So, exactly which race cars are deemed 'Hotrods'?

[ERC]

I am getting a bit tired of the negativity and broad brush attacks on cars that some deem 'Hotrods'.

Why not come out with it and list ALL the cars you seem to think shouldn't be racing at so called classic and historic events? Be specific. Point the fingers and let's have some real facts on the table instead of thinly veiled pointed comments, then we all know where we stand.

Judging by the comments of some contributors, there are only a handful of saloon cars that should even be racing at all and the rest should be confined to club meetings, to mix it with the Subarus, Hondas, Nissan Skylines and Mitsubishis. A good fit there then - Yeah, right. That being the case, I don't see many true classic/historic meetings running at all. An occasional viable single-seater class maybe, but little else.

One of the reasons why some people don't buy into the 100% pure philosophy is because they like the shape of the older cars and fit some limited modern equipment to keep them alive. The pre-occupation of 100% original, right down to bonnet badges, chrome bumpers, chrome trim and original window winding mechanisms, head-linings, rear seats and carpets, gearboxes, etc., is for the concours brigade.

These are cars used for racing, exacting a toll by virtue of wear and tear and sadly, the occasional on track mishap. As cars get older and original spare parts scarcer, particularly trim and gearbox parts, then sometimes, tough decisions have to be made. Many cars in period ran without trims, often had modified bonnets (Austin A40s) or rear ends (Anglias) and all was well. Heck they even fitted a Morris Minor bodyshell to a Ferrari. stuffed Corvette engines into Zephyrs, Ford Twin Cams and Fiat twin cams into all sorts of basic saloons, Oldsmobile V8s into Starlets, rear mounted V8s into Marinas, Skodas and so on.

Since my very first car, I have wanted to modify it and I suspect the same applies to many others, so as long as parts are period, I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

100% original is fine if that is what rocks your boat, but as there is such a massive variety of cars and nothing to be gained by being the fastest around on a very un-level playing field, pragmatism has its place.

So, who will stand up and list each and every specific car they deem unfit to be at a classic meeting? The only cars I personally would list would be those where a modern (post 1977/80?) engine has been fitted to a pre 1977/80 car, but some have been given a dispensation to run only until such times as the (our) grids are over-subscribed and provided it comes from the same manufacturer/country.

This should be fun!

Nissan powered Ford Escort - Clark Proctor? But hey, it ran at the HD festival last year so it must be OK after all.

[nigel watts]

Wonder whether the McLaren Elva was considered a 'hotrod' back in the day? Or the AC Cobra for that matter.
I'm with you on this ERC - 100%

[John McKechnie]

Lets look at Hot Rods- traditionally, supercharged, full chrome, wild paint job, skinny chromes at front, big on rear .Usually on a 1920s 0r 30s dropped chrome front axle. No safety gear,no rules all for show.
Dont see anything like that at the track.
Our cars are modified for racing, everything has a purpose., completely opposite to hot rods.
Sports Sedans and Oscas were built to rules
Lets instead look at who are calling our cars Hot Rods and why.
I would agree that a Nissan powered escort has a question mark.
Chev into MK 2 Zephyr would qualify as a hot rod, but we love it.
Oscas are all about V8s into Minors, Corollas,Vivas, Cotinas, Ladas, Marinas,Escorts. Crowds love them and Sports Sedans
So, if a jappa goes into a non jappa its another ball game.
Knew a guy who removed a 1000hp twin turbo nissan from a HK Monaro. I gave him stick as it was a fast combo, and he would never get that from a bow-tie. Was that a hot rod ?
Hot rodding is not about modifying your car, its an overall change from the original taken to an extreme.

[nzeder]

I agree a hotrod is a 1920 - 1930 v8 power show and straight line car aka traffic light to traffic light racer eg America Graffiti type.

However checking dictionary definition this has a number of means much like opinions it varies.

I am with you guys parts become either NLA (no longer longer available) or just to rare or $$ to risk on the track. So alternative are sort if the car is to stay on the track. Is that wrong? Not if using methods available in the give period ie no carbon fiber or kevlar etc.

Also if a volvo 122 could have had a chev v8 installed in period could that not race today as a classic? It could have happened in period (even if it did not). What is wrong with that other than the not fitting with the rules as the are written today which means it would not conform to T&C so no COD which in turn means under msnz not a classic.

But why not have modified cars so long as they use period parts.

Having said that how many period cars are running modern internals in engines/gearboxes?? (reads makes them reliable - a good thing - we don't want a car in front of us stopping without warning - sure that is racing but if something can be avoided why not = keeps all the cars going and the simile on the dial)

[Rod Grimwood]

Lets look at Hot Rods- traditionally, supercharged, full chrome, wild paint job, skinny chromes at front, big on rear .Usually on a 1920s 0r 30s dropped chrome front axle. No safety gear,no rules all for show.
Dont see anything like that at the track.
Our cars are modified for racing, everything has a purpose., completely opposite to hot rods.
Sports Sedans and Oscas were built to rules
Lets instead look at who are calling our cars Hot Rods and why.
I would agree that a Nissan powered escort has a question mark.
Chev into MK 2 Zephyr would qualify as a hot rod, but we love it.
Oscas are all about V8s into Minors, Corollas,Vivas, Cotinas, Ladas, Marinas,Escorts. Crowds love them and Sports Sedans
So, if a jappa goes into a non jappa its another ball game.
Knew a guy who removed a 1000hp twin turbo nissan from a HK Monaro. I gave him stick as it was a fast combo, and he would never get that from a bow-tie. Was that a hot rod ?
Hot rodding is not about modifying your car, its an overall change from the original taken to an extreme.


Ok! I have not even read this thread, but lets keep all this talk on this thread and leave it out of the other which we are trying to get some classic cars together.
If you can not be positive on the 'Festival" thread, then don't push any buttons, and more so if you are not involved keep it to yourself. People are starting to get a little pissed with the negative bits, and sorry but it is the same as the negative bits when George tried.
Put up or shut up as we are trying, and do not need negative attitudes right now.

Thanks
Grimme

PS I have had a competitor wonder 'Is this worth while' so back off and blow your little trumpets elsewhere.

[nzeder]

My big issue is the rules don't fit what people either are doing, have done or want do to. I think there is a disconnect between competitors and MSNZ who set the rules. This is something I feel strongly about having purchased as car that was 3/4 complete as a targa car as such had mods for their rules. Me I want to run the car in classics which has meant removing a lot of stuff, selling it on and starting again to get the car to a point where it fits the current regs - this has taken time and $$. So it was a hotrod as some might say with a modern engine/EFI (if you can call an engine that is 89 vintage modern today - under MSNZ own regs that is 20 years old so is classic - I could not run in any classic grid with this setup)

So brakes were sold, engine/gearbox sold and period engine/gearbox and brake sourced - now I have to rewire the car to fix the cutting that was done for the EFI (back to carbs and dizzy)

[nzeder]

I have not even read this thread, but lets keep all this talk on this thread and leave it out of the other which we are trying to get some classic cars together.Maybe the editor/moderator of this site can move those posts from that thread to here so it can all go in here.

[John McKechnie]

Editing comments is easier

[Steve Holmes]

My big issue is the rules don't fit what people either are doing, have done or want do to. I think there is a disconnect between competitors and MSNZ who set the rules.


To me this is a big part of the issue in NZ historic car racing. Why would the rules be built around the cars? Thats all back to front. Surely the cars should be built to the rules? There have been a set of Historic T&C regulations (for saloon cars) set out by Motorsport New Zealand for 30 years. Some people have chosen to build their classic race cars to these rules, some have chosen to do as they please. The trouble is, the rules have never been enforced, and so you've got a situation where, for the last 30 years, everyone has gone off in different directions.

However, with the advent of the internet, the world is becoming a smaller place, those in New Zealand classic racing are looking more and more to what is happening overseas, and seeing perhaps there is a better way of doing things than just letting everyone do what they like. NZ classic racing is slowly organising itself, and event promoters are now beginning to require these T&C rules be enforced in an effort to get everyone on the same sheet of paper, doing the same thing. The annual MG Classic event at Manfield uses T&C rules for its various classic saloon classes, and breaks each group down to lap times, ie, Fast Classics, Slow Classics, etc. Then they have a special race for anything that doesn't fit these groups. It seems to work very well.

Surely its a case of simply building/preparing a car to T&C rules, and being accepted anywhere? Then there is no argument, and no need for debate.

I look to Australia and the Historic Appendix J/Group N rules that have been in place for 30 years. The big difference here is that the Australian governing body, CAMS, have dedicated their efforts to making sure cars that race at CAMS historic events are built to the rules, and stay within those rules. In NZ, Motorsport NZ has never enforced its T&C rules, even though they're a very good set of rules. If they had done, NZ would now be in the same situation as Australia, with everyone knowing exactly where they stand, what the rules are, and what rules they're building their car for. The Aussie situation isn't perfect, but in the last 30 years there have been over 1,000 cars logged with CAMS to their historic rules. To me, that is a massive success story. So this means, if a guy in Queensland builds and races an XU1 Torana, and decides he wants to travel down to NSW to compete at a historic event there, he'll be racing against cars built to the same set of rules. There is no arguing, no confusion, people just get on and race, and have fun.

Imagine if this had been done in NZ 30 years ago!

[Habu]

I am getting a bit tired of the negativity and broad brush attacks on cars that some deem 'Hotrods'.

Why not come out with it and list ALL the cars you seem to think shouldn't be racing at so called classic and historic events? Be specific. Point the fingers and let's have some real facts on the table instead of thinly veiled pointed comments, then we all know where we stand.

Judging by the comments of some contributors, there are only a handful of saloon cars that should even be racing at all and the rest should be confined to club meetings, to mix it with the Subarus, Hondas, Nissan Skylines and Mitsubishis. A good fit there then - Yeah, right. That being the case, I don't see many true classic/historic meetings running at all. An occasional viable single-seater class maybe, but little else.

One of the reasons why some people don't buy into the 100% pure philosophy is because they like the shape of the older cars and fit some limited modern equipment to keep them alive. The pre-occupation of 100% original, right down to bonnet badges, chrome bumpers, chrome trim and original window winding mechanisms, head-linings, rear seats and carpets, gearboxes, etc., is for the concours brigade.

These are cars used for racing, exacting a toll by virtue of wear and tear and sadly, the occasional on track mishap. As cars get older and original spare parts scarcer, particularly trim and gearbox parts, then sometimes, tough decisions have to be made. Many cars in period ran without trims, often had modified bonnets (Austin A40s) or rear ends (Anglias) and all was well. Heck they even fitted a Morris Minor bodyshell to a Ferrari. stuffed Corvette engines into Zephyrs, Ford Twin Cams and Fiat twin cams into all sorts of basic saloons, Oldsmobile V8s into Starlets, rear mounted V8s into Marinas, Skodas and so on.

Since my very first car, I have wanted to modify it and I suspect the same applies to many others, so as long as parts are period, I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

100% original is fine if that is what rocks your boat, but as there is such a massive variety of cars and nothing to be gained by being the fastest around on a very un-level playing field, pragmatism has its place.

So, who will stand up and list each and every specific car they deem unfit to be at a classic meeting? The only cars I personally would list would be those where a modern (post 1977/80?) engine has been fitted to a pre 1977/80 car, but some have been given a dispensation to run only until such times as the (our) grids are over-subscribed and provided it comes from the same manufacturer/country.

This should be fun!

Nissan powered Ford Escort - Clark Proctor? But hey, it ran at the HD festival last year so it must be OK after all.

Ok, As I'm a spectator, and I've got nothing to lose, I'll stick my neck out and start with a few I can think of, I've only listed a few of that cars that I'm surprised are allowed to run at classic / historic events........... so:

The Proctor Nissan Escort - it may be fast, but its ugly, and theres not much Escort left. It has launch control, anti-lag, an extended wheel base, sounds like a vacuum cleaner, and bodily appendages that even some plastic surgeons wouldnt recommend to their patients.

The Manon YB Escort, and any other YB powered Escort. They're all great cars, many are fast, but technically they dont even resemble anything built by the factory. Naturally aspirated they may be, but a Cosworth YB cylinder head masquerading as a Cosworth BDG in either a Mk1 or Mk2 Escort is not a classic / historic spec racing car.

As much as I hate to say it, and I love this car, the McCarthy Zakspeed Escort. Its beautiful, and indecently fast, it has a period correct engine, brakes (I think) and diff, but the gearbox is wrong and I think possibly a few other features. Like I said, I love it, it looks right, but technically its not correct.

What do other people think? (preparing to be hung, drawn and quartered.....)

[AMCO72]

OK, so the ultimate 'hotrod' must be a mid 1950's MG magnette with Rover V8 power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But do I want to see it on the track......YOU BETCHA. I want to see how the driver handles this machine with 3 times its original HP on an antiquated chassis/suspension and a heavy body. Now that could be a sight for sore eyes. LoL. Dont know where the Whitren car is now, but it didn't have V8 power.

I think perhaps the term 'hotrod 'was a bit of an unfortunate choice on this forum, and has got a few peoples back up. But please note that the word is always in inverted comas.......ie for want of a better word that will do in the meantime, until some bright spark comes up with something better, as none of these cars are Hotrods as in 1950's America.

[Spgeti]

To me this is a big part of the issue in NZ historic car racing. Why would the rules be built around the cars? Thats all back to front. Surely the cars should be built to the rules? There have been a set of Historic T&C regulations (for saloon cars) set out by Motorsport New Zealand for 30 years. Some people have chosen to build their classic race cars to these rules, some have chosen to do as they please. The trouble is, the rules have never been enforced, and so you've got a situation where, for the last 30 years, everyone has gone off in different directions.

However, with the advent of the internet, the world becoming a smaller place, those in New Zealand classic racing are looking more and more to what is happening overseas, and seeing perhaps there is a better way of doing things than just letting everyone do what they like. NZ classic racing is slowly organising itself, and event promoters are now beginning to require these T&C rules be enforced in an effort to get everyone on the same sheet of paper, doing the same thing. The annual MG Classic event at Manfield uses T&C rules for its various classic saloon classes, and breaks each group down to lap times, ie, Fast Classics, Slow Classics, etc. Then they have a special race for anything that doesn't fit these groups. It seems to work very well.

Surely its a case of simply building/preparing a car to T&C rules, and being accepted anywhere? Then there is no argument, and no need for debate.

I look to Australia and the Historic Appendix J/Group N rules that have been in place for 30 years. The big difference here is that the Australian governing body, CAMS, have dedicated their efforts to making sure cars that race at CAMS historic events are built to the rules, and stay within those rules. In NZ, Motorsport NZ has never enforced its T&C rules, even though they're a very good set of rules. If they had done, NZ would now be in the same situation as Australia, with everyone knowing exactly where they stand, what the rules are, and what rules they're building their car for. The Aussie situation isn't perfect, but in the last 30 years there have been over 1,000 cars logged with CAMS to their historic rules. To me, that is a massive success story. So this means, if a guy in Queensland builds and races an XU1 Torana, and decides he wants to travel down to NSW to compete at a historic event there, he'll be racing against cars built to the same set of rules. There is no arguing, no confusion, people just get on and race, and have fun.

Imagine if this had been done in NZ 30 years ago!


Well Said Steve.....Cheers, Bruce

[ERC]

Fair comments Habu and thanks for sticking your neck out.

Good that you have picked three Ford Escorts as for many people, they encapsulate classic/historic racing.

1) The Proctor Escort from my perspective fails not on looks (plenty of old classic saloons were butchered in period and some were downright ugly, but that gives them a point of difference) but on the choice of a far too modern engine - that is the primary fail in my opinion. Add to that, there are no links no matter how tenuous, to Ford or even the car's general country of origin. Launch control etc also too modern. Would we accept it in ERC - no way.

2) With Bruce Manon's Escort (and forgive me if I am totally incorrect - I have virtually no technical knowledge) fitted with a cylinder head that may not be historically correct as it runs a cylinder head not produced by the factory. Again, my opinion only, on those grounds you would also reject the aforementioned ex-Whitren Magnette, the late Jim Chrystall's Wolseley 1500/1950cc and the Amco Mini?

Would we accept those cars in ERC - yes, all three and all three have raced - and the YB powered Escorts are welcome too. YOU may know the heads are not factory, but the general spectators don't and do they really care?

3) The McCarthy Escort is built to the highest possible race car standards and the gearbox is 'wrong'. As a race car, it is not eligible for our own series, but does it belong at any classic/historic meeting? You betcha.

AMCO - the ex Whitren Magnette was run by Neil Goodwin in Classic trials but he has now given up competing. I have no idea whether or not the car is still in his possession.

Steve - and others with the same philosophy. Yes, some local (T & C) rules are in place but if you'd spent as much time studying them as I and others have, you'd be more aware of the areas where they don't work. HMC has chosen to run an even tighter set of rules, which is what our suggestions were, several years ago, when challenged by the commission to rewrite them. Our philosophy ("our" being the ERC series, plus two other established series) was that the published T & C rules should be an umbrella, under which ALL classic and historic saloons could and would run but the options would always be for series or event organisers to tighten them if required, not loosen them.

We already have FIA and local Appendix or Schedule K, so the whole point of having a looser set of rules, is because the majority of owners are happy enough NOT running 'K' cars - and that is a fact born out by the number of competitors who not only do not have 'K' documentation, but also by the numbers who do NOT have a CoD (65% plus) at all. If K, or even CoD's was made compulsory, classic racing locally would die. (We already know what happened locally to the number of entries when that was tried.)

This thread was started to take these and similar issues away from the Festival saloons thread, in an effort to get people to state their objections to the cars that we currently accept. I have suffered a lot of abuse both verbally and even in print, over the years, from those who choose to attack our stance and our pragmatism. Most seem totally unwilling to look a the bigger picture by pointing out that the "ERC Series is anything goes", "You have totally destroyed classic racing", "Nothing but a bunch of hotrods", "You are trying to rewrite the rules to suit your own car", "No CoD's, so shouldn't be allowed to run" and so on.

I have gone past the point of trying to get a 100% workable set of T & C rules in place and on the advice of other promoters "You are always welcome. We accept your series and your series rules and we will continue to invite you to our meetings. Don't worry about the T & C thing, just stick to your own rules, as they work".

The fact is that so far, only YB powered Escorts running in the ERC Series have been pointed out as "incorrect" and shouldn't be running at a classic meeting says a fair bit, but I suspect others are sitting on their hands, unwilling to state a view until someone else has named a car!

When it comes to repowers, T & C doesn't cover them at all, either as historic race saloons or cars built recently out of period components. "If no one built it in period, you can't build it now", which in a sentence stifles any individuality. You can build a single seater out of period bits, but not a saloon. If you put a Corvette engine in a Zephyr in period, that is fine, you can do it now. But if you mix and match 100% period components and build a saloon, either for road or track, you can't. So in a nutshell, there is a philosophical bias (however accidental) against saloons.

I want to see Graeme Parkes V8, rear engined Marina out again, more than any other car I have seen racing in NZ. But I'd also really love it if we had a grid of saloons that DIDN'T race in period, but use period parts, as I know deep down, that it would be a real crowd pleaser, something we'll need pretty soon unless we can drag a load more special saloons/sports sedans out of hiding.

Thanks for the contributions so far and I hope all regulars (or even infrequent posters) will be encouraged to contribute as these are issues that need bringing into the open. Its no use relying on the opinions of just one or two people.

[AMCO72]

As usual with ERC, a well considered post. You are right about the Amco Minis alloy head not being a factory option, but they did do an almost identical 8 port one in cast iron. The head that is on the car is THE head that it ran with in 1972 along with the carburettors, and the rest of the engine is all BMC stuff that was available at the time. Modern machining and bearings just make it that much better.

And you are right in saying that these issues are better when discussed openly on a forum such as this. Nothing kills discussion quicker than when someone gets shitty with what someone else has said. After all, these are only opinions in most cases, and folk can sift the wheat from the chaff. As has happened dozens of times before, the subject matter strays from the title and that is unfortunate, but there is usually someone to drag it back into line. Would be nice to think that threads could stay pure, but there is a lot of lateral thinking going on here so that is unlikely.

And good luck with the MG. Hope the body is mending sufficiently to be able to drive it some time soon.

[Howard Wood]

Rather than single out specific cars, I would rather list some components and/ or design features that I feel are not in the spirit of "Historic" race cars, whether single seat, sports or saloons.

Not a full list but off the top of my head:

1. Later model engines/ gearboxes or diffs.
2. Sequential gearboxes
3. Carbon fibre panels or components
4. Ground effect aerodynamics, eg under cut rear panels.
5. Aero appendages not used in period.
6. Electronic traction or stability controls.

Most of these seem self explanatory to me. #1 the engine/ gearbox/ diff catch all can easily be covered by the VCC rule which places the age of a car as the youngest of its major components. Therefore if the cut off is say pre '78, all major components should be pre '78.

Some of the "Historic" classes such as Sports Sedans obviously don't fit under the umbrella of Sched K or even T & C but my personal view is that the long term goal should be towards compliance with these internationally recognised regulations or standards where it is appropriate, eg year specific saloon classes.

[RacerT]

To me this is a big part of the issue in NZ historic car racing. Why would the rules be built around the cars? Thats all back to front. Surely the cars should be built to the rules? There have been a set of Historic T&C regulations (for saloon cars) set out by Motorsport New Zealand for 30 years. Some people have chosen to build their classic race cars to these rules, some have chosen to do as they please. The trouble is, the rules have never been enforced, and so you've got a situation where, for the last 30 years, everyone has gone off in different directions.

However, with the advent of the internet, the world is becoming a smaller place, those in New Zealand classic racing are looking more and more to what is happening overseas, and seeing perhaps there is a better way of doing things than just letting everyone do what they like. NZ classic racing is slowly organising itself, and event promoters are now beginning to require these T&C rules be enforced in an effort to get everyone on the same sheet of paper, doing the same thing. The annual MG Classic event at Manfield uses T&C rules for its various classic saloon classes, and breaks each group down to lap times, ie, Fast Classics, Slow Classics, etc. Then they have a special race for anything that doesn't fit these groups. It seems to work very well.

Surely its a case of simply building/preparing a car to T&C rules, and being accepted anywhere? Then there is no argument, and no need for debate.

I look to Australia and the Historic Appendix J/Group N rules that have been in place for 30 years. The big difference here is that the Australian governing body, CAMS, have dedicated their efforts to making sure cars that race at CAMS historic events are built to the rules, and stay within those rules. In NZ, Motorsport NZ has never enforced its T&C rules, even though they're a very good set of rules. If they had done, NZ would now be in the same situation as Australia, with everyone knowing exactly where they stand, what the rules are, and what rules they're building their car for. The Aussie situation isn't perfect, but in the last 30 years there have been over 1,000 cars logged with CAMS to their historic rules. To me, that is a massive success story. So this means, if a guy in Queensland builds and races an XU1 Torana, and decides he wants to travel down to NSW to compete at a historic event there, he'll be racing against cars built to the same set of rules. There is no arguing, no confusion, people just get on and race, and have fun.

Imagine if this had been done in NZ 30 years ago!

Totally agree Steve. I was involved with the late Geoff Humphries in the early 1980's when the T&C regulations were formulated largely by TACCOC for the beginning of classic racing. Most of the cars were standard road cars and there was a great deal of fun had by inventing such events as the Le Mans meeting at Pukekohe and racing at Whenuapai. Even then the original rules were skewed to cater for variations. I remember asking why 2" flares were allowed and being told there was an E Type that had flares and they wanted to include it in the racing. Rather than have a set of well thought out regulations, T&C was already trying to be too accommodating.

The proliferation of many different series in the 1990's was really the point where New Zealand turned its back on the Australian type of racing. Instead of having a nationwide set of regulations that everyone used, series organisers would think up their own regulations and in doing so gradually devalued the Motorsport New Zealand regulations. Where we are at now is that we have a set of regulations that act as guidelines only and the many series that are running with different rules fractionate classic racing. But, having said that, some series have been the saviour of classic racing (ERC) after the MSNZ almost ruination of the regulations in the mid 1990's. A race series also gives an organisation and form to a group wanting to race. It is just a pity, for instance, that we have at least 5 Muscle car groups!

As a commission member for the last ten years and personally as promoter of classic and historic meetings we have a clear focus on what we are aiming to achieve. First and foremost is originality and as period correct as possible. All enthusiasts want to see the car as it was, otherwise it's demeaning and disappointing. T&C regulations aren't particularly tight compared to our Australian friends and the leniency in the regulations is very much aimed at keeping people racing with a common sense approach. Period alternative parts are allowed, better brakes, wider and taller wheels, 50 series tyres etc. The balance is to allow some modifications, but not get to the point where competitors refrain from competing because their 'period correct' car is thrashed by vehicles that should be comparable with theirs and then they simply stop racing and we all loose out.

The Allcomers era on the mid 1960's was a product of New Zealand's isolation from the rest of the world. Inventive racers combined the best of parts, sometimes very unlikely, and built a racing car. The original vehicles are fantastic historic vehicles that should be prized. Tribute/replica cars are less valuable, but can be raced if they match the original in virtually every aspect. A series of cars that are built along the same free wheeling relaxed regulations could be run, but they would have to be a separate grid if enough could be made.

COD's are not the complete answer in trying to keep vehicles historically accurate, but they are the best tool that we have at the moment for achieving that. Sure they should have been audited, but MSNZ's quiet policy is gradually making progress.

As a promoter, we are often told we should relax the regulations to get more cars to enter. It has been our experience in the past that this is completely the wrong approach. All it does is alienate half the field who don't bother turning up next time. Keeping the rules tight is the best way for a class to survive and be relevant.

[Steve Holmes]

Well said Tony, and I completely agree with that last paragraph.

[RogerH]

……When it comes to repowers, T & C doesn't cover them at all, either as historic race saloons or cars built recently out of period components. …… You can build a single seater out of period bits, but not a saloon. ……

I don't think these statements are totally correct.

T&C states at 3.3 (1) that "Cylinder head(s) and block may be changed to one of the same make and model range and must be visually standard and be of standard material". It seems pretty clear from this the T&C does deal with re-powers by limiting them to changes with blocks and heads from the same make and model range of the car.

As far as single seaters are concerned, a car built out of period bits with no definitive period history should not be acceptable under Schedule K.

[nzeder]

Imagine if this had been done in NZ 30 years ago!Steve I agree with all that you posted. I have raced back in mid 90's then again mid 00's and hope to have a car back on track ASAP (reads mid 2014 going by funds and time available currently)

For the reasons you have posted I am making the car 100% T&C if I could get Schedule K I would but the car has a dual MC setup which is not permitted under Schedule K for Saloons/Sports and GT (I mention Sport and GT as I have 2x Datsun 260z which are both 2 seaters = Sports/GT even though in period they raced in Saloon grids as they were higher volume production cars unlike most Sport/GT of the day)

So I am following the rules as they are written using only period parts (some as luck had it I was able to acquire new). Part of that is there also appears Anti-Japanese in a lot peoples minds - but to become a classic a car has to show racing pedigree which a car like the Datsun Z cars did in both World Rallying and circuit racing like Le Mann, Spa, SCCA, UK (Big Sam driven by Winn Percy), Nertherlands and of cause the home land in Japan all under FIA regulations there was even a Datsun 260z 2+2 that entered Bathurst.

The issue is even the T&C rules have changed over the years - however I see the latest change does address the part via approval from the HCC

Back in Manual 33 the body work was to "Standard Series Production Vehicle made from the original material - or alternative material that was available in period if originals were longer available" (I don't have a copy of the old manual with me but it was something like that)

Then when Manual 34 came out - it was only original material - this automatically would have made a large number T&C compliant cars now illegal under T&C. So like you say in this case enforcement was the issue + a major rule change that would cost a lot of competitors a lot of $$ to fix - if even possible.

I know some might say my stance/always bring up the rules is silly but is this not what they are there for? So we have cars that conform to them? If we did not have the rules I am sure I could have had my car going sooner - ie not sell the Wilwoods it had etc

I think the term hotrod could apply to any car that does not fit the rules? ie modified beyond what the rules permit. The issue is how people interpret those rules.

I think we are really lucky here in NZ with the T&C rules as they do allow good scope of modifications within the given rules.

This is what we want
There is no arguing, no confusion, people just get on and race, and have fun.
That is what I want to do - and I don't care if someone has a hotrod - so long as they respect other cars/drivers on the track who might not have easy to replace plastic parts like they might have. With 4 young kids and working for wages, for me to get out to the track takes a lot of resources (hence why I am not out there - yet) and once the car is on the track I would like to keep it that way.


First look at the top note on the T&C rules

These rules apply to all saloons, sports and GT cars over fifteen(15) years old and not covered by Appendix Six Schedule K or FIA Appendix K.
So that tells me first you need to check if the car in questions fit under the Schedule K or FIA Appendix K rules - then if outside of that then these rules apply.

So the next question I need to get an answer for can a new build fit under Schedule K - this question is key as some seem to think "YES" others "NO" which is it? I know FIA Appendix K does allow for new builds.

Then your car is T&C then this is another key statement

These regulations define the ONLY ALLOWABLE changes in each vehicle raced, which differ from the standard model variant the vehicle represents.

From the above statement I notice the following words - ONLY ALLOWABLE and "standard model variant that the vehicle represents."

So if we take a Escort 1300 then that was a standard model I am using as the base car. But I have decided I want to run as RS2000 by fitting a pinto engine which is allowable and we are still talking about a standard model variant ie one Escort 1300 now represents a Escort RS2000. However a FIA Special like a Holbay is not a standard model variant - that is an FIA special homologated under group 2 aka non Standard Model. So a car that is trying to represent a Holbay Escort does not fit under T&C so the car needs to fit under either Schedule K or FIA Appendix K to comply to a Classic car under MSNZ.

The same could be said to a Datsun 240z - if I install a L26 engine replacing the L24 then the car now represents a 260z or if I install a L28 then the car represents the 280z all based on the same S30 chassis sold at different times/markets. If I install a L28 into a 71 240z then the car now represents a 75 280z as 1975 was the year the L28 was homologated for use in the S30 chassis. But if I wanted to install a FIA rally spec cross flow LY28 engine (complete with the ECCS DCOE EFI that Nissan used on some rallies) into a 240z/260z then that is not a standard model variant but again a FIA Group 4 homologation special so T&C is not the place for what the vehicle now represents - I would have to see if the car fits under Schedule K or FIA Appendix K.

[grelley]

I have always felt that the simplest way of checking a historic cars elegebility is to ask the question, Could this have been built in its day, meaning that the parts must have been available to the public at the time the car is depicting. This would stop later components being fitted, with the onus on the driver to prove whatever parts thay have fitted were available. Certain upgrades should be allowed such as suspension bushes, shockies, period disc brakes if they were available, better engine internals within the original type block, head etc, but basically if the parts were not available in the period, then they cannot be fitted

[nzeder]

I have always felt that the simplest way of checking a historic cars elegebility is to ask the question, Could this have been built in its day, meaning that the parts must have been available to the public at the time the car is depicting. This would stop later components being fitted, with the onus on the driver to prove whatever parts thay have fitted were available. Certain upgrades should be allowed such as suspension bushes, shockies, period disc brakes if they were available, better engine internals within the original type block, head etc, but basically if the parts were not available in the period, then they cannot be fittedAnd that is what the T&C rules state as the "Objective"

see here

Objectives: This schedule is designed to provide a set of regulations for the use of period production based Sports, Grand Touring, and Saloon Cars in sporting competition while maintaining the philosophy of the Historic & Classic movement.

Where appropriate, the regulations have been formulated to preserve period specifications by preventing the application of technology that was unavailable for the period depicted.

[Kiwiboss]

I have always felt that the simplest way of checking a historic cars elegebility is to ask the question, Could this have been built in its day, meaning that the parts must have been available to the public at the time the car is depicting. This would stop later components being fitted, with the onus on the driver to prove whatever parts thay have fitted were available. Certain upgrades should be allowed such as suspension bushes, shockies, period disc brakes if they were available, better engine internals within the original type block, head etc, but basically if the parts were not available in the period, then they cannot be fitted

And this Grelley is exactly how we sorted out the "Historic Muscle Car" regulations thanks to the help from the Historic and Classic Commission and others!! but boy am im sick of having to explain this to everyone!!

We're such a "inbreed nation" of "Hotrodders"(yeah I know that word again) that most/some just can't seem to understand that "how it was so shall it be" and Nzeder has explained this above perfectly, how hard is it to read the "actual" rules from the top of the page(go figure)!! off course its the same old problem, no leadership from our governing body as money is spent elsewhere I presume!!

Now Ray, I know I will never be-able to "out type" you! but i do really enjoy your liveliness on these forums!! see you on the weekend :)

Dale M

[ERC]

Always good to chat Dale!

Just to put a slightly different spin on this, one of the issues we have faced over the years is that unlike most HMC cars, where spares for the popular ones seem to be sourced from Australia or the USA, or Escorts and MGs from the UK, spares for some makes and models are now virtually impossible to source - particularly so for low volume cars and older cars.

It is extremely easy to state "as it was so it will be" until you try and track down a replacement item either at a reasonable price or within a reasonable time frame.

Without pushing the self interest barrow here, but just to give two prize examples that I have mentioned before.

1) T & C rules "Original window winding mechanism must be retained." OK so please tell me where I get from one for the Marcos as it apparently has a heavily modified wiper motor from a Jaguar - no idea what model. Mine is totally stuffed and the local auto electrician can't fix it. More to the point, why does it matter?

2) Original exterior trim and bumpers of original material. Who stocks items for 60 year old cars, or do we run with the bent, twisted and rusty ones that came with the car? Why does it matter whether or not they are fibreglass. It is hardly going to turn the car into a fire breathing monster!

It is the pettiness of some of the rules that get many people off side. T & C needs enough latitude to make running all cars a practical proposition and it does go part way along that path.

There are some people who think that refitting the headlining and rear seats to a car with a cage is also a practical proposition. There are also officials (not within the sport I might add) who have demanded that I do NOT put in a headlining!

The mission statement of both organisations is to encourage and to participate.

Building or running a car that is not the norm is my personal choice because I am just not interested in having a car the same as everyone else's. I love it that Francois and Johann are out with their rare Renault Gordinis, Rod Hemmings TVR and the other less common cars, as it is a much tougher route, particularly after an incident, mechanical or bodywork.

That is why the special saloons, sports sedans OSCA cars, call them what you like are so popular. Many of us drive classics for the same reasons and there are many purists who also own a car that isn't pure, but they enjoy those cars for what they are - ENJOYABLE!

We are still waiting for additions to the list of cars not deemed acceptable at a classic meeting. I didn't expect the response to be this slow. Good interesting discussion, even though we are regularly going over old ground, but I need guidance as to exactly which cars are upsetting the critics. So far, from our own series, we still only have YB Escorts nominated.

[nzeder]

Ray are you reading the current live T&C rules? I can't see anywhere in there talk about window regulators

http://www.motorsport.org.nz/sites/default/files/motorsport/manual/Live%2035%20App%206.05%20Sch%20T%26C.pdf

Re the bumbers - there is a way around that now - via the HCC approval - this was a recent update to the rules see here


Note: An application can be made to the Historic & Classic Commission via it’s Chairperson,
when the applicant deems that are particular part of interior or exterior trim is no longer
available, or viable to be used in competition. The Commission will review the application and
accompanying proof of reason and will determine if derogation is granted. This will then be
noted in the vehicle’s COD. Note that the vehicle must have a COD (Certificate of
Description).

[Carlo]

A hot rod is also a Formula Ford with a jumbo engine, or a non standard camshaft, or a steel crankshaft, or a light flywheel, or a multi plate clutch or larger valves in the head, or electronic ignition or under weight, or one that can return to the pits with 7500 regularly showing on the rev counter and no holes in the block.

[ERC]

"The car must have a CoD"...

Yes, I was aware Mike, but this is yet another layer of red tape just to justify the rules that shouldn't really be required in an umbrella situation. The commission shouldn't be bogged down with this sort of thing. What is so wrong with saying that bumpers, if fitted, may be fibreglass replicas? Or why insist on all trim anyway? In many classes, in period, exterior trim was removed. The criteria for road use was that there was no exterior projection that could cause injury. (I know that only too well as my first ever UK infringement was driving a Mini Cooper without the front bumper fitted - and it was only off for a day whilst I repainted/undersealed the front valance!!!! Five pound fine and licence endorsed - and I was only on 15 pounds a week...)

If HMC's series rules demanded that all cars run with all exterior trim and Alfa Trofeo decided it was optional, then surely, that is a sensible decision driven by those who know best?

If any car is 100% standard, why does it even need a 14 page (expensive) CoD? What is so wrong with a declaration and open to audit? Much cheaper and far less time consuming for all concerned. As I read it, the CoD system is invaluable in establishing the provenance of a car deemed to be of historic interest and potentially worth money. I fail to see it adding any value whatever to a standard MGB.

If modified in any way, whether visible or not, then there is a question of degree but a one-size fits all system with one document and trying to force drivers to conform then carry on a paper trail (at a cost of course) as the car is gradually developed, is not an efficient system. HMC has its rules, BMW, Alfa, U2K (62 cars running Sunday!!!) HMC and ourselves all have our own rules anyway and they work. I have no idea how the South Island operates but we have been constantly told (quite correctly) that we have to look at the country as a whole and the theory (and it is only a theory) is that it means cars can enter wherever they like.

In practice, like the saloon class at the Festival, ours is strictly by invitation only, so that full control is retained. I see nothing wrong with that as we have turned away car/driver combinations, even though those cars might well have had a CoD. Equally, we have also accepted cars outside our core values.

[Oldfart]

"In the day" we were told to remove exterior chrome trim strips as "they might become detached and then be very effective spears for marshals, competitors and the spectators"!
I understand they now MUST be fitted :confused:

[Spgeti]

Alfa Trofeo rules are for their classes and only their "hotrod class" GTA allows no trim. The majority of those cars would struggle to get a place in the festival. John Nuttall and Mark Pearsons 105's are the exception as they both run the correct twin cam Nord engines and are fine examples of keeping to the T&C guidelines.
An exemption for bumperless 105s is the only exception as they raced in period without bumpers.
Trofeo does not cover NZ and is these day an Auckland based series.
You do a great job Ray with the ERC Series and I am not prepared to name cars as I agree with Howard's summary. Cheers, Bruce

[Steve Holmes]

Steve I agree with all that you posted. I have raced back in mid 90's then again mid 00's and hope to have a car back on track ASAP (reads mid 2014 going by funds and time available currently)

For the reasons you have posted I am making the car 100% T&C if I could get Schedule K I would but the car has a dual MC setup which is not permitted under Schedule K for Saloons/Sports and GT (I mention Sport and GT as I have 2x Datsun 260z which are both 2 seaters = Sports/GT even though in period they raced in Saloon grids as they were higher volume production cars unlike most Sport/GT of the day)

So I am following the rules as they are written using only period parts (some as luck had it I was able to acquire new). Part of that is there also appears Anti-Japanese in a lot peoples minds - but to become a classic a car has to show racing pedigree which a car like the Datsun Z cars did in both World Rallying and circuit racing like Le Mann, Spa, SCCA, UK (Big Sam driven by Winn Percy), Nertherlands and of cause the home land in Japan all under FIA regulations there was even a Datsun 260z 2+2 that entered Bathurst.

The issue is even the T&C rules have changed over the years - however I see the latest change does address the part via approval from the HCC

Back in Manual 33 the body work was to "Standard Series Production Vehicle made from the original material - or alternative material that was available in period if originals were longer available" (I don't have a copy of the old manual with me but it was something like that)

Then when Manual 34 came out - it was only original material - this automatically would have made a large number T&C compliant cars now illegal under T&C. So like you say in this case enforcement was the issue + a major rule change that would cost a lot of competitors a lot of $$ to fix - if even possible.

I know some might say my stance/always bring up the rules is silly but is this not what they are there for? So we have cars that conform to them? If we did not have the rules I am sure I could have had my car going sooner - ie not sell the Wilwoods it had etc

I think the term hotrod could apply to any car that does not fit the rules? ie modified beyond what the rules permit. The issue is how people interpret those rules.

I think we are really lucky here in NZ with the T&C rules as they do allow good scope of modifications within the given rules.

This is what we want
That is what I want to do - and I don't care if someone has a hotrod - so long as they respect other cars/drivers on the track who might not have easy to replace plastic parts like they might have. With 4 young kids and working for wages, for me to get out to the track takes a lot of resources (hence why I am not out there - yet) and once the car is on the track I would like to keep it that way.


First look at the top note on the T&C rules

So that tells me first you need to check if the car in questions fit under the Schedule K or FIA Appendix K rules - then if outside of that then these rules apply.

So the next question I need to get an answer for can a new build fit under Schedule K - this question is key as some seem to think "YES" others "NO" which is it? I know FIA Appendix K does allow for new builds.

Then your car is T&C then this is another key statement


From the above statement I notice the following words - ONLY ALLOWABLE and "standard model variant that the vehicle represents."

So if we take a Escort 1300 then that was a standard model I am using as the base car. But I have decided I want to run as RS2000 by fitting a pinto engine which is allowable and we are still talking about a standard model variant ie one Escort 1300 now represents a Escort RS2000. However a FIA Special like a Holbay is not a standard model variant - that is an FIA special homologated under group 2 aka non Standard Model. So a car that is trying to represent a Holbay Escort does not fit under T&C so the car needs to fit under either Schedule K or FIA Appendix K to comply to a Classic car under MSNZ.

The same could be said to a Datsun 240z - if I install a L26 engine replacing the L24 then the car now represents a 260z or if I install a L28 then the car represents the 280z all based on the same S30 chassis sold at different times/markets. If I install a L28 into a 71 240z then the car now represents a 75 280z as 1975 was the year the L28 was homologated for use in the S30 chassis. But if I wanted to install a FIA rally spec cross flow LY28 engine (complete with the ECCS DCOE EFI that Nissan used on some rallies) into a 240z/260z then that is not a standard model variant but again a FIA Group 4 homologation special so T&C is not the place for what the vehicle now represents - I would have to see if the car fits under Schedule K or FIA Appendix K.

Great post there nzeder. I like your attitude. You're clearly a very enthusiastic guy, and are doing your homework on the rules.

Re the Schedule K thing, its my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that a new build can either be to T&C or Schedule K. So, if for example, you were building a MkI Escort, under T&C you can go 1" larger in wheel diameter than the standard road car, but you can't fit non-standard bodywork that was used in period on race cars, such as forest flares. Under Schedule K, however, you can fit the forest flares, but you must also run the original 13" (or is it 14"?) diameter wheels too.

If my understanding of this is correct, it provides an even playing field, which is then also fair for those who have an original car that raced in period, and who want to keep it in its original guise. In the case of an Escort, it would have worn forest flares and 13" diameter wheels.

The issues that have been raised are that some people will build a MkI Escort with 15" diameter wheels and forest flares, which is really a cross-over between the two. Does it really matter? Maybe not, but if some people are making an effort to build their cars to the rules, everyone else should too.

By the way, why don't you run a dedicated build/rebuild thread on your car? I'd love to see that, and others here would too.

[John McKechnie]

Grelley- please check out HMC rules and compare them to your comments.

[touringcarfan]

Fair comments Habu and thanks for sticking your neck out.

Good that you have picked three Ford Escorts as for many people, they encapsulate classic/historic racing.

1) The Proctor Escort from my perspective fails not on looks (plenty of old classic saloons were butchered in period and some were downright ugly, but that gives them a point of difference) but on the choice of a far too modern engine - that is the primary fail in my opinion. Add to that, there are no links no matter how tenuous, to Ford or even the car's general country of origin. Launch control etc also too modern. Would we accept it in ERC - no way.

2) With Bruce Manon's Escort (and forgive me if I am totally incorrect - I have virtually no technical knowledge) fitted with a cylinder head that may not be historically correct as it runs a cylinder head not produced by the factory. Again, my opinion only, on those grounds you would also reject the aforementioned ex-Whitren Magnette, the late Jim Chrystall's Wolseley 1500/1950cc and the Amco Mini?

Would we accept those cars in ERC - yes, all three and all three have raced - and the YB powered Escorts are welcome too. YOU may know the heads are not factory, but the general spectators don't and do they really care?

3) The McCarthy Escort is built to the highest possible race car standards and the gearbox is 'wrong'. As a race car, it is not eligible for our own series, but does it belong at any classic/historic meeting? You betcha.

AMCO - the ex Whitren Magnette was run by Neil Goodwin in Classic trials but he has now given up competing. I have no idea whether or not the car is still in his possession.

Steve - and others with the same philosophy. Yes, some local (T & C) rules are in place but if you'd spent as much time studying them as I and others have, you'd be more aware of the areas where they don't work. HMC has chosen to run an even tighter set of rules, which is what our suggestions were, several years ago, when challenged by the commission to rewrite them. Our philosophy ("our" being the ERC series, plus two other established series) was that the published T & C rules should be an umbrella, under which ALL classic and historic saloons could and would run but the options would always be for series or event organisers to tighten them if required, not loosen them.

We already have FIA and local Appendix or Schedule K, so the whole point of having a looser set of rules, is because the majority of owners are happy enough NOT running 'K' cars - and that is a fact born out by the number of competitors who not only do not have 'K' documentation, but also by the numbers who do NOT have a CoD (65% plus) at all. If K, or even CoD's was made compulsory, classic racing locally would die. (We already know what happened locally to the number of entries when that was tried.)

This thread was started to take these and similar issues away from the Festival saloons thread, in an effort to get people to state their objections to the cars that we currently accept. I have suffered a lot of abuse both verbally and even in print, over the years, from those who choose to attack our stance and our pragmatism. Most seem totally unwilling to look a the bigger picture by pointing out that the "ERC Series is anything goes", "You have totally destroyed classic racing", "Nothing but a bunch of hotrods", "You are trying to rewrite the rules to suit your own car", "No CoD's, so shouldn't be allowed to run" and so on.

I have gone past the point of trying to get a 100% workable set of T & C rules in place and on the advice of other promoters "You are always welcome. We accept your series and your series rules and we will continue to invite you to our meetings. Don't worry about the T & C thing, just stick to your own rules, as they work".

The fact is that so far, only YB powered Escorts running in the ERC Series have been pointed out as "incorrect" and shouldn't be running at a classic meeting says a fair bit, but I suspect others are sitting on their hands, unwilling to state a view until someone else has named a car!

When it comes to repowers, T & C doesn't cover them at all, either as historic race saloons or cars built recently out of period components. "If no one built it in period, you can't build it now", which in a sentence stifles any individuality. You can build a single seater out of period bits, but not a saloon. If you put a Corvette engine in a Zephyr in period, that is fine, you can do it now. But if you mix and match 100% period components and build a saloon, either for road or track, you can't. So in a nutshell, there is a philosophical bias (however accidental) against saloons.

I want to see Graeme Parkes V8, rear engined Marina out again, more than any other car I have seen racing in NZ. But I'd also really love it if we had a grid of saloons that DIDN'T race in period, but use period parts, as I know deep down, that it would be a real crowd pleaser, something we'll need pretty soon unless we can drag a load more special saloons/sports sedans out of hiding.

Thanks for the contributions so far and I hope all regulars (or even infrequent posters) will be encouraged to contribute as these are issues that need bringing into the open. Its no use relying on the opinions of just one or two people.

:)

Anthony

[Steve Holmes]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't think the Australian regulations should have been introduced in NZ. The two countries are a bit too far apart in their histories for the Aussie Historic Group N regs to work. I'm only using Australia as an example of a country who introduced a set of regulations 30 years ago, policed them, and stuck by them, to provide stability for those wanting to get involved in historic car racing.

[touringcarfan]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't think the Australian regulations should have been introduced in NZ. The two countries are a bit too far apart in their histories for the Aussie Historic Group N regs to work. I'm only using Australia as an example of a country who introduced a set of regulations 30 years ago, policed them, and stuck by them, to provide stability for those wanting to get involved in historic car racing.

Sorry, I was not suggesting that you personally were saying we should have adopted them(nor Dale). I personally would have no problem with them having been introduced.
Out of curiosity Steve, why would those Group N regulations not have worked in NZ?

Anthony

[nzeder]

Thanks Steve that is how I read/understand them too. Schedule K = 60 series tyres and rim size as ran in period - I see the FIA Appendix K they have model specific sizing for given configs - so I assume this is based on evidence of known rims/brake setups used in period. ie there are some spec Porsche's that car run 5.5" wide rims then later models 7" front and 8" rear then in late 76 16" rims again all different spec Porsche's. For Escorts RS2000 homologation No. 5566 = 13" rims but a RS1600/1800 homologation No. 1605 = 15" rims all interesting stuff and from that I get you can't run an RS2000 with 15" rims under FIA Appendix K.

And one for Ray

Marcos GT (Volvo)
Accepted as a competition Grand Touring car (GTS) in Period F, in the specification approved by the HMSC.

The bumpers about the Alfa's is interesting - they did not run them in period so they don't have to run them today? The Datsun Z cars also ran no bumpers in period - the teams fitted them for photo shoots but during race day both where usually removed (or the rear at least). Also most bright work was also removed in period - and Nissan in Japan even sold a model to the general public minus bright work, carpet, heater, clock, cut down loom, FRP bonnet and lexan windows all standard - not a cheap car as they were based on the Japanese market only DOHC/4 valve S20 engined Z432. These S20 engines were also used in the Nissan Skyline KPGC10 which replace the Nissan/Prince Skyline S54B (Like the Carlos Neate that raced here in period, now in Australia and the only privately owned S54B that had all the works parts installed).

Anyway like you say Steve I should do a build thread - and include info about the history of Zed as I have head full of this stuff.

[Andrew Metford]

We are still waiting for additions to the list of cars not deemed acceptable at a classic meeting. I didn't expect the response to be this slow. Good interesting discussion, even though we are regularly going over old ground, but I need guidance as to exactly which cars are upsetting the critics. So far, from our own series, we still only have YB Escorts nominated.

Not an addition, but a subtraction from me. While a totally agree that the Proctor "Nisscort" shouldn't be at classic meetings, I have no problem with YB Escorts.

With the Nisscort, it's like bringing a machine gun to a fist fight, it's totally at odds with everything else on the grid, and not in a good way. While I have a lot of respect for the man who built it and the actual car, letting it run at classic meetings sours the experience of seeing the car run because it's just so far away from what it was. I mean you might as well put a race truck on the grid too.

YB Escorts are a 2L cast iron block ( same as original Pinto / RS2000 ), and back in the day you could get an aftermarket twin cam alloy head for them, from Holbay and others. So it could have been done back in the day, and that's why I don't have a problem with them. If you want to start splitting hairs, I guess you could argue the EFI on the Manon car, as back in the day injection was only mechanical, but where do you draw the line? For me all the YB Escorts are "in the spirit", immaculately presented ( certainly the Auckland brigade anyway ), well, and considerately, driven, and most welcome.

The same goes for Grant Kern's V8 MGB. The factory only put the V8 in the BGT, but anyone could have put a V8 into their roadster in the garage at home. So again, it could have been built back in the day, so it's fine.

For the record, I'm not a fan and don't agree with the sequential gearbox in the McCarthy Escort. It should be H pattern. To me that is the only thing that lets that particular car down, but it's easy to remedy.

I hope I will be allowed to run with a Derrington HRG alloy crossflow cylinder head on my MGB, those heads is actually older than the car ( and well documented ), so no one can say I couldn't have built that in 1974!! Will I incur the wrath of the critics for running older parts on my car, instead of newer bits? Do I run a couple of new bits to offset the older bits?? Haha that'll give them something to whinge about!!

I haven't been to a meeting for about 18 months ( overseas ), so there might be a new car or 2, but by and large the bulk of the cars at classic meetings are "period correct" enough. On one hand I don't like seeing 3 grids of BMW's at classic meetings, but if the organiser's can't get enough classic grids to cover costs then fair enough, and I suppose it gives me time to kick some tyres and have a chat in the pits while they're on the track. I've never really liked one make racing ( HQ's, Suzuki Swift's etc etc ), to me the BMW's are boring, quiet, all the same, and MODERN. Doesn't the ACC and NSCC cater for the modern crowd?

Ray, the way you run the series, and the mix of cars you do and don't let run, you've got it nailed. Don't listen to the bashers, they've just run out of other things to whinge about.

[nzeder]

Ok what would people say if (I wish I had the money for one) I was to install one of these into a Datsun 240/260z?
http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/AY0F9279.jpg
That is an OS Giken aftermarket TwinCam 24Valve head fitted to the L28 bottom end - all late 70's vintage. These were sold and used on a Baja racing 240z in the USA and used on club cars in Japan - that is in the same vain as the Holbay - and as luck would have it OS Giken are re-releasing a small batch of these again 10 or so I believe (all pre sold mind you)

Part of me is with you JAFA - on the iron bottom end they are in the spirit of what was done in the day.

The part of me that thinks not - what if I was to do the same, ie above, I bet I would not get the same reaction about in the spirit of classics + it is actually against the T&C rules as they are written - sure it might pass as Schedule K as that is where a Holbay power car fits - not T&C - again look at the rules clearly states what is required for T&C is standard productions based and I quote again.


“Standard” means a vehicle identifiable as belonging to a production series, with a minimum
model run of 100 identical units, distinguishable by external general lines of the bodywork and
identical mechanical construction of the engine, transmission and suspension to the wheels,
and

That does not apply to the OS Giken head that were made in 2 batches from wooden molds in the late 70's totaling 25 units built if I recall correctly. And that would certainly apply to the Holbay which again was a special limited numbers - even if 100 were made and sold there is not guarantee that all 100 heads were installed on identical cars as far as bodywork, transmission and suspension. So T&C they can't be.

I also don't actually have issue with the YB power cars running on carbs and H pattern gearbox in Rays grid or the Kern MGV8 - it all makes the Arrows grid more existing to watch and I would not like to see that change at all. In fact I know them all well having been at the track supporting the series (as pit bitch) since I returned to NZ in 2003.

I am just pointing out that these cars/mods don't actually fit under T&C - in fact if someone was to run a bubble/forest flared Escort with the a Pinto OHC it too is not T&C compliant as the rules stand today (and no doubt that is how the rules will stay). I am not saying cars like this should not run - I am just saying they don't fit the T&C rules - that is just a simple fact. That is why having grids by invitation allows these great cars to run. And that make for excellent racing, especially handicap starts like Rays grids.

One more parting comment for the night/morning well not all EFI back in the day was mechanical the works rally Datsun 240z had dcoe throttle bodies using hose tail injectors and Nissan ECCS system which was electronic in mid 1970's.

[ERC]

Thanks for the support. When it comes to Datsun Zs, people may wonder why they are running in the ERC Series in the first place. (E = Euro!)

The simple fact is that it has been an invitation series for 17 of the last 18 years and at that time, there was no suitable grid in which to run a 240Z. Initially, they were invited as they were deemd by most of us to be genuine classics even to those with a strong Euro bias. (Our rules have always stated that invitations will be extended to cars that do not strictly conform to the Euro philosophy.)

Having turned away any number of Datsun 1200's and older Toyotas I suggested to several people that they should set up a series for Japanese classics as there was an obvious demand. Eventually, Steve Melhuish did just that so we effectively closed the door on any new applications, although we allowed existing cars to remain.

As so often happens in motorsport, to paraphrase Tony Roberts "too many Chinese warlords, each wanting to run their own empires" meant that many of the Datsun 240Z brigade weren't as comfortable in that environment as they were with the Euro Classics and they mounted a strong case to be re-admitted to the ERC Series.

As many of you will have noticed, both car preparation and driving standards have been beyond reproach so we accepted their application and invitations were issued.

However, one has since been moved on, as it was a thinly disguised race car and wasn't within the spirit of the series. The owner acccepted this quite cheerfully. As stated above, I have no technical knowledge but if it looks like a stripped out race car, it is a stripped out race car, whether it has paperwork or not. I rely on others to bring to my attention cars they deem to be outside the spirit of the regulations and also poor driving standards. Dotting i's and crossing t's in this environment is counter productive and sure, there may be one or two cars that are marginal, but does it really matter?

I wasn't aware that the McCarthy Escort had a sequential gearbox, so I recant. Not acceptable.

Andrew's comment regarding Grant Kern's car is exactly right. Currently, we have any number of Capri Peranas and TR7 V8s, but most are home brewed. Legal, because it was done in period.

We know that Rovers V8s were tried in Morris Marinas and Triumph 2500's, probably the Triumph Stag, by BL and I even heard the other day that they were trying to shoehorn one into a Maxi. We allow these cars because someone, somehere, did it in period.

Me thinks I should have poured my money into a Vauxhall Firenza with twin Turbo Aston Martin power. They'd have to allow it because the John Pope Special ran in period and has just been on the market. But no, you build something more modest out of period parts but you cannot get it accepted just because no one did it in period. Sorry, I don't really understand it.

Jo Hill's Triumph Herald Coupe V8 focussed a lot of my thinking as it was very popular in Targa but it wasn't allowed to race.

[Andrew Metford]

I'll bet someone, somewhere, back in the day, put a Rover V8 into a Magnette. Almost a certainty. I mean why wouldn't you? Frankly I'm surprised no one else here has tried it.

Regarding the McCarthy Escort with a Sequential gearbox, that's what the magazine article said when the car was just finished, and it has the gear indicator on the dash to tell you what gear it's in. It could have been changed since then, I don't know.

[Steve Holmes]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that you personally were saying we should have adopted them(nor Dale). I personally would have no problem with them having been introduced.
Out of curiosity Steve, why would those Group N regulations not have worked in NZ?

Anthony



No need to apologise, I wasn't getting antsi or anything, just didn't want anyone thinking I was pushing for Australian Group N rules to be adopted in NZ.

The reason for my thinking they wouldn't work in NZ, is because the two countries are a bit too different, with their own touring car racing histories that have followed quite different paths. Australian historic touring car regulations represents the type of cars, rules, and racing that took place in Australia in period, even though Group Nc rules in particular are not the same as those used in period.

Both NZ and Australia first held a national touring car/saloon car championship in 1960. Australia used Appendix J rules. New Zealand didn't really using anything. Its fields were made up of what was most effective at the time, being mostly British saloons. The early years of Australian touring car racing was dominated by Jaguar MkI/MkIIs. Similar cars were raced in NZ. However, while Australia stuck with the Appendix J rules, and the cars competing in the ATCC remained quite close to factory spec, in NZ, because there were really no rules, the cars themselves went in a different direction. They eventually became known as the Allcomers.

Australia switched from Appendix J to Improved Production in 1965. Improved Production allowed for more modifications, but was still production based. IP rules remained in place until the end of 1972. Meanwhile, at the same time, endurance touring car racing in Australia required more standard vehicles, for events such as Bathurst. These rules were known as Series Production. These also remained in place until the end of 1972. The three big Australian manufacturers went through a quite turbulent period in 1972, with national media reports about them building supercars for the road in an effort to win the Bathurst endurance race, run under Series Production rules. Series Production really didn't allow any modifications, so in order to be competitive, the cars themselves had to leave the factory as virtual race cars, hence the Falcon GTHO, Charger E38 and 49, Torana XU1 etc.

So with the negative media attention, the manufacturers quickly shied away from building these cars, and developing greater weaponry. So to keep them on-side, and involved, but without them having to produce road going race cars, the Confederation for Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) introduced Group C. This allowed for much greater modifications to be made to the race car, therefore removing the need for manufacturers to produce road going race cars.

At the same time, the Improved Production category, which was still contesting the ATCC, was suffering from ever dwindling grids, as costs sky-rocketed. Although the cars themselves, such as Bob Janes Camaro, Allan Moffats Mustang, Pete Geoghegans Super Falcon, Norm Beecheys Monaro etc were pretty spectacular cars, they'd become expensive to build and race. So for 1973, Group C would contest both the ATCC and the all-important Bathurst race, Improved Production was dropped, and the cars that raced in IP were moved across into the emerging Sports Sedan ranks.

Meanwhile, in NZ, the Saloon Car Championship was being contested through to the 1967 season by the Allcomer cars, in which there were virtually no rules. A competitor could do pretty well anything they liked. Motorsport NZ dropped these rules at the end of the 1967 season, and introduced FIA Group 5 rules. Group 5 required cars be more production based, although, much like Improved Production rules in Australia, certain modifications could be made.

In around 1971/72, a new set of rules, known as Schedule E, were introduced, allowing a few more modifications than Group 5. These appear to Kiwi homegrown rules, rather than internationally adopted. In 1973, the Schedule E rules were changed yet again, now allowing much greater modifications, such as moving the firewall up to 30cm, and repowering cars with any engine available, up to 6,000cc, as long as that car didn't leave the factory with an engine smaller than 1,300cc. So these were effectively Sports Sedan regulations, which is the direction New Zealand then headed in.

So while there were times when Aussie teams raced in NZ, and NZ teams raced in Aus, the two countries took quite different paths. When Aussie historic touring car racing was created in the early 1980s, the rules were based on the old Appendix J, with a cut-off date of December 31 1964. These rules have remained in place ever since, and have since become known as Historic Group Nb. So the cars themselves that race in Group Nb are very similar to those that originally raced in Australia in period, and some of the original cars from the period do compete in Nb.

Since the introduction of Appendix J/Nb in historic racing, Group Na has also been introduced for cars through December 31 1957. And Group Nc has been introduced for cars through December 31 1972. The Nc rules, unlike Nb, don’t actually represent the rules that took place in Australia in period. They’re a sort of middle ground between the old Series Production, and Improved production rules. So where as, for example, Improved Production rules allowed wheel widths to 8” up until 1969, and 10” from 1970 through 1972, Group Nc has narrower wheel widths, with even the V8s only allowed up to 8".

Also, Nc rules only allow makes and models that raced either in Series Production, or the ATCC through 1972. Therefore, a 1969 Mustang is allowed, but a 1970 Mustang isn’t, because nobody ever raced a 1970 Mustang in the ATCC. While a 1967, 68, or 69 Camaro is allowed, a 1970 through 72 Camaro isn’t because none of these were ever raced.

Sorry for such a long-winded reply, but essentially, what I’m saying is that Australian Group N historic regulations have been created with Australias own race history, and current day historic racing competitors in mind. But these rules neither represent what took place in New Zealand, nor could they be easily or effectively adopted in New Zealand.

[nzeder]

It is good to see that grids like Ray's and events like Festival run invitation so cars that are outside of the hard-nose these are the rules under which a classic is defined = can't race but via this invitation they actually can race - I guess that is why we have not seen "Sports Sedans/Allcomers or Shell Sport" cars on the track regularly as they are outside of the T&C and possibly Schedule K so no grids for them.

I might have given the impression I am one of the hard-nose rule lawyers out there - that is not the case - I might well be building my car 100% (some might say even OTT by not using wilwood but I have my reasons for that and that is how I interpret the rules so I don't want to denied acceptance based on parts installed on the car that "could/might" be outside of the period the car depicts) to the rules and I ideally would like to see all new builds do the same (as they should as they is what we have to work towards). I am just using the knowledge I gained by reading the rules over and over to full understand the "Objectives" as I posted earlier to ensure others understand that other existing cars are not T&C or Schedule K compliant even if others think so or they have CODs that might suggest they are.

[RogerH]

I note from programme entry details that some of the YB engined Escorts currently have a capacity of 2400cc - I am no expert with these engines but I understand the YB came out in 1986 and had a standard capacity of 1993cc. Under T&C regs a re-bore is allowed only for Groups 3 and 4 cars and only to 0.060". As the Escorts are 1970? configuration they are Group 1 so no allowable re-bore unless it can be shown that in 1970 such a capacity was available as a " … specification of its original build …. or …. modifications that pertain to that particular build ….". Maybe this is an issue?

[CUSTAXIE50]

Ken Smith used that word hotrod on one f5000 from the usa.

[ERC]

Thanks for the history Steve. Good work.

What it highlights more than anything is that "it didn't race then, therefore it can't race now" - even if bog standard, which means I can't get an FIA Appendix K for the Marcos because no-one was daft enough to race one in period. Dr Jonathan Palmer and others raced the Ford V6 and many raced the Volvo 4 cylinder so they are OK in international historic racing today, but not the Volvo 3 litre.

If we started with a totally clean sheet of paper instead of trying to justify this that or the other, covering regulations and procedures old and new, then it would often be much simpler. There is a tendency for too many people to over complicate matters by trying to rule for absolutely everything and that is either impossible or offputting. The anomalies abound and as nzeder has already pointed out, what is allowable in one area isn't in another and vice versa and quite frankly, it makes a nonsense of the whole system, no matter how well intentioned people are or were when the initial rules and regulations were drawn up.

The biggest issue of all however is that different philosophies abound but as none of this is serious racing in terms of national championships, sanctioned or otherwise, eventually, everything comes down to the following (Saloon/sports/GT only):

a) Will a promoter offer grid space to a group or series?

b) If yes, to a group, then either it is an invitation group as at the Festival or Manfeild (ex-Whittakers - got me hooked on their chocolate anyway!) or Ruapuna (Skope?), Southern Festival of Speed and so on.

c) If yes to a series, it runs to series rules, whatever they may be.

The onus then rests on all parties to make the right decisions be that the numbers eligible or signed up.

As I see it, the Classic & Historic commission maybe should concentrate on the pure, the genuinely Historic, Schedule/Appendix K if you like, the single seaters who have always run to specific formulae anyway, CoD's to preserve and enhance that provenance and to secure the future. Maybe this should just be the Historic Commission?

When it comes to the saloons/sports/GTs, standard, road modified or out and out racers, there needs to be some very clear thinking and I believe rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly!) that the current commission is having to try too hard to fight its way through the morass and even within its own membership, there is a large diversity of opinion, in which case, maybe we need a parallel commission that adequately covers and represents the licence payers.

If this also means a simplified documentation and a more umbrella structure, so be it. You almost need to be a lawyer to fight your way through the current paperwork and therein lies the hub. The vast majority of drivers just want to race their cars. It is a hobby for relaxation. They just want to turn up at a meeting, race, chat, (have a beer?) go home. They don't want to organise race meetings, series, social runs, awards dinners or workshops. They don't want to sit on committees, they don't want to lift a finger to help. They don't want to contribute to messageboards, fill in surveys, answer emails etc.

This and other forums are dominated by those who either have too much time on their hands or who have a genuine passion for the sport and are happy to stand up and be counted, or have big mouths and strong opinions - or a mixture!

We have to talk to as many drivers as possible to assess their stance on various issues which is what most series people do. It is then up to them to maintain or grow their series to a level that is viable to be invited to a meeting. If we get it wrong or the numbers aren't there, then there is a natural attrition and a class either fades or is amalgamated.

[Howard Wood]

I note from programme entry details that some of the YB engined Escorts currently have a capacity of 2400cc - I am no expert with these engines but I understand the YB came out in 1986 and had a standard capacity of 1993cc. Under T&C regs a re-bore is allowed only for Groups 3 and 4 cars and only to 0.060". As the Escorts are 1970? configuration they are Group 1 so no allowable re-bore unless it can be shown that in 1970 such a capacity was available as a " … specification of its original build …. or …. modifications that pertain to that particular build ….". Maybe this is an issue?

Cosworth YB first appeared in 1986 and is a 4 valve engine loosely based on the Pinto block, initially 2 litres but larger capacities were developed. As such it is post dates the Escort in either Mk1 or Mk2 form by a considerable margin. The YB is available in alloy block form, I have no idea if the YB engined cars here run the alloy block or not. The YB engine was used until 1997, hardly "Historic" I would have thought.

The correct engine for an Escort (apart from SOHC 2 litre Pinto and try getting much over 200hp reliably out of one of those) is either FVA or BDA series engines based on the Kent engine. The FVA series engines, in race form were available up to 1790cc with a claimed max of 235hp. The last of the BDA series, the alloy blocked BDG at 1975cc made a claimed 275hp in period.

Somewhat short of the 315hp plus claimed for the YB and this is why anyone spending what it takes to build and run a FVA/ BDA series engine could be forgiven for being a tad antsy about these cars!

[928]

Lets look at Hot Rods- traditionally, supercharged, full chrome, wild paint job, skinny chromes at front, big on rear .Usually on a 1920s 0r 30s dropped chrome front axle. No safety gear,no rules all for show.
Dont see anything like that at the track.
Our cars are modified for racing, everything has a purpose., completely opposite to hot rods.
Sports Sedans and Oscas were built to rules
Lets instead look at who are calling our cars Hot Rods and why.
I would agree that a Nissan powered escort has a question mark.
Chev into MK 2 Zephyr would qualify as a hot rod, but we love it.
Oscas are all about V8s into Minors, Corollas,Vivas, Cotinas, Ladas, Marinas,Escorts. Crowds love them and Sports Sedans
So, if a jappa goes into a non jappa its another ball game.
Knew a guy who removed a 1000hp twin turbo nissan from a HK Monaro. I gave him stick as it was a fast combo, and he would never get that from a bow-tie. Was that a hot rod ?
Hot rodding is not about modifying your car, its an overall change from the original taken to an extreme.
to me the term hot rod is just an american name for a modified car. need not be v8 with lots of chrome as people think. the yanks started modifiying 4 cyl engines before the v8 came into existance. hell they even have import hot rods in the usa. just my thoughts

[RogerH]

Ray, I think what you have explained above already exists.

The "pure" historic cars can run under Sch K and saloons and some sports GT can run under T&C to their regs. With the other cars that don't currently comply to K or T&C there is nothing to stop them running at Clubmans type events where regulations are much more relaxed and a classic car with "improvements" would be acceptable.

It appears the issue is that these cars don't want to run as clubmans but prefer to exercise with the "pure" classic and historic cars and that creates the potential conflict.

[nzeder]

I note from programme entry details that some of the YB engined Escorts currently have a capacity of 2400cc - I am no expert with these engines but I understand the YB came out in 1986 and had a standard capacity of 1993cc. Under T&C regs a re-bore is allowed only for Groups 3 and 4 cars and only to 0.060". As the Escorts are 1970? configuration they are Group 1 so no allowable re-bore unless it can be shown that in 1970 such a capacity was available as a " … specification of its original build …. or …. modifications that pertain to that particular build ….". Maybe this is an issue?
That is not correct. Group 1 and Group 2 under T&C are allowed 12.5% increase in CC - Group 3 and 4 only 0.060" (or 1.5mm). So a 1993 + 12.5% = 2242cc so if over that still outside the T&C rules.

[beowulf]

That is not correct. Group 1 and Group 2 under T&C are allowed 12.5% increase in CC - Group 3 and 4 only 0.060" (or 1.5mm). So a 1993 + 12.5% = 2242cc so if over that still outside the T&C rules.

It is all far too complicated. I think I will have a cup of tea and a lie down. Makes a 'special' look easy, especially one with no window winders, head lining etc.

[Grant Ellwood]

Thanks for the history Steve. Good work.

What it highlights more than anything is that "it didn't race then, therefore it can't race now" - even if bog standard, which means I can't get an FIA Appendix K for the Marcos because no-one was daft enough to race one in period. Dr Jonathan Palmer and others raced the Ford V6 and many raced the Volvo 4 cylinder so they are OK in international historic racing today, but not the Volvo 3 litre.

If we started with a totally clean sheet of paper instead of trying to justify this that or the other, covering regulations and procedures old and new, then it would often be much simpler. There is a tendency for too many people to over complicate matters by trying to rule for absolutely everything and that is either impossible or offputting. The anomalies abound and as nzeder has already pointed out, what is allowable in one area isn't in another and vice versa and quite frankly, it makes a nonsense of the whole system, no matter how well intentioned people are or were when the initial rules and regulations were drawn up.

The biggest issue of all however is that different philosophies abound but as none of this is serious racing in terms of national championships, sanctioned or otherwise, eventually, everything comes down to the following (Saloon/sports/GT only):

a) Will a promoter offer grid space to a group or series?

b) If yes, to a group, then either it is an invitation group as at the Festival or Manfeild (ex-Whittakers - got me hooked on their chocolate anyway!) or Ruapuna (Skope?), Southern Festival of Speed and so on.

c) If yes to a series, it runs to series rules, whatever they may be.

The onus then rests on all parties to make the right decisions be that the numbers eligible or signed up.

As I see it, the Classic & Historic commission maybe should concentrate on the pure, the genuinely Historic, Schedule/Appendix K if you like, the single seaters who have always run to specific formulae anyway, CoD's to preserve and enhance that provenance and to secure the future. Maybe this should just be the Historic Commission?

When it comes to the saloons/sports/GTs, standard, road modified or out and out racers, there needs to be some very clear thinking and I believe rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly!) that the current commission is having to try too hard to fight its way through the morass and even within its own membership, there is a large diversity of opinion, in which case, maybe we need a parallel commission that adequately covers and represents the licence payers.

If this also means a simplified documentation and a more umbrella structure, so be it. You almost need to be a lawyer to fight your way through the current paperwork and therein lies the hub. The vast majority of drivers just want to race their cars. It is a hobby for relaxation. They just want to turn up at a meeting, race, chat, (have a beer?) go home. They don't want to organise race meetings, series, social runs, awards dinners or workshops. They don't want to sit on committees, they don't want to lift a finger to help. They don't want to contribute to messageboards, fill in surveys, answer emails etc.

This and other forums are dominated by those who either have too much time on their hands or who have a genuine passion for the sport and are happy to stand up and be counted, or have big mouths and strong opinions - or a mixture!

We have to talk to as many drivers as possible to assess their stance on various issues which is what most series people do. It is then up to them to maintain or grow their series to a level that is viable to be invited to a meeting. If we get it wrong or the numbers aren't there, then there is a natural attrition and a class either fades or is amalgamated.

Ray has the most sensible,non-frustrating plan for running historic racing in New Zealand for the time being. Case by case vetting for class placement to slot cars into appropriate grids works and everyone (racers and spectators) wins. Not allowing his Marcos to run, for example, just reminds me of how hard it was to get a couple of extra non-paid Tasman series crew guys into Puke back in the 60s, nonsensical officialdom.

[ERC]

Thanks Grant. The Marcos can and does run but is just not eligible for FIA Appendix K.

It has a CoD only because a vote at MSNZ conference a few years ago made it compulsory (the vote was overturned a year or two later). It has never been out of its envelope since it was issued.

Putting it in perspective, 35 cars out of our current list (ie paid up, not lapsed or having time out) of 120 cars have a CoD. Just two are schedule K. That is a few percentage point DOWN on last year, So over two thirds of our ERC runners, compliant or not, do not have a CoD. Yet we have not really identified cars that do not conform. I do not know WHY they do not have a CoD. So to answer Roger's comment about the less pure wanting to mix with the pure, I think it may be the other way around!

All the U3L class entrants (presumably with CoDs) are also running in other classes (Alfa, BMW, ERC etc). There are no cars unique to that series.

[nzeder]

What it highlights more than anything is that "it didn't race then, therefore it can't race now" - even if bog standard, which means I can't get an FIA Appendix K for the Marcos because no-one was daft enough to race one in period.

Actually that is not case under FIA Appendix K there are some rules for non-homologated cars ie a Marcos. The first thing to do is look at the FIA rules - I would be happy to spend sometime looking over these with you if you like Ray to see what can be done. Work out what period/group the car in question represents. Then next is to look up the correct FIA Appendix rules from that era as they will set out what was required in the day for a manufacture to get a car homologated.

I see in the FIA documentation they even say contact other owners of the marque in question that might have already been through this process as they will have all the info required to travel the same path.

Someone must have done this already for the Marco as this is in the FIA Appendix K document I downloaded early this year

Marcos
Marcos GT (Volvo)
Accepted as a competition Grand Touring car (GTS) in Period F, in the specification approved by the HMSC.

So I guess the first port of call is the HMSC to get a copy ofthe specs they deem ok for a Marco - then from there work out if it is a path you wish to pursue.

EDIT: looked up the wrong part of the long FIA Appendix K doc - this is where a Marcos fits.

2.3.7 Post 1946 competition Grand Touring Cars (GTS)
2.3.7.1 Generally competition GT cars are small series, usually, two seat production cars which may be open or closed which cannot be classified as Touring Cars which are modified beyond normal series production specification for competition purpose.
2.3.7.2 Cars which are not derived from a car which pre dates homologation may include modifications carried out in the period within the limits of the international rules for Grand Touring Cars
in force at the time. The fundamental and general designs of the model - chassis, body and of the engine must remain the same as those of the corresponding series production model.
2.3.7.3 The models must be vehicles eligible as Grand Touring cars and homologated into Group 3 (1960-1965).
2.3.7.4 If the model was not homologated in Group 3 (1960-1965) by the FIA when built and used in period competition, the ASN of the country of the manufacturer must provide evidence that at least 100 mechanically identical examples of the model concerned were built within the period of the class as defined in Article 6.

[AMCO72]

Ray, in post #43 you say that.........'this Classic racing is not SERIOUS racing'............[as in a Championship series] Well pardon me, if the racing that I experience is not serious then I'm a 'monkeys uncle'. And there is NO LoL after that.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ERC]

Thanks nzeder. No need. The Marcos Volvo above was the 2 litre. The 3 litre car wasn't specifically built for racing either and is 1970. We'll leave that for another time.

[nzeder]

I thought I would post this up to for all those wanting to know what the Periods are


3. DATE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
3.1 A car will be dated by the specification of that car and not
necessarily by the date of build.
3.2 Dating periods are as follows:
A) before 1/1/1905.
B) 1/1/1905 to 31/12/1918.
C) 1/1/1919 to 31/12/1930.
D) 1/1/1931 to 31/12/1946.
E) 1/1/1947 to 31/12/1961 (to 31/12/1960 for single-seat and two-
seat racing cars).
F) 1/1/1962 to 31/12/1965 (from 1/1/1961 for single-seat and two-
seat racing cars and up to 31/12/1966 for Formula 2), excluding
Formula 3 and single engine-make Formulae.
GR) 1/1/1966 to 31/12/1971 for single-seat and two-seat Racing cars
(1/1/1964 to 31/12/1970 for Formula 3).
G1) 1/1/1966 to 31/12/1969 for homologated Touring and GT cars.
G2) 1/1/1970 to 31/12/1971 for homologated Touring and GT cars.
HR) 1/1/1972 to 31/12/1976 for single-seat and two-seat Racing
cars (1/1/1971 to 31/12/1976 for Formula 3).
H1) 1/1/1972 to 31/12/1975 for homologated Touring and GT cars.
H2) 1/1/1976 to 31/12/1976 for homologated Touring and GT cars.
IR) 1/1/1977 to 31/12/1982 for single-seat and two-seat Racing cars
(excluding Group C) and 1/1/1977 to 31/12/1985 for 3-litre F1.
I) 1/1/1977 to 31/12/1981 for homologated Touring and GT cars.
IC) 1/1/1982 to 31/12/1990 for Group C and IMSA cars.
JR) 1/1/1983 to 31/12/1990 for single-seat and two-seat Racing cars
(excluding 3 litres F1 cars 1/1/1983 to 31/12/1985).
J1) 1/1/1982 to 31/12/1985 for homologated Touring and GT cars.
J2) 1/1/1986 to 31/12/1990 for homologated Touring and GT cars.

KC) 1/1/1991 to 31/12/1993 for all Group C and IMSA cars.
Z) 1/1/1991 to two years prior to January 1st of the current year for
other cars.

[nzeder]

Thanks nzeder. No need. The Marcos Volvo above was the 2 litre. The 3 litre car wasn't specifically built for racing either and is 1970. We'll leave that for another time.Ok but I am sure with your Marco knowledge we can see what can be done - your Marco is a Period G2 car then :D

[RacerT]

Man this is a crazy mixture of philosophy's and half truths. The rules are straight forward and simple! Would you venture onto a cricket pitch or a rugby field with no knowledge of the rules - I think not. To take the sporting analogy further, we all agree that we need rules and regulations in sport, so why is classic and historic racing any different? I cannot see that the paperwork that exists today could be any simpler. The suggestion to just invite cars that the promoter likes is a sure way to kill the sport, as favouritism and despotism (and maybe rheumatism!) would cause a distinctly un-level playing field in short order. I know, as Ray mentions, guys just want to race their cars, but they do have a responsibility to know what they are racing and what the rules are.

[ERC]

The rules in rugby, soccer, badminton, (probably several other sports) have changed over recent years, for whatever reason... Even in local motorsport, we get rule changes posted almost monthly. That therefore presumes that rules are fluid and not concrete.

"If Henry Ford was so darned smart, how come he wasn't making Ford Falcons in 1910?"

All healthy debate, but can we get back to the main topic, identifying which cars shouldn't be racing, so that any issues can be addressed or we can silence the critics?

You'll all be very pleased to know that I'll be overseas next week!!!

[conrod]

"If Henry Ford was so darned smart, how come he wasn't making Ford Falcons in 1910?"



Hi Ray,

Perhaps he knew they would be killed off in 2016?!!

I am interested in YOUR view on the YB Escorts and their eligibility within classic racing, as well as the following scenario I have proposed. Personally I like Escorts with YB engines, but in my opinion they are very much a "hotrod" (in the broader definition of the word) and as I don't have to compete against them it is not an issue for me. But if I was running say a BMW 2002 in the same class and trying to keep up I might feel a little bit antsy about it! All of which leads conveniently to my point of discussion, purely hypothetical at this stage of course;);

-how would you feel if someone rocked up with a BMW 2002, fitted with a 2.5L S14 (16 valve) E30 M3 engine? A very good 2.5L M3 engine can produce 360hp, which would certainly wake up an old '02, and more than give the fastest of the YB Escorts a run for their money.

-like the RS2000, the '02 never left the factory fitted with a 16 valve cylinder head.

-Another nice little paralllel situation is that like Pinto/YB derivatives, the S14 M3 engine was based on the 2002 M10 block, and shares the same block architecture. (a certain BMW 2002 Turbo that shall remain nameless has been running an M3 block since it was first built!)

-the S14 M3 cylinder head was not around "in period" but was available from 1986 when the E30 was produced (coincidentally enough the same year the YB cylinder head was available)

-again like the Ford, 16 valve cylinder heads were available for the BMW 2002 M10 block in period, namely the M12 (which was the basis of the 2L Formula 2 and later 1.5L Formula 1 turbo engine) and Schnitzer even made their own 16 valve head as well which they ran in their Gp.5 2002 Turbo.

So my question to you is: would you consider an '02 with a hot S14 engine too much of a "hotrod" to run in your class, and if so why?


Incidentally, the faster Escort YB's here are running alloy blocks, and capacities around 2.5L. The alloy block does allow a larger bore than the iron block ever did, as well as the obvious weight saving of around 15-20kg IIRC. The Holbay head was a bit different to the YB, the ports were on opposite sides compared to the YB, as well as being a fair bit taller. Holbay did actually produce a Pinto alloy block to go with their cylinder head back in the day as well,and a long stroke crank making 2400cc, but as far as I know no form of homologation was ever granted for a Mk2 Escort, only the Mk1. It is believed that fewer than 20 of these cylinder heads were ever built, making them an extremely rare piece. I used to have all of the brochures and prices from Holbay for these parts, but damned if can find them now!

Conrad Timms

[ERC]

Hi Conrad. As we now allow cars to run that are newer than our original cut off date (1977 and run ons), and we also believe that the age in years rather than a specific cut off date is now a legitimate reason to consider a car, we'd have no problem with the BMW. We are well aware of the Turbo...

The fact that it has an engine from the same stable just makes it easier to accept. Like the VCC, the age of the vehicle is then effectively the age of the newest major component. Although we have started identifying the newer cars, (see the website paid up entrants pages) so far, there has been no call to class them separately with a separate overall series trophy, but I wouldn't rule it out as a later possibility.

Remember that unlike all other race series, ALL our points scoring races are handicaps, hence our oft repeated mantra that without handicaps, there is no level playing field anyway. We judge each and every car/driver combination on its merits. Our main consideration nowadays is on driving standards and a gradual push to make sure cars are nearer road legal. One or two have been pushing things a bit and we are on their case.

It doesn't suit everyone and there have been grumbles in the past that we will first of all, be swamped by retro/repower/transplants (we allow a maximum of five) and more recently, by newer cars. We haven't.

With a handicap system, if the driver gradually improves either the car or his/her driving ability, resulting in improved lap times, then the handicap changes accordingly. By doing it this way rather than the convoluted formulaes involving power to weight ratios, engine capacity and the inside leg measurement of the driver, it is self regulating. Why complicate matters with a load of bonnet lifting and finger pointing which is a sure way to kill off the camaraderie aspect?

If we had been totally swamped with pre 1977 cars, then we would have never moved on, but as the number of pre 1977 cars has been steadily declining - which is no surprise - then we have had to consider the options.

[Habu]

I note with interest previous comments about engine capacity and horsepower. It had been suggested to me that the Manon car's capacity exceeded 2500cc. For those who are interested in large capacity Pinto based engines, the following may be of interest: http://www.smithandjonesengineering.co.uk/

As Mr Wood suggests, reliable horsepower from a Pinto is not easlily achieved, and the cost to own a BDA or similar derivative could be prohibitive for many. Which other cars that are currently running can be identified as possibly not entirely within the spirit of a class?

[conrod]

Thanks for the reply Ray.And noted re handicap system and the way you run the class.

Unfortunately my question was largely hypothetical, in as far as I do not have the funds nor the time to build and run another race car (one is enough to keep me busy!) but an 02 with S14 is something I would like to see out there giving the YB Escorts a hard time! Like the Ford, it is a relatively straightforward conversion, and has been done many times overseas.

cheers Conrad

[spinner32]

Conrad. If you get a S14 block and put it beside an M10 block you will easily see the difference. The S14 block has an oilway down the side, so when you fit the M3 head to your M10 block, it produces a very big oil leak, and the engine soon produces strange knocking noises. LOL... I know, when my S14 block cracked, I've tried the M10 route. (unsuccessfully!!!)

[Kiwiboss]

Man this is a crazy mixture of philosophy's and half truths. The rules are straight forward and simple! Would you venture onto a cricket pitch or a rugby field with no knowledge of the rules - I think not. To take the sporting analogy further, we all agree that we need rules and regulations in sport, so why is classic and historic racing any different? I cannot see that the paperwork that exists today could be any simpler. The suggestion to just invite cars that the promoter likes is a sure way to kill the sport, as favouritism and despotism (and maybe rheumatism!) would cause a distinctly un-level playing field in short order. I know, as Ray mentions, guys just want to race their cars, but they do have a responsibility to know what they are racing and what the rules are.

And offcourse what amazes me RacerT is that these guys build their “Hotrods” or “SportSedans” without even opening the rule book, but in good faith to race at “Club” level meetings then over time they change their minds and wish to race at “Historic and Classic” events because this looks like more fun and hey, one can bring a “gun to a knife fight” but get peeved when they’re turned away or put in an open type “All-Comer” groups where others have an even greater performance advantage!! I find the same old excuse is used “its cheaper to do this, do that” to modify ones race car outside the rules, well if one doesn’t like the cost he should reconsider his chosen sport!!

True historic or classic class’s are based around a rule formula from the past that is pretty much used world-wide even though here in NZ we have our own idea of this but to me the MSNZ T&C regulations is what we have and works if you have "Historic Thinking” and as mentioned before by me it’s just never been enforced like the Aussie’s do which is a shame. Whether its cricket, rugbee, soccer they all have rules to work too and isn’t that how democratic nations are run? Now Ray runs his ERC series with an “iron fist” as “invited only” series and has his followers, cool!! But has no rules and penalises faster cars on lap time, this is NOT classic racing although some of the cars in his group probably do conform to T&C but to me this its NOT democratic and harks a bit of the “3rd Reich” here. On the other hand(and I use HMC as im involved here) we are not an invited race group, our rules are based on historic and classic T&C and FIA Group 5 saloon regulations and allow “ANYONE” to race as long as there vehicle meets the rules, that is democracy and how classic and historic racing should be. Now you can shoot me down with your keyboard Ray about all the pros and cons, bla,bla,bla but I still say to you that I do appreciate your ERC series in the fact that gives all these “non-built to rules” historic and classic cars a place to run and as NZ has plenty you attract big grids, fantastic and you do a great job!! but its still not proper historic racing, sorry!! Dale M

[Howard Wood]

Thanks for the reply Ray.And noted re handicap system and the way you run the class.

Unfortunately my question was largely hypothetical, in as far as I do not have the funds nor the time to build and run another race car (one is enough to keep me busy!) but an 02 with S14 is something I would like to see out there giving the YB Escorts a hard time! Like the Ford, it is a relatively straightforward conversion, and has been done many times overseas.

cheers Conrad

Conrad,

I raised the time line of the YB/ FVA/ BDA series because those cars had been mentioned as examples of "Hot Rods" but you are absolutely correct with the parallel with the BMW S14/ M10/ M12/6 engines. An '02 with an S14 would not only be cheaper to build than one fitted with the correct M10 SOHC 2 litre engine but at 360hp would be making 125 more hp than the works injected cars made in period and a whopping 150 more hp than we currently manage on carbuettors.

Interestingly an '02 with the period correct M12/6 which made 295hp in enduro specs and 315hp in F2 spec in period would be fully sched K compliant AND would blow the dood handles off even most of the YB engined Escorts. Pity about the engine's 50,000 euro price tag and 1000km between full rebuilds!

Which brings us back to the issue here, it is both easier and cheaper to simply stuff later model gear into an old car rather than build and develop a sched K compliant period correct car. There are plenty of places to run such a hybrid, Ray's series and the BMW series being probably the best run and supported examples with pragmatic rules which suit their competitors. However surely there needs to be a place for the period correct cars as well and it seems to me that events such as the Festival which are promoted as "Historic" meetings are the appropriate place for this.

Whether these period correct classes prosper or die will depend on how well they are promoted, run and policed and how much support they get from the available competitors. Dale's HMC is an example which so far ticks all those boxes and seems to be going from strength to strength.

[nzeder]

So far the main focus of this discussion seems to be the use of modern engines that are large in CC so more HP can be achieved. Is this the only issue with these cars? It appears that is the stance.

So to keep this going a bit more lets talk about other areas that might cause issues with some. What about gearboxes of diffs from other manufactures is this within the spirit of classic racing???

For example a common gearbox that people use in older cars be it a Ford Escort, Jag, Triumph is a Toyota item or a Toyota diff - is this an issue?

The T&C rules allow gearbox and diff changes so long as the parts are period

Gearbox and overdrive may be changed to another that was available in the same period as the car depicts and must have the same number of forward ratios as standard

So I assume no one has issues with these changes as they might only make the car more reliable which is a good thing + the rules allow these changes.

Or would this make some think of these cars as a "hotrod - in the loose sense as we are discussing here"

[Howard Wood]

So far the main focus of this discussion seems to be the use of modern engines that are large in CC so more HP can be achieved. Is this the only issue with these cars? It appears that is the stance.

So to keep this going a bit more lets talk about other areas that might cause issues with some. What about gearboxes of diffs from other manufactures is this within the spirit of classic racing???

For example a common gearbox that people use in older cars be it a Ford Escort, Jag, Triumph is a Toyota item or a Toyota diff - is this an issue?

The T&C rules allow gearbox and diff changes so long as the parts are period


So I assume no one has issues with these changes as they might only make the car more reliable which is a good thing + the rules allow these changes.

Or would this make some think of these cars as a "hotrod - in the loose sense as we are discussing here"

Absolutely its an issue and NOT allowed under sched K which should be the benchmark. Even under T & C, although a different 'box from the period is allowed, the number of ratios must remain the same, ie no 5 speed Escort etc.

[RogerH]

The issue of Conrad's hypothetical BMW 2002 S14 re-power and Ray's hypothetical acceptance of it in the ERC series raises concerns.

We have a BMW 2002 which has a T&C COD - the car races in Ray's ERC series. We have spent lots effort and money in building a compliant M10 race engine for it. I would be pretty upset if in the same race (if our 2002 improved its lap time by around 1 second it could move to the Arrows grid) an identical looking BMW 2002 was lapping at around 10 seconds a lap quicker. The handicap system makes no difference - it is demonstrably obvious that one apparently identical car is considerably quicker than the other. The conclusion for the vast majority who wouldn't know that one car had a modern engine, would be that it looks as though our car is either poorly developed or has a poor driver (or both). I think this would lead to us getting p….ed off and ultimately leaving our car in the garage - a genuine and compliant classic race car removed from racing due to a "hotrod"?? It has happened quite a few times already.

[Steve Holmes]

Conrad,

I raised the time line of the YB/ FVA/ BDA series because those cars had been mentioned as examples of "Hot Rods" but you are absolutely correct with the parallel with the BMW S14/ M10/ M12/6 engines. An '02 with an S14 would not only be cheaper to build than one fitted with the correct M10 SOHC 2 litre engine but at 360hp would be making 125 more hp than the works injected cars made in period and a whopping 150 more hp than we currently manage on carbuettors.

Interestingly an '02 with the period correct M12/6 which made 295hp in enduro specs and 315hp in F2 spec in period would be fully sched K compliant AND would blow the dood handles off even most of the YB engined Escorts. Pity about the engine's 50,000 euro price tag and 1000km between full rebuilds!

Which brings us back to the issue here, it is both easier and cheaper to simply stuff later model gear into an old car rather than build and develop a sched K compliant period correct car. There are plenty of places to run such a hybrid, Ray's series and the BMW series being probably the best run and supported examples with pragmatic rules which suit their competitors. However surely there needs to be a place for the period correct cars as well and it seems to me that events such as the Festival which are promoted as "Historic" meetings are the appropriate place for this.

Whether these period correct classes prosper or die will depend on how well they are promoted, run and policed and how much support they get from the available competitors. Dale's HMC is an example which so far ticks all those boxes and seems to be going from strength to strength.

Your last two paragraphs Howard, I agree, 100%.

[nzeder]

Absolutely its an issue and NOT allowed under sched K which should be the benchmark. Even under T & C, although a different 'box from the period is allowed, the number of ratios must remain the same, ie no 5 speed Escort etc.That brings me to another question which (have a look at my build thread on this site) I would like to discuss with someone like you Howard that has a Schedule K approved car - however this is not the place for that so maybe if I post my question in my build thread you can help me and maybe get my car as Schedule K not just T&C.

[Howard Wood]

That brings me to another question which (have a look at my build thread on this site) I would like to discuss with someone like you Howard that has a Schedule K approved car - however this is not the place for that so maybe if I post my question in my build thread you can help me and maybe get my car as Schedule K not just T&C.

No problem, fire away. I am however no authority on sched K, merely from the outset of the '02 project I wanted to build it as a period correct Group 2 replica so researched the period specs including Homologation papers, the FIA Group 2 regulations for 1973 and current schedule K regulations for that particular model and drew up a build sheet before laying a spanner on it.

Before anyone says that is anal or needs a lie down, the same principle applies to any regulated class from Formula Ford to Super Tourers, you need to build to the regulations. What's more, via the magic of the interweb most of this information is easy to access.

[nzeder]

Thanks Howard I had not downloaded the FIA Appendix J for the period in question - I have now ;)

[ERC]

Great contributions everyone. RogerH brings up the valid query of mixing pure and less pure. There are places for both to run so throughout the season, ERC supports maybe 7 events.

Generally this is one TACCOC event - where they accept the series for what it is and their remaining events are for the more pure cars, so they have a foot in both camps.

We do 4 HRC meetings where we are welcomed as a series, 2 HD, 1 Taupo and 1 Pukekohe - but the 'pure' series also run at these events. (HMC & U3L)

We accepted an invitation to an NZGP meeting this season as a one off, but we are not short of meeting invites at the moment.

We also run one meeting of our own - we are obviously welcome!

What that means is that any/all other race meetings can invite the pure cars as specific classes if they so wish, and that obviously includes the two invitation Festival meetings, plus the annual Manfeild November meeting.

Those with purer cars can therefore enter a minimum of maybe a dozen meetings locally, a year. How many do you want?

Those with less pure, non-CoD cars can enter our 7, plus any other (non-classic) club meetings (not sure what the requirements are for Manfeild these days).

To say that mixing the two philosophies of cars will force cars into the garages is simply a matter of personal choice. We welcome the pure and the less pure just as long as they all drive to the standards we expect. It is as simple as that and until such times as HRC and TACCOC withdraw their invitations, all are relatively happy. It may not be perfect but as HRC have made it clear that we are still invited, plus one meeting of our own, we are guaranteed 5 meetings a year and if the worst came to the worst as we only count the best 5 scores anyway, we would still have a very valid series that I hope is cost effective for the promoters (45 cars for TACCOC's Sunday meeting out of total of 140).

[ElCoyote]

At last a sensible solution. Now the the 3 cars I was building can/will all be accepted. Um,,,,,,,,,, are there 2 spare drivers around. If Jim Richards and Wayne Huxford are unavailable that is........................

[4dnut]

Hi, I haven't been on here for a while, but I will put my 2 cents in. I have a period correct Sch k RS1600, 100% correct. Due to organisers letting non compliant cars run in Classic Car racing I retired it. In no way does T & C allow an escort to run a YB cosworth engine let alone an alloy block and EFI. Actually when you read T&C it has to have same number of forward gears as standard, escort only ever had 4 speed standard, 5speed was homologated so sould only be for a sch k car ,so running my 4 speed BDG car at 10,200 rpm against 5 speed YB cars I was a whisker annoyed. That's why I built my Zakspeed replica car. I figured if anything goes I will do the same. I am currently rebuilding my correct car. I will run it when other similar cars are running other than that I will run my hotrod with the other hotrods.I was strange when I turned up with it it was the people with hotrods that complained. I had the sequential gearbox before this project and decided to use it as it was obvious you didn't have to run the correct gearbox. I know my gearbox isn't right but either is running a 5 speed toyota in an escort if you want to stick to the rules. I see Ray mentioned my car wouldn't be eligible to the gearbox, I guess my mistake was being open, as an escort has been running in Arrow/Taccoc meetings for over a year with 6 speed seq gearbox, I guess he forgot to mention it. I am currently fitting 5 speed ZF to zak car, hopefully that calms people down.

[ERC]

So which car is running a sequential gearbox? I need assistance here, as I am trying to identify totally non-compliant cars. We don't run under T & C rules, but as a one man committee we don't have the luxury of a series scrutineer or technical officer and rely on drivers abiding by the spirit of the rules, which to date, has worked surprisingly well. There will always be drivers trying to push the the limits. Generally, a word in the ear is enough and a decent amount of time is allowed to bring a car into line.

I presume the guilty party has not won the series though, as rarely does the fastest car win, as it requires solid performances and support throughout the whole season. Once again, the benefit of handicaps based on performance.

[Andrew Metford]

So which car is running a sequential gearbox?

No one now. He has removed it and is fitting a period correct 5 Speed ZF H pattern.

Nice work 4dnut.

[ERC]

That car wasn't running in our series anyway JAFA! Got your PM thanks. The comment refers to another Escort that DOES run in ERC series and 4dnut pointed it out to me yesterday, so I am now aware and will take appropriate action. I am not sure how long that car has had a sequential gearbox as it was bought from another driver - who also raced in the series for just one or two seasons.

[928]

so, I guess that, aside from being outside the rules, 5 and 6 speed sequential gearboxes will not win races then? Oh dear, back to the drawing board. more power, bigger tyres, wheel arches, could I run that huge rear wing? decisions, decisions. all for fun as well.
and to add cheating may not get you to the front.

[ERC]

The late Jimmy Chrystall came equal top in the first year I was involved, when it was 1 scratch race and one handicap (which is a bias towards the fastest cars). The reason I even got involved is well known and also involved Mr C.

I announced at the last round (and after presenting the BMC trophy to Jim/Nick Wilcox) that the format was going to change to two handicaps only.

Jim's grip on the trophy tightened and his eyes blazed, his face reddened "You are turning it into nothing but a lottery!" With that, he turned on his heels and marched away clutching the trophy and he refused to return it. Poor Nick never did get his hands on the trophy.

A matter of months before he died, he did in fact return the trophy, so we renamed it the "Jimmy Chrystall Memorial Trophy" for 4 cylinder BMC cars.

"Turning the series into a lottery" may well have been just the spur we needed to construct our rules in a such a way that there was no guaranteed way to win. Jimmy was the also the reason why it was constructed (with legal advice) into an Invitation Series. The rest, as they say, is history.

Oh and 928, Mike John also tried bribery, but that didn't work either. If you want to win, the best chance is to turn up to as many events as possible - but our own meeting, the final round, is double points...

Good meeting TACCOC, yesterday, but the weather played absolute havoc being so changeable. The final HMC/Pre 78 grid down to just 4 cars risking it. John McKechnie and David Thompson, plus Ricky Cooper and John Sampson who had already raced in the Arrow Wheels race.

[928]

you turned down money for more entries, scandalous I thought I that offering you the wife would win the series after 3 meetings. now you tell me double points at the last round. howabout the wife and her friend, and i will only run a 5 speed sequential at 2 meetings and a 4 speed at the other meetings.