In my opinion its time to revert to this discussion. I think some of the more competitive cars carry so much ballast that its not good for the sport.
- It makes the gap between the have's and the have nots too big.
- There could be a danger element. One day one of them will go end over end.
- They must be pigs to drive on the road. Possible doubts about legality or insurance cover
- Damage to sections
My suggestion is we go back to the previous idea of ACTC + MCC buying a set of portable electronic scales. Next season every car is weighed and the driver given the results. This data is then analysed and those that understand these things draw up a permitted weight distribution for each class that is effective from 1st Jan 2009.
If a car fails at scruitineering he is allowed to adjust and re-submit. The scrut would also do a secret check on-route. If you fail that you are either penalised a certain no of points or thrown out.
The detail is not important. That can be worked out. Its the principle. Is it a good idea? (no its not new and not mine but perhaps time to look at again).
Michael
To weigh every car with only one set of scales would be quite time consuming, and would it be with driver and passengers in and seated as they would be going up a section? Moving a passenger into the back can make alot of difference to weight distribution. I know what my HRG is as its been on the scales, now if I could just get a seat on the spare wheels.........
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good idea but it woould have to depend on ensuring there is no more than say 60/40 weight bias to the driven axel. If a competitor wamts to add extra weight then ultimately he has to pull that up the hill and the extra traction will be outweighed by the power needed to pull it. Ultimately the lightest car with the best weight distribution will be the winner.
ReplyDeletei do wonder what would happen if vosa pulled in a few cars the axel weights would raise a few questions (most cars have axel weights on the vin plates) as for this beeing enforced by a scrut ,I still dont consider the diff test to be acurate and trying to weigh 50 to 80 cars and note all the data on a wet windy sunday morning , i can see a lot of problems , i personly would like to see it in place but the logistics of doing so would place a greater work load on our all ready over streched marshals ,it would be good to think that a solution could be found ,but alas in the real world I dought it Adrian Booth (ren5)
ReplyDeleteBallast limits appear to be a good idea but the topic is very complicated. Michael's proposals seem to be quite sensible in principal but I think we would have to have random spot checks instead of wholesale weighing at all starts. How can anyone decide what weight distribution is correct for any particular vehicle against another, especially one-off specials. I take HRG Driver's point seriously, if the weight is high up then the weight transfer on hills is greater; another complication. If the weight distribution is set without crews then I can forsee a huge demand for heavy passengers and a lot of fat open car drivers. If this matter does go further and is taken up I hope that it is not on the lines that were suggested 3 or 4 years ago, which would have meant me carrying 50kilos of ballast on the front axle of my car which had standard weight distribution. More of a worry at the moment is the dwindling number of suppliers of suitable 15" tyres. With the recent demise of Colway is there going to be a shortage of 14" tyres as well?
ReplyDeleteOne problem is the cost. Scales suitable for weighing cars are pretty
ReplyDeleteexpensive. Running trials isn't exactly profitable for most clubs so the
extra cost of buying scales could result in fewer trials.
Les
In principle, I agree with Michael's first stance that some method of controlling ballast would be good for the sport, but as can be seen from the replies so far creating a rule that is enforcable is not easy. In addition to this, I would like to add another consideration to the scheme of things, and that is that weight distribution alone is not the solution. Any rule would have to be based on "centre of gravity". A rule that is just based on weight distribution when weighed on the flat could easily be circumvented by adding the weight further forward but higher in the car. This would place the centre of gravity higher, so that as the angle of the car increased, the weight distribution would move backwards at a higher rate. Weight placed high in the car is going to add to the on-road instability, not improve the situation. In these circumstances we would have to weigh the cars with them jacked up at an angle of say 45 degrees to get an accurate "centre of gravity" reading and the previous correspondents have already expresssed serious doubts as to the practicality of weighing cars even without added compications. One of the Dellow Register people has a piece of Ron Lowe memorabilia that was created by some students in the early fifties which demonstrates that the reason for a Dellow's sucess as a trials and rally car is that a standard side-valve car has a roughly 50/50 weight distribution, making it handle well on the road, but put it at an angle of 45 degrees and the centre of gravity runs perfectly through the line of the real axle - the ideal trials bias.
ReplyDeleteFor the non-technical I have added crude drawing that I hope might explain more in the photo albums under "Centre of Gravity"
ReplyDeletethe weight distribution issue was raised some years ago within the trials world. As I recall, and my memory isn't perfect....the conclusion was, after experimentation, that 'weight distribution' wasn't really an issue, since it was found, for prodution cars, there was a struggle to exceed 40/60. For class 8, we already have the 'rear overhang' limits in place..[I remember seeing a photo of, I think, one of the Singer [ ? or something beginning with 'S'?] factory trials cars....a 2 seater, with it's spare wheel and fuel tank so far behind the back axle line...that the overhang equalled the wheelbase!] We also have tyre size limits? Perhaps these alone could be 'played around with?' Another solution might lie with engine capacity limits? or more stringent dimensional limits for those stuck with big engines? perhaps sub-divide class 8 so that a 1000cc sppecial isn't ''up against'' a V8 engined car? with what Simon said..I can understand why roof racks were banned!
ReplyDeleteI remember when I was trialling my VW Buggy some years ago, we took it to the local weighbridge and played around with weight distribution and came to the following conclusions: When we exceeded 60% on the rear: 1 The on road handling became quite dodgy, especially when we were a little lazy about reinflating tyres after a section, when the handling became downright dangerous. 2 Grip up a straight climb was improved, but it wouldn't steer. Any slippery bends or corners and we were off the track. We decided that overall, there was no advantage in exceeding 60% on the rear. As for checking weight distribution : proper scales that can be driven onto would cost around 짙1500. The cheaper way would mean jacking up both a front and then a rear wheel and putting scales under, but scales with a suitable capacity would probably still cost around 짙5/600.
ReplyDeleteDavid Haley has provided me with a photo of Ron Lowe holding his C of G template that the students made. I've added it to the Centre of Gravity photo album. He's holding it upside down so it doesn't look quite as clever as it might but could help anyone who's rolled his Dellow.
ReplyDeleteSounds useful for Mark!
ReplyDeleteThe assumption of a 45 degree slope makes the point but are there any trials hills this steep? You would not be able to walk up. Didn't I read that Simms is 1:3? In this case the C of G would move by 1/3 of the height of the C of G above ground level. Additionally, would it be possible to move the C of G up by more than two or three inches - which would translate to a relative movement of 1" max on Simms? Is this a big problem by comparison with the straight and level weight distribution? If there are some exceptionally steep gradients on some hills then considerations of weight transference surely suggest that restarts should be sited on less steep slopes to make it fairer for all and discourage bizarre cars?
ReplyDeleteBy running selected trials via a public or private weighbridge en route it would be quite easy to check the laden weight then the weight on the driven wheels, the former is done on the Cirencester car club Corinium economy run and the weights used to calculate an index of performance. It takes but a few minutes and the weigh bridge they use is at a quarry.
ReplyDeleteDavid
Interesting to see the photo of Ron lowe on the website. he is holding his famous Dellow cut out where he deomonstated the 60/40 weight ditribution design. Unfortunately in the photo the Dellow is upside down- which he is probably explaning happens if you get it wrong! Photo taken at the Dellow Register meeting at Stone Manor in the 80's I believe.
ReplyDeleteWeight Distribution. When we open this box, we will see the car with front and rear petrol tanks and a couple of pumps. I tried moving a couple of jerry cans of fuel from back to front over the weekend and can change the distribution by quite a lot on the marlin. If a class 7 man can think of this , just think what those class 8 thinkers will come up with.! Noisey Cheney
ReplyDeleteI think it is in the rules that you can't shift ballast during a trial.
ReplyDeleteLes
NoisyCheney wrote:
> New Message on Classical Gas, For Trials enthusiasts
>
>
>
> *Weight Distribution*
>
>
> *Reply*
>
>
> *Reply to Sender*
>
> *Recommend*
>
> Message 16 in Discussion
>
> From: NoisyCheney
>
>
>
> Weight Distribution.
> When we open this box, we will see the car with front and rear
> petrol tanks and a couple of pumps.
> I tried moving a couple of jerry cans of fuel from back to front
> over the weekend and can change the distribution by quite a lot on
> the marlin. If a class 7 man can think of this , just think what
> those class 8 thinkers will come up with.!
> Noisey Cheney
>
>
>
>
If my memory of the MCC tests serves me right, the elephant in the room that no-one has mentioned yet is that this rule would have most effect on Class 1 as they have the least equal weight distribution. And even with that the effect of rearwards weight transfer on a hill are plain for all to see. The rules do prohibit moving ballast during an event but what constitutes ballast? Passenger/s, fuel, tools, spare parts that you carry just in case... Interestingly I was speaking to one of the people whom this idea may be aimed at on Friday and was told that the plan was to reduce the overall weight of the vehicle in question so it would require less ballast to be carried over the driven wheels....and I don't think either of us were aware of this debate at the time...
ReplyDeleteFrom what little experience I have had, too much overall weight is a
ReplyDeletebad thing. You want a light car with good weight distribution and a
decent power to weight ratio. Look at a Liege or Troll. Both do well and
both weigh very little. I know it is a bit different but I used to drive
a Fiat Panda 4x4 off-road. It would often get further than Land Rovers
simply due to the light weight.
Les
Ian Davis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If my memory of the MCC tests serves me right, the elephant in the
> room that no-one has mentioned yet is that this rule would have
> most effect on Class 1 as they have the least equal weight
> distribution. And even with that the effect of rearwards weight
> transfer on a hill are plain for all to see.
>
> The rules do prohibit moving ballast during an event but what
> constitutes ballast? Passenger/s, fuel, tools, spare parts that
> you carry just in case...
>
> Interestingly I was speaking to one of the people whom this idea
> may be aimed at on Friday and was told that the plan was to reduce
> the overall weight of the vehicle in question so it would require
> less ballast to be carried over the driven wheels....and I don't
> think either of us were aware of this debate at the time...
>
>
>
just weighed the pug and found it to be well within the 40 /60 limit ,and I consider this to be a compeditive class 1 car (the attention it gets from the scruts would bear that out) I have run it a lot lighter and still had good results however I would prefer to keep it light if only to save on tyres and transmision etc, but the compettion forces me to add more front weight so I dont think the 60/40 split will make a lot of difference to class1 but observing axel loadings would
ReplyDeleteI'm now looking for a very tall passenger with a big head.....
ReplyDeleteIn his opening post Michael is wrong when he says "Possible doubts about legality and insurance cover". Sorry to sound dogmatic but it seems very few people have bothered to read (perhaps not surprisingly ....) the Construction and Use Regulations. "C & U Regulation 100(1) requires: a motor vehicle, and all its parts and accessories; the number of passengers carried, and the manner in which any passengers are carried in or on the vehicle; and the weight, distribution, packing and adjustment of the load of a vehicle, to be at all times such that no danger is caused, or is likely to be caused, to any person in or on a vehicle or on a road." I'll go a stage further. I am 100% certain that some trials vehicles are thus both illegal and un-insured. Having seen several recent clips of video film with cars having their front wheels 'pawing the air' I think Michael is right to be very concerned about over-ballasted cars. Several other points occur. I'm not sure where the 40/60% weight distribution starts to enter this debate but IF anything is to be done then lets hope the powers-that-be do some research before making another sweeping rule. The standard Porsche 911 ( and yes, Josh Sadler did trial one some years ago) is given by Motor as having a weight distribution of 35/65 front/rear. Graham Austin is perceptive in saying that the C of G theory is correct but in practice has very little effect because it is extremely difficult to raise the C of G significantly without raising the overall vehicle weight by a big margin. Graham has also picked up on the other factor that is encouraging "weird" specials (to quote Classic & Sportscar magazine) :- "........ that restarts should be sited on less steep slopes to make it fairer for all and discourage bizarre cars?". I can tell you from practical experience that 22cwt of Allard won't move from a steep restart that a 12cwt Dellow would walk away from ( and that a 7cwt ex-NTF car or rear-engined lightweight would just potter away from ). So, an excellent idea Graham but it will never be taken up because organisers will try to 'stop' these bizarre cars. It is of course the historic reason behind NTF. Specials got lighter and lighter, more extreme and thus unsafe and unsuited to road use so they were all put on trailers and given their own championship. I know it is not a universal view but I think rather extreme cars like this have become tacitly accepted in Class 8 but that they may represent a PR own goal in the longer term. Having done my fair share of PR over the years, it is a lot easier to convince landowners and householders that you are running a Classic event if you don't have vehicles that would be more at home with a 4WD club's extreme specials in an off-road event.
ReplyDeleteI think we're all getting a little confused here ... weight distribution is not, in my opinion, a real problem in Class 8 - which is the class with the supposedly weird-looking cars. We've been through this "image business" in the recent past and decided, on balance, to allow the current "almost anything goes in Class 8" to continue. In my opinion, most successful Class 8 cars are based around lightest overall weight, and maximum articulation, not most extreme weight distribution. The over-ballasting problem (if indeed such a problem exists) occurs in the other classes, most particularly the front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, Classes 3 and 7. If you look at the pictures of cars with their front wheels "pawing the air", I bet you'll find that most of these are in those two classes, and not in Class 8. Andrew
ReplyDeleteI love it when people start using emotive phrases like "Weird" and "Bizarre". Just remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteMy experience of non-motorsport people stumbling across a trials section is that all the vehicles are doing something that is, in their estimation, "Weird" or "Bizarre".
I don't feel confused - but I guess it is always a possibility. I am crystal clear insofar as there are cars that are putting the sport at risk - from a number of points of view. Class 8 may well not have cars with extreme weight bias and bad handling. I have not weighed one (have TPTB?) or driven one. But I have however watched them do frightening things on hills such as Crooked Mustard, literally fall apart on trials hills, followed them on the road and seen them brought to road-going trials on trailers. I bow to Andrew's more recent involvement in trials but "if such a problem exists" has me a bit worried. As this is a public forum I would just say read the C&U reg. and start watching cars with that in mind. I tend to disagree that it is just Class 3 and 7 that may have a problem. Hypothetically, take a front wheel drive car and load up the front bumper and engine bay with ballast, then remove or lighten all possible bits at the rear. It will perform better on trials but the handling on wet, frosty or greasy public roads will be somewhat different from the car as sold. It might even stand on it's nose when braking heavily on a driving test ..... Will it comply with C&U 100(1) ? You tell me. Other trials mods have precedents (raising the suspension because it was done on cars sold by the factory) but not so with ballasting? The words (actually chosen by others) to describe some cars may be 'emotive' - they are also descriptive. I am aware that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but also think we have a touch of "The Emperor's new clothes". Whilst I know the VSCC is not perfect, they do at least make sure that all competing vehicles resemble vintage cars. The Suzuki 'thing' http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Suzuki-Unlisted-Sports-DAZON-RS1100-Street-Legal-Buggy_W0QQitemZ320191639184QQihZ011QQcategoryZ18283QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem would be accepted by some within current trials circles - but seen as a considerable PR liability by others. Simon well knows my views on dangerous cars and instances of home-built trials cars having serious flaws in their design and construction. With a trailered car that is only ever used on off-road sites, little problem. When suspension collapses on the public highway it is a different ball-game. Andrew, is there a thread you could refer me too where you say this "anything goes in Class 8" was discussed ?
ReplyDeleteSince we are quoting Rules & Regulations I would point out the I don't believe that many cars, Classes 3, 7 or 8 actually carry that much ballast. What they do carry is large heavy items such as wheels & tyres, spare fuel, trolley jacks, spare diffs, tool boxes and other stuff which has a purpose and therefore does not fit the legal definition of ballast and would therefore not be banned by any "No Ballast" rule.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most dificult problems with any legislation is avoiding "throwing out the baby with the bath water"
When a home made car's suspension collapses on the public highway it is almost certainly down to poor construction rather than poor design and that is more difficult to legislate.
The incidence of dangerous flaws in home-built cars should be severly
ReplyDeletereduced by the SVA test which has ben mandatory for quite a few years
now. All home-built cars have to go through this 'super MOT' before they
can be regsitered. As well as having to comply with C&U they are
inspected for safety. It isn't easy to pass the SVA. I've done it once
and am about to do it again.
There will still be breakages but there will also be breakages on
production cars. Bash any car on enough rocks and bits will eventually
break.
Les
>
>
>
> Simon well knows my views on dangerous cars and instances of
> home-built trials cars having serious flaws in their design and
> construction. With a trailered car that is only ever used on
> off-road sites, little problem. When suspension collapses on the
> public highway it is a different ball-game.
>
>
>
>
>
'Whilst I know the VSCC is not perfect, they do at least make sure that all competing vehicles resemble vintage cars.' True but I suspect that the clue is in the question as it were...it is the Vintage Sports Car Club after all. I'm not convinced that old does mean better, safer or more PR friendly to the public at large. For example what's the least stable vehicle currently in use in trialling (judging by the number that fall over) - could it be the Austen 7 and its many derivatives? Which trials vehicles are most at risk on high speed roads such as dual carriageways and motorways - could it be the class 2s that can't keep up with modern traffic speeds and are sometimes poorly lit at the back? How does the braking performance of something like a Trojan compare to a modern car. Watch Michael Leete's excellent videos of class 7 & 8 on Wooston Steep last year. The car that spends most time with its front wheels in the air is not a modern home-built special...or a rear engined special...does that car pose a PR risk? Most people think it provides the best possible PR for our sport. Similarly, some Class 2 cars are known (and indeed celebrated by some) for pawing the air with their front wheels. Even the VSCC website has pictures of vintage cars with their front wheels in the air on trials in 2007. But it's nothing new as the video of the 1948 Gloucester Car Trials demonstrates...where the car leaping over the step on the Ladder, front wheels gaily in the air is...
ReplyDeleteSVA tests are okay when the home built car is actually put through them - but how many trials cars do you know that have imaginative V5s? I can think of a few that now bear no resemblance to the car make and type they are entered in trials as - which I'm guessing must be what's on the registration document. So if they are insured and MOTed as that vehicle too . . . - that is probably more of a worry than actual weight distribution. We run a small amount of ballast in the yeller Dutton (does John count as ballast? And if he does, when he does a bit of bouncing, does that mean we now have moveable ballast?) as well as the spare wheels (always wondered about the wording - we're allowed to carry two external spares - so does that mean an unlimited number internally?), tools and jack. When given full welly in first on a real grippy surface, the front wheels can be persuaded to come off the ground for an inch or two. Yet when John says he's taking it easy on the way home from a club night trial, I have to work to stay with him on our local twisties in a pretty fast Caterham, so I reckon we have our ballast pretty much right for a balanced car. But if the boot floor was to change from 10mm ply, to 10mm steel, welded in, thus becoming a structural part of the car - would that be ballast? I think ballasting becomes pretty much self-policing anyway - for those who think about it anyway - use too much, and you can't steer on the hills. Of much more importance is how we treat the other users of the roads/lanes/tracks we use - so far, we've only ever had grins and waves back, when slowing down or stopping for others, in reply to our greetings and thanks. Noise is probably an important thing too - we've tried to shut the Dutton up a bit more as it is. Crawling past someone making not much noise sends a different message to an amount of noise that sounds as though you are attempting to break the land speed record, even if you are only doing 20mph. Bri
ReplyDeleteInteresting that the VSCC cropped up. I have long since thought that some of their Special brewed cars would have an interesting time getting into Class2 - probably why they do not come to play too often.
ReplyDeleteMark You are correct, VSCC specials can often be a mix of of parts from various VSCC eligable cars in which case the approprate ACTC class is likely to be 5b. The most obvious example is when a pre 1941 car gets another pre 1941 make of engine. However using VSCC definitions, a Standard car most Modified and many Specials are eligable for ACTC Class 2. Dudley
ReplyDelete<<< SVA tests are okay when the home built car is actually put through them - but how many trials cars do you know that have imaginative V5s? I can think of a few that now bear no resemblance to the car make and type they are entered in trials as - which I'm guessing must be what's on the registration document. So if they are insured and MOTed as that vehicle too . . . - that is probably more of a worry than actual weight distribution >>> The above smacks a little bit of a 'modernistic' view of old-style 'specials?? Prior to about 1996....and definately between the 50's and 70's....there were many 'specials'...including kit cars, that complied with the DVLA [and its predecessors]regulations regarding whether the 'new' vehicle could adopt the registration of the donor, or not. For example, a 'special' built, say, in the late 50's, from predominately Ford sidevalver parts..[predominately from the same vehicle...or similar]....would be registered as a ''Ford''..and possibly also have 'special' added on. Likewise with the likes of a 'Sparton', and its donor Triumph.......which is what the Sparton has on the V5, or log book as it was back then. At the time of the change of vehicle type, as per the V5, there is nothing 'imaginary' about the process....it is a simple one....the vehicle would have been 'inspected' [today a 'points' system applies]and if the main component partscannot be identified as having come from one particular vehicle, then the 'special' recieves a Q-plate....ie vehicle of indeterminate origin. Now, if the 'special' is simply a re-generated production car, then it recieves that car's 'name'.....if, like my Cannon, it is of ''indeterminate'' origin, getting a Q=plate, then it gets registered as whatever I want to call it...in ths case, a ''Cannon'. Like any production car [of any age], which can have subsequent changes made to engine, or transmission, even suspension...and still retain its V5c identity, so can a 'special'...especially an old one. Nothing ''imaginary'' about it. Or illegal! As far as insurers are concerned..[unless one is prepared to ''accuse?]..they will be fully aware of exactly 'what' they are insuring.....regardless of what it is called on the V5. This is about vehicle identity..not structural integrety. [as for 'modernisitc', a modernist automotive enthusiast may well be convinced that a 'special' that does not possess a full 'floor' is illegal...I mean, it just ain't right? Yet my Cannon, right through the registration [just pre-SVA...but that is irrelevant] process, including it's initial MoT...and scrutineering, did not possess a full floor under the driver...for whatever reasons.....not an official dickybird at any time.] any car's suspension can collapse...at any time...doesn't have to be a trialler....a gander at roadside breakdowns will see what I mean.
ReplyDeleteYou missed my point - someone building a special now could do it two ways - SVA it - means it gets check by someone with half an idea and who hasn't got a vested interest in working on it. Or simply stick a number plate and badge off something else. None come to mind, but in previous years I've been surprised when marshalling when the notes says for example, Austin, year 1958 . . . and a modern special with nothing from the original other than I guess the chassis plate comes blasting past. Which has obviously not be SVAed - so who says it's a well thought out, well built vehicle? And that's my imaginative documentation. So then insurers only know what they are told - fine and dandy if everything is above board. Gets a little more exciting when they insure, say an Escort based kit-car as a kit-car, but it's registered and taxed as an Escort . . . All is fine until something happens - or a bored nice Mr.Policeman simply does a vehicle check when following it . . . so now a competitor on a club event makes the news for driving an incorrectly registered vehicle, with invalid insurance, on the public road, obviously endangering the general public at large . . . in the eyes of the press at least. Strange cars in stranger sports will make headlines. Which is just what we don't want. If something like that happens, I can see an event being stopped and all competiting vehicles having their documentation checked - which in itself won't bother me, but it will have ruined the event. SVA is actually a very good test - having done a couple of cars under the old arbitary, depending on what area you lived in system, and having now put a couple of completely different cars through SVA (an incorrectly registered Stratos replica and then a Caterham), and seen what others have attempted to put through, and also knowing what my first kit-car was like in 1990, it came in not a moment too soon - too late if anything. It's also tightened down, in theory, on a lot of mods that you used to do without thinking to cars - and I do believe if a traffic man or MOT man thinks the car isn't as per the info they have from DVLA, or if they believe it's too far modified, you can be forced to go through an SVA even though it may be "correctly" registered and been so for a long time. I think that little bit of legislation slipped in under the radar a few years ago - I could be wrong as I don't bother with it now - I got right into if for my Uni thesis a good few years ago (1990). So if DVLA (or whoever takes responsibility) receives a report about incorrectly registered vehicles, they can come along and require an SVA test and re-issue the documents to suit - it's happened to a few fellow Caterham owners recently for various reasons. SVA is about structural and vehicular capability - its the inspection afterwards by the local licencing office that is about identity - they determine if it's still an original or not, and register it as such, with mods, or as a special. But if you don't go through the correct procedure, someone, somewhere, sometime, is going to come a cropper and possibly make it a little more difficult for the rest of us to have fun . . . 'Elf and Safety being THE in-thing at the moment . . . Bri
ReplyDeleteim sorry but what a load of rubbish!!! "if it aint broke then dont fix it"
ReplyDeleteAh, but who says "it ain't broke"? Surely the whole point of this forum is that it allows anyone to stand up and say "I think it is broke (sic)" and then call upon them to publicly justify their claim. The rest of the trials world then has the oportunity to refute any claim without the fear that any statement will lead to irrevocably towards legislation. The fact that this strand now has more postings than any other in the history of Classical Gas suggests that it is a topic that people feel strongly about. We should not bury our heads in the sand, but listen to other competitor's opinions to ensure that the sport evolves in a way that we, the competitors and organisers, want rather than having dictates imposed from outside.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to read your discussions on this subject as I see some parallels with the sport that I would like to enter. I think F1 has gone too far from the reach of the average sporting motorist, so I am writing to the FIA requesting some changes to the rules so that I may enter F1 with my W reg Micra 1.0. I'm suggesting that I should only have to cover 97% of each race distance. This should stop these " specials " ( McLaren Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault etc ) which as far as I can see, bear no resemblance to those manufacturers road cars. I fully expect to be next years F1 World Champion. The only concern I have is that my neighbour is talking of entering his Micra too but he doesn't want his wife in the car. Not only will this give him a weight advantage, but as most circuits are clockwise, his weight distribution will help him too.
ReplyDelete"Ah, but who says "it ain't broke"? Surely the whole point of this forum is that it allows anyone to stand up and say "I think it is broke (sic)" and then call upon them to publicly justify their claim. The rest of the trials world then has the opportunity to refute any claim without the fear that any statement will lead irrevocably towards legislation. The fact that this strand now has more postings than any other in the history of Classical Gas suggests that it is a topic that people feel strongly about. We should not bury our heads in the sand, but listen to other competitor's opinions to ensure that the sport evolves in a way that we, the competitors and organisers, want rather than having dictates imposed from outside." Very well said, Simon. Whenever I hear that dreadful Americanism "If it ain't broke don't fix it." I marvel at their sheer stupidity. They knew the Challenger shuttle "was broke" but did not fix it. QED Alastair is choosing to overlook one aspect of what mrbricol was alluding to. Imaginative documentation is a problem in a couple of ways. 1/ It leads to cars not going through a thorough SVA test and I can give examples of dangerous design details should you wish. 2/ "Nothing imaginary about it .... or illegal" It is 100% illegal to transfer the I/D of a pre '72 vehicle in order to obtain free VED on a special with no (or virtually no) parts from that vehicle. DVLA have an anti-fraud team who spend time trawling eBay looking for people selling 'tax-free V5C's and VIN plates'. eBay quietly provides the sellers details to DVLA/VOSA on a regular basis. When the hot-rod owner or 4x4 enthusiast claims to have rebuilt said 'vehicle' and tries to re-activate the registration then they are in for a surprise. It is simply - fraudulent.
ReplyDeleteSo i am standing up and saying what i think and i would believe im not alone!!! "if it aint broke" is not american!!! personally i think sheer stupidity is the fact that legality of trials cars being discussed on the web for the whole world to read. I wonder how many will be pulled over on the next event!!!! I use a trailer to get to trials as the nearest is a 150 miles away an some up to 350miles and some times week after week. I do not want to wear out my car before i get there, or take out a morgage for petrol. I have passengered in three of the most wheelie suspect cars and not once have i ever felt in danger. why do all the club magazines have pictures of wheelies. watch a video of simms listen to the croud if a car wheelies. These cars are well prepared and regularly maintained.
ReplyDeleteThis message has been deleted by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou are not alone - but there are others with an opposite point of view and a genuine concern for the future, hence Michael's post. " If it ain't ....." is very much American. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT - "Any attempt to improve on a system that already works is pointless and may even be detrimental. Originated in the United States in the twentieth century. Government official Bert Lance (1931- ) was quoted in the May 1977 issue of 'Nation's Business' as saying, 'If it ain't broke don't fix it.' Lance's advice, according to William Safire, 'has become a source of inspiration to anti-activists.'." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996). The trailer debate has been raised before. Dudley has, for thirty-odd years, managed to drive a hoodless MG all over the country at all times of the year. I drove a Dellow to trials all over the country and twice out to Ireland for a touring holiday. FWIW my view has always been that we should all drive to events for three reasons.
ReplyDeleteOne is that it discourages freak (sorry Simon W.) cars. Two is that they should be road going events for road going cars (as opposed to very thinly disguised off-roaders). Three is that you all start in a similar state - as opposed to some being 'a bit knackered' after a longish drive in a less-than-modern car whilst others turn up fresh-as-a-daisy in air-conditioned comfort.
Sorry guys, but this discussion is now way-off title and getting crazy. If Simon Groves, who happens to live in the flatest part of the country, is expected to drive hundreds of miles in his trials-prepared car to-and-from an event which is just-down-the-road for others, the competitors most certainly are not all going to be "starting in a similar state". Andrew.
ReplyDeletePS - Both the MCC and ACTC Committees have, in the past and at considerable length, discussed ways of controlling weight distribution but no one has ever come up with any practical solutions to making it work - just start thinking about petrol and luggage loads, and driver/passenger weights, for starters. Andrew.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that "the powers that be" have taken note of all the views expressed here and as Simon says its clearly a subject dear to everyones heart. Time to Close this discussion while we are all still speaking to each other! I think we have all had our say and as Andrew says we are getting way off topic. So unless anyone who hasn't posted their opinion wants to chime in on Weight Distribution this thread is closed. Just to say that the way I have to do that is by deleting your post! If my "un-official non-executive directors, Simon - Andrew and Stuart" think I am wrong and should let it continue please let me know. Michael
ReplyDeletesneaked in just in front of the course-closing car?
ReplyDeleteYes Alistair - we were probably both writing at the same time - Michael
ReplyDeleteWith the advent of computerised MOTs it is getting more and more
ReplyDeletedifficult to get dodgy cars through the test. These days to get an MOT
on a heavily modified or kit car you have to present the registration
document. If the document doesn't tie up with the car you are in trouble.
Just before the SVA was introduced there was an amnesty on incorrectly
registered kit cars. At that time a lot of cars ended up keeping their
reg number even though there was very little of the original car left.
If any car is modified beyond a certain point it needs an SVA. If you
have a kit car and modify it, this still applies. Any changes to the
spec from when it was last registered count. Therefore if you have a
very old kit car and modify it too far you will need to SVA and comply
with all of the rules. Of course this is extremely difficult to police
and I doubt very much if anyone would ever pick up on it.
Les
This thread is fully closed now. See my earlier post - Michael
ReplyDelete