Championship Equivalisation
Discussion
I have a simple question - how can a ride height change only be applicable to certain examples of a make of chassis? Surely, the change should be applied to all Moslers (in this example). I don't even know if James is allowed to make these changes mid season but I suspect he is.
However, I applaud James for trying to do something. It became apparant to me at Snetterton and clear at Brands that with a simple power to weight formula the overriding technical issue is aero efficiency. In this case, the Moslers are a purpose designed car and competitors such as the TVR (and others)have no chance. Take the Viper. It is a front running car in BGT and has two good drivers. Its nowhere in Britcar and that can't be right. I understand it is running closer to the BGT rules than the Moslers and Lambo but if you want to keep the diversity of cars in Britcar something needed to be done.
However, the question in the OP was "is it fair". If I were a Mosler I would say not but for the good of the championship I would say its fundamental - otherwise the only way to win would be to spend £200k on a new car (OK, there are a few secondhand at half that but you get the gist). That may be possible for a few teams but then I would fear for the longevity of the championship. Money is definately going to be tight this year.
Our power to weight has been capped according to the bulletin. Its a shame because during the race we ran conservatively but if James manages to equalise the cars it will be for the best. I just hope that an increase of 20 mm is enough to reduce the ground effects and the change in role centres to bring the Moslers back to the same performance as the rest of the field.
Of course, the other way is to allow a free for all on anything. Now, that might be interesting!!
Cheers,
Richard.
However, I applaud James for trying to do something. It became apparant to me at Snetterton and clear at Brands that with a simple power to weight formula the overriding technical issue is aero efficiency. In this case, the Moslers are a purpose designed car and competitors such as the TVR (and others)have no chance. Take the Viper. It is a front running car in BGT and has two good drivers. Its nowhere in Britcar and that can't be right. I understand it is running closer to the BGT rules than the Moslers and Lambo but if you want to keep the diversity of cars in Britcar something needed to be done.
However, the question in the OP was "is it fair". If I were a Mosler I would say not but for the good of the championship I would say its fundamental - otherwise the only way to win would be to spend £200k on a new car (OK, there are a few secondhand at half that but you get the gist). That may be possible for a few teams but then I would fear for the longevity of the championship. Money is definately going to be tight this year.
Our power to weight has been capped according to the bulletin. Its a shame because during the race we ran conservatively but if James manages to equalise the cars it will be for the best. I just hope that an increase of 20 mm is enough to reduce the ground effects and the change in role centres to bring the Moslers back to the same performance as the rest of the field.
Of course, the other way is to allow a free for all on anything. Now, that might be interesting!!
Cheers,
Richard.
How can he do that?
Raising the rideheight will not only reduce aero efficiency of the floor, but will possibly destroy the suspension. (I dont know this as fact). If you raise a car the rollcentres move. There will be a point at which they suddenly become effectivly uncontrolled, again i dont know where this is on a mosler, but if it is within this 20mm increase the entire suspension arrangement will need to be changed! And obviously this is not allowed in the rules! Hence you could argue that this will make the cars dangerous to drive! Not to mention running out of suspension movement, again i dont know this, but has he checked this will be OK or just guessed?
As stated above, a simple power to weight championship = new cars win! (most of the time) You have to assume that we have a greater understanding of aerodynamics now that we did yesterday, let alone 20 years ago! This equates to cars producing less drag AND more downforce now than yesterday! Therefore new cars will always have an advantage over older cars. Not to mention that the championship has a massive variety of cars, which is GREAT, but it has factory race cars, Moslers, and effectivly modified road cars, Chamberlain, (no offence meant), and so surly a custo race car will have much better CdA than a modified road car. For example, a Mosler has two foot longer wheelbase, and downforce is proportional to area of floor, the same width and half the height! not to mention that the 935 is close to a bluff body (very draggy)! It must be said here i have no bias whatsoever.
I have also read on these forums that the reason a TVR accelerated away from the pack was nothing to do with power but torque. Now, obviously i have no idea whjat power and am not arguing about it. However i am afraid that whomever said it was to do with torque is fundamentally wrong as does not fully understand engine dynamics!
Power = torque * RPM
Therefore it does not matter how much torque you have, it is the same as power! Therfore if the TVR, again i am not picking on it, has massive torque, it cannot rev very high or it will exceed the power limit. And it is POWER that pushes the car not TORQUE. If anyone would like to read up on this please please read (Internal Combustion Fundamentals, Heywood) it is a very easy book to get you head around an explains all of this!
It seems to me that this championship is massivly floored in many aspects of the technical regulations! The method of measuring CdA is a massive 'grey' area!
However, when all is said and done, the championship is doing very well, with AMAZING grids, at the moment! Any attempt to equalise the cars must be good for the racing aspect, but wouldnt success ballast be easier and simpler to enforce?
Raising the rideheight will not only reduce aero efficiency of the floor, but will possibly destroy the suspension. (I dont know this as fact). If you raise a car the rollcentres move. There will be a point at which they suddenly become effectivly uncontrolled, again i dont know where this is on a mosler, but if it is within this 20mm increase the entire suspension arrangement will need to be changed! And obviously this is not allowed in the rules! Hence you could argue that this will make the cars dangerous to drive! Not to mention running out of suspension movement, again i dont know this, but has he checked this will be OK or just guessed?
As stated above, a simple power to weight championship = new cars win! (most of the time) You have to assume that we have a greater understanding of aerodynamics now that we did yesterday, let alone 20 years ago! This equates to cars producing less drag AND more downforce now than yesterday! Therefore new cars will always have an advantage over older cars. Not to mention that the championship has a massive variety of cars, which is GREAT, but it has factory race cars, Moslers, and effectivly modified road cars, Chamberlain, (no offence meant), and so surly a custo race car will have much better CdA than a modified road car. For example, a Mosler has two foot longer wheelbase, and downforce is proportional to area of floor, the same width and half the height! not to mention that the 935 is close to a bluff body (very draggy)! It must be said here i have no bias whatsoever.
I have also read on these forums that the reason a TVR accelerated away from the pack was nothing to do with power but torque. Now, obviously i have no idea whjat power and am not arguing about it. However i am afraid that whomever said it was to do with torque is fundamentally wrong as does not fully understand engine dynamics!
Power = torque * RPM
Therefore it does not matter how much torque you have, it is the same as power! Therfore if the TVR, again i am not picking on it, has massive torque, it cannot rev very high or it will exceed the power limit. And it is POWER that pushes the car not TORQUE. If anyone would like to read up on this please please read (Internal Combustion Fundamentals, Heywood) it is a very easy book to get you head around an explains all of this!
It seems to me that this championship is massivly floored in many aspects of the technical regulations! The method of measuring CdA is a massive 'grey' area!
However, when all is said and done, the championship is doing very well, with AMAZING grids, at the moment! Any attempt to equalise the cars must be good for the racing aspect, but wouldnt success ballast be easier and simpler to enforce?
Matt1300, youre points are well made but sometimes miss the target.
A large V8 will have great gobs of torque and it is torque that accelerates the car, not power. Its power that pushes it through the air but coming away from a slow corner the V8 cars have an enormous advantage. We have to wait for our turbos to spool and smaller wengined cars without massive torque have to rely on gearing. OK, we can always use a lower gear but that is not convenient in many cases.
However, I agree about the aero efficency point. Our car has had a lot of aero work and does produce some downforce (not as much as people may think) but at a cost. It is draggy and as you correctly state it is almost a bluff body! There is nothing we can do about that unless we change the car. Certainly, I would expect the Moslers CdA to be far smaller than ours and I suggest it is this that gives it the advantage.
I suppose its down to how James sees the future. At the moment he has good grids with some wonderful machinery. If he wants to promote Britcar as being the "up market" BGT then he needs to keep the Moslers, attract more Lambos, even a Maser MC10 (!!) and forget about the people with the older cars; V8 Star, TVR, Marcos and us as we will not be able to compete. If he wants to keep the field as is then he must do something to equalise the field. He has chosen to slow the Moslers (or at least two of them (and I really can't understand this point)) by increasing their ride height. Hopefully this will slow them but we must all understand it is not a simple task of screwing up the spring platforms by 20 mm and going out to play. This is a fundamental change and I don't know how they will react.
I wait to see how the two affected teams will react. I hope they stay with us.
Richard
A large V8 will have great gobs of torque and it is torque that accelerates the car, not power. Its power that pushes it through the air but coming away from a slow corner the V8 cars have an enormous advantage. We have to wait for our turbos to spool and smaller wengined cars without massive torque have to rely on gearing. OK, we can always use a lower gear but that is not convenient in many cases.
However, I agree about the aero efficency point. Our car has had a lot of aero work and does produce some downforce (not as much as people may think) but at a cost. It is draggy and as you correctly state it is almost a bluff body! There is nothing we can do about that unless we change the car. Certainly, I would expect the Moslers CdA to be far smaller than ours and I suggest it is this that gives it the advantage.
I suppose its down to how James sees the future. At the moment he has good grids with some wonderful machinery. If he wants to promote Britcar as being the "up market" BGT then he needs to keep the Moslers, attract more Lambos, even a Maser MC10 (!!) and forget about the people with the older cars; V8 Star, TVR, Marcos and us as we will not be able to compete. If he wants to keep the field as is then he must do something to equalise the field. He has chosen to slow the Moslers (or at least two of them (and I really can't understand this point)) by increasing their ride height. Hopefully this will slow them but we must all understand it is not a simple task of screwing up the spring platforms by 20 mm and going out to play. This is a fundamental change and I don't know how they will react.
I wait to see how the two affected teams will react. I hope they stay with us.
Richard
matt1300 said:
I have also read on these forums that the reason a TVR accelerated away from the pack was nothing to do with power but torque. Now, obviously i have no idea whjat power and am not arguing about it. However i am afraid that whomever said it was to do with torque is fundamentally wrong as does not fully understand engine dynamics!
That comment was made by me: I speculated that the TVR may pull away out of corners due to its torque - it was not a statement of fact and it would be wrong to suggest it was.I don't think I need to expand further on Richard's explanation re torque
I'm nowhere near Richard's level of knowledge & expertise on this subject, so excuse me if the point I make misses the mark.
I talked ride heights with the guys at Ginetta once - the conversation coming about through discussions regarding equalising the G50 & the Aston N24 in BGT. Ginetta were being asked to consider raising their ride heights - but the argument coming back being that even if it were possible to increase the ride height to the required level, Ginetta had never tested a car with these settings and so would have no idea on how it would drive - it may very well be dangerous.
My point being does anyone know whether a Mosler has run at 60mm & what impact it had? And why wasn't weight just added?
Like Richard, I welcome some feedback from Britcar on the whole equalisation matter, and hope the teams views were sought before decisions made public. We now await Class 2 findings/decisions with interest.
I talked ride heights with the guys at Ginetta once - the conversation coming about through discussions regarding equalising the G50 & the Aston N24 in BGT. Ginetta were being asked to consider raising their ride heights - but the argument coming back being that even if it were possible to increase the ride height to the required level, Ginetta had never tested a car with these settings and so would have no idea on how it would drive - it may very well be dangerous.
My point being does anyone know whether a Mosler has run at 60mm & what impact it had? And why wasn't weight just added?
Like Richard, I welcome some feedback from Britcar on the whole equalisation matter, and hope the teams views were sought before decisions made public. We now await Class 2 findings/decisions with interest.
I think my point abut power has been misinterpretted.
I understand that torque accelerates a car away from a corner, but it is my understanding that the Britcar starts are roling starts therefore approx 100mph ish, and at this speed it is POWER not torque that is the driving factor. Yes from a standing start/slow cornewr torque is the thing to have, and i would agree that having a high torque car may be easier to drive as it may be more forgiving!
http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html
There are also some links from this site to others
I understand that torque accelerates a car away from a corner, but it is my understanding that the Britcar starts are roling starts therefore approx 100mph ish, and at this speed it is POWER not torque that is the driving factor. Yes from a standing start/slow cornewr torque is the thing to have, and i would agree that having a high torque car may be easier to drive as it may be more forgiving!
http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html
There are also some links from this site to others
Fair?
... I think it's fair to try to do something about the performance gulf between the Class 1 cars. Whether or not these measures are correct, or will work, is another question.
Some simple observations:
1. Is the ride height policed? - see the various picture galleries, I think the evidence is clear!
2. Are weights being policed this year? - they certainly haven't in the past.
3. The regulations appear to change to suit the latest cars on the grids - initially cars had to run the H pattern gearbox! I still have a copy of those somewhere.
I appreciate that these things have to change in an evolving series, which clearly has become very succesful - all credit to James & co for that. In my opinion, what it needs now that it has championship status, is a set of sensible, stable regulations, which are policed.
What isn't sensible at present, is a huge performance difference between the front runners, and the Class 2 cars, (which I see as a potential safety issue), and the inter-class 1 differential, which, I suggest, could well see some cars departing the series.
... I think it's fair to try to do something about the performance gulf between the Class 1 cars. Whether or not these measures are correct, or will work, is another question.
Some simple observations:
1. Is the ride height policed? - see the various picture galleries, I think the evidence is clear!
2. Are weights being policed this year? - they certainly haven't in the past.
3. The regulations appear to change to suit the latest cars on the grids - initially cars had to run the H pattern gearbox! I still have a copy of those somewhere.
I appreciate that these things have to change in an evolving series, which clearly has become very succesful - all credit to James & co for that. In my opinion, what it needs now that it has championship status, is a set of sensible, stable regulations, which are policed.
What isn't sensible at present, is a huge performance difference between the front runners, and the Class 2 cars, (which I see as a potential safety issue), and the inter-class 1 differential, which, I suggest, could well see some cars departing the series.
I've just heard from my Dad that he's pulled out of Britcar with the GTR. I'm gutted.
From having spoken to quite a few team managers and drivers over the weekend at Brands, it seems there is a consensus that something needs to change in Class 1. JT has recently declared that they'll increase the ride height of the Moslers by 2cm, as being discussed above this post, and that 6 seconds covers the top 20 in Class 1. In qualifying at Brands *excluding the bottom 3* Class 1 runners, it was actually 8 seconds.
Is it just me or is this situation still not acceptable for a proper level playing field for Class 1? 6 seconds is a massive gap for a single class. Sean McInerney is no slow-coach, but then neither are we I don't think, and we were 5 seconds off the Mosler pace around Brands GP. We developed our car specifically the regs of Britcar a year or 2 ago.
The problem we have is our commercial sponsors and clients do not understand why we are racing the GTR, at great expense, without a fair chance at going for a win or even finishing on the podium for our class ?
To me (and surely to everyone else at Brands the other weekend and at Snet) it is apparent there is a Super Class in Class 1 which includes the Moslers. There's just a handful of cars that are significantly quicker than everyone else. The power-to-weight limit has been set very high to allow these cars into class 1 - which admittedly I can understand, they raise the profile of Britcar which is great for everyone. However, this means that the majority of Class 1, the 911 GT3s, 360s / 430s, BMW V8s, cannot compete on a level playing field. JT would argue that over 24 hours the true GT3-spec cars would have a fuel advantage, but that's one race out of 9 or 10! Of which the majority are just 2 hours or maximum of 4 hours.
We tried to go down to Class 2 on the Friday of the Brands GP weekend by restricting our revs to 5500 (from 7500), cutting our power by over 130bhp, and it was fairly hopeless...we hit top speed as we came out of Clearways! (Towards the end of the session we derestricted the revs, hence our good laptime that session). Ok, maybe a longer diff would help, but the gap between class 1's PtW regs and class 2's is huge. There is no where to go for Class *1.5* cars....(the original Class 1 for the last 6 years).
With the significant amount of dosh we all spent purchasing and developing our cars, race support etc and paying for ever increasing race entry fees, we believe this situation is unacceptable and not sustainable for a healthy championship.
I understand that the spirit of Britcar is endurance racing, not sprint, and that fuel efficiency should be a major factor. But the fact is that most races are no more than 120 minutes, we've just had two 50 minutes races at Brands! And with all Class 1 cars having to stop for the same number of times, fuel efficiency has no effect on the outcome of those races...really it's just the 24hr. Part of creating a new Super Class 1 would be that this class should have to stop more times than the new Class 2 ....or reduce their fuel tank capacity perhaps.
Richard's suggestion of a free of all in Class 1 would then be fair enough if the true GT3 cars had their own class...but surely we can't continue to remain in the same class as the Moslers etc ?
Power to weight is not the whole story either with the Moslers. They are fundamentally against the original spirit of the concept of Britcar which was *production* cars was it not? These are arguably not production cars, but race cars for the road (how many road cars have actually been sold? I bet more race cars sold than road cars!). They have significant aero and downforce gains that the BMWs, Ferraris and Porsches will never have. Increasing the ride-height may help this, but not by any significant amount ? What do people think ?
There is a simple solution. Create another class for the true GT3 spec cars. A new Class 2 - and move the other classes down. Leave the Moslers etc to battle in their own class. Although the PtW of Class 1 has been set very high indeed, I'm not suggesting a reduction in this PtW level, though I think this option should be considered. Add a bit of weight (within sensible levels) cut the revs a bit and it will slow them down quite a bit?
Does anyone agree ? What are people's thoughts on this ?
There's a possibility this may happen for next year, but from JT's email it seems he's set on leaving the PtW and Class structure as is for 2009 - but this is such a major issue for most Class 1 runners that it needs urgent attention in my humble opinion.
Isn't about time a Britcar Drivers / Team Association was created ?
Matt Seldon
From having spoken to quite a few team managers and drivers over the weekend at Brands, it seems there is a consensus that something needs to change in Class 1. JT has recently declared that they'll increase the ride height of the Moslers by 2cm, as being discussed above this post, and that 6 seconds covers the top 20 in Class 1. In qualifying at Brands *excluding the bottom 3* Class 1 runners, it was actually 8 seconds.
Is it just me or is this situation still not acceptable for a proper level playing field for Class 1? 6 seconds is a massive gap for a single class. Sean McInerney is no slow-coach, but then neither are we I don't think, and we were 5 seconds off the Mosler pace around Brands GP. We developed our car specifically the regs of Britcar a year or 2 ago.
The problem we have is our commercial sponsors and clients do not understand why we are racing the GTR, at great expense, without a fair chance at going for a win or even finishing on the podium for our class ?
To me (and surely to everyone else at Brands the other weekend and at Snet) it is apparent there is a Super Class in Class 1 which includes the Moslers. There's just a handful of cars that are significantly quicker than everyone else. The power-to-weight limit has been set very high to allow these cars into class 1 - which admittedly I can understand, they raise the profile of Britcar which is great for everyone. However, this means that the majority of Class 1, the 911 GT3s, 360s / 430s, BMW V8s, cannot compete on a level playing field. JT would argue that over 24 hours the true GT3-spec cars would have a fuel advantage, but that's one race out of 9 or 10! Of which the majority are just 2 hours or maximum of 4 hours.
We tried to go down to Class 2 on the Friday of the Brands GP weekend by restricting our revs to 5500 (from 7500), cutting our power by over 130bhp, and it was fairly hopeless...we hit top speed as we came out of Clearways! (Towards the end of the session we derestricted the revs, hence our good laptime that session). Ok, maybe a longer diff would help, but the gap between class 1's PtW regs and class 2's is huge. There is no where to go for Class *1.5* cars....(the original Class 1 for the last 6 years).
With the significant amount of dosh we all spent purchasing and developing our cars, race support etc and paying for ever increasing race entry fees, we believe this situation is unacceptable and not sustainable for a healthy championship.
I understand that the spirit of Britcar is endurance racing, not sprint, and that fuel efficiency should be a major factor. But the fact is that most races are no more than 120 minutes, we've just had two 50 minutes races at Brands! And with all Class 1 cars having to stop for the same number of times, fuel efficiency has no effect on the outcome of those races...really it's just the 24hr. Part of creating a new Super Class 1 would be that this class should have to stop more times than the new Class 2 ....or reduce their fuel tank capacity perhaps.
Richard's suggestion of a free of all in Class 1 would then be fair enough if the true GT3 cars had their own class...but surely we can't continue to remain in the same class as the Moslers etc ?
Power to weight is not the whole story either with the Moslers. They are fundamentally against the original spirit of the concept of Britcar which was *production* cars was it not? These are arguably not production cars, but race cars for the road (how many road cars have actually been sold? I bet more race cars sold than road cars!). They have significant aero and downforce gains that the BMWs, Ferraris and Porsches will never have. Increasing the ride-height may help this, but not by any significant amount ? What do people think ?
There is a simple solution. Create another class for the true GT3 spec cars. A new Class 2 - and move the other classes down. Leave the Moslers etc to battle in their own class. Although the PtW of Class 1 has been set very high indeed, I'm not suggesting a reduction in this PtW level, though I think this option should be considered. Add a bit of weight (within sensible levels) cut the revs a bit and it will slow them down quite a bit?
Does anyone agree ? What are people's thoughts on this ?
There's a possibility this may happen for next year, but from JT's email it seems he's set on leaving the PtW and Class structure as is for 2009 - but this is such a major issue for most Class 1 runners that it needs urgent attention in my humble opinion.
Isn't about time a Britcar Drivers / Team Association was created ?
Matt Seldon
I just want to clarify my point on torque! Torque and power are essentialy the same thing as there is a direct link between them. Its power that accelerates as power is the rate of torque. A high torque engine will be easier to drive than a high revving low torque engine and will thus gain an advantage there. So, torque effects drivability.
As for policing the rules there has been a step improvement. Cars are weighed and data loggers are being checked (you know my position here) but ride height can only be checked under static conditions. Who remembers the F1 rule of the 80's and hydralic level devices etc etc? I think success ballast would be worth a try as it leaves the fundamental car dynamics alone but adds a penalty. If its good enough for the BTCC .......
Richard
As for policing the rules there has been a step improvement. Cars are weighed and data loggers are being checked (you know my position here) but ride height can only be checked under static conditions. Who remembers the F1 rule of the 80's and hydralic level devices etc etc? I think success ballast would be worth a try as it leaves the fundamental car dynamics alone but adds a penalty. If its good enough for the BTCC .......
Richard
I have not been to a Britcar event so far this year but I would have thought the greatest potential for disaster must now be the ever increasing differential opened up between the front running cars and those in Classes 3 and 4. Why does James not take those class 3 and 4 runners out for a separate series of longer races with refuelling which should bring many like myself back who are currently sitting things out with nowhere to go?
I cannot imagine that a two hour race round the Brands Indy Circuit with the predomination of really quick cars will be much fun in the smaller class cars.....let alone at night later on in the year.
Don.
I cannot imagine that a two hour race round the Brands Indy Circuit with the predomination of really quick cars will be much fun in the smaller class cars.....let alone at night later on in the year.
Don.
Matt, I feel for you and I can be fairly certain you will not be the only ones to leave.
Like you, we developed our car to suit the Britcar regulations. We are bang on the power to weight but we are miles off with aero efficiency. As you say, there is nothing we can do with cars like ours to try and compete against the Moslers (and has anyone stopped to think what comes after the Mosler - some one will up the anti). I am not against the Mosler (I would love to be able to own and drive one and it does seem unfair to mitigate against it just because it is so good) but I have to face facts, our car has been effectively outclassed by a thoroughbred racing car. Its no disgrace but we go racing to win, not to come second (or fifth or whatever)! Another issue we have to face is that we are nowhere in the ecomony stakes. We have an air cooled turbocharged engine so the regulations do not allow us to be competitive in any race over 2 hours. Our choice I accept but it must be borne in mind.
As I said above, its all down to the EERC. If they want cars like the BMWs, the TVR, the Marcos and ours then they need to give us a break. If they want the quodos of the Moslers, the Lambos etc then they have arrived - for the time being!
Costs are ever on the increase and we have to look at value for money. Are we going to continue to spend £1000s to come a poor fifth after a heroic drive? I suggest not for too much longer but I am relieved that James understands something is wrong. Maybe, just maybe he will fix it; afterall he has the opportunity to do so!
Richard.
Like you, we developed our car to suit the Britcar regulations. We are bang on the power to weight but we are miles off with aero efficiency. As you say, there is nothing we can do with cars like ours to try and compete against the Moslers (and has anyone stopped to think what comes after the Mosler - some one will up the anti). I am not against the Mosler (I would love to be able to own and drive one and it does seem unfair to mitigate against it just because it is so good) but I have to face facts, our car has been effectively outclassed by a thoroughbred racing car. Its no disgrace but we go racing to win, not to come second (or fifth or whatever)! Another issue we have to face is that we are nowhere in the ecomony stakes. We have an air cooled turbocharged engine so the regulations do not allow us to be competitive in any race over 2 hours. Our choice I accept but it must be borne in mind.
As I said above, its all down to the EERC. If they want cars like the BMWs, the TVR, the Marcos and ours then they need to give us a break. If they want the quodos of the Moslers, the Lambos etc then they have arrived - for the time being!
Costs are ever on the increase and we have to look at value for money. Are we going to continue to spend £1000s to come a poor fifth after a heroic drive? I suggest not for too much longer but I am relieved that James understands something is wrong. Maybe, just maybe he will fix it; afterall he has the opportunity to do so!
Richard.
"With the significant amount of dosh we all spent purchasing and developing our cars, race support etc and paying for ever increasing race entry fees, we believe this situation is unacceptable and not sustainable for a healthy championship"
That is very well put, and although I have made a much smaller investment than your Dad has with my Class 3/4 Volvo we have both invested for the very same historic reasons.
I decided to sit out much of this season from the start and now your Dad has made a somewhat similar decision.
Maybe the formation of a Britcar Driver/Entrant entity might be really usefull....maybe even going back to the original fine Britcar concept of JT's, but with our own series for next year.....I would be well up for that.
Any interest in a preliminary get together sometime soon? I can spare some time and would be prepared to put some money in the pot.
Don.
That is very well put, and although I have made a much smaller investment than your Dad has with my Class 3/4 Volvo we have both invested for the very same historic reasons.
I decided to sit out much of this season from the start and now your Dad has made a somewhat similar decision.
Maybe the formation of a Britcar Driver/Entrant entity might be really usefull....maybe even going back to the original fine Britcar concept of JT's, but with our own series for next year.....I would be well up for that.
Any interest in a preliminary get together sometime soon? I can spare some time and would be prepared to put some money in the pot.
Don.
Edited by don kalmar union on Tuesday 13th May 13:44
Edited by don kalmar union on Tuesday 13th May 13:45
935 said:
I suppose its down to how James sees the future. At the moment he has good grids with some wonderful machinery. If he wants to promote Britcar as being the "up market" BGT then he needs to keep the Moslers, attract more Lambos, even a Maser MC10 (!!) and forget about the people with the older cars; V8 Star, TVR, Marcos and us as we will not be able to compete. If he wants to keep the field as is then he must do something to equalise the field. He has chosen to slow the Moslers (or at least two of them (and I really can't understand this point)) by increasing their ride height. Hopefully this will slow them but we must all understand it is not a simple task of screwing up the spring platforms by 20 mm and going out to play. This is a fundamental change and I don't know how they will react.
I wait to see how the two affected teams will react. I hope they stay with us.
Richard
Perhaps the Moslers, Lambos, Maserati MC 10 etc etc should be encouraged to enter BRITSPORTS, whilst the remaining Class 1 & 2 cars carry on in BRITCAR. Class 3 & 4 could be merged with PS1 (if the relevant entry sizes justified it). I wait to see how the two affected teams will react. I hope they stay with us.
Richard
As usual we will not know until the very start of next season what JT decides to do. If he did make clear his complete and finalplan for next year quite soon I would be surprised but very content.
It is my view that the paying public's interest in longer races does not have that good a time span, certainly below the likes of Le Mans and other world renowned events, so they will be more attracted to a mixed menu of traditional shorter sprint races and maybe just the one Enduro in any one day.....again back to the earlier Britcar format.
Also to be taken into account is that the long day's work needed to run the longer distance cars with more kit, crew, refuelling stocks and equipment means that for just one Enduro race's field to occupy the pit all day is reasonable and neccessary.
Don.
It is my view that the paying public's interest in longer races does not have that good a time span, certainly below the likes of Le Mans and other world renowned events, so they will be more attracted to a mixed menu of traditional shorter sprint races and maybe just the one Enduro in any one day.....again back to the earlier Britcar format.
Also to be taken into account is that the long day's work needed to run the longer distance cars with more kit, crew, refuelling stocks and equipment means that for just one Enduro race's field to occupy the pit all day is reasonable and neccessary.
Don.
Edited by don kalmar union on Tuesday 13th May 14:43
As they stand the rules for class 1 probably aren`t wrong for all the top cars in the class. The problem is I still don`t believe that all the cars are running at 2.7 kg per bhp.
I did have a little chuckle to myself as I watched the TV coverage from Silverstone. One of the teams was complaining that the throttle response from their Mosler was all or nothing, no gradual rise as you applied the gas due to a problem. "700 bhp on tap all or nothing is a bit hairy as you might imagine" quoted the owner / driver.
Now I`m no engineer so forgive my fag packet calculations :
700bhp at the flywheel, 15% transmission loss (I actually think you ought to do a bit better than this but let`s stick with it for now).
600bhp at the wheels. Multiplied by 2.7 gives 1620kg. Less 90kg for driver gives 1,530kg dry weight.
So, can anyone out there enlighten me, does a Mosler weigh 1,530 in it`s underpants ?
There is a definite problem in class 1 with cars like the BMW, the 997 GT3 & so on totally out of contention. What`s needed is for class 2 to include cars like these. My own car, an earlier 996 GT3 would then be demoted to class 3, possibly with the addition of some weight or control on engine power. At the moment we can squeeze 390bhp out of the car which weighs in a 1,200kg dry. Current class 3 regs from memory are 4.2kg / bhp. If we ran at 370bhp that would be 1,323kg at 4.2/hp less a driver of 90kg and we`re 1,233kg min weight. That`s easily achieved with no significant loss of handling.
At the moment in Porsche terms James has a big problem. We held off running a 997 GT3 this year because I knew it would be totally out of class but he must remember in terms of sheer number of cars out there the 997 version of the GT3 is the current model and there are an ever growing number of them available to be raced, the number of 996 GT3`s is dwindling by the year as cars get destroyed.
Just the views of a simple country boy who still thinks a good old fashioned rolling road and a set of scales would answer lots of questions and keep tabs on both performance & cost.
Henry
I did have a little chuckle to myself as I watched the TV coverage from Silverstone. One of the teams was complaining that the throttle response from their Mosler was all or nothing, no gradual rise as you applied the gas due to a problem. "700 bhp on tap all or nothing is a bit hairy as you might imagine" quoted the owner / driver.
Now I`m no engineer so forgive my fag packet calculations :
700bhp at the flywheel, 15% transmission loss (I actually think you ought to do a bit better than this but let`s stick with it for now).
600bhp at the wheels. Multiplied by 2.7 gives 1620kg. Less 90kg for driver gives 1,530kg dry weight.
So, can anyone out there enlighten me, does a Mosler weigh 1,530 in it`s underpants ?
There is a definite problem in class 1 with cars like the BMW, the 997 GT3 & so on totally out of contention. What`s needed is for class 2 to include cars like these. My own car, an earlier 996 GT3 would then be demoted to class 3, possibly with the addition of some weight or control on engine power. At the moment we can squeeze 390bhp out of the car which weighs in a 1,200kg dry. Current class 3 regs from memory are 4.2kg / bhp. If we ran at 370bhp that would be 1,323kg at 4.2/hp less a driver of 90kg and we`re 1,233kg min weight. That`s easily achieved with no significant loss of handling.
At the moment in Porsche terms James has a big problem. We held off running a 997 GT3 this year because I knew it would be totally out of class but he must remember in terms of sheer number of cars out there the 997 version of the GT3 is the current model and there are an ever growing number of them available to be raced, the number of 996 GT3`s is dwindling by the year as cars get destroyed.
Just the views of a simple country boy who still thinks a good old fashioned rolling road and a set of scales would answer lots of questions and keep tabs on both performance & cost.
Henry
Henry - I've just looked on the Mosler Europe website. The specification for the MT900R shows some interesting data:
Power Output - up to 640BHP
Dry Weight - 1200kg
Using your calculations, and the above numbers, they would appear to be 158.8kg's under weight.
The MT900GT3 spec shows a restricted power output of 520BHP. Perhaps more like, but how many are running GT3 spec I wonder? Not many are listed in the Britcar programmes as GT3's.
... just noticed - the Mosler Challenge GT3 spec shows 570 BHP.
As Don says - fabulous cars, but I agree with Matt - not exactly within the original spirit of Britcar.
Power Output - up to 640BHP
Dry Weight - 1200kg
Using your calculations, and the above numbers, they would appear to be 158.8kg's under weight.
The MT900GT3 spec shows a restricted power output of 520BHP. Perhaps more like, but how many are running GT3 spec I wonder? Not many are listed in the Britcar programmes as GT3's.
... just noticed - the Mosler Challenge GT3 spec shows 570 BHP.
As Don says - fabulous cars, but I agree with Matt - not exactly within the original spirit of Britcar.
Edited by SteveG2 on Tuesday 13th May 17:06
There seems some confusion as the Mosler website shows a 5.7 litre car, aren`t the ones that race in Britcar 7.0 litres ? The website also shows the restrictor as reducing power by 100bhp on the 5.7 litre engine, presumably the cars in Britcar won`t be bothering with all that nonsense and will just be running unrestricted.
I`m no expert on these matters so I will happily stand to be corrected.
I had been thinking there was a problem whilst at Brands, it`s all well & good for people to go out and have some fun but I do think they should feel they are in with a fighting chance of winning something if the driver line up is good enough.
As for 6 or 8 seconds dividing a class time-wise I do think that sounds a lot. I`d have thought 2-3 seconds would be nearer the mark. Certainly whenever we race on a circuit we know well there are always a group of our competition within a second or two, usually 3 or 4 cars within the same second.
I do hope the issue can be resolved as the spirit of Britcar is great, this season things seem to have moved on at the front a huge amount and I wonder if that`s a good thing or not, certainly the old finances take a pounding if you want to compete at the pointy end these days.
Henry
I`m no expert on these matters so I will happily stand to be corrected.
I had been thinking there was a problem whilst at Brands, it`s all well & good for people to go out and have some fun but I do think they should feel they are in with a fighting chance of winning something if the driver line up is good enough.
As for 6 or 8 seconds dividing a class time-wise I do think that sounds a lot. I`d have thought 2-3 seconds would be nearer the mark. Certainly whenever we race on a circuit we know well there are always a group of our competition within a second or two, usually 3 or 4 cars within the same second.
I do hope the issue can be resolved as the spirit of Britcar is great, this season things seem to have moved on at the front a huge amount and I wonder if that`s a good thing or not, certainly the old finances take a pounding if you want to compete at the pointy end these days.
Henry
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff