All

I am going to propose that this Forum stream has run its course.
We had a very well attended drivers meeting and have democratically decided on the regs for 2017. Everyone had their chance to propose anything or speak.
Let's now see how it goes next year. Then the time for further debate is as we prepare for next year's drivers meeting.
Good luck to all drivers - whether they are CSP1,2 or 3.

Pete

I was asking the question, and not making a point.

Apologies for not attending the meeting, would there be any worth in relaying some of the major points to those not able to attend, perhaps they are noted somewhere ?

A bike engine to 1600, is this to get a reliable 200bhp?

440kg, the advantage to lighter engined cars being weight placed strategically?


"I have detected no bias against motorcycle engined cars", ....havent you?

So the ethos of both car types being of the same minimum weight is, BEC can achieve the same engine power and seq box as a CEC but for less cash? and the weight minimum enabling more structural bracing and safety protection to be utilized?

Excuse my interest and favor of debate, but i'd like to get a reasonable picture of the class and if my project is worth carrying on with.

Your correct they are in different classes but it shows the weight considerations to each discipline.

Can someone advise where i should safely place the extra weight please, lots of chat but no answers ?!

Sam, I'm no engineer, but if it was me I would investigate the feasibility of "simply" bolting a one piece thin steel plate of the appropriate weight along and across the whole of the floor, so that the C of G is as low as possible.

You then have a car with the same weight and power as most people in the class but what you lose in torque, you should gain in handling and in the benefits of the sequential 'box (which I'm sure the vast majority won't have).

Might even add something to the chassis rigidity.

Andy,

Thanks for the ideas, i was thinking along the same lines. Only issue is 70-90kg of steel plate will have to be secured with small dia high tensile bolts, to minimize the hole in the chassis tube so as not to compromise the tube properties and mechanics, unless welded or brazed in sections.

100mph to 0 for example of deceleration acting upon these bolts in an impact situation would be considerable.

The lower the CoG, as pointed out, would assume more mechanical grip? more mechanical grip and lower torque.....set-up needs to be changed.

See you next year

Sam,

Pete's correct, The regs ARE decided for 2017, but as a Proto rep I disagree that this means that the discussion should stop until the next drivers meeting. I'm happy to have an ongoing conversation, but when the increased cc was proposed and agreed at the meeting, there was no suggestion from either of the current BEC-interested parties that they felt the weight was a significant handicap. If it proves to be the case, then it's obviously something that can be looked at, but we're not going to do that without hard evidence.

With regard to your car, are you really saying that a bike-engined mk27 can get down to 350kg? That's over 70kilos lighter than the lightest of the Rover-engined cars. Is your engine made of feathers?

The discussion around increasing weight was very much concerned with allowing/encouraging safety improvements to be made, so I'd be interested to know what you have on your car in terms of side/rear impact protection. We're all looking for lightweight and effective solutions, so if you have any ideas that you could share with the rest of us, they'd be more than welcome.

I'm with you Sunroof as one of the Proto reps. I'm sure Steve as the other will be too. The communication between all interested parties should continue rather than be censored (unless it is abusive) or closed down. I am sure those are Brian Jordan's criteria as this is his website anyway.

The increase to 1600cc as you say was to facilitate Wyd's intention to run a hill climb engine they already had in order to save cost in the (re)construction of his Vision. He proposed 1600, we voted, simple as that and no more nor less scientific.

In similar vein as stated elsewhere in this thread- we originally allowed the 1300cc BE to accommodate the development in play of Peter Burnham and Martin Covill - the car that raced again this year at Silverstone Int'l. On the basis that the BHP is limited to 200, then it is actually difficult to argue against any particular capacity of either BE or CE if it is 4 cylinders which in some ways will limit achievable torque.

The essence (you choose whether that should be Clubmans as a whole or CSP 1 / proto) is and has to be to free up the (race) engineers and the engineering thinking - getting back to our roots. Some innovative thinking and development.

I too was surprised that Sam thinks he can get a complete car with BE and its transmission down to 350kgs but then we are not aware of the provenance of the car - i.e. was it a lightweight Hillclimb car originally??

The 2 lightest cars we encountered since 1998 were the Phantom built by Kimber Crossley as a Cup (S1600) car which with Kimber's ingenuity turned up at 392kgs (so about 320 sans K engine) and which of course gave rise to Dick Mallock proposing the 420kgs weight limit that was adopted. That car is now the A Class Phantom owned and campaigned by Steve Chaplin.

Then we faced the 'Sideshow' Bob Davies car (cannot remember it's name) which was so light it did have a steel plank fitted to the chassis to achieve minimum weight but which was not especially popular with scrutineers, went like stink in a straight-line but was a total menace to everybody in corners because it had no downforce and ultimately was accused of being the progenitor of the biggest start line accident we ever had. ...

Ironically of course, having proposed the 1600BE Wyd is not now going that route!!

So what at present this comes down to is that we have certain regs for the CSP1 / Proto class which have not been 'framed' so as to favour one or other type of permitted car. Being in control of our own regs' means we have the delight that we can create new classes or sub classes should the need arise. After all, what the Proto people are about is getting more people racing with us not fewer!

For now though, let's welcome the return of the true engineer / racer to our midst and the ingenuity they might bring, it looks like being an interesting time with 6 or 7 different engine routes being followed.

No one mentioned censorship until you Jamie.

I simply invited the participants to consider that the thread had run its course. We have agreed the regs for next year including Proto weight and power.

Perhaps a new thread on how to make your car as light as possible and maximise safety might be good.

You're considering the torque at the crank.
Bike engines rev higher, use higher ratios and 6 gears...... I'd be considering the torque at the wheels.
I know what engine I'd put in a Phantom and it would probably be less than 1600cc ;-)

All approx figures, no feathers though, they didnt help Icarus to fly so ill leave them out.

Ill weigh the car this weekend, come back with some figs.

Its a well engineered car, extensive rear crash protection and a design in place for side impact strength to act away from the drivers area if sideways load is experienced.