Repowered Classics

I think is a subject that hopefully will elicit a total mix of views and a lively response.

I'll kick off and set the scene as I see it and I'll see what happens.

Using a Ford Escort as a good example, it is one where the level of purity can go from one extreme to the other.

1) Schedule K/Appendix K - pure cars as they were, 100% period, probably with a provenance (Race or Rally). Probably with extensive documentation and maybe even a race or rally history. In truth, probably worth good money.

2) A T & C Escort with period modifications or a replica built at any time, and covered by current T & C rules. In other words, someone can drop a period twin cam into a basic shell, adorn it with appropriate badges.

At this point, the Commission are happy enough, as the rules are clear cut and no one is ever really going to object too much (though I am not so sure owners of genuine AC Cobras vs Cobra replicas would see it that way...)

We then come to the repower issues which is less clear cut and is what needs a full discussion.

3) Ford Escort powered by a modern Ford (Zetec?) engine, but to a casual observer, a lookalike.

4) Ford Escort powerd by a period Ford V8, built in period and therefore with a local history.

5) As above, Ford Escort powered by a period Ford V8, but built last year.

6) Ford Escort powerd by the Ford Essex V6 ie a period engine from the same basic make but not a model that was ever produced. (Some Ford anorak will tell me that they did, but for the purposes of this thread, assume that they didn't, but could have done!)

7) Ford Escort powered by a period (ie pre 1980 or whatever) Rover V8, Fiat Twin Cam, Mazda Rotary, period Toyota/Ford 5 speed gearbox and all period parts, but not a specific model that was built in period, but could have been.

8) Ford Escort powered by a modern Nissan, Lexus, Honda engine with sequential gearbox and a load of modern goodies.

I think that from that list, you can see that the commission are faced with philosophical problems that then impact on drivers/car builders.

Having built a car that falls basically into category 6 above, supported by the marque club I might add, it is now in no man's land.

Looks like a classic, built from classic bits, but obviously not a classic. Period special? Maybe. Hot Rod? Not in my eyes, but certainly in the eyes of others. Wasn't built in period so no history, can't do it now.

No way is it a "Club Car" banished to go out mixing it with modern Subarus, Evos and Hondas. It looks wrong there, feels wrong and to me, is wrong, but that is where many see it sitting. The fact that an original 1950's classic bodyshell is now almost irreplacable (trims certainly are), means that it shouldn't really be on the track with the modern biff and bash brigade either.

This site is full of cars from the past (here and the UK) that were one offs and always proved popular. Build one now, and you are in no mans land as the NZ scene seems to be getting too bland. Far easier to go out and build yet another boring Escort or Falcodore or stuff a Ford V8 into a Capri and call it a Perana.

I'll throw it open as I know it is a can of worms, (or is it?) so let me just add, that if a race/rally meeting organiser or series committtee or marque club accepts a car, should that be the end of it, or not? Should it still be accorded some form of classic status under CR for example or a separate category created? RS Retro Saloon?

Sits back and waits for the fur to fly...

ERC PM sent

Add to the list Schedule RH which allows for some non performance changes of product to be used. As an example any live rear axle assembly (usually Hi Lux) as a direct subsitute for an Atlas assembly. The Hi lux one can be purchased complete with a LSD for around $250 whilst the Atlas assembly which came out of the Capri needs around $1500 as a start figure just for the LSD unit. There is no performance gain from the Hi Lux one and it all looks the same when it is set up and in the car but it is readliy available and inexpensive.

Perhaps the sticking point is that NZ works to a period ending 31 December 1986 whilst Europe and Australia work to a period ending 31 December 1981. For what it is worth, many of the UK competitors that I am associated with think that except for the date, NZ is on the correct track with the schedule as opposed to Africa and some countries in Europe where they allow things like cannister shock absorbers to be fitted. The UK/Europe date is set to pre 4WD introduction such as the Quattro into world rallying while the NZ date is set to the pre Group B introduction date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldfart

ERC PM sent

---

Responded!

Ray thats the way it was once ,when racing was exciting cars passing not follow the leader with parity this and parity that today,I think the greenies are to blame,some time back I asked Eric Mal. why dont we cut all that scrub back between the pits and the track ,we used to see the cars come over Rothmans once a pon a time ,not that long ago hell no we cant do that its for the envirment,.Excuse me asking why do we all need to know such and such sent a PM????

Can we please keep to the topic?

ERC... I have removed offending reply to Jim's statement,will not trouble 'your' thread again !!!.....sadley thats a promise....thunder427/MJ:rolleyes::(:p:mad::confused:

thunder427, on topic posts are always welcomed on any thread by any poster! Too often, threads are totally derailed and hijacked, so if you have an observation about the base topic, I and many others would be keen to read it as that is what shapes our opinions and also the way forwards. Your original post was totally valid - but maybe on the safety thread instead of one about cars with non original engines?

Within our own series, we have had queries raised about "fake" Lotus Cortina engines for example, using modern components and this is seen as needing open discussion, when cars such as Jo' Hill's Triumph Herald Coupe V8 are specifically excluded from the Commission's rulings, as there is no category for them.

I suppose Ray it is all a matter of degree and when it crosses the line that turns a car from a "classic" into a look-alike "hot-rod" with non-period and possible different marque components. Everyone will have a different opinion on where that cross over line is but the current position under the MSNZ regulations seems to be relatively restrictive in that it tries to preserve the integrity of the format of a period configuration. It allows "modification" that enables the likes of an Escort 1100 to be changed into a Twin Cam but it should be in the configuration of a period Twin Cam. Where it starts to get grey is when that so-called period Twin Cam starts to gain performance "improvements" that never existed in period.
The next step is the re-power you talk about and all the other like changes that go along with the re-power. I think there is a distinction between a re-power that recreates a period configuration (the Escort 1100 into Twin Cam example) and something that never happened in period. There is nothing to stop people doing these more radical modifications but the problem for them is finding a home to race their cars.
I haven't a problem with genuine period "hot rod" cars being classified as classics (as long as they are the real car and are fundamentally in period configuration) but I think it is pushing the classic boundary to use the existence of these genuine cars as the reason or excuse to build up any mixture of past, period and modern components and then try and pass it off as a classic car.
I know what your response is going to be and agree that a number of current cars with CODs are not that far from what has been described above.

For me Roger, the point where it fails to be a classic is where the major components (engine, gearbox etc) are modern, as opposed to a car built out of period parts, that may or may not have been built in period.

One commission member has quoted an example of an Austin Seven repowered by a pre 1980's rotary engine. On the one hand, it is all period parts but against that is the somewhat vague "Spirit of the Regulations".

As you are aware, our series does allow repowers to run, but under somewhat stricter and more specific rules than for ordinary cars (they have to be currently road registered as opposed to just to "WoF standard"). We don't allow modern engines but it hasn't stopped us being approached by Triumph 2.5PI Nissan, Reliant Scimitar Holden etc which have been refused!

We would not allow the Austin 7/Rotary either (Japanese engine...), but we do allow Jo's Herald (Rover engine). The drivers have the final say anyway, as over 15% protesting a car eliminates it from the series and we have a strict maximum of 5 repowered cars per season. Significantly, we have never reached that limit so rather than being overrun by "Hot Rods" as some doomsayers predicted, we have been overrun by "Peranas" instead! When we had one (Neil Tolich) it was fine, but now we have about 5 or 6. Most of the others would have cost the builders a lot less than I have forked out for my car too and their parts are more readily available.

I totally accept that there is a degree of classic boundary pushing involved and unless robust rules are in place, it could be a disaster, but the final say has to be "who is going to let them run?" Appendix K & Schedule K have not seen a massive increase in dragging cars out of sheds and less than 7% of our 111 cars have a K CoD. That is the reality. The other reality surrounding classic racing is not the cars but driving standards.

We are lucky in that overall, driving standards are pretty good, given the level at which we compete and the sheer numbers on the track. At Sunday's meeting, I think we had 30 cars in each of our two grids and to the best of my knowledge, the racing was extremely close but no panel damage was reported to me. In recent times, most panel damage has involved very pure cars where the drivers have deep enough pockets to pay for their own damage but sadly, can inflict considerable damage on those less able to pay, so I don't accept the oft toted argument that those running "hot rods" won't respect the purer cars. The reverse is often the case.

I am interested in the views of others, as so far, I seem to be fighting a lonely battle to get some sort of acceptance that my car and others like it are currently in a no mans land and do fit at a classic meeting and need to be classified accordingly.

Ray at the moment I have a 1972 Alfa Berlina with a worn motor,plus I have a good spare 3.5 Rover mtr. for my Spyder that will prob. never be used what would I be able to run a V8 Alfa in ?please note V8 Alfas have been about for quite some time, just food for thought..

Jim, we would consider that as acceptable provided it was 100% road legal. The LVVTA hoops, whatever their shortcomings, do at least ensure that transplants are up to an acceptable safety standard.

As far as we are concerned, period engine plus period bodyshell equates to what could have run in period. The fact that it didn't is not something we are concerned about - but others are. Whether anyone else would let you run would be entirely up to them.

If I resigned from running our series (it will have to happen one day) then there is nothing stopping the successor(s) from changing the series rules and banning everything except Schedule K. I have no problem whatever with that, as any series is only going to survive if there are enough drivers supporting it and race organisers are happy to invite them.

Ray this is the type of car that is missing today,thanks to TCCOC ,but thank God they were not around when all those hybrid cars were built, each one of them Coppens Mk 2,Chev coupes.to many to list, and fifty years on still talked about.Road legal is no problem and to changing the rules whats new?

I wonder if a seies called "allcomers" has any place today?
928

928, there is already a class for these cars, they are called club cars!
Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 928

I wonder if a seies called "allcomers" has any place today?
928

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim short

Ray this is the type of car that is missing today,thanks to TCCOC ,but thank God they were not around when all those hybrid cars were built, each one of them Coppens Mk 2,Chev coupes.to many to list, and fifty years on still talked about.Road legal is no problem and to changing the rules whats new?

---

Hey Jim don't blame TACCOC that these types of cars didn't and don't have a home. TACCOC catered for a particular type of car and it was their prerogative as a club to decide what type of cars they allowed. TACCOC didn't force people to come and race in their events. You may not have liked the decision that TACCOC made but I assume that any club or organisation can make rules and regulations that are supported by the majority of the club's members.
If there is anything to blame it was the fact that there apparently weren't any other "classic" clubs that catered for these types of cars either. The same applies today - apart from the odd one in Ray's series the only home for them, as Racer Rog says, is non-classic clubmans.

We were part of all TACCOC meetings for many years without problems - generally. They had the right then and have the right now to accept or decline any race entry as does any other club/promoter.

Four or five years ago, following a conference vote I believe, to make CoD's compulsory for classic meetings, TACCOC had the good grace to ring me at the beginning of the season, to say that as from the beginning of the following season, CoD's were compulsory.

At that point, we simply stated that as a Series, we were not prepared to make CoD's compulsory. TACCOC had previously stated that they would not accept certain cars we allowed, including Jo Hill's Triumph and Rogan Hampson's Ohlsen Cobra. At that point we effectively pulled out of TACCOC meetings, though there was no problem in them accepting cars that conformed. You either invite a Series or you do not. What you cannot do is invite an established series - then try and tell them which cars can and can't run.

I have absolutely no problem with that. In more recent times, they have put on events (including Sundays') for BMWs and ERC cars and that is also fine. They don't have to like the cars as they are simply acting as promoters.

When/if there is a demand for repowered cars and there are enough to form a grid, we'll do just that, but at the moment, we'll accept them within our existing groups as there are spaces on the grid and because we want to encourage them. Whilst I agree, motorsport was more colourful in the past and we are doing our bit to make it more varied, it is totally wrong to blame TACCOC for any perceived action that is contrary to their beliefs.

We don't accept modern Japanese cars because we are primarily a series for European Cars and there is already a place for Japanese Classics. Modern Jappas run at Club meetings.

Where I differ from TACCOC and many others as stated before, is that I believe a period repower belongs at a classic meeting. Many do not, hence this thread. Fortunately we do have a series in which they can run - for now, but they are not accepted as T & C conforming cars and would not qualify for a CoD even if they wanted one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERC

We were part of all TACCOC meetings for many years without problems - generally. They had the right then and have the right now to accept or decline any race entry as does any other club/promoter.

Four or five years ago, following a conference vote I believe, to make CoD's compulsory for classic meetings, TACCOC had the good grace to ring me at the beginning of the season, to say that as from the beginning of the following season, CoD's were compulsory.

At that point, we simply stated that as a Series, we were not prepared to make CoD's compulsory. TACCOC had previously stated that they would not accept certain cars we allowed, including Jo Hill's Triumph and Rogan Hampson's Ohlsen Cobra. At that point we effectively pulled out of TACCOC meetings, though there was no problem in them accepting cars that conformed. You either invite a Series or you do not. What you cannot do is invite an established series - then try and tell them which cars can and can't run.

I have absolutely no problem with that. In more recent times, they have put on events (including Sundays') for BMWs and ERC cars and that is also fine. They don't have to like the cars as they are simply acting as promoters.

When/if there is a demand for repowered cars and there are enough to form a grid, we'll do just that, but at the moment, we'll accept them within our existing groups as there are spaces on the grid and because we want to encourage them. Whilst I agree, motorsport was more colourful in the past and we are doing our bit to make it more varied, it is totally wrong to blame TACCOC for any perceived action that is contrary to their beliefs.

We don't accept modern Japanese cars because we are primarily a series for European Cars and there is already a place for Japanese Classics. Modern Jappas run at Club meetings.

Where I differ from TACCOC and many others as stated before, is that I believe a period repower belongs at a classic meeting. Many do not, hence this thread. Fortunately we do have a series in which they can run - for now, but they are not accepted as T & C conforming cars and would not qualify for a CoD even if they wanted one.

---

So can that Alfa of Peter Sunberg run,,the aero Riley the Ferrari GTO thats just been built.The Cobra was built with Shelbys help and so on????

The Alfa & Riley are running under VCC. The Ohlsen Cobra runs with us anyway. If Mr H were to bring along the 'GTO', it is a Ferrari powered car and is no more of a problem to me, than make believe Lotus Cortinas, Peranas or Mini Cooper S.

If they wanted to run with us, then I'd be more than happy to consider them. I generally look for reasons to include rather than exclude cars. The Riley is a magnificent creation and appears to be acccepted by VCC who seem to have a philosophy similar to my own. I doubt the H & C Commission would accept it, as it wasn't built in period, hence this thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERC

The Alfa & Riley are running under VCC. The Ohlsen Cobra runs with us anyway. If Mr H were to bring along the 'GTO', it is a Ferrari powered car and is no more of a problem to me, than make believe Lotus Cortinas, Peranas or Mini Cooper S.

If they wanted to run with us, then I'd be more than happy to consider them. I generally look for reasons to include rather than exclude cars. The Riley is a magnificent creation and appears to be acccepted by VCC who seem to have a philosophy similar to my own. I doubt the H & C Commission would accept it, as it wasn't built in period, hence this thread...

---

Sorry Ray can they run at a TACCOC meeting is what I meant??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERC

Where I differ from TACCOC and many others as stated before, is that I believe a period repower belongs at a classic meeting. Many do not, hence this thread. Fortunately we do have a series in which they can run - for now, but they are not accepted as T & C conforming cars and would not qualify for a CoD even if they wanted one.

---

Not under T&C but isn't that what CR is for? Most of these cars with period parts can get a CoD under Sched. CR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim short

Sorry Ray can they run at a TACCOC meeting is what I meant??

---

TACCOC doesn't cater for cars like the Alfa and the Riley so they would race in VCC events (which accept recreations and replicas). The replica Cobra has not been accepted in TACCOC events as it was a newly created replica car built in more recent times - it was not an actual period car that was subsequently modified. The 250GTO hasn't come up for consideration yet but would possibly be accepted on the basis that it is an actual period car using all marque components and is effectively how a GTO was built in period by essentially modifying a 250GT SWB - in that respect it may be similar to the Escort 1100 turned into an Escort Twin Cam or perhaps a standard Jaguar E Type turned into a "works" lightweight racer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ Noble

Not under T&C but isn't that what CR is for? Most of these cars with period parts can get a CoD under Sched. CR.

---

That's correct Russ - they can get a COD under CR - but the problem is that not many classic events (at least in the upper North Island) cater for CR cars so they find it difficult to find places to compete.

Isn't CR only for single seaters? There is no category that caters for saloons created out of period parts, which is why T & C doesn't cover them and even though the commission has debated my car, so far, it hasn't accepted that it comes under their jurisdiction.

The fact that many accepted cars run quite happily with modern components and acres of Kevlar appears to be OK, yet one built out of 100% period parts isn't, is difficult to accept.

As I said before, I try to find reasons to get a car onto the grid, not exclude it. To paraphrase, isn't one of MSNZ's objectives also to get cars out there?

I have just had a quick look through my categorised photographs to see what I already had under replica's and recreations. I note Jaguar C & D types, XJ13, Aston Martin sports racing, Lotus 11 & 7, Cobras galore - and there are hundreds of cars out there.

Yet, if I offered a grid to replicas and recreations and even repowers, at a race meeting, I guarantee there wouldn't be enough to make it viable and that is one of the reasons for my pragmatism. Why deny these cars grid space? If there are too many and they start to swamp existing, genuine (sic) cars, and push them off the grid, only then it is time to create a class for them.

The other aspect is that a D Type Jaguar replica may well have been built yesterday but can still be the most valuable car on the grid and one where the owner fears panel damage just as much (or more) than drivers of run of the mill machinery.

If we need a category for cars built out of period parts then we need to say so, but so far this thread has not given the Commission any support for such a category, so at this point, I remain a lone voice! Such is life... It doesn't alter my stance as there has not been major opposition against it either. I don't expect TACCOC as a club to support it, as it is totally against their philisophy, yet there are past TACCOC board members who appreciate such cars.

The MGCC were approached very early on in the piece with a request from me that if there was opposition from the club from what I was proposing, then I'd not submit any articles about the build. What I in fact got back from MGCC was massive support, encouragement and interest, locally and internationally. So the marque club accepts a repower (people have been doing their own MGB - V8 conversions for years, so why not a saloon?) but the MSNZ structure does not.

If anyone should be throwing their arms in the air, it should be the MGCC. What they see is an old bodyshell saved from the crusher (which is where it was destined - and at times, I wish it had gone there...) rather than the bastardisation of an old saloon with no real worth anyway.

It is all a matter of perception. There is no right and wrong about this, but it can be controlled if the desire is there, with a workable framework of rules.

Hi Ray

It's an interesting and sometimes frustrating question. Simplistically it comes back to a question I ask at every H&C meeting at Conference;...what is a classic? We all know what a Historic car is, but then the definitions get a bit blurry...

At the moment Schedule CR does not cater for saloons and the Commission are currently examining ways to introduce that it can. But we are finding many loopholes that are sometimes hard to fill.

For me personally; I think there could be a place for repowered cars as you describe, the seemingly simple answer is where do they fit in the classification. At times the simple is not so simple....

I am interested to see more discussion on this as it gives us an idea of what we are actually trying to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERC

Isn't CR only for single seaters? There is no category that caters for saloons created out of period parts, which is why T & C doesn't cover them and even though the commission has debated my car, so far, it hasn't accepted that it comes under their jurisdiction.

The fact that many accepted cars run quite happily with modern components and acres of Kevlar appears to be OK, yet one built out of 100% period parts isn't, is difficult to accept.

As I said before, I try to find reasons to get a car onto the grid, not exclude it. To paraphrase, isn't one of MSNZ's objectives also to get cars out there?

I have just had a quick look through my categorised photographs to see what I already had under replica's and recreations. I note Jaguar C & D types, XJ13, Aston Martin sports racing, Lotus 11 & 7, Cobras galore - and there are hundreds of cars out there.

Yet, if I offered a grid to replicas and recreations and even repowers, at a race meting, I guarantee there wouldn't be enough to make it viable and that is one of the reasons for my pragmatism. Why deny these cars grid space? If there are too many and they start to swamp existing, genuine (sic) cars, and push them off the grid, only then it is time to create a class for them.

The other aspect is that a D Type Jaguar replica may well have been built yesterday but can still be the most valuable car on the grid and one where the owner fears panel damage just as much (or more) than drivers of run of the mill machinery.

If we need a category for cars built out of period parts then we need to say so, but so far this thread has not given the Commission any support for such a category, so at this point, I remain a lone voice! Such is life... It doesn't alter my stance as there has not been major opposition against it either. I don't expect TACCOC as a club to support it, as it is totally against their philisophy, yet there are past TACCOC board members who appreciate such cars.

The MGCC were approached very early on in the piece with a request from me that if there was opposition from the club from what I was proposing, then I'd not submit any articles about the build. What I in fact got back from MGCC was massive support, encouragement and interest, locally and internationally. So the marque club accepts a repower (people have been doing their own MGB - V8 conversions for years, so why not a saloon?) but the MSNZ structure does not.

If anyone should be throwing their arms in the air, it should be the MGCC. What they see is an old bodyshell saved from the crusher (which is where it was destined - and at times, I wish it had gone there...) rather than the bastardisation of an old saloon with no real worth anyway.

It is all a matter of perception. There is no right and wrong about this, but it can be controlled if the desire is there, with a workable framework of rules.

---

Ray you are not the only one,I was a member of TACCOC from the start,the first five years they were without doubt the club to be with ,then with replicas starting to seen those in control took a dislike ,now not wanting to get into another debate as to how its ended up thirtyfive years later ,what person who claims to be a car lover would not let that Alfa and Riley ect run,then explane how the Lycoming{a home built special} can run, at the same time there ,the bona fide ones with modern internals fitted are ok At the Ardmore reunion at Puke 1983/4 a Lotus Cortina driven by two of NZs top drivers laped at 1.24.Five app. yrs later its doing 1.16 How many race meetings do TACCOC put on in a year now days,or is it more important as to what place we were seen out enjoying ourselves on Sat. night???

My car is now 9 seconds faster at Pukekohe than when I started with it in 1991 and the car is still standard. The engine has never been modified and even after its 1993 engine rebuild, lap times were no different. The improvement in lap times is down almost entirely due to tyres and a slight change to track surface in places. Driver improvement I would put at no more than 1 or 2 seconds.

This is almost exactly the same as the improvement in lap times for the winning Lotus Cortina from my first Pukekohe race in 1985 (with an Allegro Equipe...) at 1:20, now doing 1:13s. If they had lopped 4 seconds off their lap times from the 1983 reunion meeting to 1985, then I suggest that was also due to tyres.

Your on-going beef with TACCOC needs its own thread Jim. Start one.

In my mind there is a difference between a Historic and a Classic car. As an example a 1938 Ford V8 Coupe as an origonal car is a Historic car and a 1938 Ford V8 Coupe with chopped top, guards removed and a thumping great OHV V8 sitting in the engine bay is a classic car. Both are special cars worthy of recognition

A Historic replica is one that replicates the origonal car and built to the regulations which applied during that period.

A Classic replica is one that could have been built by to the regulations which applied during that period. As an example it could be an OSCA class or S.I Sports and Specials class vehicle, the car it replicates never existed but it could have for the car replicates the regulations and not the vehicle of the period.

A straight out Classic car could be anything for "Classic" is in the eye of the beholder.

In general terms what I am now seeing around the traps is a car that is built to resemble by appearance as a historic car but is now fitted out with a lot of late model parts, equipment and technology and described by all and sundry as a classic car.

In rallying both historic and classic run together in the regional type events and side by side in both the NZRC and the Silver Fern without any difficulty and from what I have experienced in South Island historic/classic racing again they appear to have no difficulty running together there either.

Just maybe the real issue/s are with the mindset of some people organising some events and the fact that in the begining we used the terminology "Classic" in the wrong context when in truth we probably meant "Historic"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ERC

Isn't CR only for single seaters?

---

Schedule CR caters for single seaters AND two seater sports racing cars AND some saloons.

Under Period Grouping CR One it covers the single seaters and sports racing cars with a period classification up to 31 December 1960.

Under Period Grouping CR Two it covers the single seaters and sports racing cars with a period classification post 31 December 1960.

In the period up to MSNZ Manual 34 there was another CR group being CR Three which covered replica saloons up to 31 December 1977. I would think that replica saloons which were constructed and approved within the CR regulations prior to the removal of the CR Three Group in Manual 35 would maintain that approval as it could not be retrospectively withdrawn.

Once a COD is issued, it cannot be withdrawn unless an audit shows that the vehicle is not what is described in the COD.

Ray I have no beef with TACCOC or anyone ,I have had my say and that is it,as to the time from 1 26[ not 24] Angus Hyslop, as good a driver as any was at the wheel this was before, the improvments to the track changed,, was put down to Randell I will now sit on the fence with my car loving mates

No
Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerH

In the period up to MSNZ Manual 34 there was a another CR group being CR Three which covered replica saloons up to 31 December 1977. I would think that replica saloons which were constructed and approved within the CR regulations prior to the removal of the CR Three Group in Manual 35 would maintain that approval as it could not be retrospectively withdrawn.

---

Exactly. So unless it is a replica saloon, a period saloon has never been covered? This raises another question. Would anyone really be happy with 3 replica Corvette Zephyrs on the grid or even Algie Alfas? Is there any limit or control of replicas of unique cars? Is it limited to NZ cars? Could we build our own Baby Bertha or John Pope Aston/Firenza?

On another tack, Triumph Stags were notoriously fragile initially, so there were many Rover V8 conversions - note, conversions, not a distinct model offered for sale like the Perana. Does that make a Rover V8 engined Stag acceptable because it was offered in period?

We know there were works 4WD Zephyrs, V6 "Savage" Cortinas and even a 4WD Mini (and we do know where that is!) plus V8 Marina, and probably a works V8 Triumph 2500 and who knows what else in period. Jack Knight 5 speed gearboxes and Arden cross flow heads, Derrington cross flow heads (as per Jimmy's Wolseley and also the Magnette I believe). So we allow modified period saloons and re-creations so it seems an omission to leave out repowered period saloons!

PS: Got my logbook today but at the moment, I have no intention of seriously racing the car anyway, but I'd like the option - ready for when I can't get out of the Marcos unaided!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunch

Once a COD is issued, it cannot be withdrawn unless an audit shows that the vehicle is not what is described in the COD.

---

Crunch, how does this relate to the replication of similar cars when a COD has been incorrectly issued? I'm thinking specifically of the Escort with the YB Cosworth engine. Which of the 3 following statements would reflect policy?
1. We'll limit the mistake to one car.
2. We must allow replications of this model whenever produced.
3. We must allow all similar deviations across all makes & models .i.e. KE25 Corolla can run 3SGE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Sollitt

Crunch, how does this relate to the replication of similar cars when a COD has been incorrectly issued? I'm thinking specifically of the Escort with the YB Cosworth engine. Which of the 3 following statements would reflect policy?
1. We'll limit the mistake to one car.
2. We must allow replications of this model whenever produced.
3. We must allow all similar deviations across all makes & models .i.e. KE25 Corolla can run 3SGE.

---

There are probably quite a few cars out there with COD's that maybe should never had got them. Of course; you try to limit the mistakes.
However the car you refer to (and I think Carlo was in on the discussion at the time) had an owner that provided written material such as magazine articles to show that in 1982 the Mark 2 Escort was tested with the engine that ended up in the Sierra Cosworth. Therefore a period modification. If you have a problem with that; and I know you have asked me and I have explained this in the past; please take it up with the Rally Commission Chairman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crunch

There are probably quite a few cars out there with COD's that maybe should never had got them. Of course; you try to limit the mistakes.
However the car you refer to (and I think Carlo was in on the discussion at the time) had an owner that provided written material such as magazine articles to show that in 1982 the Mark 2 Escort was tested with the engine that ended up in the Sierra Cosworth. Therefore a period modification. If you have a problem with that; and I know you have asked me and I have explained this in the past; please take it up with the Rally Commission Chairman

---

Under T&C regulations you can get approval if you comply with the fundamental T&C requirements and can supply documentary evidence that the "modification" concerned was used or available in period. It sometimes takes a lot of research but it is surprising what happened to various cars in period. The catch is that you need to comply with the basic T&C rules first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerH

Under T&C regulations you can get approval if you comply with the fundamental T&C requirements and can supply documentary evidence that the "modification" concerned was used or available in period. It sometimes takes a lot of research but it is surprising what happened to various cars in period. The catch is that you need to comply with the basic T&C rules first.

---

This particular car was Schedule RH, but the same philosophy applies.

Back to repowering of classic cars,
What would be good lines-in-the-sand if this is to go further.
For instance Ray mentions he thinks his car is a classic, not an old clubcar. I am not disagreeing (or agreeing).How can we define the difference? I hasten to add I am not picking on anyone, it's jus that Ray's comment got me thinking.

Someone used the example of a rotary powered Austin could be possible, but I'm sure all sane thinkers amoungst us cringe at that thought, so how could this be quantified?

Already a lot of aspects of H&C motorsport are subjective, and traditionally may always have been. This unfortunately causes blurred lines.
Interesting eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Sollitt

Crunch, how does this relate to the replication of similar cars when a COD has been incorrectly issued? I'm thinking specifically of the Escort with the YB Cosworth engine. Which of the 3 following statements would reflect policy?
1. We'll limit the mistake to one car.
2. We must allow replications of this model whenever produced.
3. We must allow all similar deviations across all makes & models .i.e. KE25 Corolla can run 3SGE.

---

Hi all, I have been watching this posting with interest as I own a Mk2 Escort with a YB Cosworth. My understanding is that the YB was not designed until about 1983/84 but Ford built engines in 1973/74 period with 16 valve heads based on the pinto cortina 2 litre block. I was in England in 2007 and took many photos of this car with a 16 valve 2 litre cortina engine. I have many detailed photos of the casting nos. and engine nos. on this engine. RS2000 Mk1 Escorts were homologated with a 16 valve 2 litre engine. Looking at the homologation papers the photos of the head look very similar to a YB head. My understanding is that these heads are Holbay heads.
Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escorthvn

Hi all, I have been watching this posting with interest as I own a Mk2 Escort with a YB Cosworth. My understanding is that the YB was not designed until about 1983/84 but Ford built engines in 1973/74 period with 16 valve heads based on the pinto cortina 2 litre block. I was in England in 2007 and took many photos of this car with a 16 valve 2 litre cortina engine. I have many detailed photos of the casting nos. and engine nos. on this engine. RS2000 Mk1 Escorts were homologated with a 16 valve 2 litre engine. Looking at the homologation papers the photos of the head look very similar to a YB head. My understanding is that these heads are Holbay heads.
Pete

---

The Holbay head is homologated for the RS2000 as a Group 2 option, Homologation paper #5566 amendment 5/5V dated 1/9/74. These heads are no longer being produced and in the UK thay have allowed the Warrior head which is a copy of the Holbay version, to be fitted as a replacement option.

My information is that the YB head as we know it now is not the head that was produced as the initial Cosworth Head for the Pinto / Cosworth block pre early / mid 1987

And yes Crunch, I did question as to how that particular car the Bruce refers to came to have a COD and the response was that it was believed that someone was racing one in that configaration in the UK around 1985/86.