360MRC, next time (2011) - Discussion re Car Eligibility etc

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Not sure if there would be an influx of E30 M3s- It has been suggested to me that pukka engines and other unique running gear are very costly? And if the 360 is a 'clubbie' event with less emphasis on overall victory would so called 'big teams' want to enter?

According to Wikipedia the E30 M3 came out in '82 so it is already eligible on the date front. And the E36 which would be the cheapest Base car came out in 1990.

[terence]

Quite right Sam,but I do see things in a similar light to Mike in that I dont think there are many out there that are being used by true 'clubmen' racers.

[MartinSmith]

The only problem with wikapedia is that it is not an official accoiunt and is actually written by anyone

The M3 (e30) was not homologated unto 1987 so therefor were not eligible


As for "true clubman racers" not using them? Erm what is a "true clubman"

Someone who belongs to aa motor racing club in order to race?

Someone who only spends a certain amount of money to race?

I write this as I watch the 24 hour 2CV race, some of the teams have paid thousands to get here and on the car itself, some of the teams have very professional set ups in the garages so is this not "true clubman"

As I stated a while back statistically whoever spends the most will have the most success but this is an endurance race so ANYTHING can happen which is why we have an MGMontego being sold as a "best in class winner" its what makes the whole endurance thing so magical.

Initial car cost 300, engine 75 pounds, tyres 140 pounds, entry split four ways 1000 pounds, competing and FINISHING in THE 360 PRICELESS

[midgetman]

Cripes Claire, don't tell Mrs MM we spent that much

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Quite right Sam,but I do see things in a similar light to Mike in that I dont think there are many out there that are being used by true 'clubmen' racers.

Yes I see what you mean, it is unlikely, - not impossible - but unlikely, that someone will spend the money on one and then thrash it to death for 6 hrs. just for this event.
Certainly not many anyway, whereas, an E36 prep'd for track days would probably/possibly have finished about 50 laps in front of the Jag.

[johnw]

Originally Posted by ClaireSmith

The M3 (e30) was not homologated unto 1987 so therefor were not eligible

2.3 litre E30 M3 production started in 1986 Claire.
There are a few (very few) 2.3's racing in the UK. Most have been uprated to 2.5 and 280-300 bhp and I suspect that they wouldn't want to run for 6 hours as rebuild costs are indeed high.

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by johnw

2.3 litre E30 M3 production started in 1986 Claire.
There are a few (very few) 2.3's racing in the UK. Most have been uprated to 2.5 and 280-300 bhp and I suspect that they wouldn't want to run for 6 hours as rebuild costs are indeed high.

John, I know production started in 86....I said Homologated and they were homologated in 1987 THEREFORE they were NOT eligible in our race just gone.

[Paulaweybridge]

Hi everyone,

Being an owner of a 1990 Rover Metro GTI 16v SPi road modified by Motobuild to produce 109bhp and more torque, this post really interested me.

Here's some more info:

The Metro was a supermini launched in 1980 as the Austin Mini Metro by the Austin Rover Group, a division of British Leyland. It was developed under the codename LC8 and was intended as a replacement for the Mini.

It was given many names during its 18 year lifespan like Austin Metro, MG Metro and Rover Metro.

The Rover Metro came into being in 1990. It was heavily revised and featured a new engine line-up. The Rover Metro GTI featured a new 1.4 L K series 16 valve SPi (single point injection) power-plant that developed 95 bhp.

The later MPi (multiple point injection) version developed 103 bhp. This model was known as Rover Metro GTi 16v Special Edition and was launched in 1991. It took over the existing GTi and became the standard model up until 1994. This car had a top speed of 116 mph and could go from 0 to 60 in 8.6 seconds. In 1992, a luxury option pack was introduced, while the interiors were re-trimmed around 1993.

The Rover Metro GTI (MPi) was very popular with car enthusiasts and was frequently seen in low cost motor racing events. This was due to the fact that the Rover Metro GTi’s engine could be easily boosted to belch out 130 bhp.

Originally Posted by andy97

OK, I did check & K Series engines seem to have appeared in 1.4 litre form in1989, albeit in Rover 214.

The Metro got it in 1990.

http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?enginekseriesf.htm

[Mike Sheraton]

I just hope our BMW will still be eligible as me and my dad can share it and it would be the highlight of our year if not more!

[terence]

Originally Posted by ClaireSmith

The only problem with wikapedia is that it is not an official accoiunt and is actually written by anyone

The M3 (e30) was not homologated unto 1987 so therefor were not eligible


As for "true clubman racers" not using them? Erm what is a "true clubman"

Someone who belongs to aa motor racing club in order to race?

Someone who only spends a certain amount of money to race?

I write this as I watch the 24 hour 2CV race, some of the teams have paid thousands to get here and on the car itself, some of the teams have very professional set ups in the garages so is this not "true clubman"

As I stated a while back statistically whoever spends the most will have the most success but this is an endurance race so ANYTHING can happen which is why we have an MGMontego being sold as a "best in class winner" its what makes the whole endurance thing so magical.

Initial car cost 300, engine 75 pounds, tyres 140 pounds, entry split four ways 1000 pounds, competing and FINISHING in THE 360 PRICELESS

OUCH!!!! Thats me told then!
By True Clubmen,I mean those who do not have their own full time teams to look after them/do a lot of the work themselves/usually race on their hard earned income and not relying on their own business/family banks.
As for the age old addage of Deepest Pockets always win,thats not true in all case's.

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by terence bower

OUCH!!!! Thats me told then!
By True Clubmen,I mean those who do not have their own full time teams to look after them/do a lot of the work themselves/usually race on their hard earned income and not relying on their own business/family banks.
As for the age old addage of Deepest Pockets always win,thats not true in all case's.

Erm Terry my love, we are saying the same thing! If you read my post I say that although statistically the one who spends the most will have the most success, its an endurance race and anything can happen and often does so in which case, I don't really care what someone spends on a car so long as they are within the regs and/or the spirit of the event

MG MONTEGO - best in class at 360. LOVE IT!

[Al Weyman]

I think just becaue a manufacture tags the name GT onto the car doesnt automatically make it a Grand Tourer, I mean would you honestly call a 4 door Cortina GT a Grand Tourer especially a Mk3 which they also used the GT name on some models I believe. The use of the GT badge was rife and overused in the 60's and 70's and was tagged onto all sort of unlikely machines.

[midgetman]

Keep saying Claire, keep saying it - we love the sound of that

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I think just becaue a manufacture tags the name GT onto the car doesnt automatically make it a Grand Tourer, I mean would you honestly call a 4 door Cortina GT a Grand Tourer especially a Mk3 which they also used the GT name on some models I believe. The use of the GT badge was rife and overused in the 60's and 70's and was tagged onto all sort of unlikely machines.

She waited for the bait to be taken... Then along came Al.

Sorry Al, but not you or anyone else has the divine right to distinguish what a "GT" is. If we were in. A court of law and a manufacturer was calling a mark one cortina GT then its a GT regardless of what you think, on the log book its a GT. Thing is we say "saloons and GT" in which case your logic from your post puts it at a saloon in which case there is not a problem.

I will make it more simple, if I choose to name my son William, who are you or indeed anyone else to say "well no actually Claire, he doesn't look like a William"

Calling a car a GT in the 70's was an escuse to charge more money but if its on the log book then its like the birth certificate and no one is going to convince me otherwise (nor indeed a judge)

So, our regs will go on that logic, if its quoted as GT from the manufacturer, then its in.

Should not present any problems actually as stated above whereby saloons were tagged as gt, the problem may arise with a GT6 because that's a GT according to the manufacturer yet according to some its a sportscar.

It will still be allowed

[terence]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I think just becaue a manufacture tags the name GT onto the car doesnt automatically make it a Grand Tourer, I mean would you honestly call a 4 door Cortina GT a Grand Tourer especially a Mk3 which they also used the GT name on some models I believe. The use of the GT badge was rife and overused in the 60's and 70's and was tagged onto all sort of unlikely machines.

So,are you suggesting we change the reg's Al?
Or have you just had a bad day.

[andy97]

My own definition of a GT is that it should be able to take 2 people, 2 weekend bags & 2 bags of golf clubs (or equivelant) a few hunderd miles for a weekend away.

[midgetman]

But a Cortina or Corolla GT would qualify 'cos to all eyes they are a saloon car.

What about going the other way - say a Porsche 924? Doesn't say GT but it's a 2+2 Coupe which IMO fits the bill. No more a sports car than an MGBGT.

Oh how difficult it is!

[johngee]

Originally Posted by terence bower

As Claire said,if its called a GT by the manufacturer,and enough were built on a production line,then I personally see no reason for it not to enter.

Another can of worms re production figures? There were some highly regarded and acceptable GT cars, built in the 60's and 70's in tiny volumes but were accepted as 'proper' cars nevertheless. Gilburn, Warwick, Peerless, Lenham bodied Sprites come immediately to mind.

[terence]

Yes,I am aware of those marques John,and yes they do qualify as GTs,just not that many out there.But if there are any owners of those cars who want to do the best 6 hour in the UK,all they have to do is enter.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Yes,I am aware of those marques John,and yes they do qualify as GTs,just not that many out there.But if there are any owners of those cars who want to do the best 6 hour in the UK,all they have to do is enter.

I don't have a Gilburn, but I do have a Gilbern- is that OK? (Common mistake John!)

I know it has been dismissed before but an eligibilty list is starting to make sense.........

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by ClaireSmith

The only problem with wikapedia is that it is not an official accoiunt and is actually written by anyone

Although that can also make it more correct. If a mistake is made in a textbook you cant call the writer/publisher and say please gather up all the books you have issued and correct them because there were a few M3s used in 1986. Whereas....

[RTH]

I would hope those who finally draw up all the rules, that the overwhelming criteria will be to drive down costs to the competitor in all respects. To stop the very wealthy moving in and spoiling what potentially could be a real breakthrough in UK motor racing for the grass roots clubman.
I am told, perhaps someone who was there can confirm it , that this weekend's 2CV 24hr race had 26 starters ( so at least 12 short of a full grid) that their entry fee for the 3 day meeting was £2000 ?

They did have live free to view on the web TV coverage of the whole event with in car and a full round the clock commmentary.

Perhaps the organisers might seek to get a title sponsor for the race purely to use the funds generated to reduce competitor fees directly.

Having done 8 Willhire 24 hr races strict cost control by organisers is vital. It was only escalating cost which killed off the Willhire. In its best years throughout the 80s, typically 76 teams entered and the BRSCC had to choose 38 teams from those for the grid. At the death only 13 teams could afford to enter and as a result the BRSCC cancelled the race , never to be offered again.

When we did it first a good incentive was that if you finished the race and completed 75% of the overall race winners you had your whole entry fee refunded.......that felt like a win !

Maintaining a capacity grid for a race eases the burden on everyone

[simon drabble]

Originally Posted by RTH

Perhaps the organisers might seek to get a title sponsor for the race purely to use the funds generated to reduce competitor fees directly.

Having done 8 Willhire 24 hr races strict cost control by organisers is vital. It was only escalating cost which killed off the Willhire. In its best years throughout the 80s, typically 76 teams entered and the BRSCC had to choose 38 teams from those for the grid. At the death only 13 teams could afford to enter and as a result the BRSCC cancelled the race , never to be offered again.

When we did it first a good incentive was that if you finished the race and completed 75% of the overall race winners you had your whole entry fee refunded.......that felt like a win !

Maintaining a capacity grid for a race eases the burden on everyone

Wise words from someone who has done it in the real world.....

without pouring cold water on the ashes without a title sponsor you will lack credibility and ability to write down the costs. The intention to divide cost by number competitor is a great idea but is chicken and egg as this year proved. No one would actually commit and presumably as word of a small grid got round the no shows increased.

With a high profile sponsor the counter party risk is taken out and you will get more solid commitments. However with horse racing and other sports suffering from lack of sponsorship I acknowledge this will not be easy. Maybe H and H would like to get involved again and combine it with an auction? Their philosophy is very similar to yours....

[RTH]

That is a really good idea Simon, after all you are already renting the premises and a Classic Car Auction company could hold a sale where there is already a captive audience of the right sort of people and advertising of the auction sale would bring in more visitors to the meeting as an additional attraction. In other words all parties get a direct benefit from maximum utilisation of the facility and well worth the cost of being a meeting title sponsor ,a neat idea all round.

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

Wise words from someone who has done it in the real world.....

without pouring cold water on the ashes without a title sponsor you will lack credibility and ability to write down the costs. The intention to divide cost by number competitor is a great idea but is chicken and egg as this year proved. No one would actually commit and presumably as word of a small grid got round the no shows increased.

With a high profile sponsor the counter party risk is taken out and you will get more solid commitments. However with horse racing and other sports suffering from lack of sponsorship I acknowledge this will not be easy. Maybe H and H would like to get involved again and combine it with an auction? Their philosophy is very similar to yours....

You both speak from experience of putting on such events?