Stubber RX7. Shine or Sham

[Camaroz]

Stubber ran his RX7 at Phillip Island Historics that has led to much conjecture amongst Group C & A Competitors as to how it was allowed to run in the (supposed) 1984 configuration etc...

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...=121230&page=8

... will give you a lead in.

This issue needs its own thread so as not to confuse the Phillip Island Historic Meeting with Group C & A eligibility.

[chavez]

If the intention is for the class is to run the cars as raced then an argument could be made that "cheater" type parts should be allowed.

However how would this even be policed?

We know from recent admissions from the likes of Mick Webb and Fred Gibson that "cheater" parts were fitted to the some of the cars. However there is no documented evidence as to the specification of these parts.

But what about illegal parts, such as the spoliers on the XE Falcons at Bathurst in'82? If somone raced one of these Falcons could they run in Bathurst '82 spec?

Much easier to stick to the rules and run the cars as presented and approved. ie RX7's with five speed gearboxes.

[jetwreck]

dam it just saw this thread.....posted in the other one though!

[cdtpf60]

i've read the other thread and i can understand the controversy,if we let all the cheats in where do we stop?
my car at bathurst 1982 practiced with a bored and stroked isuzu 1600 (it raced with a stock 1600 motor from a local wrecker)even though it was entered as an isuzu pf60 gemini(perfectly legal with an 1800 isuzu motor)i will be running an 1800 as it's legal and i cant prove it ran with a cheater motor.
if we let in the known cheats then whats stopping others saying that theyre car ran a cheater what ever?
back in the day there were many urban myths about several cars dick Johnson's 1980 xd as an example was rumored to have had 1/2 inch chopped out of the a pillars ive never seen the proof and i have my doubts but that was talked about alot in the early 80's so do we let a top chopped xd run just because it was rumored to have run?or another falcon that had a nos bottle between the real firewall and a fake one?( i think this was an xb)
or even the long talked about brock vk group a from 1985 that was supposed to be running a twin row timing chain in 1985 even after i broke it's chain it drove onto it's transporter?(well so many "witnesses" have said this)
so as i said if we let "cheat" cars in where do we draw the line?
cars like the Brock group a m3 ran with a homolgated 6 speed box,the rx7 never did.
i dont have a problem with cars using a newer and safer efi system but gearboxes on groupc cars as i understand it had to be standard(again though many back in the day cheated i know of at least one gemini that ran a hollinger 5 speed box).
bring the rx7 into line with the rules and it still kicks but and i will applaud it as it looked great out there

[Dazz]

"but when an A9X matches or beats turbo Sierras and Skylines down the straight at the island, don't you think they know something is funny?"

This was a quote from the other thread, but one that opens up a can of worms.

I don't believe you can assume the status quo will remain in as far as performance goes when these cars compete now, my reasons are as follows.

Even back in the day, a Sierra was not a Sierra. Very few people got the best from them, Johnson was one of them in somewhat of a purple patch with both his driving and those damn red things. I don't believe anyone these days racing a Sierra can a. afford to run them at the power levels Johnson was, and b. no disrespect but I do not believe any current Sierra owners could drive one like Dick did in his prime.

However, there is no reason why someone couldn't run a Walkinshaw at the same power level as they did back then as they were not overly stressed at that power level, and I would suggest they are probably somewhat easier to drive, in as far as I think most people of average talent would be able to drive the VL closer to it's potential than the Sierra. Personal opinion of course.

So it goes without saying that whilst a VL shouldn't beat a Sierra, it's not necessarily so today.

And this is where the Moffat car comes into it. Like the Sierra, very few people got the absolute best from them all the time. Moffat, Hansford, McLeod, Bob Morris and Barry Jones at selected outings were probably the only guys who could really make these things fly. And Moffat's cars always had that little bit more, although being a fully professional team that makes sense.

Having had 20 plus years experience with these things, I fully appreciate how tricky these things are to drive. Like Moffat used to comment, you cannot afford to lose any corner speed, you have to be flat out all the time, and unlike a V8 you can't just slow it down a bit more through the corner and then pick up that speed again.

I've watched Paul Stubber drive and from a totally outside opinion, would say that he has at least the guts to push a car like this to it's limits, more so than some others, myself included. We all like to think of ourselves as "drivers" but lets face it, there are some guys who just get that bit more out of the cars.

So getting back on track, I don't see how you can totally compare relative performance of these cars when in their day the car was the variable as they were mostly driven by people of similar talent, and now, the cars are raced by people who can afford them, who are not necessarily all on the same level driving wise, if you get my point.

As far as the six speed gearbox goes, there is no simple answer. Sure by the rules it should have a 5-speed and so in that respect it would solve a lot of whinging if the 6-speed was removed.

BUT, if people want to take the line of "race the cars as close to as they were in the day" then it's hard to say pull out the gearbox that was in the car at the time!

Anyway that discussion will rage on forever.

[GROUPA]

I dont kow David Towe or Paul Stubber on a personal level at all but I for one enjoy watching Group A & C cars running at historics and I dont really car if one is legal or illegal the more old cars coming back on track the better.

Now as back then modifications will happen that are both above and below board let the racing continue and if need be remove the minimal prize money and run for the pure plastic trophy....the paying punter doesn't really care either way they just want a nostaliga trip a remember a variety of cars running together.

BTW with no disrepect to Towe Stubber seems to be more than a gentleman racer and has a higher ability then others...proven with his Nurburgring 24 Hour experience.

if I had a choice though I would prefer to have the M3 over the RX7 but would prefer a 2.5 instead of a 2.3

[david5]

Originally Posted by GROUPA

I dont kow David Towe or Paul Stubber on a personal level at all

....the paying punter doesn't really care either way they just want a nostaliga trip a remember a variety of cars running together.

I don't know either gentleman either, but applaud the efforts of both, however I do take offence when sweaping generalisms are made on my behalf. I was a paying punter along with a few others who do care about the rules & the legality of the cars. I can't fathom the "it was done in the day" attitude, run to the rules. Interesting that 1st gear was locked out in the RX7 & not 6th gear.

[Dazz]

It would make no sense to knock out 6th gear.

Most race gearbox's have top gear be it 4th 5th or 6th 1:1 not overdriven. There are some exceptions of course but not too many.

Reason for the extra gears is to stack the ratio's closer together, not generally to give a higher top speed, as that is achieved with the diff ratio.

[Bown]

I vote SHINE (with a nice dash of sham.)
Paul always runs the best gear and commits a lot of his life towards his racing (Fitness, car prep, etc). In doing that with dedication and experience, he may seem to have an unfair advantage to some others, but he doesn't, he just does it better. He knows he has been singled out as a cheater, hence why he can't. He WILL get pinged. IMHO, Australian historic motorsport is very lucky to have a guy like Paul Stubber consistently raising the bar. If a bunch of Gp A guys are up for a witch hunt, as there is an interloper into the top 5, they had better make sure there own back yards are damn clean.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that car can run Fuel Injection too right?

So ends the slightly off topic rant...what a tricky and touchy area. Undoing an original cars specifications, to meet modern racing criteria is criminal in my little world. But people building hot-rods, based on legend and heresay is worse. For Paul to take the 6 speed out would be kind of sad, as that car did race with it in circa 83-84, its not just a disgruntled ex- Head Mechanic saying it. But letting it run like that, really lets the door wide open to everything else. Far too wide sadly. I think for sanity's sake, we should stick to the rules of the day, not how it was raced / what it got away with If we scare off guys like Frank Lowndes, as his job would become 10 x trickier and more political, we would be fools.

BTW, the Gp A guys all running updated ECU's etc and thinking that it's just fine... that is bloody hilarious. Due to recent stone throwing, a Gp A guy had his ass handed to him on a plate by CAMS, as his reliability enhancements were deemed to be performance upgrades. To paraphrase, their stance was that his greater reliability, gave him the confidence to drive the car harder, hence the performance upgrade. Should have built your house out of Lexan before you started throwing rocks guys. Motec under the dash anyone?

[Rx7#43]

Correct Bown, the car is presented in its 1984 Bathurst livery, where the car DID run fuel injection (has since been sold prior to Paul owning the car, although we don't hear complaints about going backwards to a carby and being down on HP ) and DID run the 6sp - like it or lump it.

See Phillip Is. post about locking out gears.. I stated our reasoning there.

ajmrf86 - Care to back up your allegations with some evidence???

I'd be happy for a moderator to move all my posts from the PI thread to this thread so as to keep that on track.

[GROUPA]

Originally Posted by david5

I don't know either gentleman either, but applaud the efforts of both, however I do take offence when sweaping generalisms are made on my behalf. I was a paying punter along with a few others who do care about the rules & the legality of the cars. I can't fathom the "it was done in the day" attitude, run to the rules. Interesting that 1st gear was locked out in the RX7 & not 6th gear.

Point taken....Sounds like you might get upset with the sticker placement too and authanticity. But if this fewd gets out of hand the owners of the cars both legal and illegal might not even bother turning up which nobody wants.

My older brother took his 8 year old along and he loved the Group A & C the most. Again if it gets out of hand another generation of fans will miss out.

[CooperS79]

Originally Posted by Bown

If a bunch of Gp A guys are up for a witch hunt, as there is an interloper into the top 5, they had better make sure there own back yards are damn clean.

[St00ge]

Originally Posted by Bown

I vote SHINE (with a nice dash of sham.)
Paul always runs the best gear and commits a lot of his life towards his racing (Fitness, car prep, etc). In doing that with dedication and experience, he may seem to have an unfair advantage to some others, but he doesn't, he just does it better. He knows he has been singled out as a cheater, hence why he can't. He WILL get pinged. IMHO, Australian historic motorsport is very lucky to have a guy like Paul Stubber consistently raising the bar. If a bunch of Gp A guys are up for a witch hunt, as there is an interloper into the top 5, they had better make sure there own back yards are damn clean.

Well said...

[racer69]

As someone who is nothing but a fan of the class (ie...no stake in it at all), i think it is great to see the Mazda out there, and a Peter Stuyvesant one at that.

Regarding the fuel injection comments, wasn't it approved for the 13B motors as of the 1983 Castrol 400? Therefore if the car is presented in 1984 JH1000 specs, then the fuel injection should be fine (assuming the Moffat Mazda team was still using it then?)

As for the 6sp gearbox, i think as it was an illegal modification, it shouldn't be allowed, for the same reasons as mentioned earlier. Perhaps the wording of the regs should be changed to "the cars must be presented as at an event they were in legal specs"

If i got my hands on the Moffat XC from 1978, and presented it in its Sandown ATCC '78 specification with the roller rockers that is was disqualified for, would i be allowed to run?

[Camaroz]

Apart from the unfortunate digs at Paul Stubber (PS) from ajmrf86, this thread has bought out some very good points and views ....

PS can pilot anything well.
PS presents quality cars in all of the categories he contests.
PS has the where-with-all to run cars at their potential (reference A9X beating Skyline's et al), that's his choice.

I declare an interest in the CAMS HPBEC process.

PS has had this car for some time. (3 Years plus?)
PS has lodged a CoD Application with CAMS with full disclosure. When?
The sticking point was the 6 Speed?
When was PS advised by CAMS this was an irregularity?
6 Speed ever homologated for 1984 RX7? No.
Q. Romour has it AMR ran this 6 Speed configuration in 1984. Yes.
AM has denied this. Yes.
If AM does admit that they ran a non-homologated 6 Speed gearbox in 1984, Moffat's 1984 Endurance Drivers Championship and Mazda's 1984 Australian Endurance Championship is a SHAM and Mazda (110 Points) should make full disclosure and have to present the Australian Endurance Championship to General Motors Holden (108 Points) for Season 1984 and Moffat should return the Drivers Championship to the Brock family. If Olympians are found out to have cheated, they hand back their medals!!!!!!!

Team personnel of the time "smirk" but nothing in writing! Yes.

Was there any advice from CAMS to PS not to present the car in 6 Speed configuration?

CAMS have either issued a CoD or Permit for the car to race at PI and would have PS's CoD application as reference. Was the 6 Speed listed in the application?

PS decides to present the car at PI with non-homologated components, the 6 Speed. Yes.

As stated before, PS has had the car for some time. It is not as if he picked it up from a museum en-route to PI and had no real opportunity to rectify. PS has purposely presented the RX7 in an a non-legal configuration for the period.

Why?

Then the sham of "locking out" a gear.

Should PS have presented the car with a (homologated) 5 Speed. Yes.

Should he wanted to continue to have the 6 Speed allowed, bearing in mind the ramifications of having both Moffat and the Mazda Corporation branded as cheats and having to hand back 1984 Endurance Championship awards and possible damages cases resulting? That would have been his choice pre PI but now.......

Is the CAMS HPBEC inept? Have they not given the correct direction to PS? Has PS been told that his car can be accommodated in some way?

Is PS making a point? Then what is the point?

Group C RX7's in 1984 had 5 Speeds.

[david5]

Gee, if every team that cheated in ATCC & Endurance racing history had to hand back trophies, things will get very messy.

[drbob]

David Towe from PI thread

Quote Dr.Bob) "Gearbox ratios shall be those as listed on the homologation/recognition the vehicle at the time of the Specified Competition Event. The gears may be replaced with non-genuine parts provided the functional dimensions (ie, factory specification) are respected and the numbers of teeth are retained, however the number of gears must remain as specified" seems pretty clear to this unqualified observer unless this "if they got away with it then, than it's OK now" philosophy turns out to be a written ruling. Thanks Dr.Bob

David I don't read that as allowing as legal now, an item that was run in the period illegally.

My reading of those regs quoted is to allow certain specified items such as gearbox, suspension,wheels etc to be used now even if not run at the specified competition event as long as they were an alternative homologation available at the time. e.g even if ran 5 speed gearbox at the time can run 6 speed now as long as homologated at the time; or say ran 17 inch wheels at the time can now run 18 inch wheels as long as they were homologated at the time.

BTW I hope you are not referring to my 2.5l BMW as running a slide throttle.
It has always had butterfly actuated throttle, at least since it arrived in Australia right up to now.

[Camaroz]

Originally Posted by david5

Gee, if every team that cheated in ATCC & Endurance racing history had to hand back trophies, things will get very messy.

If every Team (Driver/Owner), or "Factory Team" Principle that would support the presentation of that car (as a re-shell or not) in an illegal configuration in "Historic Racing" is an admission of guilt! Yes, correct the history, reward those that wern't caught or will keep "mum".

We are not talking about an extra 2 mm of brake rotor or 700cc of fuel, we are talking a whole extra gear in the gearbox, a major component!!!!

[Rob Bailey]

Originally Posted by Camaroz

Apart from the unfortunate digs at Paul Stubber (PS) from ajmrf86, this thread has bought out some very good points and views ....

PS can pilot anything well.
PS presents quality cars in all of the categories he contests.
PS has the where-with-all to run cars at their potential (reference A9X beating Skyline's et al), that's his choice.

I declare an interest in the CAMS HPBEC process.

PS has had this car for some time. (3 Years plus?)
PS has lodged a CoD Application with CAMS with full disclosure. When?
The sticking point was the 6 Speed?
When was PS advised by CAMS this was an irregularity?
6 Speed ever homologated for 1984 RX7? No.
Q. Romour has it AMR ran this 6 Speed configuration in 1984. Yes.
AM has denied this. Yes.
If AM does admit that they ran a non-homologated 6 Speed gearbox in 1984, Moffat's 1984 Endurance Drivers Championship and Mazda's 1984 Australian Endurance Championship is a SHAM and Mazda (110 Points) should make full disclosure and have to present the Australian Endurance Championship to General Motors Holden (108 Points) for Season 1984 and Moffat should return the Drivers Championship to the Brock family. If Olympians are found out to have cheated, they hand back their medals!!!!!!!

Team personnel of the time "smirk" but nothing in writing! Yes.

Was there any advice from CAMS to PS not to present the car in 6 Speed configuration?

CAMS have either issued a CoD or Permit for the car to race at PI and would have PS's CoD application as reference. Was the 6 Speed listed in the application?

PS decides to present the car at PI with non-homologated components, the 6 Speed. Yes.

As stated before, PS has had the car for some time. It is not as if he picked it up from a museum en-route to PI and had no real opportunity to rectify. PS has purposely presented the RX7 in an a non-legal configuration for the period.

Why?

Then the sham of "locking out" a gear.

Should PS have presented the car with a (homologated) 5 Speed. Yes.

Should he wanted to continue to have the 6 Speed allowed, bearing in mind the ramifications of having both Moffat and the Mazda Corporation branded as cheats and having to hand back 1984 Endurance Championship awards and possible damages cases resulting? That would have been his choice pre PI but now.......

Is the CAMS HPBEC inept? Have they not given the correct direction to PS? Has PS been told that his car can be accommodated in some way?

Is PS making a point? Then what is the point?

Group C RX7's in 1984 had 5 Speeds.

If i owned it in its XB GT specs from the Tasman series in '77 could I run the Colin Bond car?

[Rob Bailey]

LOl remember the VHT paint that had metal in it,ah the good old days,nice one Sambo.

[drbob]

As I read the CAMS regulations for Group C it is clear you can't use illegal items now because they were illegally used in period. (I accept this is just my opinion)

Current CAMS Historic Group C Regulations 3.4.3

(c) Other than in respect of variations permitted in terms of these regulations, each vehicle must be presented in the same specification as noted in the relevant homologation/recognition document as it was presented for competition at an event (the “Specified Competition Event”) during a year in which the vehicle competed as a Group C Touring Car in the Group C period (the “Specification Year”).

General requirements:
When a vehicle is presented for historic recognition as a Group C Touring car, the application for a Certificate of Description must be accompanied by sufficient and appropriate documentation as evidence in support of the
vehicle’s originality and authenticity. The general requirements as set out in the period specifications for the vehicle as at the Specified Competition Event in the Specification Year, will apply.

Suspension, brakes, wheels, steering, coachwork, interior, electrical systems, fuel systems and all other aspects of the vehicle’s specification other than the items mentioned under Specific Requirements must not be modified except for modifications allowed by the period specifications for the vehicle as at the Specified Competition Event in the Specification Year.

The first para of the regs "must be presented in the same specification as noted in the relevant homologation/recognition document as it was presented for competition at an event" where it says "as it was presented" must mean in accordance with the homologation recognition document.

In the third para of the regs quoted where it says aspects of the vehicle's specification must not be modified must mean the vehicles homologation specification.

I say it must mean because when you read it all together the homologation requirements are clearly of prime importance and the paras also infer that the car was presented in the first place in accordance with the homologation specifications.

Happy to hear if I am wrong but please say why and where the rules/ regs say it

[jetwreck]

Originally Posted by Bown

If a bunch of Gp A guys are up for a witch hunt.
Silly comment partnered by 1 other....cheers to you both!



BTW, the Gp A guys all running updated ECU's etc and thinking that it's just fine... that is bloody hilarious. Why..what's the performance advantage if you run a Motec with no additional sensors?
Due to recent stone throwing, a Gp A guy had his ass handed to him on a plate by CAMS, as his reliability enhancements were deemed to be performance upgrades. To paraphrase, their stance was that his greater reliability, gave him the confidence to drive the car harder, hence the performance upgrade. If he was running additional sensors he should have his arse handed to him Should have built your house out of Lexan before you started throwing rocks guys. Motec under the dash anyone? So do we park them once the ECU or tuning hardware ****s itself? Can you provide an alternative or are your comments just hot air? Maybe they could use a Carbi! oh wait it's not homologation papers!

Don't start a Group A/C war going....that's not what the discussion was about and you are way off topic. From memory this was about the RX7! Personally I could not if a damn if it's a Group A or C up front as long as the car's represent there heritage in there closest original form and within the rules if possible!

(BTW just an FYI there were 2 Group C winners at PI and 2 Group A winners....and at least 3 Group C's in the top ten each race....as there is at most meetings. So I don't understand why you have to go with the "Group A guy's" comment....is there some kind of hidden race I don't know about?)

[mildura1963]

Do you ever see the day when there will be sufficient numbers in each category to split the A's & C's into their own individual races?

[jetwreck]

Originally Posted by mildura1963

Do you ever see the day when there will be sufficient numbers in each category to split the A's & C's into their own individual races?

Yes I do....but that's only my opinion.....they already do it at MCM!

Would I miss racing against the some of the guy's/car's in our category being from Group C or A? Yes.

Just a quick note....if the category did split and you had some Group C's being up to 10 seconds quicker per lap than others what's you thoughts? Would you not be a bit curious on why the car is so much quicker? Being the same spec cars even with a great driver there would only be maybe 5-6 seconds in it.......maybe.

[mildura1963]

Do we have any approximate numbers of how many A & C cars are racing now & how many are still around that are not racing. I guess quite a few Group C cars became Sports Sedans and a lot of Group A's would have been sold overseas.