Messages

I think Louis' suggestion is good.

It helps avoid people having to spend on development and is a disincentive to do so, yet costs nothing and requires no substantial mechanical change. It might not be useful but worth a try?

It could also be done this year as is not a technical proposal? Speaking of which, have the technical proposals for this year been published?

Some interesting posts here.

I agree that there needs to be change. I think the cost but also difficulty of acquiring remotely competitive engines is a huge barrier to entry for new people or those who only come out for the 24 hour. A few years ago people could come to the 24 hour with a well setup solex and not be too far off the pace such that if they were reliable they could do well. Now the lap time difference is too great.

Without having heard any strong objections yet, I would be in favour of Louis' suggestion of simply abolishing club class. I realise that this would mean a huge amount of investment would be wasted. However, I fear it would be wasted anyway if there is no grid in five years time.

I suggest that we change the date by which technical proposals must be received so that it falls after the end of the season.

Great photos Maria, great video Chris. I am glad I was not the only one who found 2CVision difficult to get past despite their finishing position!

First couple of hours of my first stint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR6uM1A7pHU

First half an hour of the enduro from my car - I had a great view of the battle for the lead!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSoiZlHC4FA&feature=youtu.be

I second Alec's understanding.

At first Paul's point seemed correct to me. However, having considered a literal meaning of 1.6.2 and its purpose, I think that the current table should stand. Of course the club may dislike the result and wish to change the rule for future years.

First, I dont think 1.6.2 applies to Pete's situation, but it does to Jon and Nick's. Pete did not share 'a' car, he shared two cars. If my memory serves me correctly, in 2011 Paul argued that a rule that said competitors in the 24hr must use a tuff jug meant they could use one tuff jug. To apply that wisdom here, 'a' in 1.6.2 would mean one car. So it does not apply to someone who shares two cars. Jon and Nick shared one car, so they get the points of the person with whom they share the car for points scored in that car.

Second, i think the purpose of 1.6.2. is to cover drivers sharing one car. It allows drivers driving one race to compete in the championship. Drivers competing in two races do not need the protection of the rule. Why should it matter whether someone drives two races in one car or two races in two cars?

I see one argument against this looking at the results of the current situation. Where a winning driver drives two cars, the sharing drivers get an advantage.

So yer, bottom line=i have too much time.