Motorsport NZ does Historic Racing need them.....

[ERC]

Thanks Roger. I am currently a member of just one club (MGCC - Auckland) which I think has about 400 members. That is a lot of money considering that only about 40, would even venture onto the race track. I am basing that on those who race regularly (25 on my list of 160 series drivers - not all running MGs) plus the Classic triallers and MG race series drivers.

Let us be generous and say that 50 MGCC members are genuinely under the MSNZ umbrella. If they formed their own club (they could still be affiliated to MGCC) and would pay $250 to the governing body, then MGCC would save a massive $1750 a year - MSNZ would lose it.

Maybe the clubs need to address this issue themselves. I assume TACCOC, Porsche, BMW, Alfa, Jaguar, Fiat, Lotus and many other affiliated marque clubs will be in a similar situation? But, if they did, MSNZ would simply raise all licence and permit fees to maintain their income, so an alternative organisation would be even more viable.

A stand alone Classic/Historic organisation could probably be staffed by a maximum of two full time employees and I am sure that the office space they'd need and the cost of a couple of computers, a scanner, laminator or card printer and mobile phones would be peanuts in terms of cost per Classic/Historic competitor over a season of racing.

As a profitable series, we would happily throw a few extra dollars into the pot if required.

[RogerH]

For an idea on how much the MSNZ prices for competition licences and log books are in excess of actual cost recovery (as opposed to being used as a source to supplement MSNZ's general funding requirements) one only has to compare the VCC cost to the MSNZ cost.

A VCC competition licence (which is affiliated to an FIA related entity) costs $23 and lasts for five years. The MSNZ competition licence costs $138 and lasts for one year. A VCC competition log book costs $10.22 while a MSNZ log book costs $51. A MSNZ COD costs $97 while a VCC Vehicle Identity Card for a VCC member is free.

[Russ Cunningham]

Becomes very difficult due to Motorsports link with FIA. VCC is running some pre 1960 events but M Sport is holding on to post 1960 Historics very tightly and would make life very difficult. VCC currently doesnt have the structure to do it at the current level. Interesting that you should mention the drags as they have also had their problems and heaven forbid M Sport looked at taking that over as well.

I take on board the above but in reality the simple answer to the question is that NO!
we don't need the blood suckers if a viable alternative is available.

Would be great if you could let us know who we are answering?

[GeebeeNZ]

What ERC has stated is so true. Many of the large marque clubs could save themselves a bundle by setting up a separate motorsport club for their competition members with a sub of $1 and a condition that the members must also be members of the main club.The MG Motorsport club would then be the club affiliated to MSNZ. I have seriously looked at it twice before when I was on the Executive of both the Sports Car Club of NZ and the Fiat Club Auckland and although we got close to it I never managed to convince either club to go ahead with it. Graeme

[ERC]

Extracted from the HRC newsletter put out today (well done Chris!), we get this little gem from MSNZ:

"There are a lot of positive things happening within our sport. Historic Racing is growing, grass roots motorsport is providing the opportunities for new competitors to get involved through an increasing number of events."

Anyone see the irony here? All of a sudden, historic motorsport gets a mention... No support, but a mention.

On a purely personal note, once again I find myself in the grip of the red tape. My road/tow car (and low key occasional competition car, maybe) that has been under construction for 8 years, now has a roll cage built to the previous regs (which we didn't sign off at the time - unfortunately), so now I need an engineer's report before it can be approved (with no guarantee that it will be of course). Yet more additional costs. But - I can cut the front frame out and lo and behold, by removing a section, the car will be 100% legal as it doesn't need homologation for a rear hoop and back stays.

I am sure Fair Go would love that one!

I can't think of any other circumstances where removing safety equipment means it is more legal.

[fullnoise68]

In answer to `Russ Cunningham' the reason I started this thread was as a result of different conversations I have had with competitors who have either walked, parked up their cars, or had nothing but problems dealing with the current regime. In reading some of the intelligent responses, it would appear that Historic Racing - which caters to a wide cross section of cars - could benefit from being in charge of it`s own destiny. The Denny Hulme Festival is going to be the biggest one yet, and my personal belief is the punters are coming to see some bloody nice cars from all around the world, in a enjoyable and relaxed enviroment, and then go home looking forward to coming back to watch `the old cars' race, completely oblivious to the continuing issues many on this fine website face.

[RogerH]

I can't think of any other circumstances where removing safety equipment means it is more legal.

This happened recently with harnesses and roll hoops in historic single seaters. MSNZ introduced regulations that effectively resulted in them deeming no harness and no roll hoop being "safer" than having a harness or a hoop that didn't strictly meet their regulations (which were in fact unsuitable for historic cars). To give MSNZ their dues, they did eventually change their regulations after some spirited lobbying but it should never have happened in the first place.

[ERC]

Forgot about that one Roger! I parked up my car for two years as the harness seat belts had expired, having been used less than 15 times. What really niggled then was that instead of just renewing the authority card when I changed brands, I had to apply for a new one and also, get this, get a scrutineer's approval - for a BRAND change?????

I could have reverted to the 2" original lap and diagonal, 35 year old belts - and if you had seen the original mountings for those, you would be apalled. (I might post a pic one day.)

That was the last straw for me at the time. I nearly gave up racing altogether, but the constant and ultimately successful lobbying for a belt review tempted me back again, but it is a fragile relationship with MSNZ's technical rulings and I suspect that many cars in sheds are there because owners are unwilling to bastardise the originals.

We should put a line in the sand NOW, and demand that there is no need for any further technical changes for older cars. Most of us are not running modern 700bhp super tourers and many are running cars with less than 150bhp, or even less than 100bhp. In many cases, they are not even racing cars, they are road cars.

I dread the day when some bright spark decides that all suspension components need crack testing annually.

[Jac Mac]

An alternative means of getting things back to a level playing field would be for all drivers/entrants to enclose an indemnity form of their own for the event that must be signed by the organiser/s before being accepted, get enough potential entrants to do that & I think you would find a swift change in attitudes. Draw the form up so it can be copied/printed, address most of the concerns you have sensibly, eg belt dates/roll bars/overalls/entry fees/memberships etc, yes it might take a few meetings to pull them into line, but after a period of SFA spectators & competitors if nothing else you might be able to buy the tracks cheap! Big question, have you got the collective kahunas to do it?

[Trevor Sheffield]

Jac Mac,

Some form of revolt is called for, but surely not one directed against and jeopardizing the organisers of events, as they are not the culprits here, MANZ would only be affected indirectly. The watertight MANZ constitution can not be overcome as has been proven over a span of fifty years.

The existing organisation will have to be bypassed by establishing a viable competitor. As has been pointed out, the commerce act provides the means.

Trevor.

[Trevor Sheffield]

;18857]I find this a most interesting discussion. As one,who with a group of like minded people, managed to run Wings and Wheels at Ruapuna and Wigram for 10 years or so I can state that one does not need MSNZ.

Oh they will threaten you with all sorts of dire consequences,cancellation of licenses,etc etc. But as I have already posted on here before there is a Commerce Comm. finding that makes it quite clear that nobody can dictate who a track owner can rent their track too, or who a competitor can race with with.

They will say you cannot get insurance bit you can and so on and so forth. What annoys me most is the underlining dishonesty of the organization. They have known for years of case 242 and yet carry on as though it never happened. What we all need is a group of people who have the time and inclination to get a better, fairer deal going. I would be prepared to be part of this and contribute what I have learned so far.

All else constitutes windwards urine.

[Racer Rog]

What I find is funny, is most of you guys whinning and moaning, could have had a say at the AGCM, Roger H, and Chris, were the only ones who I know were there to have a say, and while I did not agree with all he had to say, at least he was there, there was a informal meeting for H & C, how many were there, again just a few with real interest in the sport. Look there are problems, and if you look at any sporting body you will find a lot of the same things will appear, go play with the VCC, not on your life, their fee's are cheap for a reason, they don't do anything!! while trails and hill climbs serve them well when it comes to circuit racing, they have been found wanting, and are now taking on board practices that have been developed by MSNZ, Eric you mentioned Authrority Cards, the requirements for these are laid out by the LVVC and Land Transport, MSNZ only administer it, so you are damm lucky they do so, where does the VCC get its link to the FIA, through MSNZ!! I do not agree with all the MSNZ does, but I am a active participant in its activities and admin, so I have a right to have my say, there are others here on this forum who do so as well, but far to few, so to rest the rest get out of the arm chair and get active, some may need a zimmer frame, and you don't have to race, but get involved if you want to have change. there will be a meeting of the H & C commission coming up in the lower North Island, and this will be a open meeting for those who are interested, to voice their concerns ( vote of thanks perhaps for some of the work they have in recent times ) and I guess Crunch might put the dates and time here, its planed to have one in the upper NI and one in the SI at a later date as well, and its hoped to have these done within the year.
Roger

[ERC]

Please don't accuse us of not wanting to go to the AGM Roger. As I posted some time ago, I booked a Wellington flight last year on the basis of what time the Historic workshop was meeting, and a return flight home not long after. Then they changed the time to an hour or so later, making it impossible.

I was out of the country this time so couldn't attend this year either. Where is it next year and what date?

We DID support the meeting in Auckland as stated before, but it didn't seem to matter what 110 local drivers wanted, it was a case of "ah, but we have to consult with the South Island too." We agree with that, but I can't see the South Island being against a set of rules that they can tighten if they wish.

All we really wanted was a set of umbrella regs that we could all work to instead of having stupid little clauses that outlaw too many cars for no sensible reason - other than some people have a bee in their bonnets about certain rules and are not wiling to see that they are irrelevant in achieving the aims of Classic motorsport - "participation and enjoyment".

Many people have made many representations, including posters on this MB, but at the end of the day, one club, one vote, not one competitor, one vote and the commission still makes its decisions based on what IT wants, not what the majority of competitors want, ditto the general attitude of MSNZ, who don't really seem to understand the needs or the practicalities of the historic and classic movement at all. That is my perception, it may not be yours. Like other posters on here who are active within their own spheres, I already spend far too much time running our series for the benefit of the drivers and the sport.

We now have 100 registered and fully paid up for this season, so whether others think we need to have CoD's, or conform 100% to T & C as currently written, our members effectively support our stance and that gives me a certain amount of satisfaction. It would give me even more satisfaction if the T & C rules were 100% workable and pragmatic enough to still give the Classic flavour, without the need for the Schedule K/Appendix K


Over the last few years, just look at the fuel fiasco for starters; seat belts in their boxes dumped; roll cage changes and now, we all have to go out and replace our fire extinguishers.

If I am sounding like a broken record, I am sorry, but I don't think my stance has changed at all over the years I have been involved. I am still heavily involved as a driver, series organiser/handicapper (two race groups), commentator, race promoter and even on occasions, spectator and photographer.

Too many people are too one eyed and can't really see the bigger picture as it affects others.

[RogerH]

What I find is funny, is most of you guys whinning and moaning, could have had a say at the AGCM, Roger H, and Chris, were the only ones who I know were there to have a say, and while I did not agree with all he had to say, at least he was there, there was a informal meeting for H & C, how many were there, again just a few with real interest in the sport. Look there are problems, and if you look at any sporting body you will find a lot of the same things will appear, go play with the VCC, not on your life, their fee's are cheap for a reason, they don't do anything!! while trails and hill climbs serve them well when it comes to circuit racing, they have been found wanting, and are now taking on board practices that have been developed by MSNZ, Eric you mentioned Authrority Cards, the requirements for these are laid out by the LVVC and Land Transport, MSNZ only administer it, so you are damm lucky they do so, where does the VCC get its link to the FIA, through MSNZ!! I do not agree with all the MSNZ does, but I am a active participant in its activities and admin, so I have a right to have my say, there are others here on this forum who do so as well, but far to few, so to rest the rest get out of the arm chair and get active, some may need a zimmer frame, and you don't have to race, but get involved if you want to have change. there will be a meeting of the H & C commission coming up in the lower North Island, and this will be a open meeting for those who are interested, to voice their concerns ( vote of thanks perhaps for some of the work they have in recent times ) and I guess Crunch might put the dates and time here, its planed to have one in the upper NI and one in the SI at a later date as well, and its hoped to have these done within the year.
Roger

Roger - a few points regarding your post.

While the VCC may not have a direct affiliation with the FIA, I think this is a bit misleading as they do have a direct link to FIVA which is more akin to their activities.

The structure of MSNZ does not allow widespread representation at the MSNZ AGM. Under the Constitution, representation is limited to club delegates only. On this basis it is essentially impossible for concerned competitors to have a say at the MSNZ AGM. This is one of the gripes but I fear that the powers that be within MSNZ understand that this restrictive representation limits the ability of grassroot participants to generate any significant change to the status quo.

The concern that I have is that the MSNZ hierarchy is ingrained with a culture that fails to appreciate that MSNZ is the member clubs and that the MSNZ Executive and officers are the servants of these member clubs. There is a lack of affinity within MSNZ for the historic and classic fraternity and I have personally experienced behaviour from MSNZ that supports concerns that MSNZ is not acting in the interests of member clubs and is also not acting in good faith. A prime example of this related to the remits TACCOC put forward for the 2012 AGM. I think it was generally understood that these remits bucked the status quo but they were put forward by an historic and classic club as a result of concerns they had for their members. The remits were lodged with MSNZ on 23 March 2012 and TACCOC understood that there were inherent issues with the remits as they effected constitutional matters and as such did not meet the required notice period (which was different from the notice period stated by MSNZ for general remits). The notice issue was not insurmountable and there was a solution but TACCOC waited to see if MSNZ, pursuant to it's obligation to act in good faith, approached TACCOC in a cooperative manner to discuss a solution.
Unfortunately and surprisingly the very opposite happened. Literally ten minutes before the remits were to be presented at the AGM the President of MSNZ approached me (as the TACCOC delegate) and advised me that MSNZ were going to declare the remits illegal and not allow them to be presented. I took this as being totally unacceptable behaviour and no more than a cynical attempt by MSNZ to wait to the very last minute to try and "kill" a member club's remits that did not suit MSNZ's purposes. MSNZ had the ability to raise it's concerns at any time between 23 March and 18 May (date of the AGM) but apparently chose not to do so - even a 'phone call would have sufficed.
Perhaps you may now appreciate why there is such dissatisfaction with the MSNZ hierarchy especially from the historic and classic fraternity.