Touring Car Masters

[ford71]

Originally Posted by Tourer

In any case, the article in the regs you quote says "shall" so there is an allowance for variation built into the regs right off the bat. If it said "will" that would be another thing entirely.......

I use the word "shall" often on drawings and in specs because its definition is to be "expressing a strong assertion or intention". A lot like the word "will", so not sure I agree with your comment.
Had they used the word "should" then all of a sudden things are open to interpretation. So I think "shall" makes it quite clear what is expected.

But yeah, why the focus on this in particular? Any reason?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by ford71

I use the word "shall" often on drawings and in specs because its definition is to be "expressing a strong assertion or intention". A lot like the word "will", so not sure I agree with your comment.
Had they used the word "should" then all of a sudden things are open to interpretation. So I think "shall" makes it quite clear what is expected.

But yeah, why the focus on this in particular? Any reason?

Not sure why the focus, Terry S seemed to see it as important. I guess that the difference between "shall" and "will" has become blurred in these modern times, but the words had a clear difference in meaning back in the day and that difference in meaning is still used in motor race regs.

In that context, "will" means being compelled whereas "shall" is more of a recommendation or guideline.

[GTRMagic]

Somewhere along the way, the powers that be of that class have recognised that commercial reality, and the cost of running the cars, needs to be integrated into a pragmatic approach to supporting the cars.

Some of the cars in the class do not look pretty with their stickers aboard... but that they are there helps them keep on racing... if they werent there, Mr Richards & Mr Bowe at the very least would likely not be participating

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Tourer

In that context, "will" means being compelled whereas "shall" is more of a recommendation or guideline.

No. The two words have the same meaning, it is merely the usage that is different:

Will and shall: Will and shall are modal verbs. They are used with the base form of the main verb (They will go; I shall ask her). Shall is only used for future time reference with I and we, and is more formal than will.

[ford71]

Thanks Woolley, you explained that much better than I ever would have

All good Tourer but yeah me using "shall" in my notes, etc to me gives clear, unambiguous instruction.


look what you've done here Terry!

[Gaz170]

I shall stand enlightened.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by ford71

Thanks Woolley, you explained that much better than I ever would have

I didn't. The clue is in the Quote formatting. While I roughly knew it, I nicked the actual definition from somewhere online.

[old fart]

.... and here I was thinking all these years that it came from my misses!!

[Terry S]

All the recent posts on "shall", "will" and nodal verbs are academic and superfluous because as I noted in post#71 the regulations in the TCM site were 4 versions out of date.

It is disappointing that this TCM lot can't be bothered to load on their website, which is supposed to be promoting their category, the current years regulations. I acknowledge it is on mid July.......

[bludvl_x19]

Originally Posted by Terry S

All the recent posts on "shall", "will" and nodal verbs are academic and superfluous because as I noted in post#71 the regulations in the TCM site were 4 versions out of date.

It is disappointing that this TCM lot can't be bothered to load on their website, which is supposed to be promoting their category, the current years regulations. I acknowledge it is on mid July.......

They aren't the only category in that boat though; V8SC's series regulations are out of date on their website as well (a minor typo and some new changes have been made so far this year.)

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by bludvl_x19

They aren't the only category in that boat though; V8SC's series regulations are out of date on their website as well (a minor typo and some new changes have been made so far this year.)

Your post made me look - LOL. The 2015 V8 Ops Manual is on the site uploaded on February 10th. Are you saying that there have been updates since then?

I'd reckon that you're probably right. Wonder if that's the marketing dudes not on the case or the motor sport dept not on the case?

[GTRMagic]

V8SC dont seem to change the Operations Manual itself, instead issuing various updates during the season which are/were on the website separately. Many teams have the full printed set of all of them on the pit data centre... and add/remove pages as the updates come. And include any supplementary regulations for particular meetings as well.

[Terry S]

When going through the TCM Regulations for the above posts I noticed there are now four classes.

In addition to the regular Pro Masters, Pro Am and Pro Sport there is also now a TRANS AM class. I can not find anything in their regulations about this class. The only 3 mentions are that a. not subject to success adjustments b. can run lower weight and c. can run 0.5 inch wider wheels.

So what is this mysterious class all about? Can someone explain?

Then to confuse me further when I look at the points leader board there are four classes, but the fourth is "Invitational" and not Trans Am.

What is "Invitational" as not mentioned anywhere in the regulations?

I suggest this TCM mob have a lot to do to clean up their act.

[sebringimsa]

Originally Posted by Terry S

When going through the TCM Regulations for the above posts I noticed there are now four classes.

In addition to the regular Pro Masters, Pro Am and Pro Sport there is also now a TRANS AM class. I can not find anything in their regulations about this class. The only 3 mentions are that a. not subject to success adjustments b. can run lower weight and c. can run 0.5 inch wider wheels.

So what is this mysterious class all about? Can someone explain?

Then to confuse me further when I look at the points leader board there are four classes, but the fourth is "Invitational" and not Trans Am.

What is "Invitational" as not mentioned anywhere in the regulations?

I suggest this TCM mob have a lot to do to clean up their act.

This is the Australian Trans Am Series www.australiantransam.com.au. Queensland based series. Only 16 TCM cars are entered for the QR round so maybe the trans am boys were asked to help fill out the grid!

[DAVID PATERSON]

Originally Posted by sebringimsa

This is the Australian Trans Am Series www.australiantransam.com.au. Queensland based series. Only 16 TCM cars are entered for the QR round so maybe the trans am boys were asked to help fill out the grid!

I was chatting to a couple of Trans Am guys on the weekend and they said that their organisation had recently developed a friendship with TCM and they had been invited to enter 8 of their best cars for the TCM races.

[Reload]

Originally Posted by DAVID PATERSON

I was chatting to a couple of Trans Am guys on the weekend and they said that their organisation had recently developed a friendship with TCM and they had been invited to enter 8 of their best cars for the TCM races.

Organisers will probably be looking at continuing this agreement at TCM's next round at SMP in 4 weeks after Tilley just took out himself and another 2 cars this morning.

[Richard Craill]

Originally Posted by Terry S

When going through the TCM Regulations for the above posts I noticed there are now four classes.

In addition to the regular Pro Masters, Pro Am and Pro Sport there is also now a TRANS AM class. I can not find anything in their regulations about this class. The only 3 mentions are that a. not subject to success adjustments b. can run lower weight and c. can run 0.5 inch wider wheels.

So what is this mysterious class all about? Can someone explain?

Then to confuse me further when I look at the points leader board there are four classes, but the fourth is "Invitational" and not Trans Am.

What is "Invitational" as not mentioned anywhere in the regulations?

I suggest this TCM mob have a lot to do to clean up their act.

Invitational is a class that allows cars that comply to the broad parameters of the regulations, but perhaps sit slightly outside of some aspects of them, to run in the category. It's a good way to get people on the grid who have a car that is within the philosophy of TCM but perhaps not quite the exact spec. Our (recently) late friend Bill Pye, for example, ran his old Porsche in 'invited' (As Sven Burchartz did when he purchased it) as it sat outside the rules of the TCM tech regs for the Porsche 911 RS, but was close enough that it wasn't going to come in and blitz everyone. The IROC Challenge cars did the same at Clipsal, for example.

They run their own point score as to not disrupt those running for either of the three 'main' classes. It gets cars and people on the grid, adds to the show, and also gives people a chance to get involved at a first instance (try before you buy?) without spending cash to build or change their car. Category Management makes the call on whether they can run or not so we don't end up with a bunch of Sports Sedans running..

As for T/A - similar theory except for there's a bunch of those cars which comply to the same set of regs, so why not give them their own class when they want to run? There's been plans underway since Muscle Car Masters last year to get the T/A guys on the grid at some point. Doing it at QR - regardless of the size of the TCM field entered or not - made sense as all the cars are running there.

For the record, a bunch of them will run at Bathurst with the category as well, whilst they're running as their own stand-alone races at MCM in September.

A point was made somewhere else about there being three variations of the regs already this year. Common practice as things are fine-tuned throughout the year. Aus GT and Porsche GT3CC are two examples to be on V3 of their Sporting & Tech regs for this year.

EDIT: With regards to signage. The commercial reality of the modern motorsport landscape is that there needed to be more flexibility in giving sponsors adequate representation on the cars, and in particular with the respective liveries used, to help their bang-for-bucks. The series might run old cars, but you need modern commercial sensibilities to run at a national level so the rules were relaxed.

However there's still an encouragement that cars run something related to 'period' schemes to keep it looking slightly old-school.

To be honest, old cars with funky modern wraps look pretty silly anyway so most maintain some form of simple scheme as it suits the cars better anyway.

[Richard Craill]

Originally Posted by Reload

Organisers will probably be looking at continuing this agreement at TCM's next round at SMP in 4 weeks after Tilley just took out himself and another 2 cars this morning.

Tilley and Cricky's cars should be repairable in the timeframe between rounds, and - assuming he's not off racing one of the MARC cars entries in some far corner of the world - Keith still owns the HQ GTS should he run.

Others like Youlden (HQ), Hunter (Monza), McLeod (XA Coupe), Freestone (Camaro) etc will be back later in the year so the grid will be fine.

There's also two new SLR 5000s under construction at the moment as well, one of which should be ready for MCM.

[Terry S]

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

Invitational is a class that allows cars that comply to the broad parameters of the regulations, but perhaps sit slightly outside of some aspects of them, to run in the category. It's a good way to get people on the grid who have a car that is within the philosophy of TCM but perhaps not quite the exact spec. Our (recently) late friend Bill Pye, for example, ran his old Porsche in 'invited' (As Sven Burchartz did when he purchased it) as it sat outside the rules of the TCM tech regs for the Porsche 911 RS, but was close enough that it wasn't going to come in and blitz everyone. The IROC Challenge cars did the same at Clipsal, for example.

They run their own point score as to not disrupt those running for either of the three 'main' classes. It gets cars and people on the grid, adds to the show, and also gives people a chance to get involved at a first instance (try before you buy?) without spending cash to build or change their car. Category Management makes the call on whether they can run or not so we don't end up with a bunch of Sports Sedans running..

As for T/A - similar theory except for there's a bunch of those cars which comply to the same set of regs, so why not give them their own class when they want to run? There's been plans underway since Muscle Car Masters last year to get the T/A guys on the grid at some point. Doing it at QR - regardless of the size of the TCM field entered or not - made sense as all the cars are running there.

For the record, a bunch of them will run at Bathurst with the category as well, whilst they're running as their own stand-alone races at MCM in September.

A point was made somewhere else about there being three variations of the regs already this year. Common practice as things are fine-tuned throughout the year. Aus GT and Porsche GT3CC are two examples to be on V3 of their Sporting & Tech regs for this year.

EDIT: With regards to signage. The commercial reality of the modern motorsport landscape is that there needed to be more flexibility in giving sponsors adequate representation on the cars, and in particular with the respective liveries used, to help their bang-for-bucks. The series might run old cars, but you need modern commercial sensibilities to run at a national level so the rules were relaxed.

However there's still an encouragement that cars run something related to 'period' schemes to keep it looking slightly old-school.

To be honest, old cars with funky modern wraps look pretty silly anyway so most maintain some form of simple scheme as it suits the cars better anyway.

Thanks Richard for going to the trouble of such a detailed and informative response. It is sure above the usual standard here.

Two points if I may:

1. I was not critical of the number of versions of the 2015 regulations. I accept your point. What I was critical of was that no version of 2015 had been loaded on the website by mid July 2015.
2. If the "invitational" class cars are outside the TCM regs then they must be "illegal" in a TCM race, Is there not then a legal issue if they are involved in an incident, as strictly speaking they should not be out there?

[Reload]

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

Tilley and Cricky's cars should be repairable in the timeframe between rounds, and - assuming he's not off racing one of the MARC cars entries in some far corner of the world - Keith still owns the HQ GTS should he run.

Others like Youlden (HQ), Hunter (Monza), McLeod (XA Coupe), Freestone (Camaro) etc will be back later in the year so the grid will be fine.

There's also two new SLR 5000s under construction at the moment as well, one of which should be ready for MCM.

Great news on all fronts.

[Richard Craill]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Thanks Richard for going to the trouble of such a detailed and informative response. It is sure above the usual standard here.

Two points if I may:

1. I was not critical of the number of versions of the 2015 regulations. I accept your point. What I was critical of was that no version of 2015 had been loaded on the website by mid July 2015.
2. If the "invitational" class cars are outside the TCM regs then they must be "illegal" in a TCM race, Is there not then a legal issue if they are involved in an incident, as strictly speaking they should not be out there?

1. Yep. It probably slipped through the net, but most access via the CAMS regs site anyway. Fixed now.
2. Invitational cars aren't 'illegal', because they've been invited to compete, comply to the relevant CAMS regs relating to safety and eligibility, entry forms have been completed, fees paid and all the same processes completed as any other entrant. They run at the discretion of the Category management and as such are as legitimate as any other entrant.

Think of it as the same way the MARC race cars run as an 'invited' class at the Bathurst 12 Hour, without currently conforming to any acknowledged regulations for a race series in Australia.

[Terry S]

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

1. Yep. It probably slipped through the net, but most access via the CAMS regs site anyway. Fixed now.
2. Invitational cars aren't 'illegal', because they've been invited to compete, comply to the relevant CAMS regs relating to safety and eligibility, entry forms have been completed, fees paid and all the same processes completed as any other entrant. They run at the discretion of the Category management and as such are as legitimate as any other entrant.

Think of it as the same way the MARC race cars run as an 'invited' class at the Bathurst 12 Hour, without currently conforming to any acknowledged regulations for a race series in Australia.

Hi, for interest are you the same Richard Craill whose name came up as a commentator on Speedweeks coverage of the Philip Island GT race.

[Richard Craill]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Hi, for interest are you the same Richard Craill whose name came up as a commentator on Speedweeks coverage of the Philip Island GT race.

Guilty as charged.

[Terry S]

Just how good is EDDIE ALBELNICA, or is it his car?

At the Eastern Creek round of TCM, he qualified 2nd and had two seconds and an eighth in the three races.

At Bathurst round he qualified 4th and had three thirds in the three races.

To me that is very good results.

He seems to have had little track experience, but did some Thunderdrome racing. As TCM has only 7 or 8 meetings a year he doesn't get a lot of experience from TCM.

Is it the car, the Falcon Hardtop? Is it so much better than the Mustangs, despite the same mechanicals?

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Just how good is EDDIE ALBELNICA, or is it his car?

At the Eastern Creek round of TCM, he qualified 2nd and had two seconds and an eighth in the three races.

At Bathurst round he qualified 4th and had three thirds in the three races.

To me that is very good results.

He seems to have had little track experience, but did some Thunderdrome racing. As TCM has only 7 or 8 meetings a year he doesn't get a lot of experience from TCM.

Is it the car, the Falcon Hardtop? Is it so much better than the Mustangs, despite the same mechanicals?

I think Eddie is a pretty handy steerer, he did a great job in AUSCAR back in the day, and scored some great results in NASCAR at the AGP as well.


In other TCM news, what do we make of the series moving towards mostly racing with the Shannons Nationals next year, with just two rounds with V8SC?