, it seems to me long overdue.
Surprisingly this is not the longest post on the illustrious JR Site!
The record is held for a non-motoring topic in actual fact, namely the Valentine’s Report, which only goes to show the Peter Besters are true romantics at heart!
ZS power stock is 174 bhp on the rollers the 2 cats dont help, cams will give approx. 15 if fitted with verniers and ecu to map them and fuel regulator, being a trainee yorkshireman I was buggered if I was paying another 500 for 4 x verniers and 800 for ecu and 150 for fuel regulator, could not see the point. The cams have mad a slight difference to the car as it sounds lumpy at tick over but with out the other mods really they do not do a lot. The siemens ecuis meant to learn the settings for cams but due to kill switch fitted it has to learn each time you start the car.
As for weight side of things I ran with 44 kilos of ballast in race 2 at snetterton and went quicker than before, however Jame’s class A car was still quicker on striaght, as was Lou’s class A car on back straight.
The improvements in my pace have been down to set up and getting confidence back from the crash at Silverstone last year. I am also trying to take a leaf out of Alans book and break later, however stopping my car is the hard part as the standard breaks are not very good.
I am sure the mgf boys and Alan have a similar problem as the single cailper MGR use is not clever. That is why a MG metro & turbo will always be better thanks tot eh ap front callipers. bloody accounts spoilt the brand.
To be fair the championship works well and due to the mix of cars there will never be a happy medium.
What power and weight do the v8, MGB’s midgets run? As we have all heard the prices banded around the paddock that people have spent so clearly they would come with data?
Why do we not do a pre season rolling road session and have engines sealed?
I have asked Rockingham if we could run a pre season test track day as Lunar are based on site, so we could weigh and do power runs.
Pete
Here I am everybody. There seems to be some concern over my absence. I guess your all missing the Gibber-O-meter!
Having read all of the above I should change it to the Rant, Bitch or Gripe-O-Meter.
Since I have more time per lap than anyone else to contemplate matters, as the world passes slowly by The Grey Pig. May I offer some hopefully sage words.
This is our championship. It has been by far the most successful championship the MGCC has run for the last couple of years.
And we should try our hardest to keep it this way.
I believe it to be a reasonably balanced and fair selection of cars from the MG marque from across many decades. To which end we have some exciting, close and clean intermodel (is that a word? Or have I just made that up) racing.
The quest for more power/speed is I think one of folly. I stopped racing in the BCV8 many years ago because of the huge speed differential that the Class D cars had over a standard car, coupled with the driving standards of some of the said cars.
JW has proved again that you don’t need K series, V8, V6, modified hardware to win the Championship. Since James didn’t win every round and get every fastest lap, I think that shows consistency is more the key (and maybe a shiney head).
Does it matter if a well prepared, well driven car can beat a ‘lesser’ (I think thats polite) car from a high class.
Our regulations (suprise, suprise) are for OUR championship. As the collective ‘WE’ the drivers should do everything we can to prevent ‘Others’ from attempting to hijack our regs. If they don’t like our regs, then tough!
Only registered drivers to vote at the meeting?
May stop ‘renta crowd’ passing new regs!
To add my bit to the K series debate.
I was of the opinion that from last years drivers meeting that ALL the K series cars would be checked on the same day at the same rolling road. Was this done? Are all cars of a similar ’standard’ output?
My opinion when Blaine was canvasing the paddock in 2008 was ‘they need to be controlled’. If apparently a 1950 B series engine can cost upto £10K - what will happen if someone with a big budget wants to play the K series card.
Mmmm! Might need some technical scrutineering through the year. Unlike having my car weighed twice within 20 hours. Ooops, not sage words. And the Bitch-O-Meter has gone up another point.
None of the cars raced (alright T types) are so rare that that parts are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Therefore I suggest that any move to allow reg changes on the cost issue are rejected - they usually have a speed benefit!
In conclusion
Yes a few thinks may need clarifying or tweeking. The MSA/FIA rules will change.
But if we are not careful the PBIC grids could go the way of some of the other chamionships. Prices will rise, new drivers will not be encouraged to join and the whole thing spiral.
Some of us have large budgets, some of us have small budgets. Lets start now to make sure we all have a successful championship to race in.
WE DO THIS FOR FUN
Ahhh….at last, normal service has been resumed….Did I say leave Class A as it is…hmm can’t remember now!
If it is felt that more than the promised “clarification” is needed let’s not overdo it and “throw the series out with the bathwater”.
Maybe a few small tweeks but once you start who knows where it will all end?
True words of wisdom
May the championship continue to prosper
Legs, I agree entirely with you on this one. It was indeed our idea to to have a rolling road day at emerald rolling road for the group C K-series cars at the beggining of the year. This was put forward to the commitee by us, but never seemed to go anywhere. As for standard power outputs, we all have the same power and torque output give or take 1-2BHP and we have all submitted our power graphs to the comittee.
The k-series regs are very tight and prohibit anything that’s not standard or likely to give any increase in BHP. For example the heads are to remain standard (no porting etc) valves and valve sizes specified and head ports specified. Cam lift is specified as is durattion so no playing to be done anywhere really.
There are a few things we would like to be specified further to keep these engines as standard as possible. We would still like to have a pre season rolling road session where the cars are tuned and sealed to ensure close even racing.
I also agree that more checks should be done on the cars, whats to stop someone putting high lift scatter cams and big valves in a standard car if checks are not carried out?
Ollie
The force is strong with this one….
Looks like Legs has posted a 5 smoke comment.
It was indeed our idea to to have a rolling road day at emerald rolling road for the group C K-series cars at the beggining of the year. This was put forward to the commitee by us, but never seemed to go anywhere.
If the championship pays for the rolling road ( and it would have to if it was to be any form of unbiased control ) then do we raise the championship fee for everyone or charge the affected cars. Plus would it not have to be a rolling road independant of the ecu manufacturer? And what action do we take if a car has too much power, it would have to be easily confirmed at each race that the extra power has not reappeared so much more technical scrutineering required for which we pay!
Sorry, I seem to be in rant mode but one comment made several time already is that costs should be kept down. Sealed engines have to be declared by the competitor for every race entered, if we are serious then any infringement will suffer the MSA penalty. It cost money to police.
In reference to zs 120, zr 120 and the metro gti, if it was using a similar power plant.
The weight limits should be set the same. Approx 1215kg.
Original weight of the metro gti was approx 885kg.
Can we hear from any V8 boys in Class B, regarding the suggestion to move them all to Class C?
Arguments for & against the idea?
What does everybody else think?
From what I can see, the cars range from Dave Brooke, who would probably be OK ,to Brian Ratcliff (my mate) who wouldn’t have a prayer in current form.
I’m against any new 3.9 litre V8s at all, if only to keep it simple & to the original V8s 3.5 litre spec, but also against asking Dave Brooke or Rob Spencer to change their engines before time, if they don’t want to.
That said, the current 3.9s could easily compete in Class C until they blow up!
Vic
Chairman’s hat definitely put to one side…..
I’ve really enjoyed this year, especially Cadwell, but from reading other comments the problem is that I’ve raced with cars that some feel should all be in class C.
I think that there is still much more to who is driving rather than the car spec, at Oulton Barry in his class C V8 could not get past me but at Cadwell Terry could. At Snetterton Barry chased after the Neaves and Simon while I watched them all disappear into the distance.
To compete with Mr Cripps or Barry for straight line speed I would need the same engine spec, but it is probably fair to put on a weight penalty to offset the extra 400cc - does 75 Kg sound good? Problem is how can you tell what size my engine is without opening it? I can look at a V8 and tell you the probable maximum capacity form the external appearance but that does not help much. Look’s like I’ve dropped the can and there are worms everywhere….
I would like to see Brian and Pat do better, I don’t know all the torrid details of Brian’s year but mechanical problems have seemed to home in on one person. Pat has also had some problems ( don’t let the mechanic drive it !! ) I don’t think either has had the track time to start setting good race times.
Where is this leading I hear a mutter in the background :-
I don’t think you can move the V8’s without taking some steps against the MGB’s, and what about the MGC which Niall is having fun in but his car does not show the performance that Andy Young or Mark Burnside has in the past.
Pete has already said that the ZS will go faster if you can reach the bottom of deep pockets.
Midgets use to be the car to have when I started racing - that’s so long ago that Hutch had only just become a proud father! Where are they now?
Anyway, time for bed then tomorrow I find out what the MGCC is planning for 2010.
Oh no. how embarassing, the game is up….. my bruvver is quicker than me in my own motah!
Back to the drawing board…..
Regarding spotting a 3.9 litre ringer, I’m quite happy that a random check of any V8 capacity WILL be carried out out any point in the season by taking off the heads & having a measure. I beleive the 3.9 has the same stroke but bigger bore, Chairman Dave will know.
If driver know that there will be a check, it should deter all but the stupid from running oversize lumps.
Talking of oversize lumps…..
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1153892193.jpg
Would that be Mr Reeves casting his vote in favour of double-headers?
MGZR - 1.8 update, Jonathan Agar collect the car today, the specification is as follows
Standard 1.8 16v engine fitted with cams form 135 tf and vvc inlet manifold janspeed manifold sports cat stock ecu. This should make it a very easily achievable specification for a 1.8 k series car.
Class A would be good, class B may be under powered, as 160vvc is allowed in that class.
Happy to specify the piper cams as he has just purchase 5 sets from xpart.
Opinions?
He can do what he likes as long as he stays behind me!!!
Which is probably what most drivers are thinking!
Jonathan won his class A, in metro cup by entering every round and finishing. He came second overall on count back in metro cup. Its about finishing every round not just winning.
Good job as there is very little chance of me winning!!
The ZR’s came with 120BHP engine NOT 135 so he shouldn’t be allowed to change cam’s and inlet manifold in class A, especially when we don’t let the Metro do it. Why on earth can’t people bring out cars we have regs for instead of changing the rules to bring out something they’ve dreamt up that MGR never made and try to pass it off as standard? Alternatively, what’s so difficult about running a VVC 160 ZR? i.e. something that the factory made and we have regs for.
This class A lot are a bit feisty……!
If you let the 135 spec in class B Jonathan would be fine for this but it could make the introduction of the 135 TF into the PBIC, as VVC’s are not everybodys cup of tea. The best selling TF was 135 spec and same for Lotus as the K series engine was more reliable with this spec. Alan is running these cams in his metro as a trial I thought.
At least he is being honest with the spec of the car as you would not see the differnce. As it is a piper cam it would be easy to regulate in regulations as was a standard item made for rover.
6R4 - We have not looked at the 6R4 yet which wants to run with us?
What a car to have out in the series?
If we dont the BCV8 boys may take the car what a shame to miss out on some automotive porn running with us.
At least Simon would get a good race clearly as a novice Chris Tilly we wouldn’t want it to win now wood we
However Chris is happy not to score points he just wants to race his MG in the MGCC.
The PBIC was for any MG afterall and it is a production car and road legal….
As The Fun Boy Three said
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
6R4? Let BCV8 have him……. that would be interesting a Metro in BCV8! LOL
I’d be keen to see him out - but he’s potentially an easy race winner each outing, which isn’t really fair on the rest of us.
Rather than turn him away lets discuss a way of getting him out…
Pete, can he limit the power further? also what does it weigh?
After all, the championship ethos is:
“We are the only race championship to actively cater for any MG ranging from T-Types through to Midgets, MGBs, MGCs to MGFs and Z series.
There are classes for race modified, modified and road going cars, front and rear wheel drive, if you want to race it we’ll find a way of helping you get on track.”
mind you, the ethos doesn’t mention 4wd
still looking for the door to get back in mate
Wasn’t the 6R4 a RALLY car?
It was considered last year and not allowed due to previous experience I seem to remember.
John car 71 you are right, but it aint what you do its the way that you do it….
Just read through all (well most) of the comments again. Seems to be the MGB’s that are too fast whatever class they are in. So how abut we simplify the regs as follows:-
Rule 1 – No MGB
Rule 2 – Run what yer brung (see rule 1 for exceptions)
For those who left before the relay would have seen the 6R4 in action at Snet, on arrival it was swamped in the paddock, after all it was British Engineering at its best.
Chris Tilly raced in the relay details of the car as follows. Chris is happy to attand the drivers meeting and is really keen to run in the MGCC.
As it is road legal taxed and MOT’d in standard production spec got to be class A car! (Joke) Chris is happy to keep the restrictor plate on and limit the full protential of this car.
The spec currently is approx 280(ish?)bhp and the car dry weight is aprox 1100kg -
As a guide, looking at the Snetterton times ( we did a 1.19 in free practice in the morning) , I think this indicates we are maybe on a par with a Class C V8 in the BCV8 series but slower than a Class D car. In the race we were not much quicker than the K series MGB’s, so given my lack of knowledge of the circuits, not knowing what tyres will work for us, or what set up we need for different tracks, I suspect that would be the picture for the whole year…at least until we understood the racing game a bit better. The series could always apply some form of handicap during the season if our pace picked up unexpectedly - eg time or weight penalties. Like I said , I’m not bothered about scoring points for the championship.
We are also looking at the CSCC Future Classics series as an option if we cant race with MGCC, but I think that would be a shame, as it is an Abingdon built MG which I believe belongs in the PBIC.
How about a standard Mg Sv in class A, with its standard factory fitted engine, which is about 400 bhp!!!
Chris is definately interested in racing the Metro with the MGCC when the tarmac rally season allows. I can’t see the BCV8 actually allowing the car out - they already object to the CV8 (MGC not Jensen) and don’t like 1800’s converted using exactly the same parts as factory V8’s.
The car spec is governed by the rally rules, 2.8litre and some inlet restrictor, I believe it weighs 1300kg or so.
Using the FIA moulded slicks - the tyres that look like they’ve been nibbled by a very neat mouse - his times weren’t too dissimilar to Simon’s 1 minute 22. OK the car has more power, but remember that Snetterton is a circuit where power counts for much more than is the case at other tracks. Let’s not gloss over that Simon was faster than everone else by a larger than normal margin as well.
To be the championship which fully embraces the quote in Dan’s comment above would be ‘Really Saying Something’
Best time by the team containing the 6R4 in the relay race at Snetterton was 1:21.359 and I don’t think it was done by one of the other team members.
Perhaps it could run on normal Metro tyres….
I suggest no lurid green cars!
To be fair, although it would be a great car to have in the championship I think the 6R4 would probably have more fun racing in the BCV8 given that the class D boys are doing 1.18’s ish, by the time he gets to grips with the car he should be competitive. I did suggest to Chris that maybe he could slap a couple of hundred KG’s in the car and come play in group C, he did not seem keen on modifying the car in any way to fit into the club as he wanted to run the car as it is, which is understandable.
As for running the 1.8 ZR in group A, I think that although this is supposed to be a standard class, the B’s are allowed to port and polish heads, have high lift cams etc so why should a ZR remain standard? If you look at the 160 vvc cars in the trophy they were doing 1.28’s when a couple of Group A cars in the PBIC where in the low 1.27’s. Maybe we should allow the 160’s into group A instead of B. This would keep the cars standard, cheap and competitive. Would the MGF guys be interested in going into group A as well?, given that there are currently only a small number of F’s out it might make things a bit more interesting for them. Although Group F has seen some close racing this year so maybe it’s fine as it is?
The club is about veriety of cars, this we need to except. However we need to get some regs in place for all the vehicles rather than just excepting anything with an MG badge, although I understand this could be a difficult and lengthy process.
Ollie
Am I the only one who doesn’t like the 6R4 ?
I used to own a Metro (road car) for a while, perhaps thats where it all stems from…I’ll ask my shrink……
Vic
Olie,
The MG Trophy VVC ZR’s were doing 1:27.3’s (Charles Hazel) on the windy Saturday when our class A fastest lap was 1:30.6. Don’t compare Snetterton Saturday times with Sunday times; everyone went a couple of seconds faster on Sunday with no headwind. A PBIC class A MGB is not competitive against a ZR160, similarly it is felt that the VVC MGF’s should have the edge on the class A MGB’s (if only my driving was consistent enough to prove it!). However the F and ZR are not particularly competitive in class B either. That’s the difficulty with the ‘modern’ cars against the older ones, they don’t fit the same class structures in standard form, never mind when modifications start to creep in. The VHPD F’s were doing low to mid 1:21’s when Simon Cripps best all day was 1:22.9. Don’t’ forget, the VVC F’s and ZR’s are only allowed to change the air filter, exhaust and skim the head nothing else to increase power. The MGB’s have less weight and more modifications, but still end up being at a disadvantage against the F and ZR. So I’d be happy to be in class A with my VVC F but I don’t think the existing class A guys would think the same.
How about FIA spec B’s in class A but have to run historic spec tyres ie dunlop l section or avon zz’s. Limiting capicity to 1840cc so no FIA “hot rods” like equipe gts etc.
Quote “How about a standard Mg Sv in class A, with its standard factory fitted engine, which is about 400 bhp!!!”
Could be interesting
The B is an old heavy slow revving engine, the characteristics of the car are old “technology” which is why it isn’t competitive against the newer F’s and the like. The different classes attempt to deal with these differences by allowing similarly performing cars to race against each other. The alternative would be for all cars to be weighted up until there was no difference in performance which I feel defeats the object of the exercise and certainly would’nt present a very appealing race. This is also why I feel the exisiting modifications to the B should stand. In class A, save for driver ability & experience at least we all get a good race. The idea of a race is to go faster. So long as the classes can deal with their individual drivers within that class then what’s the big deal?
Exactly Mr. J. The classes are designed to put cars of similar performances together, so just because one model is allowed certain mods in one class it doesn’t mean another model in the same class will necessarily be allowed the same. That’s why I suggest for 2011 we look to rename the classes so they don’t carry the ‘Standard’ or ‘Modified’ perception. Perhaps 4 classes:- “Fast”, “Faster”, “Very Fast” and “..kinell”
Can I be put into the SLOW class?
Various people have worked out power to weight values for the existing cars. I’m not suggesting we put everyone’s car on a rolling road at every meeting but using it as a baseline for comparisons…
MGZR 105 weighs 1050 kilos, we can all work that one out!
ZS120 at 1120kg is 105HP/ton
Metro Gti 103Hp in 800kg gives 128HP/ton.
ZS180 1250kg 160hp/ton
MGF is 165(ish) in 1085kg(?) 150ish/ton
If class A has an upper limit of say 150hp/ton then the ZR105, ZS120 and Metro need some serious help. The B is 782kg(?) so should have about 117HP to fit in.
How about the classes having a *rough* power to weight of 125, 150, 200 and 250 for Paul’s aaaargh (frustration) to aaaaargh (fast) structure. That allows the small saloons to race each other, a Midget with a 731cam, or a B with a 714 cam.
On a more serious note, we’re got a really good championship, with an excellent bunch of drivers and we’re had the biggest grids of the season .
So that must prove that our rules and regs are not far off the mark.
Looking through the results, the most successful driver this season, with the most class wins was Paul Rigg.. welldone Paul, its a shame that you haven’t got a few more cars in your class.
Thanks to everyone for a brilliant season..
Oh yes, it would also allow tuned V8’s weighing in at 940kg and 280HP kg 1150kg cars too…
the SV might need a trailer to carry all the ballast though!
This may sound like a bit of a change of tune but, after a bit consideration,I think the Carrot Cruncher is right, the size of the grids demonstrates to me that the regs are probably about right.
There is too much emphasis put on the power/spec of the cars, when the biggest gain we could probably all get is from better driving……sad but true!
I know I have put forward a few ideas, but everybody should beware of making too many rule changes and putting the current popularity of the PBIC at risk.
Great to see a full PBIC grid across all classes, nothing worse than sitting on a “thin” grid or even worse being combined with another championship due to lack of numbers.
Lets all use some common sense before getting into marathon drivers meetings that ultimatly may put the majority drivers off.
If it ain’t broke…..
Cheers
Vic
HURRAH!!!!
Sounds like we are agreed then keep it simple and enjoy 2010 season!
More to the point, I can’t risk slipping into a deep lasting coma at the Drivers meeting, I’ve got a family to consider!
More to the point I’ve got drinking to consider…
have we beaten the record for the number of comments yet Jonesey?
I am pleased to say a new record has been set!
Sand bags metro is for sale less engine….
Can be fitted with 1.4 for class A flyer
or with special box for class C flyer
New car in production for 2010
Or the original lump to go shopping in….:)
I have a spare 1400 engine and box with manifolds, ECU etc…
NEWS FLASH!!
To celebrate my first ever race win I would like to buy the first round of drinks at the bar for my fellow competitors.
It’s the least I can do as I have been lucky enough to pay half-price for my races all year.
Look forward to seeing you all at the bar.
Ollie
Blimey!
This is a turn up for the book!
I am glad to see you have been cured of the short arm long pocket ailment that dogged you last year.
I would be delighted to join you Ollie.
Guinness please.
Ollie
The joys of youth mate, see you at the bar mate, hopefully there will be some drinking time as I think drivers meeting should be easier now.
Pete
I was young once…
I can confirm I will NOT be celebrating my first ever race win by getting a round in for everyone! Ah, the pleasures of being a grumpy old man…
Just a reminder that people need to get their video’s from this years racing of to ben by the end of this week in order for us to have a good quality video.
His email address is maniacfictionfilms@hotmail.com
I have his postal address if people need to send DVD’s or memory sticks etc. I won’t put it on the internet but feel free to email me on ollie@teamneavesracing.co.uk to save him getting lots of emails when he could be getting on with making our video.
Ollie
Bloody hell Ollie, have your arms suddenly grown to be able to reach into those deep pockets?
Careful you don´t choke on the dust when you get your wallet out…
Mine´s 5 pints please
Another potential Z car for 2010
MGZTT - 1.8T is in preporation for next season.
Looking to run in class C
Standard turbo as left factory, a larger intercooler, standard gear box, a emerald or dta ecu.
Stock is approx 156 bhp (badged 160) would expect to see 180/90 tops with cooler and ecu mods, it would be preferred to run with forged pistons as turbos have a habbit loosing the top of standard ones.
Clearly its going to be a heavy car and would not expect to be running at 800 kilos.
Happy to be run on 1b tyres
The car is heavy, and will not be another dreadnaught beast.
Would be good to see another estate out and thats nearly every MG model in the PBIC.
Can this be added to discussion at the drivers meeting as the car is being sourced now and the owner would like a green light before he sends it of for a cage.
See you at the bar Pete
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rover-Metro-GTI-Race-Car-Rolling-Shell-NO-RESERVE_W0QQitemZ160378395815QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAutomobiles_UK?hash=item25574c1ca7
bargain - Dans Shell (sandbag)
Pete,
I know that our championship prides itself to cater for all MG’s, but there is a problem with this in that it is never really possible to right the regs to get complete evenness in the classes for the cars.
The ‘odd’ car will either be to quick or too slow and seldom just right.
If your colleague is looking to buy and car and prepare, he would be much better off going for a car that we have got some regs for - like yours. This would also give him something to compare himself against in terms of overall performance.
I have have 2 hats, on the MGCC Z register we are trying to gert as many new members in club and getting a fair spread of modern cars out is important for the club. I fully apreciate that some cars will be yes and some no hence putting them forward. I will add these are not my cars and seem to be mouth piece for the Z cars on here.
We said no to him this year as he wanted to fit the engine in a ZS, so he now is wanting to run a true production car. Done to drivers to decide at drivers meeting, however I feel that all should be welcome.
What happens whena ZT260 owner wants a race? what happens when a LE500 wants a race, what happens when a ZR105, 110, 115 wants a race?
MG before its death did all it could to get cars in the market the 1.8T was one of the most popular ZT’s as it was cheap for company car drivers hence there are thousands not on ebay etc for around 2K. Yes its a 3/5 series clone but should we exclude them?
As I said I dont mind either way but I get a lot of requests via the Z register of people thinking about racing and a modern car is a cheap starting point.
New cars are welcome but I think they should not be allowed too many mods until we see how they perform. Fine changing springs and dampers to get them round corners, brake pad material so they can stop if they want to, air filters and exhausts etc but mapable ECU’s are a bit too far and cams should be standard. The MGF’s do fine limited to these mods and you are after all suggesting attracting people with a cheap way in to racing.
Not a bad idea so road standard in class A then?
No, invitation class until performance is understood.
Perhaps mappable ecus should be compulsory on all new cars then we can define which ecu and set its rev limit, fit a seal and we have a performance control measure?
i need my BTW back
Dave, I think your comment was made tongue in check…. I hope
Isn’t the advantage of system like the Emerald ecu that you can configure it via a cable so how can you seal that.
It would also require someone with a good degree of knowledge to check that all ECU’s are as they should be. Think how long it takes to wigh the cars, now consider how long it will take to interogate all the ECU’s!
See you all Sat.
James
I still think the best control method is to add/remove ballast, it’s dead easy to implement and check and is very effective. simple……
Or you run the factory ECU that came with the engine - or hey, how about you run the factory engine that came with the car?
Sorry lads AND LASSES
IM CONFUSED KNOW/ WHAT CAR AM I ALLOWED TO USE IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP?
While it might need a revolution in our technical scrutineering capability it is actually very quick to copy the map from some ecus and suitable anti tamper tape stuck over the socket would be reasonable cheap. By going for one ecu we reduce the knowledge of systems required. Should be no worse than current weighing and if we streamline that by having weights with driver there is time for some other checking of selected cars?
Also for cars new to the championship insisting on the factory standard ecu might make life easier but would we need to invest in special interfaces to check the factory ecus?
Presumably Trombones means engine and gearbox rather than just engine?
Anything you want Dave! Stick the turbo K series from your ZT into the Midget with the semi-automatic box from Ali’s 25 and no-one will beat you next year.
Bugger!!!!!!
Got take the engine out again, I forgot about the semi-automatic gearbox.
And another thing:
How about a RWYB class
Charge them double entry fee & put them in another race?
Even at a different circuit on a different day?
Great idea paul
Have asked Ali about the steppspeed box have been told where to go by her who has to be obeyed,
Think ill go back to my old way of deciding see what tyres have the most tread.
Have a great meal and congrates on the class win.
Dave
Clearly non of us want long drawn out meeting as I am sure there is plenty to discuss, however we should all remember we have a great race series with a wide variety of cars and configurations.
Not everybody will agree but the A B C classes need some tweaking but as ever over time each car will have had more development and get quicker. Hence the front running A cars beating most of the class B cars and so on.
Class C seems well sorted as the full race cars are at the front which you would expect.
The class F cars are a bit of a strange one as clearly they mix it in A&B and so further definition should be given.
MGF vvc 143bhp class A no mods, no trick suspension (160 spec parts, no seam welding etc.
The 160 spec vvc (none on the F’s running with us left the factory with this engine/gear box / suspension configuration) so therefore are modified and should run in class B
The MGF 160 spec car came with big brakes and therefore should be allowed. again class B. This rule should be applied to MGTF 135 in A and 160spec in B (the best bet then would be a tf135 which came with big brakes as standard and would be weapon of choice for A? and attract new cars drivers.
MGZR / ZS in class A being running the 120 spec engine would then be allowed suspension brake and induction changes to attract new cars drivers. And giving a chance to keep up with the widely modified cars in class.
MGZR/ZS which is modified would then sit in B
Any car running VHPD (spec as per current regs) class C
Any K series car running aftermarket ecu class C
Thats my ten pence worth on K series cars
See you Saturday
I’m going to avoid the controversy of the K series engine next year. I’m fitting a 2 litre Rover T series with a Turbo.
Paul,
presume you mean one of these engines http://www.an-racing.com/
One Hundred and Eighty!
Not a measure of BHP, but a milestone achievement in the number of posts. Will we reach the double century before Jonesey starts a new thread?
Anyway, Dave, now you are just being silly about engine transplants. (and I’m bitter that my cunning plan has been discovered)
We’re avoiding the controversy too, we’re all racing MGF’s next year
You don’t have to go that extreme, Just add 300kg to B
By the way that dose include the driver
Cool - do we get to add modern suspension too
http://www.zastec.pl/114-07-technika08.html
It’s the right engine type for the car!
It’s easy just add water,
I don’t think the word modern suspension & mgf go together?
unfortunately I will not be able to attend the drivers meeting but I will be at the dinner. Vic Reeves the representative and chairman of the V8 boys has been briefed and I know has prepared a lengthy presentation on facts and figures in reference to the use of non MG production engines. Looking at the number of previous comments in reference to the regs for 2010 most of you attending the drivers meeting I shouldnt think will make the dinner /dance itself - but if you would have a recess at around 7pm for approximately 15mins as I would like to take Ollie’s offer for free drinks and then you can reconvene… Or you could agree to the regs to be left as is - and everybody could get thoroughly Pissed at Ollies expense!
PS Ollie I only drink vintage Krug 1974 was a particularly good year
I think this meeting is going to break records, from previous meetings.
Be prepared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am dreading it!
Turned out to be a record breaking meeting. Shortest one for a number of years!
Think we should allow clockwork powered cars in 2011 to go with the wound up drivers….
With the discussion about tyre supplies how about going for these as a control tyre for next season…they should make Lofty’s style interesting.
http://www.skidtyre.com/eng/index.html
When will the results of the drivers meeting be going public?
So that drivers can decide if their current car still fits into any of the class’s
Or have we got to spend lots of money on the grounds of keeping the cost down?
John, it won’t cost you a penny. We voted to make all the trick bits already on your car legal
Only joking, but you don’t expect us to actually remember what was agreed do you? Saying that, I don’t remember if we agreed on anything?
I was thinking more along the lines of the official/draft version.
Well if you all agreed to disagree then you all agree on something.
For Sale:
Blaine’s 1950 Full race B-Series Engine
Spec:
Peter Burgess full race big valve head
High lift cam (the one that requires the MGC followers)
Forged Omega pistons
Steel Arrows rods
Knife Edged crank
etc etc
Call or email if you’re interested.
blaine@teamneavesracing.co.uk
Tel 01428682677 (evenings)
Ollie
Good point John, would make sense
Pete
Dose jonesey no loner frequent this site? Or is he out in the garage adding all the trick bits to take next years class A by storm?
Only time will tell
Thanks for your concern Foxy, I am alive and well and in the process of preparing my Christmas Caption Competition which I will publish soon. This will be another first for this site as the winner will be awarded a glittering motor sport related prize, courtesy of Jonesey-Racing.co.uk!!!
Wow, what’s your budget for the prize Jonesey? If you can run to a tenner you could buy Blaine’s old B-series engine and offer that.
I have saved quite a bit by not having to build a trophy cabinet, so I will be able to provide an exclusive and most sought after prize for the lucky winner!
That’s another drivers plan rumbled?
Blaine’s old B-series engine is not the prize, that’s going in the B for next years assault on class A
Would that be competitive in class A John?
Nah, needs a K-series