New Speed Classes for 2010
After a great deal of work consulting all major Clubs & Championships, we have finally been given the go ahead by the MSA to implement the “Northern Speed Classes” so we have now finalised the full class structure & clarifications that will be used by the majority of speed events in the Northwest, Northeast and Midlands in 2010.
Please note that whilst all clubs listed will be using these clarifications, we have tried to get all clubs to also use the classes as listed but there are still a few clubs who have decided not to adopt them just yet, whilst others may add extra classes or amalgamate some of those shown in order to accommodate local practice. The structure is being adopted voluntarily so, whilst we have requested that all clubs/championships keep to the same class numbering system, we cannot compel them to do so. If you find a club or championship that is not using the new structure, why not suggest (strongly) to the organisers that it would be a good idea for them to adopt them?
We welcome feedback on your experiences during the year so that we can tell how successful the classes have been, and can consider any minor tweaks that may be required for 2011.
Last update was on the 30th November 2009
You can find the full details by clicking here
These changes mainly effect those competing in the Roadgoing classes, please read them carefully before preparing your car for 2010.
Porsche 911 would be a sports car
Caterham R500 superlight a kitcar, same for the Westfield.
Basically any Lotus 7 /Caterham / Westfield type car is a kit car.
I’d say the Caterham and Westfield were both specialised production cars, as there is a MSA category for that and we can assume less that a thousand were made of the ’specific’ model for any given year. Plus there is no such category as “kitcar” !
(Plus I’d been peeved if I had a £30k+ Caterham R500 and somebody called it a kitcar. Its made in a factory on a production line by a specialised company in limited numbers = specialised production car.)
The vanilla VX220 2.2 and vanilla 1.8 Elise ARE both Road going production cars (more than 1000 a year made)
The special versions such as Exige, 135, 160, 190, 111S, 340R, VX220 Turbo and VX220 VXR are Specialised Production cars because of the low numbers made.
I really can’t see why there is an issue with
the MSA categories. Within each category you can have as many classes as you like.
A Porsche 911, MG TF, Honda S2000 are all production cars and should be in the road going production class.
Anything produced in low numbers ( < 1000) should be in specialised. That is the specific make + model + variant.
As that meerkat says… "Simpleys"
Hi
I cant see the point of allowing spherical bearings in top mounts only on struts that come with them as people will try and buy struts with these on, either they should be allowed if they are fixed and non adjustable or not allowed at all.
My car has fixed solid top mounts with a bearing in them instead of rubber so I assume these will have to come off again?
I guess I am not the only one fed up with the regs.
Hi yep totally fed up Shiftspark, going mod prod and striping the whole of the car down to just a shell. I think the whole thing will keep changeing all through the year, so noone will really know where they are, and its already taken nearly two years to get to where we are now.
Not the intention of the reg. If they are on as standard – OK. The intention is not to allow fabricated arms etc with huge amount of adjustment etc
I agree, there is nothing wrong with spherical
bearings. Especially when you are allowed to
add a turbo charger. 80bhp+ increase is allowed
but a metal bearing isn’t DOH!
hmmm Seems like somebody’s personal agenda
to me!
The original MSA rule “11.7.1. Suspension
configuration must remain standard” is perfect,
it’s all about suspension configuration.
So you can’t add an additional component that
wasn’t there before like a roll bar and you can
move an existing component from its original
mounting location.
“Simpleys”
The original MSA ruling is fine !!!!
Just passing on a question on the standard classes & insurance (raised by someone else on another forum). The regs say:
“All cars must have current VED & insurance in the name of the main driver…”
It’s the “main driver” bit that worries some people. The question is if a vehicle is insured in your spouse’s name & you are merely a named driver does this comply? I think the consensus that this is OK ‘cos it’s a car genuinely used on the road & main driver means “main driver at the event” not “main driver on the policy”. Everyone (apart from pedants & lawyers obviously) agree?
As long as the car was insured in the family name this would then also allow 16 year olds to then compete there would be no problem, we are just trying to stop hire cars, company cars etc.
This class is there to encourage the novice with a a low cost option for those wanting to sample sprinting and hillclimbs and possibly have a chance of winning a pot.
Thanks, I knew common sense would prevail.
Perhaps our legislatures (MSA, MP’s, Lords, Whitehall, Eurocrats etc.) should be forced to relocate to Merseyside?
Anyone fancy a 2nd home in Toxteth!
Why does your championship text not match the midland speed championship text (for suspension) if it has all been agreed amongst yourselves and so on?
It was meant to be exactly the same as our version but some words and sentences were moved around to make more sense by our resident scribe & proof reader, by the time I sent the corrected version to Dave it had already been published by Midland.
Midland were supposed to publish the corrected version on the website, similar to what the MSA did when a few of theirs were changed, Midland have unfortunately not done this as yet.
Rest assured they do say & mean the same only differently.
Having been involved in the writing of the regs (quite heavily as well), the intention of not allowing spherical bearings (apart from at the top of a suspension strut is as follows;
They do not constitute (IMHO at least)as a road car modification. That is to say “fabricated” lower arms that allow no end of adjustability will not be found as a modification on 99% of modified cars and are costly to acquire and set up. They also make driving on the road very harsh. Therefore they do not align with the “spirit” of the law (IMHO). An adjustable top mount using a spherical bearing is an easy readily available modification, a lot of the time bought with a set of suspension struts.
The MSA regs of the “suspension configuration must remain standard” is a disgrace as a regulation due to the ambiguity. There is no clarity. One persons “suspension configuration” is different to anothers and has caused many issues over the years. I am an engineer who writes and reads technical regulations day in day out and whoever wrote that line needs to be shot!
As to “hidden agendas”….Oh dear. I’ll explain why some of the regs have been clarified in the way they have. I used to sprint & hillclimb. I now run in a race championship that has regulations which are interestingly aligned with what is now being used by the majority of clubs. They have been used in this way for a number of years. Reason – they work! Numbers of competitors are high, costs are low and the people with the biggest budgets don’t always win…they even don’t allow remote reservoir dampers and run the cars on 1A. So I can assure you the suggestions were put forward to the various clubs with no intentions other than to ensure good close competition, with relatively low cost.
Not the intention of the reg. If they are on as standard – OK. The intention is not to allow fabricated arms etc with huge amount of adjustment etc.
Many thanks “The Controller” for your clear & concise description of the meaning of the suspension reg.
I also agree that there has been no malice aforethought in putting these clarifications together. All we are trying to do is to try and reduce costs and encourage new blood into sprinting & hillclimbing.
Just seen the letter from the MSA allowing 1B tyres in roadgoing. Haven’t seen a letter “yet” from the MSA enforcing your suspension and braking regulation changes. What’s the state of play?
I see now that list 1B tyres are allowed where the rules said it was only 1A.
I assume that everyone now has to buy another set of wheels and tyres, great timing MSA just before the 1st events get underway and the vast majority have spent or allocated their limited budgets.
What a complete farce……
Hi
I run a Clio in 1b, are rear anti roll bars allowed as long as they dont have spherical joints on them?
Thanks
Hi Shiftspark
I have spoken with our eligibility scrutineer and the answer is no they are not allowed if not already fitted by the manufacturer. Blue Book does say that if it does not say you can do something then you can not do it J5.1 page 152.