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

[nzeder]

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

And that is what the T&C rules state as the "Objective"

see here

Objectives: This schedule is designed to provide a set of regulations for the use of period production based Sports, Grand Touring, and Saloon Cars in sporting competition while maintaining the philosophy of the Historic & Classic movement.

Where appropriate, the regulations have been formulated to preserve period specifications by preventing the application of technology that was unavailable for the period depicted.

[Kiwiboss]

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

And this Grelley is exactly how we sorted out the "Historic Muscle Car" regulations thanks to the help from the Historic and Classic Commission and others!! but boy am im sick of having to explain this to everyone!!

We're such a "inbreed nation" of "Hotrodders"(yeah I know that word again) that most/some just can't seem to understand that "how it was so shall it be" and Nzeder has explained this above perfectly, how hard is it to read the "actual" rules from the top of the page(go figure)!! off course its the same old problem, no leadership from our governing body as money is spent elsewhere I presume!!

Now Ray, I know I will never be-able to "out type" you! but i do really enjoy your liveliness on these forums!! see you on the weekend

Dale M

[ERC]

Always good to chat Dale!

Just to put a slightly different spin on this, one of the issues we have faced over the years is that unlike most HMC cars, where spares for the popular ones seem to be sourced from Australia or the USA, or Escorts and MGs from the UK, spares for some makes and models are now virtually impossible to source - particularly so for low volume cars and older cars.

It is extremely easy to state "as it was so it will be" until you try and track down a replacement item either at a reasonable price or within a reasonable time frame.

Without pushing the self interest barrow here, but just to give two prize examples that I have mentioned before.

1) T & C rules "Original window winding mechanism must be retained." OK so please tell me where I get from one for the Marcos as it apparently has a heavily modified wiper motor from a Jaguar - no idea what model. Mine is totally stuffed and the local auto electrician can't fix it. More to the point, why does it matter?

2) Original exterior trim and bumpers of original material. Who stocks items for 60 year old cars, or do we run with the bent, twisted and rusty ones that came with the car? Why does it matter whether or not they are fibreglass. It is hardly going to turn the car into a fire breathing monster!

It is the pettiness of some of the rules that get many people off side. T & C needs enough latitude to make running all cars a practical proposition and it does go part way along that path.

There are some people who think that refitting the headlining and rear seats to a car with a cage is also a practical proposition. There are also officials (not within the sport I might add) who have demanded that I do NOT put in a headlining!

The mission statement of both organisations is to encourage and to participate.

Building or running a car that is not the norm is my personal choice because I am just not interested in having a car the same as everyone else's. I love it that Francois and Johann are out with their rare Renault Gordinis, Rod Hemmings TVR and the other less common cars, as it is a much tougher route, particularly after an incident, mechanical or bodywork.

That is why the special saloons, sports sedans OSCA cars, call them what you like are so popular. Many of us drive classics for the same reasons and there are many purists who also own a car that isn't pure, but they enjoy those cars for what they are - ENJOYABLE!

We are still waiting for additions to the list of cars not deemed acceptable at a classic meeting. I didn't expect the response to be this slow. Good interesting discussion, even though we are regularly going over old ground, but I need guidance as to exactly which cars are upsetting the critics. So far, from our own series, we still only have YB Escorts nominated.

[nzeder]

Ray are you reading the current live T&C rules? I can't see anywhere in there talk about window regulators

http://www.motorsport.org.nz/sites/d...ch%20T%26C.pdf

Re the bumbers - there is a way around that now - via the HCC approval - this was a recent update to the rules see here

Note: An application can be made to the Historic & Classic Commission via it’s Chairperson,
when the applicant deems that are particular part of interior or exterior trim is no longer
available, or viable to be used in competition. The Commission will review the application and
accompanying proof of reason and will determine if derogation is granted. This will then be
noted in the vehicle’s COD. Note that the vehicle must have a COD (Certificate of
Description).

[Carlo]

A hot rod is also a Formula Ford with a jumbo engine, or a non standard camshaft, or a steel crankshaft, or a light flywheel, or a multi plate clutch or larger valves in the head, or electronic ignition or under weight, or one that can return to the pits with 7500 regularly showing on the rev counter and no holes in the block.

[ERC]

"The car must have a CoD"...

Yes, I was aware Mike, but this is yet another layer of red tape just to justify the rules that shouldn't really be required in an umbrella situation. The commission shouldn't be bogged down with this sort of thing. What is so wrong with saying that bumpers, if fitted, may be fibreglass replicas? Or why insist on all trim anyway? In many classes, in period, exterior trim was removed. The criteria for road use was that there was no exterior projection that could cause injury. (I know that only too well as my first ever UK infringement was driving a Mini Cooper without the front bumper fitted - and it was only off for a day whilst I repainted/undersealed the front valance!!!! Five pound fine and licence endorsed - and I was only on 15 pounds a week...)

If HMC's series rules demanded that all cars run with all exterior trim and Alfa Trofeo decided it was optional, then surely, that is a sensible decision driven by those who know best?

If any car is 100% standard, why does it even need a 14 page (expensive) CoD? What is so wrong with a declaration and open to audit? Much cheaper and far less time consuming for all concerned. As I read it, the CoD system is invaluable in establishing the provenance of a car deemed to be of historic interest and potentially worth money. I fail to see it adding any value whatever to a standard MGB.

If modified in any way, whether visible or not, then there is a question of degree but a one-size fits all system with one document and trying to force drivers to conform then carry on a paper trail (at a cost of course) as the car is gradually developed, is not an efficient system. HMC has its rules, BMW, Alfa, U2K (62 cars running Sunday!!!) HMC and ourselves all have our own rules anyway and they work. I have no idea how the South Island operates but we have been constantly told (quite correctly) that we have to look at the country as a whole and the theory (and it is only a theory) is that it means cars can enter wherever they like.

In practice, like the saloon class at the Festival, ours is strictly by invitation only, so that full control is retained. I see nothing wrong with that as we have turned away car/driver combinations, even though those cars might well have had a CoD. Equally, we have also accepted cars outside our core values.

[Oldfart]

"In the day" we were told to remove exterior chrome trim strips as "they might become detached and then be very effective spears for marshals, competitors and the spectators"!
I understand they now MUST be fitted

[Spgeti]

Alfa Trofeo rules are for their classes and only their "hotrod class" GTA allows no trim. The majority of those cars would struggle to get a place in the festival. John Nuttall and Mark Pearsons 105's are the exception as they both run the correct twin cam Nord engines and are fine examples of keeping to the T&C guidelines.
An exemption for bumperless 105s is the only exception as they raced in period without bumpers.
Trofeo does not cover NZ and is these day an Auckland based series.
You do a great job Ray with the ERC Series and I am not prepared to name cars as I agree with Howard's summary. Cheers, Bruce

[Steve Holmes]

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
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

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


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.

Great post there nzeder. I like your attitude. You're clearly a very enthusiastic guy, and are doing your homework on the rules.

Re the Schedule K thing, its my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that a new build can either be to T&C or Schedule K. So, if for example, you were building a MkI Escort, under T&C you can go 1" larger in wheel diameter than the standard road car, but you can't fit non-standard bodywork that was used in period on race cars, such as forest flares. Under Schedule K, however, you can fit the forest flares, but you must also run the original 13" (or is it 14"?) diameter wheels too.

If my understanding of this is correct, it provides an even playing field, which is then also fair for those who have an original car that raced in period, and who want to keep it in its original guise. In the case of an Escort, it would have worn forest flares and 13" diameter wheels.

The issues that have been raised are that some people will build a MkI Escort with 15" diameter wheels and forest flares, which is really a cross-over between the two. Does it really matter? Maybe not, but if some people are making an effort to build their cars to the rules, everyone else should too.

By the way, why don't you run a dedicated build/rebuild thread on your car? I'd love to see that, and others here would too.

[John McKechnie]

Grelley- please check out HMC rules and compare them to your comments.

[touringcarfan]

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.

Anthony

[Steve Holmes]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't think the Australian regulations should have been introduced in NZ. The two countries are a bit too far apart in their histories for the Aussie Historic Group N regs to work. I'm only using Australia as an example of a country who introduced a set of regulations 30 years ago, policed them, and stuck by them, to provide stability for those wanting to get involved in historic car racing.

[touringcarfan]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't think the Australian regulations should have been introduced in NZ. The two countries are a bit too far apart in their histories for the Aussie Historic Group N regs to work. I'm only using Australia as an example of a country who introduced a set of regulations 30 years ago, policed them, and stuck by them, to provide stability for those wanting to get involved in historic car racing.

Sorry, I was not suggesting that you personally were saying we should have adopted them(nor Dale). I personally would have no problem with them having been introduced.
Out of curiosity Steve, why would those Group N regulations not have worked in NZ?

Anthony

[nzeder]

Thanks Steve that is how I read/understand them too. Schedule K = 60 series tyres and rim size as ran in period - I see the FIA Appendix K they have model specific sizing for given configs - so I assume this is based on evidence of known rims/brake setups used in period. ie there are some spec Porsche's that car run 5.5" wide rims then later models 7" front and 8" rear then in late 76 16" rims again all different spec Porsche's. For Escorts RS2000 homologation No. 5566 = 13" rims but a RS1600/1800 homologation No. 1605 = 15" rims all interesting stuff and from that I get you can't run an RS2000 with 15" rims under FIA Appendix K.

And one for Ray

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

The bumpers about the Alfa's is interesting - they did not run them in period so they don't have to run them today? The Datsun Z cars also ran no bumpers in period - the teams fitted them for photo shoots but during race day both where usually removed (or the rear at least). Also most bright work was also removed in period - and Nissan in Japan even sold a model to the general public minus bright work, carpet, heater, clock, cut down loom, FRP bonnet and lexan windows all standard - not a cheap car as they were based on the Japanese market only DOHC/4 valve S20 engined Z432. These S20 engines were also used in the Nissan Skyline KPGC10 which replace the Nissan/Prince Skyline S54B (Like the Carlos Neate that raced here in period, now in Australia and the only privately owned S54B that had all the works parts installed).

Anyway like you say Steve I should do a build thread - and include info about the history of Zed as I have head full of this stuff.

[Andrew Metford]

We are still waiting for additions to the list of cars not deemed acceptable at a classic meeting. I didn't expect the response to be this slow. Good interesting discussion, even though we are regularly going over old ground, but I need guidance as to exactly which cars are upsetting the critics. So far, from our own series, we still only have YB Escorts nominated.

Not an addition, but a subtraction from me. While a totally agree that the Proctor "Nisscort" shouldn't be at classic meetings, I have no problem with YB Escorts.

With the Nisscort, it's like bringing a machine gun to a fist fight, it's totally at odds with everything else on the grid, and not in a good way. While I have a lot of respect for the man who built it and the actual car, letting it run at classic meetings sours the experience of seeing the car run because it's just so far away from what it was. I mean you might as well put a race truck on the grid too.

YB Escorts are a 2L cast iron block ( same as original Pinto / RS2000 ), and back in the day you could get an aftermarket twin cam alloy head for them, from Holbay and others. So it could have been done back in the day, and that's why I don't have a problem with them. If you want to start splitting hairs, I guess you could argue the EFI on the Manon car, as back in the day injection was only mechanical, but where do you draw the line? For me all the YB Escorts are "in the spirit", immaculately presented ( certainly the Auckland brigade anyway ), well, and considerately, driven, and most welcome.

The same goes for Grant Kern's V8 MGB. The factory only put the V8 in the BGT, but anyone could have put a V8 into their roadster in the garage at home. So again, it could have been built back in the day, so it's fine.

For the record, I'm not a fan and don't agree with the sequential gearbox in the McCarthy Escort. It should be H pattern. To me that is the only thing that lets that particular car down, but it's easy to remedy.

I hope I will be allowed to run with a Derrington HRG alloy crossflow cylinder head on my MGB, those heads is actually older than the car ( and well documented ), so no one can say I couldn't have built that in 1974!! Will I incur the wrath of the critics for running older parts on my car, instead of newer bits? Do I run a couple of new bits to offset the older bits?? Haha that'll give them something to whinge about!!

I haven't been to a meeting for about 18 months ( overseas ), so there might be a new car or 2, but by and large the bulk of the cars at classic meetings are "period correct" enough. On one hand I don't like seeing 3 grids of BMW's at classic meetings, but if the organiser's can't get enough classic grids to cover costs then fair enough, and I suppose it gives me time to kick some tyres and have a chat in the pits while they're on the track. I've never really liked one make racing ( HQ's, Suzuki Swift's etc etc ), to me the BMW's are boring, quiet, all the same, and MODERN. Doesn't the ACC and NSCC cater for the modern crowd?

Ray, the way you run the series, and the mix of cars you do and don't let run, you've got it nailed. Don't listen to the bashers, they've just run out of other things to whinge about.

[nzeder]

Ok what would people say if (I wish I had the money for one) I was to install one of these into a Datsun 240/260z?

That is an OS Giken aftermarket TwinCam 24Valve head fitted to the L28 bottom end - all late 70's vintage. These were sold and used on a Baja racing 240z in the USA and used on club cars in Japan - that is in the same vain as the Holbay - and as luck would have it OS Giken are re-releasing a small batch of these again 10 or so I believe (all pre sold mind you)

Part of me is with you JAFA - on the iron bottom end they are in the spirit of what was done in the day.

The part of me that thinks not - what if I was to do the same, ie above, I bet I would not get the same reaction about in the spirit of classics + it is actually against the T&C rules as they are written - sure it might pass as Schedule K as that is where a Holbay power car fits - not T&C - again look at the rules clearly states what is required for T&C is standard productions based and I quote again.

“Standard” means a vehicle identifiable as belonging to a production series, with a minimum
model run of 100 identical units, distinguishable by external general lines of the bodywork and
identical mechanical construction of the engine, transmission and suspension to the wheels,
and

That does not apply to the OS Giken head that were made in 2 batches from wooden molds in the late 70's totaling 25 units built if I recall correctly. And that would certainly apply to the Holbay which again was a special limited numbers - even if 100 were made and sold there is not guarantee that all 100 heads were installed on identical cars as far as bodywork, transmission and suspension. So T&C they can't be.

I also don't actually have issue with the YB power cars running on carbs and H pattern gearbox in Rays grid or the Kern MGV8 - it all makes the Arrows grid more existing to watch and I would not like to see that change at all. In fact I know them all well having been at the track supporting the series (as pit bitch) since I returned to NZ in 2003.

I am just pointing out that these cars/mods don't actually fit under T&C - in fact if someone was to run a bubble/forest flared Escort with the a Pinto OHC it too is not T&C compliant as the rules stand today (and no doubt that is how the rules will stay). I am not saying cars like this should not run - I am just saying they don't fit the T&C rules - that is just a simple fact. That is why having grids by invitation allows these great cars to run. And that make for excellent racing, especially handicap starts like Rays grids.

One more parting comment for the night/morning well not all EFI back in the day was mechanical the works rally Datsun 240z had dcoe throttle bodies using hose tail injectors and Nissan ECCS system which was electronic in mid 1970's.

[ERC]

Thanks for the support. When it comes to Datsun Zs, people may wonder why they are running in the ERC Series in the first place. (E = Euro!)

The simple fact is that it has been an invitation series for 17 of the last 18 years and at that time, there was no suitable grid in which to run a 240Z. Initially, they were invited as they were deemd by most of us to be genuine classics even to those with a strong Euro bias. (Our rules have always stated that invitations will be extended to cars that do not strictly conform to the Euro philosophy.)

Having turned away any number of Datsun 1200's and older Toyotas I suggested to several people that they should set up a series for Japanese classics as there was an obvious demand. Eventually, Steve Melhuish did just that so we effectively closed the door on any new applications, although we allowed existing cars to remain.

As so often happens in motorsport, to paraphrase Tony Roberts "too many Chinese warlords, each wanting to run their own empires" meant that many of the Datsun 240Z brigade weren't as comfortable in that environment as they were with the Euro Classics and they mounted a strong case to be re-admitted to the ERC Series.

As many of you will have noticed, both car preparation and driving standards have been beyond reproach so we accepted their application and invitations were issued.

However, one has since been moved on, as it was a thinly disguised race car and wasn't within the spirit of the series. The owner acccepted this quite cheerfully. As stated above, I have no technical knowledge but if it looks like a stripped out race car, it is a stripped out race car, whether it has paperwork or not. I rely on others to bring to my attention cars they deem to be outside the spirit of the regulations and also poor driving standards. Dotting i's and crossing t's in this environment is counter productive and sure, there may be one or two cars that are marginal, but does it really matter?

I wasn't aware that the McCarthy Escort had a sequential gearbox, so I recant. Not acceptable.

Andrew's comment regarding Grant Kern's car is exactly right. Currently, we have any number of Capri Peranas and TR7 V8s, but most are home brewed. Legal, because it was done in period.

We know that Rovers V8s were tried in Morris Marinas and Triumph 2500's, probably the Triumph Stag, by BL and I even heard the other day that they were trying to shoehorn one into a Maxi. We allow these cars because someone, somehere, did it in period.

Me thinks I should have poured my money into a Vauxhall Firenza with twin Turbo Aston Martin power. They'd have to allow it because the John Pope Special ran in period and has just been on the market. But no, you build something more modest out of period parts but you cannot get it accepted just because no one did it in period. Sorry, I don't really understand it.

Jo Hill's Triumph Herald Coupe V8 focussed a lot of my thinking as it was very popular in Targa but it wasn't allowed to race.

[Andrew Metford]

I'll bet someone, somewhere, back in the day, put a Rover V8 into a Magnette. Almost a certainty. I mean why wouldn't you? Frankly I'm surprised no one else here has tried it.

Regarding the McCarthy Escort with a Sequential gearbox, that's what the magazine article said when the car was just finished, and it has the gear indicator on the dash to tell you what gear it's in. It could have been changed since then, I don't know.

[Steve Holmes]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that you personally were saying we should have adopted them(nor Dale). I personally would have no problem with them having been introduced.
Out of curiosity Steve, why would those Group N regulations not have worked in NZ?

Anthony

No need to apologise, I wasn't getting antsi or anything, just didn't want anyone thinking I was pushing for Australian Group N rules to be adopted in NZ.

The reason for my thinking they wouldn't work in NZ, is because the two countries are a bit too different, with their own touring car racing histories that have followed quite different paths. Australian historic touring car regulations represents the type of cars, rules, and racing that took place in Australia in period, even though Group Nc rules in particular are not the same as those used in period.

Both NZ and Australia first held a national touring car/saloon car championship in 1960. Australia used Appendix J rules. New Zealand didn't really using anything. Its fields were made up of what was most effective at the time, being mostly British saloons. The early years of Australian touring car racing was dominated by Jaguar MkI/MkIIs. Similar cars were raced in NZ. However, while Australia stuck with the Appendix J rules, and the cars competing in the ATCC remained quite close to factory spec, in NZ, because there were really no rules, the cars themselves went in a different direction. They eventually became known as the Allcomers.

Australia switched from Appendix J to Improved Production in 1965. Improved Production allowed for more modifications, but was still production based. IP rules remained in place until the end of 1972. Meanwhile, at the same time, endurance touring car racing in Australia required more standard vehicles, for events such as Bathurst. These rules were known as Series Production. These also remained in place until the end of 1972. The three big Australian manufacturers went through a quite turbulent period in 1972, with national media reports about them building supercars for the road in an effort to win the Bathurst endurance race, run under Series Production rules. Series Production really didn't allow any modifications, so in order to be competitive, the cars themselves had to leave the factory as virtual race cars, hence the Falcon GTHO, Charger E38 and 49, Torana XU1 etc.

So with the negative media attention, the manufacturers quickly shied away from building these cars, and developing greater weaponry. So to keep them on-side, and involved, but without them having to produce road going race cars, the Confederation for Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) introduced Group C. This allowed for much greater modifications to be made to the race car, therefore removing the need for manufacturers to produce road going race cars.

At the same time, the Improved Production category, which was still contesting the ATCC, was suffering from ever dwindling grids, as costs sky-rocketed. Although the cars themselves, such as Bob Janes Camaro, Allan Moffats Mustang, Pete Geoghegans Super Falcon, Norm Beecheys Monaro etc were pretty spectacular cars, they'd become expensive to build and race. So for 1973, Group C would contest both the ATCC and the all-important Bathurst race, Improved Production was dropped, and the cars that raced in IP were moved across into the emerging Sports Sedan ranks.

Meanwhile, in NZ, the Saloon Car Championship was being contested through to the 1967 season by the Allcomer cars, in which there were virtually no rules. A competitor could do pretty well anything they liked. Motorsport NZ dropped these rules at the end of the 1967 season, and introduced FIA Group 5 rules. Group 5 required cars be more production based, although, much like Improved Production rules in Australia, certain modifications could be made.

In around 1971/72, a new set of rules, known as Schedule E, were introduced, allowing a few more modifications than Group 5. These appear to Kiwi homegrown rules, rather than internationally adopted. In 1973, the Schedule E rules were changed yet again, now allowing much greater modifications, such as moving the firewall up to 30cm, and repowering cars with any engine available, up to 6,000cc, as long as that car didn't leave the factory with an engine smaller than 1,300cc. So these were effectively Sports Sedan regulations, which is the direction New Zealand then headed in.

So while there were times when Aussie teams raced in NZ, and NZ teams raced in Aus, the two countries took quite different paths. When Aussie historic touring car racing was created in the early 1980s, the rules were based on the old Appendix J, with a cut-off date of December 31 1964. These rules have remained in place ever since, and have since become known as Historic Group Nb. So the cars themselves that race in Group Nb are very similar to those that originally raced in Australia in period, and some of the original cars from the period do compete in Nb.

Since the introduction of Appendix J/Nb in historic racing, Group Na has also been introduced for cars through December 31 1957. And Group Nc has been introduced for cars through December 31 1972. The Nc rules, unlike Nb, don’t actually represent the rules that took place in Australia in period. They’re a sort of middle ground between the old Series Production, and Improved production rules. So where as, for example, Improved Production rules allowed wheel widths to 8” up until 1969, and 10” from 1970 through 1972, Group Nc has narrower wheel widths, with even the V8s only allowed up to 8".

Also, Nc rules only allow makes and models that raced either in Series Production, or the ATCC through 1972. Therefore, a 1969 Mustang is allowed, but a 1970 Mustang isn’t, because nobody ever raced a 1970 Mustang in the ATCC. While a 1967, 68, or 69 Camaro is allowed, a 1970 through 72 Camaro isn’t because none of these were ever raced.

Sorry for such a long-winded reply, but essentially, what I’m saying is that Australian Group N historic regulations have been created with Australias own race history, and current day historic racing competitors in mind. But these rules neither represent what took place in New Zealand, nor could they be easily or effectively adopted in New Zealand.

[nzeder]

It is good to see that grids like Ray's and events like Festival run invitation so cars that are outside of the hard-nose these are the rules under which a classic is defined = can't race but via this invitation they actually can race - I guess that is why we have not seen "Sports Sedans/Allcomers or Shell Sport" cars on the track regularly as they are outside of the T&C and possibly Schedule K so no grids for them.

I might have given the impression I am one of the hard-nose rule lawyers out there - that is not the case - I might well be building my car 100% (some might say even OTT by not using wilwood but I have my reasons for that and that is how I interpret the rules so I don't want to denied acceptance based on parts installed on the car that "could/might" be outside of the period the car depicts) to the rules and I ideally would like to see all new builds do the same (as they should as they is what we have to work towards). I am just using the knowledge I gained by reading the rules over and over to full understand the "Objectives" as I posted earlier to ensure others understand that other existing cars are not T&C or Schedule K compliant even if others think so or they have CODs that might suggest they are.