FIA involvement in Historic Racing

[john ruston]

Just received MRL stuff for 2013.

I understand that organisers are now only allowed one event away from their base country for each series.

Why do these people poke their noses into something which doesn't really involve them and has worked very well for the past years or have I misread the article?

Another nail in the coffin for an already contracting pastime.

The Sebring race last week had 30 per cent of the entry from five years ago.

[Peter Mallett]

And all sorts of other stuff in there too. Fuels and tyres to name two things.

[AntA35]

I haven't read too far into it, as I too only read it this morning.

But does this mean if you have more than one foreign meeting then the organiser has to apply for "International" status, thereby forcing everyone to change their race licence and also a different set of more expensive rules for the organiser?

What are the changes on tyres and fuel Peter?

[PeterMorley]

As I keep telling people there is no legal obligation to join the FIA club.
Even "the dreaded EU" take a dim view on monopolies and would encourage alternatives.

The problem is how do you establish an organisation big enough to convince the circuits and clubs to join up with you when the FIA use their clout by saying they won't allow their members to play with anyone who goes against them.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by AntA35

I haven't read too far into it, as I too only read it this morning.

But does this mean if you have more than one foreign meeting then the organiser has to apply for "International" status, thereby forcing everyone to change their race licence and also a different set of more expensive rules for the organiser?

What are the changes on tyres and fuel Peter?

There are two "foreign" races. One at Spa in September and the other in the Algarve. However you pay a separate organiser for the September race.

The fuel appears to be restricted to 102 RON unleaded and 100 RON leaded. Tyres for period H1 - HR onwards are slicks and wets. I think this means we can't run Toyos as an equivalent.

The FIA has also limited the periods for each group. Groups 1, 1B and 2 only run to December 1981, whereas we know they ran to December 1982. This is quite significant for some cars that are being built or that have just sold at auction.

Also HTCC Group A only runs to 1985 and there are at least two Rovers that are built to 1986 homologation.

Have a chat with Ken.

For me it isn't much of an issue because we'll prepare the car as it was homologated and raced in either 1981 (when it won the class) or if they do allow it, 1982 when it won the BTCC.

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

As I keep telling people there is no legal obligation to join the FIA club.
Even "the dreaded EU" take a dim view on monopolies and would encourage alternatives.

The problem is how do you establish an organisation big enough to convince the circuits and clubs to join up with you when the FIA use their clout by saying they won't allow their members to play with anyone who goes against them.

Not sure why this organisation has "joined up" so will need to understand things a bit more.

[AntA35]

I did note that the regs for Group A have stated that it is for cars homologated up to end of Dec 85, however they may allow cars that were homologated in period, but have homologated parts from 1986 with discretion from the organisers. This is the same as last year, no?

Tyres will be interesting... given I can't get slicks/wets in my size... but it will be the same for most Group 1, Group 1.5 cars... so maybe a group request to Avon might help!

[Al Weyman]

Maybe pressure from MSA and UK circuit owners as I do think these foriegn meetings are watering down the pool a bit. I attended a meeting the same weekend as Spa or the weekend before and many faces were missing that were going to Spa, I think its a good thing myself for the future of OUR UK motorsport.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by AntA35

I did note that the regs for Group A have stated that it is for cars homologated up to end of Dec 85, however they may allow cars that were homologated in period, but have homologated parts from 1986 with discretion from the organisers. This is the same as last year, no?

It seems that this is only for 2013 though.

[john ruston]

So we should back U K circuits and miss out on chance to do 'Ring,Spa,Pau,...

No wonder I am cutting back.

Spending money to go to Castle Coombe,Pembery and these places or even Festival at Silverstone instead of proper race circuits.

Thought free trade was throughout Europe or is someone angling for sponsorship from UKIP.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by john ruston

So we should back U K circuits and miss out on chance to do 'Ring,Spa,Pau,...

No wonder I am cutting back.

Spending money to go to Castle Coombe,Pembery and these places or even Festival at Silverstone instead of proper race circuits.

Thought free trade was throughout Europe or is someone angling for sponsorship from UKIP.

So the FIA are saying "Europe" is not an entity?

Or if you were to break it down to the various adminstrative and political levels in the UK, a club based in, say, Hampshire, could only run one meeting at a circuit outside Hampshire?

No such constraints of trade should exit within an EU structure (whether on agrees with the structure or not is not the point here) and so neither should it apply to any concepts put forward by the FIA withion the boundaries of the European Union.

[Serge]

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but the FIA rule is as follows:

If you are a race organizer and you want to run more than one meeting outside of your home country, you have to be an international series and the competitors need international licences.

This is what has happened to the FHR Langstreckencup in Germany, they run twice in Belgium and once in the Netherlands alongside all their German rounds. But now they were forced to run as an international series. So if a Belgian would like to join them for their Spa round, he should apply for an international licence.

It's not like the FIA are saying that UK rounds aren't part of Europe.

It's a silly rule, but it's not a UK only problem.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point!


Kind regards,


Serge

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Serge

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but the FIA rule is as follows:

If you are a race organizer and you want to run more than one meeting outside of your home country, you have to be an international series and the competitors need international licences.

This is what has happened to the FHR Langstreckencup in Germany, they run twice in Belgium and once in the Netherlands alongside all their German rounds. But now they were forced to run as an international series. So if a Belgian would like to join them for their Spa round, he should apply for an international licence.

It's not like the FIA are saying that UK rounds aren't part of Europe.

It's a silly rule, but it's not a UK only problem.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point!


Kind regards,


Serge

Hi Serge,

Surely we are being asked to accept Europe as our "Country" by so many events these days.

Financially, at least within the Eurozone.

Diplomatically - there are EU Embassies. The EU has a 'Foreign Minister' to represent the whole of the EU membership on matters with contries who are not members.

Militarily we see cooperative activities that are reported in the media as being "EU" operations.

When negotiating with Wolrd bodies on agreements and regulations realted to, say, fishing or health, the EU negotiates on behalf of all member "countries".

The level of integration promoted has been growing rapidly since the financial crises and its offspring, the Euro crisis, offered an opportunity to push the European project forward. Countries have less and less authority to run things form a local perspective. "Competence" lves with the EU's broad area of influence and control.

Why should the FiA be moving in a different direction by "localising" the organisation of events?

Might it be some combination of command and control linked to revenue generation?

[john ruston]

Serge,You understand the point.

The basis of the new rules effect everyone but I was looking at it from my U K base perspective.

[FISCracer]

Originally Posted by Serge

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, but the FIA rule is as follows:

If you are a race organizer and you want to run more than one meeting outside of your home country, you have to be an international series and the competitors need international licences.

This is what has happened to the FHR Langstreckencup in Germany, they run twice in Belgium and once in the Netherlands alongside all their German rounds. But now they were forced to run as an international series. So if a Belgian would like to join them for their Spa round, he should apply for an international licence.

It's not like the FIA are saying that UK rounds aren't part of Europe.

It's a silly rule, but it's not a UK only problem.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point!


Kind regards,


Serge

Its simple.

The FIA have seen an opportunity to raise tax, sorry I mean income by insisting that any event out of country pays them some extra lucre. It has the added benefit for them of bringing in a whole load of extra income from competitiors who currently run under NEAPF.

Clearly nobody has thought through the consequences for championships like Masters and NKHTGT (Dutch FIA championship). Its a massive restraint of trade and passage of goods ands ervices and we should all complain very loudly to our respective ASNs that it is illegal.

Why fffff we need the FIA at all for club motorsport is beyond me.

Off soap box

[Peter Mallett]

Although, and my EU law is a bit rusty, you can only claim something is a "measure equating to a quantitative restriction" if the body imposing it is a government body, such as a local council etc. This is why the UK government can't impose tax on foreign trucks. AFAIK the FIA is a non governmental organisation so Art 28 (as was) won't apply. What may apply however is the rules on monopolies.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

AFAIK the FIA is a non governmental organisation so Art 28 (as was) won't apply. What may apply however is the rules on monopolies.

I think the FiA sees itself as a pan-national supragovernmental organisation - a bit like a UN but mostly focused on motor sport and road safety along with some Olympic/FIFA traits.

[Peter Mallett]

Ah yes, and we all know how those organisations work.

[AntA35]

I suppose what it does do is encourage us individuals to race with multiple organisers to do the races that we want to do around Europe, rather than stick with one who would otherwise be forced to become International and so make us get International Licences.

It will be interesting to see what happens to U2TC grids this year (I say this for no other reason than I can't think of many other multi country organisers where the following is as intense).

[Peter Mallett]

Peter Auto and of course MRL spring to mind. The HSCC visits France a couple of times I believe (must check the calendar).

But of course it is the same for them coming over here so to speak.

[john ruston]

Why should we go to different organisations .
Its a hobby and if we want to stick to one organisation M R L,Masters,Carol.... we should be allowed to.
This is nonsense .

[midgetman]

Yes it's nonsense. But the FIA had to be forced into the whole NEAFP thing in the first place, they don't want us doing what we do on cheap licences. It's their latest revenue earner.

IIRC some years back they sidestepped the EU rules by having the "professional driver" clause, but that was shot down in flames. Hopefully someone high up can sort this, but you have to admit that it's clever!

[terence]

Yes,quite right,re prof license.For years I had used that license , until last year that is.Sent in the extra fee,letter from my accountant as always,didn't get the euro flag on my my new license though,asked the msa why this was and was told they hadn't seen the ticked box or the accountants letter.Perhaps this had already been planned?