Good to see common sense at last
Good to see common sense at last
The VCC / MSNZ matter is a bit of a minefield but as Racer Rog has pointed out, it is being slowly sorted. In a pure form the VCC field should stop at 1960 cars (or continuation cars the same as a 1960 model) - after that, the MSNZ structure takes over even though the MSNZ Appendix K rules cater for cars back to those built before 1930.
I think MSNZ has enough trouble getting it's mind around the particular requirements for 1960 cars (race gas issue, roll bar issue etc) without trying to cope with earlier cars. On this basis the VCC is a better structure to deal with these earlier cars. However, it is pretty evident that the VCC clubs do not have the experience of running circuit meetings and this is an area that needs improvement, if only for their own protection. At a recent unnamed VCC event (not Roycroft) I had my log book signed off for a scrutineering audit without anyone setting eyes on my car!
The mixed grid at the southern tracks earlier this year did cause a few problems and eventuated in a complaint to the Clerk of the Course on safety grounds. To their credit it was resolved but grids of more like cars usually get around these issues. We are in contact with Formula Junior drivers in the UK, Europe and Australia and it looks reasonably positive that there will be a large contingent coming out here over January / February 2013. Hopefully we have enough cars to have our own grid. Interestingly, when the Juniors race at the Denny Hulme Festival in January 2013 it will be under MSNZ jurisdiction but when we subsequently go south with the same cars we will be racing under VCC jurisdiction.
It seems to me that there a few "seeds of confusion".
RacerRog has said "a deal was done that would allow members of the VCC to race in the correct class with the need to belong to a MotorSport NZ club, they decided not to honour that agreement for reasons unknown". Now I may be prepared to try to understand this, but I think a few more details are needed. If there were members of VCC who went and raced in other meetings in violation of this, surely it was the officials of that meeting who allowed them to do so, so the officials should have insisted on the appropriate membership, and of course this implies licences.
If they did not have the right licences it is even worse. And of course you can not have either a VCC competiton licence, nor an MSNZ one without being a member of an affiliated club.
In regards "my proposed class" I am happy to restate, all cars will be only allowed to compete as long as they have a VIC (vehicle Identity Card) issued by the VCC which shows a pre Dec 31 1960 date. I have been considering actually moving this date older, ie (or eg) pre 1959 as it is pointed out in the VCC constitution that you can not prevent any member competing as long as they have an appropriate dating on their vehicle, so having a rule banning 105/109e and minis would violate this constitutional right.
I do have to say that if some of my money for my National MSNZ licence is used for training, for example flag marshals provided at HD Roycroft meeting, the training needs re-visiting. I am not prepared to publically debate this issue, but would accept emails via the PM system.
In regard the true VCC cars, I cannot but agree with Racer Rog, with the small proviso that there are some cars which do not have anywhere else to run. My own Buckler, now being taken back to pre 60 format being an example, and there are a fair few others.
The numbers of both car clubs and members of those clubs who do not belong to MSNZ is a wonderful red herring. There are a huge number of "Car Clubs", most based in Auckland, who have zero interest in Motorsport, eg's which spring to mind are Peugeot, MicroCar, etc. They have no need to belong, and the cost would have a significant negative impact on them for no benefit whatever. Our beloved govt calls this cost/ benefit ratio I believe.
I guees that it is great that we have a forum to debate this, we just all need to remember why we do this!
Oldfart, I made a mistake when I typed that out, what I meant to say, was, "with out belonging to a MotorSport NZ club" my mind was racing away from my fingers at that point, but the short and sweet answer to that was, the VCC circuit competitors would get a MotorSport NZ licence, ( Level Playing Field in terms of cost) and MotorSport NZ would make a couple of changes to their log books and both log books would be recognized by the auditors and the meeting and races would be run by MotorSport CoC etc, thus ensuring the level of protection needed in case of major accidents. What this meant was the present age barrier to competition, post 1960, for the VCC, was then negated, as vehicles would then be placed in the appropriate class, problems solved, as I think there would only be about 20 to 30 VCC competitors that don't already hold MotorSport NZ licences I personally did not see a big deal in all this, but they changed their minds, and pissed a few off in MotorSport NZ for their troubles, and soured the relationship they once enjoyed.
Roger H, you will under MSNZ governance at the ENZED Classic, the only field that will run under VCC will be there mixed bag field if they run at all, we are trying to encourage some of the true VCC cars out, but who knows?
I hope that throws a bit of light on the subject for people, there was a couple of other things but really of a minor nature, and made no difference either way. Any Questions?
Roger
It would seem that there are always some individuals who will sour things for the majority, and this seems a good example.
I think you would be very wrong in your 20 to 30, my suspicion is closer to 10 times that number. We move in different circles!
VCC certainly recognizes the MSNZ licence and logbook, reciprocal does not appear to be the case.
If it did "piss off a few in MSNZ"....
I would think that at the Roycroft meeting about 80% of the competitors didn't have MSNZ licences, so I tend to agree with Oldfart that the number is much greater than 20 to 30.
Does the VCC actually issue a log book? If not, how do they record scrutineering and car audits?
You could be right, its hard to know, what I do know is that a few let their MSNZ licences go when they learned that the vCC would accept their vehicles and that a licence cost $35 for 5 years or something along those lines, but that only applied to circuit racing, not trials or hill climbs, which would appear that they have been the traditional facets of VCC competition as I understand it, but I am only speaking with knowledge of the South Island, and the VCC does not recognize a MSNZ licence down here , but most Auditors will use their log books.in fact I believe that a vehicle should only have one log book this is just from a safety angle, and personally I don't care who's it is, as long as there is a record of competitive events the vehicle has been entered in and any faults that may have been found corrected etc but that was part of the deal that was rejected, I did thnk it was a win win for all concerned, most other countries have the same licence for competion, in the UK the RACMSA handles all those.
Roger
Yes to both Rogers, VCC do issue log books after the issue of a VIC. The VCC licence applies to VCC Speed events. If they are run by a MSNZ club solely, obviously the appropriate MSNZ licence is needed. If it is a combined event then the licence can be for the event (or part of) you entered. Roger H like the Taupo December meeting, you used your MSNZ, I used my VCC.
Log book, total agreement that should be only one for a particular vehicle.
Apparently Brian Lawrence has been appointed by Motorsport New Zealand to sort out the classes and to undertake the promotional duties within the The MSNZ Promotional Company. Wasn't he one those who stuffed it up originally and was the reason MSNZ now are the owners of what to all intents and purposes is an illegal organization.
I thought that Brian Lawrence had been employed by MSP (MotorSport Promotions Limited - the old re-named TMC). However on reading the press release on the MSP web site I'm not too sure :Originally Posted by markec
Marketing Management – Brian Lawrence
After 11 years in Australia Brian returns to Auckland as Marketing Manager for NZV8 Touring cars working in conjunction with MotorSport Promotions Limited.
It actually says "working in conjunction with MotorSport Promotions" which does not necessarily mean working for them. If he has been directly employed by MSNZ then this would be another example where MSNZ has lost sight of who's interests they are meant to be acting.
From my recollection Brian was the GM of Global Promotions who ran Tier 1 many years ago. They got into strife and MSNZ had to bail them out. In the process they increased their (actually member club's) shareholding from 40% to 60% and levied a "one-off" $50 charge on all competition licences to pay for the bail out - however the $50 surcharge was never revoked and we are still paying it today!
Keith Jones was the GM of Global Sports & Promotions and they were involved with a number of sports, Athletics, Soccer & Netball just to name a few, remember the Countrywide atletics meetings on TV, well that was all promoted by Global Sports & Promotions.
Brian Lawrence was their Motorsport man, John Adshead was their soccer man and I think that John Walker may have had something to do with athletics but I can not be too sure.
Keith was an absolute bundle of drive and energy and if I recall correctly, and I do stand to be corrected on this, some serious health issues affected his ability to run and control the business and he was unable to secure some of the sponsorships needed and some groups were left with activities planned and just about under action but without the required funding of the sponsorships. This in turn lead to the formation of TMC by the circuit owning clubs and MSNZ as they set about trying to recover the situation. Remember too that this all happened about the same time as the cars were on the water from the USA & UK etc for the summer series so there was no time to be lost.
All part of history now.
You could also be forgiven for mentioning Global's efforts with the World Superbikes at Manfield, or the varying misfortunes of DJR a few years back... Brett Stephens Racing...one would wonder what the successful cv entailed when the position was allocated.
Anyway, onward and upward...
Thank goodness someone who was there can confirm my opinion of the Roycroft. There were crucial manning positions totally overlooked - and it wasn't a shortage of manpower.
RogerH is well aware of how most local classic meetings run and how well they run when manned correctly. AMCO72 may well be surprised at these omissions, but it is to the credit of one or two non VCC people that the meeting ran as well as it did as they were drafted in or had their original roles expanded. Outsiders (meaning those who have never actually run a meeting) are always blown away the first time they get involved as from the driving seat, meetinmgs "just happen".
HRC and TACCOC for example, make it all look so smooth and easy, as they have well honed system and personnel, who know what they are doing. The development of the internet and the on line entry system for example, has made race organisation so much easier, as no longer do organisers have to print and circulate 400+ sets of regs for every meeting.
VCC elected to do everything manually and this in itself creates problems for those who have an involvement and need comprehensive and accurate information. Just as an example, the 2011 Roycroft programme didn't even have the VCC driver's Christian names published and there were several instances of the same car race number being used more than once in a race grid! (That still happens now and again at many meetings and is up to the meeting officials to sort out before the programme is published. No fun for a marshal or race official, dummy grid marshal, timekeeper, scrutineer, commentator, race reporter, photographer or even spectator.) Thankfully 2012 was slightly better.
Ironically, post Roycroft, I am not sure that the organisers have those manning omissions covered for next year. I would have thought that the logical thing to do would be to have a debrief from those from outside the VCC who got stuck in to make the meeting run and add to the knowledge base.
We look forward to the DVD of the meeting.
Last edited by screwdriver; 07-01-2012 at 09:21 AM.
Perhaps if Screwdriver would be kind enough to email me privately and explain what he is actually talking about, the VCC might just be able to "have those manning omissions covered for next year." Yes it would be logical to have a debrief from those from outside the VCC who got stuck in to make the meeting run and add to the knowledge base if only we knew who they were. This is all a surprise to me as the meeting was run with close consultation with the Hampton Downs management who I believe are very close to the same HRC that you say make the meetings run smooth and easy.
Graeme Banks
Secretary Treasurer
Waitemata Branch Vintage Car Club of NZ
email. waitemata@vcc.co.nz
Would do Graeme!
But:
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
waitemata@vcc.co.nz
Last edited by screwdriver; 07-02-2012 at 07:11 AM.
Sorry should be waitemata@vcc.org.nz
I feel the need to respond to Screwdrivers "copy and paste" from another thread.
Please be aware that I have almost no involvement with the organisation, but am a very willing participant, so I am not defending the organisers, just expressing a view from one who participates.
Please have a look at the origin of the piece you pasted from Roger Herrick, and make sure that you have not taken it out of context.
You make mention of "doing everything manually and this creates problems...." now I am curious who these people are who need such detailed information. There are no prizes, no results, handicaps are treated with no seriousness at all, so who really cares?
In 2011 there were NO lap times taken and the entrants gridded themselves where they liked, generally finding others with whom they could play, and the vast majority, if not all, loved that.
In 2012 there was an offer from someone to manually time, this offer was accepted (and help offered) and as far as I could see it worked just fine.
In regard programmes, please remember that the "spirit" of the event is what matters, and if you can find programmes from the "good old days" they rarely (if ever) had other than initials, perhaps this is what was intended? If you look at the "advertising" in the programme it was likewise period, does this come in for criticism as well?
I also think you need to discover who it was that asked if they could cover the on circuit manning BEFORE you make further comment in this regard. (And I won't comment on the ability of some of those either)
I do have criticisms, some of these relate to the abilities of the on track officials, some are at a management issue, but I have taken the (unusual?) step to address them to the organisers, rather than a forum, and also used my name.
Last edited by Oldfart; 07-02-2012 at 07:13 PM.
The running of an event is not an easy task - from a competitor and spectator perspective it all seems pretty straightforward if things run smoothly. However, if things go wrong the repercussions can be very significant if proper procedures were not followed.
Having attended (as a competitor) many events over the years, it is evident that the standards of race organisation varies considerably. The VCC type events are usually more "relaxed" and while this may be part of the "spirit" I fear that this relaxation and lack of officialdom may be a bit of a time bomb.
Through my committee involvement with TACCOC, I know of the extent of effort required to put on a meeting. TACCOC has a well proven system honed over several decades. The system works well and relies on a lot of volunteer input but a significant part of the system is ensuring that if anything goes wrong there is no room for comeback on the club or officials.
The VCC events (such as the Roycroft meeting) are a very welcome addition to the calendar and I hope that they grow in popularity. With that growth in popularity comes demands for greater efficiency and the requirement for slicker event structure - this may impact on the relaxed atmosphere, at least behind the scene.
I don't think we can expect a club that is new at this (eg: the Waitemata Branch) to come up to speed overnight. Clubs like TACCOC are happy to help (in fact, TACCOC provided assistance at the Roycroft meeting) but I think the VCC clubs putting on events need to balance the "spirit" and relaxed atmosphere with ensuring that they protect themselves in case something does go wrong and have a structure that can cope with the demands of putting on a large event.
The Roycroft meeting was a good and popular event and was an improvement on the previous one. There is room for improvement and I trust the organisers are aware of these issues. I'm sure that if they approached people like HRC and TACCOC who have considerable experience, they would be pleased to offer advice.
Agree with everything you say Roger, and there is ALWAYS room for improvement. One of the reasons I gave up on motorsport in the 70s was that there were clubs, some still in existance that refused to change, or learn from anything. One of the clubs you name has in the past accepted money for entries, cashed the cheques and then argued black and blue on the day that it had not been received, and this for more than one competitor who had travelled hundreds of kilometers, and it took some fairly hefty discussion to be allowed to compete. No apology, no acknowledgement and no results. Not every event runs smoothly, and for what it's worth this was not very many years back.
One of my comments to Screwdriver was in regard to computers and timing, I still have no reason to alter my stance on that.
Cheers Rhys
Last edited by Oldfart; 07-03-2012 at 04:17 AM.
Just to expand. (as Roger has attempted to do).
Using the local computerised on line system (available to all race organisers) creates all the info needed for all the officials of the event - automatically. It relies on:
a) The driver supplying ALL details required - DoB, licence, contact details etc - just once
b) Someone supplying all the relevant car details - just once.
c) Selecting the appropriate car(s) for each meeting (if someone runs a saloon and a single seater, they merely select the correct vehicle).
Once these are in the system, it is all accurate (presumably) and therefore can be speedily extracted in various forms to suit whoever needs it. That includes several officials who need different info, the programme, the scrutineers, meeting secretary and so on. Whilst timekeeping may not be a serious issue at Roycroft, how do you think the timekeeper gets his information into his computer? Do you think he wants to sit there with an inaccurate programme and type everything in?
The system also records the date and time of entry, which makes it very difficult to deny a requested entry has been lodged. It doesn't guarantee the entry has been accepted, but it is there in black and white to say it was lodged.
How many of you are aware for example, that the secretary of the meeting, (certainly for National race permits) has to submit an age breakdown of all competitors? Male and female?
Whilst it may well be old English to refer to Mr G B H Farrington-Smythe, have you ever tried commentating or writing a race report from minimal information? Have you tried cataloguing your photographs accurately and comprehensively? OK if you know the guy as Gerard, know his car and know a bit about him, but the purpose of a race programme is to not only inform officials, and spectators, but over time, it becomes an historical document.
If there is race incident and you are a race marshal and have to radio it in, and you only have an inaccurate programme to refer to, it can lead to the wrong driver being put in front of the Stewards. (Yes, it has happened.)
You may have short memories, but the lack of structure and adherence to publishd ASRs, cost not only the Queenstown Officials a lot of grief and stress, but also cost all licence holders a substantial levy.
If you elect to run a race meeting in this day and age, you have to be aware of your responsibilities and as Roger states quite correctly, if you don't do the job properly you are putting yourselves at risk.
I know of one race series organiser and at least one club, who have been through costly legal battles with dissatisfied drivers - and this is supposed to be amateur sport for older guys with older cars? Another series organising committee was threatened earlier this year with legal action from a classic racer, so don't think that it couldn' happen at a VCC meeting.
I choose to use a nom-de-plume as it is too easy to throw stones at the messenger instead of listening to the message. It is not a form of cowardice, but sometimes you have to play devil's advocate to generate robust debate. No progress was ever made by agreeing with everybody on every issue.
I share Roger's wish for a more professional race meeting, but still with the low key fun and participation. It is a common misconception that because any event is deemed low key, that it doesn't need to be slick and efficiently run and that the officials will never find them selves in the dock. This is not in any way a criticism of VCC or their committee, who are dedicated to putting on a great event, which hopefully will continue to improve, and I am sure it will.
Some contributors on here need to accept that whether we like it or not, organisers have a more onerous responsibilty than in the 1970s and earlier.
Last edited by screwdriver; 07-03-2012 at 11:19 AM.
Posting Permissions
