|
|
#51
08-08-09, 07:45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Nothing to stop event organisers and/or championships having classes for roadgoing cars on 1a tyres within the relevant roadgoing category and not having classes for roadgoing cars on 1b tyres if they want the event / championship to be 1a only. If there's no class for the car on 1b tyres then they can't enter, or at least will fail event scrutineering on eligibility grounds. Some rationale as running a one make class / championship.
__________________
Mark 
|
|
#53
08-08-09, 18:42
|
||||
|
||||
|
This could get interesting!
If the wording is mandatory and SRs can't restrict a class to just List 1A tyres then, by the same token, SRs can't exclude certain List 1B tyres such as cross plies (ACB10s).
|
|
#54
08-08-09, 22:42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The category definitions, and the classes within, is detailed in a totally different rule to Tyres - and according to the newsletter will remain so. Therefore you're quite correct that you can define classes within the framework of the catagories. But Cars conforming to road going production and specialist production will then have the choice of 1a's or 1b's at the discretion of the driver.. given the way that is all worded, and located in the book - currently. Not saying what my opinion on this is incidentially... 
|
|
#55
10-08-09, 09:56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Been away for the weekend playing, so missed all this excitement. I think that the mandatory compliance is that you cannot use anything other than list 1a or 1b, but if classes specify 1a then that is what you run.
I believe that Onomat....(can't spell it) is a scrute so will hopefully have a better handle on this. Any way the weekend was successful, double driven car 2 BTDBTDBTDs 2 class wins and a class record  Only problem was if my son wasn't there I would have got the BTDBTDBTDs. Jim we all know that you want 1a and the Southwest want 1b and I want slicks.
|
|
#56
10-08-09, 13:44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The roadgoing production categories are defined by I70-I81, of which I79 (tyres) is a part. None of that whole batch of regs is in italic so if you carry the "can't change any of it" argument to others within I70-I81 it means that all one make championships have to stop, since I70, which defines what vehicles are eligible for roadgoing, is not in italic. It also means you can't allow "standard car" classes with a much more restrictive list of allowed modifications (as the BARC championship has, or had). It is my opinion that the MSA will permit individual classes to modify the category definitions by making them more restrictive in eligibility terms. Whether by saying "This class is for standard cars only" or "These classes are for cars on List 1a tyres only" or "This class is for cars under 1400cc" or "This class is for Hillman Imps only." My sprint car runs on slicks, thankfully. Quote:
__________________
Mark
|
|
#57
14-08-09, 09:12
|
||||
|
||||
|
First of all, yes I am Jim Spencer’s brother.
I totally agree and hope that the rules become unified throughout the regions. My only fear is that while we are understandably concerned of how these changes will affect us financially as individuals for next season. Should we and the MSA not also be looking at the possible implications of how this may affect our sport in the next 3-5 years? Currently the MSA are having a purge on our safety clothing, changes to crash helmets, gloves etc, and what isn’t mandatory now is recommended which as we know means it will become mandatory soon. (I wear all of this already, had a fire at Loton). Do we really think it will stop here, how long before the speed of the cars and the suitability of the venues is called into question, as they most definitely will be, as this is the way of our health and safety world? Sooner or later they are going to look at slowing us down, either by changes to the cars or venues. If we are suddenly going 3 seconds a run quicker on 1b’s do we really think this will help the situation. Are we going to end up in a situation where we have to revert back to our slower, so in the world of H&S safer 1a’s or do we make wholesale and probably catastrophic changes to the venues? Yes the rules need to become unified throughout the region, but we need to balance this with where we want the sport to go. Whatever changes are made the quick guys will stay quick. We do not want to have to spend money on changes to make ourselves go faster to stay the same, to then only have to spend more to change the cars back because of increased speeds. Just my opinion, but think we and the MSA need to look a bit further forward. Flame at will!
|
|
#58
14-08-09, 11:09
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Dave
love the 'flame at will' comment, very apt after your loton Cedar BBQ a coupole of years ago! anyway, my thoughts. for me there ought to a 'ladder' of car specs, std-ish cars on 1As, more modded (and faster) cars on 1Bs, then full Mod Prods on slicks. That way someone can start in a simply modified car on cheap tyres and compete. This allows people to 'try' our sport without commiting thousands. bringing in new blood is essential as every year we lose a fair few sprint/hillclimbers to retirements, other motorsports such as circuit racing and of course those that pass away, without a 'ladder' of car specs and thus costs, we could lose the easy way into our sport. I doubt theres many of us that started with a Top 12 single seater, but had a tentative 'toe in the water' and then become hooked!. My concern is that given the Raodgoing classes tight rulings on modifications, changing them to 1Bs does seem a bit pointless. No good have carlos Fandango super sticky tyres on a car with std suspension, bushes and low power imho. The tyre grip available would be greater than the cars braking and suspension could handle? Anyway, its about time you and Jim slowed down anyway  How about some remould 'Ditchfinder 3000s'?Craig see you at Loton soon?
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
