Jump to content

Neil Fry

Member Since 28 Sep 2003
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:39 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Birmingham or Northampton Semi.

23 May 2018 - 10:08 AM

In a lot of ways it is probably fairer if both semis are on the same surface. It doesn't then give a shale/tarmac specialist a big advantage or perhaps a big disadvantage depending on which semi they are in.

I have often thought that perhaps we look at the World Championship all wrong these days. Back in the days of a single car for both surfaces the approach was fine, but now we almost have two disciplines within the same sport.....there are specialists on each surface, and indeed one surface only racers.

In a year when the final is on shale, we (should) have a tar and a shale semi.....a tar only racer might get lucky and get the tar semi, but then has the prospect of a shale WF.....great to be in the WF, but a largely pointless exercise for his chances of success? He might have got the shale semi, and his chances of getting to the WF are slim anyway, then he has another shale race in the WF if he is lucky enough to get through. A single surface racer has the odds stacked against them......the final has to be on "their" surface, and they need to be lucky in how they fall for the semi.

If we are not going to try to move back to one car for both surfaces with rule changes (as seems likely), is it perhaps time to look at alternating the whole championship between shale and tarmac, with both semis being on the same surface as the WF? It would either be a shale year or a tarmac year.

Obviously there is a school of thought that the World Champion, the highest accolade on offer, should be one of the best drivers out there, having succeeded on whatever surface is available, but things have changed rather dramatically over the years with regard to the specs of the two cars (shale and tarmac) and this puts the single surface racer at a disadvantage......however good he might be on his "chosen" surface.

Single surface racers exist for many reasons, perhaps budget or just personal choice.....but should they be discriminated against, put at a disadvantage because of this? For the sake of argument, let's take current Champion Nigel Green.....he was very, very good on tarmac last year......he was pretty good on shale too, but lets (for the sake of argument) assume he didn't race shale. If he got the rub of the green and got a tar semi, he was a big favourtite for the title in the tar final......however, a shale semi would have knocked the chances of (arguably) the best tar driver taking the gold.

This isn't about favouritism, it's about moving with the way the sport has been going for quite some time......the system was fine back in the 70's and 80's.......but is it fit for purpose these days?

In Topic: New car

20 April 2018 - 06:19 PM

The ZF has been used for years and is well capable of coping as long as the drive train is straight.......it's problem is it's not as versatile as the Doug Nash with the ratio changing ability that they have. Perhaps with the feelings that Ian's car has generated, a crowd funding page may help to get him a Doug Nash to further the development of his car?

In Topic: On That Day - 5th August

16 March 2018 - 02:31 PM

Brain fade.....  was Dan Clarke's "Chevenger" actually based on a Vauxhall Chevette, or was it a Hillman Avenger?    :blush:

Hmmm.......good question. I think the Avenger based car that preceded the Chevette based car was called the Chevenger, but it could equally have applied to the Chevette I guess. The XR203 and the SR203 were self explanatory, but not sure what name was actually given to the Chevette.


Edit - just looking at some pictures, not sure it had a name........it had "Chevette" painted under the number on the aerofoil, so perhaps that was all it was known as??

In Topic: New MSD box, new rev limit.

11 March 2018 - 09:05 AM



So I use an MSD 6AL ignition Box on an old yank motor I have, had a quick look at the MSD box, rev limiter located behind a plastiky rubbery bung thingy so what is to say that rev limiter could be set at scrutineering and than the bung sealed,  coloured Hot wax maybe, or maybe drill a couple strategically drilled holes on said box so it could be wire sealed.

Got to be cheaper than forking out for a new type MSD box



 Just my thoughts on a cheap easy solution that every racer can do themselves.


                                                                           Cheers Ian

Ian, what planet are you on? That would never be an option......it's far too sensible! I'm sure you have been around the sport long enough to realise that when there is a walnut to crack, the powers that be set off in search of a hefty sledge hammer.



In Topic: New MSD box, new rev limit.

08 March 2018 - 01:24 PM

I do take Colin's point about people spending money for many decades within the sport, but it's the percentage of drivers that are spending it that has drastically changed. Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's there was a small percentage that were ploughing cash into the chase for success......these days that percentage is considerably higher. There are no where near the number of drivers with less than competitive machinery that were around the tracks in "The Golden Years". The more professional appearance of the sport must surely put off the sort of people who might have dipped their toe into the water 30 or 40 years ago. Couple that to the fact that every time there are measures introduced to try to rein in the spiralling costs of competing they seem to come at considerably greater cost than the component that they are replacing and the majority were using......re shockers and brake pads. I have said it before and continue to believe that the starting point in restricting engine spending is the tyres.....reduce the grip and the need for a mega engine is negated. It has the added bonus that (in my opinion at least) it would liven up the racing. It doesn't actually matter how bad the replacement tyres are either (as long as they had a decent lifespan) as everyone is in the same boat. That, to me, is a move in the right direction.....aimed at reducing costs in the longer run by reducing costs immediately.....win win?