R1 would hopefully put you in class B next season as "the drivers" are trying to get this engine into class b due too, A) its pr oven
reliability & B) there not ott on price.
check out the forum i put you onto, you will see it discussed under "proposed rule changes or 2005 regs" headed summat like that i
fink.
I know we've only just started the 05 season, but I/we have to start looking at 06 regs, and I wanted to give you all a heads up on what may be
coming one way or another. Nothing is agreed or worded yet, but here is an early indication of what we're working on:
1. Class C standard bodywork rules will be clarified given the concerns this year over spats, holes in bodywork etc. All class C car registrations
will be accompanied by a photo of the manufacturers' standard bodywork and statement of dimensions, which will be approved by the Club. Class C
cars will then be compared against photos for standardness... Existing cars which require spats to comply with the blue book will be given
dispensations on the dimension of spat required, new cars must have standard bodywork that complies (I have discussed this with Fisher and STMS who
are the ones mainly affected). As mentioned in another thread, there will be limits on the area of holes allowed in various sections of the
bodywork.
Reason: Current 'standard bodywork' rule is unenforceable in the formula. We want to keep 'standard' cars in calss C at least
to keep barriers to entry down, keep the cars attractive amongst other things.
2. Any assistance to gear change will be banned. This is to include full throttle gear shift, throttle blippers and/or non-mechanical gear changes.
Reason: the overwhelming opinion i hear is that we dont want 'driver aids' like this in the formula, and it's just another cost on
the cars.
3. "piggy back ECUs" will be better defined. There is a debate ongoing as to whether outside of class C we should just make ECUs free or
actually define what we mean by piggy back. My personal view is that if we make ECUs free the perception will be that everyone has to go and spend £1k
on a full ECU system, as opposed to the £1-300 on a techlusion or Power Commander. Whether there is a benefit to a fully mapped ECU *within the rules*
is debatable. If everyone moves to full ECUs it becomes very hard to police traction control, launch control, rev limits etc and again it's
perceived as extra cost of entry. Now, it's entirely possible to produce a Power Commander equivalent that does *anything* a full ECU can do -
it's just that no one has gone to the trouble, and if people really thought it was worth it on a standard engine maybe someone would have done
it by now. Comments especially welcome on this one (in a separate thread if necessary).
4. There's still a strong desire to increase the class B power limit to 150bhp to revive the class, particularly as a kindergarten for potential
new class C engines in a few years when the carbed Blade finally does run out.
That's all the significant changes on the table currently.
[Edited on 15/5/05 by Jon Ison]
|
