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

[RogerH]

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

[CUSTAXIE50]

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

[ERC]

Thanks for the history Steve. Good work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Howard Wood]

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

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

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

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

[928]

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

to me the term hot rod is just an american name for a modified car. need not be v8 with lots of chrome as people think. the yanks started modifiying 4 cyl engines before the v8 came into existance. hell they even have import hot rods in the usa. just my thoughts

[RogerH]

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

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

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

[nzeder]

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

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

[beowulf]

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

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

[Grant Ellwood]

Thanks for the history Steve. Good work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ERC]

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

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

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

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

[nzeder]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AMCO72]

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

[ERC]

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

[nzeder]

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

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

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

[nzeder]

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

Ok but I am sure with your Marco knowledge we can see what can be done - your Marco is a Period G2 car then

[RacerT]

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

[ERC]

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

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

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

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

[conrod]

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

Hi Ray,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Conrad Timms

[ERC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Habu]

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

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