Masters change to Regulations for 2009

[pomracer]

I have just received the email circular outlining changes for 2009, and note that "electronic ignition" is going to be allowed ( You need to look at the actual detail of this and what exactly is permitted) ; and that measures have been introduced to slow down the V8's. In the light of other recent threads, is this the start of the slippery slope I ask?

[simon drabble]

to be fair I think this was in response to the wishes of their paying punters...

[Peter Mallett]

If anyone wants to read the mail, you can get to it here.

in essence they've tried to address the noise concerns, electronic ignition, engine mapping and the V8 dominance.

[pomracer]

I think that the noise issue and most of what I have read seems sensible.

I also understand the thinking behind the electronic ignition , if you read the email, and I have suffered from dud components (condensors) which ruined one race and nearly another two years ago.....but....having spent quite a lot of time (and £s of course) ensuring that my car does match its homologation, is App K 'kosher' , and after all the fuss about originality etc it does seem a retrograde step to now say that actually I don't need to run my points ignition.

Also the reasons given for trying to temper V8s performance is that Ron has just been to the States where he has seen what can be done with V8 engines . I run a V8, and am very aware as to what exactly can be done with them. Which engine block, worldwide, holds the record for the most units produced since its introduction? - answer Chevrolet. Which engine wins Nascar today (ever so slightly different to it's 1957 cousin...)?- answer Chevrolet (smallblock) So, every year new technology is introduced. Camshaft technology is moving so fast over there that they reckon a true App K spec engine could make 20hp more today than two years ago just on changing the cam alone.... So, if you build a legit App K engine today it will produce more horses, but I don't see that as being any different to the manner in which other makes of engine have developed at the same time - its just that if you own a V8 you benefit from the multi million dollar arms race that goes on each year in the States to squeeze some more power out , whereas here you would have to do it all yourself.
Finally, the big problems comes when an engine is not quite App K legit ..then the sky is the limit .....
Maybe we just come back to the same old threads on this forum: App K and cheating!!

[terence]

I think the noise issue is probably the biggest concern,these ******* idiots who have no qualms about disrupting other peoples hobbys! I think everything that could be said about these get rich quick grabbers has been.My confidence in Masters has grown after reading the mail shot,a few steps in the right direction,at last.Well done to Ron and his team and also to all those who voiced their opinions.

[Peter Mallett]

Well, let's see. Those who want to race under App k are finding out that people really do cheat. No, really they do. Then there's those folks who apparently can move to a noisy area and have the noise removed.

I think Masters has done something quite brave. They've said "you can race but with us you'll need to meet our requirements" which will allow a certain amount of flexibility to make sure we race. If that upsets the purists then the purists may need to think again because possibly this is where racing is going, historic or not.

Personally I don't see any need for engine mapping, however if the cost of £5k (or whatever) for a set up is what it takes to preserve an F1 engine so the cars can race more often then so be it. I may not agree with it but at least there is a criterion(?) to work with.

[Moosehead]

Although I have no real vested interest in what Masters do, I have to say that I wouldn't be too happy about the noise issue. Racing cars are supposed to be noisy, its part of the attraction. I'm really getting quite *******off about this especially when a mate of mine who regularly attends football matches informs me that at each match they have a competition between the supporters of both teams to see who can make the most noise with the resulting figures usually well over 100db. This at a venue literally surrounded by hundreds of houses.

Rest of the changes seem pretty fair though I don't think it was necessary to go to the US to find out about V8 engines especially as most of the illegal lookalikey parts for AppK engines are UK sourced.

[midgetman]

There's a slight difference between footie supporters making 100db for a few seconds, and 30 cars EACH making 100db for many minutes at a time! To be ****** off is one thing, but to ignore the situation is to mean there'll be no racing, historic or otherwise.

I don't race in Masters, but received the press release and it seemed to be first steps to addressing issues raised here. The series I ran in used to have rev limiters, and it did a great job of restricting power and budgets. Could work well on keeping V8 power down to period levels?

[John Turner]

I agree with Moosehead. One of the key ingredients of motor racing for me is the noise. The trouble is that the circuits have shot themselves in the foot a bit with this one, because I think it is the increased regularity of the use of circuits which has exacerbated the situation. So many trackdays/practice days etc means that some of the local communities get little break from it. The circuit organisers will say that their venues are commercial enterprises and they have to generate income, which is true, of course, but it's had a knock on effect in the terms of sound restrictions on race days, when we really do want to hear what racing cars should sound like.

[terence]

These noise issue's do seem to be pretty one sided,what ever happened to our right's of pursuing a hobby,a hobby that help's local economy,put's money into the hundred's of race shops etc? I lodged in Siverstone village for a while,all of the local's were estimating that proximately £4 million a year would be lost if the circuit lost all of it's events,personally I would have thought that most local people are glad they live in close proximity to the various circuits.

[Peter Mallett]

Whatever, there's little point in fighting it we just have to live with it. Not forgetting that 105dB is still pretty loud.

[pomracer]

[quote=Peter Mallett]
I think Masters has done something quite brave. They've said "you can race but with us you'll need to meet our requirements" which will allow a certain amount of flexibility to make sure we race. If that upsets the purists then the purists may need to think again because possibly this is where racing is going, historic or not.

In a sense I agree with your point, however I started this thread really because, since the early days of Gentleman Drivers and latterly Masters there has been a groundswell of opinion that many cars out there were / are blatantly ignoring App K regs...hence the numerous threads on this forum regarding the subject including the recent one on electronic ignition and the Simon Hadfields thread , all of which have triggered interesting responses from many. If I could make one conclusion from the whole lot, it seems to me that people want better scrutineering and stricter scrutineering to enforce App K. (please correct me if I am wrong). OK there has been discussion about leeway on electronic ignition and perhaps what Ron says and has introduced is the sensible way forward. That said, where do you draw the line? Is your car App K or is it not? As above, many people I know got irritated with GD because so many people were running dodgy engines (over size) and electronic ignition.....and we racers are all the same, give us an inch and we will take 5 miles....
I am not criticising Ron as I thought that the email was well presented - I am just challenging the direction it appears to be taking.
I can put my hand up to say that I used to run an MSD ignition unit on my car (V8) - fantastic for reliability as never touched it, and everyone else was running one (book of racers excuses: excuse number 1 ) but it was illegal. My conscience and also the better scrutineering ( and , may I say, threads in this forum!) made me move back to points 2 years ago .......so now what do I do ???

P.s. I meant to add that I do not consider myself as a "purist" ...simply someone who enjoys his racing , isn't out to win, BUT would like a level playing field

[fasted]

This an awfully difficult one. As an avowed "Purist" electronic ignition is the work of the Devil, As a racer the thought of a £650 entry fee and a 500 mile round trip all coming to nought when the points actuating "Tit" breaks off on the green flag lap also fills me with despair. I am pleased someone has decided to give limited forms electronic ignition a try. The wise thing would be to await the outcome of this trial.

[Al Weyman]

Seems all pretty reasonable, I have a 3.5 diff in my old 1970's car and with 15 inch Dunlop Formulas thats right in the ball park however fortunately for you guys the Chevy V8 is not really used in Masters is it so the reference to them is somewhat irrelevant I would have thought? Its all about Mustangs which should be 4.7 litres anyhow and with genuine standard heads (they are not particullar good unlike the SB Chevy) and rocker gear they would not be putting out much more than 400bhp.

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Seems all pretty reasonable, I have a 3.5 diff in my old 1970's car and with 15 inch Dunlop Formulas thats right in the ball park however fortunately for you guys the Chevy V8 is not really used in Masters is it so the reference to them is somewhat irrelevant I would have thought? Its all about Mustangs which should be 4.7 litres anyhow and with genuine standard heads (they are not particullar good unlike the SB Chevy) and rocker gear they would not be putting out much more than 400bhp.

Yes you are right in that this is aimed at the saloons, and specificly Mustangs and Falcons.(However there are some Corvettes out there, in what was the GD, including mine) .
What I am trying to get at is this: As you say above, a Ford 289 cubic inch / 4.7 in true App K trim will put out anwhere between 360 and I have heard of 420 hp....maybe the likes of Pete Knight etc can squeeze a drop more....but we are not talking 500 hp......so although Ford engines are not my strong point, let us assume that your top builder is at the moment achieving 420. To get anything over that , logic dictates that people are cheating. Soooooooo,
is this new rule actually an acknowledgement that people are liberally pushing the envelope, and then some, and running 'unobtanium' components in their engines ...but short of insisting on strip downs it cannot be checked, so the only way to deal with it is to introduce a rule on diff ratios and maybe rev limiters! -? or am I being a tad cynical?

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by fasted

This an awfully difficult one. As an avowed "Purist" electronic ignition is the work of the Devil, As a racer the thought of a £650 entry fee and a 500 mile round trip all coming to nought when the points actuating "Tit" breaks off on the green flag lap also fills me with despair. I am pleased someone has decided to give limited forms electronic ignition a try. The wise thing would be to await the outcome of this trial.

Well said - brings me back to what I said about points. For me , my excuse for running electronic was pure and simple: reliability. I was co-driver to a friend with a (Ford) V8 engined car which had endless problems with a duff batch of condensors to the extent that we carried 3 or 4 spares....and I seem to recall about 6 visits to the pit lane at Spa one year during a race. Not much fun . I have to say that I like the idea, just wanted to challenge the principal when it seems to fly in the face of App K and the apparent efforts to enfore those regs more effectively.

[terence]

That's the very reason the thread was started,as has been said many times before,if a basic type were to be allowed by the FIA,so what,we would all have a chance of completing our chosen races [other failures permitting of course]

[Al Weyman]

I think if a 289 was built to Apps K it would produce no more than 350 bhp to 375 bhp in reality. I actually owned a 64 High Output model fastback mustang in the 70's (lovely car manual with disc brakes wish I still owned it) and it was rated at 275bhp with a proper factory inlet manifold and carb, Tri Y headers etc, I find it a bit strange you could get 150 bhp more if you used genuine original components and flat tappet cams and standard rockers as required because on the road the High Output model was a bit cammy and fun to say the least.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I think if a 289 was built to Apps K it would produce no more than 350 bhp to 375 bhp in reality. I actually owned a 64 High Output model fastback mustang in the 70's (lovely car manual with disc brakes wish I still owned it) and it was rated at 275bhp with a proper factory inlet manifold and carb, Tri Y headers etc, I find it a bit strange you could get 150 bhp more if you used genuine original components and flat tappet cams and standard rockers as required because on the road the High Output model was a bit cammy and fun to say the least.

Strangely enough,I was present when a 100% FIA compliant 289 was being dyno'd today,the dyno is slightly conservative but the engine is as sweet as you'd want it,and its giving 418bhp!.No super trick bit's,everything is off the shelf but built by some-one who really know's his V8s.

[Al Weyman]

OK fine sounds about right with out accessories and in ideal dyno conditions etc. thats about what i am talking about not 500 plus that Masters' man is. What revs was it pulling incidently also what were the prehaps more important torque figures I would guess not all that brilliant? I am sure if the Mustangs were the correct weights etc then circ. 400bhp would mean other cars could get well on their pace because they are not exactly lightweights.

[terence]

It was hitting those figures at 6250 Al,torque was 340ish although there is a little more to come.I should say that the guy responsible also builds 5000bhp grag engines,now they are something else!

[Al Weyman]

Yes I would say from what I have seen and read that all sounds about right. The torque is good but not overly massive as one would expect from that sort of engine if built correctly. See I do wonder if the 3.5 cap on final drives will actually have the desired effect as most V8's will be making power way before then at least those suitable for circuit racing!

[Peter Mallett]

But with the tyre section too, won't it make the drive a little more "interesting"?

[terence]

Something I should add is that the power run was the first after bedding in,with a little more fettling there should be in the order of 380 torques and an expected increase in bhp.I think the tyres will certainly see some different driving styles/capabilities showing up.

[Al Weyman]

Well i have to run a 225 x 15 Dunlop Formula and they can also be a bit scary, what are they allowed to run?