Limiting revs to keep racing costs down (any thoughts?)

[Al Weyman]

I was origiinally responsible for penning the rules of a reasonably successful modified saloon car race series and at first we had a selling/buying plate in an effort to keep costs down but this was not really workable. I did at one time concider a selling plate on the engine alone but this was also impractical.

Well it also occured to me that revs are the real things that cost money to achieve and also what destroys engines and if revs could be kept within feasable limits then the need for exotic (read expensive) components such as steel rods, cranks and valve trains would be eliminated. I proposed something like a 500 or a 1000 rpm limit over the models manufacturer's redline limit. Or if that was not possible a limit for the class, i.e. smaller engines would be allowed to rev higher.

This, at the time (back then 8 or 10 years ago) was rubbished as being uninforceable and maybe it is. However with the recent strides in technology I was wondering if this idea was worth another look. Does anyone have any have any thoughts on this and if it would be possible to build an electronic device that could be set and sealed and checked by the scurtineer on a regular basis and be completly untamperable but would limit the revs to the set limit.

This idea if practical has always appealed to me as I see it as a very effective way of cutting costs by eliminating the neccessity of expensive components and expensive blow ups and if it worked could be adabted to a variety of different championships or am I just talking rubbish.

[Lukin]

Over here in the V8's, the rev limit is imposed at 7500 rpm and the officials use a standard ECU and log everything. It's up to the teams to ensure the rev limit works, and the officials simply check the data. They also have rear wheelspeed sensors (which we don't have access to ) and can use that to check the correct diff and gear ratio's are fitted.

Not cheap, but cheaper than lunching a few engines each year.

[Al Weyman]

Thanks for the reply Lukin what you say proves it is possible albeit at a cost.

I was thinking more at club level racing where budgets are always tight and competitors are dwindling because of this and other factors and also even at this level you gett he 'cheque book racer', the pot hunter with a fatter wad than anyone else and really should go and play in a bigger pond. I was therefore thinking of a cheaper more practical system based on a rev limiter or prehaps an untamperable tell tale electronic revcounter which had to be reset and read by the scrut pre and post race. Drivers would have to be careful on downchanging but there you go, I have seen drivers destroy engines by over zealous downchanging and overreving the engine so maybe no bad thing.

I will add this, the beauty of my proposal is that it puts no one out of business even if they do have a full house all steel engine, may require a cam change to lower the power band but that would be it and relatively simple to do.

[Lukin]

The Formula Ford I used to work on had an electronic rev limiter for engine protection. I think it was relatively cheap (a few hundred dollars if I remember correctly) just not sure whether or not it can be made tamper proof. If it could over a race weekend, they could be handed back before and after each meeting.

[midgetman]

Al

The MG Midget series we race in - www.fisc-europe.org - does just that. We're limited to 7.2k, rev limiters are handed out on a random basis at the start of every meeting and checked back in again. Works for us. They're just a little gizmo that clips on the coil. IIRC they're an Armtech manufacture.

You can soon see who's cheating 'cos they're much quicker. It really keeps the costs down.

'Course you can always do that with spec tyres too.

[greenamex2]

Touring cars have rev limiters, I would hardly call their engines 'cheap'. The engine builders just spent the money making the engine components lighter etc using the same exotic components you mentioned.

It would also massively favour certain engines over others, like hulking great V8's, turbo's and two valvers for instance!

A good example would be the Corolla engine I know and hate. Having a rev limit would MASSIVELY favour the later spec engines and make running any car with earlier engine completely pointless. And that is just one engine with the same manufacturers code!

People would then just spend their money increasing engine capacity. Again this favours certain engines, such as big V8's and Ford's, where the components to achieve this are cheap and easily and/or there is the scope within the engines design to achieve this.

To increase the capacity of my engine would cost MORE than building a high revving engine. And it would be less reliable.

High revving engines aren't necessarily more unreliable, they just need to be built properly (few people know how to).

The Modified Production Saloons is the perfect example of attempts to cut competitors costs ending up costing them more. Several people have spent the cost of a dry sump system ten to fifteen times over before they either fixed the problem or ran out of money and gave up racing. And oil surge isn't rev related.

Yes having rev limits COULD save the competitor some money. But it could end up costing more or producing 'one make' series.

If you wanted to have a cheap series, just have standard engines, gearboxes etc and just allow the free or cheap things like weight removal (not replacement).

Maybe that is why stock hatch is so successful?

People will spend what they will spend. Even in something like Stock hatch (or any other limited mods series) you can spend a fortune to win by always having a fresh blueprinted engine, fresh tyres, testing before every race, good budget for body repairs etc etc etc.

All the examples of where it is used, and undoubtedly works, are on fixed engine types.

My idea would be to combine ideas like rev limits with a fixed 'menu' of engine specs. Whilst it would take a lot of thinking about I reckon you could come up with equivelent performance 'kits' for every car you think of. This would make things simple, easier and cheaper for the competitor whilst also being enforcable.

[dtype38]

Couldn't agree with Dennis more that people will spend the money they have available. Everyone from F1 team bosses down to the lowliest club race will simply find a way to spend their budget to make their car go faster. A rev limit will push up displacement, a displacement limit will push up revs, any engine limit will push down car weight. Everyone will stretch their chequebook to get to the front by whichever means is not banned by the rules. Even limiting competitors to standard components and rev limits will, as Dennis says, simply lead to one model being the "one to have" to be competitive.

OK, so that's all the negative stuff over. I'm not trying to say its a hopeless situation. I think that if there's people out there determined to swim in a little pool to prove how big they are, then that can't be helped. But it may be possible to make the cost of gaining an advantage so disproportionate to the advantage that it discourages that sort of thing. Actually, I think the rev limit thing isn't such a bad idea... but to be fair I think it would need to be related much more closely to the displacement, standard state of tune, and weight of each car.... I'm assuming here that we aren't talking about one-make-series.

The main issue in any of this is the ability to rely on the honesty of competitors in declaring their..... max revs, car weight, displacement, max power, etc, etc, OR (failing that) the ability of the race oragisers/scrutineers to easily check that limits are being adhered to, without having to resort to stripping engines and rolling road tests. That sort of stuff might be appropriate for F1 or Touring cars, but it simply aint gonna happen at Clubbie Meetings.

Sooooo..... what can you measure simply and easily before/during/after a race within the budget of a Clubbie racer/Clubbie organiser. The weight of the car is an easy and obvious one.... but what else. Now this is where I think Al's idea has real merit. A simple clamp onto an HT lead peak rev meter, maybe with some averaging logic, could be a simple and relatively inexpensive measurement tool.... although, from this respect I would refer you all to the threads on the cost of timing transponders :-((

So maybe if an organiser could say "Right... 1000kg car, 1000cc engine.. er, my table says that's an 9000 rpm limit. Next.. er 1800kg car 5000cc engine... er, ok, my table says that's a 4750rpm limit". and in each case clip a little gizmo to the coil for checking later... perhaps it might work..

Then we have a level playing field, so all we have to say now is that everytime you win a race your rev limit has to go down 100rpm... then it would soon stops being possible to buy your way to the front :-)

Thoughts anyone?

[Al Weyman]

I disagree that it will mean builders switching to bigger capacities to gain an advantage because in the CTCRC for example and many other championships that is a no no anyhow, i.e standard throw cranks and usually +60 thou overbores. Even in ModProds you cannot (or could'nt when I left it) overbore/stroke and move up a class as yiou used to be able to but we stopped that when HT Racing started buliding 2.7 Pintos anyhow most would have probably moved up to the class limit already if practical.

2nd point you raised Dennis, different engines, that is why one of my suggestions was an increase over the manufacturers redline limit for the engine (I am talking more TinTops in this instance as I have no real experience with anything else. For example I have two Chevy engines, one in the yellow car has standard crank and rods, hydraulic camshaft, balanced crank and I would not really want to rev it much more than 6200 rpm in fact it is not making any more power up there with the current state of tune, the redline limit on the engine as fitted to a Z/28 I think is a bout 5800 rpm so my proposal would allow a max revs of say 6300. A chevy engine with cast crank and standard rods (they are steel anyhow) can easy run safely to those limits but much more and you are on dangerous ground. Now my other engine in the black car has a steel crank Carillo type rods, roller cam and valve train (very stout and not very broad power band) and is built for substained running at 7800rpm should I so desire, but this thing cost twice as much at least to build that the other one. Now if my propsal was workable I would have to change the cam in the all steel engine to lower the usable revs but that would be it and it would not be making hugely more power than the cast crank motor so both would be competitive, and that is my point.

Sorry to talk V8's but as an example this is the unit I have most knowledge of. I am sure it would work with your engine as well as the motor had a high redline limit anyhow if you take my point which is why I feel the best resluts from this would be gained by setting limits based on the manufacturers redline and could be by a percentage or a fixed number of revs.

The other point is the cost of any unit and the transponder debate. If this worked unlike transponders this would a) save competitors a lot of money so a hundred and fifty quid say for a unit would be an investment amd b) as important it will make a lot more lower budget competitors competitive which will give better racing and hopefully better grids as they will enjoy what they are doing.

I think we all agree something has to be done and maybe it is time for a bit of thinking out the box as they say.

How did you get on at Silverstone Dennis I see from MST (does have its uses) Gerry won, was it a good race?

[greenamex2]

To use mod prods as the example, there is plenty of scope within class (ignoring the dumb 225cc multivalve restriction) to spend buckets loads of cash and causing tons of stress related engine failures increasing you capacity to the class limit. The guy with the fat wallet would then just still be spending his money on the lightest pistons, the lightest conrods, the lightest cranks etc etc for a miniscule gain.

Using your Chevy engine as an example, the fact that the steel engine, suitably modified elsewhere for lower revs would make more power would convince fat wallet to go that way. Add to that the fact that using the appropriate steel crank, rods, etc he could to a 427ci engine then your cheap stock component engine wouldn't stand a chance, even if you could get the 400ci bits! PS I also know a fair amount about chevy's and know much you CAN spend building them, despite the mass market making parts incredibly cheap compared to anything else. They really aren't a fair example for most cars racing, a genuine GM steel crank for about 400 quid, a complete 350BHP ZZ4 engine for about 4 grand!!

The RPM rule would render the majority of the current mod prod cars obselete overnight. There would be no point running anything other than a Honda Civic Type R in class C, a turbo car in class A and B and an XR2 in class D.

Why does something have to be done? There are series that cater for the budget conscious and there are series that cater for the more adventurous (both financially and technically).

The problem is there are just TOO MANY SERIES and they need merging together for the benefit of us all. According to the MSA stats, the number of competitors is still rising year on year, they just are not chosing the traditional series.

If you were to reduce the number of meetings by a third, but all those meetings were full, I reckon entry costs would reduce significantly. Gate takings would increase due to more interesting racing, sponsorship opportunities increase etc etc etc.

Ultimately if nothing is done then market forces will decide the outcome. However I don't believe that will be in the interests of the average club competitor.

Interestingly the subject came up in a round about way at the last couple of Toyo meetings. Recognising the cost of building a fully fledged mod prod car we are now considering means of getting cars and people in at a cheaper level, but still offering an upgrade path should they want it. An RPM limit hadn't come up in conversations but I will be putting it forward as a possibility at the AGM (I may argue, but I do listen!).

I had a hilarous time with Jon Payne's Sunbeam putting on a synchronised drifting demonstration after a shower hit us on about lap 4. Gerry was being destroyed by the (lower revving!) turbo Starion until the rain hit then Gerry's vast experience took over and he won by a mile. A good, and fun, end to the season for all with just about everyone showing a lot of enthusiasm about continuing on next year.

[Al Weyman]

Maybe the example of a V8 in modprods is a bad one as there is no engine size limit in Class A (maybe you should consider one as a starting point because if anyone ever decided to come out with a full house short stroke 6.3 in a sorted chassis I don't think you would ever catch them!). If there was then my argument would be more relevant and would indeed limit the spending.

I think you missed the point on the difference between my two engines, the Manley steel rods and GM steel crank are no lighter than the GM cast crank and standard rods so there is no advantage to be gained by fitting these expensive components if the idea is to not exceed say 6200rpm as the standard components would be more than adequate. A use of a roller cam would of course be benifitial but the use of a real high lift high overlap cam would not be required. The disagree with your statement that high revving engines are not less reliable it is a well known fact is that revs kill engines, not horse power and lower revving engines will cut costs. Johnny Thick Wad will still chuck money at his project sure but his advantage for doing so would be severly curtailed.

Why would an RPM rule render most of the cars obsolete when the rule would be the same for all, I don't understand your point there to be honest. It would not effect the Rovers, the Starions, Capris, Pinto engined cars, Tomcats etc. Maybe someone who has some awesome Pug may have to slow down a bit but would that be so bad.

Maybe nothing has to be done and it was only posted as a thread for discussion on an other wise boring Sunday and I had also heard about some disquite in the ModProd ranks about costs so thought this idea was worthy of discussion. The facts are as has been seen by recent posts here and indeed in your championship where for example I used to have over 125 registered members and we filled 3 grids at Mallory with reserves in each, the undeniable facts are racing entrants are dwindling and just one of those reasons must surely be the cost of preparation and maintaining of the race cars. I remember a guy building a normally asperated Cosworth for the championship and in the end he had to rev it to something approaching 9000rpm with all the associated failures, in the end he gave up and retired form the sport. Another guy used to try and rev his Holbay Pinto to collosal revs and he ended up doing the same.

I also don't see how reducing the number of meetings is going to reduce costs, what would the circuits do with the unrented days, overall they need to earn X ammount a year so they would have to increase prices or sell off to housng developers. The real answer is to get guys back out again so that those meetings are full. And please I gave up seeking sponsorship many many years ago, at our level if it ever happens it is very very rare, i sponsor myself as i always have done and use it to try to get my company name about.

[Al Weyman]

Oh and the 225cc rule probably came about as a result of some whinger bringing his enterage down to a meeting and forcing a rule change, same as the silly normally asperated Turbo rule, which was one of the reasons that rule changes by a show of hands was stopped, some drivers and their wallets have to be protected from themselves you know

[greenamex2]

Al, you are assuming people are going to be fitting the normal cheap off the shelf parts to their mythical rev limited V8. They won't. Their engine builder will know that with limited revs they can have lighter rods, cranks etc.

The reason that existing cars will be rendered obsolete is the reason I gave in my first post. Some engines need revs to make power, others don't. If class D had an 8000RPM limit the XR2 would be completely unaffected by the rule, my car would drop 30 or 40 BHP no matter what you did with the cams. Having a percentage increase on the original cars rev limit won't change things. If you had a percentage limit in class C then Honda Civics etc would be unaffected but the older 205's would lose power. If a rev limit was put on Gerry's car (I know what it revs too) then he will lose power, that same rev limit won't affect a turbo as they don't need revs so Gerry won't be able to touch a well sorted Cosworth or Starrion.

As for what race circuits then did with the newly available days. Welcome them with open arms and run much more profitable track and corporate days. I know that most circuit owners only allow race meetings to run because it allows them to charge a premium for track days compared to non race circuits.

The problem with the mod prods compared to the early days is it now has much more competition from other series. I don't believe that it has changed enough to compete with these series. You only have to look at what the BRSCC Euro Saloons, Ford Mod Prods, Castle Combe saloons, 750MC Hot hatches, Castle Combe, BARC Classic Thunder, TRC Championship etc have done. They have all increased their grid sizes (partly by 'stealing' our drivers) despite being the same or even more expensive regs as ours. We need to adapt or die, and we are now starting to adapt.

Maybe there should be a new rule in ALL club race series -

0.0 All expenditure must be approved by a wife, husband, partner, parent or similar far more sensible person than the idiot who decided to blow all their hard earned cash going racing in the first place.

[COLIN STUBBS]

too many championships with too many different regulations= small grids. iv tried 4 different series this year to see whats available to run me rover in,after an admin cock up got me kicked out of class f in classic thunder.did an lma race and running on slicks was great,but no 1600 class so in with some mega fast 2litre cars.really good crowd of guys though!! did a tintop/60s sportscar race and managed 8th oa out of a full grid,but not so friendly atmosphere,although it might have been my fault for not getting out of a faster cars way that had anointed my windscreen with oil on a earlier lap.
nice trophy for 1600 class win though..good fun with a longer race with pit stop and option to have 2 drivers.
had some good races with the toyos,and hopefully will stick with em next year. good for us to be in a 1600 class and slowly developing the car [and me] to be a bit more competitive.ooh,back to the original point though al. on saturday i had an lsd and no rev limiter for the first time. my main opponent had just fitted some throttle bodies and proceeded to blow me into the weeds in qualifying.then he went out and won the bloody lot of us in the race!!! well done david.have to admit i was feeling lousy with a cold and spun twice but i really thought a few more revs would have made more difference.looking at my times for lap 6 showed some potential was misssing somewhere!!

[Al Weyman]

Dennis you are missing the point on the Chevy engine as standard rods and cranks are more than adequate to cope with 6200rpm reve limit and steel exotica will not make you go any faster ask any engine builder but I won't dwell any longer there.

I thought I read on another post that your car was redlined by Toyota at something like 7 or 8000 rpm, did I read that incorrectly. In which case you would still be able to build the unit to rev to 9000 which is why I said 'based on the manufacture's redline limit'.

And I am intending to get the black Camaro out for one or two (or more) rounds with you guys next year it is just a shame Toyos don't do a tyre size to suit my 16inch rims that Falken did, that is what is holding me back the thought of spending 3 grand on two sets of 18inch rims when I was quite happy running on the 16inch, maybe this is something that should be addressed.

[greenamex2]

The standard rev limiter on a Corolla is set at 7800RPM. If I was allowed 2000RPM this I would be OK (Hurrah). The standard RED LINE on a Corolla is displayed as 6800RPM. If I was allowed and extra 2000RPM I would now no longer be able to beat a properly modified XR2. I would still need all steel internals because my engine explodes when revved passed 8000RPM for any length of time.

The aforementioned modified XR2 is still within in it's +2000RPM rev limit so he is very happy.

The same type of discrepancy exists with turbo cars. You don't need to increase to revs much on a turbo car, just the boost. This will mean the turbo car has an immediate advantage over it's normally aspirated class mates, so then you get into having to further artificially restrict the turbo cars further who then get the hump and go elsewhere.

How about classes purely based on power or torque to weight ratios? I know that at least a couple of series do or have done this. That way all that spending bucket loads of cash gets you is bumped up into the next class. You also have the choice of balancing out car selection, engine tuning and weight loss depending on budget, and then climbing up the scale as desire or funds dictate.

Colin, I was surprised that you didn't come flying past when it rained. Let me know if I sell you anything else!

[greenamex2]

Oh yeah, and owners of Mk2 Escorts will be really annoyed because their original very low rev limits will mean they could never compete with more modern machinery.

[COLIN STUBBS]

wasnt thru lack of trying denis.i was trying to drive like that guy in the mini years ago:-hanging the backend out and pulling it round with the lsd.managed it once with with the arse end well in the lead!! i need some serious setting up lessons though,specially in the wet. car handles like a dream on slicks like its supposed to,but running road tyres is a different ball park. mm i can feel a new thread coming on...................

[greenamex2]

What, how to setup a car on road tyres or how to get TOYO PROXES T1-R embossed on the sidewall of a slick?

[Al Weyman]

A class structure based on power to weight with the drivers weight taken in to the equation (I weigh 18 or 19 stone on a good day) would be great Dennis but and the great big but, is how on earth do you enforce it but I agree it would be a good idea if you could,

[greenamex2]

Enforcement is always an issue with any rule. I have already thought of a half a dozen ways round the theorhetical rev limit (quiet day at work).

Weight is easy, within the dubious accuracy of motor circuit weighbridges.

Power/torque less so. Something like hiring a mobile rolling once or twice a year with punitive penalties for lying would be one way. The other would be one of the GPS logging thingies on random cars. Like your rev limit thing, using the technology (read toys) now available.

That way I could stop my pre season and during season diet and join you for a couple of beers!

[Al Weyman]

Enforcement is always an issue with any rule. I have already thought of a half a dozen ways round the theorhetical rev limit (quiet day at work).

But each one would involve cheating and as the MG guy said it would need competitor co-operation.

[dtype38]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

A class structure based on power to weight with the drivers weight taken in to the equation (I weigh 18 or 19 stone on a good day) would be great Dennis but and the great big but, is how on earth do you enforce it but I agree it would be a good idea if you could,

The SR & GT Challenge is a great little series with a huge mix of cars. We run four classes based on power-to-weight ratio. Cars are weighed occasionally during the season, and all drivers are expected to honestly declare their flywheel bhp. If you are up at the front of your class results you may be required to back up your bhp claim with a rolling road/dyno test sheet. It definitely makes for interesting racing when you're up against a car with half your power but only half the weight! No problem at Snetterton, but he gets his own back at Lydden Hill

Oh, and if you're the sort of person to falcify a dyno test result, then you're not the sort of person that would be welcome in the series.

[Al Weyman]

Exactly D-Type you are relying on drivers honesty but I know for a fact that a lot are not honest, I won't mention names of course but I have discovered a few in the past, even found one of the committee of one championship I raced in changing the springs on his car at the back of a hanger at Snet when he adamantly told me that standard springs and wire diameters as fitted to the road car must be used (yeah right). As for a rolling road check the driver/entrant would only need to back off the timiing a few degrees to get the HP down how would you stop this? I do like the idea though especially if weighed with the driver on board and also if like my suggestion it was workable and an instant and accurate measure of the BHP before and after the race was possible. Also I would wage a bet in your series that a fair bit of paddock gossip goes on about who has got what BHP.

[R59]

The BMW series uses power to weight, which should negate the need to spend buckets of cash on the latest 3.2L M3 etc..

I agree with you Denis, the idea of rev limiting cars, especially golden oldies, could upset more than it pacifies. I'd be happy with an increase of 1000rpm, from my original 6700rpm red line, as the Nova produces it's power at 7200, and I used to run the limiter at 7750, even though it carrys on revving up past 8500 (I think 8650 was the highest revs I've pulled - at Cadwell).

Getting someone with a mobile rolling road isn't difficult, there are people who have them specifically for this sort of thing. And as for weighing - get a set of scales from Martin Short at Rollcentre, that way, it's always the same set, wherever you go.

The 3.2L M3 scenario would still play out, as they have so much more grunt than the 3L version, that even with the extra weight to compensate for their increased power, they are faster. You'd need to be ready with extra weight penalties for success.
Or how about limiting tyre size? OK you want to run a 3.2L M3, then you're on 165/70 x 13's mate.

Al - to stop the timing trick - seal the distributor, or fit a seal to the ECU to stop tweaking (there is no distributor on my Nova engine - other than to stop oil from exiting the head!). Seals only broken with agreement of the series scrutineer - or in his presence (for repairs).

Rob.

[greenamex2]

That's where one of these GPS widgets would be useful. If the driver backs off in the circuit whilst being monitored it will be noticed as a slower than expected lap time.

Ok, here's a 06:10 in the shower idea. Why aren't more series using a handicap system? I am thinking something along the lines of that used in Golf.

Rob, you don't need to open up most ECU's to reprogram them!