WHAT ARE THE RULES BEFORE WE START
WHAT ARE THE RULES BEFORE WE START
DAve Silcock has what should BE the rules the original group 5 rules that was in force when all these cars ran,and what every tom dick and harry are trying to complecate ,,there by so many folk stay home!!!
That is the whole issue really, there are no RULES.
What he have is a world wide debate with different opinions, like A-holes, everyone has one.
PERSONALLY, they should be as close as possible to the original. If there are no components PROVEN to be from the original, they are tributes, copies or fakes.
If they have 3 of the major components from engine, chassis, body, driveline or wheels (ie 3 out of 5) they are a rebuild/restore. This does NOT mean copies of the original bits, it is the genuine items.
Any less than 3/5 then they can not be considered as anything better than tributes as someone else is able to make another with at least the same number.
This is not my original thinking, it is just what Jenks said, and I just happen to agree.
OK THANKS.
Please remember, this is just my opinion above.Originally Posted by CUSTAXIE50
The issue, as I see it, with C2 was that the owners did not take the next step of having the COD (certificate of Description) put in place. This is paperwork (with a cost) of saying what your car has in the way of components. It was not done, so race organisers, amongst others, have a problem allowing it to run. Not their fault.
Whether you like it or not, bureaucracy dictates that COD is mandatory, so the organisers are now between a rock and a hard place.
None of us like to spend unnecessary money, but if I build a car to run as a historic I build this cost into the budget, just like I buy new wheel bearings, crack test or whatever, then I am not going to be fighting the BS every time I want to run. I don't like it but I need to do it.
Irrespective of the bureaucratic nature of the COD, it is not that expensive in that the MSNZ charge is around $100 - which would be small compared to the cost of rebuilding or restoring a car.
There is some time involved in filling out the form but having completed a number over the years, if you know your car it would take less than half an hour to complete.
I suspect with C2 the problem may not have been the cost or time of completing the COD form but the fact that the owner knew that the answers on the COD form would have meant that the C2 would never have gained COD approval.
Don't want too start it all over again, but why wouldn't it.
Indeed Mr Grimwood, why wouldn't it. The COD is a description of the car as presented. Nowhere in the COD form is the question asked....'IS THIS THE ORIGINAL'......brakes, body, suspension, engine etc et. The question asked is....'IS THIS COMPONENT TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION'.....quite different. You could say that C2's specification was 'TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION'. If there was a variation to the original specification the reason for departure was asked.
I think the problems with the COD form would occur with such questions as "Year of Model Introduction", "Year of Manufacture" and "Year Vehicle now Represents". If you had a car with a year of model introduction as say, 1966 but the year of "manufacture" being say 2010, then MSNZ would be on alert that it could be a replica.
There is also a declaration on the COD form in which the applicant has to state why his vehicle complies with MSNZ Schedule K or T&C. These MSNZ Schedules state that they are for genuine period cars - replicas and recreations are covered under a separate section (Schedule CR).
And finally, at the end of the COD form there are two sections - "Previous Competition History" and "Subsequent Owners with Period of Ownership".
I would think that these types of questions would expose a car that was recent replica or recreation.
Seems logical and a sensible approach to stop this sort of senseless trackside bickering that is going on over the likes of the C2. There was only 1 "original", term loosely used here, the "Replica" has been rebuilt by the original people that ran it and again it is the only one in existence. Should it not be capped there ? It exists and should not be copied as there was never a 2nd in the first place.
Should in the case of the C2 it not simply be classified a REPLICA and be done with it. It is well known the exact car that raced is dead and gone, so no matter how many parts you say are from the original it is still going to be a replica and that will never change.
Replicas are running here in Aus with the Gp A and Gp C originals and without seeing the word Replica on the windscreen , you would never know and the public would not care. The Bob Jane A9X Torana is a classic example. A sensible approach is used however in that there are not multiple replicas of the 1 car. If the original is dead there is only 1 replica allowed from what I understand. Seems a sensible approach especially for events like at HD where sheep stations are not at stake like many drivers seem to think are now in an actual championship situation.
You could not compare the C2 rebuild with say the Cossack Victor which has resurfaced as it is obvious from pictures it is the original Victor and still exists so its rebuild can be fully documented.
People want to see cars like the C2 and Morrari which can only be recreated and called a replica on the track with other cars that the original competed with.
Seems simple but obviously not. The trackside bickering will just kill it as has always happened with the great classes in NZ Motorsport.
Last edited by TonyG; 01-13-2012 at 11:35 PM. Reason: Clarified what I meant by bickering lol
Actually TonyG, most of us on here are not bickering. We are having 'vigorous discussion', which is encouraged. Not a bad thing. When I think back over the years, from about the beginning of the 60's, most of the problems with NZ motorsport have come about from dodgy decisions from officialdom, not from competitors just wanting to get out and race....the OSCA split for one...and yes, ONE replica from an original, which is dead,....seems obvious, but apparently not.......C2..pretty close.....no C3!!!! This thrashing around of ideas/opinions on this thread, and this thread is about replicas, is great, lets folk get things off their chest, and if we all keep our cool/humour, we will all be better off...........I'm not sure what your reference to sheep stations at HD is all about.....are you saying someone has mortgaged their station to pay for their hobby?
Sorry AMCO. Edited my post to clarify what I meant by the bickering. Not meaning the discussion on here but the complaints about wether this or that car should be allowed to go on track if presented at a meeting like Hampton Downs.
The reference to sheep stations was more tongue in cheek as no one is getting paid what they should be for putting their mobile history on track and I would be very surprised if anyone was preparing a car to go out and "Win at all costs " if that is a better way of putting it. Its not like a championship with points on offer is it. It is meant to be more "gentlemanly" fun.
I honestly did not mean to offend anyone. My reply was just poorly worded and I hope i have suitably edited it.
Regards
Tony
Apologies accepted Tony......I am not easily offended!!!!! I wish your reference to 'gentlemanly fun' was correct. I have competed against guys who 'sole ambition' was to go out and win.....believe you me. Yes the cars are the stars, as we are repeatedly told BUT, it is the very nature of our hobby that....as Stirling Moss has often said.....'I want to go out and RACE'. We all know what it is like sitting on the starting grid promising ourselves that we are going to be 'gentlemen'.......yeh right!! Now, where did I put those knitting needles.
The dreaded Red Mist syndrome. lol
I will have to come home one day when the real cars like yours are on track and relive it all for myself. Been too long.
shit-i fell out of bed today,and all that i had last night was six cups of tea.turned the radio on, they were playing--we will rock you--thats ,what allan dick played before coming on the radio, all good.we are getting the speedway sidecar out to race in palmerston north tonight,its going to be a big night for my boy, he will be overdriving the chair tonight to get a place.I was thinking how could this day get BETTER,-- SHIT-YOU -BOYS you have MADE MY DAY, thats all i wanted to know from the start about- the thing that is now -called C2-you could name a drink after it. right back to what has been put up,this time around we are getting there,just tell me in some words that we can all understand, what did they put on C2- that was not on -C1,THAT HAS UPSET SOME out there.all the best to you all, time to get this chair, and some race gas out of the shed and get to the track- all the best-CUSTAXIE50..
Roger,
Slightly more complicated with the C2 I agree as there is no Homologation specs to follow on a car like that but there is nothing in the Sched K compliance system that prevents a replica. As discussed previously, my Alpina Group 2 replica built from a road going BMW 2002Tii was issued with a Sched K cert. In the section "previous competition history" I simply wrote "nil" and in the preamble to the application stated it was newly built as a replica.
C2 was, we assume, built from the bones of a 1956 Customline body and chassis exactly as the original, that would certainly not preclude it getting at least a COD. And as the car was built by or in association with the original people involved the verification of the "period correctness" would on the face of it seem to be pretty straight forward.
The conclusion therefore as to why the build was not completed by applying for and getting the correct paperwork can only come down to two options;
1. The people involved didn't want to for whatever reason
2. The car contained non period parts or technology that meant it did not comply.
I certainly have no idea (nor an opinion) on which of those options is correct.
I do however have an opinion on whether it is a replica or not.
Last edited by Howard Wood; 01-14-2012 at 04:10 AM.
My COD comments in post #9 where not specifically directed at C2 but at replicas more like a recently built from scratch car like a Cobra type car.
I agree that MSNZ Schedule K and T&C regulations permit such things as a BMW 2002 built into a Alpina Group 2, or an Escort 1100 into an Alan Mann Twin Cam or a Mini 850 into a Cooper S. These cars would then be "tested" through the COD process to see how closely they replicate the Alpina, Twin Cam or Cooper S.
From what I have heard (therefore hearsay), C2 possibly had problems in that it physically didn't replicate C1 in some areas and therefore would have probably had trouble qualifying as a Schedule K car - however it could have had a shot at Schedule CR (Retrospective Special) but it would be unlikely that it could be called C2.
The process is far from ideal and was probably drawn up with the intention of dealing with someone constructing the likes of a modern built Lotus 20 and trying to claim it was a real period car. On that basis the process has merit in protecting the owners of real cars against non-real cars.
so all someone has to do is say get any old brake set up, if it is to the original specification first time around, put any old big block together to the original specification as the first one and away you go is that what you are saying.
this is what i was told on friday,after i asked about the custaxie. I was told it would be here this weekend but was told later on there was some thing up with it,i went on saturday and was told that the driver did not want to go by the rules set down for racing the car.He wanted to race by his rules,i understand he wanted to remove the rollcage that is in it and put what was in it in 1967 and was told if you do that you can not race.So it looks like the car will not race again if he wants to go by his rules we all know how the car was built. but the one thing that is on my mind is-is there a loop over the drive shaft just in case the shaft lets go ,if you take a hard look at the old car that raced in 1967 and allmost all that raced allso in 1967 you would by todays standard say how unsafe they were,because when i had a look on the old car there was not one there and could not see where one had been ,so if this was the way it was and still is just think about it,new driveshaft tunnel made out of light aluminium and screwed to the new floor, say the car was been raced and the driveshaft lets go at 140mph what would the driver look like when the car came to a stop,i think the new owner should have a look see at that before he wants to take the rollcrage out
Thats a good point you raise there Custaxie, if the information given to you is correct about the rollcage. Where do you draw the line between historical accuracy and safety?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote