Spot on Howard. Something that is 100% period and also reduces the out and out horsepower advantage of the monsters, has to make sense - but maybe some of those with the current big horsepower advantage don't really want equalisation? Once again, is it a case of maybe denying spectators a potential giant killing act?
I'm stirring here, but observations over the last few years have made me a little more cynical than I once was - and I am not just talking about this class either.
Actually, Ray, your argument for slick tyres being 100% period is incorrect, because in period, of the very, very few cars that did actually run slicks, they were bias-ply slicks. I'm quite certain those wanting to run slick tyres in HSC are wanting radial slicks. Thats a whole different ball game, not period correct, not likened to what was being used in period. Its modern tyre technology versus old tyre technology.
Consider this: The HMC and HSC cars are all of the same era. If you allow HSC cars to use slick tyres, you also have to allow the HMC cars slicks. Who do you think is going to have the greatest advantage in this situation? Do you think a 600hp car with masses of grip won't just disappear up the road? Currently, its the tyre situation that keeps the HSC cars as close as they are to the HMC cars, as the HMC cars massively lack grip.
Remember also, although HMC has taken over the running of HSC, these are still two separate entities. At events where car numbers exceed that of one grid, the two will be separated into two races. To have some HSC cars on slicks will actually only spread the HSC field.
As I've said, this group is not for everyone, and there are plenty of places to go race for those who want to use slick tyres, including the ERC series, Historic Sports Sedans etc. ERC use a handicapping system to keep the racing close, and to limit the advantage the slick shod cars have. This is obviously a good system that allows people to race what they like, with the handicapping being the limiting factor.
But, different classes are always going to have different appealing aspects. The fact slick tyres are not allowed in HSC will appeal to some, and not others.
I have done a bit of research today regarding Dunlop CR65's verses Dunlop CR81's.
CR81's are a Bias Treaded Intermediate Tyre suitable for the mini to run a 5.5 inch rim and has not been produced for many years. I don't believe the Mini's ran on slicks but these tyres in the years that Gerald has stated and Steve's photo shopped photo adds weight to my conclusion as they look very similar.
CR65's are still produced today with modern technology in rubber and along with the Avon equivalent is what Historic racing Mini's use in Europe. These are suitable for a 4.5 inch rim.
Hoosier H Treaded Vintage 165/70x10s are suitable for a 5.5 inch rim and that is why it is used in the USA and Australia.
These are what we suggest Mini racers in HSC use.
So, thats it is it......the discussion has been had. Well I have no doubt it will please some folk. Now, where did I put those knitting needles!!!!!!!!!!
Depends on what you call a slick.. http://www.stuckey.com.au/evolution.aspx... guess that means the HMC cars are already on slicks after all.....
Last edited by Jac Mac; 09-03-2015 at 08:12 AM.
Thanks Jac Mac. A really good read.....Cheers
Really Steve??? There are any number of areas of divergence in the HMC regs and Schedule K which is one of the primary standards for the proposed HSC regs. For example under Sched K, if homologated for a particular car it is perfectly acceptable to run fibreglass panels and big wheel arches, a modification strictly prohibited under HMC. Even the 15inch wheel regulation which is central to HMC is not enshrined in Sched K. There is absolutely no reason to mirror everything that applies to HMC in the HSC regs.Originally Posted by Steve Holmes
What we have is an opportunity to formulate a set of regulations that best represent the style of car to which they apply.
Once again, totally agree Howard. As I put in my waffle earlier, series organisers have every right to either tighten or loosen T & C guidelines (because that is all they are to us) as it suits them.
If the T & C regs were strictly applied, and are set in stone, why does HMC need any additional regs at all, other than maybe an eligibility list as to what constitutes a Muscle car? Or, why not just run to Appendix K? (And good luck with that one...)
All this discussion shows is that series organisers are dipping into T & C when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn't, so at best, it can only be referred to as 'Guidelines' and at worst, it is totally ignored. That is why the CoD system is a case of pushing water uphill in some sectors and has not gained full acceptance. MSNZ are happy to take your money to get a sheet of paper (or several sheets of paper) but if it reverted to being mandatory, classic racing as we know it would simply shift to non-classic defined meetings. Pity so many people can't see it.
By all means, identify and preserve and encourage the genuinely Historic, but that is a relatively small percentage of those who supposedly come under the broader Thoroughbred & Classic umbrella.
Just to be perfectly clear here, I am in no way criticising the HMC class or its regulations, their regs are a pragmatic and successful set of class rules. Likewise I am fully in support of the idea of promoting a viable Historic Saloon class to foster and encourage period correct cars, both genuine cars with history and new builds like my BMW 2002.
At the risk of boring everyone else to death over endless circular arguments, I merely want to make sure the set of regulations are the best we can make them. Having settled on those regulations we then all need to Shut the F*#@ Up and get on with supporting and promoting the class.
I hear you loud and clear Howard.
We will get there with help from the likes of yourself who has invested in a very nice car which is a credit to your passion and commitment.
Cheers
Bruce
Bloody hell, I’m beginning to see why nobody wanted to take this on. Everyone avoids stepping up to the plate, they’re all too busy, with too many other commitments etc, but then when someone finally does, everyone else jumps on them and tells them they’ve f%@&ed up, and they should be doing it differently! Yikes! What a mine-field.
Anyway, here are some historical facts. Following the 1967 NZ Saloon Car Championship, MSNZ dropped the Allcomer rules in favor of FIA Group 5 rules. Group 5 were being used elsewhere in the world, including the British Saloon Car Championship, European Touring Car Championship, and various European domestic touring car championships. Australia were using what they called Improved Production rules, which, as far as I can tell, where very similar to FIA Group 5 up until 1970, when they began adjusting the rules to suit.
For 1970, the BSCC, ETCC, and other European championships switched to Group 2 rules, which allowed a few more freedoms than those of Group 5. In NZ, we continued with Group 5 until around 1973, when we switched to a set of locally concocted rules called Schedule E. These rules were almost like the old Allcomer rules, in that you could stick a Chev V8 in an Escort, or a Victor, etc. Initially, not much changed, the Group 5 cars continued to set the pace under Schedule E, but over time, it was with these rules cars such as Jack Nazers Victor Chevy, Red Dawsons DeKon Monza, the PDL II Mustang etc all raced. These rules ultimately brought about the demise of big bore sedan racing in the NZ Saloon Car Championship as they were essentially too expensive.
Now, Rod Collingwood won the 1972 NZ Saloon Car Championship in the AMCO Mini now owned by Gerald Fogg. At the time, NZ was using Group 5 rules. But Collingwood won the title because of the way the points system worked. It rewarded class wins which counted towards outright points. So, by gaining better placings in his 1 litre class than the V8 guys did in the 6 litre class, he was able to win the title. He didn’t win the title because his car was faster on the track than the V8s, because it wasn’t.
Typically, the V8s were faster than the smaller capacity cars. That’s just the ugly truth. This was the case the world over. During the Group 5 era in NZ, the only car that actually genuinely outpaced the V8s was Paul Fahey’s 1,800cc Escort FVC. He won the 1971 championship by being outright the fastest car on the track. In Australia, Pete Geoghegan was the last driver of a small capacity car to win the Australian Touring Car Championship. He won it in 1964 in a Cortina GT. Throughout the entire Improved Production era, and into Group C from 1973 through 1984, a V8 won the championship every year from 1965, through to 1983, when Allan Moffat won in a Mazda RX7 during the latter stages of the Group C era. The fact is, V8s are just faster. As Bruce McLaren once said: “A good big’n will always beat a good little’n”.
Here is a photo from 1971, when NZ was using Group 5 rules. The V8s are at the front, with only Paul Faheys Escort in the mix. Next are the 1,001 - 4,200cc class cars, followed by the 0-1,000cc class cars.
Here is a photo from 1973, when NZ had just started using Schedule E. The rules have hanged, but the situation hasn't. Its still the V8s at the front. The fact is, you probably need a V8 to beat a V8. This was the case 45 years ago, and its still the case now.
Now, with regards the arguments here for allowing some of the HSC cars on slicks. According to Gerald Fogg, his AMCO Mini was racing on slick tyres as early as 1970. I consider Gerald to be an upstanding and very honest person. So I have to believe he genuinely believes this. According to the excellent link Jac Mac added in Post #65 above, slick tyres didn’t appear in Australia until 1972. Therefore, Rod Collingwood somehow got hold of a set of slick tyres a full two years before they first appeared in Australia. This could well have been the case. I’ve posted a photo that shows the AMCO Mini fitted with treaded tyres. Gerald said that Collingwood ran the entire season on one set of tyres. Is it possible they were treaded tyres that had done so many racing miles the tread had worn off? Maybe they really were slicks. Certainly, they’d have been some of the very first slicks to appear on a race car anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. But this could well have been the case.
Regardless, lets just say Collingwood did indeed have slicks on the AMCO Mini as early as 1970. While the AMCO Mini was possibly the very first car fitted with slick racing tyres in NZ, whats certain is that by 1972/73, every other car racing was also fitted with slicks. Therefore, if the AMCO Mini can have slicks, then so can everyone else in HMC and HSC.
I'm only quoting these old historical facts because you guys are using history as the reason for wanting slicks accepted.
Now, what you guys are effectively suggesting is that the rules be changed to manipulate falsified results by allowing some (or all?) HSC cars on slicks so they can compete equally with the V8s. How does this benefit HSC as a whole if one or two small capacity cars are able to battle the V8s? There appears to be an assumption that HMC took on the running of HSC with the objective of creating falsified racing between large and small cars that never actually happened in period. But this isn’t the case. It took on HSC to provide a safe haven for owners of T&C and Schedule K cars who were sick of being put in groups against either modern race cars and/or heavily modified cars built way outside either T&C or Schedule K rules. The fact that some T&C and Schedule K cars are as fast as the fastest V8s is really only a happy side-effect. And, the two groups do look cool together.
The fact is, at many events, HMC and HSC will have to have separate grids, because car numbers will be such that there are too many cars for one grid. That being the case, if the AMCO Mini is fitted with slick tyres and racing in a field of small capacity HSC-only cars all on treaded tyres, its clearly going to romp away into the distance. How does this benefit HSC? How are the other HSC racers going to react to this? Whatever happens for HSC, has to be good for the group as a whole, not one or two individuals.
I appreciate you guys like the idea of the small capacity cars being able to match it with the V8s, but there is no way we could allow either one, or two, or a handful of HSC cars to be fitted with slicks, without causing a riot among everyone else. If you let one guy on slicks, you have to let everyone else on slicks.
Answer me this:
1: Which HSC cars should be allowed on slick tyres? Just the actual original cars with period history? All the Schedule K cars? Or all the HSC cars including the T&C cars?
2: Should these cars be fitted with bias-ply slick tyres as used in period, or modern radial slicks?
3: Is there an assumption here that everyone who owns and races an HSC car will want to race on slicks? What if the majority don’t? How do we manage a situation in which some people are not happy that some cars are fitted with slicks?
4: By allowing slicks, are we promoting chequebook racing over historic racing?
5: Some of the HMC car owners are already uncomfortable with racing against the small capacity cars, because their behavior is so different and they are able to duck and dive in and out of the HMC drivers blind spots. If the HSC cars are on slicks, they’ll be even more nimble. How do we then manage this situation with the HMC drivers?
6: In the cases where the HMC cars and the HSC cars are divided into their own separate races, should the HSC cars still run slicks?
Its all very well throwing around ideas for the sake of appealing to one or two people, but the good of the class as a whole always has to be put ahead of the good of single individuals.
Its really best to view HMC and HSC as two completely separate entities, with their own separate races. By doing so provides clarity on understanding why it is slick tyres just can’t work in HSC. Those pushing for slicks want to do so to make the smaller cars capable of beating the V8s. But take the V8s out of the equation. What purpose do slick tyres now serve? How do they benefit HSC as a stand-alone class?
Good comments Steve. The reality however is that HMC up to now, have yet to fill a local grid without support from either the Australians at the Festival or combining with another class, so mixing HSC and HMC has to be a given until either one or the other is able to stand on its own.
You alluded to the AMCO Mini winning a Championship by virtue of the class points system. I see nothing wrong with that and it is where Tier 1 have lost the plot, jumping up and down about parity instead of welcoming different classes into the same race.
I have insufficient knowledge about the relative performance of a slick tyre, radial or cross ply against the commonly available and acceptable DoT rated road tyres.
What I do know however is that having owned and raced the same standard car for 25 years and with 100% bog standard running gear, that any extra horsepower against the published figures when brand new, is out of the question. (How many others can claim that their CoD compliant cars are producing no more than the published horsepower for that make/model?) That means any changes to lap times over that 25 years has come from just two areas, given that I don't think my driving has changed. The first is track resurfacing at Pukekohe (old track) and the second has been tyres.
Moving from the original road tyres to a more sports orientated but secondhand, well worn tyre, knocked 5 seconds off my lap time immediately. Moving then to a brand new road tyre (Toyo) for the last few years knocked another 1 or 2 seconds off and most importantly, the lap times are consistent unless weather/track conditions are adverse or the tyres have aged.
If I moved to a slick tyre, quite frankly, I doubt my lap times would improve significantly, as the car just doesn't have an excess of power over current grip.
There is no need whatever for HMC to move to a slick tyre regardless, as they already have an abundance of power!
I'd really like to know what the actual lap time difference is for an under 2 litre car on different tyres.
I don't buy into an argument about large and small cars mixing it. Check back to the 2015 festival where we had full grids on every race and 4 of those races were handicaps and only one of those had minor panel damage. The responsibility is on drivers to use their mirrors and also make safe overtaking runs. Choccy fish racing remember?
Whatever the organisers decide, the drivers just have to conform and sometimes leadership means making unpopular decisions. Been there. Done that. Have the bruises to prove it. You'll never stop criticism or challenges - and that goes with the territory. Just go with what you think is correct and is your philosophy. We outsiders often only enter these discussions to act as Devil's Advocates but robust debate is healthy.
The end result is always whether or not a class is sustainable and as mentioned many times before, financially viable for promoters.
1. Obviously the rules including tyre choices must be uniform for all the cars not just a select few. Try turning the argument on it's head: because of the proposed DoT tyre regulation we run the very real possibility of excluding two of the most significant "real" cars which really should be the stars of this class, the AMCO Mini and Haliday Escort (and quite possibly others as well) because of the unavailability of suitable tyres. Therefore what are the reasons for NOT allowing slicks?
2. Lets look at the available options and costs and the possibility of a control tyre. For example the F5000 class have a control tyre AND a limit of one set of tyre per two meetings.
3. This is clearly and obviously a view that needs to be canvased. I can't answer that, you know my view and Gerald's view.
4. I am not at all sure that slicks would actually increase costs. As already discussed, tyre life of DoT tyres can be VERY short. I ran Michelin slicks (same as F Toyota Series cars) in the Heritage Touring car class at this year's festival as there was no room for under 3 litre cars in the HMC field. I had insufficient racing mileage to accurately gauge tyre life but indications are that it will be several times more than the medium compound DoT Dunlop I normally use at about a 50% price premium. A control tyre (which must be available in a variety of sizes) would definitely offer the very real chance of a decrease in costs.
5. No comment.
6. We are talking about HSC regulations which apply regardless of having a stand alone grid or within another class. Parity (or otherwise) with HMC is not the underlying concern or goal here, it is merely a potential side benefit. Maybe not seen as a positive within HMC circles?
Whew.......its not the knitting needles I should be looking for, but the bi-focals !!!!!! I had to read those posts several times to get the gist of what was being said.......I think I am clear now, but it seems that I am the villian of the piece, having raised this subject of tyres. My original intention was to get it all cleared up BEFORE racing commenced so there wasnt a lot of muttering going on in the pits.
To rest my eyes, I wandered out into the motor house to do a check on some old tyres that have been piled in the corner for sentimental sake, and guess what.......I found some old 'Aqua-Jets' which I seem to remember were the tyre of choice for a Mini, and others in the 1980's. I had a wicked thought that perhaps everyone could use this tyre and have it as a control for the whole group.
As everyone knows, I am a pretty hopeless driver. I always thought I could drive FAST.....but fast is NOT racing.......a big difference when you compare my times with Angus' times in the same car........usually about 5 seconds/lap on any given course. So clearly it is not going to matter one jot what sort of bloody tyres are on the car when I am driving, because I will still be at the back !!!!!!!
I have written an email to Dave Panckhurst who was responsible for building the Amco Mini and asked him to clear up for me/us this thorny question of slicks. I have dozens of photos of the car.....standing still and racing that clearly, IN MY MIND shows it to be shod with slicks. I am awaiting Daves reply, and you will be the first to know.
Last edited by AMCO72; 09-07-2015 at 07:03 PM.
Answering this with the driver/owners hat on.
Just to clarify that I own a 1974 Alfa Romeo 2000GTV with an A pass T&C COD that runs the correct GTA 14x6.5 inch rims for the car and yep your guessed it, 14 inch tyres are not easy to come by these days.
1, I the light of the prior discussions I feel that the Historic Cars only should be able to run Bias Slicks if their is no suitable alternative. The remainder of the cars should all be on Bias Treaded Vintage tyres ie CR65s or Bias Dot Tyres. If a schedule K car has difficulty then it should be on a case by case basis and not taken for granted. Control tyre, well we have a lot of different makes of cars and wheel sizes. NZ supplier who would care for the group would be an advantage ie Cardwells. I feel we need to stay with the era we represent.
2, As above and no to radials.
3, I am comfortable that the Historic's only with the exception of maybe a few of the Schedule K cars can run on Bias Slicks.
4, I priced the Vintage Sports Car bias tyres to suit my car $358.00 each from Cardwells. Its been years since I bought race tyres so tell me if that's reasonable......??
5, Put down some driving standards and police it.....
6, As for # 1 above. Wet weather is my concern with slicks and those with slicks must have a wet alternative.
I personally want this to work and no I am not battered or bruised. I believe in this and I really want the Historic's in this or without them I feel it is a lost cause. It is no good having these cars sit in the shed.
http://www.garysmotorsporttyres.com....dunlop-r7-cr65
"Dunlop continue to make historic and vintage race tyres in the original moulds. These are made in a modern compound and construction which best enhances the performance of the original tyre."
It seems as if the CR65 these days only "looks" period, so who are you actually kidding saying that is the correct period tyre to use today? Looks like the only difference between the CR65 and say a Toyo is the tread pattern?? "Modern construction" = is it even still a bias ply??
Here's another one for some kind of idea of pricing ( GBPounds though ), and all the different sizes available.
http://www.longstonetyres.co.uk/page...p-racing-tyres
Last edited by Andrew Metford; 09-04-2015 at 03:22 AM. Reason: Second link.
We run cars with both Dunlop CR65 and Toyo 888 tyres. They have quite different compound characteristics. The Dunlop has a 204 compound which is medium hard and a durometer test shows the 888 is much softer.
What is the wear like with the CR65,s and where do you purchase them from ?.
Cheers
Bruce Dyer
Slick tyres. The first slicks I did see was on the rear of the chain driven Stanton Corvette at Mt Maunganui street race. 63-64-65? It was in its single seater form then and the same year Amon was in the low line Cooper and I think Shelly won the race? Be interested if someone could confirm the year.
Roger, is the CR65 of today still a bias ply?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote