I
have to make it plain that the following represents the unregulated thoughts of
Simon Woodall. The ACTC Council representatives
are seeing this at the same time as you and it should therefore not be
considered to be official ACTC Policy.
They are my thoughts, put down in the hope of provoking some discussion
and getting the ball of change rolling assuming competitors and organisers think it needs changing.
They are reproduced here in the Blog so that people who do not subscribe
to Restart can join in the discussion.
(And realise what they are missing by not subscribing!)
Is it time for a change of viewpoint in our technical regulations?
We have a rule which states (roughly) that you can change the engine for one which is of the same manufacture and configuration as the original. This was originally written to allow the use of pre-crossflow 1500 Ford engines into 100E’s – a very popular rallying mod in the 1960’s. It was then picked up by the Class 6 VW fraternity to fit “Type 4” engines and more recently to replace older Ford units with Zetec and Duratec engines to take advantage of modern engine management systems. I’ve always been a supporter of these mods in the past, as I think that many of our competitors derive some of their pleasure from the modifying and fettling of their vehicles (even those that just have the ideas but don’t do the work themselves). This is great for those in the sport, but I’m starting to feel that it is causing a gap between the current contender and the newcomer which is getting harder and harder to close. Is it time therefore to step back from this position and to insist that we go back to original engines? Easy to say, but not quite so easy to implement. We have to consider those that have spent money engineering a car within the rules which might not now be legal. We have to consider that whilst reducing the level of modification that can be done to a production car makes it easier for the newcomer in his near standard machine, it also risks extending the gap between Class 8 and the production classes at a time when consideration needs to be given to reining in the performance of that class. There was a time when Class 4 was considered to be the “starter” class, - buy a cheap Beetle, turn up and have a go with not too many restarts to worry about - but now it requires the use of a fairly sophisticated engine to get anywhere. Maybe this class too needs reining in?
The trick with rules is to identify where you want to go, and then to try to write the rule plugging as many of the loop holes that you can, and if necessary compromising the end target to achieve the greatest gain.
Is it time for a change of viewpoint in our technical regulations?
We have a rule which states (roughly) that you can change the engine for one which is of the same manufacture and configuration as the original. This was originally written to allow the use of pre-crossflow 1500 Ford engines into 100E’s – a very popular rallying mod in the 1960’s. It was then picked up by the Class 6 VW fraternity to fit “Type 4” engines and more recently to replace older Ford units with Zetec and Duratec engines to take advantage of modern engine management systems. I’ve always been a supporter of these mods in the past, as I think that many of our competitors derive some of their pleasure from the modifying and fettling of their vehicles (even those that just have the ideas but don’t do the work themselves). This is great for those in the sport, but I’m starting to feel that it is causing a gap between the current contender and the newcomer which is getting harder and harder to close. Is it time therefore to step back from this position and to insist that we go back to original engines? Easy to say, but not quite so easy to implement. We have to consider those that have spent money engineering a car within the rules which might not now be legal. We have to consider that whilst reducing the level of modification that can be done to a production car makes it easier for the newcomer in his near standard machine, it also risks extending the gap between Class 8 and the production classes at a time when consideration needs to be given to reining in the performance of that class. There was a time when Class 4 was considered to be the “starter” class, - buy a cheap Beetle, turn up and have a go with not too many restarts to worry about - but now it requires the use of a fairly sophisticated engine to get anywhere. Maybe this class too needs reining in?
The trick with rules is to identify where you want to go, and then to try to write the rule plugging as many of the loop holes that you can, and if necessary compromising the end target to achieve the greatest gain.
This
is my (possibly too radical for some) target.
It is written as ideas not hard and fast rules and some things will probably
have to go by the board when we try to turn ideas into print :-
Class 1 - No
immediate changes, certainly no approval of ATB diff’s
Class
2 - I see no immediate need for change,
but the current class structure does include the word production. Should we be looking more closely at
bodywork changes?
Class
3 - A return to Kent/Pinto/TwinCam
engines in Escorts; Removal of the Type
9 Gearboxes
Class
4 - Single Carburettor Engines only;
Imp variants up to 925cc on 12” wheels; Skodas up to 1400cc
Class
5 - a) No immediate change, but we need
to be aware that some of the Scimitars are sporting Zetec engines and therefore
any change to what happens in Class 3 may have a knock on effect on them.
b) Allow postwar engines in otherwise standard Class 2 cars. This would allow a Reliant or A-Series engine in an Austin 7 for example.
b) Allow postwar engines in otherwise standard Class 2 cars. This would allow a Reliant or A-Series engine in an Austin 7 for example.
Class
6 - No Type 4 Engines in Beetles; Imp variants over 925cc, allowed to run 13”
wheels
Class
7 - With the points system to define
where a “Modified Beyond” become a Class 8 special this class should not need
further amendment
Class
8 - As this remains a free formula
class in technical terms I can see no sensible way of controlling their
performance by technical means. This
has to be down to Clerks of Course to use the options at their disposal. A subject for another column!
There are lots of tricky bits in these
ideas. I’ve always believed that there
is little point in banning something if you cannot scrutineer it. I don’t want to get into a situation where
people have to take their cars to be scrutineered (and sealed) prior to an
event. Competitors always seem
reluctant to protest vehicles, and even those competitors who prefer the quiet
word in a officials ear can sometimes be reluctant to actually name and
shame. John Blakeley has been obliged
to step back from his impressive performance of being at every event, and the
first couple of events this autumn suggest that the appointment of a club
scrutineer is a return to the dark ages of 20 years ago. With no standardisation, no feedback and
certainly no hope of understanding a radically new technical formula.
There are my ideas for the future out in the
open. Now it’s down to competitors and
organisers to discus them and pull them apart.
Time for logbooks?
ReplyDelete