Below is a list of items that are under consideration by the Technical Committee for change in 2010.
1) Oil Cooler
To allow modifications to the legs to allow damaged coolers to be repaired and reused.
2) Oil feed pipes to heads
To allow the use of flexible pipes.
3) Inlet manifolds
Shortening on one side to be permitted.
4) Cylinder heads
To allow or disallow the addition of material into the inlet/exhaust ports.
5) Carburetor
to allow a club spec alternative carburetor package.
6) Weight limit
To increase minimum weight by 20kg
7) Word changes
A number of minor word changes for clarification purposes.
Please leave feedback below or email to
[email protected]
Can anyone explain to me (in short words please!) whats the advantage of changing the carb ruling & is it going to make it more expensive? And why do we need to change the weight limit? Im not being awkward I just want to understand the proposals & reasons for them :-\
Most cars are over the weight limit helen leaving a few with an advantage this would level the numbers somewhat.
The carb will not neccessarily be that expensive ,it is off a landrover so 2nd hand should be available.A new one at less than £200 is my understanding.
Quote from: philip myatt on July 22, 2009, 16:06:04
Below is a list of items that are under consideration by the Technical Committee for change in 2010.
1) Oil Cooler
To allow modifications to the legs to allow damaged coolers to be repaired and reused.
2) Oil feed pipes to heads
To allow the use of flexible pipes.
3) Inlet manifolds
Shortening on one side to be permitted.
4) Cylinder heads
To allow or disallow the addition of material into the inlet/exhaust ports.
5) Carburetor
to allow a club spec alternative carburetor package.
6) Weight limit
To increase minimum weight by 20kg
7) Word changes
A number of minor word changes for clarification purposes.
Please leave feedback below or email to [email protected]
I don't see the "only a single make of piston" on the list phil.
Piston for 2011, not enough time left before 2010 rules are finalized.
Hi Phil
Out of interest what carb is it? And will we have to buy from the club or make it to club spec?
If the carb is off a landrover will that not automatically add 20kg anyway.
why are we looking at other carbs anyway? Is there a performance advantage or something?
You're clearly paying attention!! The carbs are a pain in the ****.
:-[
Would the carb be mandated or would the solex be allowed for a transition period?
are we going to be using Toyo's too?
The Toyo's are a definite mandatory item.
The carb will be an alternative package to the current ones, please yourself if you use it.
thanks Phil
Clearly I'll vote for +20kg on the minimum weight, but otherwise I'll go with the flow on other tech changes.
What I, and I think some others, would like to see are two things:
- a de-esclation of the power and weight race. When there is an argument about the possibility of adding metal to parts of the engine, then we've lost sight of the spirit of cheap, simple, racing. Anyone knows that adding metal in engineering involves high levels of skill, expense, development and testing. We should encourage simple low cost innovation, such as the many weird and wonderful air inlet systems we see. Low cost, low risk and easily seen and copied if wished. If anyone wants to go really fast at more expense, there are plenty of other race series.
- much more openness on technical matters. I don't recall seeing any technical bulletin from the tech committee or the scrutineer this year. That despite several rumours of oddities. To avoid problems with confidentiality, I propose that all racing members sign up to a new clause that allows the tech committee and the scrutineer to publish reports and decisions on any tech matter that arises during the year with any car or driver or associated party. That way, information about what can and can't be done is circulated openly, rather than restricted to those within earshot of when it happened. That would extinguish the rumour method which is prevalent now and could have the effect of closing up the field. The fact that after 20 years, the field is still very spread out when any normal one-make series would have a very close field after such a time suggests that some things may be going on which are not quite correct
Quote from: Martin HARROLD on July 25, 2009, 12:24:13
Clearly I'll vote for +20kg on the minimum weight, but otherwise I'll go with the flow on other tech changes.
. When there is an argument about the possibility of adding metal to parts of the engine, then we've lost sight of the spirit of cheap, simple, racing.
Well said martin,i'm sure there are plenty of us that agree with you on this.
Paul
Having now successfully completed the rolling road testing of the proposed new carb for next year we are now going to start track testing of the setup at Mallory next Tuesday 25th, anyone is welcome to join us to see the progress made to date and our efforts to now get it to go around corners!!
Hi all,
i have a few words to say on all this as i have been keeping my ears to the ground but have not done much racing.
we all know that we have a very special championship with some fantastic people involved. i would be a great shame to see it disappear over techincal issues. these are not the first and i'm sure they won't be the last. We make rules for a reason and they need to be policed otherwise what's the point in having them?
what we need is for people to know that the playing field is as level as we can make it, this is our age old problem, the regs as they stand allow a good amount of changes to the car for a one make championship, the more we can reduce the chance of money being the reason people win the better. I for one have spent a lot of money on rolling roads and development over the years and generally the people that do this are the ones at the front of the grid. If we can have a standard exhaust, and club cam, club carb. club tyres we are working are way towards having a standardised car. there is no question that this will help people with less money, time or expertise. If we went back to cross boxes and standard heads would this make the racing worse? I personally think not.
I like the idea of being able to repair things like oil coolers and to have alternative options on oil feed pipes as these items are not only getting rare but expensive as well but buying them is not going to give a performance advantage, can we do club group buys, this seems to work well on other forums i've used, buy 20 flexi oil feed pipes for example and sell them as cheap as poss to members, the club (i believe) has the resources to do things like this. I also like the 20kg weight increase, this will stop all the fat people moaning about skinny people winning, at the end of the day the closer it is the more fun we have and the better it is to watch.
How can we go wrong?
???
<Anyone knows that adding metal in engineering involves high levels of skill, expense, development and testing. We should encourage simple low cost innovation>
Another twopenceworth......
Graham's been filling in heads for years. Having bought a new pair of heads and had them modified (yes, I actually spent some money) to his spec I found that, compared to the engine I've been using for the last couple of years, they made more top-end power and were more revvy but there was much less bottom-end torque. So you gain one way and lose another.
I agree with Pete on the oil cooler repairs/head feed pipes (I think Lomaxes have been known to use them?) but not on the standard exhausts; I made an exhaust recently and am very pleased with it - it's nice and quiet too.
<weird and wonderful air inlet systems >
Don't bother with the Quality Street box idea; it fractured around the lettering. And the coffee tin is just too tall, unfortunately.
I can ask about flexi pipe prices. (Pirtek)
Will we still be allowed to use 135 or 125 Firestones after the Toyos have been introduced?
Roughly what time on Tuesday at Mallory?
all day nigel
Phil.
Can we get a model No for the carb and/or what they were originally fitted to, as ill need to start trawling the scrappies......were Scottish y'ken
Sean
Are we having an AGM to vote on any of these changes?
You should all have received a copy of the draft 2010 regs. The explanation for the "ballast" proposal for next years rules is as follows.
In an endeavour to allow filled port heads to be used for a transition year prior to a complete ban for 2011 the ballast proposal is an effort to be able to neutralize any advantage that they (and anyone else going quick) have, should they be substantially quicker than everyone else and finishing in the first five.
The most obvious alternative is to ban the filled port heads immediately.
This is a very contentious issue and whatever solution is looked at is going to upset a proportion of the membership.
Please contact Aubrey or myself direct if you feel the need to express your thoughts/displeasure.
Philip
I have not received anything.
Let me have your e mail address
to
[email protected]
Hi all,
Looking at the draft regs, which contain good ideas, I do not understand the following:
The filled heads "and/or" matter created quit some discussion this year and the conclusion was (please do correct me if I am wrong) that it was not allowed. Nevertheless I do see a transition year on this "illegal" item as not in 2010 but from 2011 removal only will be permitted.
Looking at the tyre changes I do not see a transition year, possibly needed for all teams that have a stock of "legal" Firestone and/or Michelin tyres, which they can't use anymore.
This doesn't look very logical to me and creates the feeling that being too creative with the rules does pay off.
Can anyone please convince me I do see this wrong?
Regards Kars
The idea was to allow people who believed that what they were doing was compliant, a season to sort out their engines without losing cars from the grid because they couldn't afford it.
On the tyres situation there was no stock of 145's for at least 4 months this year so we looked for an alternative.It was decided that to make the toyo the sole tyre because then everyone would have the same and there would be no advantage in what stock of old tyres you may still hold.The new tyres should be around1/4 the price of a michelin or firestone so not as big an outlay as it would first appear.
Personally i thought a transition year would have been a good idea,but do 8understand and agree with the reasoning behind not having one.
HTH
Paul
Good evening,
As some one who is building a car for next year I could do with a set of 2010 regs. Could somebody email me a set - please!
Please forward to
[email protected]Thank you
Martin
It will be sometime before the 2010 regs are fully confirmed and approved by the MSA. Email me with the areas you have concerns with.
Philip
Thanks Paul....I do understand the consideration behind this, looking at the bigger picture. I think that we just have bad luck then, being a compliant rookie in 2009 and thereupon being "forced" to invest in filled heads to gain some performance on this for just 1 year. Be notified that in 2010 our aim will be a top ten, so we will adapt! With all the experiences around I am confident you guys can give us some tips on this one ;)
Toyo tyres are indeed 1/3 the price of Michelins and ½ the price of the Firestones....in NL it is a bit easier to get the Michelins I presume. I do have quite some experience with the Toyo's on my semi race road 2cv....beautiful tyre on the dry, but when wet you will dream again of the Michelins ;D Nevertheless, being consistent on rule changes in my opinion it wouldn't be deviant to have a transition year on the tyres as well.....
Looking forward to the definitive regs, so we can prepare for next year Snetterton!!
Kars
I wouldn't start doing anything yet ,at snetterton the filled heads did not perform that well in qualifying.As for the transition on the tyres that has yet to be decided(it is possible we may allow them for the 24hr race only)
Has anyone got a new set of regulations they can put on here?
Go to BARC website and download them from there, they have just been published
http://www.barc.net/competitors/regulations/2CV2010RegsVer01.pdf
So, after months of suggestions that very expensive modified heads were likely to be out for 2010 (or at least by 2011), including a poll on here where 94.4% voted against even a transition year, they are now on.
Most rumours seemed to be hinting at a simpler, cheaper future and we were looking forward to it.
It seemed like common sense to keep costs down and tighten the racing up a bit.
What went wrong?
Are the regs on heads staying that way for 2011?
The rules are set at the agm and there was only 1/4 of the membership there.Those that didn't go will have to follow the desires of those that did.
However the data suggests that the overall results are that the filled ports hold no overall advantage in terms of fastest laps, pole positions and race wins.
The championship was won by non filled heads as was the 24hr race,there were more non filled heads in the top ten at snet than filled ports in qualifying.
To ban filled heads there needs to be a proposal to the board before the 1st of july and a vote passed at the agm
I see what you're saying about AGM attendance, Paul ;), as a non-member/mechanic I have to follow the desires of those that went regardless. I'm just surprised at the outcome on this after so much of the discussion on it seemed to be swinging towards eventually phasing modded heads out and generally trying to even things out.
I was worried that while there might not be an advantage right now, if some teams chose to spend loads on developing them, they may become an expensive necessity for everyone in the long run.