WSCC Speed Series Class discussion

[pete g]

I agree with david H

I would like more events that  more wscc members attend, but with everyone spread out over country I know this is not possible .

I like the more event because im a shift worker and cant attend  certain events because it involves taking to much holiday.so it at least give me the option to max out my events even if they are not my  first choice .

.having said that I think for the overall championship gives some the benefit of doing loads of events and drop min points. maybe we should set a max events a competitor can do in one season  before having penalty points added or removed.

this would lower entry costs  .. but would weaken the entries down more.

would like to see more events down south

over the last couple of years I have seen more novices join in and have to say I thought the standard of new drivers is very good and they are quick. they just need more track time and and enjoy  what they do.

as they become hooked they will develop there cars and become faster, then there cars will become lighter like there wallets.  

[Scottish Bloke]

This is getting heated 

 

Fact 1: WSCC runs only two events over a calendar of about thirty. Ergo, we need to make our championship attractive to organizers so that we get invited.

 

Supposition: the nearer we make our classes to most other clubs', the more convivial the day's sprinting will be.

 

Fact 2: some of the fastest kit-car competitors in the country are WSCC member.

 

Conjecture: fact 2 adds to the attraction of a WSCC invitation for organizing clubs.

 

Fact 3: many of our faster competitors compete in other championships as well.

 

Conjecture: if we introduced SS regs to slow fast guys down, they would be less competitive in other championships. I'd choose to stay fast.

 

Fact: we have members all over the country. Many don't want to trek hundreds of miles to compete. That's why we try to provide lots of events.

 

Fact: if you take up golf, snooker, tennis, judo, etc. you don't expect to be in a position to win from day one. Why should sprinters think differently? This isn't primary school.

 

Fact: motor sport is expensive if you take it seriously. Twas ever thus. Have fun by all means, but don't expect to compete with Rich and John who have invested ten years and much cash in their cars.

 

Fact: the Club does not have the resource to police complex regulations. (Just put your car on this rolling road please, Sir!)

 

 

IMHO, the role of the SS is to encourage our competitors to compete with the best in the country if they can, and simultaneously to provide a friendly introduction to motorsport for the beginner. These objectives are not mutually exclusive. The club (and especially SS ethos) is enormously friendly. There is absolutely no shortage of well-meant advice available at events, And any Club member suffering a problem will find his car surrounded by knowledgeable helpers in a flash.

The only error we make is to try to allow every competitor to win something. Whenever you go to a sprint, you will always find someone against whom you can have a close battle. That person will not necessarily be in the same class, but the competitive edge is still available. Club motor sport is about having fun  --  trying to go home thinking that you drove better that day than you have before.

I am convinced that target times are the least imperfect way of comparing performances across many different tracks and events. We have them, and they are settling down (far fewer "102"s occurring nowadays). I think we should do nothing that is not forced on us to render them invalid.

We have classes designed to allow a progression through the motor  sport learning curve. Yes, they don't (and realistically, can't) control spending on engine power, but the logic is that if you have spent many thousands on getting yourself 500bhp, you are not going to enjoy putting that power through synchro box, and neither are you going to be competitive with others sporting the same power if you do. Ergo, the classes are to some extent self-regulating.

 

Personally, the only thing I would change is the 1700cc limit. Our "Zetec anomaly" was always going to be exploited (sorry Ade) eventually, it encourages the development of cars which have no relevance in the wider world of sprinting, and it means that our 1800 Zetec competitors find themselves in a class away from their WSCC status at almost all events.

 

Finally  --  somebody suggested (tongue in cheek) abolishing the overall champion. Whilst I would not go that far, I certainly think that our most direct comparators are within class. I think we should give more kudos to the class champions (hats off to you, gentlemen) and less to the big pot.

 

I think this pretty much sums it up, very well said David.

 

Is there any validity in pursuing PeteG's idea of somehow limiting the number of events past say 13, to try and somehow even the playing field with those doing limitless events, that way we all get a fairer crack at the class and overall awards, reward the best achievers and keep the Championship/Class awards realistic and achievable for all competitors?

 

Whatever we do, just keep us competitive and leave the times alone.

[Terry Everall]

Whilst I can see the reasoning behind looking at how many events should count towards Class and championship I do not agree with it as it limits the number of events that the best supporting ( in terms of Westfields) drivers would be driving at . This could mean we have less of us at events than we currently get If. This also seems favour people who attend less rather than those who attend a lot and support the speed series and I am one of the latter cos I enjoy the buzz and craic so much.

Last year 15 people did 15 or more events and 23 did 10 or more out of an competitor total of just over 60 which is the same as this year 

I cannot see any merit in reducing the number of events on the calendar as it allows people to choose where and how far they want to go to an event.

[pete g]

another idea to throw in the mix  wet times can be very hit and mix I don't think they are easy to workout  and if competitors go out in different condition wont be very fair.

ie there cant be a difference of over 1 hour in runs and conditions  are not the same for every class.

perhaps we could use  a mixture of old scoring and target times some how .

 

 

ie points for 1st 2nd and third in class and the target time as a bonus . ie closer to it bigger bonus .breaking it  extra bonus.  just a thought .

 

 

novices should realise  they are battling with cars of same spec which is why we have more classes.

 

its going to be interesting to see how we score events in future with new tyre rules.

[Lee Smith]

I love the intermediate class idea.

 

So I recommend we have AB A+B+ and then C D!

 

If you come first second or third in class A and B then you are promoted to class A+ or B+

 

Then if you come first second or third in class A+ and B+ you are promoted to class C and D!

 

We need some rules as to numbers just like the trophies! So there has to be at least 6 drivers in that class to promote as automatic promotion would be unfair.

 

In a nutshell next year I will be classed as an expert as I will be starting the season after completing more than 20 sprints (Which I’m not and won’t be) and I will have to compete with real experts and after a season being hammered will probably not be so keen to repeat.

 

The intermediate class would also mean that the novice class is free for new blood!

 

It’s not only about new blood it’s also about retaining drivers that have already invested and allowing them to develop and progress in a competitive manner.

 

How many drivers have given up recently?   What was there reason for not competing?

 

I am totally against anything that restricts performance as at the end of the day we are ambassadors for Westfield and need to put our best foot forward…( Except driver aids in novice classes as I believe you can’t learn to drive with them)

 

Power to weight ratio never works. Someone always cheats and has a switch somewhere that increases the power.

 

In formula one the first second and third placed cars are scrutinised and power tested by an expert. Maybe the winning cars on the day should be inspected by a SS appointed person. We can`t police all cars but if we police the winners then it will soon filter down!

 

So Maybe all class winners on the day get an extra look over?

[mark.anson]

Whilst I can see the reasoning behind looking at how many events should count towards Class and championship I do not agree with it as it limits the number of events that the best supporting ( in terms of Westfields) drivers would be driving at . This could mean we have less of us at events than we currently get If. This also seems favour people who attend less rather than those who attend a lot and support the speed series and I am one of the latter cos I enjoy the buzz and craic so much.

Last year 15 people did 15 or more events and 23 did 10 or more out of an competitor total of just over 60 which is the same as this year 

I cannot see any merit in reducing the number of events on the calendar as it allows people to choose where and how far they want to go to an event.

 

 Well again I agree with David H, who (once again) sums its up nicely. 

 

I still want to see plenty of events on the calendar but I also think Pete idea has some merit in restricting the number of events that points can be scored at but I would probably go for more than the 13 as rich suggested. (I would say 15 or 16 ).

 

I can see your point Terry and you are right that the folk who support a lot of events would be penalised as such, and of course we all want to see plenty of Westfields at as many events as possible representing the club.

 

The rub  though Tel is that not many people have the time or lets face it the money to compete in 20 odd events and as you well know the more you can compete in the best chance you have of increasing your average points and therefore a better chance in the championship.

I can see both sides of the argument and and decision would have to be carefully thought out but I think is worthy of further debate.

While I am in favour generally of the target time system I would argue it has driven up costs in that respect so maybe some compromise should be considered.

 

In support of your side of the argument In 2010 Barney still won the championship on far fewer events than the rest of in class so it still can be done.

[Bud]

Going back to Nick's last post I can understand some of the concerns from the newer drivers trying the sport for the first time as I had similar concerns when I first started. I was surprised (maybe a little naively) to find that what I thought was a quick road car was in fact a slow competition car. After my first event I was really disappointed as I felt there was no way I could compete with those in my class. At the time (2010) I don’t think there was anything like the novice classes that we have now, but as I had an aeroscreen fitted (car was standard 1996 factory built car apart from that) I had to run in WSCC Class F and Modified classes at events. If I was starting now I’d be in Class B.

 

Looking back at the regs for 2011 (can’t find the ones for 2010) Class’s A & B had to have a full windscreen, H pattern box and list 1A tyres. So along the lines of what others have suggested an easy option could be to revert back to this or similar for novices/standard cars leaving C & D as it is now for intermediate level cars with some modifications, with E,F,G & H staying as they are. I think the recent class restructuring introduced a few years ago has worked well and has brought a lot of new competitors into the speed series through Class A & B, and like Stephen H I moved from F to D in order be more competitive, so would not want to see C,D,E & F merged.

 

One thing I have noticed the last 2 seasons is that some of the novice cars are not what you would call standard and therefore this may be where the real issue lies (as Nick points out needs input from potential new competitors). As when I started if you have basically a standard car with a standard engine (by standard I mean little or no engine mods at all) you have liitle chance of being competitive, even as a novice, therefore easy to become disillusioned. Therefore along the lines of Barry’s A/A1 & B/B1 format any novices with a mid level spec car would run in Class C&D but still part of the novice championship. This shouldn’t be an issue as there are several novices that have been keeping me on my toes the last 2 years.

 

The only issue with changing things now as we all know is that we could all be running on 1A tyres from 2017 if the MSA gets their way, but anyway I agree with others that there possibly needs to be an entry level for basic cars and clear progression, which I think we have, so maybe only a minor tweak to entice new blood in to having a go with minimal initial investment. At the end of the day I think this is what differentiates the Speedseries from other championships in that it gives an opportunity for the average Westfield owner to have a try at Motorsport which would otherwise not be available, but at the same time allows the development of some of the countries top hillclimb and sprint competitors.

 

Then as with my own case once the bug has bitten with experience and minimal modifications they can become more competitive and move up the ranks.

 

Maybe we could have more formal introduction days at some of the events.

[Barry S]

Morning all,,

 

EDIT, I have just re read this, you might need a Sunday morning coffee in your hand before you start to digest..

 

Getting back to Nicks original post, can we try and just concentrate on the class structure?

 

I like many fully support the if it ain't broke don't fix it stance and don't want to see wholesale change to target times control tyres etc.
I do however feel we may need to have a look at some tweaks to encourage people to dip their toe in the water and retain those who have, as per the comments on intermediate classes.

 

I also understand the comments ref not expecting to win straight away and the years of experience and car development it takes to be compete at a National level. After all, I'm one of the people who has developed a std road car over 10 years to be competitive.

 

However, what I think we (experienced boys) have forgotten is that when I started, the difference between my std road car and Graham Millers (as it was then) class leading expert road going Westfield was little more than a couple of extra rose joints, a Quaife pro box (it was still syncro)and fuel injection (from memory it was around 210bhp).

 

The main reason for the gulf between his times and mine was down to him being a bl**dy good driver and having spent time developing the set up of the car.

 

Ask yourself honestly, is the gap between our current top flight road going cars and most road going Westfield's still this small?? Hence novices can become disillusioned.

 

So I'm going to stick my neck out and put some names in the frame of where I believe various people would sit in the class structure I proposed and the impact it would have.

 

I have copied my original post at the bottom for reference.

 

Apologies now if I upset anyone or my memory of their car means I have put them in the wrong class.

 

Also on reflection, I have made  1 small change ref the 1800cc capacity break in the lower classes and agree Novices should be able to compete in all classes, this can be accommodated by simply setting Novice Targets Times as being XX% (to be decided) slower than expert times in classes C,D,E,F,G and H?

 

So here goes, hope I don't live to regret this

 

Class A and B
Martin Harvey, Barny, James Alexandra and from what I can see most of this year's novices continue in these Classes.

 

Class A1 and B1
When the above become experts (which they will) they can move to this class without modifying their cars if they wish, this is the only class where we would probably have to generate suitable target time to begin with. I would also imagine Mark (Bud) would fit here as an expert?

 

Once the competitive bug bites even harder, rebuilding a syncro box every year will become a pain so dog boxes and a move to C / D will probably follow. However, this intermediate class will allow time to develop before making this move.

 

Class C and D
Steve Everall, Keith Adams, Graham Frankland, Stu Hill, John Louden Stephen Hubert (come on you know you want to carry on!) etc can continue in this class so no change for them.

 

However, John Hoyle would have to move to F, considering many of the class F times have been set by his stunning times I hope he would not have a problem with this.

 

Also the calls for D and F to be amalgamated would have the same end result.

 

Class E and F

Dave Cleaver, Rich Kerr, Pete Goulding, Paul Aspen no change for you chaps carry on as you were with John Hoyle keeping you on your toes.

 

Also if we had novice targets in all classes David Birch can continue in F as a novice.

 

Class G and H
No change

 

For the record, I have no interest in going back to Class D , been there done that, I'm quite happy to play in H with the super sticky slicks,,

 

Please don't shoot me

 

Cheers

Barry

=================================================================

Original Post

 

OK First thoughts as only just seen this thread,,

 

We seem to be trying to achieve 2 things which on the face of it are mutually exclusive, i.e. appeal to the newbies with a relatively std car and keep the experienced guys happy. Not easy,,

 

There are however several easily identifiable components that usually only turn up on out and out track / race orientated or very well developed track day cars e.g.

 

1, Exotic dampers, Penski, Olhins, nitron (to a certain extent) etc, exact list would need to be defined
2, Rose jointed suspension, other than the 4 at the rear of a std independent Westfield.
3, Dog and sequential gear boxs
4, Electronic driver aids, flappy paddles, launch control, traction control, flat shift etc
5, Carbon Fibre chassis panelling (not body panels as many road going cars have this for da bling man!)
6, light weight steering racks, i.e. not Mk2 Escort derived.

Probably a couple more but can't think of them for now,,

All of the above are easily identifiable and thus policeable, is that a word?

So, using the above how about (for simplicity I'm only going to use car engine capacity breaks):

Class A

Road legal up to 1800cc, items 1,2,3,4,5,6 may not be fitted to the car, list 1A or 1B tyres permitted. Novice drivers only as per current definitions

 

Class B
Road legal over 1800cc, items 1,2,3,4,5,6 may not be fitted to the car, list 1A or 1B tyres permitted. Novice drivers only as per current definitions

 

Class A1
Road legal up to 1800cc, items 1,2,3,4,5,6 may not be fitted to the car, list 1A or 1B tyres permitted.  expert drivers.

 

Class B1
Road legal over 1800cc, items 1,2,3,4,5,6 may not be fitted to the car, list 1A or 1B tyres permitted. Expert drivers

 

Class's A1 and B1 aimed at drivers who become experts through experience but do not want to spend a fortune developing a car.

 

Class C
Road Legal up to 1800cc, items 1, 4, 5 and 6 may not be fitted to the car, List 1 B tyres

 

Class D
Road Legal over 1800cc, items 1, 4, 5 and 6 may not be fitted to the car, List 1 B tyres

From what I can see and have driven there is virtually no difference between a manually shifted sequential dog box and a H pattern dog box.

 

Class E
Pretty much what we have now , road going unlimited up to 1700cc, i.e. if its road legal anything goes.

 

Class F
Pretty much what we have now , road going unlimited over 1700cc, i.e. if its road legal anything goes.

 

Class G and H
leave alone

 

For the record control tyres, no thanks,

 

To summarise my thoughts, this would give a better defined entry level class and put a little more distance between c/d and e/f??

Cheers
Barry

[Terry Everall]

Some good ideas there Barry

[davidgh]

One simplification to Barry's scheme, though  --  and one of the reasons why I'm in favour of more kudos for class winners and less for our "champion".  

 

We have pretty good target times for C and D, why not simply use them for A¹ and B¹, etc. rather than trying to invent new ones. It's beating your direct competitor that counts, and it doesn't matter whether you do so by scoring 1000 points or 963. 

 

Doing that would also give "intermediates" (and, if we adopted the same system for A and B, "novices") a direct indication as to how far off the ultimate pace they are.

[pete g]

 sound good to me

[XTR2Turbo]

Barry for PM   :yes:  

[Terry Everall]

The speed series committee did consider using the same target times this year for A/C and B/D but in the end we just added 2% to give a slightly easier target

[B.RAD]

Howdy all

I like the current structure and must say that I am thoroughly enjoying my first year of sprinting. The camaraderie, banter and support in the paddock & at club meets is the best I've ever experienced, anywhere. I've made great mates in a short space of time and have been lifted back up onto my feet through many severe set backs by my brilliant competitors. I realise that as a total novice, my experience prevents me from voicing a truly rounded opinion, but since I intend to stay sprinting for as long as feasibly possible perhaps it is acceptable to have a concern of our sports future?

Target times - I do find the novice target times as a % of the experts a little disheartening - it's really hard to give a run your all and then be told you're still several seconds from being as quick as someone else with many more years experience, a dog box and a developed engine and chassis. The % is really fractional in a lot of cases so it has become de motivational. I know this has come about to prevent a novice from winning the overall championship and I understand that. Personally I would never expect a novice to win the overall championship and would be embarrassed if that happened to me, so if we are to stick with the current system, could we increase the % of the expert time, with the caveat that the novice championship and overall championship are two different games and novices don't score in the overall? Let's remember that Novices rarely take home a trophy on the day so it's not about pot hunting for us, we're only really interested in our class result and the novice championship and being motivated to keep competing.

Class structure - really like the idea of an intermediate class between novice and expert. Let's face it, it doesn't matter what I do to my car, I will never have the circuit knowledge my competitive peers do until at least a few years in. That's ok though, it's my decision to make and if, after a couple of years as a novice I decide that's what I'll do, I'll wait until my other half is drunk enough to make that announcement This is motorsport. Development is the name of the game. It's expensive and we own expensive cars. If I want to spend my hard earned making my car go quicker, and enjoying all the learning that comes with it, that's my choice. If you don't, that's your choice. But to know that there is an opportunity to spread that development out would be great!

(Just reread Barry's post, it's spot on, love the A1 B1 idea).

I don't see the point in making novice classes have windscreens etc, if your car doesn't have a screen but you want to have a go, why should you be forced to buy a windscreen? I like the current definitions, they're simple and clear. My car is a versatile road & sprint car and I enjoy using it for both (interchangeable windscreen/aeroscreen, removable cage, 20 litre tank, synchro 5 speed box - surely the very definition of a road going sprint car?!).

Tyres - I can see a sense to control tyres in the novice class to control costs, anyone competing is going to have to buy new boots at some point so why not make them cheap? HOWEVER! Having now driven on both 1a and 1b tyres in anger, I actually think it's a bad idea, 1b tyres are so much safer with the grip they offer, I'd expect to see more accidents in the novice classes with less grippy tyres as people push for times beyond the reach of the tyre. Completely support the sentiments of Terry et al that our championship should be the fastest out there so stick with 1b. Obviously the MSA ruling may change things but that's a different story.

So in summary, leave alone apart from the introduction of an intermediate level class structure, but not sure Lee's approach would work as you'd only be promoting 3 people per year. Time served might be a better approach - something like 20 sprints in Novice, 40 in Intermediate?

Bhp/weight - no point, too hard and costly to police.

1700cc class limit - how many current competitors run an 1800? And would they still compete in class B/D if changed? Would increase class competitors but not if they leave.

So that's my tuppence worth, hope it's been useful

[XTR2Turbo]

Other than first year competing, I just wonder if a novice / intermediate / expert status should be decided on a competitors typical times vs target rather than number of events.  But you can only go up the ranking not back down?

 

If we have an intermediate status this might be needed as some could have to / want to stay as intermediate forever ...