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

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-03-2013, 03:37 AM
ERC

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

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.
12-03-2013, 04:57 AM
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%
12-03-2013, 05:52 AM
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.
12-03-2013, 06:47 AM
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)
12-03-2013, 06:47 AM
Rod Grimwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
12-03-2013, 07:06 AM
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)
12-03-2013, 07:08 AM
nzeder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rod Grimwood

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.
12-03-2013, 08:05 AM
John McKechnie

Editing comments is easier
12-03-2013, 06:23 PM
Steve Holmes

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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!
12-03-2013, 06:49 PM
Habu

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.....)
12-03-2013, 07:47 PM
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.
12-03-2013, 08:49 PM
Spgeti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Holmes

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
12-03-2013, 09:23 PM
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.
12-03-2013, 10:00 PM
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.
12-03-2013, 11:20 PM
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.
12-03-2013, 11:55 PM
RacerT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Holmes

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.
12-04-2013, 12:12 AM
Steve Holmes

Well said Tony, and I completely agree with that last paragraph.
12-04-2013, 12:42 AM
RogerH

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERC

……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.
12-04-2013, 02:11 AM
nzeder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Holmes

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Holmes

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.
12-04-2013, 02:49 AM
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

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page