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.