The Roaring Season

by **nzeder** » Wed May 29, 2013 2:03 am

Guys I have started a new thread/topic on MSNZ Schedule K, T&C and even FIA Appendix K HTP - here is a Link. Click me

by **Howard Wood** » Tue May 28, 2013 8:36 pm

Kiwiboss wrote:So i take it Howard that you have at MSNZ HTP?

Dale M

I was originally planning to apply for an FIA HTP but was advised by MSNZ that it would take over 6 months and to apply for sched K and COD in the meantime. As the car was completed and I was itching to go racing, it seemed the best interim option.

The HTP would allow the car to compete (and presumable be saleable) anywhere in the world, however much as that would be a nice dream it is unlikely to happen! In any case, speaking recently to a NZ Formula Junior competitor who has been lucky enough to get an invite to Goodwood this year, the technical compliance regime for meetings such as that are very specific and detailed. I didn't ask, but I gathered, way more restrictive than the HTP.

by **Kiwiboss** » Tue May 28, 2013 10:31 am

Howard Wood wrote:In my experience the schedule K requirements are less onerous than getting a roll cage homologated. My BMW "02 which has a sched K classification is a replica, not an original race car. I don't understand various people who persist in thinking it is a requirement.

You simply need to list the modifications together with the justification which can be, in descending order of importance, homologation papers, period books, photos and magazine articles or lastly current photos or articles. In my case to complicate matters the original Group 2 papers are listed by the FIA "Lost, not available" but BMW Mobile Tradition in Munich were able to supply me from their archives sufficient (around 250) pages of amendments and additions together with enough of the original pages to piece together the major homologated items and make some assumptions about others. For example 4 pages of brake rotor and caliper sizes implies wheel diameter dimensions which were not included amongst the information.

MSNZ processed the application quickly and efficiently, a couple of questions about one or two specific items and the stamp went down! Obviously with a car where the complete papers are available, it will be even easier. Why there seems to be so much reluctance to embrace Sched K is beyond me. It fixes so many of the issues prevalent in "classic" racing.

So i take it Howard that you have at MSNZ HTP?

Dale M

by **Carlo** » Tue May 28, 2013 10:23 am

Guys it is the constitution that is the issue, with that rectified correctly all else will fall into place.

by **Trevor Sheffield** » Tue May 28, 2013 5:25 am

ERC wrote:As posted elsewhere. That is that probably 80% of the clubs voting only represent 20% of the active members. As long as that situation is in place, we are never going to get either the representation we need or the direction we deserve.

The only true way forward for the majority is either as per post #18 or a rival/breakaway organisation. We are banging our collective heads against a large brick wall at the moment and all that is happening is that we are getting bruised and battered, as that wall is never going to shift under the current structure.

Endlessly suggesting many forms hopeful change is pointless. The ideas and talk, talk, without torque, has gone on for over [B]fifty years[/B] and the problem as outlined above has always been the stumbling block. It will and can not change without exact direct action towards the problem.

Forget all the incidental talk and concentrate on the critical problem as has been clearly outlined above. The constitution must be altered. There is no apparent loop hole, but there must be a way through. Secure legal advice as a first step. Stop pissing around. :-)

Cheers, Trevor.

by **ERC** » Tue May 28, 2013 4:19 am

Echoing Tony's comment. Crunch has made more than one visit to the Auckland area to front up to the H & C drivers and that is appreciated by the local competitors. Most have few grizzles with the H & C commission, as they are approachable, dedicated and have their own philosophy on the sport, even though their individual views may vary, they have demonstrated a capacity to listen and in several cases, take on board what the competitors have asked for.

From the conference floor, I would think that they still have some thinking to do, but the fact that the Classic area of the sport is incredibly strong, with or without CoDs, means that for most competitors, any criticism of MNSZ as a whole does not necessarily include the commissions.

by **nzeder** » Tue May 28, 2013 4:06 am

RacerT wrote:I see no-one is talking about the $300,000 new POSSUM computer system? I believe POSSUM needs to lower its goals to a realistic level or risk large cost overruns.

Ok so for those of us not at the conference - what is this POSSUM computer system?

by **crunch** » Tue May 28, 2013 2:17 am

RacerT wrote: The review panel's report is long on consultation, but short on real change. With half the planned board being 'professional', non motorsport people and the CEO having the real power, we could be worse off.

Totally agree! Just because someone is a successful businessman, or a professional Board sitter, doesn't make them good for the sport's executive. We can co-opt people that we think would be good for the Sport onto the Executive now, the constitution allows it already, so that isnt a change. If we want to continue with professional appointments, then why not just 2 (not 3) so the balance of power within the sport is still retained by the clubs and members. With my experience on other sporting and business Board involvement, professional appointed people are not the saviours that some are making them out to be. I think the current Exec should co opt someone to the Exec representing Auckland. MY OPINION

by **RacerT** » Tue May 28, 2013 1:43 am

Hi Crunch. You are one member of the executive that has made the effort to come up to the large historic and classic events at Hampton Downs and I commend you for it. I was also surprised that the Marathon Car Club remit fell flat, but that is one of the inadequacies of raising remits at conference. The restructuring of MSNZ should have been happening progressively over the years, but unfortunately this hasn't happened. The review panel's report is long on consultation, but short on real change. With half the planned board being 'professional', non motorsport people and the CEO having the real power, we could be worse off.

I see no-one is talking about the $300,000 new POSSUM computer system? I believe POSSUM needs to lower its goals to a realistic level or risk large cost overruns.

by **Paul Wilkinson** » Tue May 28, 2013 1:21 am

If it can't be devolved to the licence-holders, can't they somehow gather the number of Motorsport entries each club has generated in the past year and give them that many votes? That way influence on the system is directly proportional to usage of the system. There'd have to be some thought on 'weighting' different types of events but that shouldn't be too hard.

by **crunch** » Tue May 28, 2013 12:39 am

I also note the comment that the Auckland area doesnt get much representation on the Exec. I ensured that the H&C competitors were heard as part of my job with the Commission. No one has actually approached me from the Auckland area yet to say that they have been ignored.
I have also always extended that offer to general membership.

by **crunch** » Tue May 28, 2013 12:36 am

My PERSONAL views that are not secret to the Exec or the Commission I use to represent.

1. We should have a form of proportional voting. My thought is clubs under 50 members 1 vote, clubs from 50-150 get 2 votes and 150+ get three votes.
2. I thought the flat fee remit put by the Marathon Rally Club was a good idea. Surprised it fell on virtually deaf ears.
3. Marque clubs should split into a motorsport group and a "collectors & polishers" group if they feel that is the only way forward.

Raymond Bennett

by **Russ Noble** » Tue May 28, 2013 12:11 am

RacerT wrote:"How many extra clubs do we need to form to gain sufficient votes for change? 10? 20? 30? With a minimum of I think, 15 members, required, maybe for one or two years only, what we really need is for Alfa, BMW, MG, TACCOC, ACC to split their memberships into blocks of 15, with identical constitutions referring back to their original "name". So you get BMW 01, 02, 03, 04 - 30 etc."

In regard to your quote , I don't think we should try to 'rort' the system, but the system should be changed to one of fairness. One of the delegates at the conference complained that the big clubs would get more voting power, without seeing the irony that the small clubs have the power now!

Not really a rort. The rort is the unfair representation system that we now have that is woefully inadequate in meeting the needs of the majority of competitors. The small clubs seem to want to preserve the status quo and there may be no chance of getting that changed unless large clubs are temporarily split into many smaller ones as outlined by Ray.

This may be the only effective way to ensure any constitutional changes are achieved at the next AGM. And serious thought needs to be given to it NOW by the large disenfranchised clubs.

by **nzeder** » Mon May 27, 2013 11:36 pm

Or a Mix of the two? A hybrid system if you like? Club votes count for X number of individual votes - or club based weighted vote system? e.g. clubs under 50 members = 1 vote. Clubs with more than 50 then get an extra vote for every additional 50 members but the membership must be at or over the 50 to get that extra vote - ie 99 members still one vote but 100 members = 2 votes just like 149 is still 2 votes etc. 50 is just an example I have no idea on the number of members a club as I can only go by my past experience as a previous committee members of a nation wide car club.

regards
Mike

by **RacerT** » Mon May 27, 2013 9:32 pm

Thanks Ray. No big deal as I didn't expect to get elected and I'm on the historic and classic commission which is my first love!

"How many extra clubs do we need to form to gain sufficient votes for change? 10? 20? 30? With a minimum of I think, 15 members, required, maybe for one or two years only, what we really need is for Alfa, BMW, MG, TACCOC, ACC to split their memberships into blocks of 15, with identical constitutions referring back to their original "name". So you get BMW 01, 02, 03, 04 - 30 etc."

In regard to your quote , I don't think we should try to 'rort' the system, but the system should be changed to one of fairness. One of the delegates at the conference complained that the big clubs would get more voting power, without seeing the irony that the small clubs have the power now!

NZEDER is right. I have long advocated that the competitors, volunteers, promoters and track owners should get an individual vote that puts in a board. This would be in the manner of the AA, Hospital boards etc. The danger with this system is the apathy from individuals, but this would be true democracy and could be carried out online. The clubs are never going to vote for a system like this because it moves the emphasis away from a club structure to an individual structure. Club numbers are falling nationwide, so maybe this is the right move.

by **ERC** » Mon May 27, 2013 8:37 pm

As posted elsewhere. That is that probably 80% of the clubs voting only represent 20% of the active members. As long as that situation is in place, we are never going to get either the representation we need or the direction we deserve.

The only true way forward for the majority is either as per post #18 or a rival/breakaway organisation. We are banging our collective heads against a large brick wall at the moment and all that is happening is that we are getting bruised and battered, as that wall is never going to shift under the current structure.

by **nzeder** » Mon May 27, 2013 7:34 am

I have learnt a lot today about the process of how the voting works etc - What I find interesting is I know a few people who are members of a number of MNZ member clubs so in these cases the one competitor is paying a fee from each club to MNZ. Then there are members of clubs that are not interested in motorsport just interested in the marque of car the club represents so they don't care about how our sport is governed. Surely a true motorsport member is those that are interested in our sport by either manning the marshal/safety points, organisers of the events and or competing not forgetting the track owners. I believe the idea has been floated already but it make sense to me - votes should be granted to those people/members I mentioned -ie marshals/organisers/competitors and track owners. The competitors and track owners would be easy to ID - those with licenses like wise for the event organisers and marshals a simple license/registration process of these people = a votes on the direction of the sport.

Surely that is a fair system - those who compete, host, organise/run and marshal have direction on how the sport is governed. After all its these people that financially contribute the most to the body.

by **Michael Clark** » Mon May 27, 2013 6:53 am

Thank you Howard but I was not working alone...indeed two other contributors to this very forum were also involved - they know who they are and their influence is greater that mine by some margin!!

by **ERC** » Mon May 27, 2013 6:41 am

Totally agree Tony, and really sorry that you didn't get elevated to the peerage.

How many extra clubs do we need to form to gain sufficient votes for change? 10? 20? 30? With a minimum of I think, 15 members, required, maybe for one or two years only, what we really need is for Alfa, BMW, MG, TACCOC, ACC to split their memberships into blocks of 15, with identical constitutions referring back to their original "name". So you get BMW 01, 02, 03, 04 - 30 etc.

by **RacerT** » Mon May 27, 2013 6:21 am

The meeting of the review panel was interesting, but limited in vision. The panel is keeping the status quo on most matters, when it should be looking at a package that would restructure the organisation for at least 20 years into the future. According to the panel it will retain the unfair system of one club, one vote. This allows a club of 10 members to have the same voting power as say Alfa Romeo Owners Club, or Auckland Car Club with 500 members. To add to this, every member pays a capitation fee of $5 per member, so clubs such as these are paying a large sum of money compared to a small club, but not having proportional voting power either.

It is also not considering regional representation as part of the package. Why not? We would not consider a parliament for a country that was not drawn from all areas of the country, so why do we accept it for a national organisation such as MSNZ? How can virtually half the population have no executive member to represent them? The greater Auckland area has scant contact with the executive and very few members on commissions. There is a distinct lack of communication with the north and this is to the detriment of the sport. Tony Roberts

The Roaring Season

Motorsport NZ AGCM

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

N.B the quoted post.

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM

Re: Motorsport NZ AGCM