Posted: 12 December 2005 at 8:16am | IP Logged

Oil coolers - I hope that I am right but I do believe that Lodge run them in Steves car ( if not - apologies ). In terms of adding bits don't forget that this adds weight and as such may negate the split second advantage you may get. It would still be sensible to fit though for the previous email comments.

David #91

Posted: 12 December 2005 at 2:56pm | IP Logged

Been following this with interest chaps.

I'd be in favour of marginal changes to the regulations that helped reliability or made the cars easier to work on as long as these are low cost. As Martin noted, we could chuck a whole lot of money at these cars on expensive proprietory modifications, but that would be missing the point.

This time last year I was thinking in terms of building a car from scratch and I spent quite a lot of time on the regulations. I think that they could do with a re-write. There is quite a lot that isn't clear or consistent with what I've seen as practice. For example, most of us, myself included, are running a 968 style spoiler, but the regulations don't specifically cover it.

The main area I have concern about is the weight limit and what is legitimate in getting down to it. My reading of the regulations (on the assume you can't unless it says so principle) is that we are only allowed to replace front wings, bonnet and headlights panels in fibreglass and we are not allowed to cut metal from elsewhere. Now that doesn't quite cohere with what I've seen on my own car, on other cars, or with what it has been suggested to me that I might do to bring the weight down.  

For what its worth, I'm happy to put my hand up and say that my car has a fibreglass lower front "turbo style" valance, has had the inner skin cut out of the doors and covered over with aluminium door cards and has a removable section in the spare wheel well to aid changing the gearbox. The car is still 31kg over the limit with me on board, but I'm happy to reinstate any of the above if its agreed to be out of line with the regulations.

The point is that we need to have clarity over what is allowed and what is not. The last thing we want as a Championship is a situation where we get protests or where someone running near the front is pulled up in scrutineering. 

Several of you have suggested that we need to have a discussion on all of this at the end of January. I think it might be worth setting up a working group to revisit the regulations - perhaps we could involve Derek.

Take care

Alec#97

Posted: 13 December 2005 at 1:23pm | IP Logged

Having had my say on oil coolers, I have been thinking about the adjustable top plates for the front struts that started this thread. Adjusting camber at the top of the strut has a different effect on the handling than adjusting it at the bottom of the strut. The overall effect by allowing adjustment at the top and the bottom of the strut is to dramatically increase the number of possible suspension setup permutations. The more setup permutations you have, the more testing you have to do to find out which works the best....and testing is expensive!! (Track time + tyres + brakes etc etc). These adjustable top plates would introduce a large element of "biggest budget goes quickest" into the series.

........Although having said all that, I actually doubt that the adjustable top plates would make much difference on these cars. Only relatively small camber/caster changes are possible at the top the strut. ie fine tuning the large adjustments made in the conventional way. You would only notice the difference with rose jointed suspension and metal to metal bushing. With the standard 924 rubber joints any subtle changes are just going to get lost in the general squidge......you won't notice the difference!

Who started this thread?!!! Got more than enough to think about getting the car ready on the existing regs.....[ walks away muttering]...

Andy

Posted: 13 December 2005 at 1:33pm | IP Logged

hehehe

'Who started this thread' - ME!!!!!

How about carbon brake sets, 944 engines and nitrous!!!?

I tend to have to agree - keep costs down as much as possible.

Gazza

Posted: 13 December 2005 at 1:37pm | IP Logged

How about a radical SR4 in Gulf colours with a No 91 on it.......

David #91

Posted: 15 December 2005 at 5:15pm | IP Logged

I think mods like these would be a bad idea.

I thought the 924 championship was supposed to a budget championship.

If you want to throw money at a car go and do the BTCC

Posted: 17 December 2005 at 5:36pm | IP Logged

Hi Alex,

I thought you were moving to Mazdas next year? - are you still gonna run the 924?

I spoke to the BTCC as you suggested and they would allow me to fit oil scrapers, but my 924 was not classed as a 'Touring Car' so I could not run it.

Shame, I reckon I would have given them a good scare (as they came up to lap me!)

Maybe the ETCC or WTCC might let us in?

Gazza

Posted: 24 December 2005 at 8:21pm | IP Logged

Gaz

Mazdas still the plan if i can get rid!

Well you will have to make do with the ALMS!!

seems to be alot of interest in my Locost tho!

Look out for ad in Autosport over the coming weeks!

Have a good xmas and new year everybody!!