Still recovering from one of the best races in any calendar (my thanks to everyone for making Anglesey GREAT), but in the cold light of day I'm looking at what I've got to do in preparation for next season. I've got 2 engines and both were rebuilt at the beginning of this season. The engine we ran at Anglesey was significantly slower at the end of the race than at the beginning and the other engine is 3 seconds a lap off the pace. Both need rebuilding and I'm smarting at the cost. Kris built an engine for Anglesey and it had £1200 of bits and services (rolling road time and travel etc.) in it. He did all the labour (porting the heads, setting the cam timing, cleaning everything and carefully putting it together) on top of the parts cost. I'm probably looking at around £1250 each for my engine rebuilds plus setting them up and getting the fuelling right.
So, my thoughts turn to 'How can I make this cheaper? Can I continue to spend £3000 every year on engine rebuilds, rolling road time and extra testing time?'. Over the past 3 years I've made some mistakes and used the wrong people to do things (Sammie has rescued me on every occasion), but I've spent the best part of £15k on my car – almost entirely on engine work. I thought 2CV racing was going to be the cheapest form of motorsport and in truth it isn't.
There have been many ideas about having a level playing field and reducing costs over the last couple of years. We've had the 'Injection' idea, the 'BMW R1100' idea, the 'C1 engine & gearbox' idea and probably some others. I'm not proposing anything other than let's have some discussion about the future of the club and the sustainability of racing costs. We've had a good turnout for the sprint races this season, but the 24hr was disappointingly supported (there may be many other reasons for this) by 2CVs and without the Minis and Euros we would have faced big losses for the event.
The future of 2CV racing is being challenged by parts getting scarcer, the quality of some aftermarket spares falling and cars getting more valuable. We can stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that the world is changing or we can start thinking about how we can adapt to this changing world.
Let's start a discussion about reducing costs. Let's not just think about maintaining them, but actually reducing them. The BMW idea was started on this basis. The economics were simple. Pay less than £3k in the first season to buy an engine and a fitting kit and then pay for a gearbox rebuild and engine oil change (£350) in each subsequent season. Total engine costs over the first 3 seasons = £3700 for BMW compared with £9000 for 602cc. It's a no-brainer economically, but there are other issues and opportunities.
There are other ideas and one that I immediately scoffed at was using the Citroen C1 engine and transmission. I've recently looked at C1 engines and gearboxes on eBay and they're staggeringly cheap. There's more to this idea than I first thought and it solves a number of challenges that the BMW might have. We ought to investigate further.
As I've said, I'm not making any proposal except that we need to discuss this and think about the future. Maybe you can think about this before the AGM and we could move forward with ideas you have then – or decide to do nothing.
Right, need to find my asbestos underpants and a fire/bullet proof suit.
I know that my engine and everyone else's are a completely different animal, I built that Eco engine at the beginning of my 2cv racing journey with limited knowledge and funds. It had new oil cooler, oil feed pipes, valves and springs. I used the original barrels and Pistons (not even re-ringed) since then it has done two open pit lane test/track days a full sprint season and the 24 with nothing breaking engine wise and I think is quicker than it was at oulton way back in October last year! Also I am sure you will agree I don't hold back and drive like a naughtybear possessed probably pushing it harder than I should at times.
Great post Caryl, it's something that has been on my mind recently.
Ultimately I'd come to the conclusion next season may be my last for the foreseeable future, this was before I'd been re-enthused by the 24hr. I'm not sure how we reduce costs, and if we did something as big as going to BMW / C1 engines everyone would have to accept that there would be a difficult season or two of adjustment. I've spent a lot this year, and not really due to crashes or fire, I've just spend a lot which is probably only 50% of what you've spent!
I think the old adage needs to changed to 'if you can't afford to set fire to 5 grand you can't afford to race'
Why do we go racing? Personally to have fun and enjoy myself firstly and foremost, secondly to achieve something which we did by finishing every race for me that means money well spent........ Could have a season ticket to my local footy club and go to every away game, spent loads more than I reckon I did and had a rubbish time ha ha
I agree with Caryl.
The cost to get near the front of the grid has gone up significantly. It is due to the cost of optimising the engine.
I support a proper assessment of options to bring engine development costs down.
Its fun to fettle these old engines but when you get to the stage that it is deciding many of the races and preventing or discouraging people from racing it has gone too far. Unless you have access to a cheap rolling road, free and well-equipped workshop and lots of time on your hands, you're really going to struggle in this series.
Nick
Guys.
i think that we do need to keep an eye on costs and as you know I run a BMW engined Car. I wouldn't say that this would be much if any cheaper.
No one who wants to win races is going to put a second hand bmw motor in their car. Just look at the Belgian series. So much for standard engines. Add to this tyre wear, gearbox overhauls and oil seal mods, new clutches etc. People will buy different ECU'S to try....
Doesn't matter what You race it always follows the same path.
As Nick points out, you either do it yourself or pay, the people who have the time, money and facilities will do best, look at any championship you like.
I'm not saying bmw isn't the way to go, I just saying the same issues are always there.
Great weekend BTW...
I totally agree, the expense is getting silly. If we continue to stubbornly think the series can continue with increased costs and declining grids (in particular for the 24hr) we are being short-sighted.
With reference to the C1 engine (which is actually a Toyota engine), it is widely available as its in a few cars. Toyota Aygo, Citroen C1, Peugeot 107 and Toyota IQ.
I owned a Citroen C1 for a few years, loved it. Great little engine, it had plenty of poke and it was thrashed by myself for over 90'000 miles before I part exchanged it for the IQ. No reliability issues save for clutches. Another plus is the economy. Even when thrashed it would still top over 40mpg. That would certainly decrease fuel costs. The same engine in my IQ is not as good because of a poor design of EGR valve.
Guys,
I'm not saying BMW is the way to go. I wanted to illustrate why we built a car with a BMW engine. I think Pete has a point about moving the reliability problem elsewhere, but I don't know what the issues will be. We're racing it again at Spa in the 24hr and this will give us a better idea of the problems we might face.
I'm sure there will be a load of different issues with the C1 engine/transmission idea and the installation may be more challenging than the BMW.
I hope you guys will have some more ideas of how we can level the playing field and reduce the annual cost of racing.
To get a proper understanding of how these conversions might perform perhaps we could allow selected prototypes to race a season (without points). The Belgians have an 'Experimental' class for this purpose and they tested 3 prototype gearboxes last year. Perhaps we could do something similar.
Abolish club class? (Bar the club cam because that make it very expensive to introduce)
Control shocks, pattern solex, there are probably other things but I've been painting the car today so my mind isn't working as well as it should.
That's a very welcome post, Caryl: its high time we had this discussion; not only because of the level of the costs, but also their direction of travel. I'm sanguine enough and have raced long enough to know that racing is pretty expensive, but somehow since the introduction of the Webers, the cost of the engines has spiraled. I can only talk about the 24hr and costs relating to that, although Philip raced one of our cars in the sprint series.
Before I do that, though, I'd like to thank those involved in organizing the 24h race. I know from organizing another race at Anglesey how much hard work it involved; and how easy it is to carp from the sides. Well done, everyone. I had a great time; I love the weather (I know its odd. I like racing in the rain, ideally in the dark). The loos were crap (if you'll excuse the pun), but overall, terrific job, chaps. We'd have won aside from a wheel bearing failing.... If only. If only....
Back to Caryl's point: many you will know that at last year's 24hr, we changed more engines than we started with – we ending up running 6 different engines altogether; so this season, we had a bigger version of what Caryl is now facing – our engines had broadly got tired: so we built 5 new engines for the two cars: maybe we had more new parts, maybe we are less good at sourcing components, less efficient, do less ourselves, who knows? But I'd estimate the component costs (including a base engine) for a competitive race engine at a little under £2k: then, as Caryl says, there's labour, set up, jetting, testing, AFR meter, lambda sensors etc, etc. If you do any kind of proper full costing of an engine, its around £3k; and we may even run three cars in next year's 24h, which would mean £9k of engines plus whatever in spares....
Of course, many teams and drivers work on their own cars, so don't pay fully for the labour, but it would be foolish to pretend that labour is free just because we don't have to pay in cash for it; similarly workshops.; so, if you're thinking that engines don't cost that much, you're not costing it properly. We also need to remember that across the grid, there is a lot of capital and know how invested in 602cc engines. We probably have as much capital as anyone invested in engines right now; so any change is going to be painful – however, the status quo feels unsustainable. Costs are spiraling, grids (24h at least) are shrinking: time for change before there isn't anything left to change.
There isn't going to be any panacea to this problem. As Pete says, BMW engines may not be cheaper (at least, if you allow the same rules as the Belgian series – I'll come back to that); and they are so much more powerful than the 602 engine that they chew gearboxes up unless you fit the Sadev sequential box (and that's £5k, although I ran the exact same box for 3 full seasons of 11 4-hour races, one 6-hour and a 24-hour – ie >300 race hours - in a 900kg Clio Cup with 290+bhp and all it needed was oil changes, so with a BMW engine, so I think we can assume that Sadev boxes would broadly last forever in a 2CV); at which point the brakes start to become inadequate....
C1 engines would sound very different to the flat twins; and have outputs similar to the BMW engine (68 bhp / 69 lbft), so the brakes will struggle as per BMW engines. I don't know what they weigh (Wikipedia says 69kg, probably without gearbox, but I don't know whether that is dressed or not, and won't include the radiator etc), but I'll wager that they are of an order of magnitude different to the 602 or BMW engines: then there are radiators and electronics to consider, etc, etc, etc. Its not going to be that simple to change to a modern three-cylinder engine (I've fitted a Range Rover V6 twin turbo diesel to a Wildcat and we had to create a completely new ECU simply to make it work); and who knows what the handling would be like?
But, before we disappear into a funk of despair, though, its worth remembering how well much of the regs framework works in this series. Its really quite hard to spend very much (and believe me, we've tried) on anything other than the engine. We've managed (I don't know why I say "we", since I can take no credit for it at all) to come up with a set of regulations that result in cars that are pretty similar in speed generally. The exception is the engine., and possibly dampers.
So let's look at what's caused the ramp up in costs with the Weber. It feels to me that it's a harder carb to set up than the Solex. The time spent on rolling roads, jetting and getting the carburation right has increased materially. No one used to change jets during a race; or have drills with 1/1,000th inch intervals. An attempt (misguided in my view) to save costs, by only allowing fixed emulsion tubes, was implemented. I think it was misguided as it drives development up one, narrow corridor; which has actually increased costs materially, rather than driven them down. Normally, when some new technology (Webers in this case) is introduced, you'd expect a short period of cost to implement the new technology and then a reversion back to normal levels. That hasn't happened: I guess competition at the front of the grid has increased a bit, but I can't help feeling that it's a combination of the narrow corridor of the scope of development and a fundamental lack of scrutineering.
So what could we do about it? Shoot away at the suggestions, but I agree with Caryl: we can't go on like this. Maybe we even need a group to discuss and implement a solution. I'd volunteer for it, if that's the route. So, some more musings of another old man (well, sort of, I'm not even the oldest in my team any more):
There is a fundamental choice of whether to stick with the 602, or change to another engine. I have only third-party views on the BMW engine; and we're all guessing on the C1 engine; but let's look at how you could make either work?
602: if we agree that it's the narrowness of the corridor that's pushing the costs (mostly through time and labour) with the Weber, there are two options: make the regs more restrictive; or relac them. There are probably pros and cons of both. If you narrow the options to, fixed emulsion tubes, two jets and one filter (there would be a number of other bits you'd have to define as standard), then you almost entirely eliminate the whole rolling road scenario. You'll also end up with engines that don't fuel terribly well – but we'll all be in the same boat. You don't achieve much on the component cost, but the reality is that we are racing 50-year old cars / engines and when the bits start to run out, as they have, the component costs will go up. That, I feel, is an immutable.
If you widen the regs again, then I'm not sure that it would address the issue. We've all spent a pile of money on making the current emulsion tubes' fuelling work; so we could either spend a pile of money testing the new routes to see if we can do better, or continue down the current route. It feels to me as if widening would only increase costs further and is a deleterious route to pursue. It may not have been had the fixed-emulsion-tube reg not been introduced, but that's water under the bridge now. On the plus side, someone might find a broader operating window with a different set up, which, over time, would cut costs. Or not.
New engine: BMW, first: I agree with a lot of what Pete says; and he clearly has a lot more experience with that engine in this car than I: however, we don't have to follow the same regs as the Belgians. We could have standard ECUs and hard components. which would only really leave the exhaust manifold to play around with (although there is no reason not to make that standard). In some ways its easier than with the 602. BMW still make the parts, so if it ain't unmodified and ain't got a BMW roundel on it, you're disqualified.... I think its entirely feasible to define a very standard engine, so that there is little or nothing to be gained by playing around with the engine (ie spending a lot of money). ECUs can be standard and sealed. They are easy to check.
There are still other issues with a new (BMW) engine of which three appear to be major to me at least: the initial cost; gearbox; and brakes.
- Initial cost. I don't have a good answer to this one, other than to observe that the season cost appears to be much to same to me. Pete's right, that at the front of the grid, no one is going to run second-hand engines (unless they turn out to be quicker?); but anyone at the front of the grid is spending more on engines than a BMW costs anyway
- Gearbox. I guess there are two routes to go: standard 2CV or Sadev sequential. I'd vote for a Sadev every day. New ones are £5k, but you can get second-hand ones for £2-3k, which brings them down to the realms of the cost of a 602 engine. I completely get the initial cost point, though, but there's no reason why we can't run two classes – one with Sadev's, one with standard boxes, so people can change when they can afford it.
- Brakes. The BMW produces a lot more torque and power, so the car is going faster at the end of each straight. So we have to play around with pads. That's very cheap by comparison. Maybe we have to change pads in the 24h? I remember doing that at Snet. They are, after all, a wear item, so I can't get excited about this one.
C1 engine: We're all guessing, but it appears to have all the problems of the BMW engine PLUS, much more complex to fit; a different sound; and I'll bet its heavier. It may be cheap from a scrap yard, but that would only be the start of things. This doesn't feel like the right route at all to me.
I don't have a strong opinion between the other two options (tightening regs; or BMW engine); and others have much more experience of the car than I; but they seem to me to be the two most likely to work in terms of reducing costs in the long term.
If you're still reading (thank you), and I realize I've been rattling on rather a long time already, but there is no point in implementing any changes if we continue to tolerate the current level of scrutineering, which is abominable. If we want to be seen as a joke series, perpetuating the status quo is a pretty good route. At no point during the race was our car weighed; no one carried out even a rudimentary check of the engine for compliance. I could go on, but we all know that we are not demanding proper scrutineering. Whatever we do (including nothing), we need to implement proper technical scrutineering by an independent source. If BARC are unable or unwilling so to do, we need to commission a technical independent scrutineer ourselves: measuring bore, stroke, cam profile, compression ratio etc is not rocket science.
We should insist (at least for the 24h) that the top three cars; the car that sets FTD; and any engine that is changed during the race are taken apart and checked for compliance before being allowed to leave parc ferme. I can see that during the sprint series, this would be an excessive burden; but after a 24h, the engine is going to need a refresh anyway, so I don't see an issue with this. We would need to give plenty of warning, so there is no argument; and if anyone isn't complying, disqualify them on the spot.
I'm sure there will be those reading this thinking that such an approach would be excessive, but there's no point in having regs unless you police them; and its nothing that isn't there in other series – our Belgian friends already do exactly what I'm suggesting. We have somehow allowed it to lapse; and if we really want to do something about costs, we have to have a major focus on scrutineering to ensure compliance.
Being an old-fashioned sort, I'm wondering if we should get together somewhere to talk this over: electronic fora have their place; and I'm delighted that Caryl has kicked the debate off: how do we sustain that debate and turn it into action?
Some interesting posts here.
I agree that there needs to be change. I think the cost but also difficulty of acquiring remotely competitive engines is a huge barrier to entry for new people or those who only come out for the 24 hour. A few years ago people could come to the 24 hour with a well setup solex and not be too far off the pace such that if they were reliable they could do well. Now the lap time difference is too great.
Without having heard any strong objections yet, I would be in favour of Louis' suggestion of simply abolishing club class. I realise that this would mean a huge amount of investment would be wasted. However, I fear it would be wasted anyway if there is no grid in five years time.
I suggest that we change the date by which technical proposals must be received so that it falls after the end of the season.
It says on the back of your ticket that motor sport is dangerous. I should also say that is expensive.
It has always cost around £2,000 minimum to have an engine built for a 2CV, and that cost did not include any rolling road time.
The people at the front will always spend, I know for a fact that one championship that was won when I was racing cost £12,000 in engine development alone. And that was when we were doing 10 to 12 sprint races a season plus two or three enduros and the 24 Hour Race.
There is no easy answer to controlling the costs, just a multitude of poorly researched "answers" to the problems. The Weber carb is a prime example of this.
Competitors have more pressing expenditure over this closed season (FHRs and any adjustments to belt mounting positions for one) before another knee-jerk technical decision is made.
As for the date of the deadline for technical proposals, this has to be as early as it is in order for the merits or otherwise to be discussed by the tech committee and recommendations made to the AGM. What needs to happen is the AGM to be earlier in the season so that clear regulations can be drafted and submitted to BARC
On a related matter (somewhat), people need to look at their cars and make sure that they FULLY comply with the regulations (both the Tech regs and the Blue Book). Just from photos posted on Facebook both before and after the 24 Hour Race, I can see numerous cars being in breach of a multitude of regulations.
Its not easy, never has been, never will be. Maybe the club should start spending some of the cash it has in the bank.....
As someone who started by having a lot of fun nearer the back of the field and over 15 years still has fun nearer the front, I can say that much of that has been achieved by shear hard work, persistence and by listening, looking, thinking and trying things. And it's not all about engines, as Pete proved at Cadwell. Driver skill and thoughtful chassis preparation are still probably more important than the engine. We use normal price shocks.
It's good to see the reality of cost of the engines being published. For a long time they were thought of as 'about £1k', but yes, the real 'all in' cost of an engine is £2k plus. We, like others, have had a lot of blown engines over the years, but we changed to Valvoline 10-60 semi a while ago, with a considerable improvement in reliability. We've acquired six engines over all those years and normally have four in race trim. If averaged out, our engine costs are probably now less than £1500 a year.
Shrinking grids in the 24 Hour are mentioned. The grid was just two down on last year. We were short of a few 'Belgians' in part because of the clash with Spa F1, which should not happen next year. And there are at least three 'new' 2CV's in build for next year, so a 30 car grid is quite possible in 2016. And I believe that sprint grids in 2015 have averaged a very healthy 24. It is for sure a reality that the jolly days of driving a 2CV over to Mondello, racing it and driving back are long gone. It is now an awful lot of work and organisation to get a 24 hr team on to the grid. The Club was slow in setting the 2015 date, and hopes to set the 2016 date by the end of October. In reality, most teams decide whether or not to enter during the Autumn.
If we were to make a substantial change to engine regs, there would be a very difficult changeover period of around 2 years. During that period, the Club would be very vulnerable as grids would probably diminish.
I'm not suggesting that we should stop thinking about and worrying about the future, but what we have is not quite as bad as some make out.
Great posts everyone. The debate is starting to tease out out some common threads and remembering of mistakes past. I wasn't a member when the Club Cam was developed, but I've heard a number of people say that it was the start of reliability problems. How was it introduced? Were a few engines with different cam profiles built and tested throughout a racing season? If so, what class did they run in and who paid for the development?
The same thing applies to the Weber. I joined the year it was allowed, but I didn't experience its introduction. How was that tested before being allowed?
If we're going to make any major changes to the technical regulations, surely it makes sense for them to be tested in race cars over a full racing season. Bench/rolling road testing doesn't tell you about the implementation challenges that everyone is going to face before and at the circuit. The problem with testing is that someone (or preferably more than one) is going to have to race a season without points and finding volunteers is going to be tricky. Having said that, I'm prepared to volunteer to be a guinea-pig for whatever the membership decides is a way forward.
On the point about technical proposals, I think we could have a later cut-off date. After all, the technical proposals for 2015 have not been published yet and it's 2 months after the cut-off date. I've been volunteered to take on the role of Regulations Coordinator and I've suggested that the Technical Committee draft and publish the regulation wording BEFORE the AGM. The membership attending the AGM then get to vote on the actual wording being proposed, rather than voting on an idea that then has to be drafted after the AGM. With this small change, it should allow us to easily submit our regulations to BARC within the deadline and the membership get to see what they're voting for before it get's published. I don't see the need to move the AGM date.
Abolish the Club class - that's an interesting idea. My first thought is how would we stop people using the club cam and all the other developments built into the 100 or so race engines that exist? How would we overcome all the problems that existed when the Solex was being used that led to the introduction of the Weber? Injection maybe? I'm not sure that would level the playing field, increase reliability and reduce costs. I believe the only way to contain costs is to have regulations that state 'No modifications allowed' everywhere.
Trevor, did you have something specific in mind that the club should spend its cash on?
General Description:
The 2CVPARTS.com CHAMPIONSHIP is for Competitors participating in standard production post 1970 Citroen 2CV6 saloon vehicles. The Championship was conceived as a low cost form of motorsport. It is intended to be a racing formula to develop the continued use and enjoyment of the 2CV and where driving skills and car control are of paramount importance and where technical development takes a secondary place.
I for one feel the meaning last sentence has been lost. There are too many variables and areas where clever and skilled technicians can develop cars, and being of competitive nature (thats why we race) competitors are forced to follow suit and spend if you want to be in the same race, never mind win. It seems we are split down the middle. Are you a 2cv enthusiast wishing to maintain and race them at any cost? Alternatively, are you someone who wants to race in low cost Motorsport formula where driving skills and car control are of paramount importance?
Another issue is that too many of us are guilty of seeing things from our own perspective and not that of the club as a whole. Competitive sport breads this kind of attitude and its an issue in all forms of Motorsport, however as Mr Rundle junior says, there was a time you could rock up with the basics and be competitive at low cost. This is no longer the case. If that is true, it is time for change. Inevitibly when change occurs some will lose out.
For people looking for low cost racing, maybe a 3cv championship would be the way forward? It might well be easier than getting everyone to agree on what to change in 2cvs. I am only half joking with that one....
Well done to Caryl for actually bringing this debate on the forum, not many people voice there opinions on here anymore, which is a shame. Healthy debate (without being personal) is the way forward.
As only a part time racer within the series - I can safely say that I picked to race in this series because of its low cost, I haven't been around this series as long as some, but in my short time within the club I've seen this topic come up a few times now, last big debate being the weber carb introduction - the '2 seconds a lap' promise which in fairness did work although it really didn't really bring the cars closer together which I think that all of us from the Middle of the pack to the back was hoping for - I do think that when 'we' the club, and yes it was voted on so it is a 'we' decided to keep to the emulsion tubes now listed in the regulations, that we have to use now may have caused this performance issue - We run with two engines Old Faithful and Rouge - Both of which are not bad engines, when the emulsion tube rule came in we struggled with both engines to make them work with the weber (even to the point of putting the solex back on) both on the track and rolling road with the regulation emulsion tubes - thus giving us no choice but to have four new heads being done, what interesting is we spent 12 hours on a rolling road with Old Faithful and managed to get the weber and the engine producing power like it has never done before (Steve Walford can confirm this - and I don't mind if he does) using the non-regulation ones - As we all know these engines even if built the same way can be different, if emulsion tubes where free then it may save some money for us. I am not sure about the C1 engine, how much development needs to go into it, will we need chassis alterations, brake upgrades, introduction of a radiator (i might need a couple of spares) exhaust, gauges etc. etc, yes the engines are cheap to buy , The economy class is a good way into the series and as Ash has proved he can keep up and pass some of the rest of us, which technically shouldn't happen or should it? although I don't know how we attract more cars into it, I am sure that someone knows where all the cars that don't race are - maybe as a club we should contact the owners and see if they are for sale and advertise them for sale: More into the future, if costs do carry on the way its going and 'we' allow it too, lets all be honest we all want to go faster I think that we may be in trouble (but as I said earlier I've seen this before) should we be worried about the BARC dropping us which overall may be more of a concern. I for one think the club do a great job considering they only get to meet a few times a year and they all volunteer, they really don't get the credit they deserve, most of us only have anything to do with them during a race weekend or given the club a bashing on the forum - I would love to be involved more myself but due to my job its just not feasible, I am sure that I will get shot down with this post if I have offended anyone 'thats racing'
This suggestion may not be popular, especially with people who put a lot into development. I suppose after all we are a driver's series.
In parc ferme the jets, emulsion tubes and air correctors are taken out of the top 5 cars. These are then published, anonymously or not - not sure it matters. If all aren't created equal I suppose it won't have any effect.
Maybe it would have the same effect as the rule in some series where one competitor can buy any other engine on request, but without people buying each other's engines for ridiculous sums?
Maybe we could standardise and air box?
I'm sure you'll tell me these are shit suggestions if they are!
I think Louis' suggestion is good.
It helps avoid people having to spend on development and is a disincentive to do so, yet costs nothing and requires no substantial mechanical change. It might not be useful but worth a try?
It could also be done this year as is not a technical proposal? Speaking of which, have the technical proposals for this year been published?
Louis
suggestion is shit, you should know better.
Simon, in the post above, has already said that he struggles to get engines to run on the emulsion tubes we have available and yes it may be down to the heads. The cap on emulsion tubes was done to keep costs down, at more than £10 a pop and about 30 available thats a big chunk of anyone's money. Do we need to do this?
I dont have 2 engines that run the same jets. Everyone will have the same problem. I guarantee it would be the same if you use a Solex.
The Weber in my opinion, is easier to get right than a Solex. Look at a fuel curve of a Solex, its exactly the same as a Weber, the issue is the manifold length not the carb. People are confused by what they don't understand.
I, as most of you know, will give my jetting to almost anyone. There is no guarantee that if i give my jetting to you for your carb it would be right and generally it isn't. I am always available for help and advice if people trust my judgement in these matters.
The problem isn't the Weber exactly, its the fact that with Lambda readers and data loggers we can see whats happening, there wasn't really that option in the Solex era, we worry about it more now be cause we can see whats happening. The chase is on now that we know what air fuel ratio makes best power. You will do that with any engine in any championship.
This championship, is in the scheme of things, low cost, believe it or believe it not. We can build an engine, that done right, will last a year or normally longer for the price of some peoples weekend tyre comsumption.
And, why, are we worried about spending 2k on an engine (and i wouldn't allow mine to be used by someone else) when most of the top teams are running £1000 plus data loggers? do we need these? Actually no, lets ban them.
Lets get some prospective here please. I'm not saying there is an easy cure but we have visited these problems before and decisions were made to sort the issue out at the time (carbs, cams whatever), not perfect but it sort of worked. We are still racing our cars aren't we?
Lets not have snap decisions or it will be another 'that didn't work..' in 5 years time.
Could we not hire a rolling road (partly subsidised by the club) for everyone and tune each engine to an agreed bhp, within a few hundred rpm, regardless of emulsion tubes, jets, filters etc? The technical commitee would take note of the settings and ban any changes to carb or engine thereafter. This would leave us more time to concentrate on the rest of the car.
Also the cam welding mod is expensive and time consuming, banning that would make engines cheaper to build/rebuild.
Anyone that knows me knows I race on a tiny budget and spend as little as posible. I built my engine for the 2014 season only new parts club cam rings and valves I did all season plus testing then a long time at spa this season I reseated the valves and have finished every single race this year including all day Friday and whole 24 hour race at anglesey now I will strip and check it before it goes to spa for another 24 hours.no cam mods no welding? I been in motorsport over 25 years and this is cheepest by far in engine costs.
In autograss a std mini 1000cc engine on average a season a good 1 is £3,500+ tyres £40+ last a couple of meetings.
I feel people are trying to fix something here that I don't think is broken.if people want faster cars there are lots of different series about but non are cheap
Adam I think you are slightly off track with that one, when you visited us before croft your engine made the same power as ours both of which were 1 full bhp above the engine that was used martins sea lion car. unfortunately Pete still leaves us standing and drives off seemingly out powering us down the straights so the issue cant power but down to car set up and driver ability. The main difference comes from higher corner speeds giving a better run on to the straight and being able to get on to the throttle earlier.
As for the costs really £2000 for a race engine is cheap, I have had years of experience building mini 1000 engines for Autograss class1. these are completely standard (no porting or any race parts) and prices are now in the region of £3500 for a completely standard mini 1000 engine. anything that uses race parts or ported heads start in the £4000+ range.
most of the problems that I have seen with 2cv engines generally fall In Three category's either driver error (over rev), lubrication problems or overheating.
The first is helped by using a rev limiter as many now do which at least helps with half of the over rev situations (if you fit one you will be surprised how many times you hit it). it wont help when the wrong gear is selected but that is the same whatever car you race.
As martin has stated in his earlier post using a good quality oil has a big improvement in the reliability I either use the Valvoline 10/60 vr1 or at least the Valvoline 10/40 Durablend semi synthetic. most of the high performance 0/30 or 0/40 full synthetic oils will be too thin and cause crank problems, cheap oils will cause piston/barrel problems if the engine gets too hot
The over heating problem is a more difficult thing to counter as it is generally caused by a broken fan or back plate don't really have a solution for these problems but the correct oil will help to minimise the damage caused.
I don't think there is an easy solution to this issue as every option has its good and bad points, I think that any major changes should have a decent trial before they are implemented. At the moment the sprint series is well supported and I think that we need to be careful that we don't harm that but we probably need to have a look at attracting more entries for the 24hr
Hi Steve, I really enjoyed sharing a drying track with you at Anglesey, it was good fun:-)
My idea was to keep costs down by setting the engines up and halting development after that. Caryl started this thread to discuss ideas for reducing costs.
Unfornately we didn't get chance to show how well you'd tuned our engine because of the misfire that plagued Croft and then the engine died in the enduro. It would also have helped if we'd had time to sort the handling, but it's all a learning experience for a novice mechanic (I have heard less polite descriptions of my spannering, but non are repeatable!) .
I'd be happy having the same as everyone else as the only thing to improve is the driver! I refer to the regulation point I highlighted in my first comment. I'm sure the order at the front will be much the same, the cream always rises to the top, but if we could keep costs under control it helps keep people in the middle and at the back (such as myself) racing.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgnhz9BrH31qgba1lo1_500.gif)
Really enjoying the discussion on a post bank holiday work day, here are my ramblings. I think we are missing the point here, as someone who has raced in the series since 1990, never has it been so easy to be at the sharp end of the grid. It is possible to get a competitive engine built by one of our an engine builders, set up on the rolling road and be near the front of the grid. The series has never been this competitive, even in the 90's when we had qualifying races . The reason we swapped to webers was there was such a difference between the carbs available. If you were lucky you could have one that was 2-3 seconds quicker a lap, but it was finding those special solexs and people bought loads trying to find that special one, I know course I did.
For me what I would like to know is how do we improve reliability in the series? what are the reasons engines are failing? all failures should be recorded by the technical committee, so future rule changes are based on solid facts not proposition. I would say one of the things that needs looking at is cam wheels and the attachment to the cam shaft, as there has been a spate of failures this year. Maybe have a mandortory rev limiter?
For the record we have completed the last 3 24 hour races on the same engine without rebuild and after it was rebuilded, it finished third at Croft. Our other engine that had competed in all the sprint races this year up to Croft had an Cam wheel lose teeth in the 2 hour, causing the fire in the foam ai rfilter and melted carb. Sammie rebuilt it for Anglesey, set it up on Paul R's rolling road and it ran faultlessly in the 24 hour race and couldn't recommend her more highly.
For me there is more time to be had improving our handling/driving than than engine development. Ask Pete and Geof Archer what they spent on trying to win the 2000 series and I bet its hardly any different.
Sorry for rambling on
Quote from: ptaylor24hours on September 01, 2015, 15:47:21
Really enjoying the discussion on a post bank holiday work day, here are my ramblings. I think we are missing the point here, as someone who has raced in the series since 1990, never has it been so easy to be at the sharp end of the grid. It is possible to get a competitive engine built by one of our an engine builders, set up on the rolling road and be near the front of the grid. The series has never been this competitive, even in the 90's when we had qualifying races . The reason we swapped to webers was there was such a difference between the carbs available. If you were lucky you could have one that was 2-3 seconds quicker a lap, but it was finding those special solexs and people bought loads trying to find that special one, I know course I did.
For me what I would like to know is how do we improve reliability in the series? what are the reasons engines are failing? all failures should be recorded by the technical committee, so future rule changes are based on solid facts not proposition. I would say one of the things that needs looking at is cam wheels and the attachment to the cam shaft, as there has been a spate of failures this year. Maybe have a mandortory rev limiter?
For the record we have completed the last 3 24 hour races on the same engine without rebuild and after it was rebuilded, it finished third at Croft. Our other engine that had competed in all the sprint races this year up to Croft had an Cam wheel lose teeth in the 2 hour, causing the fire in the foam ai rfilter and melted carb. Sammie rebuilt it for Anglesey, set it up on Paul R's rolling road and it ran faultlessly in the 24 hour race and couldn't recommend her more highly.
(http://www.jonrb.com/emoticons/clapping.gif)
A standard engine reconditioned is £1200,so given the extra work of a race engine £2000 seems reasonable
For me there is more time to be had improving our handling/driving than than engine development. Ask Pete and Geof Archer what they spent on trying to win the 2000 series and I bet its hardly any different.
Sorry for rambling on
Great debate and I agree with Paul Taylor that the grid seems to me closer than 10 years ago when I started.
I have the results from the first 24 Hour I did in 2006:
2006 @ Snetterton: Tete Rouge went round in 1.47 and Fine Print went round in 1.57 in qualifying. In the race Tete Rouge fastest lap 1.48 and the Crisis and Fine Print cars had a best time of 1.55 (fine print comfortably beat my car). In a grid of 32 there was 22 laps between 1st and 10th cars
2015 @ Anglesey: Crisis Too had fastest lap at 1.38 and the slowest 2cv was only 4 seconds slower. 16 laps between 1st and 10th cars on a shorter circuit.
So it seems clear to me we have closer racing than 10 years ago in 24 Hour.
New (eg extensively rebuilt) engine may = £ 2000 + but not everyone needs to have one or even wants one. I have averaged less than £ 1500 per year including buying 2 engines and webers in 10 years. I have 3 engines running now. 2 of them are race ready and the other did 24 hours at Anglesey so expecting to not spend a lot over winter unless I use them at Spa. Sammie and Tete Rouge to thank for all the engine work over 10 years.
The suspension I agree is being overlooked in this discussion. A lot of £ can and has been spent on different shocks, tricky to setup correctly and the Sparrows of this world will always be ahead of me with setup even if we standardise on some make. So if we are going down the simple route it should be standard 2cv dampers with no adjustment but surely a part of racing is letting people tinker with their toys?
Data Logging - think Pete missing the point of these. They allow a car to be setup and not much use in a race I would have thought. They can be used on a test day so not sure how they can be 'banned'. Predictive lap timers seemed to help people like me so maybe these are what he is worried about? They are however free or nearly free http://www.gps-laptimer.de/products if you have a smartphone so available to all budgets. I think they are very useful in allowing inexperienced drivers to learn fast as to good lines and style.
On the subject of a level playing field would like to see the weight limit increased by 50 kgs and strictly enforced. Ballast to go right under the seat as well so as not to allow the car to be better balanced. All those light people winning the races is annoying me and as I put on a couple of kilos each year need to figure out a way to stay competitive. Car 52 was 42 kgs overweight with me in it and I guess that is over a second a lap as opposed to cars that marshalls told me were within 2kgs of the limit.
Overall do agree with Pete that it ain't that broke so not sure we need to fix too much even the weight limit can stay.
Getting a couple of engines made up by the club and available to 'hire' for an hourly rate along with a rev limiter and those pesky data loggers to check engine not over revved next year would be interesting and useful perhaps to those who think its all down to engines - particularly if someone can run them on the test day before a race and prove they are fast.
With all this said off to Spa 24 Hour with Caryl to see if a BMW RS 1100 engine really can work in a standard race car for less than £ 3000 including all the other parts (fuel/ gearbox/ brakes) to convert and run for 30 race hours in 2015 - it has already done 6 hours in Holland and is just about on budget if we ignore the man weeks of development time...
Just to clarify...
The point i was making was that why are people worried about a £2k engine when other things can cost half as much (the data logger was pulled out of the air as a reasonable expense). I agree that a data logger is a very useful tool. We used ours to great effect, not only for remembering stuff i can't while driving but if you can sit down with David O'Keeffe (Godfather) and show him where he needs to get his foot down and this results in a huge improvement in the race then its a brilliant tool.
Sorry to go off topic.
So some people spend loads on racing and some people don't. Its it the same in cycling or golf? Have you got to have the best clubs or do you feel like you are missing out? I hope the point is getting across.
Do we need to control costs then? if so how is it done? what would be reliable?
Personally i think we should look at success balast and the cars need to be weighed more regularly. I think the weight limit is already reasonably high, how about we look at helping the people who are overweight by chopping a leg off or better still take the engine out to save money.
The last one was a joke by the way.
Can someone make sure Kris Tovey is still alive please.
Forget the success ballast route (although would help us that are little heavy than others) Lets go the stock car route - Roof grades sorry Pete your starting at the back current champion and all that - come to think of it Well done on that achievement.
Success ballast, there's an interesting idea. Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Lien93 on September 01, 2015, 20:34:51
Success ballast, there's an interesting idea. Sounds good to me.
Only if it comes as a package with the grid girls...
I'd be happy with any of these options
Quote from: Lien93 on September 01, 2015, 20:34:51
Success ballast, there's an interesting idea. Sounds good to me.
Sod that for a game of soldiers,
I'm already 90kg over the weight limit.Fair enough raise the weight limit,but artificially adjusting the grid by weight is crap and who will implement it at meetings?This is apart from the fact i think bolting large lumps of weight in is difficult and fraught with danger and why my proposal for weighing at the 24hr still stands.
How about ,if you win you run 24 degrees of advance. 2nd 26 degrees 3rd 28 degrees set and checked by the scrutineer .Or make club air restrictors you have to mount above the carb regardless of your air filter/intake system for the first three places .
Its very easy.
Appoint one company to build all engines , in Belgium , England ,or France , Tag them so that they cannot be messed around with . Restrict the BHP to a save limit issue a power record sheet for each engine.
Next change the gearbox , why do you all think most engines blow up?
Finely site down with your counterparts in Belgium and open up the series to Europe/ the world . Then guarantee BARC or 750 motor club (oops) 30 car fields for every race .
Reach Out if you need any more help
Quote from: Nick Roads on September 01, 2015, 17:57:50
Great debate and I agree with Paul Taylor that the grid seems to me closer than 10 years ago when I started.
I have the results from the first 24 Hour I did in 2006:
2006 @ Snetterton: Tete Rouge went round in 1.47 and Fine Print went round in 1.57 in qualifying. In the race Tete Rouge fastest lap 1.48 and the Crisis and Fine Print cars had a best time of 1.55 (fine print comfortably beat my car). In a grid of 32 there was 22 laps between 1st and 10th cars
2015 @ Anglesey: Crisis Too had fastest lap at 1.38 and the slowest 2cv was only 4 seconds slower. 16 laps between 1st and 10th cars on a shorter circuit.
So it seems clear to me we have closer racing than 10 years ago in 24 Hour.
Don't forget Nick that Snett was more of a drafting circuit and that made a difference to the fastest laps, particularly in qualifying. However, I agree with you that these days I think the racing and the cars' performances are closer. Possibly this is due to sharing of carb set ups, or the greater use of rolling roads these days.
I don't think there's much broken in 2CV racing at the moment, like others have said, you can put an engine together for relatively small sums of money and be quite competitive. In any competitive series you can throw money at the car/engine to get to the front, but it's not necessary to spend to get to the front. Team Stinky have managed to be pretty competitive over the last years without using a rolling road, and the engines put together by Neil and Christine's Dad, Mike. That's one of the reasons I like 2CV racing - you don't have to throw money at the car to be competitive.
Some weird and Whacky ideas on here!
My figures are pretty much in line with Nick Roads' Ive certainly not spent more than £1500 per year on engines. including a refresh each year and1 rebuild and 1 new build my figures are closer to £1k per year INCLUDING ROLLING. Admittedly my engines usually only do the sprints. And at that I've never finished out of the top 5.
What other race series can you say that about.
I'm not adverse to change but the club need to tread very carefully as so many changes made hastily are a long time regretted.
what exactly are we trying to fix?
the sprint series is superbly supported with numbers touching the mid 20's and seemingly steadily increasing. The racing is very close, just look at Peter Rundles in car video from croft to see how closely matched the front 10 cars are. Its superb low budget racing. which is exactly what it should be.
24hour Race:
this race used to regularly attract 30 cars each year.(im only counting uk 2cv's) It has been poorly attended for about the last 3 or 4 years ever since the mid season date change. Numbers have never recovered and its a bit of a mystery as to why?
it could be a number of factors or a combination of them.
Cost?
Location?
multi class field?
Late dates announcement?
not bank holiday weekend?
who knows, but the club has things in place to try to establish the reasons and then hopefully address them. we will have to wait and see.
Personally I cant see a lot wrong with 2cv engines. they aren't that old. Most of our engines were probably made in the eighties, compare that to vscc or f3 500cc or virtually any 'classic/historic' racing series and they are still pretty new, with most parts available. You don't see those boys exchanging ecu's, or chatting about dropping a modern bmw unit in for better reliability or because parts are scarce.
Oh dear Ive not quite taken all this in yet :o
why not go down the C1 engine, sequential box, space frame, McPherson struts route, The club can do a glass fibre "Shell" that should address most of the problems highlighted. Oh and and we can call it the "Nearly As Much Fun Cup" because itll have nowt to do with 2cv racing.
I can't say I've read every post in detail and I've probably forgotten most of those that I have, but...
... this has always been the case. Back when Chris was racing Mighty Minis there were always some people with that bit of extra cash to throw at getting the best blueprinted engines, doing test days etc. In any one-make series a good engine is going to be a big performance differentiator. So if being at the front with a chance of winning is important to you, you need to accept that unless you have the time and knowledge to build a competitive engine yourself, you're going to need a bit of cash to enlist someone else's help to make up the shortfall. And since it's a seller's market and you're effectively captive, the people with the time and expertise have the right to set their prices to whatever someone else is willing to pay, especially if it's their main or only source of income.
It doesn't matter what technology is used, what engine size, what sort of carb or injection system etc. There will always be the people who are better at getting them running and who will end up being the ones who build race-winning engines. If you're not one of those people and can't or won't spend the cash to go to them, you need to accept that you might not be running at the front and instead take pleasure in being in a close and competitive championship where you can have a good, hard and fair fight with someone wherever in the pack you are and concentrate on getting your car's handling right and your driving skills improved so you can be in with the best chance to take advantage when someone's £3k overstressed and over-developed engine goes bang ;)
In 1989 Citroen 2cvs were cheap and parts were too. Perfect for budget racing. In 2015 Citroen 2cvs are very much a desired retro car, the cost of buying one is ever increasing. The parts are becoming harder to source and more expensive.
I'm sure the championship will survive, there are lots of racing cars and 2cv experts, but will it survive as a budget racing series?
I guess it would be nice to see a 2cv race at the Goodwood Revival, Silverstone Classic etc. Just a shame that most of the familiar faces in the paddock wouldn't be able to afford it.
Well, for a start even if 2CVs had raced in period at Goodwood I think a cursory glance at our after-race celebrations would see us instantly dismissed as "undesirable riff-raff" and "a potential threat to the furnishings".
But if you don't think 2CV racing is "budget".... what is?? I challenge you to find a series with comparable costs either for a complete car, or for parts/development, or for race entries.
If you can manage to do that, does the car half anywhere near as much character? Is it as much fun to drive? Is the paddock atmosphere as good as ours? Can you repair pretty much anything with minimal expense or effort and do a lot of it yourself? Is the racing as close?
As an example, I found the Hyundai Coupe Cup which advertises in Autosport.
Their website states:
QuoteCurrently you are able to buy an 'off the shelf' newly-built race car for as little as £3995 from one of our Cup approved builders or, if you fancy building one yourself, the basic control parts come to under £1800. These consist of the series marked Safety Devices roll cage, AVO coil-over suspension Pipercross filtration and EBC Brakes. When you take into account that decent Coupe's can be picked up off eBay for less than £500, it makes the Coupe Cup possibly the cheapest way to get into motorsport in the UK.
and...
QuoteCost controlled, competitive racing is the key to the Hyundai Coupe Cup which is why the cars run reasonably close to road specification with MSA safety equipment and limited tuning to both the chassis and engine. You could, if you wanted still MOT, tax, insure and use your Coupe as a 'daily driver' if you wanted.
So not a million miles away from 2CVRC in philosophy or price.
In their first race at Rockingham they had 10 cars separated by 16 seconds in qually.
At Brands Hatch it was 11 cars separated by 4 seconds.
The race results don't give detailed times (although I'm sure they're on MST) but that's half the numbers of a good 2CV grid and a much bigger spread of times. And how long do tyres last? How much do they cost to replace? What happens if you have a biff on a corner? You'd need some pretty decent bodywork skills or to pay someone to put it right because they're likely not bolt-on panels. And they don't have the virtually unique cachet of a 24 hour race.
So I would still argue that even if there's actually no such thing as BUDGET motorsport, this is about as close as it gets.
If its money we need I got a guaranteed way to make a small fortune ☺ all you need to start with is a large fortune and then take up motorsport, soon enough it will change to a small one 😂😂
I certainly don't agree that spares are more expensive and harder to find. It's what attracts me to the series, being able to do it myself and fix stuff when it breaks, finding the stuff you need or making bits is what it's all about. I had zero knowledge of these vehicles and mechanics before I bought my donor vehicle and now have less knowledge than before!!!
Obviously I was joking re Goodwood. I was making a point that the cars are increasing in value, they are not cheap anymore.... Parts will become more expensive. Being proactive is surely better than being reactive?
Those who are well funded, able to build their own engines or have garages totally disagree with me... No room for amateurs at the inn. Fortunately this moaning amatuer with the nuisance car is not likely to be driving next year- simply because of costs. I hear a collective sigh of relief:-)
I know you all read this and think I'm talking absolute merde, but forums are intended for debate and opinion. It does no harm to see things from all angles.
Quote from: abfitness2cv on September 23, 2015, 22:49:28
Those who are well funded, able to build their own engines or have garages totally disagree with me... No room for amateurs at the inn. Fortunately this moaning amatuer with the nuisance car is not likely to be driving next year- simply because of costs. I hear a collective sigh of relief:-)
Adam, I am really surprised at the above statement. Our team is reasonably funded (thanks to Martin) and I do own a small garage but I certainly don't disagree with you on most of your points.
However, I, along with other knowledgeable people in the paddock are always pleased to help you (or anyone else) sort their cars out. I personally have done work for you that I would normally charge for in a bid to get you in a reliable car so you can enjoy your racing. I'm sure others have done the same.
As Maisie points out, there are people that can bolt a car better together than you (some earn a living out of being good at it) and some other people on the grid, you are good at things that I'm not and that's the way life is. I'm crap at many things and have to pay someone else to do it for me. Its no different.
You are correct in saying that things are getting more expensive, cars, parts, races and other services related to racing. The 2cv is no different to a Mini, Minor, Beetle or Fiat 500. As things get less common the price will go up and we have no control over that. Being reactive is a good thing but it needs to be channeled in the right direction.
If you feel that in your year off racing you could look into how to help the club control certain costs, I'm sure that there would be space for you. That would be proactive.
Maisie.
You need to get on here more mate.
Quote from: Pete Sparrow on September 28, 2015, 21:22:09
Maisie.
You need to get on here more mate.
I'm always on here, lurking. Just don't often feel like sticking my neck out :)
I'd be happy to look in to ways of keeping the costs down. Along with driving standards, its something I'm passionate/annoying about. If the board needs assistance I'd be willing, after all the spirit of the championship is about giving up some time and helping (and I've had more than my fair share of help!).
As mentioned earlier in this thread, the most obvious way is restricting the variable components/parts people use. This would inevitably mean that some people will lose out and would probably veto any changes.
The standard of preparation has risen quite a bit over the few years I've been racing. Its great in one way and a credit to the teams at the front, but probably has increased running costs for some. Particularly in the 24hr race.
I may have been a bit premature in saying I won't be racing next year....... There's always sponsorship:-) Get us back on the telly!!!! ;-)