CTCRC pre 83 regs changes.

[ascona i2000]

As of 2012 the regs have been changed in the CTCRC pre 74 and pre 83 touring Championships regarding permitted tyres and perspex windows.
There is now an option of list B tyres to run on, these include, toyo 888, Yokohama A048, Kumho v70, still the dunlop d84j and four other Dunlop choices, (names escape me at the moment).
Perspex side and rear windows are now also allowed permitted the car still meets the weight limit for its given engine capacity etc. These can be either fixed with sliders/holes or used in the original runners/lifters etc.
Calender to be released on Monday next week....

[Cliff Ryan]

Nice one

[Al Weyman]

I believe that also extends to the Pre 93's as well David.

[ascona i2000]

Yes Al, you are quite right. Which of course would allow alot of the Kumho 3 litre M3's and indeed other models in within the regs.

[womble148]

Looks like a sensable change to me,lets hope it helps to get more cars out there.

[Al Weyman]

I think its a smart move as I see it many of us are going to have to curtail our travelling distances somewhat so if you can slip into another championship or series on occassions that may have a meeting closer to you and enter as a guest without having to buy new tyres etc it can only help.

[ken clarke]

Another nail in the coffin of thr CTCRC IMHO. What made the CTCRC good years ago was being different. Having the regs based on touring car regs of the period, not allowing the tail to wag the dog, ensuring stable regulations that meant a car that was competetive 10 years ago was still competetive now without having to continually spend to keep up with a handful of guys running at the front who will always want to go quicker. unfortunately they do not realise that everyone will go quicker too.

They should not be looking at whom they will attract but whom they will lose, I feel the losses will far outweigh the gains.

I have been a member of the CTCRC for 32 years & I believe there have been more regulation changes in the past 10 years than since the CTCRC started in 1975.

The CTCRC was set up originally for people to run period classic racing cars, with regulations based on the production or Group 1 regulations of that period. It has sadly become a silhouette series for hot rods that cosmetically resemble the original car.

[ascona i2000]

Originally Posted by ken clarke

Another nail in the coffin of thr CTCRC IMHO. What made the CTCRC good years ago was being different. Having the regs based on touring car regs of the period, not allowing the tail to wag the dog, ensuring stable regulations that meant a car that was competetive 10 years ago was still competetive now without having to continually spend to keep up with a handful of guys running at the front who will always want to go quicker. unfortunately they do not realise that everyone will go quicker too.

They should not be looking at whom they will attract but whom they will lose, I feel the losses will far outweigh the gains.

I have been a member of the CTCRC for 32 years & I believe there have been more regulation changes in the past 10 years than since the CTCRC started in 1975.

The CTCRC was set up originally for people to run period classic racing cars, with regulations based on the production or Group 1 regulations of that period. It has sadly become a silhouette series for hot rods that cosmetically resemble the original car.

Hang on a minute Ken, i am about to enter my 8th year with the CTCRC and this is the first major rule change i am aware of. I have to say you are the first negative respones to these changes,mmm? Lets not forgot this change was voted in for by the club members, ie paying customers, so who is the club actually going to lose? These changes came up at last years AGM and all the people who voted yes were present paying racers, the people against came out from the woodwork, yourself included! Infact i am aware of only one person who took advantage of the list 1A rule you had voted in,(for which i dont recall seeing your name on one entry list after you had so much to say at the agm) so lets now see how many take advantage of the new regs, more than one i know.... So who is infact trying to nail the coffin shut?

[Al Weyman]

Ken I have to say thats a bit rich after you have annouced you are starting a series for these very Group 1 cars. Whether you like it or not with guys like yourself and Masters jumping on the Gp1 format its all taking cars away from CTCRC so what does the club do? Your annoucement to start yet another alternate series to take cars away from CTCRC championships was part of the reason this was pushed through. Now where are the Hot Rods in these rule changes and where are the hot rods in the championships before these came in. The rules always have been do what you like internally (except boring over 60th and stroking) to the engine, gearbox and axle, they have always as far as I know allowed uprated brakes, they have always allowed uprated and added suspension components so how can they ever have been Gp 1 in the first place??????? Andy Bacon entered a 500bhp Camaro many years ago built legally within the club regs again if it had been to the spec of the Touring Car Camaros that raced in the 70's by the likes of Richard Lloyd I doubt it would have had more than 320bhp! All that is being introduced are plastic side and rear windows which as I understand have always been allowed in the clubs pre 66's (the original regs as written by you???) and allowing a bit of tyre flexibility to save being held to ransom by Dunlop which currently cost me best part of £750 for four covers for my car!!! BTW plastic windows or not the cars still have to meet the miniumum weight requirements so for example as my yellow car once actually went 1 kilo underweight there is absolutely no gain for me for starters so I wont be changing anything.

I am prehaps in some agreement regarding the clubs pre 93 Touring cars as I feel the Touring car tag is silly and should be dropped and shown as what it is, a milder version of my own Modified Production Saloons I think a name change is in line. as they aint Group N, Group 1 and they certainly aint Group A!

Far from another nail in the clubs coffin I think these reg changes may well act as a very big tyre lever to get that lid open a touch to save the whole shabang being buried.

[Peter Mallett]

If there is no weight saving then why has this change been made? If it is on safety grounds then I personally don't recall any circumstances where a side glass has been broken other than in a major side impact.

Al, Group 1 never had perspex. Group 5 and pre 66 did. Also adjustable TCAs were not permitted in GP1. Just a couple of examples where the priginal ethos has departed. The permitting of additional cooling holes is also not Gp1.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

[andy97]

maybe its just to try to attract cars that already have plastic windows & which otherwisw ould not be eligible.

[Al Weyman]

Ask Cliff Ryan aboutt he dangers of glass in doors and why he changed his XJS to perspex after getting T-Boned, ask Phill Waller the same after his accident at Brands. The primary reason for the change is to get more invited cars in as simple as that, its called survival not collectively buring you heads in sand and hoping things will get better, it makes no difference to performance except prehaps you can jig the ballast if required lower down so what. I want to see the likes of the Jag Drivers XJS's in on occassions and running in class A not class G and if a small compromise on tyres and glass gets them and others in then great I'll live with it and I'm not changing anything.

Adjustable TCA's if in were in way before my time with the club (2005). As far as I am aware there are no additional cooling holes allowed that was quashed a couple of seasons ago with the Capris and guess what? Some of them walked over it and went to 'Group 1 (yeah right)' Masters. I still think an adjustable TCA is a cheaper way to tune than rich guys having several sets of varing length TCA's and going exhaustive testing to get it right. I can adjust camber and caster with shims as thats what the car is blessed with so why penalise a car that is not if we want a level playing field. Not sure how a cockpit adjustable front AR bar on a Dolly ever got in though I would like to challange that one day.

Apart from anything else none of the changes are a 'must have' cars withoutt hem will still be as competitive, it makes no cars spec redundant. The bggest problem I see in series like this and Ken's propsal is policing and if he is to try to police to genuine period regs all I can say is bloody good luck, you will need it, they were cheating in the day when it was s highly sponsored manufacturer backed disipline and still getting away with it so what chance do you stand in an amature later day scenario. I do know however that CTCRC's championship rules will be infinitely more scrutineerable the only cheat basically is over sized engines but a genuine Gp 1/A series will be a minefield.

[ken clarke]

Originally Posted by ascona i2000

Hang on a minute Ken, i am about to enter my 8th year with the CTCRC and this is the first major rule change i am aware of. I have to say you are the first negative respones to these changes,mmm? Lets not forgot this change was voted in for by the club members, ie paying customers, so who is the club actually going to lose? These changes came up at last years AGM and all the people who voted yes were present paying racers, the people against came out from the woodwork, yourself included! Infact i am aware of only one person who took advantage of the list 1A rule you had voted in,(for which i dont recall seeing your name on one entry list after you had so much to say at the agm) so lets now see how many take advantage of the new regs, more than one i know.... So who is infact trying to nail the coffin shut?

Having been involved professionally as a competitor & preparer for over 35 years, I have seen all this before. A handful of guys running at the front want to change the rules to suit themselves & 'sod the rest of them' In my tenure of the CSCC/CTCRC as committee member/Competition Secretary/Chairman never a year went past when one or more of the front running club members wanted the rules changing, usually but not always a change of tyre., This was always resisted by the committe as it did not benefit the majority of members. These aforementioned members were usually gone within 5 years having not got what they wanted.

David, you say thechanges came up at last years AGM, yes the question of Toyo 888s was raised and robustly overturned by the membership, however that fact was ignored by the Committe who chose to allow them, noit sure of the legality of this decision as a Limited company should have called an EGM before overturning an AGM decision!!!!! The question of perspex windows was not raised I believe.

When I was heavily involved with the CTCRC I was running up to 7 cars at each race meeting because this is where my customers wished to race, I am still running as many cars but unfortunately for the CTCRC my customers do not wish to race with them any more, their choice. This precludes me from attending many CTCRC meetings due to clashing dates

David, as for the only regulation change. Since I left the committee 10 years ago,

1 Adjustable TCA's allowed.
2 Fibreglass front wings allowed.
3 Non original cylinder heads allowed.
4 Non original cylinder blocks allowed.

there are probably many more but these are the ones I remember immediately so I suggest you read the regulations & compare them to a set 10 years ago when the club ran races with capacity grids in up to 6 championships. How long ago was the last time you had to split a grid for Pre 74, 83, 93. etc?

As previously stated, I have been a club member for 32 years, I have seen many ups & downs, however the one thing that held the club together was stability of regulations. Many times in my role as Chairman/Competition sercretary I was contacted by a past club member who still had his car but due to family commitments had been away from racing for a number of years. When asked what he needed to do to come back out with the club with his car to remain competetive he was told he needed to do nothing as the regs had not changed. A great shame you can no longer do that!!!!!

[Peter Mallett]

Al. Don't misunderstand me. If the club wants it then fine. I shan't come back because it's not the kind of racing I built the car for. And don't forget although I don't test etc. I have won a few trophies with Masters.

As for the plastic. I base things on the over 20 years I've been racing. Hey ho.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

[Al Weyman]

1 Adjustable TCA's allowed.
2 Fibreglass front wings allowed.
3 Non original cylinder heads allowed.
4 Non original cylinder blocks allowed.

1) TCA's before my time can live without them and not in pre 74's I believe.
2) None availability of parts cited as reason for that, still have to meet weights and this rule is only for pre 74's not Gp1's.
3) Since when?
4) Since when?
Unless you are talking about 1500cc Anglias in pre 66.

The tyre change last season was confined to allowing Kens suggestion of 1a tyres, no more. this new change was proposed and unamously passed at the agm. Its called democracy.

You have been at Walkinshaws Ken you know all about the cheats that went on there, at least with CTCRC regs what you see on the tin is what you get.


I conceed there maybe one or two cars sailing close to the wind but they are transgressing regs and it has been pointed out so thats down to MSA scrutineers to sort which they have failed to do. Maybe us drivers are not the only ones that need to grow some balls. lol

Pete you may have been racing twenty years I have been doing it since the 70's off and on but maybe you have never had a hard one in the door thats shattered the side glass all in your face, your car and over the track, they make you tape headlights but allow shattering toughened glass, dont see the logic myself.

[ken clarke]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Ken I have to say thats a bit rich after you have annouced you are starting a series for these very Group 1 cars. Whether you like it or not with guys like yourself and Masters jumping on the Gp1 format its all taking cars away from CTCRC so what does the club do? Your annoucement to start yet another alternate series to take cars away from CTCRC championships was part of the reason this was pushed through. Now where are the Hot Rods in these rule changes and where are the hot rods in the championships before these came in. The rules always have been do what you like internally (except boring over 60th and stroking) to the engine, gearbox and axle, they have always as far as I know allowed uprated brakes, they have always allowed uprated and added suspension components so how can they ever have been Gp 1 in the first place??????? Andy Bacon entered a 500bhp Camaro many years ago built legally within the club regs again if it had been to the spec of the Touring Car Camaros that raced in the 70's by the likes of Richard Lloyd I doubt it would have had more than 320bhp! All that is being introduced are plastic side and rear windows which as I understand have always been allowed in the clubs pre 66's (the original regs as written by you???) and allowing a bit of tyre flexibility to save being held to ransom by Dunlop which currently cost me best part of £750 for four covers for my car!!! BTW plastic windows or not the cars still have to meet the miniumum weight requirements so for example as my yellow car once actually went 1 kilo underweight there is absolutely no gain for me for starters so I wont be changing anything.

I am prehaps in some agreement regarding the clubs pre 93 Touring cars as I feel the Touring car tag is silly and should be dropped and shown as what it is, a milder version of my own Modified Production Saloons I think a name change is in line. as they aint Group N, Group 1 and they certainly aint Group A!

Far from another nail in the clubs coffin I think these reg changes may well act as a very big tyre lever to get that lid open a touch to save the whole shabang being buried.

Al, how wrong you are. As you mentioned, I wrote most of the regulations for the series now running. These were based on the 'Blue Book' Group 1 regs of the time. Obviously there were areas that were difficult to police so internal engine spec was free apart from capacity hence a 500 BHP Camaro. Brakes were free on the grounds of safety.

I built my Dolly in 1988 based on the homologation papers of the period, using ALL homologated components in Group 1, with the exception of front brakes which were homologated in Group 2. My car remained competetive for many years competing against Capris, Escorts & other Dollys etc built to the same spec & always being at the front with many wins. My car is still built to that specification, I doubt I would get close to the front now.

The rules did not allow Adjustable TCA's, after market cylinder heads & blocks.

The reason I am involved in the 'new series' is to give genuine period original cars or cars genuinely built to those regulations a chance to race with regulations that ARE period & not a silhouette series. You need not fear, the cars that are built & run to the current CTCRC series will not be eligible but any one who still has a car built to the original CTCRC regs will be acceptable, perhaps that is why you are concerned. The Backbone of the CTCRC are the members who turn up year after year in their cars, do not want change, just a level playing field for their cars & do not wish to change them every year.

Take a look at the cars currently running at the front of the CTCRC championships & see how many comply with the original Pre 74/83 regulations? None.

If your worries about glass was genuinely safety then why did you not insist on all cars fitting the shatterproof safety film on the inside of the glass? The Group A Rover I run in the Belgian Historic Chapionship has this fitted as it is a championship requirement. I personally would far sooner be in a car with glass than Lexan. Have you tried to break lexan? If you are stuck in a car after an accident with the glass/lexan intact , which is safer? The real reason has to be weight saving.

No Al I did not allow Perspex/Lexan in pre 66.

[ken clarke]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

1) TCA's before my time can live without them and not in pre 74's I believe.
2) None availability of parts cited as reason for that, still have to meet weights and this rule is only for pre 74's not Gp1's.
3) Since when?
4) Since when?
Unless you are talking about 1500cc Anglias in pre 66.

The tyre change last season was confined to allowing Kens suggestion of 1a tyres, no more. this new change was proposed and unamously passed at the agm. Its called democracy.

You have been at Walkinshaws Ken you know all about the cheats that went on there, at least with CTCRC regs what you see on the tin is what you get.


I conceed there maybe one or two cars sailing close to the wind but they are transgressing regs and it has been pointed out so thats down to MSA scrutineers to sort which they have failed to do. Maybe us drivers are not the only ones that need to grow some balls. lol

Pete you may have been racing twenty years I have been doing it since the 70's off and on but maybe you have never had a hard one in the door thats shattered the side glass all in your face, your car and over the track, they make you tape headlights but allow shattering toughened glass, dont see the logic myself.

Yes Al the tyre change was restricted to my proposal, list 1a tyres, that is democracy. Toyo 888s running which were NOT voted in at the AGM is Not democracy & also against company law!!!!

Yes Al adjustable TCA's in 74

Read the rules Al if you do not know when!!!!!

[Cliff Ryan]

My reason for putting plastic windows in my XJS was safety not weight saving - my car is 70kg over the weight limit as it still has full bumpers etc

[Peter Mallett]

Cliff,

Can't see it. If one really gets stuffed in the side then frankly a plastic window is the last thing one would be thinking about. That said, this change matters not a jot if you want to run as GP1. If not then who cares? The pre 83s were supposed to be Group 1. We never ran with plastic anywhere.

[Cliff Ryan]

It was after I got T boned & showered with glass that I changed it as it was not an experience I wanted to repeat.

Also, I only want to run with Pre 83 occasionally as Championships are not my thing.

[Al Weyman]

Ken it wasnt my worry about safety I had no input or raised or proposed any of the aforementioned changes, I just went to the AGM and saw them voted in. As I said I will be leaving my cars as is I even have a stock of Dunlops so wont be rushing out changing them. The only reason I went along with the proposals was to try to get some more cars out simple as that. All the cars that did run this year that ran on Toyos were in the invitation class and as it happens I wasnt over happy about it either but it was still better than going around in a low grid of cars. Still dont know where the aftermarket blocks etc are you mentioned but would be interested to know.

[ken clarke]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Ken it wasnt my worry about safety I had no input or raised or proposed any of the aforementioned changes, I just went to the AGM and saw them voted in. As I said I will be leaving my cars as is I even have a stock of Dunlops so wont be rushing out changing them. The only reason I went along with the proposals was to try to get some more cars out simple as that. All the cars that did run this year that ran on Toyos were in the invitation class and as it happens I wasnt over happy about it either but it was still better than going around in a low grid of cars. Still dont know where the aftermarket blocks etc are you mentioned but would be interested to know.

As I said Al, I do not believe those that pushed this through were interested in safety. It was a weight issue. It may not make the car lighter but it will lower the C of G significantly. Glass is heavy, replacing it with Perspex/Lexan means you would put the ballast low down therefore much improving cornering. The correct way to keep the cars correct is the film on the inner side of the glass.

I do not remember seeing this proposal prior to the meeting.

It makes no difference that the cars on Toyos ran in an invitation class, The AGM decision was that Toyo's were not wanted in any class. The committee chose to ignore this.

RS 2000's running Cosworth blocks, Sierra injection Cylinder heads etc.

My Dolomite would gain hugely from perspex & Toyos. It is currently 45 kgs more than the minimum, I could lose a chunk of that, certainly 20 kgs by fitting perspex. As for Toyos, Dunlops on the Dolly will last 2 seasons racingm I still have a set on that I fitted at the beginning of 2007, I have since done over 10 hours of racing & track days since then on those tyres & they are still good. My son fitted Toyos on his Dolly before Spa in September, After less than 3 hours 1 tyre is scrap & 1 other will not last much longer.

Toyos for most will prove far more expensive & less durable than the Dunlops but the ones that pushed this through did not care about that.

[Al Weyman]

I hear what you say Ken but surely the regs don't allow the use of the heads and blocks on rs200 so is this not a scrut problem. I have done quite a few races on toyos and they are still good but they are the regulation harder ones

[ken clarke]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I hear what you say Ken but surely the regs don't allow the use of the heads and blocks on rs200 so is this not a scrut problem. I have done quite a few races on toyos and they are still good but they are the regulation harder ones

The regs do allow these.

Tim's were also the GG compound.

[Al Weyman]

Really no wonder I struggle keeping.up with them. Toyos wouldn't last long on 2nd gen car but seem good on 3rd gen. Personally the only concession from group 1 I couldn't race without
is decent brakes as sliding calipers on 2nd gen camaros don't stop!