NZeder's Datsun 260z Build Thread

[ERC]

You are not confused Steve. It is just that some of us found many of these anomalies years ago and elected to 'do our own thing' and just accepted the pointy fingers and negativity from some quarters.

Whenever you write up 'rules' there are always exceptions and developments and most people have either a broad knowledge but no real depth, or a deep knowledge and no real breadth!

I don't believe there is anyone anywhere who can cover the whole spectrum of classics and historics in depth as well as breadth. Some, such as yourself, never fail to astound me with their knowledge and Mike's intimate knowledge of Z's is mind boggling but he probably can't give you any real depth on say TVR's or Maseratis. The same applies to the H & Commission. A real mix of talented knowledge, but even their combined wisdom can only go so far.

[nzeder]

I am with you Ray knowledge is spread based on people interest. I for one am happy to learn more about other marques I just know an un health amount about the early zed cars not as much as other around the world but more than most in NZ thats for sure. Forget asking me about a 300zx or later Nissan killed the zed IMHO when they went to a V6

I think the Escort forest flare is an easy example which is why I use it.

1. Where these fitted to 100 identical cars? Aka considered "Standard series production"

2. If 1. above is not considered standard then is the a period modification under T&C?

It does get confusing. The way I see it K is the original specification of a car at a given point in history as raced or homologated. No mixing matching at all. Ie Escort with forest flares and BDA with 13" rims, x gearbox and x diff as ran in 1972. Then T&C is for standard cars modified to period specs ie standard body escort 1300 sport shell with pinto engine to make a rs2000 replica. The T&C escort could changing a few things over time with in the T&C rules ie change webers for dellortos, change rims from 13 those allowed under T&C but not fit forest flares as then the car is not standard series production sure fit front GT front fenders with the little lip/flare as they were a standard series production item. Even roll the lips for more rim clearances as that too was a period modification to standard body. Replacing the whole arch with forest flares no longer standard series production.

The same example could be said for the 240z. Standard body T&C, zg nose and zg over fenders still standard series body just a model variation. Install IMSA GTU flares and nose cose then no longer standard series as not sold to the general public like that. So then pick the era/period your now IMSA 240z represents lookup the rules for that and your car must be true to those specs aka original specifications. So if that means 2500cc max, 290mm x 20mm rotors front and rear then that is what it has to be not 310mm x 32mm rotors as that was not the original specification.

[RacerT]

"Yes Nzeder, great job you’re doing and very informative and I admit my knowledge of 240’s is very limited hence great to have you on here!!

Personally I have no issue’s racing with Rickys Z and would race side by side with him any day of the week, he is one of the cleanest and smoothest drivers I know, but I keep getting question "only" about his frontal panel/spoiler work and no rear bumpers but I don’t know the answer, when I read T&C as attached below I get it as “original materials as per STANDARD SERIES PRODUCTION VEHICLE” and then this gets over ridden with “Period modifications are permissible”

3:2 Exterior The vehicle shall be smartly maintained and have all exterior trim in place. It must retain bumpers if originally fitted. All panels,bumpers, mouldings, spoilers etc. must be made of the original materials as per the STANDARD series Production vehicle. eg; steel panels must be retained if originally fitted. Period modifications are permissible.
(1) Only rear wings (aerofoil) which were available for the car in period may be fitted. These must be
made of materials from that period. ie; no Kevlar.
(2) Any/all modifications must be in period (refer definitions).

But when I read what “Period” means it states when “first used actively in Motorsport Competition in New Zealand, or a minimum of three(3) separate overseas examples” so with that being the case does Rickys Z fit these descriptions hence making it correct as it currently sits? your help and thoughts appreciated Nzeder!!

“Period” means the era (years) during which a vehicle model and/or its components were first used actively in Motorsport Competition in New Zealand, or a minimum of three(3) separate overseas examples, and

Dale M "

Hi Dale
The Thoroughbred and Classic regulations were never meant to be applied to racing car modifications, but over 40 years the thinking has changed. It was originally meant to apply to, say a set of Weber carbs on a car (much like your Mustang), or flared guards, twin SU's on a Viva etc. Modifications that would still allow the car to be driven on the road and get a WOF.

However, people have pushed the boundaries to build look-a-likes of their favourite race cars, such as MG Le Mans Midget, SCCA Alfa Romeo Spider, Datsun 240Z etc. The problem is that this invariably takes the cars outside T&C regulations compliance. Ideally these cars should be Sch K compliant, but they are never exact replica's, as is necessary for Sch K compliance, so they fall into no mans land.

I believe the Commission needs to define "Period Modification" so that it reflects the original intent of allowing for "road modification", rather than allowing the replication of a race car(3) that competed overseas in the period. If the intent of T&C can be regulated, then I believe we have a way forward. Tony R

[Howard Wood]

All these grey areas in T & C are good reason to opt for the full Sched K when you can. Once you have determined the particular year/ model/ race class you want to represent/ replicate then the process is actually simple. The onus is on you to prove that any modifications and combinations were actually used in period, using Homologation papers, period books and articles or photographs.

Obviously this is less easy if not impossible with low production vehicles such as Marcos and of course one offs and specials and maybe T & C should only apply in these cases instead of being the first option people go for.

[nzeder]

All these grey areas in T & C are good reason to opt for the full Sched K when you can. Once you have determined the particular year/ model/ race class you want to represent/ replicate then the process is actually simple. The onus is on you to prove that any modifications and combinations were actually used in period, using Homologation papers, period books and articles or photographs.

Bingo Howard that is why I have been thinking more and more about Schedule K - I have locked down my era/period and I have collected period info/sport option catalog from this period/year. This is why with my question about spoilers was about which one to run - those available on standard series production cars aka the Ultra rare Urethane chin spoiler, the non ducted item listed on the sports option lists or the ducted version used on the period race cars.

As I am going to go for the K on the COD application I will run the ducted spoiler that I recently acquired.

[Steve Holmes]

I hope you don't mind that we've somewhat hi-jacked your thread Mike.

[nzeder]

I hope you don't mind that we've somewhat hi-jacked your thread Mike.

no all good.

If we all learn more we will be better informed.

[crunch]

Bingo Howard that is why I have been thinking more and more about Schedule K - I have locked down my era/period and I have collected period info/sport option catalog from this period/year. This is why with my question about spoilers was about which one to run - those available on standard series production cars aka the Ultra rare Urethane chin spoiler, the non ducted item listed on the sports option lists or the ducted version used on the period race cars.

As I am going to go for the K on the COD application I will run the ducted spoiler that I recently acquired.

Good decision!

[nzeder]

Ok so back on topic then

Spotted this for sale a long time ago but thought it was interesting to see given it is a Datsun 240z with FIA-HTP for Period G2 Class GTS 21



I will be installing the same front spoiler on my zed - so now I need just a few more things, the rear spoiler, new helmet, neck support and mylaps transponder (if anyone has a transponder for sale let me know - I am in no hurry for one as I can rent to start with) and time in the shed again

[Kiwiboss]

Ok so back on topic then

Spotted this for sale a long time ago but thought it was interesting to see given it is a Datsun 240z with FIA-HTP for Period G2 Class GTS 21



I will be installing the same front spoiler on my zed - so now I need just a few more things, the rear spoiler, new helmet, neck support and mylaps transponder (if anyone has a transponder for sale let me know - I am in no hurry for one as I can rent to start with) and time in the shed again

Great picture Nzeder as thats how i would think Rickys Z should look, still with the manufactures production frontal sheet metal making it T&C correct according to Tonys(RacerT) above posting and a period lower spoiler(correct)!! come on Ricky you must be watching this post, whats your take on this as you own the car, do you agree or disagree?

Dale M

[Ricky]

I don't disagree that it looks smart but the front bumper and valance panels on that car are also all fiberglass so what's the difference.

[Bryan]

I am with you Ray knowledge is spread based on people interest. I for one am happy to learn more about other marques I just know an un health amount about the early zed cars not as much as other around the world but more than most in NZ thats for sure. Forget asking me about a 300zx or later Nissan killed the zed IMHO when they went to a V6

I think the Escort forest flare is an easy example which is why I use it.

1. Where these fitted to 100 identical cars? Aka considered "Standard series production"

2. If 1. above is not considered standard then is the a period modification under T&C?

It does get confusing. The way I see it K is the original specification of a car at a given point in history as raced or homologated. No mixing matching at all. Ie Escort with forest flares and BDA with 13" rims, x gearbox and x diff as ran in 1972. Then T&C is for standard cars modified to period specs ie standard body escort 1300 sport shell with pinto engine to make a rs2000 replica. The T&C escort could changing a few things over time with in the T&C rules ie change webers for dellortos, change rims from 13 those allowed under T&C but not fit forest flares as then the car is not standard series production sure fit front GT front fenders with the little lip/flare as they were a standard series production item. Even roll the lips for more rim clearances as that too was a period modification to standard body. Replacing the whole arch with forest flares no longer standard series production.

The same example could be said for the 240z. Standard body T&C, zg nose and zg over fenders still standard series body just a model variation. Install IMSA GTU flares and nose cose then no longer standard series as not sold to the general public like that. So then pick the era/period your now IMSA 240z represents lookup the rules for that and your car must be true to those specs aka original specifications. So if that means 2500cc max, 290mm x 20mm rotors front and rear then that is what it has to be not 310mm x 32mm rotors as that was not the original specification.

Where do the likes of British Leyland's Sprecial Tuning and Ford's SVO operations fit in, with their catalogues of "competition" and "dress up" parts, and custom build services? If the parts are listed in the "period" catalogue, but weren't production standard or homologated, can you "pick and choose" from the catalogue for Schedule K? Or only if you have documented proof your combination of parts was done in period (e.g. fibreglass doors, spoilers, turret kit, trick cylinder head - all photographed on the same car)?

[Howard Wood]

What you can't do is pick and choose from different catalogues, years and classes, in that regard nzeder is absolutely correct. This of course is easy with popular race cars such as Escort, Capri, BMW '02 etc especially if the homologation papers are available.

You raise an interesting question regarding British Leyland Comps dept. Around 1968 BL Competitions decided to build a Group 2 Rover P6B project car. They built at least one and possibly more and Roy Pierpoint drove the car in some club events and at least one European long distance event where the thing blitzed the field before retiring. In typical BL manner the whole exercise was half arsed, and rife with in-fighting, the car and modifications were never homologated and the Comps dept closed down shortly afterwards, I understand the car went to Aus.

Today there appear to be a number of replica/ reproductions ( even assuming the original car(s) survived) racing in the UK and Europe where the need for documentation is far stricter than here. This raises the question of what is the process involved in ratifying such a car because it seems this situation is no different to say the Custaxie2 or possibly Ray's Marcos.

[Bryan]

It's interesting you mention the Rover P6B, Howard. iirc I have seen photos recently of one racing in Sports Sedans in Aussie in the '70s. A similar scenario to the Marina V8 BL Special Tuning built for the '74 World Cup marathon rally, where a second car was also built and ended up in Australia. However, there don't appear to be any surviving build documents, so the only proof of the technical spec is the Evan Green book "A Bootfull of Right Arms", a couple of clippings from Autosport, and the 40-year-old recollections of the car's driver.

Do the FIA have the original homologation papers from the early 1970s - BL ST had a range of spoilers in their catalogues, but I have never seen them in photos of cars competiting at the time. But the same catalogue has 4-link and turret kits that were used.

[Howard Wood]

It would be a miracle if the Homologation papers still exist and this is where the system does break down. In theory ALL homologation papers are available from the original issuing authority, in BL's case Motorsport UK and in a perfect world the manufacturer's archives. Can you imagine the state of BL's archives and record keeping?

Even in the case of the Group 2 papers for a BMW 2002Tii, these are listed by Motorsport Germany as missing, N/A, the helpful person I corresponded with there even sent me a list of all German Group 2 Homologation papers and their current status, from memory 20 - 30% were N/A. Fortunately BMW are a manufacturer who value their competition history and have an archive at their Mobile Tradition museum.
They were able and willing to supply (free of charge) a copy of every '02 related homologation and extension (in German!) which I painstakingly catalogued into number sequence and subject, ie Bodywork, suspension, engine etc.

[Steve Holmes]

It's interesting you mention the Rover P6B, Howard. iirc I have seen photos recently of one racing in Sports Sedans in Aussie in the '70s. A similar scenario to the Marina V8 BL Special Tuning built for the '74 World Cup marathon rally, where a second car was also built and ended up in Australia. However, there don't appear to be any surviving build documents, so the only proof of the technical spec is the Evan Green book "A Bootfull of Right Arms", a couple of clippings from Autosport, and the 40-year-old recollections of the car's driver.

Do the FIA have the original homologation papers from the early 1970s - BL ST had a range of spoilers in their catalogues, but I have never seen them in photos of cars competiting at the time. But the same catalogue has 4-link and turret kits that were used.

Regarding the Rover P6B, its the same car. It was sold to Jim Smith in Australia, who raced it as a Sports Sedan. It even visited New Zealand on one occasion, racing at Bay Park. There is at least one replica currently in the UK, as Howard says. But this/these cars compete in events against other equally rare/specialised machinery, such as Group 2 RS3100 GAA Cosworth Capris, plus 1980s Group A cars and '90s Super Tourers. I assume this is the only place it gets accepted. There was one racing at the Silverstone Classic in 2013.

[Bryan]

It would be a miracle if the Homologation papers still exist and this is where the system does break down. In theory ALL homologation papers are available from the original issuing authority, in BL's case Motorsport UK and in a perfect world the manufacturer's archives. Can you imagine the state of BL's archives and record keeping?

Archive of the British Motor Industry Heritage Trust may have some info, but they note the BL era build records are incomplete. Mini Cooper homologation papers are around on the net, no doubt some others will be where they were considered "historic" early enough for someone to bother saving them.

[nzeder]

BL point is an interesting one. As I read/understand/interpret the FIA rules group 2 and group 4 under appendix j of the given year must have at least 100 identical vehicles in both body and mechanical spec to be classed as groups 2 or 4. If these manufacturer's didn't meet this requirement then the car/spec was to be moved into group 5 I believe. The issue was these were not enforced in period so things like a Holbay twin cam head was added to the homlogation papers as ford who submitted the application was seen to be large manufacture and could have manufactured 100 unit in 12 months so the paper was approved even if one 2 or 3 where actually made in 12 months. So the whole thing can be a minefield.

My understanding of K is you pick an era/period that you want your selected car to represent. The get the original specifications of how a car (or a number of identical cars) ran in the period and your car is to be built to that specifications 100%. So if a bmw 2002 had the group 2 body work but you can't find a single example of one running with rack and pinion with this body work then it can't be done today under schedule k as it did not happen in the day like that. Sure one might find a 2002 with rack and pinion but standard body work, or group2 body work with steering box. Even if rack and pinion is listed in the US catalog for 1972 but no body work but the DE catalog shows body work but no rack and pinion in 1972 unless you can proof both were used on a single car at the same time then they are off the table.

Well that is my understanding of it.

[Howard Wood]

BMW lodged a Group 2 homologation extension for rack and pinion steering in 1973 so this modification is no issue if you are representing the car as 1973. However if you are representing say 1969 then no go. This is why the papers are so important as a starting point as the documentation trail is very clear.

[nzeder]

Thanks for clearing that up I knew it was a 60's vs 70's thing and my 1972 was a bit of guess of the year so close for a non bmw guy