Things to Ban from FIA Cars.

[terence]

Just got back from Silverstone and on the way home I wondered that seeing that "Apparently" all of the posters are using LEGAL Cars,so as to make Jeremys job even easier,what would you like to see banned from "our"Racing.I,ll start the ball rolling by listing Parabolic rear springs on MGBs,not exactly "Period",also single leaf [unless homologated] from all makes.

[zefarelly]

I run single leaf, but would happily revert to multi leaf, although I thought spring where free ?

where they fix isn't . . .and that should include where you bolt the axle on!

[terence]

It was intended as a "For Instance" Zef,there must be some really nigglie things out there that annoy everyone.Just thinking about how they used to be really.As for the parabolic springs on "B"s,this range of cars never had the luxury of single leaf.

[zefarelly]

annoying things like electronic ignition you mean, or redrilled suspension mountings for negative camber, bent axles for toe in . . .that kind of thing ?

its actually ingenious how far people will go to make a car designed by a crane engineer handle through corners !

[terence]

Now that,s more like it,I was wondering that if the Scrutineers knew of these things ,would it create the level playing field that we all want to race on.?

[SZRacer]

Hey, everyone knows that the art of 'preparation' is knowing how far you can push the rules, within reason. Look at modern F1!!

Have to say, though, I've seen some really 'obvious' things completely ignored by scrutes.

e.g. Watts linkages and Panhard rods on cars that never had them, coilover shocks etc.

I would say that the issue is more to do with the fact that the scrutes are mainly concerned/obsessed with safety features i.e. kill switches, throttle return springs, harnesses etc.

The great thing with someone like Carol, when she ran Gentleman Dribblers, was that she would have an 'informal' walk around checking tyres, and other less obvious aspects of cars.

I suspect that an 'eligibility' scrutineer for each series would be a great way of policing the paddock....

James

[LYNX]

Formula Junior is well policed by our in house scrutineers and of course the drivers also look out for anything suspicious i.e. wheel widths, electronic ignition and anyone who suddenly goes much faster! Though as almost everybody assists anyone with a problem at the circuit it has not been a problem uppermost in our minds.

[simon drabble]

Originally Posted by LYNX

Formula Junior is well policed by our in house scrutineers and of course the drivers also look out for anything suspicious i.e. wheel widths, electronic ignition and anyone who suddenly goes much faster! Though as almost everybody assists anyone with a problem at the circuit it has not been a problem uppermost in our minds.

FJ looks an increasingly attractive series to race with - gentlemen drivers with almost too much top quality meetings to choose from....

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

annoying things like electronic ignition you mean, or redrilled suspension mountings for negative camber, bent axles for toe in . . .that kind of thing ?

its actually ingenious how far people will go to make a car designed by a crane engineer handle through corners !

Depending where you start from electronic ignition is allowed.

Bending axles has been going on since the year dot, it's one of the first "tweaks" car builders think of. It does cost a lot in worn bearings though so for the small again it can be a pain (ooh poetry).

If you can adjust spring angles without cutting components then I have no problem with it. One of my pet hates is adjustable TCA's.

Aren't B's allowed to re drill the front crossmember to increase camber?

The good thing about basic Ford set ups is you can machine the ARB to adjust castor or just fix it in offset bearings. All allowed by App J Group 1. They had an adjustable ARB on the Group 2 Capris whereby you just bolted the drop arm to the TCA into the most suitable pre drilled hole.

[zefarelly]

Fair points Peter, but none of that applies to App K pre66, to emphasise a point in the CTCRC regs they quote a measurement between Cortina strut top bolt holes!

FJ appears to be an excellent example of how good a series can be.

The problem is eligibility scrutineers cost, although I think a stroll round the paddock and 'a word in your shell like' is all thats needed in most cases

whether that word is please change this minor detail, or don't come back again! is another matter

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

Fair points Peter, but none of that applies to App K pre66, to emphasise a point in the CTCRC regs they quote a measurement between Cortina strut top bolt holes!

So if they don't state the position of the top of the strut you can run an offset mounting can't you? (I'm not suggesting this is legal but just using it as an example).

Originally Posted by zefarelly

FJ appears to be an excellent example of how good a series can be.

The problem is eligibility scrutineers cost, although I think a stroll round the paddock and 'a word in your shell like' is all thats needed in most cases

whether that word is please change this minor detail, or don't come back again! is another matter

Well reading the Masters release posted by Roger it would appear that it will be two words with the second being "off".

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

So if they don't state the position of the top of the strut you can run an offset mounting can't you? (I'm not suggesting this is legal but just using it as an example).

From App K


Unless otherwise specifically authorised by these regulations,
any part of a car must have identical dimensions to the original
part and evidence of this must be provided.
The technology used, including that allowed with homologation
extensions, must be compatible with that used in period.


3.4 General Definitions
3.4.1 The silhouette is the shape of the car viewed from any direction,
with the body panels in position.
3.4.2 The chassis is the overall structure of the car around which
are assembled the mechanical components and the bodywork
including any structural part of the said structure.
3.4.3 The term «material type» indicates the same material, but not
necessarily to the same specification.
3.4.4 Thus «aluminium» is metallurgically aluminium but may be of a
different grade and contain elements not present in the original
component to the exclusion of aluminium beryllium. Magnesium
may be replaced with aluminium.
3.5 Tolerances
3.5.1 Unless otherwise specified on the homologation form and in
the appendix J for the period applicable to the car, the following
tolerances on measurements of components are to be applied:
3.5.2 All machining, excepting bore and stroke: ± 0.2%;
3.5.3 Unfinished casting: ± 0.5%;
3.5.4 Width of car at front and rear axle lines: + 1%, - 0.3%;
3.5.5 Wheelbase: ± 1.1%;
3.5.6 Track: ± 1%.


Its quite clear, unless your looking to cheat !

[Peter Mallett]

Well in that case you can adjust the camber quite easily. Although running those tyres it probably wouldn't help.

[zefarelly]

it doesnt, castor does, that done to extremes means the wheel base is out so you see cut wing fronts and redrilled leaf springs and the rear wheel right at the front of the arch, also as a by product you shift weight back in the car ! not strictly speaking legal but done correctly it all measures up ok !

[terence]

Peter ,"B"s are not excluded from the "Moving"of pickup points on the suspension front,besides,it makes them too twitchy at the front .I once drove a car that Bill Nicholson had modified,quite frankly it was bloody awfull.

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm,

Just thought of something to ban. Careless wealthy drivers.

[SZRacer]

And James's quiz for today is find the 'careless wealthy drivers' from their initials!

First three:

FS

JB

CM

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm,

Just thought of something to ban. Careless wealthy drivers.

[Peter Mallett]

There are others but as they know me I'll keep shtum.

[zefarelly]

ooh betty . . .the cars done a crashy in the kitty litter !

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

FJ appears to be an excellent example of how good a series can be.

It shows that letting the competitors police a series themselves is far more satisfactory than letting bureaucrats do so.

I'm sure that is an oversimplified statement, but the series organiser being a competitor and hugely knowledgeable about FJs must have a lot to do with it.

[zefarelly]

agreed, some people struggle to recognise much more than how many wheels go on an average car!

[terence]

This is a problem through out the clubs ,non racers making racers rules,is,nt it?

[zefarelly]

racing is a very difficult discipline to organising . . . although some racers could organise a pi55 up outside of a brewery, they struggle to organise a decent car ! I don't know many people who can multi task in that way . . . . . apart from myself of course

[terence]

And me!!

[esper]

being that sure of yourself is already 50% of the game.....................