Jon Ison
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 03:34 PM |
|
|
Copied from the GOME site........
"There was so much enthusiasm for the Six Hour to be re-run, so where are the cars, drivers and teams for 2010. If you took part in 2008 and
have not entered this years Six Hour please tell us why?"
Think we know the answer, were banned.
|
|
|
|
|
fesycresy
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 03:37 PM |
|
|
Could you link us to the site?
We can then start the constructive abuse 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 03:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Ison
"There was so much enthusiasm for the Six Hour to be re-run, so where are the cars, drivers and teams for 2010. If you took part in 2008 and
have not entered this years Six Hour please tell us why?"
Think we know the answer, were banned.
You were banned? 
Classic! How come?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
inappropriately engined car!
sorry, i mean bike engined car
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 03:57 PM |
|
|
If that is the reason, i say let them race. They can all fight amongst themselves at the back
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
dan__wright
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 03:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedyxjs
If that is the reason, i say let them race. They can all fight amongst themselves at the back
so your saying that a little bike engine is better than a big car engine? 
FREE THE ROADSTER ONE…!!
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 04:00 PM |
|
|
Well here the link but be constructive if posting, would still like to think we may be able to enter our
"to fast to race inappropriately engined 893cc cars" against the slower 6000cc cars and the snail paced Atoms ?
Exactly Atoms, even I'm not deluded enough to believe the speed differential between a BEC and an Atom is such that the BEC is to fast to enter
? Not.
eta you have to run two up in this event to, now what does everyone tell me slows a BEC down other than a great hole in side of block, that's
it, a passenger ?
ah, maybe that's the problem, BEC's finished the 6 hour event at the "BEC" killer circuit without splurting oil all over the
circuit causing red flags, the prediction was by non believers that no BECs would finish, the "how many spare engine you bought with you"
should have been directed at the CEC's, they where the ones that couldn't handle the circuit.
If you detect sarcasm then your detective skills are pretty on the ball.
[Edited on 10/3/10 by Jon Ison]
|
|
|
chris mason
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 04:11 PM |
|
|
If i can things organised in time (read: build a cec) then i may well be entering this as a driver this time
Still don't agree with the bec's being unsuitable this year, it can only mean that from the lap times the becs put in last time, they are
worried about being able to award the 1st place to the elise's again 
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
I don't understand the 'speed differential' logic either but was looking forward to entering again this year. Don't think I
would now though, even if the BEC ban was lifted...... 
Phil
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 04:26 PM |
|
|
My thoughts... exactly.
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 04:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
My thoughts... exactly.
So they have banned bec's because a couple of good 'ol locostbuilders were too fast?! 
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 04:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by speedyxjs
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
My thoughts... exactly.
So they have banned bec's because a couple of good 'ol locostbuilders were too fast?!
No! The event wasn't about being the fastest, or having the most pace, or not being overtaken. The objective for the duration of the six hour
test was to complete 240 laps at an average speed of 54 miles per hour (87kph) which included car and driver changes.
Now if you read the following sentence in Tims post, in context with the objective above, you could possibly understand why the UKMSA were apparently
concerned?
.......... Both cars showed pace well above everyone else - I don't believe that any of us were passed all day, except maybe for a few
seconds after a spin.........
Phil
[Edited on 10-3-10 by Hellfire]
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 05:14 PM |
|
|
i thought it was a good event,pity about the weather but as a certain Mr Chapman found out some years ago,if you cant beat them,ban them rules apply
in many cases.
to ban a BEC is imho short sighted as the performance/£ ratio is pretty high and BEC,s are a cheap way of going racing
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 05:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
No! The event wasn't about being the fastest, or having the most pace, or not being overtaken. The objective for the duration of the six hour
test was to complete 240 laps at an average speed of 54 miles per hour (87kph) which included car and driver changes.
Phil
Which we did for the 1st 3 hours whilst it was peeing it down with rain (monsooooooooooooon) to the point we had to sit out the re start of one (1
hour time slot) session because we already to many laps in the bag once they had re calculated the laps required for the hour, this resulted in us
been penalised for doing to many laps in that hour without going out for the restart but sitting in the pits waiting for the next 1 hour session to
start ???
I cant remeber the maths but you needed to be around the 1 minute 5 seconds a lap mark from memory to allow car and driver changes, the speed
differential that showed to the eye was more evident during the wet conditions where we just achieved the target with a little tweak to the car set
up, most didn't bother they just tootled around in the wet making any car on the required (54mph) pace look quicker than it actually was. During
the wet we where straight in and out 40 laps in bag with zero time to spare, we achieved the target no more no less, if common sense had prevailed
during the wet then they would have bought the required laps down to say 35/hour ? The target was kept 40 so that's what we did.
eta
Steve was a little concerned before the start it was peeing down, I'm not going into the conversation we had or what we did (trade secret or
everyone would have been on the pace) but my final words to him as he went out was "trust me and have faith in what I told him" his words
when he came back after the 1st session where something like "I would never have tried that"
I'm sure Steve will be along to confirm the above took place
There was no significant speed differential in the afternoon once dry,it was all about how people handled the wet when faced with a 40/lap per hour
target.
[Edited on 10/3/10 by Jon Ison]
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 05:54 PM |
|
|
Amen.
Whether or not you subscibe to Phil's view or Jon's/mine, you have to agree that as a means to an end it's utter nonsense.
If the issue was, as Phil seems to suggest, our method and tactics (simply do the laps no matter the conditions unless someone tells us something
different) then why not talk to us or even ban us as individuals?
At least then we could have had the kudos.  <--- that really is a joke in case anyone is in any doubt.
The reality was, we weren't even that quick - not compared to the quickest stuff at a trackday - and certainly nowhere near full race pace.
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 06:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
The reality was, we weren't even that quick - not compared to the quickest stuff at a trackday - and certainly nowhere near full race pace.
100% correct, the quickest lap we clocked was just under a minute, plenty of others are in print quoting a minute a lap so we where just plain old
average, trouble is we was 1 min 10 in the morning when everyone else was 1 hour 10.
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 08:56 PM |
|
|
Its just all tosh, UKMSA my bottom, who sanctions the Birket for example, who sanctions all the open races at 750mc events, who allows a
blooooooooming stock hatch to qualify during RGB qualification ? utter tosh.
I'm not taking my engine out just to satisfy someones biased opinions, that entry list could have been full, we turned up in 2008, was met with
some prejudice, turned the other cheek, enjoyed our selves and where more than willing to come back, I was sat exactly where I am now a few months
back, form on desk, pen out, cheque book ready only to be told nope, your car is not welcome, you know the one built by an enthusiast that started
life on a piece of MDF and two trestles 200 feet of 1" box and a roll of mig wire, we would rather have a fleet of factory built Vauxhauls and
TVR's.
I guess the entry fee's will be increasing because circuit hire is not cheap these days or is it under threat of been cancelled ?
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 09:11 PM |
|
|
My reply HERE...
The discussion between Jon and I was very simple.
I asked (roughly 4million times), whether the monsoon conditions were enough to change the tyres to the road tyres, rather than the 888's that
are considered dry only tyres.
I had also cut apart the suspension on my car to rectify the manufacturers inaccuracies, and even though had set up the car a few times myself,
I'd only just set it up (on the trailer) the night before (by eye ), so I wasn't 100% confident in what I'd achieved!
Went out for a tentative first session, and was achieving roughly 1min20s. After Jon's session it was Tim's turn to drive my car - He did
so very well. Much quicker than myself (in my, not his car, obv) and was roughly 1min10s. This did not embarras me, as I was the least experienced on
track adn also, I', not that kind of guy!
Having said that, once he convinced me that my recent mods to my car were a success, I went out and was running around the 1min mark, as was Tim in
his subsequent sessions, and Jon and son, Neal were a couple seconds quicker than us.
Even in the session before lunch, which I don't have a photo of me driving when it was unbelievably wet, Jon's advice to stick with the
88's was the right one, I had so much confidence, that passing 6 or 7 cars on the way into the Esses/Chicane, with Tim and I wondering why
everyone else was creeping round was proof of this! Awesome Day! I had 100% confidence in Tim driving my P.A.J and here's a quick photo of the
guy in action!
ETA - thanks once again to Joe (welderman) and Chris Mason, for being awesome Pit-Biatches
.JPG)
and me, on the inside line passing the Fury after nipping past the 7litre T70 Lola...
.JPG)
[Edited on 10/3/10 by Steve Hignett]
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 10/3/10 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
The ban makes absolutly no sense, and is tantamount to "taking your ball home" when a load of good players turn up.
Putting al the dubious lap timing to one side, the event could have been great - and remembering back to the comments on the forum at the time seemed
that great FUN was had by all.
When I say all, I mean everyone who didn;t have a red face for having all the gear and no idea in the wet - being shown a clean pair of heels by
better drivers. I imagine that wasn't fun - and so a ridiculous rule was brought in to exclude a group of drivers who had sound tactics, drove
well and had reliable cars.
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
I have replied, in the hope that sense (not so common it would seem) will win through for next year.
[Edited on 10/3/10 by Dangle_kt]
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 11/3/10 at 08:45 AM |
|
|
Hi James, I take some of your points on board but they really only relate to the morning sessions when the target was kept at 40 laps/hour when the
conditions made that all but impossible, this was the only time a speed differential was evident, had the target been lowered then those trying to
achieve the target would not have appeared to the eye so fast ?
We where overtaken during the event and you should have it recorded on the footage, I can clearly be seen (I was passenger at the time) instructing
Neal to "let him go, its not a race" we where pacing ourselves to achieve the required laps, no more no less, it was a rather large
engined CEC btw.
We did ask in the morning for the required laps to be reduced due to the conditions, I'm sure others did to, if you set a target of 40 laps hour
whatever the conditions dont be surprised if people go out to achieve it.
I cant remeber the numbers but the time when we had to sit out part of one session above due to already having covered to many laps went something
like...
Session stopped 1/2 way through the hour, we had 20 laps in the bag, session re started after a 20 minute stoppage with the required laps for the hour
been bought down to 17 meaning we had 3 to many already and received penalties, the adjusted laps for that hour took into account the conditions and
penalised those that had gone for the target which for the following session was back up to 40 ?
As you are more than aware BECS & CECs show there speed in different ways, we had lap after lap at Donington together ? Me, nimble through
corners, later braking, you like a train down the straights but earlier braking and less nimble in corners, overhaul result we matched each other lap
for lap with a rizzila between us over the line but in totally different ways, I guess a BEC through a corner can look quick compared to others.
I dont hold with the mates won theory above and dont believe it to be true but had it not rained in the morning or had the target been lowered to
compensate for the rain then we would not be having this conversation right now.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 11/3/10 at 09:22 AM |
|
|
I think the introduction of proper lap counting equipment will be a massive step forward in the 2010 event.
The one thing that no team could account for on the day, was how many red flag laps would have been awarded for each occurence. This benefitted some
teams and penalised others but was ultimately outside the teams control. It was obvious from the weather conditions in the morning that most teams
would be struggling to complete the allotted laps within the first few hours but our tactics were to ensure we completed more laps than most of the
others which obviously involved driving that bit quicker but not at full pace. We certainly weren't treating it as a trackday and I'm sure
none of the others were either.
Because BEC's rev higher and generally tend to make more noise than CEC's, maybe this exaggerated the speed differential from the
UKMSA's perspective?
Phil
[Edited on 11-3-10 by Hellfire]
|
|
|
Jon Ison
|
| posted on 11/3/10 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
"If it had been down to speed Jon would have won no doubt, but he did not, so it was not a race."
This is only true of the morning wet sessions but set against the target set by the organises we where only on the pace not in excess of it ? In the
afternoon we where no quicker than the quick cars in attendance.
The truth is I don't think anyone knows who did what laps on the day, red flags, weather etc you certainly could not read our laps sheets, they
where spread around the track as lumps of papier mache, non the less enjoyed the event immensely even though we where frowned upon by some entries was
sooooooo looking forward to the 2010 event and was shocked to read of our exclusion, our only crime was to rise to the challenge of covering 40 laps
per hour in almost impossible conditions which is exactly what the event required us to do, no more no less, a lot of preparation went into turning up
with a fragile "BEC" robust enough to run for 6 hours and prove the doubters wrong, comments before during and after the event do lead
people to believe a bit of anti BEC bias was evident.
If I was taking part in the 2010 event I would take little pride in achieving the set goals if I knew others who may have given me a run for my money
had been excluded.
Anyhow its all history and "water" under the bridge now, for those that do get to enter, enjoy.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 11/3/10 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
From reading the comments i think i see the problem.
In your lightweight bec you where able to go 10 seconds a lap faster than everyone else in wet and dangerous conditions (i've added the wet =
dangerous bit. This is based on the fact you had a number of red flags so even the people going 10 seconds slower where falling off the track, which
i'm taking to mean they where at the limit of their ability).
A 10 second a lap difference with experience racing drivers is an annoyance (but increased entertainment for spectators) as it forces overtaking. With
unskilled drivers it adds further danger. This isn't a race and now we've got a dangerous situation with cars falling of tracks and
someone going a LOT faster.
This is probably what scared the pants off people. If they have another wet race and people less capable (or less intelligent) than yourselves in fast
wet cars turn up they could end up with serious life threatening issues.
What is surprising is why, if some observers where questioning the speed you where driving on the day - nothing was mentioned to you. Perhaps it was
down to the lack of experience the group had organising this specific event.
the proof would be if the event could be recreated but you get a 2.0l zetec under your bonnet instead. The result may just be the banning of sevens
This sounds like i'm really against the bec's - i'm not. I'd love to see you there. What it seems like is needed is organisers
with more experience so they're ready for these sorts of eventualities. Perhaps the simplistic solution is not to ban BEC's but a rule
along the lines of 40 laps per hour in the dry, spread over a minimum of X minutes. 90% of those laps in the damp and 75% in the wet. They hold out
boards when the weather changes from DRY, to DAMP, to WET.
If you're going too fast you'll do your laps too quickly and get penalised - problem solved.
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 11/3/10 at 11:47 AM |
|
|
Some of Peters decisions do suprise me a little too. I asked him if I could take a classic Mini on the GOME event, the answer was 'NO,
definitely not, it's not a sports car and as it's a production car would be more reliable than the other competitors'.
GOME, however, allow brand new Smart cars to enter, and Lotus's. So you're telling me that a classic mini will be more reliable than a
Smart car or a new Lotus Exige? Yeah - 'cos Mini's are really known for their reliability.
And since when is a Smart car more of a sports car than a Mini - which do you think has won more sporting events over the years?
Anyway, it's Peters baby and he'll do what he wants with his events as is his right, the rest of us can take our cash and go and play
elsewhere.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 11/3/10 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
Mike - I'm not sure I really grasp your point properly, but if there was a speed differential then I can see why people might view this as
dangerous – however banning BEC’s is just plain victimisation of an easy to identify group. I am sure there were other quick cars there, but unless
you ban all the slow drivers, and slow cars, and fast drivers and fast cars, and only leave average joe’s in average cars this won’t change.
The fact is they haven’t done this – they have instead picked on a small but easy to exclude group, who had already taken a bit of banter before the
event by other competitors – in good spirit I am sure.
I would have thought tweeking the rules to reduce strategic options of people flying round fast and then sitting out, and proper risk management and
mitigation of easily foreseeable issues (like rain…in Britain…) would go a long way to placate any observers and keep everyone safe, but the only
changes I can see is the exclusion of BEC’s.
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=avatar}
