The Roaring Season

by **Howard Wood** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:06 am

Unfortunately many series are run by and for the organisers seemingly with maintaining the status quo being the priority rather than encouraging new competitors.

In my case, running in Dale's HMC series is the priority and there is no way I can be pulling 50kgs of ballast in and out of the car between races at the same meeting and I'm certainly not giving those V8's any more advantage!

by **Racer Rog** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:01 am

This is a problem with many "home made series" the goal posts keep changeing, to my mind, if built to schedule K, this is a good legal car, and with the H & C commission working on schedule CR saloons for CoD's, there is hope, that these issues will be a thing of the past, and a good set of rules established for the series, like Dale has done for HMC, there is going to be a open H & C forum in the major regions soon, to ge.t to grips with what is wanted, within the bounds of schedule K and T & C, in simple terms as it was, so it shall be. There is a growing movement to this form of racing, where the cars are the stars, its more enjoyable, and in some cases cheaper, but not all, and lets face it, Bernie's not likely to come knocking on anybody involved, door.
Roger

by **Rod Grimwood** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:30 am

Howard I could solve the problem for you, but may have to adjust the seat.
The 50kgs is definately a problem, where do you put it and not good timeing. See you running with other guys and enjoying yourself, that is what is about, enjoyment.

by **Howard Wood** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:23 am

Under the old regs there used to be a base minimum weight of 1000kg including driver with an additional 20kg penalty for EFI and another 40 kgs for multi valve engines to try to give some parity to older cars, certainly not a performance advantage. They have decided with 4 weeks to round one that all cars must be minimum 1040kgs including driver, no reason given.

I think anyone who runs older race engines knows how hard ( and expensive) it is to get decent useable power, but as I built my car to be period correct and to sched K there are plenty of other places to play. My concern is only with the safety issue of the potential of 50 odd kgs of ballast flying around and wondered if indeed there was a precedent or accepted way of adding ballast short of getting real fat. Maybe run a swinger like a sidecar unit?

by **Rod Grimwood** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:47 am

With you Howard, where are you meant to put that much weight. have the organisers given a reason for the weight change.

by **Steve Holmes** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:32 am

Howard Wood wrote:The BMW series organisers in their wisdom have upped the minimum weight for the new under 2 litre class by 40kgs for older cars such as my '02. Given that I already had 10kgs of lead bolted and strapped securely under the passenger seat to meet the previous minimum weight this means 50 kgs of ballast potentially flying around inside the car in the event of a major shunt. Wisely ( I think), I have withdrawn from the series.

My question is, is there any way a scrutineer could pass this and is there anything in the safety regs that allows or covers this? I had already, correctly, been closely examined by the Manfeild scrutes to ensure that the 10kgs was secure!

Wow, thats like carrying around a passenger. A light one, granted. But thats a lot of extra weight to add further strain to suspension, brakes, etc.

by **Russ Cunningham** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:18 am

Howard Wood wrote:The BMW series organisers in their wisdom have upped the minimum weight for the new under 2 litre class by 40kgs for older cars such as my '02. Given that I already had 10kgs of lead bolted and strapped securely under the passenger seat to meet the previous minimum weight this means 50 kgs of ballast potentially flying around inside the car in the event of a major shunt. Wisely ( I think), I have withdrawn from the series.

My question is, is there any way a scrutineer could pass this and is there anything in the safety regs that allows or covers this? I had already, correctly, been closely examined by the Manfeild scrutes to ensure that the 10kgs was secure!

Isn't this typical in NZ motor sport.......rules are set, then some bright bastard decides to play with them. Good on you for with drawing from the series Howard.

by **Howard Wood** » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:25 pm

The BMW series organisers in their wisdom have upped the minimum weight for the new under 2 litre class by 40kgs for older cars such as my '02. Given that I already had 10kgs of lead bolted and strapped securely under the passenger seat to meet the previous minimum weight this means 50 kgs of ballast potentially flying around inside the car in the event of a major shunt. Wisely ( I think), I have withdrawn from the series.

My question is, is there any way a scrutineer could pass this and is there anything in the safety regs that allows or covers this? I had already, correctly, been closely examined by the Manfeild scrutes to ensure that the 10kgs was secure!

by **Chris Read** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:31 am

Carlo wrote:No trouble John, from my experience it is best to be armed with the knowledge from the rule book for often I have encountered officials and other participants most of whom are very well meaning but, they are adding their personal thoughts to the requirements rather than just complying with and / or enforcing the requirements of the sport.
They do it with the best of intentions but it can be miss leading and cause conflict.
Sometimes this occurs simply because they are out of date with current requirements.

Like the time an official said my roll cage on my pre 60 single seater (K) did not comply. I said the regs were clear that it was not mandatory to have a roll bar at all but I chose to put one in for safety but it could not comply as the 60yr old chassis design did not allow it but it was professionally done with the right material but could not have the correct angles -hence the rule the way it is.
Answer: either have it complying or take it out!
Personal opinion getting in the way of common sense rule.
I raced anyway.
Chris Read - Arrowtown

by **John McKechnie** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:52 pm

Hi Carlo, that reminds me of a building inspector-you know the one above God-he looked at my work and declared 6 inch nails dont hold anything .Only coach screw in his mind would do the trick.Regs didnt state that.
If in doubt, never argue -only question.Position of neutrality.

by **Carlo** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:59 pm

No trouble John, from my experience it is best to be armed with the knowledge from the rule book for often I have encountered officials and other participants most of whom are very well meaning but, they are adding their personal thoughts to the requirements rather than just complying with and / or enforcing the requirements of the sport.
They do it with the best of intentions but it can be miss leading and cause conflict.
Sometimes this occurs simply because they are out of date with current requirements.

by **John McKechnie** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:24 pm

Hi Carlo, thank you very much for the extract and the direction to find it ,Have now read complete section.

by **Carlo** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:27 am

John McKechnie wrote:Hi, in regards safety issues i have a serious question and that is the drivers seat.Can some knowledgeable person tell me if the original front seat on my falcon XA Coupe is allowable/eligable. As a HMC car I want to keep this car accurate.I dont want to put a purpose built race seat in, or have to weld my frame together to make the back fixed.The seat does not have recliners, but has the tilt mechanism for access to the back.

Best place to ask for information is the Motorsport NZ website and then go and have a look at the motorsport manual as every thing you need to know is there and it is current information.
Below is an extract that may assist you but you should read the complete section from the schedule before finalising your decisions:

4.7 Seating:
(1) Requirements: Seats shall:
(a) Be securely attached to the vehicle and adequately support the occupant(s) in competition, and
(b) Be installed in accordance with Part One Article 4.7(4), and
(c) Allow for the correct fitment/use of the Safety Harnesses.

(2) Seat Types: All of the following seat types are accepted under this Schedule:

(a) Original Seat: being a seat originally installed by the vehicle manufacturer to that particular vehicle model and type. All original seats shall comply:
(i) With the requirements of Part One Article 4.7(1)(a) and Article 4.7(1)(c).

by **John McKechnie** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:42 am

Hi, in regards safety issues i have a serious question and that is the drivers seat.Can some knowledgeable person tell me if the original front seat on my falcon XA Coupe is allowable/eligable. As a HMC car I want to keep this car accurate.I dont want to put a purpose built race seat in, or have to weld my frame together to make the back fixed.The seat does not have recliners, but has the tilt mechanism for access to the back.

by **Trevor Sheffield** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:13 am

ERC ---

I have only just found this thread and I have a few safety issues - which are probably a mix of the transport authorities rather more than MSNZ.

Firstly - why are harness belts illegal for road use?.

Probably due to the fact that they are inconvenient thus preventing regular use and would fit only the one driver. Anyone else could find it difficult to use the harness and there would have to be rule limiting the car to a single driver.

How is it that you can race a car legally in NZ without harness belts?.

Are you saying without a harness or belts, or without harness type of belts?

Once a car is built and has its first warrant, then regulations change, how come it is suddenly illegal/unsafe?.

You presumably are referring to MSNZ. Because the regs. are being constantly upgraded due to ongoing paranoia. WOF regs. have been changed but are aligned with given dates and are not especially onerous.

How is it that 100's of examples of an imported car are on the road in NZ, then regulations change and you can no longer import that model, but the others can can still run?.

For good reason laws can not be enforced as being retrospective.

With an authority card (for belts), if you just change the brand of belts, to another approved belt, you have to present the car to a scrutineer and apply for a NEW card?.

Possibly as a means of ensuring that mechanically the change has been carried out correctly.

If like my car, (the Marcos) which has a removeable diagonal bar from `the roll over hoop (no cage) to the chassis, you will fail a WoF with it in, but the car is OK and perfectly legal on the road (or track) with it out..

Please advise the exact position of the bar. In respect of the WOF, would it endanger or adversely effect a passenger? Have you been made to be remove it for motor racing? If so is it being portrayed as a danger, rather than an advantage? If so this is strange logic.

The original seat belt mountings were no more than tabs welded on to the square section chassis, but a reinforced plate, tubed and threaded mountings for full harness belts only, with no facility for a lap and diagonal when we restored the chassis, somehow now renders the car a racing car and cannot then be used on the road with those strong, wide, belts without an authority card, yet the originals belt mountings were dangerous?.

Refer to answers to the first question raised.

How come you can use a 15 year old lap and diagonal 2" belt every day on road and track, yet up until recently, a $400 harness used 5 or six times, had to be dumped like a pottle of 2 week old yogurt, because it was "old" at 5 years and 1 day?.

The powers that be, restrict themselves to abiding by international regulations to cover their back sides, rather than the covering the interests of those who constitute Mew Zealand motor sport.

Why aren't gloves compulsory?.

Because some drivers find them clumsy, liable to a catch in controls and very much a disadvantage. Damn it, surely drivers must be left with some freedom of choice and not be forced to always conform with the opinion of others who do not necessarily know better.

Why the obsession with fire extinguishers in all cars when we all know that they are generally so small, they are ineffective and often, your number one priority is to escape the vehicle altogether and not scrabble around to unclip it (now two clips required and not one)?.

Tradition and the fact that changing the existing rules would require effort on behalf of the powers that be.

Cage safety is for the driver's benefit, steering and suspension items are for both driver and other competitors safety, yet I know that even the most fastidious of drivers can have a component fail with dire results - I know, I nearly hit a TR6 that was flipped on its roof when a component failed, at Pukekohe..

Agreed, but what is your point? These items are covered as a result of scrurineering.

Safety, now we have belts and hard hats and fire resistant gear, is at the point of diminishing returns and we are not running F1 cars. Many of us are running road cars and at speeds that in many cases are not that fast, when the average modern hot hatch accelerates faster, has a higher top speed, has ABS, airbags and brakes that are much better than ours.

So, safety and risk is all relative but the red tape is often strangling us.

Absolutely, but why do you insist on driving g gloves? ( I am aware of the advantages in case of fire, but also of tactile advantage when driving a car.)

Otherwise you point out and confirm the very reason I gave up motor racing. Refer posts #32 #62 #64 & #69.

by **Racer Rog** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:58 am

With the Southern Classic series, any damage at Skope would be checked at the ENZED meeting the following meeting, and anything happening there would be checked at Invercargill the next weekend, the series Auditors keep at good eye on what has happened, but according to the book, any damage must be noted in the log book and signed off at the next meeting, some competitors get abit anti when that happens, but hey shit happens!
Roger

by **Dave Silcock** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:36 pm

Well said, these things need addressing sooner rather than later. It has been said on other threads 'what are we doing to to even retain our present stock of cars and drivers' Removing some of these obstacles would go along way to ensure we don't lose any more.
Must talk to you about my Jaguar and the series you run.
Cheers Dave.

by **ERC** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:33 pm

I have only just found this thread and I have a few safety issues - which are probably a mix of the transport authorities rather more than MSNZ.

Firstly - why are harness belts illegal for road use?

How is it that you can race a car legally in NZ without harness belts?

Once a car is built and has its first warrant, then regulations change, how come it is suddenly illegal/unsafe?

How is it that 100's of examples of an imported car are on the road in NZ, then regulations change and you can no longer import that model, but the others can can still run?

With an authority card (for belts), if you just change the brand of belts, to another approved belt, you have to present the car to a scrutineer and apply for a NEW card?

If like my car, (the Marcos) which has a removeable diagonal bar from the rol over hoop (no cage) to the chassis, you will fail a WoF with it in, but the car is OK and perfectly legal on the road (or track) with it out.

The original seat belt mountings were no more than tabs welded on to the square section chassis, but a reinforced plate, tubed and threaded mountings for full harness belts only, with no facility for a lap and diagonal when we restored the chassis, somehow now renders the car a racing car and cannot then be used on the road with those strong, wide, belts without an authority card, yet the originals belt mountings were dangerous?

How come you can use a 15 year old lap and diagonal 2" belt every day on road and track, yet up until recently, a $400 harness used 5 or six times, had to be dumped like a pottle of 2 week old yogurt, because it was "old" at 5 years and 1 day?

Why aren't gloves compulsory?

Why the obsession with fire extinguishers in all cars when we all know that they are generally so small, they are ineffective and often, your number one priority is to escape the vehicle altogether and not scrabble around to unclip it (now two clips required and not one)?

Cage safety is for the driver's benefit, steering and suspension items are for both driver and other competitors safety, yet I know that even the most fastidious of drivers can have a component fail with dire results - I know, I nearly hit a TR6 that was flipped on its roof when a component failed, at Pukekohe.

Safety, now we have belts and hard hats and fire resistant gear, is at the point of diminishing returns and we are not running F1 cars. Many of us are running road cars and at speeds that in many cases are not that fast, when the average modern hot hatch accelerates faster, has a higher top speed, has ABS, airbags and brakes that are much better than ours.

So, safety and risk is all relative but the red tape is often strangling us.

by **Grant Ellwood** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:16 pm

Dave Silcock wrote:There seems too much emphasis on the rollover accident, you can have plenty of health threatening incidents with out a roll over. Which is why I choose to wear seat belts in my Cooper Vincent. I was driving a Cooper Bristol at Wigram once when I was hit with a fair amount of force in the left rear wheel while exiting the hair pin. I was later shown a photo of the incident and to my surprise both arms where flung above my head and my whole upper body was out of the car and my helmet almost scraping the track. Rollbar or not I'd still have belts.

Regarding belts, a friend in NZ sent me a recent issue of New Zealand Racer, I guess it is free and available NZ wide. Issue 176 has a great article by Bernie Gillon about safety harnesses, in particular the benefits of poly versus nylon belts. I picked up a lot of new info, perhaps we could get permission to have it published on this forum?

by **Oldfart** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:02 am

Absolutely

The Roaring Season

Safety Issues

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues

Re: Safety Issues