pointy
|
| posted on 25/7/09 at 08:21 PM |
|
|
Class B Locost
All,
Class B car (Bio Fuel) will be carrying an additional 30kg of weight imposed by the 750M/C in accordance with 2009 regulations section 5.14.
The Ballast shall be placed prior to the next Locost race due to take place at Silverstone on 22/08/09 and will remain until the end of the 2009
season.
Relevant parties have been informed.
Andy p (Locost Representative)
|
|
|
|
|
mlees91
|
| posted on 25/7/09 at 08:26 PM |
|
|
what happend to the passanger that does not like going fast
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 08:02 AM |
|
|
Hi Andy
Just a quick question for clarification.
1. Is this additional ballast on top of the current MIN weight IE 615Kg + 30Kg.
Or is it.
2. 30Kg to be placed in the Class B cars on top of the weight they where weighed at after the final race at Cadwell.
Cheers Matt
|
|
|
Richd
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
Has anyone ever taken the trouble to assess how much is the car and how much is the driver.
It seems that the club is assuming that it is only the car.
Cheers
R
allied.motorsport@hotmail.co.uk
www.alliedmotorsport.co.uk
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 05:27 PM |
|
|
Nah Rich, I reckon it's because of the standard racing rules (drivers' excuse book, page 957): if someone's going quicker than you
than it *must* be because they've got an unfair advantage. Goes without saying ;-)
IMHO, the particular car & driver in question were plenty fast before and it was only a string of DNFs that meant people didn't see them as
a true contender. Now they're finishing races - though not necessarily going any faster than before (proven by the laptimes) - but
there's now a unique feature that can clearly distinguish the car from the others and it's being pounced on and declared unfairly quick.
Personally I don't think the way the 'performance balancing' has been decided & implemented is particularly good but, looking at
other classes of motorsport, it seems it's never an easy situation to manage (e.g. petrol/diesel/FWD/RWD/4WD Touring Cars, NA/turbo engines or
steel/carbon chassis in GTs etc).
At least this will be an opportunity to learn how best to go about it for the future, when at some point it will eventually be necessary to move to
alternative powertrain/suspension components as Escort bits get more rare, and other sub-class distinctions will be necessary.
[edited to add: there's now a (slim) chance that I might be able to make it to Oulton. Woohoo! Though it's going to be mean a 5,300mile
flight instead of a 10 minute trip up the road..!]
[Edited on 27/7/09 by Rob Palin]
|
|
|
procomp
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 05:52 PM |
|
|
Hi
The trouble here is that the driver has already admitted that the BIO powered car has more power / torque than the petrol equivalents. Therefore
it's allowing him to take it easier around the corners due to being quicker down the straights.
Quote from The driver Blog.
"Both races were incredibly tight, with 6 cars all capable of winning. However, the Bio-Ethanol power gives very strong mid-range torque, and
this means I didn't have to push as hard through the slower corners as the petrol equivalents, to maintain momentum. In turn this meant that
while they overheated their tyres, particularly the backs, I was able to preserve mine and ensure I had an advantage going into the last couple of
laps. This proved to be the case on both occasions as I moved into the lead with a handful of laps remaining and held on all the way to the flag! 2
out of 2 for the weekend! "
It was always known that the Bio powered cars where going to be quicker than the petrol equivalents hence the regulations already had in place the
ability to peg it back.
Cheers Matt
|
|
|
TMC Motorsport
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 07:02 PM |
|
|
I really didn't want to comment on this one, but sometimes you just have to stand up for yourself a little.
Matt, I'm not going to get into an argument about semantics, but "very strong" and "better" have different meanings. A
lot of cars in the top 6 at Brands spent a large amount of the race sideways, I didn't, so had some tyre life left at the end.
The Bio power does give good mid range torque, but so can a petrol engine if you set it up properly. Its a bit like saying a Procomp chassis gives
excellent high speed handling, but does that warrant a weight penalty? Or a different class for Procomp chassis? Of course it doesn't.
The facts are these, there is only one bio car on the grid, prepared by a team who have been at this for a long time and who spent the whole winter
working through the chassis to make everything as close to perfect as possible, and driven by a person who has spent the last 12 months working as an
instructor with free access to some of the best teachers in race driving, and who spent the whole winter studying anything and everything that seemed
relevant as a means to improve performance. At least 2 of those factors are available to anyone in any race series.
Bio ethanol power is available to anyone, its not exclusive to us, there were always supposed to be at least 2 cars running it this year, its a shame
the second hasn't emerged to give a more representative impression of the performance of the fuel. I fear perhaps now it won't at all, as
the fuel has such a reputation, if the driver is not instantly propelled onto the podium certain people may have to rethink their viewpoints. Its
also a shame that there doesn't seem to be any scientific analysis behind the weight penalty.
A couple more facts too, the engine has not changed all season since I struggled to get into the top ten at Snetterton in March, the car in which it
is installed has been vastly improved, and I can assure you, so has the nut that holds the wheel.
In 2008 I qualified on pole at Cadwell with a time of 1m47.2 in a petrol car, in 2009 I was there again with a time of 1m47.4 in the bio car. Both
days were bright and sunny. In 2008 I was good enough to drive one balls-out lap, but couldn't put together a race distance. Now I feel I can.
|
|
|
ironside
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richd
Has anyone ever taken the trouble to assess how much is the car and how much is the driver.
I agree, it would be a shame to penalise someone just for getting better.
How did the 750MC arrive at 30kg? Is there some science/testing behind this or was it chosen just to try and see how it affected things?
If the worry is over the power difference between the two fuels couldn't this be settled with some real numbers from a rolling road?
The LoTRDC Elise Trophy guys deal with this by taking a hub dyno to each track. Does our club have one?
Cheers,
Simon
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 08:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Therefore it's allowing him to take it easier around the corners due to being quicker down the straights.
Yup, in fairness there was a bit of a hole dug there! Still, as I'm sure you'll agree from your experiences this season, it's quite
funny to think of anyone actually being able to 'take it easy' during a Locost race! 
To put the 30kg weight penalty in perspective though, it's a larger proportion of overall weight than the "success ballast" handed
out in the BTCC with the specific intention of stopping people from winning multiple races in succession in order to improve the show.
Last time I checked, the Locosts didn't need any backstage tinkering in order to put on a good show!
|
|
|
simes43
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
I believe the club has left Matt and TMC somewhere between a rock and a hard place on this one.
Having watched (too) many of the races this season there is no doubt that Matt has got his act together and the car has been superbly optimised by
Tony over the winter.
So with the experiment over, could the car not be converted back and off we go again?
I am sure DB, AG , Scott etc would be happy to be beaten fair and square over the rest of the season.
|
|
|
mlees91
|
| posted on 27/7/09 at 11:05 PM |
|
|
that would make sence but shorely the point is to try and get more bio cars racing in the next few years so pulling one out now will do that no good
|
|
|
TMC Motorsport
|
| posted on 28/7/09 at 06:48 AM |
|
|
Simon,
Its true that would prove its not just the fuel that has made the difference this year, but the project has always been to make bio-ethanol an
alternative to petrol. Clearly we have made the technology work, but if there are political elements involved that means the project cannot be deemed
a success until they are resolved.
Aside from that, this has always been a Coventry Uni led initiative, and without David and the input of the uni I would not be racing this year, so as
long as they want the car running on ethanol, that's the way it has to stay to be fair to them.
We accept the weight penalty, but I still feel if there was at least a second bio car running it would give a fairer and more balanced opinion on the
performance of the fuel.
Motorsport does have to consider the future and the current trend for being "green", and the Locost championship has received a lot of
positive publicity as a result of our project, I don't think it would reflect as well on us if the influence behind that publicity was to be
sudd
enly withdrawn.
|
|
|
Richd
|
| posted on 28/7/09 at 07:01 AM |
|
|
The biofuel car already has a weight penalty with the crap consumption figures it returns. I reckon that Matt & Tony and the University should be
commended for the amount of work they have put in over the last couple of years. Remember, biofuel when they started was one of the hot new
developments in motorsport. But now the lustre has dulled the club and the MSA need to decide whether they are going to support further development
(More cars etc) or drop biofuel cars from the agenda altogether. because until they decide that one then TMC are pi55ing into the wind. Slapping a
weight penalty which is plucked out of the air shows a lack of interest in the locost championship and a lack of appreciation in what TMC have
acheived.
Next year I'm running my car on chip fat and, yes I've always cooked my chips in methanol
allied.motorsport@hotmail.co.uk
www.alliedmotorsport.co.uk
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 28/7/09 at 12:23 PM |
|
|
While it's certainly true that there is a potential power advantage from biofuel over petrol, it's difficult to isolate the influence of
that in this situation because other contributory factors have changed too.
We've got a driver who was repeatedly setting pole positions in a petrol car but, for one reason or another, wasn't consistently
converting that pace into top results.
The standard advice given to anyone starting out in Locost is not to spend money on the latest go-faster trinkets but instead to maximise track time,
as that will yield the biggest benefit to performance.
The driver in question here now has a job which means that he spends most of his days tearing around a racetrack and in the company of some other more
experienced drivers.
Back in the Locost the absolute speed hasn't increased but the consistency and *race performance* has done. This type of change would
ordinarily be viewed as the result of increased experience / maturity / racecraft and most people would attribute that directly to the increase in
track time. In this case, however, there has simultaneously been a vehicle specification change and since that change has an expected performance
benefit the difference is being wholly attributed there.
In reality no (publicised?) attempt has been made to ascertain any sort of quantification of the different contributing factors discussed above.
Doing so is inescapably problematic, no question, but perhaps something should have been done in preference to the approach that has been taken which
is essentially to apply a significant amount of success ballast.
|
|
|
stevetzoid
|
| posted on 28/7/09 at 02:41 PM |
|
|
Hi all,
Now for my thoughts!! where does our locost representative stand in all of this?, I thought the idea of a 1 make championship was to find the best
driver not the one with the advantage or dissadvantage as it may be. It looks as if Matt has definately improved his driving and I congratulate him
for that, but what is to happen next year? can we not return to the true spirit of Locost racing 1 make, 1 spec, 1 true Champion at the end of it and
maybe we could then get back to increased grid sizes like we used to have.
Lets not split our Class from within as we have been doing this year lets all share in the success of what is, and will long continue to be a great
championship.
Steve Evans No39.
|
|
|
mlees91
|
| posted on 28/7/09 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
can anyone explain to me where the 30kg of weight came from why not 10 or 20kg becasue i really cant see where they have got the it from it is as if
they have just picked a random number said that will do
max lees 91#
|
|
|
pointy
|
| posted on 28/7/09 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
Locost Rep
Steve/All,
As your Locost Rep I do not stand anywhere on this (or on anything else). I represent the drivers, the formula and the 750mc equally. My role
involves, amongst many other things, a monthly meeting with other formula reps where ALL technical matters regarding ALL formulas are discussed
(including the additional weight imposed on the Class B car). The views and opinions raised by yourselves to either me or your fellow committee
members have always been aired at these RTC meetings and decisions made accordingly.
I have represented you to the very best of my ability, I believe the formula is closer than it has ever been (and not just the racing) with new
novices joining the ranks even in these difficult economic times. Our grids are still very strong, remember at Cadwell we had 43 entrants
necessitating heats and finals on both days, and Locost will always remain an exceptional form of close budget racing.
It has been a real honour to represent you this year and I look forward to giving our 2010 rep the same level of support I have received.
Andy P
|
|
|
Richd
|
| posted on 29/7/09 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
Matt is going to run 30kgs extra on top of the extra fuel he has to carry to feed the bio-greed. He's happy to run with the weight. I think that
should end it for this season.
I believe the sensible thing now is to look to the future and formulate a plan to,
either,
drop the biofuel class in 2011 with the proviso that Matt, Tony and The Coventry Uni team have completed their research project and they are given
massive recognition for developing the idea to its winning conclusion. Go back to book chassis, pump fuel, standard suspension type, layout, bracket
positions etc. and no room allowed for any gain from car development i.e one chassis, one engine, one susp type, one champion.
or
allow people do develop the cars (including the biofuel cars) within carefully worded and policed regs.
Nobody complained when Matt was struggling to get the car working. The Cherringtons have spent a season in limbo trying to develop the car. At the
same time have assisted half the locost paddock keep their cars running on track and as soon as they sniff a little success they are the devil
incarnate.
As to the Locost Reps Stance on this. I would imagine he has gone and asked the question as to whether the other competitors are racing the Biofuel
car for points, I believe that this was the question raised by the more sensible in the paddock. And the resultant discussion has looked at the
situation and said "yes" and as a rider looked at the "apparent" advantage of the car and applied the 30kgs weight. What more
could we ask.
Rich
Locost No 25.
[Edited on 29/7/09 by Richd]
allied.motorsport@hotmail.co.uk
www.alliedmotorsport.co.uk
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
aligarratt
|
| posted on 29/7/09 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
My thoughts on this is that Coventry Uni and TMC have done a great job at getting the bio car on the pace.
But does using Bio-fuel go against the ethos of the Locost formula. I have heard that initial build costs are a lot higher than with a petrol powered
car as the fuel is so corrosive. Glen would argue that an alloy bellhousing would cost a lot less! Also, fuel availablilty and Safety regarding type
of fire extingishers that the Marshalls Carry.
Someone thinking of joining the formula may be put off by all of this, the questions they will be asking themselves is, do they need BIO (+ extra cost
& hastle associated with it) to be competitive?
In other Series, Class A and Class B have seperate championships, Locost have 2 (technical) classes fighting for the same championship? Is this right?
Locost #3
|
|
|
TMC Motorsport
|
| posted on 29/7/09 at 01:48 PM |
|
|
And so it goes on....
Building a car for Bio-Ethanol is not that much more expensive than building one for petrol. Yes the fuel can be difficult to store, and is more
expensive considering the consumption figures, but it is also new technology and surely as demand increases the cost will go down.
I agree, converting an existing car will cost money, but probably less than you would imagine, and it is something that we are looking into at the
moment.
Its certainly cheaper than the last all conquering breakthrough in Locost, when everyone HAD to have a Randall engine...
Our costs for fuel this year have been greatly outweighed by the amount we have spent on development and testing. So lets ban testing.... Hang on
we've been here before!
Safety is a valid concern, but it is an absolute fact that a CO2 foam fire extinguisher will suffocate a bio-ethanol fuelled fire, and we are carrying
a specific extinguisher on board to help. It was good enough for the FIA in British GT when the Astons ran ethanol, so it's probably good enough
for us.
Do new entrants need to run ethanol to be competitive?
A 0.03s winning margin at Brands Hatch would suggest not. So would two exceptionally close races at Cadwell, which were only interrupted by mistakes
from drivers running in the top 3 or 4 which allowed me to escape. I could have been running nitro-glycerine, and it wouldnt have affected that
outcome.
In fairness, Brands and Cadwell have been historically fairly successful hunting grounds for me in the past, so if I was ever going to win four races
this year, ethanol powered or not, it would have been those four just gone!
As Rich eludes to in his post above, Locost is one make, but if you want the "ethos" of Locost returned, we all need to go back to running
Ron's original design, warts and all, the same suspension geometry, the same gearbox and diff, the same wheels etc etc etc.
In fact, that errs towards a control formula where one company manufactures each car identically and leases them out to drivers.... Any takers?
|
|
|
Vindi_andy
|
| posted on 29/7/09 at 03:05 PM |
|
|
This is a very interessting discussion but im not sure about the reason for special extinguishers (please forgive a non racing non fuel technical
pleb)
Doesn't indy Kart in USA run on ethanol or is it methanol ( but they are from the same family in the periodic table i.e alcohols) and all they
do when they have a fire is chuck a bucket of water on it which dilutes the fuel below the level of combustion and the fire goes out. correct me if im
wrong please
|
|
|
jatros
|
| posted on 14/8/09 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
Exactly, last year kartworld ran a bio-ethanol Mg, this year CVR are running a bio-ethanol Seat....all of them going for one championship and one
champion...sound like anything familiar?
The only difference safety wise is the fire extingusher they carry, none of the marshalls have different exingushers.
|
|
|
modee
|
| posted on 20/8/09 at 12:42 AM |
|
|
Hi all.
Having spent the last few weeks up to my elbows in ff1600s I have missed this thread and the related one on conversion costs. My first impression is
that any prospective locost racers will be moving on swiftly from this apparent chaos. The discussion has gone well beyond strictly technical issues
and into areas of ego and commerce (not that anyone is ever going to make a fortune out of locost). I don't believe that class b is making
making locost a more attractive proposition for prospective drivers and I fail to see the relevance of developing a forty year old engine to run on
bio. Keep it simple.
Maurice.
|
|
|
