MSNZ Certificate of Description

[crunch]

Hi All;

The H&C Commission had one of our regular meetings today in Wellington. As a result of that I would like to gather opinion and feedback in the one place on COD's. Specifically as a Q&A type of arrangement. So if you have any questions to ask us regarding the system, or comments you wish to make...fire away. I would prefer questions as then I know what answers you seek, or what problems you have that need attention.
Cheers
Raymond Bennett
Chairman Historic & Classic Commission
Vice-President
MSNZ

[ERC]

Happy New Year Crunch!

Q: Why not a slimmed down CoD, specifically for standard or virtually standard cars, rather than the full, expensive multi page CoD?

Why? Leave the full CoD for true competition cars or ones with a history needing additional provenance or those seeking Appendix/Schedule K.

[Allan]

I agree with that in principal ERC but but who decides where the line is drawn between the two.

[crunch]

Happy New Year Crunch!

Q: Why not a slimmed down CoD, specifically for standard or virtually standard cars, rather than the full, expensive multi page CoD?

Why? Leave the full CoD for true competition cars or ones with a history needing additional provenance or those seeking Appendix/Schedule K.

Same to you Ray, although the new year just reminds me I'm getting older!
Thanks for reminding me of that Ray, I know you have mentioned it to me before. One of the topics the Commission has discussed was COD Application forms tailored individually to T&C and K, which is what you are suggesting? A couple of options have been developed and are in the early stages, but what do you think would be the main points that would be required for a T&C CoD?

[Oldfart]

Have you had a look at the VCC type logbook? The application is still somewhat wordy, but the actual logbook is succinct and accepted widely.

[ERC]

Basically Crunch, if a car is running the standard engine on standard carbs with standard interior and trim, standard bodywork, rear axle, brakes and gearbox, then it is a no brainer. As just about all tend to swap wheels anyway, maybe just a clarification on T & C rules regarding wheels and tyres would be sufficient.

Equally, as Arthur has pointed out before, even with an existing CoD, if a driver decides to develop the car, then a simple declaration as to a limited number of changes should be considered, rather than having to apply for a (paid) modification each time.

I think you are well aware of my thoughts regarding T & C.

Let's see how the discussion goes...

[nzeder]

Ok I am relatively new to all this stuff and as I am in the middle of building a car with the aim of gaining Schedule K and ultimately FIA HTP I have read the docs over and over again to ensure I am doing the right thing - and I have not submitted a COD application before

So question are

1. What is wrong with the COD process as it stands today that it needs to be changes?
2. As MSNZ has a connection to the FIA I can only assume MSNZ has copies of all the FIA homologation papers. Is this the case?
3. If the COD process needs to be reviewed why? It is because some cars have COD for a given configuration that is actually outside of the rules the car is meant to represent? (examples below)

Example - Not trying to pick on a given model but these are just a good example of how thing have been miss interrupted over the years causing issue with the COD and T&C (in particular) process as I see it. Ford Escorts with Forest Flares (bubble arches) - The Forest Flares were only approved for Catergory A, Group 2 under FIA Appendix J for the given period. Group 2 is for "Special Touring Cars". The rules are such that these "Special Tourning Cars" were to be based on "Series Production Touring Cars" but allowed for special body work, alteration to drive train, brakes etc all that had to be approved by the FIA and shown that a given production requirement was to be met within a 12 month production time frame in this case 1000 identical cars in 12months. Now T&C states "Standard Series Production Body work" so Forest Flares are not "Standard Series Production Body work". So this leads me to believe under T&C Forest Flares are not legal. A Ford Escort with Forest Flares therefore need to conform to Schedule K to be legal.

I think there is a bit of copying going on - someone build a car outside of T&C and somehow gets a COD back a few years ago. Then a new guy wants to build a car look at the first one and thinks - that is cool I will build mine the same - now you have 2 cars out side of the rules, then another shows up etc.

I found on the internet a number of regs in different countries for their H&C rules and they have allowed mods for a given car under the rules - sure not all cars are listed but common cars have a sheet of paper that states what is allowed and what is not based on the rules and what has been proven to be used in period and what they therefore deem legal. Even the FIA have these model specific statements in Appendix K example Ford Escorts RS2000 = 13" rims but Ford Escort RS1600/1800 15" rims. So why can't there be a published list like this here in NZ? For a change in this spec sheet there must be good evidence backed up with real facts that cars ran in period with said specs. This would make building a car to the rules easier if there is a clear line in the sand so to speak.

If someone want to attempt to build a car outside of the rule or spec sheet then there should be a process of approval before $$ are invested in sourcing parts/undertaking the build/changes/alteration. Currently this is done after the fact - ie take me for example I am building my car to FIA Appendix J (other than safety items, ie cages, seats etc which under FIA/MSNZ is allowed and cages must conform to the current standards for new builds so don't have issues with that) I have spent years researching, collection information, purchasing parts catelogs, period books or books with period photos/info in them all to help me learn about how the car should be built. But I must build it first then apply for COD using this evidence I have collated over the years to prove this is how it was and how it should be.

Is this not backwards? Should I not state up front what I indeed to do show the evidence to MSNZ or H&C Commission - whoever has the say if yes legal or illegal try again? Before I start a build? Like I say as it stands today - you build a car then apply for the COD - backwards if you ask me. Sure it would make sense to have approval before $$ spent on purchasing parts etc If such a process does exist why don't we know about it? It is not well known or even documented in the MSNZ manual etc.


Now if someone was to follow me (they should not just copy see point above) do they also have to do all the research/collecting of books and other rare and hard to find info about the same make and model? If the evidence given is solid and proves that a make/model ran in that spec as one (not picking and choosing some items from Group 1 approval and some from Group 2 or even a Group 5 car that ran in period - ie you pick the spec aka RS2000 therefore 13" must be used you can't use 15" just because an Escort ran 15" rims that is true but not a RS2000 and the car is trying to represent an RS2000) then this approved spec should be available to others? I know others might see it differently - I spent X years doing all this research in my spare time....no one should just get that handed to them...fair enough I understand that - however if you have spent all that time and money to get a car correct then someone builds a car outside of the period spec and is allowed to run then you should have allowed that info to be shared (don't have to share the evidence just the approved spec sheet) and not complain about the other guy.

Just ideas all this above please tell me keep my trap shut or I am way of base with this train of thought.

So keeping this spec sheet in mind again given I have been talking about Ford Escorts here is an example of the SVRA spec sheet for Ford Escorts in PDF format. It is clear, easy to follow and point you to other specs should you choice follow that path aka FIA Group 2

[crunch]

Ok I am relatively new to all this stuff and as I am in the middle of building a car with the aim of gaining Schedule K and ultimately FIA HTP I have read the docs over and over again to ensure I am doing the right thing - and I have not submitted a COD application before

So question are

1. What is wrong with the COD process as it stands today that it needs to be changes?
2. As MSNZ has a connection to the FIA I can only assume MSNZ has copies of all the FIA homologation papers. Is this the case?
3. If the COD process needs to be reviewed why? It is because some cars have COD for a given configuration that is actually outside of the rules the car is meant to represent? (examples below)

Example - Not trying to pick on a given model but these are just a good example of how thing have been miss interrupted over the years causing issue with the COD and T&C (in particular) process as I see it. Ford Escorts with Forest Flares (bubble arches) - The Forest Flares were only approved for Catergory A, Group 2 under FIA Appendix J for the given period. Group 2 is for "Special Touring Cars". The rules are such that these "Special Tourning Cars" were to be based on "Series Production Touring Cars" but allowed for special body work, alteration to drive train, brakes etc all that had to be approved by the FIA and shown that a given production requirement was to be met within a 12 month production time frame in this case 1000 identical cars in 12months. Now T&C states "Standard Series Production Body work" so Forest Flares are not "Standard Series Production Body work". So this leads me to believe under T&C Forest Flares are not legal. A Ford Escort with Forest Flares therefore need to conform to Schedule K to be legal.

I think there is a bit of copying going on - someone build a car outside of T&C and somehow gets a COD back a few years ago. Then a new guy wants to build a car look at the first one and thinks - that is cool I will build mine the same - now you have 2 cars out side of the rules, then another shows up etc.

I found on the internet a number of regs in different countries for their H&C rules and they have allowed mods for a given car under the rules - sure not all cars are listed but common cars have a sheet of paper that states what is allowed and what is not based on the rules and what has been proven to be used in period and what they therefore deem legal. Even the FIA have these model specific statements in Appendix K example Ford Escorts RS2000 = 13" rims but Ford Escort RS1600/1800 15" rims. So why can't there be a published list like this here in NZ? For a change in this spec sheet there must be good evidence backed up with real facts that cars ran in period with said specs. This would make building a car to the rules easier if there is a clear line in the sand so to speak.

If someone want to attempt to build a car outside of the rule or spec sheet then there should be a process of approval before $$ are invested in sourcing parts/undertaking the build/changes/alteration. Currently this is done after the fact - ie take me for example I am building my car to FIA Appendix J (other than safety items, ie cages, seats etc which under FIA/MSNZ is allowed and cages must conform to the current standards for new builds so don't have issues with that) I have spent years researching, collection information, purchasing parts catelogs, period books or books with period photos/info in them all to help me learn about how the car should be built. But I must build it first then apply for COD using this evidence I have collated over the years to prove this is how it was and how it should be.

Is this not backwards? Should I not state up front what I indeed to do show the evidence to MSNZ or H&C Commission - whoever has the say if yes legal or illegal try again? Before I start a build? Like I say as it stands today - you build a car then apply for the COD - backwards if you ask me. Sure it would make sense to have approval before $$ spent on purchasing parts etc If such a process does exist why don't we know about it? It is not well known or even documented in the MSNZ manual etc.


Now if someone was to follow me (they should not just copy see point above) do they also have to do all the research/collecting of books and other rare and hard to find info about the same make and model? If the evidence given is solid and proves that a make/model ran in that spec as one (not picking and choosing some items from Group 1 approval and some from Group 2 or even a Group 5 car that ran in period - ie you pick the spec aka RS2000 therefore 13" must be used you can't use 15" just because an Escort ran 15" rims that is true but not a RS2000 and the car is trying to represent an RS2000) then this approved spec should be available to others? I know others might see it differently - I spent X years doing all this research in my spare time....no one should just get that handed to them...fair enough I understand that - however if you have spent all that time and money to get a car correct then someone builds a car outside of the period spec and is allowed to run then you should have allowed that info to be shared (don't have to share the evidence just the approved spec sheet) and not complain about the other guy.

Just ideas all this above please tell me keep my trap shut or I am way of base with this train of thought.

So keeping this spec sheet in mind again given I have been talking about Ford Escorts here is an example of the SVRA spec sheet for Ford Escorts in PDF format. It is clear, easy to follow and point you to other specs should you choice follow that path aka FIA Group 2

Hey,

No...please don't keep your trap shut. All good points and some good questions.
Can I ask where you sourced that document from? Sometimes we are given documents as proof that " a vehicle competed with this spoiler in Namibia in 1973" but there is no source noted for the document. So a lesson there is when you provide the document for history purposes, please make clear where it was sourced from.

You have picked the obvious example of a vehicle that has been misrepresented over the years for these types of certifications, including in New Zealand. In Europe, Ford Escorts are a nightmare when they are trying to tidy up their historic racing. FIA App J or Schedule K in NZ should be easy enough to complete and approve as the rules are fairly clear. The MSNZ office has in paper or electronic form all homologations for all vehicles that the FIA have ever issued. They are available (at a cost) and would probably be a good place to start.
T&C is a different beast all together. It was a Schedule designed to catch most-if-not-all-other-cars racing in H&C meetings in NZ in the 80's when the COD process started. And yes; it was copied off the VIC from VCC, but was felt that lacked detail. I think Ray mentioned an important point regarding wheel and tyre size being notated on the VIC, and we agree this is very important.

Another line of thinking you introduced was what do we do with COD's that have been issued incorrectly in the past? Indeed...what should the sport do? If it was solely to ensure the system is perfect, the sport should recall all those COD's, refund the application fee and start again. Is that practical?

I'm sure others have points to make from your post as it goes to the heart of what the system is for. If it is to be used in the future for race classifications and to provide an even-playing-field for competition, then what you have outlined are interwoven within this very fabric.
Thanks

[nzeder]

Sure I got the PDF from here

http://www.svra.com/make-model-regulations/

SVRA is Sportcar Vintage Racing Association of USA the only national organisation for Vintage Racing in America.

On their website they have the following statement under the rules/car info section.

"These rules are general in nature and may not apply to every car accepted by SVRA. It is not possible for SVRA to publish rules that accurately define the period authenticity for all eligible cars.

It is therefore the responsibility of each competitor to research the proper period specification for his car, and to present it as such. Supplemental Regulations (Spec Sheet) are published for most Makes & Models and they give specific details on permitted options and modifications. The (Spec Sheet) are to be used in conjunction with the General Rules and Regulations (GRR). When in conflict the (Spec Sheet) takes precedence. The Group Supplemental Regulations (GSR) for each Race Group contains details that apply to that group only and these should also be considered when preparing a car.

Proof of any unusual specification or configuration is the responsibility of the competitor. Updating or backdating within a recognized model (body type) production span is allowed as long as it does not conflict with the group eligibility time period. Continuation cars may be accepted, but they must be backdated to the eligibility period.
These are the resources and regulations that will help you prepare your car to compete with the SVRA:"

Then the sites lists the rules and resources/regulations and links to the make/model spec sheets.

To me this is great method of informing the competitors or those want to compete how a given car should be configured - it does not go into great detail of why these specs are listed on the make/model spec sheet - they are still allowing the competitors to do the research to back up their cars/builds but there is a clear line in the sand statement which is this one

When in conflict the (Spec Sheet) takes precedence

These spec sheet are compiled from know period specifications as raced in the USA under Production Car groups/rules back in the day + as shown in the Ford pdf above they also reference the FIA Groups for the given make/model.

[ERC]

At the risk of being a broken record, the need for substantial paperwork in support of an Appendix or Schedule K application is accepted. Equally, the existing CoD system for those cars is probably as robust as it needs to be.

The real question is then, apart from "K" cars;

Q: What is the real value of a CoD (not the perceived value of being able to compete elsewhere nor the level playing field mantra), given that two thirds of regular competitors in several established classes/series haven't even bought into the system?

Q: If those series are happy outside the CoD system or even outside T & C as it stands right now, even if only marginally, should those series change to be T & C compliant (eliminating a fair few cars), or, should the T & C rules better relate to the wishes of the competitors?

Q: If those series are outside the T & C regulations, does that then automatically mean that any car without a CoD, running in those series is of no concern whatever to the H & C Commission?

[nzeder]

Ray looking at your grids to be honest there are not too many cars that are outside of T&C anyway. I think you could safely say 99% of the AES grid are T&C compliant cars (a part from the use of Wilwoods - that is a matter of opinion it seems, to me if a car is to represent a 1973 config then Wilwood can't be fitted as they did not come to be until late 77 + most of the Wilwood fitted are 80+ designed so using different casting process/design elements - but if you played that card then 1-2% of cars that compete under T&C would be legal with all the others illegal)

In the Arrows grids the percentage goes up a fair bit but you can count all the cars on 2 or maybe just 1 hand.

Personally I like what SVRA and VARA in the USA have done - there are rules and car specs, you still have to prove the given mods but if there is any doubt the spec sheet trumps the parts in doubt. It is simple would be easy to admin and police - only time things would need a bit of effort is approving changes to the spec sheets - but if the info from all competitors on their changes outside of the spec sheets is collated by the same organisation aka MSNZ then if 3+ competitors show evidence that X part was used in period then this info can be used to update the spec sheets.

So to change the spec sheet aka blanket COD requires correct evidence if in doubt current spec sheet or top level rules apply - no arguments. It is then up to H&C Commission to Trust by Verify the evidence given before spec sheets are changed - if that means asking for more evidence to Verify correctly so be it other wise there is doubt = current spec sheet applies no questions.

Policing would be easy - random audits based on the spec sheets etc.

However all of this is ill-relevant if this is not what competitors want. Which is what the current COD process has shown if only 50% or less of the regular classic cars don't have them or have changed beyond what is listed in them. If people have not updated them then why? Is it the process and paperwork/costs involved?

So what is all the point then? In section 2 of the Appendix 6 of the MSNZ Manual states the following

The Historic and Classic Advisory Commission will provide:

(1) A framework of competition regulations for vehicles produced during the time period covered by the Commission’s brief being to:

(a) Provide to competitors and officials regulations that will be as clear and useable as practicable. They will provide stability in the regulations to allow competitors to build vehicles with the confidence that the vehicle, if built to comply with current regulations, will continue to comply in future years if it is not modified from its build specification.

(b) Endeavour to provide for vehicles to be able to retain as near as possible their original appearance, and where necessary retain the ability to be used as everyday cars.

I have highlighted one of the important bits of info in the rules.

So this is basically against what most competitors are doing right? People are improving their vehicles/changing them etc this is against what MSNZ and the H&C have stated in the rules above. So we have a major disconnect right there. People will always want to improve their cars, tweak this, that.

Either way there is a major disconnect between what is in the rules and what it seem competitors want or are doing - or is it just the fact that people have not read the rules? Having looked at other forums around the world we are not alone with these issues here in NZ.

[spinner32]

I think that you all are missing the point. What you all are saying is all very well if you are building a euro spec car. But what if the current owners of Miss Victorious, or the Algie Alfetta, or any other NZ built modified saloon wanted a COD, where do you find the spec sheet? How do you prove that the car has been returned to original specs?
I have a friend in this predicament. He built a RX3 for the SI Sports Saloon class around 1985. The car is still identical to the day he built it, but MSNZ has said that it is not eligible for a COD for some strange reason. If a car built 30 years ago, and hasn't been modified since isn't eligible for a COD, what NZ built modified saloon is?
And here in the SI, organisers are more worried about paying the bills than cars complying to rules, so accept anything that enters.

[Racer Rog]

As one who has been invited to sit on H & C Commission, and being at the last meeting where it was decided to front up on this forum, as we were having trouble getting our ideas and opinions published else where, it is very pleasing to see to dialogue that is springing forth ( or Fifth) I certainly welcome what is here so far, and nzeder has highlighted a lot of which has and is being discussed around the table, and if people took the same care attention to the detail that he is taking with his build, it would make the job of issuing a CoD easier, the line "not modified from its build specifications" is a good one, and creeping development is a concern to the Commission, and yes we are aware of vehicles out there that should not have a CoD, and should never have been issued with one in the first place, but its been done, lessons have been learned and the processes have evolved to try and stop it happening again. There have been some here that say development of race cars is a ongoing thing, but wait, we are racing cars of a period in time, and these cars are fixed in that period, and apart from safety equipment if its possible to fit, is where they shall remain, need big brakes, bullocks, race else where, what they had in the day did the job in the most part, so if it means you have to slow at 200 metres instead of the 50 metre board so be it, we are not racing for farms, or even a cow on a farm, so the mantra "As it was, so it shall be" should be adopted when doing a build do the research on what you intending to do, don't just rely on the word of someone else, the FIA web site has the Homologation papers for thousands of cars, even manufacturers catalogs can provide info.
These are some of my on opinions, but there would be some agreement at the table on some.
Roger

[nzeder]

I think that you all are missing the point. What you all are saying is all very well if you are building a euro spec car. But what if the current owners of Miss Victorious, or the Algie Alfetta, or any other NZ built modified saloon wanted a COD, where do you find the spec sheet? How do you prove that the car has been returned to original specs?
I have a friend in this predicament. He built a RX3 for the SI Sports Saloon class around 1985. The car is still identical to the day he built it, but MSNZ has said that it is not eligible for a COD for some strange reason. If a car built 30 years ago, and hasn't been modified since isn't eligible for a COD, what NZ built modified saloon is?
And here in the SI, organisers are more worried about paying the bills than cars complying to rules, so accept anything that enters.

True - you have to go back to the rules in which the car was built to in the day - now that is where you need MSNZ help. They should have an archive of the rules of the given class in which it ran. I think there are number of cars in this category, in shed around the country aka classless as it stands today.

[ERC]

Agree with Spinner32. The CoD system appears to be for straight forward cars, but dare I say it, effectively road or production cars or out and out single seaters.

Where the Commission has a major problem is with what to do with genuine older race cars or even cars built out of period bits and pieces.

We all abhor a modern sequential gearbox for example, as being well outside the spirit of the regs as pertaining to anything purporting to be a classic.

As noted in the other thread(s) there is a huge interest in older race saloons, but the CoD system doesn't really seem to cover modified saloons. You can however build a single seater out of period bits, but not a saloon, unless it was done in period, which seems either elitist, or at best, an anomoly.

I feel that maybe the commission needs to identify all the various groups of cars, then decide whether or not it wants to try and apply the CoD system to all groups, or whether there is a need for a separate body to deal with those of a more individualistic, less purist nature.

The truth is that a one size fits all approach, doesn't...

As Mike says, most of our cars probably do conform to T & C, but whilst organising clubs are willing to offer grids and whilst 95% of drivers are not going to venture outside their immediate area anyway, then a CoD is not seen as necessary by the majority.

If HRC suddenly shut the door on us, and TACCOC, then it might be a different story. But as we have a total of about 28 cars for what is the least popular weekend of the year at Taupo, (due to the timing, immediately before the Festival) then hopefully they won't shut the door on us.

[crunch]

I think that you all are missing the point. What you all are saying is all very well if you are building a euro spec car. But what if the current owners of Miss Victorious, or the Algie Alfetta, or any other NZ built modified saloon wanted a COD, where do you find the spec sheet? How do you prove that the car has been returned to original specs?
I have a friend in this predicament. He built a RX3 for the SI Sports Saloon class around 1985. The car is still identical to the day he built it, but MSNZ has said that it is not eligible for a COD for some strange reason. If a car built 30 years ago, and hasn't been modified since isn't eligible for a COD, what NZ built modified saloon is?
And here in the SI, organisers are more worried about paying the bills than cars complying to rules, so accept anything that enters.

Get him to ring me or PM me Spinner32.
He should have been given a reason why.
On the face of it; there is probably still a logbook in the system, and all he needs is proof it is the car.

[crunch]

Q: What is the real value of a CoD (not the perceived value of being able to compete elsewhere nor the level playing field mantra), given that two thirds of regular competitors in several established classes/series haven't even bought into the system?

Q: If those series are happy outside the CoD system or even outside T & C as it stands right now, even if only marginally, should those series change to be T & C compliant (eliminating a fair few cars), or, should the T & C rules better relate to the wishes of the competitors?

Q: If those series are outside the T & C regulations, does that then automatically mean that any car without a CoD, running in those series is of no concern whatever to the H & C Commission?

Good questions that would be good to see other people's thoughts. I can answer number 3 with a simple NO.

[Spgeti]

I think you guy's need to be commended come on to TRS to discuss this....weel done Crunch and Racer Rog.

For myself personally I want to see a level playing field so that I can race my Alfa 105 GTV anywhere in NZ and know that who I race with is period compliant.

Yes there will always be those that push the envelope but those within the system doing that are minimal.

Those series outside T&C who choose not to comply, that is there choice and for their members a risk that one day the door may close on them. That is the risk that they take.

[nzeder]

Q: What is the real value of a CoD (not the perceived value of being able to compete elsewhere nor the level playing field mantra), given that two thirds of regular competitors in several established classes/series haven't even bought into the system?

Well the compete elsewhere does not wash - I say that as most Classic Meeting run with sup regs for given grids which usually are by invitation only - Even the FIA state that having a HTP does not guaranty acceptance or entry. Level playing field...that only applies if you are talking about same make/model cars - each car has it good/strong points and its weak points. So why else have a CoD - the only thing I can say to that is that point in time thing. This is how the car was built and the CoD is that point in time doc aka the reference to check the car for correctness against. So that is value - this car is what it say it is - if not then what??? Do we care??? The CoD as I see it the document that shows the car is period correct for the given era/period the car represents.

Q: If those series are happy outside the CoD system or even outside T & C as it stands right now, even if only marginally, should those series change to be T & C compliant (eliminating a fair few cars), or, should the T & C rules better relate to the wishes of the competitors?

That is really good question. Should the cars fit the rules or the rules fit the cars? I think cars should fit the rules period. You don't go and play soccer and pickup the ball and run with it that is a different sport - the rules don't allow for it. So the rules don't fit a number of cars is that the rules fault?

I am playing the rules lawyer card here (I do love the cars that are outside of the rule they are well built and credit to the owners/fabricators/builders/Engineers etc). I have hard road to travel as most seem to not like the Datsun 240z/260z due to the Japanese thing so I know if I built a car outside of the rules there would be no grid for me to run in. So I want to ensure my car is compliant to the rules so if a grid denies me entry I know it is not due to non compliance it will be due to other reasons.

For most it would be minor changes fitting of original bumpers or steel body work (or get approval from H&C Commission to run alternate period correct material/replica parts if NLA, too rare to risk etc). It is those so far outside of the rules that will have issues - ie removal of replica Forest Flares from Escorts to comply with T&C rules. I think that is too big of an ask for some as it results in lots of changes, rims need to change, car needs to be painted again etc you are talking about $1000's worth of changes.

So now looking at the rules then what is the issue with the rules? Fitment of all external trim really?? Is that required?? In period most of the bright work was removed, manufactures even sold cars to the public minus trim for the purpose of racing the cars. Some of this trim is NLA we are talking classic cars here you can't go down the road and purchase replacements from the Ford dealer, or Austin dealer anymore you have to search the world for this stuff not just in NZ. So some of the T&C rules are bit crazy in that regard. So I think it is a bit of both needs to happen.

[ERC]

Fair points above. We no longer have cars on track that were regularly competing 20 years ago, as they are now too valuable to risk on the track (accidents will always happen). What we do NOT want in the classic area is any dilution of the very thing that sets us apart from modern racing - variety of make and model. If we insist on exceptionally tight rules (other than purist or K), then all that will happen long term, is that people will only be in a position to run very popular cars where the restoration or reproduction parts industry is vast and that by definition is only going to be popular makes and models previously produced in vast numbers.

One of the often overlooked points is the scarcity of original trim AND panels. NZeder is on the same hymn sheet as we are regarding trim. As long as the car is finished to a presentable standard, the absence of almost impossible to source trim is totally irrelevant.

The other issue of fibreglass panels whether they be arches or straight copies of originals, means that originals in good condition can be preserved - as they need to be.

As for rules, this is a red herring as the rules for sports that have a hundred year plus history are still changing and that includes major sports such as football, rugby and rugby league and even badminton. For those of us of a senior age, we remember when there was no such thing as substitutes in a soccer or rugby match. Those rules and several others have changed since I gave up playing soccer. There was a time when a soccer goalkeeper holding the ball, could be shoulder charged into the net. Why do the rules change?

Because very few rules are totally locked in concrete, as time marches on, the bigger picture is essential for the sport to survive. We are no different. (By that , I mean the ERC Series just as much as the T & C rules.) I understand some of the issues the commission has to deal with, but there comes a time when some tough decisions have to be made. By all means retain 100% pure cars as there will always be a place for them, but history will show quite clearly that the most interest is generated by the odd balls, the one offs, those where individuality came to the fore, not a load of identical clones.

Stamping out individuality is spitting into the face of the great Kiwi engineers of the past. Without it you wouldn't be raving about breadvan Anglias, Twin Cam A40's, the Lycoming special, the Zephyr Corvette, Morrari, Custaxie, V8 Starlets, rear engined V8 Marina. Alfetta and so on.

If this is far too complex for the Commission to cope with, then delegate, but the CoD system, or more correctly, the existing rules, are catering for a valid section of the fraternity but not all of it. If there are three or four different documents, so be it, but as alluded to above, possession of any piece of paper is worth diddly squat in an invitation series or an invitation meeting - and I have no problem with that at all.