Class' A B C D and E in NWFF

[youngoldy]

Looking at the entry list for this weekends meeting, it is a pretty poor turn out of Post89 cars, compared to Pre90.

I have heard from numerous people in the paddock about numerous cars not being the actual chassis type they have been entered as.

Several cars have been made after 1989, and they have been entered as a Pre90 car.

We can not prove that they were a 'Pre90' made car, as some may have had their original chassis tag removed, and with no log book, it will be hard to prove otherwise.

So should for next year, the BRSCC adopt a Post87 championship and Pre88 championship?

Some people will say 'well whoever runs in Post89, will have it harder to do well, as there will be more competition'. But an answer to that, and this is how I feel about club racing, i would not be racing to win the championship, but to drive well and enjoy myself. And the more cars you have to race against, the more fun it should be.

Look at Steve Jensen at Combe yesterday, started last and battled through the feild. If there were only 15 cars or so, it would have been made alot easier for him to crack the top 5. And CCRC even run an open class.

Views?

[itsonlyme]

[QUOTE=youngoldy]

Several cars have been made after 1989, and they have been entered as a Pre90 car.

We can not prove that they were a 'Pre90' made car, as some may have had their original chassis tag removed, and with no log book, it will be hard to prove otherwise.

So should for next year, the BRSCC adopt a Post87 championship and Pre88 championship?

QUOTE]

it makes no difference whatsoever if, for example, a 90/91/92 reynard has a 89 chassis plate. What is there to stop somebody swapping chassis plates around on Post87/Pre88 cars for next season if rules are changed???

[Walshy]

I suppose if you look at the split on the grids now, it may be worth a look at going back to how it used to be and having the cut-off at 1987.

At the end of the day, the Category would still have a Class 'C' Champ, but it would be whilst racing with the A's and B's, and not the D's and E's.

Clear as mud!!!!!

I think the problem is though, that it would appear the 1987-1989 cars are about the most popular, so the grid would swell, whoever they raced with.....

Idea. Give the 1987-1989 cars their own race and stick the A's, B's, D's and E's together. Problem solved!!

Queue barrage of abuse.....

[JohnMiller]

Or run them altogether with heat and a final.

[FranksWilde]

I think we should wait and see what Diz comes up with and then just agree with him.

Although I should correct myself and say we should wait and see what Di comes up with and then tells Diz (notice the similarity in name) what to do.

I have recently learnt that Di is the ideas woman and Diz mearley the puppet.

You know they do say that behind every great man there is a great woman.

[StephenRae]

Originally Posted by itsonlyme

it makes no difference whatsoever if, for example, a 90/91/92 reynard has a 89 chassis plate. What is there to stop somebody swapping chassis plates around on Post87/Pre88 cars for next season if rules are changed???

There is less chance of slipping a ringer into the pre 87 class as most 87 models were radically different to there 86 predecessors.
Diz will need a crystal ball to foresee the entry levels next year. He tells me it is awkward to switch the 87-90 cars into the post 90 race because of the way the championship points are awarded. At this point I glazed over...perhaps someone can explain?

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

Or run them altogether with heat and a final.

That's a good idea.

[Ian Sowman]

Originally Posted by StephenRae

There is less chance of slipping a ringer into the pre 87 class as most 87 models were radically different to there 86 predecessors.
Diz will need a crystal ball to foresee the entry levels next year. He tells me it is awkward to switch the 87-90 cars into the post 90 race because of the way the championship points are awarded. At this point I glazed over...perhaps someone can explain?

It is difficult because there is a Pre 1990 championship and a Post 1989 championship. Each have a separate points table based on overall results in their respective races. If one class races in the 'other' race, you then need to find an ingenious way of awarding points into the race that they should have been in.

[StephenRae]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

It is difficult because there is a Pre 1990 championship and a Post 1989 championship. Each have a separate points table based on overall results in their respective races. If one class races in the 'other' race, you then need to find an ingenious way of awarding points into the race that they should have been in.

There are one or two who upgraded to post 86 cars when the 'race split' went to post/pre 90, no doubt in search of race winning glory. I wonder if the split were returned to post /pre 86 would the rush then be on to buy a pre 87 car?

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

It is difficult because there is a Pre 1990 championship and a Post 1989 championship. Each have a separate points table based on overall results in their respective races. If one class races in the 'other' race, you then need to find an ingenious way of awarding points into the race that they should have been in.

Award points overall and separate points for each class.

[Ian Sowman]

How does that solve the problem?

In the example quoted, you have Class C cars racing in the race for Classes A and B. You need to ignore them from the points for the Classes A and B championshiop and but them into the points somehow for the C, D and E championship (as things stand at the moment, which is the issue at hand).

[Alan Raine]

I meant seperate points for each class (making 5 different classes) or is that getting too complicated

[JohnMiller]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

I meant seperate points for each class (making 5 different classes) or is that getting too complicated

You're getting back to questioning what numpty decided on 5 classes.

[jimbomit]

Is this really a problem, where would you stop? I’ve known of people who have replaced every part of their chassis except the roll bar. The car is still the same model but with much newer metal so tends to be stiffer and go better.

I’m also not sure that a 92 Raynard is so much better than an 89? Is it?

What about taking say an 87 Van Diemen and creating a wider track suspension, or putting wishbones all round to make it handle better, is it then an 87 an 06 or somewhere in-between?

Chris we kind of touched on some of this last night.

One thing I haven’t noticed since all these ‘modern’ FF1600’s came to prevalence is lap records tumbling. In fact the only records I can recently remember being broken were by Mr Dempsey last year in a Swift 92. Sure that’s post 89 but it was still 13 years old! Also what about the leaders in the Historic races, they certainly get mixed up in the thick of the action at events such as the WHT (yes I know the older stuff is suited to the wet) but the point remains that no matter what FF1600 you have the ability for them to go round a track can be very similar. The main limiting factor is the Joe in the driving seat. This is where I think the modern cars do have a benefit. Having had the pleasure of playing in a 92 at the Moose rather than my usual 89 even here there were noticeable differences as to how much easier the newer cars are to drive. I believe the 00’s onwards are incredibly stable especially in braking. This gives the driver more confidence to explore quicker speeds and as such helps people drive a bit faster.

From a personal point I don’t have a problem with someone having got to the point where they can’t drive their current car any quicker, wanting a car that will help them improve further, we’re not all natural Senna’s!! I also think the time may be right to re-look at the class system though.

Splitting the field by date works for a few years, look at how the pre 87 field went from the smaller race to capacity grids within 2 years of becoming pre 89. In the NW that wasn’t down to the number of 87 – 89 cars in the post race moving across. I think the main driving force behind the expansion was that as a few people traded their pre 87 to a pre 89, found the cars to be easier to drive and hence sped up a bit, it encouraged others to join in (after all we all like to improve) and secondly it spread the field out a bit to an extent where everyone was having a race . . . the reason why, ultimately, we participate.

Look at the post 89 races now, if you’re not running with the top bunch, most likely you’ll be on your own and that’s not much fun. So what will happen with pre 90, probably the same? The lead group will start to pull away from the rest, the pack will spread out and become more of a procession save for the group at the front which, inevitably will start tripping over each other and more than likely disrupt the race for everyone else in the ensuing clear up periods.

Maybe it’s time to look at the structure again and look at running a festival format at each round so the race make ups are decided by speed. That way every time you’re out you will be racing with people at a similar standard, either through raw ability or through the confidence given to them by their ‘new’ car. Exciting racing, probably safer racing as the speed differentials between quickest and slowest should be less.

Only a thought!!! What does anyone else think???

[Ian Sowman]

That's a fairly long-winded way of going for a heat and a final, with the split purely decided by qualifying times. That way the slower Post 1989 drivers get to race with the Pre 1990 drivers, rather than tootle about on their own.

I suggested this last year, and the response was luke warm.

[Alan Raine]

Sounds like a good idea to me. It made for an interesting race at the Moose Trophy the other week having them all together.

[Walshy]

Sounds good to me also. The Moose was a good example of it working.

They do it at Combe every race meeting.

The only sticking point you may have is the regular winners in the Pre '90 field not getting the advantage, or satisfaction of an outright win.

[JohnMiller]

What's stopping them?

Daly, Mumford, Hewitt, Foster, Kestenbaum, Leech to name a few could win outright in Reynards.

[jimbomit]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

That's a fairly long-winded way of going for a heat and a final, with the split purely decided by qualifying times. That way the slower Post 1989 drivers get to race with the Pre 1990 drivers, rather than tootle about on their own.

I suggested this last year, and the response was luke warm.

I shouldn’t consider your failure to make inroads last year to heart Ian. Maybe you didn’t elaborate enough!!

Ultimately it’s the participants who decide their preference based on the situation at the time. Last year we had recently moved from pre 87 to pre 90, a change that not all were in favour of. It then transpired that the new situation was actually paying dividends with increased grids and more competitive racing so the impetus to change again was, understandably low.

Perhaps, from the touchline, last year it seemed like a good idea but I would suggest that it is really only now that we have a situation in the NW where this format would be feasible. After all you need to have sustained high entrant figures, well effected by the current format, to make reserving the extra race slot financially viable.

Anyway, enough of the reasons why it wasn’t a goer last year, lets concentrate on now and the future!! I think you’ll agree that now is the time to look forward and discuss what plans are needed to be made to sustain and build on the current success of FF1600 in the NW and UK. It needs to keep morphing to keep the racing competitive and relevant and those decisions need to be taken by listening to the competitors and what it is they seek to achieve from their racing.

I think the reasons against this format are reducing, as both Chris and John have eloquently said, it works well for Combe and if you’re good, there’s no reason why an older car shouldn’t be winning outright.

[Asp]

I suppose the problem with going onto a combined grid with heat/final is that we "lose" a championship - we only have a CFF(NW) champion instead of a Pre-90 and Post-89 champion. Which obviously means there's be less chance of silverware - and explains why people could still be opposed.
Plus, there's more "technical" obstacles - such as what if one session is wet and one is dry (although, minor, and it doesn't pose major problems in other series where split sessions are frequent).

That said, I'm still for it - everyone agress the Moose was a great race, and after qualifying the packs will be closer together. Plus, if the combined entry is less that two full grids - some people can get 2 races for the price of one!

[Walshy]

If this was a route we were going to take though, it would be nice to see a few things implemented that all the drivers would agree to.

Namely, a limit on tyres used throughout the season and a possible limit to testing. There is no point trying to level the playing field of a Championship if a number of drivers who have, can go and throw new tyres on for every race.

[jimbomit]

Originally Posted by Asp

I suppose the problem with going onto a combined grid with heat/final is that we "lose" a championship - we only have a CFF(NW) champion instead of a Pre-90 and Post-89 champion. Which obviously means there's be less chance of silverware - and explains why people could still be opposed.
Plus, there's more "technical" obstacles - such as what if one session is wet and one is dry (although, minor, and it doesn't pose major problems in other series where split sessions are frequent).

That said, I'm still for it - everyone agress the Moose was a great race, and after qualifying the packs will be closer together. Plus, if the combined entry is less that two full grids - some people can get 2 races for the price of one!

I suppose if you qualified in championship order then in most instances you would be racing fairly if the sessions were split wet or dry.

As for the extra pots, not to dissrespect previous winners of the pre 90 championship but it is not always regarded as big an achievement as winning a post race. Recently it has been used by less experienced riders before taking on a more challenging series the year after such as Mr Chisnal, Jamie Smyth, thingy last year (sorry rubbish at names). If there were class winners, overall race winners and maybe resurect driver of the day, I think most people would come out to play? After all there arn't many of us who can honestly say we are racing pre 90 for the pots!!! (Or am I just being personally realistic!)

[Triple J Motorsport]

Think the only or main difference between a 89 and the last 91(?) was body work? Who says you can't run 90 body work plus any other "mod" as long as the plate say 89?

Reynards can win out right open races of course and has.

But if you change to pre 89 aren't you going to see all RF89 suddenly becoming RF88s?

I am sure a well driven RF89 could beat the Reynards, what about Andy last year his was an 84 wasn't it? Isn't an RF89 what Matt had before his Ray that went well!

Why not have 2 races with 3 classes? 06 to 90 and 89 to 87 (A & B) and C 86 or older. Champion is the one with most points whether thats A,B or C?

How would that work out grid number wise?

[JustinDawkins]

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

What's stopping them?

Daly, Mumford, Hewitt, Foster, Kestenbaum, Leech to name a few could win outright in Reynards.

Foster, Mumford and Daly Definately could. Not sure about the others.

I would be good to see womeone stick it up the new cars in post 89 in a Reynard (The Foster/Mumford car(s) are 92 anyway).

Mind you I would love to see all mixed with heats and a final - now that would be racing!!

[youngoldy]

Originally Posted by Walshy

If this was a route we were going to take though, it would be nice to see a few things implemented that all the drivers would agree to.

Namely, a limit on tyres used throughout the season and a possible limit to testing. There is no point trying to level the playing field of a Championship if a number of drivers who have, can go and throw new tyres on for every race.

I can name (but I won't) drivers who can turn up, do half a days testing and use the same tyres for about 2 rounds, and still win.

But I believe it doesn't matter if you are with a team that brings everything but the kitchen sink, and they might not be runnin at the front. They even do testing as much as possible, run with brand new sets of tyres on the friday, scrub a new set in during the last session, have a superb car and not be on the pace.

Whereas mentioned, some can turn up, with hardly anything to make themselves look like a fully equiped team, and still get podiums and wins.

I really can't see having a limit to testing and tyres will affect the results at the front, but perhaps towards the rear of the grid. Its a talent thing. I believe that say at the old Anglesey, when wet, a front runner on dead tyres can still lap at the pace of someone towards the rear who is on newer tyres.