Comments for Chester & Liverpool MC Speed Championship

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by carmad

carmad — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:49:11 +0000

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.

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by The Controller

The Controller — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:02:15 +0000

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

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by The Controller

The Controller — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:58:29 +0000

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.

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by carmad

carmad — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:49:07 +0000

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.

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by DaneGross

DaneGross — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:16:41 +0000

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?

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by Dennis Doyle

Dennis Doyle — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:18:05 +0000

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!

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by carmad

carmad — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:01:11 +0000

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.

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by Dennis Doyle

Dennis Doyle — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:14:54 +0000

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?

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by Steve Mitchell

Steve Mitchell — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:10:21 +0000

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.

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by Dane Gross

Dane Gross — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:01:31 +0000

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 !!!!