Re: Re: Increasing Active Members

[Dick Roberts (Web admin)]

Posted by Terry Collier on October 12, 2004 at 15:29:52:

In Reply to: Re: Increasing Active Members posted by Catherine on October 08, 2004 at 22:32:37:

If we want to progress the Club and see it reach it's full potential then it might be useful if we kept discussion to facts not assumptions, prejudice or generally biased comment. My point in my last posting was that new members had to come from somewhere. Playing with the regs would not generate these people. People have views on the regs and by all means let this be discussed. People have concerns about the grid numbers, so let this be discussed. However, by mixing everything together we will get nowhere.

So some general facts about the Club Cam just to address the misleading information posted around.

The development programme for the Club Cam was initiated because the old regs were not capable of being fully implemented. The variances in the existing cam gave unfair advantage to those Teams who had access to many cams and were prepared to invest to discover which was the major performer. For most racers it was a question of luck as to the performance of the engine. This gave rise to many years of general dissatisfaction and endless complaining.

The objective for the cam development was to achieve an equal standard for all, to try to close up the Grid (basically making the slower cars quicker and leaving the fast cars where they were), to maintain a low cost base and to not need a different spec of valve train.

The total programme ran over two years. Several different designs were tested until we ended up with the final design. In the process I managed to blow up a few engines but wrote them off to development risk. The final design was tested exhaustively on the track, on rolling roads and on the bench. The primary test engine had over 100 hours at high rpm before the completion of the programme. We will not mention the cost of this programme in terms of time and money, it is irrelevant as I felt it was something that the Club needed and I was prepared to get off my butt and do something rather than just moan and leave it to someone else.

A report was prepared and supplied to Club Members, if you did not get one I am sorry so E-Mail me and I will send you a copy. On the basis of this the resolution was made and passed.

The final design increased the lift slightly and extended the duration to the maximum of the "mr citroen" cams we measured. In performance terms this had marginal difference to highly tuned heads but major improvement with less tuned ones. If you look at the results in the Sprints and Enduros this season you will see that one of the objectives was OK. This is not a "drastic cam" nor is it ground wafer thin. People were told specifically that the new engine would be sensitive to ignition timing. This was not actually new. Using a Rolling Road we had managed to gain major engine performance by taking care over setting the timing.

So why did we have trouble at Snetterton after all this testing. Because I gave too many people too much credit. I could not believe that when inserting a new cam with improved lift people would just rummage around in old spares boxes to find some springs. Then that they would go to a 24 Hour Race without seriously testing the car. Some of the springs in broken engines were unbelievable to me. I wrongly assumed that people building a racing engine would check all critical parts before assembly. I was wrong. The new cam does not need a higher spec spring than ECAS supplies. The rest of the Valve Train (push rods, rockers and valves) are all OK.

I might point out that none of my engines have suffered any of these problems including Snetterton – I just need more practise in putting in oil seals.

I am just p****d off with people just complaining, coming up with just wordy ill conceived arguments with no solution to their perceived problems. People wonder why interest can fade? Debate is good and healthy but only if the content is worthwhile, the subject does not matter so much as long as it is interesting.

It seems to me that we have three key issues to face:

How can we increase the entry for the 24 Hour Race to more economic levels?
How can we attract more active racing members to the Formula?
Are the regs capable of being implemented and are consistent in our aim of generating close and exciting racing?

The cam argument only may affect the first, it might increase the Grid by one for some races and does nothing for the last issue.

As my estimation of the cost for a "free" cam has been queried let me explain. If you just take a cam into one of the UK cam people and ask for it to be reground to be more competitive it will cost around £90. However, you will have no certainty that it will be better or will not cause you problems. If you actually design a new profile and ask for it to be matched as close as possible it will cost you about £150. However, if you go to a cam designer who knows the 2CV and has developed a racing cam from the original you will pay. This would be the obvious route for serious competitors to go.

Regards
Terry