I'm about to built a new engine for my Mallock mk27 PROTO. As i'm not happy with the max 240 bhp we are allowed to play with i would suggest a drop in performance.
I think some of you might think: what's he concerned about?
Well i think the difference between PROTO and sports1600 is simply to big, not talking about B-sport/PROTO.

I think 210 BHP would be a good maximum; what do you think??

Gr, Onno

Onno, Good to see you are still keen and pity you weren't able to attend Brands or Donington, where we had good racing and good weather.

Speaking with several Proto competitors and those thinking of going the Proto route, most appear to be targeting the 180 to 200hp region. I know Ian and Steve are working up some ideas for specification. Others are exploring the options and hopefully we can discuss this topic later in the year and come up with a road map for Proto in the future.

We do not wish to lose any of the current competitors, but know there are several competitors who are looking at the Proto class. They need to believe the costs involved are sensible, plus there will be equality of power in the long term.

This is MY gut feel from speaking with many people. The committee will of course seek feedback from Register members, competitors and supporters before drafting up any regulations for discussion.

Good post Onno (and Mike of course!).

I don't believe we would lose anybody if we set a bhp maxima at 200. What we 'should' do by that is stand to gain competitors as it inevitably allows costs to be pegged and reliability relatively assured. Potentially within the Championship it would enable merger of A and Proto Classes... it would facilitate several engine types as well and enable use of current 4 speed gearboxes for those upgrading while the fix to the Ford centred diffs is inexpensive.

Alex setback yesterday will be overcome (hopefully for the benefit of all) and is already being worked at.

Feels a bit odd to have the Championships pretty much decided by July 18th but ...

My personal opinion is the power needs to be 200-210bhp. My car proves this is possible with the same gearbox, axle,brakes etc as i used in cup. I know Mr Crombie thinks along the same lines. We wouldn't want to exclude anyone and at that power level don't think we would. The only exception being the lester honda car which I'm sure we can make a plan and allow this car somehow. Policing it is the hard bit and the part that is hardest. I am all for gentlemans agreement with a few checks. Maps etc. If you cheat then you are banned for life. Any thoughts questions feel free to email me....

Though I don't speak for Adrian and Jared L, AL did say to me earlier this year that 'a delight' of the Honda system is that the output can be adjusted downwards with ease electronically.

My personal opinion is that maps are potentially an 'easy' way to 'police'. Map has to be delivered to Register Technical at start of year and if / when changed at any time and if you are later found found using a different map to that registered (or may be to those registered) then it's bye bye..... There is not really a reason why ECUs even in Proto could not be collected and retained once map approved. if you want to do something else with your car somewhere else you have to get ano ECU but you can only use the Championship one that is handed back to you at each event....

I don't quite see it as who we might exclude, rather as who we might include ... it is possible to reduce power output at little if any cost, but increasing always costs. "Horsepower is vanity, torque is sanity.."!!

2 pennies.
To me, a small drop in performance is gladly accepted if it encourages more to come and play in Proto.
(I believe) 240bhp was decided to encourage the big Vauxhall engine things that never turned up anyway.
As Adrian has discussed with many I’m sure- we consider the Honda a good option as it is widely available, sensibly priced, and designed/OEM manufactured to reliably run at 220bhp+.

Best get back to work, I see a tyre bill looming

Nice words. However JL, having been there at the time and ultimately responsible (as in buck stopped ...), the 240hp accommodation was in fact for .... the Honda engine to be fitted by some bloke called Adrian .... as it produced 240 out of its box ...

The red top VX engines were of course capable of 230+ but expensive to buy and maintain.

I remember some thought the BDA engine would return (240 BHP)
Yes the Honda has standard 236 bhp and if it could be brought to 220 bhp with it's weight that could be an considered as it's weight isn't the best in this case.
If we accept one ECU remember that i use carbs so could easily adjust power with the carbs on a sealed ECU (ignition only)
If i have to switch to injection that's something to take in mind.

As someone who is currently building a car for proto my 2 cents as an current outsider.

Rule stability is key to attracting more cars if someone looking at potentially building a car or joining the series thinks that things will keep changing they may discount it entirely.

As it happens i haven't built my engine yet and not planning on putting in some monster power lump anyway as it stands as i need to get the car running and learn to drive it first..... but if i had and spent a fortune on an exotic engine build and could no longer use it then you could understandably see why it would leave a sour taste before even getting to the grid.

So whatever you decide i think it needs to be done fairly quickly so that it can be advertised well ahead for 2017 and some guarantee that it's not going to change in a fixed time period. say 3 years or something.

I was at donington yesterday and those that i spoke to were all very welcoming. cannot wait to get mine finished now.

Can I ask why no one has considered the Toyota 2ZZ-GE VVTL-i which was a replacement for the VHPD K series in the Lotus Elise, is it too big or is there another reason?

Hi Morris

If you are talking about the Toyota engine that exhausts on the left as K does, then I believe it is because the K series weighs 72kgs dry and about 78kgs wet. The Toyota weighs in about 140kgs.... The same issue arises nominally with other engines (Ford, Honda, Vx etc) in a range of about 120-140kgs. Most people try to remove weight from cars and that takes ingenuity and sometimes £. It's not usual to want to proceed the other way around! Hence why a certain engineer not too far from me has taken the approach of K series retention being the way to go even if there are hiccups to get there to a reliable spec..

Sean (Hi Sean!) has a very valid point. However, I believe that if we were to broadly agree (which we seem to) that 210 would be an outside figure then we seem to have a broad consensus on that. Personally I would like to see it 200 because certain costs can be dialled out, but ...as I have writ' before, hp = vanity and torque is sanity...

All,

As mentioned above, Steve and I have chatted about this and I have spoken with a number of others too. Whilst I know a reduction won’t be universally popular, I believe it is the right thing to do and I do think it would be ‘overwhelmingly’ popular.

We could spend an awful lot of time arguing about what is the ‘right’ number to bring it back to. My car’s currently running about 210 bhp. Based on a 2nd hand, previously modified engine, it wasn’t stupidly expensive to build, but I’d concede, probably still has a little too much power: I’m pretty much on the limit of my brakes for example, indeed a race on a day as hot as today would probably put me well over the limit.

So where do we set the mark? We could do 195, we could do 205. From an on-track point of view, there’s really not a lot in it.

With the wife’s marketing head on, anything ‘slightly’ under 200 is daft: if we were to go below, we’d have to drop to something like 180. Since it makes relatively little difference on the circuit, what’s the point of going a little over 200? The change from a number beginning with 1 to one beginning with a 2 is greater in perception than it is in reality, but above that it returns to marginal.

I think dropping to 180 is too far back – my car’s had various states of tune since the Cup engine went bang, from initially about 145, to 160, then 180 to the current 210. It’s now an absolute blast to drive, if not to stop, so my suggestion would be to go for a straightforward “a maximum swept volume of 2000cc and with a maximum 200bhp at the flywheel”.

Let's face it, at the current minimum weight, we're looking at 470bhp/ton (though I’m not sure anybody’s anywhere near that). As a further thought, perhaps we could massage that minimum weight a fraction to make it 475bhp/ton - a pretty meaningless change in the real world, but a nice round(ish) number.

As far as policing it, it would be good to have some suggestions, although I’m not sure how we would go about policing the current regulation. I’m pretty sure there are other series out there running maximum power regs, it would be interesting to see how they do it.

With regard to the when and for how long, I think I’m right in saying that it couldn’t be introduced for 2017. From recollection of discussions on another proposed change, we’d need to give at least 12 months notice. If so, 2018 would be the earliest it could be brought in, assuming it’s adopted at the next drivers meeting. Maybe we could try a gentleman’s agreement for 2017. I see no reason not to propose it with at least a 3 year freeze though.

Good stuff 'roof!

I am probably mistaken but I thought at some dim and distant point in the past there was 'Supersports 200'..?? I am not suggesting we adopt that name!

Although notice changes are to be taken account of, while changes cannot be imposed except for safety, if everybody registered for a championship agrees or those entitled to vote on such issues all agree at say an drivers' agm, then we could introduce it for 2017. Otherwise a gentleman's agreement on a full disclosure basis is the way.

It's keeping the costs down that is key. I believe that policing by lodged engine maps is viable but of course stand to be corrected.

I would be happy at the 200hp figure and agree it can be marketed. Policing i would go with at or by the first meeting you enter you have to submit your rolling road printout and a copy of the map used. This can easily be checked by the eligibility scrutineer after a race or qualifying with a laptop. If your found to be cheating there has to be a serious penalty as it could be open to abuse!

After a discussion with Lester SNR…
Although it is obvious a minor reduction in power is desirable to accommodate a pull through for current generation cars and reduce associated transitional costs. Is a wider, arguably more important point being missed?

Careful consideration of the series doing very well at the moment (GT3/4 categories are booming) it can be suggested that smart *balance of performance rules* are the key to series success. This is not achieved simply by providing a flat power output figure.
Highly diverse grids, with vastly differing budgets, and driver skill provide tight racing because BOP are managed through engine restriction (and) ballast.

We conclude that a small drop in power is accepted but also provides a golden opportunity to manage performance with (considerable) additional benefits. Use modern, standardised ECUs from somewhere like Emerald to restrict performance and gain some equality within the pack.

Win races- (the club dictates) a loss of a couple of hundred RPM. Balance the field (within accepted limits) and create close, exciting, racing.
No rolling roads required, simple to enforce and with wider benefits.

…And finally, it must be remembered that ‘power’ is just one of a huge range of factors dictating performance. Should one be inclined, a circumnavigation to keep performance yet reduce the power figure a simple remap to increase low end torque.

Hi Jared. I agree BOP works in gt4/3 etc. These are very big championships with lots of officials to police etc. We could however give your car "grandfather" rights i.e chassis number ## with engine number ## is allowed say 220hp. I know from donington on Sunday your car and my car were not too far apart on straight line speed. Where as the nemesis is quite alot faster. Food for thought as we all seem to be close to the same page.

From previous experience in other formulas including my father being involved with a British GT team for several years with TVR's and Moslers all the balance of performance rules do is increase the cost to everyone. When you start implementing restrictions and control parts and ECU's you alienate the low budget level club racer who can find a set of carbs cheap or pick up a second hand ECU.

You spend all your time and money developing the car to make it quick to then be told that you are too fast and you have to run a different ride height or because your car has independant rear axle to are limited with what camber you can run etc and so on and so on it Just breeds negativity , people moaning and accusations of all sorts of things. At this level you cannot have a 'prototype' formula and balance of performance to two do not mix very well.

I was attracted to this formula by how welcoming and friendly everyone is and the fact i can build and develop my own car while adhering to a sensible rule framework which encourages all the cars to be different.

So by all means look at capping the engine power to a sensible level, but don't change too much or you will end up being buried in red tape and bureaucracy which won't feel very much like 'Clubmans'

Sean, please give me back my book!!

Whilst I can see the attractions of a BOP formula, I have to agree with Steve that we probably don't have the resources to manage it in any way other than a blunt BTCC-type approach, with weight penalties based on results, and I'm not at all keen on the idea of filling our cars full of lead (except Alex's obviously).

As Sean points out many people are using 2nd-hand go-faster bits anyway (anybody in need of an Emerald? I seem to have a spare). We must ensure that those that want to go down the budget/DIY/ebay route are still able to, so this probably rules out a stock ECU.

OTOH, we also don't want to discourage existing cars, so while we probably wouldn't want to slow anybody down, we may need to allow a little upward flexibility for anybody who's already got a great big boat anchor of a motor and is seriously disadvantaged by it.

Realistically, on most circuits, under the current rules and indeed under any proposed rules, a well-driven, well-engineered, K-engined car is probably the thing to have (unless you can make a Ducati Panigale motor work in a Clubmans car), purely because any other engine has a fairly significant weight penalty.

We need to clarify why we're proposing a change. I think what we're trying to do here is fix the rules for a class in such a way that:

a) existing 1600 cars have a fairly straightforward upgrade path should they wish to do so

b) the 'best' engine option is not something that costs more than the rest of the car, but is availaible at similar cost to the alternatives

c) if a driver chooses something other than a K-series, that car can still be reasonably competitive.

d) we don't try and over-complicate and over-regulate. There are people in the formula that want to engineer as well as drive and they should have reasonable opportunity to do so

e) that whilst a bigger wallet will always be an advantage, it doesn't become a requirement

f) we grow the overall grid and produce competitive and entertaining racing

g) we continue to surprise people by showing just how quick front-engined sportscars can be

Don't think weight limits up to 470-480kg would make bike engine cars owners happy Ian.
Not that there are any at the moment but when 200bhp would be the limit a bike engined car could do the job.

Onno -

Ducati Panigale 1299S

Power 150.8 kW (205 hp) @ 10,500 rpm
Torque 144,6 Nm (106.7 lb-ft) @ 8,750 rpm

http://www.ducatiuk.com/bikes/superbike/1299_panigale_s/tech_spec.do


Not sure how much that weighs, but I bet it's not a boat anchor.

Probably not cheap though

Dear Clubbers, just as an observation, I just don’t see unsealed engines, with many makes and various states of tune being a “level playing field” motor racing is full of opportunists, rolling roads vary dramatically with each other temperature and humidity, so I don’t think there is a solution there.

As I have moved onto another life, one of the rules I now operate under is an inlet air restrictor, my Lotus Twin Cam CF3 which unabated can give 180 bhp but with a 21.5mm dia air inlet restrictor we are compelled to use it can only give 120 bhp and effectively rev to 6500rpm. A friend of mine also in CF3 sent his engine to a top builder and spent a lot of money, back it came with its dyno sheet, guess what? 120bhp with a restrictor! The 2 ltr CF3 cars use a 24mm dia restrictor and produce 160bhp its quite easy to predict a power.

So as you can see not only can it control the bhp but the engine can’t breathe at high revs so you don’t rev it, less rebuilds and more reliability ensues.

My suggestion is that you should experiment with inlet restrictors, pick a diameter that will give you the bhp that you want, it won’t matter if the Honda engine (or any other engine) is 240 bhp as I can assure you that a given restrictor works. It’s a cheap solution, you can very cheaply change it if you want more or less power.

One word of caution however, you may recall Brian Hart saying “There is plenty of talk about BHP but it’s torque that wins races” you can build an engine that operates with a restrictor to maximise torque and it will work better through the range, it is small but you should recognise it’s there.

Is there anymore movement on this?

I am potentially about to start a Proto build and do not want to end up with a car built to the current regs which is no longer legal by the time I have finished it.

Regards
Phil

Do you have an engine in mind Phil?
You could contact Steve Dickens, Ian Crombie or Mike Evans on this.
I don't think there will be a change within short time and when there is a change in regs the current regs will stay for at least a year to give people a chance to change.
I hoped to get some answers with this post and think most people would accept a max 200 BHP change. I think that's a good max for most cars. Only the resent Clubmans cars could handle more power without breaking down.

Hi Phil and Onno

Quite a bit is progressing with Steve Dickens and Ian Crombie as the 2 Proto reps beavering away.

In my opinion, Proto as a largely free-reg class, will be the dominant class in the future, regardless of what it might be titled.I think it is tolerably safe to assume that we will end up with a limitation to the vicinity of 200bhp in a 4 cylinder car engine max 2000cc. Certain cars might sensibly be given 'grandfather rights'. Cost achievability has to be key.

A number of options are being worked on as far as I am aware and so I would expect to see in the fullness of time K series versions with and just as we have now without VVC. Of course it will be free engine in terms of manufacturer so run a Vx if you want, etc..

Alex is still working on the 1.8 K 'with VVC' principle as a potentially cost effective route to go, having we believe identified the cause of the failures.

As Onno says 12 months is required to change non-safety regs but it would be good if a 'gentleman's agreement' operated in 2017 to try and develop the class/championship on the above principles.

ATB y'all

We have a committee meeting this weekend to discuss several items, Proto engines being one of them. Hopefully we can forward our ideas on Proto engines over the coming weeks and formalise them at a drivers meeting later in the year (October?). If you have any concerns then give me a call on 07798 534704

Hi guys

Really interesting reading everyone’s ideas and thoughts on this, it’s really good to see people getting involved and wanting to shape the formula for the better.

As some of you may know I was always planning on a K series VVC engine solution in my new car after a session in Sports 1600. However due to my unfortunate incident I have not been able to continue racing this year. It also looks unlikely that I will be out next year either, however there is a chance to have it out and maybe do 1 or 2 races with the intention of a full Proto session in 2018. However this will be subject to what I am going to speak to you all about now and be dependent on your thoughts/reactions to it.

I have a ready to go Proto engine sitting in my dad’s Hillclimb car which we used to race together before I came in to this great formula, however under the current rules it would not be eligible due to its engine capacity as it is a 1600cc bike engine. This engine is only mildly tweaked and thus has a power output of 200BHP from the standard 175BHP.
As this engine is sitting around in the workshop it means that I would be able to fit this to the car (once the car is fully repaired) for the minimum amount of money which would be the difference of me racing again in the near future or not!

Needless to say this would be a waste of time if the regulations remain with bike engine capacity limited to 1300cc, so my question is can anyone give me a technical reason or contention for the bike capacity remaining at 1300cc? The idea being that we could vote on this at the drivers meeting and the amendment to the regulation if agreed upon would be live for 2018.

How I see it is that you have an engine capacity limit to restrict power out in the absence of a maximum power regulation. Typically bike engines are known for having good power output with low weight however as Proto has a minimum vehicle weight and engine maximum power limit I don’t see how restricting or not restricting engine capacity will make any difference, it seems to me that this is over constrained.

I would much appreciate and love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this just remember this was never an option I intended to follow however I am just trying to get back out on track with you guys and have some fun.

WYD

The only reason that the capacity for motorbike engines was set at 1300 was because that was the size of engine in the car we had at the time. There is no reason why it cannot be raised to 1600 for 2017 providing the BHP limit for Proto is not exceeded. As you say subject to approval at the Drivers meeting. It is up to individuals but cost of engineering a reversing mechanism or reversing gearbox and the availability of the right diff ratios for circuit racing, certainly for a live axle car, would seem to me to be prohibitive for a short term project.
It is well known that I have an interest in a motorbike engined car but I have to say that in my opinion if such cars are not represented regularly on the grid next year then we should consider dropping them from the class. That might be a shame but Proto is too complicated with too many options available.

"Proto is too complicated with too many options available".

I don't quite get that statement! Proto (as it is currently known) is very simple! Car engine: 4 cylinders; 2litres max; 240bhp max or bike engine etc..

The last thing we need except for an agreed power limit is a 'spec' and / or monopolies on supply of parts or services.

I for one do wholly agree with Peter B that with a power limit, the capacity of the bike engine may be irrelevant...

Fascinating reading, whilst sat in my helicopter hovering over the forum (virtually!). For what it's worth...

1. It doesn't appear the Proto class has been the rip roaring success it was meant to be. From what I've read, there are a handful of cars competing.

2. I thought Clubmans racing was less about the engine and more about the ingenuity applied to the chassis/aerodynamics and talent of the driver?

3. Clubmans racing has long needed a boost in power but surely much can be gleaned from the exciting, close and cost effective racing the K-Series engine has delivered over the past decade (and beyond)?

4. Sealed engines provide parity and promote, close and cost effective racing.

5. Engine choice is a slippery slope, difficult to police and always benefiting those with bigger budgets.

6. A simple upgrade path for those with K-Series cars, would surely benefit the grid?

7. Standardising on a sealed Proto engine, would potentially alienate a small number of drivers but bring the formula back to its roots and make it more attractive to a far wider community.

The initial switch (way back when) to K-Series was a huge success. Yes there were grumbles (aren't there always) but I remember limited manufacturer support/promotion, a happy grid due to reliability and power parity and a real buzz around the whole Clubmans movement.

Ok, call me a luddite if you will but isn't it time to stick a pin in an engine of choice, raise the power output and have them sealed? Damn, I'd even go further and standardise on a gearbox with flappy paddles!

God forbid, you may even select a modern and current engine from the likes of Ford, Toyota or Vauxhall that in standard form produces 200bhp. Seal them from the factory and cut out the middleman!

Life is so simple when you're sat on the sidelines

Good Day,

Just like to say hello. I'm thinking of dipping my toes into club,mans racing having been involved in various types of motorsport all circuit related over the years.

Bear with me as this is topical to Proto Power! :-). Most of my hours behind a wheel have been in Caterhams in sports and saloons champs, and a very small amount in single seaters. The problems, pretty much highlighted above.....with almost every championship are always costs and power. The most successful racing on a budget along with the likes of clubmans is the RGB series (not sure if its still a 750mc champ or not), anyway standard engines, a couple of classes and control tyres.

But.....there are those that want to put ideas read about in books into practice, use methods seen elsewhere, try out personal engineering ideas etc. This appears to be where Proto is, i hope it can stay this way. Excuse me if i've got this totally wrong.

The big power isnt that much of an advantage if different tracks are used throughout the season, im not talking about a 100bhp difference here but 200-240, its not that big a deal. I watched a 190bhp bike engined car thrash a 240bhp car with sequential box, flappy paddles and all the tricks up ones sleeve. OK a BEC has a sequential box etc, but the difference is 5 grand compared to 15k. They've battled throughout the seasons and the BEC won the championship.

200bhp out of a bike engine, is achievable, reliability comes down and its up to oneself to consider if circa 20bhp over standard is worth doing for the added costs. 1000cc engines because used in the superbikes tend to have more development time and put out some great figures, the over 1000cc can be heavier and require more extras to be able to run consistently and reliably, still good packages.

I think they're needs to be bike engined cars allowed, my 300bhp caterham circa 15k of engine an box was unsustainable on my budget, even at 200bhp with a kinky box your still 10k realistically. Now fine, if you think that's the way ahead, more torque etc great, this package works, but bike engined cars offer a nice package for a reasonable cost, therefore you attract more people, the numbers continue to rise....

I think the lack of BEC int the champs is to do with the mainstream not liking the idea, i spoke to a few folk in the Proto class on my rounds and just about all of them weren't keen or looked the other way.... not meaning to get anyone's backs up but it literally did happen.

Its hard to regulate and allow free thought in a one-er, and you'll always get talent in more basic cars mixing with lesser talent in more costly cars......in some cases, perhaps that what makes it competitive.Im generalizing here and not aiming it at anything i've seen in clubmans, its certainly rife in other champs though.

I say just let it role, if it turns into such a discrepancy between the front and back markers in the same class and races over the season, then perhaps there needs a change, but then you could just apply a PTW ratio meaning engineering tweaks and ideas can still apply?

Hi Sam,

Bike engines are permitted in Proto class up to 1300cc and not more than 200 bhp as fas as I remember. There was a BEC running at our last meeting at Silverstone.

Correction- regulations at present permit up to 240 bhp for a BEC.

Peeps,

I have heard there is a minimum weight limit now? 440kg. Is this for both BEC and CEC? Is it applicable for Proto?

Kind of seals the fate for the BEC.

The Weight Limit Is For All Proto Cars For The Reason Of safety And Incressed Speeds.

... but we also agreed to increase the permitted capacity for BEC to 1600 as they too are subject to he stated weight and max bhp. I don't see a queue marked BEC but we wanted to encourage freedom and participation

Sam
I may not be alone in not understanding your point.

If you'd been at the meeting you would have heard a good discussion about motorcycle engines put forward by Wyd. As a result we agreed to increase the allowable engine capacity from 1300 to 1600cc.

All Proto cars will be limited to 200 bhp and a vehicle mass of 440 kg (used to be 420 in common with Sports 1600)

I have detected no bias against motorcycle engined cars

You're not on you're own Pete, I too do not understand Sams comments or where they've come from. As far as I'm aware, Clubmans is an engineering formula that encourages engineers and car development. Maybe someone will want to use a Diesel engine in the future or God forbid an electric motor, it should be inclusive not exclusive but within the relevant regulations. I think if you can find some reliability then BEC is good way to go in Proto.

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.

Could both of you highlight the comments you dont understand?

With one BEC appearing to have raced, apologies if wrong, there seems a hell of a lot of debate and regulatory changes to wards them? this is dont understand, is it to promote BEC participation?

Yes Sam, I didn't understand your very first point;

"Kind of seals the fate for the BEC."

I'm also confused whether you are in favour of motorcycle engined Protos or not.

I'm also unclear whether you are intending to race a Clubmans car.

The Register is a club to promote the interests and competition of its members - Wyd Pickering has been a regular competitor and is interested in running a bike engined car - hence the discussion. We are neither promoting nor discouraging it. The regs allow either car or motorcycle derived engines.

Sealing the fate - a CeC can have 200hp and maybe + 150lbft of torque, maybe seq box. Why would you run a same weight car with a BE and perhaps 100lbft of torque. Even in 1598 guise your never going to get the torque of a car engine, RPE and Extreme engines do a larger cap hayabusa engine but at best your 10k for an install.

Putting a BE in a clubmans will give you an approx weight fully loaded of around 350kg, where do you suggest adding 90kg. The hayabusa is slightly heavier, maybe by 25-30kg , again where does the extra ballast or construction go. If your adding this weight the car the cars weight becomes an issue, I thought the whole point was to increase safety?! Added ballast/ more inertia on impact, this doesn't sound safe.

As covered in my last post - worth carrying on with my project - I've a mk27 I'm fitting with a BEC, and previously mentioned I was looking at dipping my toe into the champs. So + BEC and I have a car.

So the champs could be lucky and have a whole two BEC's. But the regs need some more input, the 1600 BEC raise in cap, is this for reliable HP? From a BEC, I asked this prev, or is it so one can be used by a competitor who has one already? Both valid reasons , but you can't have the same minimum weight for both BEC and CEC, otherwise allow forced induction to raise the BEC torque.

Morris - your question about finding reliability , without fear of being negative suggests a misunderstanding towards these units, perhaps that's where I've found the lack of interest towards BEC. You pick the right engine it will be reliable.

You/ we, need a lower minimum weight for BEC or a higher for CEC, to reiterate where does one suggest I put 90kg to bring the weight to 440kg? Or separate into two classes.

For example monoposto f3 2000cc 560kg , monomoto 1400cc 450kg.

Monomoto is one of the most successful champs going, RGB also ,both use bike engines.

Interesting that you should mention Monoposto, Sam, but you are not comparing like with like.

In Monoposto the BEC run in their own class whereas in Clubmans, the Register is trying to apply some equivelance. Not easy but weight and a cap on HP at 200 is the chosen way forward.

I agree that a BEC wont have the same torque as a CEC but the weight can be applied strategically to assist handling.

My Vauxhall engine is considered to be a heavy lump, as is the Zetec, and the weight is high up, too, and not ideal for handling.

A lighter engined car with weight low and central or low and to the rear may be more agile and have good traction.

Im a potential newcomer but I don't detect any bias against BEC at all. Indeed I would suggest that the rules have been adjusted to accommodate the widest range of BEC derivatives as possible. Hope you come out to play.

Cheers

Andy

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

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.