I'm not trying to defend the decision that has (apparently) been made regarding the "Custaxie" - I was just trying to explain what I think has happened based on my interpretation of the MSNZ rule book.

However, I don't agree with the "continuous development" matter. If a car is running in an historic grid for saloons up to, say 1970, then it should be in the configuration it was or could have been in 1970. If it is modified with performance parts that were only available from say 1990 on, then it is really a 1990 period saloon in an old body.

The same thing applies to some of the historic single seaters I race. For example, one runs in a 1959/1960 period format and the rules require that I can only use components that I can prove were legal and available in 1959/60. My sons run period saloon cars - one a 1969 Cortina GT and the other a 1975 BMW 2002 - when we applied for the COD for these cars so they could run under MSNZ T&C regulations I had to prove that all major components were period. The Cortina runs a dry sump and I had to show through a Car & Car Conversions magazine article in 1968 that dry sumps were available through Nerus for Mk2 Cortinas.

In my mind the same should apply to the "Custaxie". If it wants to replicate the real Custaxie and run in the historic meetings in the 1960 -1970 saloon grid then it should be in the appropriate configuration. Otherwise (to take an extreme example) it could look like the Custaxie but have a sequential gearbox, 6 pot callipers, traction control etc etc.

By the way, I don't know what the current "Custaxie" has had done to it to get the officials upset - all I had heard on the "grapevine" was that it had non-period "improvements" that were performance enhancing and I suppose other competitors in the same grid who's cars complied to period got a bit unhappy that it wasn't a level playing field??