Legality of App K.

[Brendan Roberts]

When did you last have anything but a safety check at scrutineering? Throttle return, hydraulic caps tight, wheel bearings, spokes, hi-vis rear light, belt dates, helmet sticker etc is all fine, but if we are to have a level playing field to Appx K regs then surely there should be technical scrutineering to check compliance. Not every week, and I am not suggesting over aggressive enforcement, but a few comments to point out simple transgressions and time to rectify for the next meeting would suffice. Who is responsible for technical scrutineering - the organiser, the MSA, the FIA........? A few random checks each time wouldnt take up too much time and might encourage those cars that are in breach to sort themselves out. If the 'Usual Suspects' are regularly in breach then more draconian action could be taken.....

[terence]

And indeed should be,the more that the "Cheats" get away with it,the more cheating will be seen as" O.K,they never check anyway."

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Brendan Roberts

When did you last have anything but a safety check at scrutineering? Throttle return, hydraulic caps tight, wheel bearings, spokes, hi-vis rear light, belt dates, helmet sticker etc is all fine, but if we are to have a level playing field to Appx K regs then surely there should be technical scrutineering to check compliance.

I think the idea is that the technical scrutineering is done when the FIA form is issued.
That then leaves on circuit scrutineering to check the important stuff in terms of competitors safety.

Of course this system assumes the car is not subsequently altered....

[LYNX]

That then goes full circle - if there is cheating - how do we spot it and stop it?

[zefarelly]

safety scrutineering is fine, I have no problem on the whole with it, I've seen some dangerous looking contraptions yes, and been asked some stupid questions, but hey ho

Eligibilty checks and scrutineering are another thing, race organisers should be dealing with this, it is specific to each race series is it not ?

I think its about time all agreed that, if your going to advertise yourself as an FiA series then enforce it otherwise its a waste of time, I think currently the FiA App K title has been devalued to the point its largely worthless anyway.

[terence]

Strong word's Zef,but true none the less.Most cheats are easy to spot,performance comparisons go a long way.

[zefarelly]

I don't think so

but then I think most people are lightweights when it comes to these things

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

I think its about time all agreed that, if your going to advertise yourself as an FiA series then enforce it otherwise its a waste of time

Quite,

But I think we perhaps need to put a perspective on this. Running to FIA App K is not the same as a sanctioned championship. In the former it requires a level of honesty from the entrant/competitor, in the latter it is mandatory and looking at this site http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/histracing.html there are a limited number of "FIA Historic Championships".

Thus to expect a series organiser, who is keen on filling grids so that us racers can race, to impose sanctions, is a bit like cutting off our noses to spite our face.

I think you are right zef, the regs have been diluted but not because the organisers don't want to impose them, simply because they (the regs) have made things unworkable. I know you have scoured the country for bits/whole cars etc. But not many people either have the time or the inclination to do that when they can source their bits from e bay and build a car that they can race anywhere, because the grids are there for them to enter. So either we accept that some folks just want a good looking car to race or we get rid of them and in so doing we lose the series for the want of entries.

I believe that Group 1 (or 1.5 as I run) should be adhered to. However try to find any cars that are totally legal and apart from mine (there are some others) you'll be struggling. But I don't complain because if I spend a bit more dosh on a more powerful engine I'll be back to the front again, with no need to cheat. But I do need to spend that dosh.

I go back to our chat about the U2TC race at Spa. I know the winning LC was driven by an extremely good driver but I'll never be convinced that it was a totally legal car, simply because it was putting in times that a good mate of mine (and a very good driver) produced in a modified 2l LC which ran in Classic Touring Cars. Go figure as they say.

[zefarelly]

I agree Peter ( I'll repeat that) I AGREE PETER

App K is simple, but the lack of authority/policing (largely in the interests of personal gain ( be it promoter, organiser, preparer, driver or even circuit hirer/owner?) has diluted it, and we now have too many invitation series, which in turn has dilited support for championships and indeed the FIA historic calender

I can't help but feel if there was a sensibly priced re organised/presented FiA series it would be a hit ( specifically pre66 saloons, and probably GT'S, equally I think pre 74/6 tin tops and others I'm sure)

and the biggest problem, as your first point, is the general dishonesty and deviousness of some preparers and competitors, ignorance is not an excuse, its a pathetic failing!

the regs don't make things unworkable, I tihnk you'll find where genuine sup[ply problems occur, an FiA committee will come to an alternative conclusion in order to ressolve it ( whether thats sensibly priced or not I wouldn't necessarily know, but then no ones forcing you to rev double the period limit! )

[terence]

Then we get back to those who want to race but will not because of the bent cars,it's happened time and time again in probably all of the series ever staged.But which ever way you look at the whole scene,something has to be done,that's why these scribes are writing the thing's they do.!

[pomracer]

As usual I am dropping in on this thread long after the start however...got home last night and pleased to see a magazine had come in...later got to "Cars for Sale" at the back, to see one car I know quite well advertised with wording roughly as follows (left in at home):-

FIA papers (HTP applied for)...low hours appendix K spec engine 475hp; spare 'Peter Knight Special' 545hp which was fitted at Goodwood.

At least the advert is honest..and they did use the past tense regarding use of the spare 'hot' engine .....but I wonder how many people have bought a car based on its Goodwood lap times only to find they are 70 hp short...

[terence]

This is something thats been happening for quite sometime.Any make of car that has been a front runner is usually sold off with the lesser engine fitted.
New owners are then left feeling incapable/under-skilled because their lap times are nothing like the previous owners,I have heard of an instance where the new owner has been offered lessons in how to drive the new acquisition by the previous owner !!

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by pomracer

but I wonder how many people have bought a car based on its Goodwood lap times only to find they are 70 hp short...

the difference between an FiA mini and an A35

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Hall in another thread

No particular view Peter but an explanation for you.

Appendix K reflects the rules of the period-they were written each year in Appendix J, so the philosophy when the whole thing started was to allow a genuine Period Car to run. The rules started with the homologation and then allowed some advances from that point ,Appendix K allows those same things.

And this ladies and gentlemen is the fundamental problem. How can an organiser interpret a moving feast? Why not just say the cars must be built to the final year homologation (1965) and have done with it? This is an amateur sport so to need a lawyer to rule on the regs is daft. I write contracts for billions of dollars with less scope for misinterpretation than App K which is a small document by comparison.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Hall in another thread

Where it has got out of hand completely is that we all know better-or at least more- than we did then and no one is able to resist applying the new knowlege-or building cars with parts that no longer fail every 30 minutes like they did when they were new. For example brake balance adjusters are not allowed on any pre 66 car-just about every car in the six hours had one fitted and worse still most of them had been recently approved for HTP without the inspectors saying anything.

Yes, but again that goes back to your first point really. Because things are "flexible" in the regs if a type of balance adjuster was run in period (and they were available) you necessarily have to allow them, or a version of them, now. Whether the cars running now, had them in period is another matter.

I really do think the major problem is the interpretation. Zef, Terry et al, all have their ideas on how it should be but ultimately they and others with FIA cars rely on the legislators to provide a stable environment. Then when those legislators, in the guise of HTP inspectors, allow a "tweak" into a car, they quite rightly shout "cheat". Ignorance is not an excuse but if something is rubber stamped by the authorities all parties should be able to rely on that info surely?

Of course engine sizes/blocks etc. should not be an issue because these are easily identifiable anyway.

The point about reliability is a good one. Its more of a philosophical point really though. Do we as amateurs, really want to spend thousands getting to the grid, only to have a period part let us down, just like the manufacturers suffered in period?

Like others have said, reliabilty is the key, so allowing electronic ignition etc. may well be one of the ways we can rationalise the issues.

Would it make the cars faster? Hardly. But it would keep them going longer. Lest we forget, in the 60's engines were stripped and rebuilt every couple of races. These days we look to get at least a season out of the car. Not so much for cost, which is important obviously, but for time reasons. Zef and some others are lucky to a) have the skills to build a car and; b) have the time. However if it was down to them to provide the grids there'd be very few cars on track.

So, time to get real and rationalise methinks.

[terence]

Most of that I will agree with Peter[I suppose after the "event" at Spa,I should agree with electronic Ignition]but all things considered,that was the first time I have had a problem with ignition since I built the car in 89,not really much in the way of an argument there for me.I do think that ,as with the Brake Balance Bars that Jeremy refereed to earlier,if you let one thing in,there are always the P-sstakers who will try to sneak the other "little tweaks"in,that then keeps adding to the overall costs,something that you disagree with,no?

Zef,How about forming a club for those of us who want straight cars on a grid have some where to race.

[zefarelly]

If it clearly states they're not allowed why has any one got one ? ? ?

likewise ignition, easy to check

Terry, I thought that was the point of going FiA App K in the first place, problem is, as we keep saying, people intimate its their regs, no one enforces it

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Most of that I will agree with Peter[I suppose after the "event" at Spa,I should agree with electronic Ignition]but all things considered,that was the first time I have had a problem with ignition since I built the car in 89,not really much in the way of an argument there for me.

Yes, I wasn't thinking of that but that is a good example.

Originally Posted by terence bower

I do think that ,as with the Brake Balance Bars that Jeremy refereed to earlier,if you let one thing in,there are always the P-sstakers who will try to sneak the other "little tweaks"in,that then keeps adding to the overall costs,something that you disagree with,no?

The problem I have with the cost argument is that for me, a mere mortal, to consider building an FIA car its too expensive!

Originally Posted by terence bower

Zef,How about forming a club for those of us who want straight cars on a grid have some where to race.

Yes and there again as I said there wouldn'r be enough to go around.

I'm not suggesting the principle is wrong, far from it, I just think, as Jeremy Alluded to, its unworkable. Here's an example.

Lotus Cortina pre airflow (whatever that means) built with an A frame. Ford discovered that in competition it didn't work so built the traditional leaf spring rear and lo, a winner! But to take the argument that we are supposed to replicate the 60's if you've got an A frame LC you just can't rip off the back end and bolt on the later one because clearly that is not as the car was when homologated.

Likewise Zef's GT, a fine example but built to the regs as homologated in '63(?). by then Ford realised it needed something a bit quicker so enter the LC. Bye-bye GT, no longer needed so develpment stopped. Under AppK Zef's gone as far as he can (I suspect) so it follows that he's either going to stay where he is or look for another car. I understand from conversations he's chosen the latter route which means App K isn't that cheap then is it?

I think the cost argument really falls down because a) an FIA car is bloody expensive to build and b) motor racing has always been expensive anyway.

I think engines, bodywork, transmissions and suspension systems should be as homologated, no question. But making it all work is another thing and that's where App K really does fall down. [Edit] In the current climate.

[Moosehead]

Agree: to build an App K is bloody expensive

To build a legal (yet competitive) Mustang costs silly money.....Terry how much??

Yet my illegal but slower version is probably 1/4 of the price.

I'd love to do the App K events but just can't afford to. I suppose I could buy a 'cheaper' car but I don't want to.

[Henrik Pedersen]

Sorry, am I missing a point here.
Why is it more expensive to build a proper App.K car ?
Something like mine and Zef´s Cortina GT is definately not as costly as some overtuned special.
Where is the added costs?
I can´t find them.

The club for strait App.K cars is here, we just need to follow clubrules.

[Brendan Roberts]

I think Jeremy's reference to brake balance adjustment refers to those that are adjustable from the driving seat. There are many cars out there pre-66 Appx K with brake balance bar adjustment that as far as I know is totally legit. Its the cabin adjustable type which isnt. I know of one available from an Alfa place that is on a flexible stalk with a wheel/dial at the top and the supplier suggests you adjust it from the driving seat and then bend it behind the dash to keep it hidden! Is there anyone out there who isnt bending the rules?
I think the whole issue needs simply clarity, transparency and consistent application. Perhaps we should start a site with samples of the regs for each car under FIA Appx K - I could start with a Lotus Elite and a Lola Mk2 and copies of their HTPs. I could add a GTA if it ever makes it back from Germany. It might make an easy place of reference and clear up a few uncertainties.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Henrik Pedersen

Sorry, am I missing a point here.
Why is it more expensive to build a proper App.K car

My Group 1 Capri £15K. An FIA MGB £20k minimum. That's the point.

[Moosehead]

As admitted by a well known owner driver of red & gold cars..... "Mustangs in period had around 320hp, now they (App k versions) have well over 400hp"

My 'illegal' engine produces around 306hp and cost £3k as a brand new 'crate' engine. An Appk engine will set you back £10k

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Brendan Roberts

I think Jeremy's reference to brake balance adjustment refers to those that are adjustable from the driving seat.

IIRC Appendix K says that single circuit brakes may be converted to dual circuit brakes with twin master cylinders, obviously doing so allows for (requires even) the fitting of a brake balance bar.

But cockpit adjustable balance bars aren't likely to be acceptable since they are out of period and have safety issues (dangerous if the driver turns it the wrong way and if they come loose the balance bar can adjust itself unpredictably).

Personally I find it hard to imagine that anyone needs to adjust the brake balance on a historic car during a race, but I suppose some of the endurance events use so much fuel that it has such an effect on a cars weight distribution during a race that there might be some advantage.

Of the cars that were fitted with them originally (e.g. 70s TGP & F2) I don't know anyone who uses them during a historic race, but they are much shorter than the events the car was designed for and their fuel is usually fairly centrally located.

[terence]

Moose,first you find one, say £32k,Then you rip everything out and throw it all away so you just have a bare shell.£18k =Engine. £2k= G/Box.£1500=Rear Axle.All new Brakes,Brakelines,Fittings=£5k I'll stop there apart from then theres the labour to bolt it all together.

Peter[Morley],Brake ballance bars are not allowed,which was Jeremys point,does that mean that some of the scrutineers have not got a clue about what they are looking at or the old palls act coming into play or that they simply could not be bothered?

Peter[Mallet] My point on costs is purely based on the knowledge of building these things,a customer complains that he has'nt got the latest giggle pin fitted,he then asks why he has'nt got one but Jimmy Noballs has and he goes quicker,customer then demands that he has one fitted only to be told that "Its Illegal" dont care,want one!.Cost goes up.And so the costs mount,£200 here,£400 there ,oh I'd better have one of those as well,how much£400! oh well JBs got one.==£1000.how many of us would not think that expensive.[Footnote,Ballance bar?pedal goes down during the race,Handbrake comes gradually upwards]Saved £150/200.

[Peter Mallett]

No argument Terry.

As I said cost isn't the main issue. Brake balance is a good example of the confusion that the regs create. I just read the App J regs applicable to 1965.

It says (I paraphrase) you can rearrange the braking system. Now, we know that for most 1965 cars it wasn't necessary because thay had dual circuit anyway. But if it says for a 1965 car you can do something then its legal.

The regs are too complicated (by that I don't mean they are wrong). And yes as a professional you'll know how much to charge someone for building a completely legal AppK car and it ain't cheap.

BTW, Jeremy referred to a car with a brake balance kit that had an HTP. So someone in the FIA "club" allowed it. I'll agree that perhaps it was added after the inspection but it is a big "perhaps".