GRID SIZES

[ofarc]

I have received the race entries today for Snetterton next weekend. I race in the 1000 series and looking at the grids for next weekend’s race I find it hard to believe that the Mono 2000 have their own grid. I know there will be late entries but there will also be late entries for the other grid too.

There are only 11 cars entered for the 2000 grid and one of those is an 1800, so that may be entered in the wrong grid. The 1000, 1400, 1600 + 1800 grid has 30 entries so far and 12 of those have 1000cc powered engines. This grid must be very near to capacity.

Would it make sense to say join the 2000 grid with another grid? Purely from a spectator point of view it will be better. Also scruteneering will be easier etc. People always say to me that if we can attract some more motorcycle cars to the championship then we will get a grid to ourselves, to that I totally agree. But the flip side is if a grid is perhaps verging on too small then that will need to be combined with another. If say the 1800’s joined the 2000’s then next weeks grid would be 20 and 21, a much better spectacle for all I think. I have to go by the race entry list as the facts for this post, and it may be that next weekend more people will arrive and equal out the grids.

Just my opinions and no offence is meant to anyone organising or driving.

[RedRedWine]

There is a preference by certain interested parties for the grids in this form rather than the alternative suggested having performed an informal assessment of the relative risks.

[phuston]

I have been told that the 1800 entered in the 2000 race is intentional. The driver hopes to have two outings in the same car, and has paid for two entries.

One suspects that at least one other 1800 driver will be happier to race on the 1000/1400/1600/1800 grid, rather than race with the Mono2000s, he raised the topic at the AGM.

[TFR]

I will be very surprised if the 1800 entered in the 2000 class at Snetterton is allowed to compete as I did the same thing at Anglesey, I competed in the first race but was thrown out of the second (and lost my entry fee) when my car was objected,by a fellow competitor (who is currently a committee member) on the grounds that I was running injection.I was also told that I could not run again in the 2000 class (with this car).
With regard to the manifold issue, I feel sorry for all the guys who have to change, the gain in performance must be minimal, the cost and time(time is also money to most) involved to change is the last thing anyone needs in this economic climate,extend the waiver to the end of the season, or at least till the summer break, that will save a lot of aggravation and bad feeling.
Congratulations to Ross Brawn and Jenson, nice to see someone else at the front.
GF

[Russ]

I will be very surprised if the 1800 entered in the 2000 class at Snetterton is allowed to compete as I did the same thing at Anglesey, I competed in the first race but was thrown out of the second (and lost my entry fee) when my car was objected,by a fellow competitor (who is currently a committee member) on the grounds that I was running injection.I was also told that I could not run again in the 2000 class (with this car).

GF

This was clarified as being an error at the time (2004).

The note from David circulated by email in June 04 stated

I understand that there was a problem over Geoff Fern racing in the Mono 2000 race at Anglesey. Having encouraged Geoff to race in the M2000 race I was concerned to find that he had been faced with this difficulty.

In order to clarify my position on this and in the absence of the full information surrounding this issue, I believe that the car is eligible for the Mono 2000 class as it stands, providing it is balasted to the class weight limit. Although the weight was not checked, I understand from Geoff that it was running at the appropriate class weight.

The issue seems to be eligibility of the engine. On the face of it, the engine would seem to be a standard production iron block engine of up to 2000cc. It is running production fuel injection (not a throttle body race system), has a dry sump system and a standard flywheel. Whilst a detailed examination of the engine may reveal a component that does not comply with 'standard production' it seems that no such examination was carried out. It would therefore seem that the engine was eligible to compete.

It seems a shame that a willing competitor at an undersubscribed meeting was thwarted in his attempt to race with us.

There are a number of cars that would be technically eligible for more than one class, although clearly not likely to be fully competitive and it would be good to encourage more drivers to have a go and swell the grid.

I have discussed this with John Atkinson who concurs with the above.

Kind regards

David Cox

MRC Chairman and Technical Rep

[TFR]

If "error" is an apology thankyou for that. I was not privvy to the e-mail circulated by David but certainly concour with the sentiments expressed therein, so as a result of this e-mail, in simple terms, is any M1800 car now eligeable for M2000 and if so does the driver gain points toward the 2000 championship?
GF

[Russ]

I am not aware of anything that has been brought up in recent years that will stop a M1800 running in M2000 if weighted appropriately. As far as I am aware the regulations that cover this issue have not changed.
If you run in a class, any points scored should count towards that championship.

[AndyY]

Mono 1800s did used to race with the 2000s until about 3 years ago, for grid size matching reasons, but it was felt, then, that it was far better for them to race in the same race as the 1600s, as they generally were more closely matched in performance than they were when they shared a grid with the 2000s. Better racing for both classes.

In performance terms, perhaps the 1000's & 1400s should share with the 2 litres but many have questioned the safety of this; being worried about carbon fibre tubbed F3 type cars T-boning much lighter weight space frame cars. That may be a valid worry, I don't know, but the 1800s are largely spaceframes, too, & it doesn't seem to worry them, or similarly the F4 people, where bike engined cars mix with other cars, inc the odd F3 tub regularly.

[ofarc]

The times of both 2000's and 1000's are very similar, so could be quite a spectacle to watch and compete in

[andrewcliffe]

Whilst the lap times between 1000/1400 and 2000/Classic are similar isn't the performance quite different in different places which could lead to people tripping over each other?

[tristancliffe]

The main problem would be the engine noise of the bike engined cars. All the car engined people would stop paying attention to their driving and spend too much concentration listening to the noise of the bike engines.

Distraction techniques like that are just unfair!

[ofarc]

Oh come on please, you cant be serious!!!!

A lap time is a lap time.

Here are the lap records taken from Startline for Snetterton.

1000 - 1.08.8
1400 - NA
1600 -1.15
1800 - 1.15
2000 -1.08.9
2000C - 1.10.9

The 1000's and 2000's are very sim in times and yes they may perform differently on the lap but dont the 1000's, 1600's and 1800's all perform differently on their laps. Yes they do and they all race together.

I remember lapping cars at Silverstonme last year going through turn 1 and having to brake heavily and shift DOWN as the speed difference was so great.

You cant use performance through a turn as a point, otherwise all the other classes should not mix either.

I think Tristan is right, he just doesnt want people to hear our high reving beautiful engines

[TFR]

I have to agree with OFARC, from a point of speed and lap time differencial 2000 racing with 1000 makes by far the most sense, and would be a far more exciting spectacle. From a personal point of view, the closer the racing the better,processions are boring both for the competitor and the spectator. From the clubs point of view if the 2000 race with the 1800 there will be one less entry,we could leave the 1400,s with the 1600,s and 1800,s if that pacifies some members. Some cars are always quicker than others in various parts of the circuit, hence overtaking,, but this is what we should be trying to encourage, Snetterton would be the best place to test the theory as it is pretty much wide open, and from a numbers split point of view it would work.
GF

[andrewcliffe]

The problem that I can see with putting 1000/1400 with 2000 is that people may get caught paddock superiority for getting the 'overall' race victory or podium positions and an otherwise avoidable accidents could occurr with people in different classes racing for track position rather than a class win.

This isn't a problem when racing with the 1600/1800 classes as they are generally not in contention for an outright win (except if its raining / strange weather).

I would think that a 1000/1400 grid and a 2000 / Classic / Formula grid and shuffle the 1800/1600 classes in order to maximise grids.

[Rupert Racing]

I am the member that Patrick eludes to who raised the issue at the AGM of the 1800's running with the 2000's as being unsatisfactory. However, my arguement was from the perspective of the differing performance (lap times), so far from being happier to run in a grid of nearly 30 cars of even greater performance differential I would take the lesser of the two evils and run in a smaller, combined 1800/2000 field. But I agree with Geoff that as the bike engined cars are more closely matched in performance to the 2000's then they should run together and the 1600's + 1800's together (maybe with the 1000's if that what it takes to even up the grids). Obviously, my opinion is influenced by my experience at the end of last year in a mixed field where I was being held up by a slow 2000 car but got in the way of a fast one which ended in tears. I am sure people will then point to that and say that the performance of the 1800 is therefore compatible with the 2000 but in theory it shouldn't be and therefore the grids should reflect this ?