Is there merit to consider splitting Class 1 based on engine capacity?
Yes I think a Class 1 split based on engine capacity should be considerd
No I think things should stay as they are.
Yes I think a Class 1 split based on engine capacity should be considerd
27
No I think things should stay as they are.
14
Remember this pole has no standing whatever. Its just for fun.
Will be closing the poll friday night (21 May)
Pole now closed. Thanks to everyone for participating.
as there are no suitable quick means of checking engine cc ,whatever is decided will be more or less impossible to enforce ,and with the small number of front w d ,the class will be algamated anyway
ReplyDeletethe same could be said of class 4/6 ?
ReplyDeleteYep 4/6 are in the same boat!
ReplyDeleteThere is always someone in Class 4 thought to be running an oversized engine, not always the same person, but the acusations are always there.
ReplyDeleteI'd be happy to see fewer rwd classes too.
ReplyDeleteYou are not suggesting that poeople woul cheat are you? Surely all those people who have 1300 Beetles have exactly that and not a 1600 or a 2000.
ReplyDeletePerhaps having 2 classes would encourage more people to enter in FWDs and then the classes would not be amalgamated.
Just to add flame to the fire. What about good old class 3 .Surely thats ripe for a bit of re-alinment, Duratec, cosworth yb, etc at least thats easly to see and would be fairly easy to police With the crossflow only way to measure bore size is take head off. Then how the heck are we going to drive home and i for one have not got the time or money to keep replacing head gaskets..
ReplyDeleteOn another note estate 64 is not much good to me as a name any more the dear old thing has been sold. Perhaps Escort 72 from now on,have to keep it tax free you see......
Just to make it interesting : [fits in with the thread on Quaifes etc]
ReplyDeleteHow about keeping it as one class -
But up to 1400cc can run an LSD - Quaife etc
Over 1400cc open Diff
This would encourage new competitors/ youngsters as 1400 is cheaper insurance , as well as more reliable - less power and strong diff
should liven class one up a bit !!
if anyone rembers dave symonds citroen ax 1400 or poss less 1ltr ? a very compedative car even giving the golfs a hard time also i think a guy called nick ipkin with a 2cv although with forced induction (+50%?) ,with cars as good as these the newcomer is still going to feel out classed ,as far as getting new compeditors goes i think the cost factor and red tape puts more people off .
ReplyDeleteI support a class 3 split with Duratec etc in escort it would be easy to check
ReplyDeletethat is quite an accusation simon.what is your take on the other classes?
ReplyDeleteBefore we had eight classes we used to have 1 to 5 and a split 6a/6b the purpose of the specials class split was to differentiate between the performance capabilities of the various types of trials special. Although this worked pretty well it was replaced with classes 7 and 8, something that worked better and encouraged many more competitors into the sport with the kit cars. It's a rather short sighted argument that there aren't enough fwd cars competing at the moment to split the class, surely that's the entire purpose of splitting the class, i.e. to encourage more new competitors. It will probably take at least a couple of seasons for the numbers to come up to expectations, that's what happened with class 7.
ReplyDelete1400cc would appear to be the logical fwd class break, that's current in most other motorsport disciplines.
Regarding illegal oversize engines it's not something that has ever really been a problem. Allegations yes, but usually unfounded and I believe in every case over the years of ACTC, unproven. (Simon can confirm/deny) As we all know in trialling when someone starts going really well the less able always begin their disgruntled rumblings.
Sorry Carlat, but the people with a 2l need a ATB (Not the same as a LSD) Quaife diff as the power they are running will blow a standard open diff/gearbox etc!!!
ReplyDeleteI have competed in a few of the different classes , I supply and build diff conversions .
ReplyDeleteI am happy to be corrected , but I don't think there is a Class in Classic trialing that doesn't suffer from diff failure when high powered engines are used .
I am sympathetic to the plight of fwd gearbox failure [ I have experienced it ]
The problem is that using any form of LSD [ torque biasing or otherwise ] goes against the fundamental ethos of trialing .
You will find there are those who are not interested in any kind of logical argument - Tradition Rules OK for many in the Trials community -
There are equally good arguments from both camps
[ eg- if you brake it use a less powerful car . Or -If you can fit Quaife you will then want more powerful engine , if the gearbox is then not strong enough would you start requesting that fwd can fit non standard gbox ? ]
A feeder / sub class , suitable for beginners is my 2 pence worth on compromise
the more i think on this subject the less i can decide my own opinion on it!
ReplyDeletelets say the break was at 1.4 - what happens when someone turns up with a highly tuned 1400cc engine putting out 130bhp and is a league above the other competitors in that class?
Jason, you could swap your 1.6 for a 1.9 without much expense. infact it might be cheaper to buy a 2 litre from a scrappy!
Are us 2 litre boys actually putting people off coming out and competing ? If we are then a split is worthwhile. But are we ? I don't know. All I know is it didnt put me off, it just made me go and work on my car!
When I bought my 205 1900 Gti they was little difference between the cost of a 1.6 or 1.9.
ReplyDeleteI waited until the right car was available after doing the Ilkley with James in his 1.6 Gti as his passenger and us both agreeing that a 1.9 was a better option.
Has anybody looked back over to see how many would be in each class over the past years events, surely the numbers would be too low and they would just get amalgamated anyway??
As I know and as Dave confirmed a 1.9 isnt a ticket to the top of anything.... I think it helps but as in all classes there is a natural order over the cars within it. I good driver can punch above his weight, see this years Ilkley results. A very experienced PCT driver mullered me in a Micra!!!!! ( I blame the wing mirrors being to big on my Pug)
I am suprised about the comments about illegal engine sizes in class 4. I cannot think of anyone who's engine might be suspect. The difference is how much money has been thrown at them and as far as I am aware the best ones have all been built by the same engine builder who is well respected and would never build an illegal engine.
ReplyDeletetotaly agree johnboy175
ReplyDeleteAs has been mentioned only rear engined cars are split on engine capacity today and this only affects Beetles. Unless you have been trialling for a long time you won't know about the time when a competitors engine was formally protested. It was way back in the late 80's. I wrote about it on Classical Gas in July 1998. You can still find the article buried in the archive but to save you searching here is a shortcut.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.classictrials.co.uk/gas98071.htm
I'm sure that was a dodgy engine Michael ! Notice how quickly it was changed afterwards for another!
ReplyDeleteSeriously though - that whole engine saga makes me laugh, that 1300 had so little power compared to all our Class 4's today, in fact the reason it was swapped at the time was so Dad could get more top end performance for ACTC events. I actually have the heads from it in my shed still - they are there if anyone wants to come and measure them !
For me the biggest compliment a Class 4 driver could get would be to have the engine size queried - unfortunatley no-one has ever done so to mine. I'm still hoping one day they will!
I cannot be considered a serious competitor although I have done a few trials in my time and I wonder if we are not loosing the plot a little. Is the proposed split in class 1 because this class is always the largest? A look at the number of entries in each class, on average, over 2009 championship events reveals the following.
ReplyDeleteClass 1. 5
Class 2. 4
Class 3. 6
Class 4. 4
Class 5. 4
Class 6. 3
Class 7. 8
Class 8. 13
Statistics can prove almost anything but it seems obvious that only class 8 warrants splitting on the numbers alone, perhaps front and rear wheel drive?
From these figures I see no reason in splitting class 1. The only way to attract more younger people in to the sport is to have less damaging hills where newcomers at least have a chance of at least reaching the top of some of them. To do this the more committed trials drivers might need to raise tyre pressures and the limited and locking diffs should perhaps not be allowed.
These are only my personal observations, just to add another side of the coin!
Robin Barlow
I dont think class one needs to be changed at all, Allowing quaiffe diffs into class1 would be a very bad idea. Funny how now the ACTC have made a new diff tester and now this request has been made!! on easter monday on the presidents trial when class 1 were trying properly they could be seen to be out climbing class3 on several sections. To do well you need spend lots of time and money i have spent lots of money on diffs and am still trying to do well. New competitors will always find it difficult to start with, if they are keen they will stick with it. As for the class4 comments all i want to say is that on any trial i would not want to bet on a class winner it could be one of many.
ReplyDeleteim loving how from its distant origins this thread has managed to cover pretty much every 'hot' trials related topic. Are there any more to cover? If so lets get them in aswell.
ReplyDeleteforgetting class splits and quaifes for a minute, the question underlying all of these ideas is how do we encourage more people into the sport. Class 0 on an MCC event is definitely a starting point but for those who catch the bug from that, they aren't going to want to stay in Class 0, when they get to see the hills they are missing out they will want to climb them. They will then probably fail to climb those hills but thoroughly enjoy attempting them, and then go away and work on making their cars more competitive. Then their cars will start to break, and after all the hard work that has already been put in, only the most dedicated will persevere through all this and eventually get the right contacts to help them fix whatever the weak points are on their chosen vehicle.
I'd like to help more newcomers make it to this stage and pretty much all the ideas mentioned so far have some plus points. Any other ideas ?
Although the MCC run a class O only two of the other 16 championship events had a class O so this does not help, however I do appreciate the difficulties of organisers in running a class O alongside the other classes. By penalising the more experienced competitors by raising tyre pressures etc then it might be possible to use hills in conjunction with the class O drivers?
ReplyDeleteMy earlier comments about splitting class 8 should have read front and rear engine, not drive.
How about a novice class that runs the same route as the normal trial, with no restarts and easier startlines, but not eligable for overall win? The problem with class 0 is they do a completely different trial so don't feel involved, and you need twice the marshalls to run it, therefore making it unattractive to the organising club.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought......
Phil Tucker/ James, I think you may have hit the nail on the head, for a novice driver it would be great for a run up, nothing worse for me than not even getting off the start line!!
ReplyDeleteNovice already comes in to trials already, a few extra start line posts and maybe a new colour circle for novice drivers? or a 500 number?
Also would be great to see proper diff testing with a set of rollers, not this spin the wheel buy hand job, and more of it, I have only been tested once in the last couple of years, which is a bit of a joke if I'm honest, I would hate to think I'm putting time and money in to a open diff when other people are getting it easy with a Quiafe.
Hi Jason
ReplyDeleteHave no fear, we will soon have a proper diff tester in operation. Both driven wheels will be on rollers and each roller will be braked independently. It'll be parked in front of a solid wall/large tree to stop any vehicles that get thrown off with a locked diff......
I think Phil/James are both sort of talking about variations on Class 0. Lots of clubs have tried running a class 0 but not many get that many entries so some are dropping it. Ideally Class 0 entrants do tackle mostly the same sections/route so they don't feel 'left out' and to reduce the marshals/pr etc required. But the reality is that many sections on the standard route of many trials are simply too rough for this to happen. This is why Class 0 route on Lands End is now quite different.
In terms of getting people into the sport we need to make it easy for people to enter and have a go. I had contact with quite a few people wanting to take up the sport after the Fifth Gear Exeter programme. A lot gave up when they found out they had to have a dedicated car and then modify it even to have a go. Some carried on and had a go in Class 0 and for some of them that's as far as they want to take it - a few MCC events in Class 0. If that's all they can manage with other commitments/budget then fair enough. A very few have graduated from Class 0 and are now regular winners on the championship circuit - take a bow James Shallcross.
I don't think allowing quaifes into Class 1 will make much difference in terms of bringing completely new people into the sport - it will if anything increase the barriers to entry in that class: you will now need 2 litres, a car capable of carrying massive ballast and a £500+ diff. But I can see that it would perhaps encourage those few who are seriously competitive to come out and play more often. Most classes actually have this potential split between the ultra competitive and the more casual entrants/beginners but we can't split every class in two. Better to try and have a catch all class 0 and maintain the current classes IMHO.
As a potential solution for diff snapping FWDs, how about class 1 is any size engine, free diff. FWD with quaifes LSDs etc go into class 3? Funnily enough, regs already allow this so it wouldn't even require a rule change.....not sure if this is how the Cundy's did their test with a quaife of they stayed in class 1?
Tony, I don't think Simon is accusing anyone of running an oversize engine, merely stating that rumours of this kind come and go in our sport and that is a consequence of having a capacity limit. Technically, capacity is not only an issue for Class 4. In the event of two competitors dropping the same number of points on sections, timed tests are used as tie deciders. If the total time is the same, quickest time on first test usually wins. If there is still a tie then engine size is the tie decider. This has only happened once in recent memory and I think Dudley lost out on the engine size rule. All fair and above board as long as we all put the true capacity of our engines on the entry form. In some classes competitors specify this to the nearest cc eg class 6. In others, nearly every car appears to be exactly 1600cc....
ReplyDeleteTo let you know I will be closing the poll on Friday night so if you want to make your contribution you have another day - Michael
ReplyDeleteIan, I agree that allowing quaifes wouldn't directly bring completely new people in, they are not going to make the decision to start out just because they are allowed to use a certain diff. But it will help those who have got the commitment and drive to come out and compete (two of whom have mentioned within these threads the problems they have been having and the desire to enter more events) to do so on a more regular basis, which in itself makes the class more appealing to newcomers.
ReplyDeleteWhat would class 3 make of intruders from class 1....more restarts would penalise the fwd cars so in general it would be a disadvantage to fwd. But if it was an event where ground clearance was an issue things might be different.
Out of all the options discussed my vote would be for torque biasing diffs to be allowed in class 1, and possibly a cc split with the allowance for preferential start lines/no restarts if required (in effect, a step up from class 0, but able to compete in every event and wouldnt need any more marshals or pr work).
How about amalgamating the two point's of view, allowing the Quaife in class 1 but can only run up to 1400cc but all competing in the same class 1.
ReplyDeleteSo the newcomer can chose to run with or without the Quaife, and if he want.s to have a real go he can chose the bigger engine option or a higher class.
Having competed on four events in a 1400 80bhp (on a good day) Nova against ultra powerful Golf's / 205's (which I have also passengered in) I can see the arguement for this split. The performance of a circa 150bhp Golf is tremendous and much easier to drive than throwing the Nova at everything so hard.
ReplyDeleteLike all class leading cars these has been developed over a number of years which is why they are so competitive also having vastly experienced very good drivers.
Personally I see class 0 and then 1 as the easiest/cheapest way to try Classic trials and are probably generally feeder classes into others. Yes some people stay in class 1 for ever, but even Dave has built and Escort now!
I have certainly used class 1 as a toe in the water exercise for classic's however been a competitive individual know that a 1400Nova is never going to live with the class leaders! Perhaps a 2litre redtop Nova with fibreglass panels would be the way forward or another plan?
Allowing LSD's for smaller engine FWD car would probably just add more confusion and even more rumours flying round, although the recently built diff tester will soon sort these out........
On the ground of cost - how much do people spend building their totally free differentials - probably significantly more than an off the shelf Quaife....
However, a preferential start line for Novices - ie another car length or two is an interesting idea for all classes. Would be a great way of encouraging them and enabling them to see more of the hill significantly added value to your day out. The minute they started doing well and became an expert things would get a bit tougher....another good feeding mechanism. Not knowing where the hills go which is another massive challenge for newcomers. Trials is the only sport that I can think of that the better you do the more driving time you get (not taking into account the timed tests) - all speed sports are the opposite.
If you just look at the number of spectators that watch especially MCC events Classic Trialling is not a well kept secret - if only 1% of these spectators started competing there would be long long reserve lists on all events. The question is why doesnt this happen as they obviously have a massive interested in the sport but dont take the next step and marshall or compete themselves....