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.
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..
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?
The MSNZ regulations for Schedule K cars means that in a closed car it is mandatory to have a roll bar and optional to have a roll cage. However, they need to be built to the design and specifications contained in Schedule A which probably means they are more robust than in period. The only cars that don't need "modern" roll bars are the genuine pre 1960 single seaters that can have roll bars that equal or exceed the period specifications - if you look at some pre 1960 single seaters, their roll bars were only really decorative.
So-ROGERH-are you saying that the new owner can race the custaxie with just a roll bar.
My understanding is that it can run with a half cage to the design of Drawing No 253-3A (page 49 of the link below) and built to the specifications in Schedule A Section 4.4 (page 14 of the link below).
You can find these sections at http://www.motorsport.org.nz/sites/d...Sch-A-2010.pdf
If the car has lightened doors then a half cage won't be enough to comply..
There are cars out there that some have worked on for years to being back to life, and there is know way you can make them any better than they were,some have there gas tanks sitting over most of your body-the roll bar,just a small loop.but with tin tops you can if you run off-say the back of pukekohe if you put todays safety in the car that was not there in the first case ,there would i think a 80% chance that you will walk away from it. The one thing that should be stopped is letting low sports cars race with tin tops before someone is killed.
At this point in time, you are unable to get a CoD for a repilica saloon, The H & C Commission are working on this, how ever you can get a HTP for a repilica, but these are hard to get as the vehicle must be same as same as, no if's no buts, I am lead to beleive that the past and present owners are aware of what is wrong with the custaxi copy, it is not the same as the original and as has been pointed out in this forum, by a past owner, is quite different in several areas. My advice to any one going to build a repilica, is put it down on paper first, check the rules, read the damm book ( Motor Sport manual 35, and its admendments) this will drop the level of stress that can occur, but dothe homework before opening the tool box!
Roger
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote