Motorsport NZ AGCM

[rf84]

I believe this took place on Friday and yesterday.
Anything earth shattering happen? Or is what went on there a secret that we (the levy payers) are not allowed to know about?
Anyone who was there allowed to give us a summary via this forum-it's about the only way we will learn anything about what went on.

[ERC]

I have asked the same on Ten-Tenths.

I went down Friday just for the H & C workshop. A pleasant day catching up with so many people and chatting, but I think Crunch will confirm that only a few of us actually spoke at the well attended workshop, (maybe 7 or 8?) which was frustrating, as most were just sitting on their hands, but probably the best suggestion came from Tony Herbert, who suggested that T & C should be scrapped.

I did learn that my own understanding of Schedule K was off the mark, assuming that it was for cars that were pretty much original, and therefore pure, with T & C offering limited options. As it is, Schedule K is for cars as they raced in period, which is a different slant altogether...

There was the predictable push for getting a CoD and and an equally predictable response as to why it is unneccessary in its present form for anything other than a car with provenance.

Nigel Russell explained why the year the car represented was important, with a graphic set of 4 pictures of the Valour in various forms. For those with day to day classics, as opposed to historic single seaters/sports racers, it probably didn't change any perceptions at all, merely emphasising the relevance and value of the detailed CoD for those cars and in its present form, the opposite for most production cars.

The replica or period specials area was briefly covered but there is still nothing in T & C that allows a period special saloon.

So, nothing earth shattering from that workshop, though others may have a different view.

I too await details of the actual AGM on the Saturday.

The best comment of the day however came from Barry Leitch, who like me, is amazed at the knowledge in Steve Holmes head, assuming he must be about 90 years of age - and being suitably shocked to find that he isn't.

[Frosty5]

The best comment of the day however came from Barry Leitch, who like me, is amazed at the knowledge in Steve Holmes head, assuming he must be about 90 years of age - and being suitably shocked to find that he isn't.

I agree, he is amazing for someone so young. Perhaps he was home schooled on motorsport only. LOL!!!!

[Kiwiboss]

I have asked the same on Ten-Tenths.

I went down Friday just for the H & C workshop. A pleasant day catching up with so many people and chatting, but I think Crunch will confirm that only a few of us actually spoke at the well attended workshop, (maybe 7 or 8?) which was frustrating, as most were just sitting on their hands, but probably the best suggestion came from Tony Herbert, who suggested that T & C should be scrapped.

I did learn that my own understanding of Schedule K was off the mark, assuming that it was for cars that were pretty much original, and therefore pure, with T & C offering limited options. As it is, Schedule K is for cars as they raced in period, which is a different slant altogether...

There was the predictable push for getting a CoD and and an equally predictable response as to why it is unneccessary in its present form for anything other than a car with provenance.

Nigel Russell explained why the year the car represented was important, with a graphic set of 4 pictures of the Valour in various forms. For those with day to day classics, as opposed to historic single seaters/sports racers, it probably didn't change any perceptions at all, merely emphasising the relevance and value of the detailed CoD for those cars and in its present form, the opposite for most production cars.

The replica or period specials area was briefly covered but there is still nothing in T & C that allows a period special saloon.

So, nothing earth shattering from that workshop, though others may have a different view.

I too await details of the actual AGM on the Saturday.

The best comment of the day however came from Barry Leitch, who like me, is amazed at the knowledge in Steve Holmes head, assuming he must be about 90 years of age - and being suitably shocked to find that he isn't.

As IT was only the 2nd AGCM I've attended I thought it was run very well, the H&C commission workshop should have allowed more time!! but more importantly Ray was that you attended and viewed your points, along with others! and this helps cement the different avenues of thinking in Historic and Classic racing that each individual has!!

For HMC the COD system works and is going to refined especially for those vehicles!! I can also see in some areas it won't work for others!! but what most commented to me about you Ray, is how well you run your series and these are points not lost, we in HMC will defiantly take some of these on board.

Also Rome wasn't built in a day with so many other non-historic and classic a genders at these meetings!! but for us in HMC its steady as it goes. To me it was great point of contact to many persons that one doesn't normally get time to talk too at a race meetings!! and for me what came out of the last two days was the Nissan Z club looking to follow HMC example in correcting there vehicles for the more pure historic and classic events!! time will tell.

That damn Steve Holmes left too early as others that heard he was there were asking where he was!! I tried to tell them I was "Steve Holmes" but that didn't fly as most thought I was too young to have all that knowledge, LOL

Dale M

[ERC]

Cheers Dale. HMC is running a great set of tight rules, but one of the reasons we sit just outside the current T & C is that to write our rules the way you have done, would be impossible, given the sheer diversity of cars involved. I certainly don't know enough about Renault Gordinis for example to know how legal or otherwise, they are, and it would be pointless even trying, given that they were racing last year but not this. Alfa run their series to their rules, as do BMW, so I can understand Tony Herbert's point. T & C is probably now redundant.

As long as HRC, Auckland Car Club and TACCOC invite us to their meetings, then we carry on as we are, warts and all and also accept that regardless of our grid size, we won't be invited to the annual Festival meets - though Clark Procter's Nissan powered Escort manages it...

[nzeder]

I have not spoken to the members from the "Datsun Z Club" that attended the AGM yet - but I am interested to know more about how T&C and Schedule K is seen. My Datsun Z that I am trying to get ready for the coming season (when time and money permits - both of which I am short like so many) is currently nothing more than a rolling caged shell stilling at my parents (don't have room here with another Z in bit in the shed). I have not committed to the brake setup and my suspension has not been setup completely either (coilover only held in place with hose clamps waiting for final ride height etc). All the mods are true to the factory options or period mods. So now with the comments above about T&C should be abandoned/made redundant - what should I do?

I still need to run new brake hard lines and fuel hard lines (inside the car away from the factory location right next to the drive shaft - so a safety mod which should be permitted just on safety grounds along). My car is all factory panels, missing the odd badge (but I have some from the road car that I can install).

So my question is this to those who attended - can I get my car finished and through as a Schedule K "competition sport & gt car" aka group o? The car will be missing some interior that can't be refitted around the cage - a Datsun Z is not that large inside. I do plan to run period brakes and rims that are period replicas (who want to be running on 1970's magnesium rims - 1 they cost a packet, 2. they would be old magnesium rims so that is just dangerous) All the mods I can proof are period mods and I am replicating them as they were. This car I am building will be road legal once I complete it when the $$ are their to go though all the hoops you need to get car with a full cage on the road.

However with the comments about T&C and the like do I just give up now and just focus on getting my road version going and spend time with my young family and forget my hobby of classic racing?

[Howard Wood]

In my experience the schedule K requirements are less onerous than getting a roll cage homologated. My BMW "02 which has a sched K classification is a replica, not an original race car. I don't understand various people who persist in thinking it is a requirement.

You simply need to list the modifications together with the justification which can be, in descending order of importance, homologation papers, period books, photos and magazine articles or lastly current photos or articles. In my case to complicate matters the original Group 2 papers are listed by the FIA "Lost, not available" but BMW Mobile Tradition in Munich were able to supply me from their archives sufficient (around 250) pages of amendments and additions together with enough of the original pages to piece together the major homologated items and make some assumptions about others. For example 4 pages of brake rotor and caliper sizes implies wheel diameter dimensions which were not included amongst the information.

MSNZ processed the application quickly and efficiently, a couple of questions about one or two specific items and the stamp went down! Obviously with a car where the complete papers are available, it will be even easier. Why there seems to be so much reluctance to embrace Sched K is beyond me. It fixes so many of the issues prevalent in "classic" racing.

[John McKechnie]

Howard- A very relevent and balanced article.

[Kiwiboss]

I have not spoken to the members from the "Datsun Z Club" that attended the AGM yet - but I am interested to know more about how T&C and Schedule K is seen. My Datsun Z that I am trying to get ready for the coming season (when time and money permits - both of which I am short like so many) is currently nothing more than a rolling caged shell stilling at my parents (don't have room here with another Z in bit in the shed). I have not committed to the brake setup and my suspension has not been setup completely either (coilover only held in place with hose clamps waiting for final ride height etc). All the mods are true to the factory options or period mods. So now with the comments above about T&C should be abandoned/made redundant - what should I do?

I still need to run new brake hard lines and fuel hard lines (inside the car away from the factory location right next to the drive shaft - so a safety mod which should be permitted just on safety grounds along). My car is all factory panels, missing the odd badge (but I have some from the road car that I can install).

So my question is this to those who attended - can I get my car finished and through as a Schedule K "competition sport & gt car" aka group o? The car will be missing some interior that can't be refitted around the cage - a Datsun Z is not that large inside. I do plan to run period brakes and rims that are period replicas (who want to be running on 1970's magnesium rims - 1 they cost a packet, 2. they would be old magnesium rims so that is just dangerous) All the mods I can proof are period mods and I am replicating them as they were. This car I am building will be road legal once I complete it when the $$ are their to go though all the hoops you need to get car with a full cage on the road.

However with the comments about T&C and the like do I just give up now and just focus on getting my road version going and spend time with my young family and forget my hobby of classic racing?

nzeder, Schedule K is for exact "period" built race cars with the idea of obtaining a FIA Historic Technical Passport(HTP) and T&C is for "Modified" saloons and sports cars with only certain allowable changes, with the idea of obtaining a Certificate of Description(COD)!! This here is only a debate, nothing is changing within Motorsport NZ and the Classic and Historic commission from my understanding is more than happy with the current status-quo!! so you can either build your 240Z to NO rules and race it club type events were there is less concern about rules, or to K/T&C and be eligible for more pure Historic and Classic events like say the Festival!!

To be-able to race with HMC in future events like the "Legends" you will need one of the above as we won't except vehicles outside the K/T&C, HMC criterior.

And that's what is great about NZ motor-sport, you can choose your desired path.

Dale M

[ERC]

Any car that conforms to schedule K is never going to be a long term problem. It was only a suggestion from the floor regarding T & C, not a directive or statement from the commission - and there was no vote on it either, so at this stage, no change.

Classic racing in whatever form will probably be around for a fair time yet and although there is every reason to support Appendix K or even Schedule K, not all cars can conform, as some cars being raced today, never raced in period anyway. In period, many cars raced without various items of trim, interior or exterior, many were road cars and many were racers, so at this stage as I read it, from the workshop, there are still many options and yet there may well be the need for some sort of overview as to where every car fits.

I personally do not believe that there will ever be a level playing field unless cars raced in period as a control group, such as Formula Junior, Formula Ford, even Mini 7, Nissan Sentra and even then, unless you have a full grid of old Mini 7's, where would you race one and would it be period correct? What we do NOT need is a load of tiny grids of cars, supposedly equal, as that will kill classic motorsport, so it may have to be several classes running together, be they grouped by capacity, speed, age, make or w.h.y.

As I said, not too much came from the floor...

[crunch]

Hi All;
Sorry we run out of time in the H&C workshop, pretty crappy chairmanship because he was actually feeling pretty crappy. I leant over to Tony at one stage and said to him he might have to take over as I had the cold sweats and thought I was gonna loose my lunch! So bit pre-occupied....otherwise I would have stopped Nigel talking so much a lot earlier!

Have traced what it was the made me feel a bit crook. Just before the Commission workshop started I was in the bog and in the stall next to me was Carl Rabbidge (he even talks continuosly to himself!). He was also spraying a huge amount of hairspray and product around to obviously keep that false 50's quiff of his in place and I accidentally inhaled it...(the product, not the quiff otherwise it would have looked to the coroner that I had choked to death on a wombat)

Maybe the H&C Commission should not try to present so much info at the next AGM? I thought we would have bucket loads of time as there were absolutely no questions...a stoney silence for the first half an hour.

[crunch]

If anyone wants a copy of the powerpoint presentations from the workshop, drop me your email address to crunch1@xtra.co.nz

It's been a pleasure to be the Chairman of the MSNZ H&C Commission for the past 6 years. Thank you for letting me be part of your sport.

[Carlo]

Even though this shot is taken from close to floor level one can see why Crunch is so concerned about hair or rather loss of hair. Even Stuart McLean that old age pensioner from Queenstown has a more luxuriant growth of white hair than this. Also evident is that in spite of the very best efforts of your charming wife to dress and present you correctly in public she has failed miserably.

Even with my skills were you a car I would not even start to attempt to get you going let alone try and restore you but I would drop you off at Johnny Hepburn's yard as he is paying good prices for bulk scrap.

[crunch]

I think that photo should be deletede as it is off topic, ...and frankly just would scare kids. Carl did not have my permission to publish it and as for the wife taking it...I have already suitably disciplined her...and she is still smiling!!:o:o

[Howard Wood]

At the MSNZ prize giving dinner held on Saturday evening Howden Ganley was inducted into the MSNZ Wall of Fame. This is primarily thanks to the unstinting efforts of my friend and fellow TRS contributor Michael Clark.

I understand Howden is delighted and humbled by this honour but his inclusion really should be the first of several notable omissions from this honours board. Unfortunately the quiet achievers are over looked while the self promotors get the glory.

Over to you M.C. the MC.

[nzeder]

Thanks for the info Howard - I am thinking given I have access to the FIA homologated parts/calipers/carbs etc then I will look at going the Schedule K path once I understand the process/rules and I collect more info on how the cars were raced in period under FIA homologation.

[RacerT]

The meeting of the review panel was interesting, but limited in vision. The panel is keeping the status quo on most matters, when it should be looking at a package that would restructure the organisation for at least 20 years into the future. According to the panel it will retain the unfair system of one club, one vote. This allows a club of 10 members to have the same voting power as say Alfa Romeo Owners Club, or Auckland Car Club with 500 members. To add to this, every member pays a capitation fee of $5 per member, so clubs such as these are paying a large sum of money compared to a small club, but not having proportional voting power either.

It is also not considering regional representation as part of the package. Why not? We would not consider a parliament for a country that was not drawn from all areas of the country, so why do we accept it for a national organisation such as MSNZ? How can virtually half the population have no executive member to represent them? The greater Auckland area has scant contact with the executive and very few members on commissions. There is a distinct lack of communication with the north and this is to the detriment of the sport. Tony Roberts

[ERC]

Totally agree Tony, and really sorry that you didn't get elevated to the peerage.

How many extra clubs do we need to form to gain sufficient votes for change? 10? 20? 30? With a minimum of I think, 15 members, required, maybe for one or two years only, what we really need is for Alfa, BMW, MG, TACCOC, ACC to split their memberships into blocks of 15, with identical constitutions referring back to their original "name". So you get BMW 01, 02, 03, 04 - 30 etc.

[Michael Clark]

Thank you Howard but I was not working alone...indeed two other contributors to this very forum were also involved - they know who they are and their influence is greater that mine by some margin!!

[nzeder]

I have learnt a lot today about the process of how the voting works etc - What I find interesting is I know a few people who are members of a number of MNZ member clubs so in these cases the one competitor is paying a fee from each club to MNZ. Then there are members of clubs that are not interested in motorsport just interested in the marque of car the club represents so they don't care about how our sport is governed. Surely a true motorsport member is those that are interested in our sport by either manning the marshal/safety points, organisers of the events and or competing not forgetting the track owners. I believe the idea has been floated already but it make sense to me - votes should be granted to those people/members I mentioned -ie marshals/organisers/competitors and track owners. The competitors and track owners would be easy to ID - those with licenses like wise for the event organisers and marshals a simple license/registration process of these people = a votes on the direction of the sport.

Surely that is a fair system - those who compete, host, organise/run and marshal have direction on how the sport is governed. After all its these people that financially contribute the most to the body.

[ERC]

As posted elsewhere. That is that probably 80% of the clubs voting only represent 20% of the active members. As long as that situation is in place, we are never going to get either the representation we need or the direction we deserve.

The only true way forward for the majority is either as per post #18 or a rival/breakaway organisation. We are banging our collective heads against a large brick wall at the moment and all that is happening is that we are getting bruised and battered, as that wall is never going to shift under the current structure.

[RacerT]

Thanks Ray. No big deal as I didn't expect to get elected and I'm on the historic and classic commission which is my first love!

"How many extra clubs do we need to form to gain sufficient votes for change? 10? 20? 30? With a minimum of I think, 15 members, required, maybe for one or two years only, what we really need is for Alfa, BMW, MG, TACCOC, ACC to split their memberships into blocks of 15, with identical constitutions referring back to their original "name". So you get BMW 01, 02, 03, 04 - 30 etc."

In regard to your quote , I don't think we should try to 'rort' the system, but the system should be changed to one of fairness. One of the delegates at the conference complained that the big clubs would get more voting power, without seeing the irony that the small clubs have the power now!

NZEDER is right. I have long advocated that the competitors, volunteers, promoters and track owners should get an individual vote that puts in a board. This would be in the manner of the AA, Hospital boards etc. The danger with this system is the apathy from individuals, but this would be true democracy and could be carried out online. The clubs are never going to vote for a system like this because it moves the emphasis away from a club structure to an individual structure. Club numbers are falling nationwide, so maybe this is the right move.

[nzeder]

Or a Mix of the two? A hybrid system if you like? Club votes count for X number of individual votes - or club based weighted vote system? e.g. clubs under 50 members = 1 vote. Clubs with more than 50 then get an extra vote for every additional 50 members but the membership must be at or over the 50 to get that extra vote - ie 99 members still one vote but 100 members = 2 votes just like 149 is still 2 votes etc. 50 is just an example I have no idea on the number of members a club as I can only go by my past experience as a previous committee members of a nation wide car club.

regards
Mike

[Russ Noble]

"How many extra clubs do we need to form to gain sufficient votes for change? 10? 20? 30? With a minimum of I think, 15 members, required, maybe for one or two years only, what we really need is for Alfa, BMW, MG, TACCOC, ACC to split their memberships into blocks of 15, with identical constitutions referring back to their original "name". So you get BMW 01, 02, 03, 04 - 30 etc."

In regard to your quote , I don't think we should try to 'rort' the system, but the system should be changed to one of fairness. One of the delegates at the conference complained that the big clubs would get more voting power, without seeing the irony that the small clubs have the power now!

Not really a rort. The rort is the unfair representation system that we now have that is woefully inadequate in meeting the needs of the majority of competitors. The small clubs seem to want to preserve the status quo and there may be no chance of getting that changed unless large clubs are temporarily split into many smaller ones as outlined by Ray.

This may be the only effective way to ensure any constitutional changes are achieved at the next AGM. And serious thought needs to be given to it NOW by the large disenfranchised clubs.

[crunch]

My PERSONAL views that are not secret to the Exec or the Commission I use to represent.

1. We should have a form of proportional voting. My thought is clubs under 50 members 1 vote, clubs from 50-150 get 2 votes and 150+ get three votes.
2. I thought the flat fee remit put by the Marathon Rally Club was a good idea. Surprised it fell on virtually deaf ears.
3. Marque clubs should split into a motorsport group and a "collectors & polishers" group if they feel that is the only way forward.

Raymond Bennett

[crunch]

I also note the comment that the Auckland area doesnt get much representation on the Exec. I ensured that the H&C competitors were heard as part of my job with the Commission. No one has actually approached me from the Auckland area yet to say that they have been ignored.
I have also always extended that offer to general membership.

[Paul Wilkinson]

If it can't be devolved to the licence-holders, can't they somehow gather the number of Motorsport entries each club has generated in the past year and give them that many votes? That way influence on the system is directly proportional to usage of the system. There'd have to be some thought on 'weighting' different types of events but that shouldn't be too hard.

[RacerT]

Hi Crunch. You are one member of the executive that has made the effort to come up to the large historic and classic events at Hampton Downs and I commend you for it. I was also surprised that the Marathon Car Club remit fell flat, but that is one of the inadequacies of raising remits at conference. The restructuring of MSNZ should have been happening progressively over the years, but unfortunately this hasn't happened. The review panel's report is long on consultation, but short on real change. With half the planned board being 'professional', non motorsport people and the CEO having the real power, we could be worse off.

I see no-one is talking about the $300,000 new POSSUM computer system? I believe POSSUM needs to lower its goals to a realistic level or risk large cost overruns.

[crunch]

The review panel's report is long on consultation, but short on real change. With half the planned board being 'professional', non motorsport people and the CEO having the real power, we could be worse off.



Totally agree! Just because someone is a successful businessman, or a professional Board sitter, doesn't make them good for the sport's executive. We can co-opt people that we think would be good for the Sport onto the Executive now, the constitution allows it already, so that isnt a change. If we want to continue with professional appointments, then why not just 2 (not 3) so the balance of power within the sport is still retained by the clubs and members. With my experience on other sporting and business Board involvement, professional appointed people are not the saviours that some are making them out to be. I think the current Exec should co opt someone to the Exec representing Auckland. MY OPINION

[nzeder]

I see no-one is talking about the $300,000 new POSSUM computer system? I believe POSSUM needs to lower its goals to a realistic level or risk large cost overruns.Ok so for those of us not at the conference - what is this POSSUM computer system?

[ERC]

Echoing Tony's comment. Crunch has made more than one visit to the Auckland area to front up to the H & C drivers and that is appreciated by the local competitors. Most have few grizzles with the H & C commission, as they are approachable, dedicated and have their own philosophy on the sport, even though their individual views may vary, they have demonstrated a capacity to listen and in several cases, take on board what the competitors have asked for.

From the conference floor, I would think that they still have some thinking to do, but the fact that the Classic area of the sport is incredibly strong, with or without CoDs, means that for most competitors, any criticism of MNSZ as a whole does not necessarily include the commissions.

[Trevor Sheffield]

As posted elsewhere. That is that probably 80% of the clubs voting only represent 20% of the active members. As long as that situation is in place, we are never going to get either the representation we need or the direction we deserve.

The only true way forward for the majority is either as per post #18 or a rival/breakaway organisation. We are banging our collective heads against a large brick wall at the moment and all that is happening is that we are getting bruised and battered, as that wall is never going to shift under the current structure.

Endlessly suggesting many forms hopeful change is pointless. The ideas and talk, talk, without torque, has gone on for over fifty years and the problem as outlined above has always been the stumbling block. It will and can not change without exact direct action towards the problem.

Forget all the incidental talk and concentrate on the critical problem as has been clearly outlined above. The constitution must be altered. There is no apparent loop hole, but there must be a way through. Secure legal advice as a first step. Stop pissing around. :-)

Cheers, Trevor.

[Carlo]

Guys it is the constitution that is the issue, with that rectified correctly all else will fall into place.

[Kiwiboss]

In my experience the schedule K requirements are less onerous than getting a roll cage homologated. My BMW "02 which has a sched K classification is a replica, not an original race car. I don't understand various people who persist in thinking it is a requirement.

You simply need to list the modifications together with the justification which can be, in descending order of importance, homologation papers, period books, photos and magazine articles or lastly current photos or articles. In my case to complicate matters the original Group 2 papers are listed by the FIA "Lost, not available" but BMW Mobile Tradition in Munich were able to supply me from their archives sufficient (around 250) pages of amendments and additions together with enough of the original pages to piece together the major homologated items and make some assumptions about others. For example 4 pages of brake rotor and caliper sizes implies wheel diameter dimensions which were not included amongst the information.

MSNZ processed the application quickly and efficiently, a couple of questions about one or two specific items and the stamp went down! Obviously with a car where the complete papers are available, it will be even easier. Why there seems to be so much reluctance to embrace Sched K is beyond me. It fixes so many of the issues prevalent in "classic" racing.


So i take it Howard that you have at MSNZ HTP?

Dale M

[Howard Wood]

So i take it Howard that you have at MSNZ HTP?

Dale M

I was originally planning to apply for an FIA HTP but was advised by MSNZ that it would take over 6 months and to apply for sched K and COD in the meantime. As the car was completed and I was itching to go racing, it seemed the best interim option.

The HTP would allow the car to compete (and presumable be saleable) anywhere in the world, however much as that would be a nice dream it is unlikely to happen! In any case, speaking recently to a NZ Formula Junior competitor who has been lucky enough to get an invite to Goodwood this year, the technical compliance regime for meetings such as that are very specific and detailed. I didn't ask, but I gathered, way more restrictive than the HTP.

[nzeder]

Guys I have started a new thread/topic on MSNZ Schedule K, T&C and even FIA Appendix K HTP - here is a Link. Click me (http://www.theroaringseason.com/showthread.php?1145-MSNZ-Schedule-K-and-T-amp-C-and-maybe-FIA-HTP-related-questions-info-etc)