ACW Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 eggsactly hence the need for a REAL roadgoing class and to push more of the top speccers to greate big super roadgoing class. Quote
scott beeland Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Agreed on top spec cars But should we pit them in same class against a true novice on a budget in a true roadgoing class Surely things like seq/dog boxes and the like would possibly be better suited to a semi-mod type of class Tooooo many variants "wibble" I have to agree here. By the very nature that none of the current engines used in the ss (as far as i know) were connected to sequential/ dog boxes in their original guise; does that suggest they may not be true roadgoing fare? Edit.....Webmaster got in before me so my post looks repetetive....sorry Quote
Blatman Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Depends. Most of the engines in use were in FWD guise in their donor cars. You could argue that any Vx engined cars that are RWD are illegal 'cos in FWD mode they have no tailcasing on the 'box at all... Quote
Mark Stanton Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 But wouldn't that potentially be adding more classes and further possibly dilute numbers and cause confusion on exact class entry especially for newbies Quote
Mark Stanton Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 You could argue that any Vx engined cars that are RWD are illegal... YOU could if you want to Quote
Blatman Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Well, I wouldn't. It makes no odds to me if sequentials were allowed or not. I'm of the opinion that they aren't the *huge* advantage they're cracked up to be, as I have already said. As soon as Blatchat is back up, I'll have a dig around there for a thread that dealt with this sort of stuff (gearchange speeds). It *should* make for interesting reading, assuming my memory isn't playing tricks.... Quote
ACW Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Scott - box main casing only has to be or oringal construction and material as fitted to the road car which in this case is a Westfield and not the donor. This does however cause issue with alluminium main cases etc.. Mark - I am suggesting you have a roadgoing class much more policed than now with potentially more SRs as an attraction to those with real average roadgoing cars as an attraction to those starting sprinting or with normal every day use cars. could even be driven to event which woudl then lead to a larger class of super roadgoing. Also how about a champion prize and another to the best of other type (eg expert) recgonising the best of both types. Thats it.. put the spoon down and step away from the car...... Quote
smithy Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 i have seen in the past the loton park hagley members championship use a type of 'target' scoring system, drivers didnt like it as it was unclear, and after all everyone in all other championships like to gain points for a class win. perhaps a system like that used in the midland speed championship would be fairer, where 2nd place person gets 20 points and first place person gets a tenth of a point for every tenth he/she is quicker. third place gets 20, minus a tenth of a point for every tenth slower. im with edden and adrian on this one. Quote
adhawkins Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Just out of interest, I've been reading the regs for this year. What exactly is a 'first class award' in respect of what makes you an 'expert'. Is this a class win at an individual event? A top 3? Also, if you get a 'first class award' in your novice season, do you move to the 'expert' class for the next event, or at the start of the next season? Ta. Andy Quote
woodman Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 I would like to ask mhc why he is so keen on running against cars without sequential gearboxes rather than running in the mod prod aeroscreen/1b class that already exists Quote
mhc Posted September 16, 2004 Author Posted September 16, 2004 Woodman, a road going car is just that ,1a tyres, windscreen, 2seats, mot etc , therefore it can be used on the road unlike a mod prod. That way you don,t need 2 cars. Quote
Ian Podmore Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 The novice classes IMO do provide a fair playing field for a novice. There will always be occasions when someone dominates a novice class because of the nature of the class. That doesn't IMO make it an unfair place for someone to start sprinting, there has been plenty of healthy competition throughout the fields in the novice classes. I certainly wasn't put off by Tim P's performance this year, and it provided an excellent focus or target. I gave it my best shot and was pleased with the result. I am sure there will be a group of us at a similar level in 'C' next year which will provide enjoyable competition. As for a true road-going class, that would be great, but it comes back to regs again - What on earth would they be? Maximum engine revs? Power to weight? Heater Carpets Quote
Blatman Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 I certainly wasn't put off by Tim P's performance this year, and it provided an excellent focus or target. Likewise the B class runners have had Westy running possibly one of the best 2B cars in the country this year. I have *no* gripes about that at all, as he's clearly bought the potentially the best car, and has done a large amount of testing to get the pace. Would he have been faster with a sequential 'box? Not by much, if at all, IMHO. a road going car is just that ,1a tyres, windscreen, 2seats, mot etc , therefore it can be used on the road unlike a mod prod. That way you don,t need 2 cars. Nope, sorry, don't agree with that. Everyone needs two Westfields at least Quote
Turbo Tommo Posted September 16, 2004 Posted September 16, 2004 Great debate, this is what we need IMO, an open forum. As I see it we have two problems. A class eligibility issue and a scoring system that is fair to all. NSCC & MAC seem to do OK with their systems, so why not emulate theirs and not try to reinvent the wheel. Our issue is the "extra" classes we include so as not to disincentvise the competitors. These are A & B and E & F, as otherwise they would be merged with C & D and G & H respectively (as they are now on the day). Why don't we mirror NSCC & MAC for eligibility & scoring, & only apply separate target times & eligability rules for our 4 "special" classes which we need to include to incentivise the novices in both roadgoing and BE/Aero/1B, of which there are a lot of members with significant interest. I would also have thought that eligibiity could be derived straight from the blue book for the remaining classes. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.