Dear Michael,
Thanks for your comments about me in Michael’s Musings (November 2002). Some of the newer PCT competitors don’t know (or forget) that I’ve been doing PCTs on and off for about 30 years, so I’ve no excuse on the experience front!
However, it’s not PCTs I’m writing to you about, it’s Classics. For me to put pen to paper is rare, but I was so interested and incensed by your article on The Edinburgh, I thought it was time to air my opinion and in turn hear yours. Whilst I still love PCTs and expect to compete in them in some capacity or other for some time yet, I do have a strong yearning for Classics. I am reaching a time where my interest level is high enough for me to find the time and the money to have a proper go. You may recall I did the Land’s End this year and thoroughly enjoyed it. With limited knowledge and preparation, the car and crew survived. And we cleaned lots of the hills. I knew straight away what was needed to do better – even with the power of the standard AX GT engine. More ballast for more grip, more height to compensate for the ballast and get more clearance anyway, better underbody protection etc. All this takes research, time, money and hassle.
I was in a frame of mind to consider doing this preparation to my current (or another car) and I would like to stick to front wheel drive for now. This is because I’m most familiar with FWD in an off-road environment, and the challenge is a bit different. Then I read your Edinburgh article and learned about how rough many of the hills were, and how much serious damage was done. As you know, I don’t mind sections being a bit rough and I’m prepared to accept minor or even moderate damage occasionally. To ruin the odd wheel, diff, springs, dampers, tyres etc. are inevitable and to be expected, but what you described sounded like carnage! I can hardly imagine how well prepared David Haizelden’s car is, yet it sounded from your description as if the shell of his Golf is a write off after that event. And he wasn’t the only one to sustain serious damage. This has put me off, as I’m not prepared to go to these lengths in an effort to enjoy myself and try to win a medal. I want to spend time competing, fettling and developing, not completely rebuilding my car.
I’ve been told that the MCC events are the smooth ones and that the ACTC events are rougher! Why do the sections have to be so rough? Can’t we be stopped with the gradient, the surface, false chicanes, adverse cambers, stops and restarts etc.? Perhaps these events are so well subscribed that the organisers don’t need to attract more competitors?
Maybe I have to move to RWD where you don’t need to keep up such high speeds to keep the momentum on.
Sorry about all the questions, but I expect and hope you may hold an unbiased view. If my view is shared with many others, I’m prepared to help in the lobbying process to get things changed.
Have I got a valid point or am I just a whimp? Either way, it’s back to spectating on classics for the time being.
Yours sincerely,
Barrie Parker.
PS. Mike, I’m happy for you to publish this in the Falcon Mag’ or Classical Gas, or wherever really, as long as I know.
Barrie.
Aside from the basic Question "Are Classics getting too rough?" It is interesting to see that Barrie has been luled into the myth that One-Day classics are rougher than MCC ones. The Edinburgh has IMHO always been the roughest trial on the calendar and I mean over the last 30 years always. (Tho' Minehead can run it a close 2nd some years) By the nature of MCC events, the need for the section to be much the same for the 350'th as the first, the base of sections has to be harder, rockier. One-Day events can get away with thick mud (soft) and a surface that changes over the length of the day. That added to Derbshire's natural rockiness leads to a rough event. I think that this year's Derbyshire was a bit of a one off as well, all the talk of damage being done is proof that such damage is unusual. If it were happening often, it would be sufficiently unremarkable as not to justify comment.
ReplyDeleteIt appears Barrie's letter was very timely. It seems the MCC committee have been becoming more and more concerned about their sections. The dilema they face is that if they are smoother they can be driven faster, then everyone gets up and gets a gold! The organisers have a tough job gauging their events and there are two schools of thought:- 1. Plan the sections so one or two are cleanable only by the real aces. However this means the newcomer in a pretty standard car finds the thing to tough. 2. Plan the sections to suit the average competitor and car but then the superstars in their class nines climb everything. Some say thats good, bore them to death, but the MCC might needs its own gold mine for the medals! I have heard that the committee are considering restoring the classic sections to their former (smoother) state (get your pick and join the road gang!). The idea would then be to limit climbing ability, initially by tyre pressure controls and moving on to look at weight distribution. Personally I think that would be a really good idea. I can always remember David Alderson telling me his Troll wouldn't climb until he put a couple of cwt of lead over the back axle. There was a lot published a while ago by either Alan Foster or Simon W where I think they suggested 40/60 as the norm, so you couldn't have more than 60% over the back wheels. I believe that would be a great idea, especially for MCC events. The club can shellout for a set of drive on electronic scales. You are checked at scruitineering and face the prospect of a random check on route just like your diff. I believe this woulf be a great idea. Hard tyres and 40/60 for MCC events (make those class nines back from Lands End as well) and leave ACTC event organisers to make their own decisions. The Allen showed how you can have a fantastic trial that isn't to damaging. As a car driver I have looked at this only from a 4 wheel prospect. I don't know how the bikers feel. Michael
ReplyDeleteIt's fairly clear that something has to be done about sections, especially on the MCC events (and particularly the Edinburgh). One day trials you should know what you're getting in to, Michael's Rough Guide to Trials is very close to the facts of the matter. Mr Harrold can't speak for himself since he's in Beijing, but I do know that he supports the idea of difficult tyre pressure limits on the MCC events. We came up with a cunning sscheme before this years Edinburgh event which would tie rear wheel tyre pressures for Classes 7 and 8 to the wheel diameter. So for Litton, as an example, it would be wheel size plus X psi. That would use Litton as the 'sort-out' hill, perhaps and allow the use non damaging sections for the rest. As for ballast, Stuart has never uses artificial ballast in the Troll on normal Classics (PCTs - Yes). After all, between us we weigh in excess of 35 stone and that, plus the spare wheels and the petrol tank give us reasonable climbing power. Where would you put the 'X' factor for tyre pressures?
ReplyDelete