Historic Racing and Historic Racing Today Forum-Where is it going ?

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I think we went past that quite a few posts ago BRM and JR said yes he definitely wanted to hear from guys like you.

One of my pet hates are cars that do not comply with the various series/championships regulations. Chuntering on on 10/10ths might relieve the torment but it does not alter the fact the only way the practice of cheating, and that is just what it is, is the enforcement of regulations, and when found to be in contravention of rules allowing them to start from the pit lane is not going to stop it. The HGPCA have banned a car from competing which was very close to me and in doing so have stirred up a hornets nest of differing opinions, it does not comply, so it does not race, simple. This particular subject has been thrown around this forum many times and still the wrong-uns are being allowed to race; and unless it is stopped, historic racing is going to end up with cars racing representing what their owners think they should be and not what they were in period. Some E-types and Chevrons please note!

[johnh875]

As another young-ish spectator, and infrequent poster, I'd agree with a lot of the points raised so far. I think there is a lot of future in historic racing.

To give an idea, the 1973-84 period of touring cars is now well-established if not over-supplied with active cars. Unlike most other touring car categories out here (and I think also over there) the cars must have had a racing history so this naturally limits numbers, this was deliberate to ensure a certain level of respect amongst racers they didn't think would occur if there were replicas of cars built etc. Naturally it took some organising by the people that owned cars and wanted to race them to get things off the ground and recognised as an historic category. The Group A t-c's have also joined in and numbers are growing there, even Nissan GTR's appearing on the track. Cars are being tracked down and dug out of sheds, etc but overall it is a chicken-and-egg situation - cars have been salted away for years with nowhere to race rather than being discarded. With the internet etc the lineage of V8Supercars is a lot better tracked and more widely known.

As for continuation cars, our regs provide for "new" pre-war cars to be built out of period componentry. When raced they are in a sub-class and identified as such. I couldn't tell you what percentage of a grid is comprised of these cars, but I think they have become an integral part of the sport. I think the historic racing scene here is more laid-back than yours - most people who run the really old cars aren't pot-hunting. Eg a gent who lives not far from me who is well past 70 and races a Bugatti T35C towards the rear of the field but still pushes very hard. (also road-reg and road-driven!)

Another recent development in the last few years is the Biante Touring Car Masters, which is an offshoot of the Group Nb/Nc touring cars driven by the competitors who wanted to upgrade brakes, gearboxes etc for better reliability (the extra performance must have been a coincidence?) etc. They have a more professional series now, and actually run under sports sedan regs (like super saloons/thunder saloons?) ie are not an historic category. It actually works quite well I think because it has become the place for the big-spender/hard-chargers to run and the rest are quite happy in the "normal" historic events without them.

[Al Weyman]

One of my pet hates are cars that do not comply with the various series/championships regulations. Chuntering on on 10/10ths might relieve the torment but it does not alter the fact the only way the practice of cheating, and that is just what it is, is the enforcement of regulations, and when found to be in contravention of rules allowing them to start from the pit lane is not going to stop it. The HGPCA have banned a car from competing which was very close to me and in doing so have stirred up a hornets nest of differing opinions, it does not comply, so it does not race, simple. This particular subject has been thrown around this forum many times and still the wrong-uns are being allowed to race; and unless it is stopped, historic racing is going to end up with cars racing representing what their owners think they should be and not what they were in period. Some E-types and Chevrons please note!

Yes I know what you mean BRM and we have several similar problems close to home at the moment however what do you you do? In this case the cars have been put in the invitation class where they cannot score points and on the face of it you could argue chuck em out but is it as simple as that in these recessionary times. We are all under threat from the MSA to loose championship status and if entries too low be merged or even disbanded so the last thing we need is to throw three cars off the grid which would probably mean another couple of their friends leaving as well. Its all about survival at the moment so where as I may not find it 100% acceptable I see why its being done and I mean this at all levels of historics. I personally find no real problem with the continuations provided they are identified as such.

BTW John I am not sure I agree that the car must have had previous history in period, thats a bit draconian for a saloon series surely because in essense you are saying no reshells and if you are saying you allow re shelling what part of the car has to remain original the chassis plate? Not for me that one sorry.

[Henrik Pedersen]

Al, you are absolutely right.
I just liked the original titel of the thread, because it matters so much for some of us.

I have in a previous thread called for a strict enforcement of App.K for those who wants to race under that regime.
So for the benefit of those who want to bend, cut corners and other nasty things, make series for those car. Make the rules clear, or don´t make rules.
Then I would like a class or series, for those of us who wants clear and clean App.K.
Not with all those if´s and but´s.

[terence]

Originally Posted by p261brm

One of my pet hates are cars that do not comply with the various series/championships regulations. Chuntering on on 10/10ths might relieve the torment but it does not alter the fact the only way the practice of cheating, and that is just what it is, is the enforcement of regulations, and when found to be in contravention of rules allowing them to start from the pit lane is not going to stop it. The HGPCA have banned a car from competing which was very close to me and in doing so have stirred up a hornets nest of differing opinions, it does not comply, so it does not race, simple. This particular subject has been thrown around this forum many times and still the wrong-uns are being allowed to race; and unless it is stopped, historic racing is going to end up with cars racing representing what their owners think they should be and not what they were in period. Some E-types and Chevrons please note!

100% Agree!! It is reassuring to know there ARE some organizing club's who do actually to action against the offending cars/drivers.The problem being that ALL organizers need to take the same action as the good guy's.
There's little point in having so called App K series if one allows one mod that is different and doe's not complie with the others,for example,Equipe GTS quite openly allows 1950 B engines,Masters impose a 50Kg penalty,where doe's that leave the owner as to where he races?

[p261brm]

I personally find no real problem with the continuations provided they are identified as such I agree Al, as long as the cars are faithfully reproduced, no problem, building them to be what they never were is.

I have in a previous thread called for a strict enforcement of App.K for those who wants to race under that regime.
So for the benefit of those who want to bend, cut corners and other nasty things, make series for those car. Make the rules clear, or don´t make rules.
Then I would like a class or series, for those of us who wants clear and clean App.K.
Not with all those if´s and but´s. OK Henrik but we have more than enough enteries to overfill most grids/programmes now, also the way I understand it; if a series is run as a championship under MSA stewardship it has to comply with Appendix K

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Interested whats happened to this one by the time I return as we are still missing some prominent posters who obviously have opinions about everything else so I feel quite let down they have missed this one.

Sorry John I think I've made my views quite clear on more than one occaision, and frankly I now feel like I'm wasting my breath, History clearly won't be repeated as hardly anyone has any respect for it.

As far as the forum is concerned I think its just getting repetitive and going round in circles.

[terence]

Banging one's head and carousel come to mind?

[zefarelly]

the Hollies wasn't it ?

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Well according to JR Henrik Tim is not entirely correct although I can see it was worded like that originally as I think he has made it clear in his latest post that this was a broader brush than 'Just where is this forum going' so that looks OK to my eyes the posts are achieving just this, a good debate if I may say so.

Yup, seems I read the title incorrectly.

[simon drabble]

I sometimes wonder if TimD stopped posting due to the thread hijacking. A great shame if that is the case as he is highly articulate and a pleasure to read. Whilst it would be wrong to become as dowdy as The other place I would enjoy more informative threads my eyes do start to glaze over when the same subjects are rehashed over and over again....

[Simon Hadfield]

My apologies for not having joined in with this fascinating and informative thread but I have been a little busy - the Gold Cup was the start of a very crowded period for us - and thus havent really paid the attention I should have! As an aside I did drive a Maserati 250F today, for the first time , another tick in my I-spy book of racing cars. (2524 for those of you who are interested in that kind of thing)

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

I sometimes wonder if TimD stopped posting due to the thread hijacking. A great shame if that is the case as he is highly articulate and a pleasure to read. Whilst it would be wrong to become as dowdy as The other place I would enjoy more informative threads my eyes do start to glaze over when the same subjects are rehashed over and over again....

If that were the case Simon, Tim would surely have resigned as a mod. You will note that he is still listed as such for this forum. The truth is that he was a regular and knowledgeable poster on here for a number of years and no doubt has other things in his life right now which takes more of his time. We all tend to change and/or move on after a while. Besides, he probably thinks I have hijacked his role.

The Historic Racing Today forum was my idea (he said, modestly) because I felt it was a completely separate subject from the history side of motorsport even though there is some crossover for obvious reasons. It is why we split it off and, frankly, it's been a pretty successful move. Because it is such a specific area though, it is inevitable that we will be revisiting some of the issues, especially if they have been unresolved (and yes, I'm repeating myself here, too) so it's no good you guys complaining about repetition. It's in your hands. Each member has the ability to start their own thread so if you want to talk about something else related to Historic racing, just start one, and don't participate in those that you feel are covering old ground.

On the subject of cheating in Historic racing, I can easily move those posts above relating to that subject onto the Simon Hadfield's big thread. In fact we can easily break this thread into various new ones to accommodate the different discussions generated by JRs opening post if you want that to happen.

Where historic racing is going at the moment seems to be towards longer races, giving more track time to competitors. I like the idea of endurance races as for many of the historic cars racing now it is their natural home. Of course, it does lead to greater wear and tear, and therefore increased costs, but it does seem to be finding favour; it just means that some of the cars will come out less often.

Simon (H), your position understood, but more input from you, when you can, would be very welcome.

[Al Weyman]

Longer races are not for me John, I am not that fit, overweight and 61 and two twenty minute races at Brands the other weekend was plenty enough for these old bones thanks as I got out that old oversteering, understeering tub bloody knackered and I think my old car kinda feels the same way although she is only nearly 40 :-).

I really cannot see that many hijacks on this theread at all, couple of additions to the posters primary post have been slipped in we are all gulity of that and a couple of short quips that are (a) pretty harmless and anyone not to post because of them must be a little over sensitive and (b) have you thought that posts even if slightly off topic do keep the thread afloat as without them it will simply die.

JR reiterated that the topic was a broad brush so I fail to see anything so off the wall in the entire thread that should put anyone off contributing.

[John Turner]

Al, I'm not suggesting that all races should be longer, merely that there seems to be a move to longer races in some historic areas. I can't see us losing all the shorter races; I just think that the balance between the two is shifting.

[terence]

From a personal point of view,I think it's not before time.Look how over subscribed the longer races are John,I think you are absolutely correct.Just about any grid,whoever is organizing it,if it's a longer race than usual is always well suported.

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by John Turner

so it's no good you guys complaining about repetition. It's in your hands. Each member has the ability to start their own thread so if you want to talk about something else related to Historic racing, just start one, and don't participate in those that you feel are covering old ground.

OR: Me ole daddys advice were simple; If one questions' the reason why one continues to follow a particular activity, time to pack it in my son.

Originally Posted by John Turner

On the subject of cheating in Historic racing, I can easily move those posts above relating to that subject onto the Simon Hadfield's big thread. In fact we can easily break this thread into various new ones to accommodate the different discussions generated by JRs opening post if you want that to happen.

Why? the remarks I [and others] posted re cheating were made as an opinion on the direction in which historic racing is heading, surely the title of the thread, or have I missed something? probably. Donington here we come, 'The home of the British Grand Prix'

[Al Weyman]

In fairness John said he could not that he would.

[John Turner]

Exactly. It was an offer. We may want to break down the discussion into specifics ....... or not!

[simon drabble]

I actually think this thread has stayed more on track than many threads possibly due to the broad reaching nature of it title. Longer races are more popular with competitors as the prep costs are roughly the same yet track time (the main quantifiable return on cost) are so much more. However I appreciate taht this might not be so enthralling for the speccy although many would agree that the evening race at both the Classic and last year's Goodwood were compelling viewing... The key is good commentary and few can match Marcus Pye in this...

[Al Weyman]

Maybe rather than one long race two shorter ones DMN style but longer with a break between where you could refuel and/or change drivers to share costs. Maybe the first stint could be a standing start based on qually and the 2nd stint a roller based on finishing postions of the first.

[eigger]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

............... Longer races are more popular with competitors as the prep costs are roughly the same yet track time (the main quantifiable return on cost) are so much more. However I appreciate taht this might not be so enthralling for the speccy although many would agree that the evening race at both the Classic and last year's Goodwood were compelling viewing... The key is good commentary and few can match Marcus Pye in this...

Longer races can be equally enthralling for the spectator; as long as the racing is close, the grids are full and the attrition rate not too high. I'm not thinking about the exceptional races like the Snetterton 3h, more the 45min duration favoured by tophat/masters. A longer race gives the opportunity to view the racing from a number of viewpoints around the circuit in a way thats not possible in a 15min race. However if the grids are thin, the track long &/or the attrition rate high cars can get a bit strung out (which i suspect is not a lot of fun for the drivers either). The recent Donington meeting seemed to suffer this to an extent. I think variety is the key - some short races & some long. I'd be interested to know to what extent the race length needs to be related to the age/fragility of the cars.
Good commentary should be accompanied by a good tannoy system.

[Tainan]

A few have suggested that all organisers should use the same set of eligibility rules. I disagree as this reduces the number of cars competitive (or even eligible) for historic racing as a whole, and inflates the prices of those that are, making it even harder for a new-comer to join in, and reducing the number of participants. Different sets of rules catering for cars of a similar period is surely a good thing if there is the number of cars around to support it. As an example, I have seen calls on here for saloon races with a max capacity of 2l, which gives the competitor (and spectator) more choice.
I think the same applies where different levels of modification are allowed - as a car becomes older, it will usually get harder (and more costly) to replace components with 'originals' and so a series that could run with strict originality rules 10years ago, may need to start thinking of 'approved alternatives' now.
I would rather see a diverse range of series giving more cars a chance to race, than multiple series that all have the same cars taking part. I say that as someone who can only afford to race a few times a year, and takes weeks to prep the car between races. I can understand that those that have the means to race every weekend would like the opportunity, but they'll just have to buy more cars!

[Al Weyman]

As an example, I have seen calls on here for saloon races with a max capacity of 2l, which gives the competitor (and spectator) more choice.

Was that a typo Tainan as I would have thought quite the opposite was true. I can assure you its nearly always the big bangers that get the attention in the paddock over yet another Mk 1 Escort and anyhow whats wrong with large capacity cars its all about variety isnt it, in our club we weight penalise per cc as I think was done in period so its not unusual for a quick RS2000 or Dolomite Sprint to be the fastest car out there as they are so much lighter and the better ones faster than my big old V8. As far as parts being hard to get hold of on Post Historic Touring cars they now allow fibreglass front wings because apparently Talbot Avenger wings are hard to come by, was not really convinced on this one myself but there you go at least they do try to address a percieved or otherwise problem that a competitor may have.

[Delbert]

For what it is worth - CER is a great series, 50 + cars at every round, 2.5 hours of track time at great tracks, 1 or 2 drivers, well prepared cars, good racing with very little contact. The cars are all pretty straight and the organisers take a grown up view to slight alterations from period. I accept that this is probably at the "high" end of racing but the format seems to work. You then compare that to the problem Masters seem to be having to build a decent grid and you have to wonder why. Orwell looked like it was struggling but seems to have had a resurgence this year. So I would say that hysterical racing seems to be in reasonably good shape.