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.
Ron, the problem with the new proposal is that even with an adjustable top mount they bolt on to the original holes in the shell but allow the position of the top of the strut to be moved relative to the mounting points to allow the user to alter castor and or camber.
It depends whether or not you want to allow people in road going to have that adjustability.
Still not sure how the new rules can deal with the issue of people using alternative wishbones to increase track/camber etc.
Just to help matters along, whilst we are waiting for Michael Duncan to send the “official wording” to Ron, we have some progress in that the MSA has uploaded the 2010 Blue Book onto its website, so that competitors don’t have to wait for the books to be posted out.
See http://www.msauk.org/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=876
The Clarification re suspension for roadgoing cars mentioned above (on 11.05.09 at 11:22 pm) is not included, because it is still subject to ratification, but we understand it WILL be implemented on 01/01/2010.
Start reading folks!
That makes sense allowing those spherical bearings, I was looking at suspension parts for my BMW Cooper S and all the track orientated stuff, coilovers, droplinks, panhard rod, steering bushings, suspension arms/rods all had types of spherical bearing and all expalined the ’same’ benefit of: (stability, predictability, safety).
In fact most of the stuff for modern cars, that was track orientated, had spherical bearings. Modern cars are getting faster and faster.
If you are allowed to seriously tune your engine you should be able to have the suspension and brakes to cope with it.
What about the engine section? Is that going to be enforced by the MSA too on Jan 1st ? That section on here has missed off info about exhausts and other external engine parts such as alternators, airboxes, fuel rails and the like.
P.S Ron + team your doing a great job and its really appreciated.
Agreed, a great job sorting all the crap out.
I had enough of the minefield and am going into Modified lol
I am staying away from mod-prod if I can, I don’t want my everyday road car to “have” to have an MSA approved! “fuel tap”!!!, external ignition cut! and rollcage!
All for the sake of a few poxy spherical bearings.
I’d rather have a stable predictable car and scrap sprinting/hillclimb and go and take part in TimeAttack. They have very specific rules and regs and yet not at all petty or pedantic.
Here is a reg snippet from another approved MSA series, allows rose joints and replacement dampers:
Must be of original design alternative dampers/springs allowed rates free alternative wishbones links allowed rose joints allowed bushes material free ,Hubs/uprights/original design, mounting points must be original.
Would be nice if they were consistant!
OK John and Ron, Doris is in the pits do I tell them to put on the second hand standard top mounts or not?
Russell you can keep the ones you have i think.
“The fitting of spherical type joints is not permitted, except as the top mounting of a suspension strut.”"
Where is that quote from Steve?
In the update class regs on here Russell.
Bit late for me now………….i’v fully stripped mine out
Snippet from HSA Website,
There is a lot of discussion taking place on forums and web sites about classes for 2010. Recently a note has appeared on the Chester & Liverpool web site suggesting that the HSA will be adopting the proposed ‘Northern Speed Classes’ for 2010. This is categorically not the case and our planned class structure for 2010 appears on our calendar & classes web page with further details to appear when our regulations are published early in 2010.
We have been aware of a number of Regional initiatives to establish a common class framework for Speed events and we are supportive of any steps that bring about sensible convergence in the regulations. However, we are also mindful of the need to operate within the framework of categories laid down by the MSA and to adhere to the detailed regulations appearing in the Blue Book as far as possible.
A number of specific regulations included in the ‘Northern Speed Classes’ (for example those relating to cross ply tyres in Road-Going classes and windscreens for Specialised Production cars) appear sensible if adopted by a large number of organising clubs. We are giving these items serious consideration and, where appropriate, will include them so that competitors see as much consistency as possible between their championship regs and the regs of the events they enter.
http://www.speedchampionship.com/regulations/northern-speed-classes/
So it appears at least at the moment some of what is on the Championship site is misleading. It’s not right to show clubs in agreement, if they have not given it.
I must apologise for the misunderstanding that has arisen, after a phone conversation with your chairman this misunderstanding has been sorted and now he is looking into using only the clarifications that have been publish. We are not trying to force any club to use the classes as listed but it would be very good for sprinting & hillclimbing if we could agree on a basic set of generic classes and all of us using the same clarifications for roadgoing cars which all clubs would be using so that we do not shoot ourselves in the foot by causing competitors to change their cars for every event they go to .
It would also help newcomers etc when they ask which class should they be in you are able to give them a class number which would be country wide.
You will see from the growing list of clubs that have definitely agreed to use them,
maybe not all the classes and some clubs adding some to cater for local needs, as far as I am aware they are all using the same roadgoing clarifications for 2010, this exercise has been needed for a long time and hopefully we will eventually have some consistency across the whole of the UK.
It can only benefit both organisers and competitors by giving consistency across our discipline whilst also trying to keep costs.
Thank you carmad,
I know you have been at the forefront, getting the new classes to fit the MSA’s categories. Being the one of the first to release new regs can’t have been easy.
I know you are advocating a consistent class numbering system which is a good idea, it can be confusing when entering events organised by different clubs within a championship.
Don’t forget though, that a letter based system is long established on the hills.
I run a 600cc racing car, and while I know there haven’t been many cars in this class in recent years in the North West. The few that there are having been accommodated in the up to 1100 class quite satisfactorily. I don’t see the point in running classes where there are no entrants. Clearly, if there were an increase in 600 car entries you would. How would you do that when your numbering system starts at 5a up to 1100cc? Surely it would be better to have 5b for up to 1100cc. Giving the organisers the option to provide a class without disrupting class numbering system which would be much more trouble. You may have a solution which I haven’t thought of though.
This exercise has been needed for a long time and has been mentioned on this website we would welcome all feedback whether positive or negative.
We have all agreed to look again at the class structure and clarifications at the end of next season and tweak as and if necessary.
As to 600cc racing cars 5a one solution could be to spilt into two classes, e.g. 5Ai & 5Aii, if the need should arise.
Please pass on to everyone that we do need the feed back from competitors, clubs, scrutineers and championships that is possible if this is going to work.
Thanks Gordon; I see where you are coming from here is the paragraph in full;
The suspension type and mountings must remain the same as that fitted by the vehicle manufacturer. The shock absorbers may be of any make and may be uprated from standard. Adjustable spring platform struts are permitted. The mounting method and position must remain as specified by the vehicle manufacturer. Springs are free but must retain their original location. Bushes may be changed for similar polymer materials, but rose-joints or similar metal joints are prohibited unless fitted as the vehicle manufacturer’s specified option. The fitting of spherical type joints is not permitted, except as the top mounting of a suspension strut.
Now I am no lawyer (thank god because I wouldnt be much good at it) so call me stupid but as I read that paragraph there are 2 statements that say you cant change the top mount or bearing (1st and 4th sentence) and one that says you can. Furthermore if you change the bearing it still has to be mounted within the original top mount not an eliptical one. The 1st and 4th sentances are quite clear on that.
Anyway I am going back to standard and see what happens around me. I wont be discarding the eliptical mounts in a hurry
I will put in in simple language;
The only time a spherical joint will be allowed is as the top mount of an replacement upgraded suspension strut, e.g. McPherson Strut, is if the only replacement that is available comes with one as standard.
The original clarification that we were advised to use by the MSA did not allow any form of spherical mount to be used, after discussions with the MSA we have managed to get the OK to allow them only for replacement struts as it was found that the majority of those replacements came with spherical mounts as standard.
I hope this helps because we do not want you to upgrade your suspension to find later in 2010 when they modified the suspension regulation to what we believe will be the same or similar to the one we have and then find you might have to change for 2011.
Please bear with us until it all comes out in the wash the latter part of 2010.
Ron, as the first person to raise the issue of the spherical bearing (not joint) in top mounts, it is still clear that the position is unclear. Unfortunately, your interpretation bears no resemblance to the actual wording that is in the new class regs. No where does it say you can only fit a spherical bearing top mount if there is no other alternative.
There must be virtually no modern cars with macpherson struts which come with spherical bearings as standard.
Additionally it would be a very easy to prove that either a new or second hand non spherical top mount is available on the market or e-bay for all macpherson strutted cars.
Think Russell is correct in sticking to standard mounts if Ron’s interpretation is to be adopted by the scrutes. I look forward to the first case appearing in the back of motorsport now!
This is my understanding of this regulation as it has been explained to me and given the go ahead by MSA technical;
The only time a spherical joint will be allowed is as the top mount of a new upgraded replacement strut that can only be obtained with a spherical joint as the top mount and it is a integral part of that assembly, it must also fit the original mounting point/s and not necessitate the moving of that mounting point. This only applies to cars with a strut type suspension configuration. Please also note that this reg is not written in stone yet, it is what we have been advised to use, it might be superseded for 2011 when the the blue book is published.
Keep checking “Motorsports Now” for the official version. It might stay the same of course, who knows!!!
Thanks for coming back on this Ron its clear that both Steve Miles and Gordon Riley are of the opinion that spherical joints at the top of McPhearson struts are allowed.
Its clear that the only time that you can use a spherical joint at the top of a McPhearson strut is when an uprated damper comes with one already attached and is an integral, which in my opinion means non removable from, part of that damper. Even then it has to be used with the original top mount which is in its original position. So no ability to adjust castor and camber angles as a result of using such a bearing.
Oops Mitchell not Miles sorry Steve.
Dont worry about what i think Russell I have had enough of it all, i will either hang up my helmet , and go back to sailing, or maybe go rallying , at least that has sensible regs.
We wonder why new people are put off!!!
Personally, I think it’s too complicated and unclear. For me, there are too many classes in the ‘northern’ regs and all these ‘clarifications’ just make it less clear. Here are some questions:
Why are kit cars replicas and spaceframed cars separate from specialist production cars – I don’t recall a category for those in the blue book other than road-going specialist production cars.
In light of the above, what constitutes a specialist production car in class 2D?
Which class would my standard VX220 compete in?
Give me an example of a 4-seater sportscar?
The classes mimic the majority of major National B championships.
The clarifications were requested by competitors because the blue book did not go far enough, hopefully this will be remedied in the 2011 blue book and they would therefore be reduced.
Lotus 2/11 and any low volume production car.
VX 220 would be in sportscars same as the Elise’s.
Any 2+2 sportscar
Thanks – that is really helpful to me to let me understand how some of this might work. I will be competing at some of the events covered by these regs next year although I’m not a regular.
Porsche 911 would be a 4 seater sportscar, I guess.
Is a Caterham R500 a kitcar or a specialist production car?
Is a factory built Westfield a kitcar or a specialist production car?