Comments for Chester & Liverpool MC Speed Championship

Comment on Provisional Scores after Rounds 11 & 12 by Rich Stephens

Rich Stephens — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:25:57 +0000

Hi thanks for the latest results document. I competed on Sat 31st at Loton but I don’t have a score. Please could this be rectified.

Also – I have a suggestion – I think it would be a good idea to arrange the drivers according to number of points earned so we can see easily who the leaders are.

Thanks for your work making the championship happen!

Rich Stephens

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by carmad

carmad — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:23:45 +0000

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.

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by shiftspark

shiftspark — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:14:09 +0000

I run a Clio in 1b, are rear anti roll bars allowed as long as they dont have spherical joints on them?

Thanks

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by shiftspark

shiftspark — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:29:39 +0000

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……

Comment on New Speed Classes for 2010 by DaneGross

DaneGross — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:37:15 +0000

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?

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?