The Roaring Season

For those of you on Facebook. Take a look at Rob Scotts comments in the "Grey Roots" group.

Two hundred drivers coughing up [b]$25 PER MEETING[/b] at Hampton Downs = $5,000. (Not so long ago, that would have paid for the track hire). Seems that it is not only MSNZ who are ripping us off.

Please can someone tell me what safety precautions are [u]NOT[/u] instigated if they have an entry of 50 drivers?

i hope MNZ has put their hand in the kitty for sports funding as just promised by our fearless leader. should cut costs a lot

Interesting comments, and as usual, there are several factors.

Based only on the ERC responses, the biggest worry is the age of the participating drivers who responded. The chances are that in 4 or 5 years time, most of those over 65 will indeed have retired from racing.

I find the increased MSNZ fees somewhat difficult to justify, and they represent the single biggest increases in percentage terms, for the least amount of benefit.

Having been half owner of Chicane Racewear for 10 years, (and 40 years ago I worked for a company knitting and manufacturing Nomex underwear) the option initially, was a single layer suit plus fire resistant underwear. The other option was a double layer suit - or even a triple layer suit. Please note, there is a substantial difference between 'fire resistant' and 'fire proof'.

A long sleeved cotton tee shirt (or sweatshirt) or a woollen vest is fire resistant - but not fire proof. Your racesuit is also fire resistant, not fire proof. In the event of a fuel fire, your double layer racesuit is still only good for about 30 seconds, before you are likely to get seriously burned unless it is extinguished. That is going to be no different from a single layer suit and dated underwear, so I'm afraid that I can't believe that dated underwear was necessary.

Of far greater concern is that from my personal observation, the chance of a marshal getting to you trapped in your car in less than 30 seconds and extinguishing the flames, is about zero, unless you happen to stop alongside a marshal post that has rather more than one extinguisher...

Having said that, 'Motor Racing is Dangerous'. Always has been and always will be, but the amount of risk has to be calculated. Zero risk of death or serious injury is impossible, whether running soap box carts down hill or racing in F1.

Now in my mid 70's, I have lost count of the number of events I have attended as a spectator, competitor or official. From F1 races to club sprints, I'm pretty sure I must have witnessed a fair number of laps/runs and to date, I honestly can't recall a single event I was at where there has been a fatality and only a few with any serious injury.

yes, just wait till they include the PPE gear..............

One has to ask just exactly why have the costs escalated so much over the last 3-5 years? How are they justifying it?

- They aren't spending more ( or any!! ) on facility maintenance / upgrades than 5 years ago

- I don't know for a fact, but you can't tell me insurance costs have doubled in the last 3-5 years

- We don't get more races per meeting / laps per race, so no more laps per meeting that 10 years ago

From where I'm sitting, there is nothing that I can think of that can justify paying more than we were 10 years ago to enter a meeting ( save for inflation ).

The "safety" rules are totally over the top, especially when we have to sign a waiver, and even moreso when you look at scrutineering, what a total joke that is. You car can be a total death-trap, but if they are checking undies and socks that day, happy days. Like Allan said, the lengths you are forced to go to to put petrol in your car are another joke. Sure have a fire extinguisher at hand, but the rest is total BS. As is having to have any electrical equipment tested and tagged. That's why RCD's were invented. Test and tag is not a legal requirement as most people think, just another unnecessary expense. Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

One has to ask just exactly why have the costs escalated so much over the last 3-5 years? How are they justifying it?

- They aren't spending more ( or any!! ) on facility maintenance / upgrades than 5 years ago

- I don't know for a fact, but you can't tell me insurance costs have doubled in the last 3-5 years

- We don't get more races per meeting / laps per race, so no more laps per meeting that 10 years ago

From where I'm sitting, there is nothing that I can think of that can justify paying more than we were 10 years ago to enter a meeting ( save for inflation ).

The "safety" rules are totally over the top, especially when we have to sign a waiver, and even moreso when you look at scrutineering, what a total joke that is. You car can be a total death-trap, but if they are checking undies and socks that day, happy days. Like Allan said, the lengths you are forced to go to to put petrol in your car are another joke. Sure have a fire extinguisher at hand, but the rest is total BS. As is having to have any electrical equipment tested and tagged. That's why RCD's were invented. Test and tag is not a legal requirement as most people think, just another unnecessary expense. Whatever happened to personal responsibility??

What do you actually get for your H&S levy at HD? It honestly seems like they are charging you the "safety" levy so you can go out and buy all this extra "safety" paraphernalia to use!!

Thanks for that Ray. I agree with most of the statements. Targa which was the event I was mostly involved in is a classic example of serious cost escalation which has caused the entry numbers to tumble over the past few years,

What should be of concern to both the Series' organisers and promoters (and MSNZ) generally is the age breakdown of the 50 who responded.

Age 25-34 - 2%

Age 45-54 - 24%
Age 55-64 - 26%
[b]Age 65+ - 48%[/b]

[b]OK - just random comments on a variety of questions - note, these are mainly ERC/Trofeo answers but one or two do also compete in other series - not necessarily with the same car.[/b]

"Lower costs for participation. The attraction to any sport is action, that does not happen until the grids get closer to 30 cars each with close speed groups or handicapping to ensure a spectacle, not cars hitting each other, but lots of close racing and passing. The fees should be nominal to match costs associated with providing a safe and clean environment for spectating."

"I have no idea how you interest young people in Motorsport given that about 30 percent don't have licences , have zero interest in cars as something other than transport, have zero mechanical knowledge and have far more interest in things digital."

"Lesser costs will attract more participants. Additionally would like to see more accessible series as many involve far too high cost machinery. The health and safety measures and equipment quite often do not match the relative risk. For instance, I can refill a lawn mower, but I must suit up to refuel (including where the vehicle is not mid race, or has long since cooled to ambient temperatures experienced at a service station. There should be in some cases consideration given to some single day mid week races to increase participation at a lower cost. Tracks I believe are a relatively fixed cost, MSNZ is a relatively fixed cost. Therefore more people involved paying a lesser amount, is a much safer model than less persons with higher cost. Taking things out of reach of most will likely also take volunteers away too, as why should volunteers get involved whilst everyone else is being reimbursed."

"It's quite a jump going from never having raced to competing in first event. I do sometimes wonder if people believe that motor racing is more difficult/requires more skills than it does in reality. So possibly easing the introduction into motorsport might lower the barriers for some folk."

"Larger grids on track make exciting racing for competitors and supporters. Small grids mean less likely to enter. Also, keep cross-entry fees low/reasonable."

"For MSNZ to put more effort into supporting the bottom tier of racing or else the top will tumble.(Fees, Regulations etc)"

"We lose older drivers every year. To replace them, the sport and promoters must target the right potential new recruits - they are not teens but a few in their 20s and 30s with mechanical aptitude and more those in their 30s to 50s with money and time (no young children)"

"Have some old style meetings like Teams Relay."

"Less money spent on high level motorsport and promoting that, and make entries etc more affordable for the majority of drivers."

"Less bullshit from Motorsport NZ ie Why do we require date stamped underpants etc !!!! Totally not required when we have good race suits extra COSTS !!!!!"

"stop stiffing competitors with silly charges......$25 H+S Hampton Downs...we already sign a waiver..why did only 25 Escorts turn up at 50th HD...too much extra costs to run at one meet"

"A discount for any series event if the series provides a grid of more than twenty cars."

"Under No 10, I support the use of HANS devices but I think wearing a double layer suit, proper gloves and shoes should be sufficient rather than also having to wear full fireproof undergarments."

"The total cost of competing including the H & S & MSNZ levies make the cost of doing around 32 laps pretty expensive."

"Combined cost of entry and surcharges has doubled in the last 3 to 5 years. That is why most of us have greatly reduced our events per year."

"Total cost of sport so all of above - I reduce number of events entered to meet budget, but I will always compete in some."

"Arrows and Alfa. I like any meeting where there is at least 3 outings onto the track a day. Otherwise I get bored."

"Cost of levies as per option 4 plus additional MSNZ costs for LVVA cards etc. which seem to increase without any real explanation of why automated maintenance should be more costly than the manual processes that were replaced with a computer system for which yet another levy was charged."

Unless it is infringing on individual's privacy would it be possible to publish some of those comments.

I have the results of ERC (current competitors - includes several who are also Alfa Trofeo) who responded to a recent HRC Survey. This makes fairly interesting reading and I have slimmed down the wordy spreadsheet where I can, but the survey was mainly to establish who would return to competing at level 2 or when restrictions have been lifted and also asked a few pertinent questions about the sport. Bear in mind that the ERC season has now finished.

Fortunately, 50 responded and just some of the results:

[b]10% have now decided to retire[/b]

Asked how many race meetings they do a year, less than 4, 5 - 7, 8 or more. (Not all answered this specific question as answers were extrapolated from other comments)

4 or less: 14%
5 - 7: 34%
8 or more: 6%

[b]What are the major bars to competing - some answered to both:[/b]

Race entry fees (claimed to be $350 at HRC meetings): 48%

Other costs including MSNZ fees, H & S, COD, underwear etc.: 32%

[b]Spectators[/b]

Don't care about spectators, just want to race: 22%

Spectator entry should be free: 32%

A significant number thought that MSNZ and the clubs should do more to promote the sport - one assumes that means via social media rather than expensive advertising.

There were several other issues and comments.

As Oldfart rightly put it in Post #18 previously who gave the FIA and therefore MNZ superpowers to control motorsport? They only have power because we give it to them. And as Trevor says in Post #17 if people are happy so be it. But it is apparent that a lot of people are not happy. As Allan Dick said in his Facebook "Classic Autonews" page this morning we have arrived at this situation as a result of the apathy of a lot of car club members.
There is a story about elephants kept in captivity in parts of Asia. Baby elephants are tethered with flimsy string. When a visitor pointed out that the string was totally inadequate to restrain a fully grown elephant and that they could very easily break the string and escape the elephant owner replies "Ah yes, but the elephant does not know that". We are like those elephants. We have been controlled so long by the IMAGINED powers of the controlling body that we don't even contemplate trying to break free.

So taking some of this one step further and assuming (probably incorrectly) that MNZ is the New Zealand representative for the FIA which is the "master" of all world wide motorsport surely MNZ should have issued a legal challenge to stop all those events which are run outside of their (MNZ) umbrella. I'm referring to the likes of Lemons, Targa and Silver Fern.
And what about the dirt track events that run at places like Waiuku, Meremere and Waihi Beach to name a few. These are referred to as "black tracks" in some circles and have been running for years without some top heavy organisation telling them what to do and how to do it and charging them a small fortune to do so. Just small groups doing their own thing without outside interference.
I do remember the days when MANZ licence holders were not allowed to compete in events not sanctioned by them with the threat of licence cancellation if we did.
It appears that this thread has opened a can of worms which was not my intention. All I was trying to do was get some comment on the reasons that others had stopped competing in events such as Targa which not too many years ago had over 200 entries and reserves and is of late down to around 50 competitors.

Excuse my ignorance, but does anyone listed as a board member have an interest in motor sport?

[quote="Oldfart"]The FIA is not only a body involved with Motorsport, it has many other interests, and AA is still a member.
Who gave FIA any authority to e the "super body"? As far as I know they just took it on themselves, in the same way as MSNZ has, they don't have a right bestowed on them by anything other than folks being prepared to bend over and take it.
If what you have said above Alan Hyndman, why were a number of quite prominent drivers threatened with removal of licence for competing at Speedway events? Jim Richards for one.
I could quote many instances where what MSNZ dictates differs from FIA and even more from what other similar bodies around the world suggest, but as Trevor has said in his last paragraph above....[/quote]


Hi Rhys,

I don't know the answer to that sorry. It's possible that someone at MANZ (as was) at the time got their nose out of joint and decided to push their weight around or mistakenly applied a rule that, in this case, should not have been applied.

A theory was posited to me earlier tonight that buried somewhere in NZ legislation there is the authority for the FIA or its nominated entity to run motor sport in New Zealand. I have long since lost the enthusiasm to read legislation to see if this is true but yes, so long as we keep belonging to the existing controlling body then the status quo remains.

Coincidentally, in the past 12 hours, a battle has erupted between the CEO of MSNZ and the President. I direct you to Mark Petch's Velocity News website for developments so far (emails have also been sent to clubs and licence holders by the look of it):

27 MSNZ clubs send a letter to the President Wayne Christie: [url]https://www.velocitynews.co.nz/major-msnz-restructure-in-the-works/[/url]

CEO Simon Baker states his position in having no confidence in the President: [url]https://www.velocitynews.co.nz/baker-barks-back/[/url]

MSNZ President Wayne Christie responds (sorry, this is on Mail Chimp - maybe it is yet to be posted on Mark Petch's website): [url]https://mailchi.mp/f012241ee979/board-report-to-member-clubs?e=2e775e9fd6[/url]

There are undoubtedly many discussions on Facebook pages regarding this too.

[quote="Oldfart"]To answer Trevors query about AA and FIA [url]https://www.aa.co.nz/about/events-affiliations/fia/[/url][/quote]

Thanks for that. In the interim I have ascertained that both MSNZ and the AA are separate members of the FIA and therefore there is no way of bringing the AA into any motor sport issue .

To answer Trevors query about AA and FIA [url]https://www.aa.co.nz/about/events-affiliations/fia/[/url]

Thanks Alan. I had overlooked that it was an HRC Survey. (I seem to fill in so many surveys on line that I tend to forget who sent them!)

The bias towards classics and age isn't therefore surprising, but let's not overlook that HRC, or more specifically Chris Watson, (an unsung, forward looking hero if ever there was one), initiated the U2K Cup series that attracted a lot of new blood into racing, and many of those will have been HRC members. I have no idea how many of those have been put off by rising costs, but they certainly gained good support and had good grids. They also had a higher standard of driving and despite the negatives from some quarters that it would be 'hoons driving p*s boxes like dodgem cars', it was/is a good stepping stone.

Going back a few years Mike John, who initiated Targa NZ, had tremendous battles with MANZ and was on the verge of setting up an outlaw organisation. Pity that came to nothing, but the problem is that the tracks themselves seem to be tied into MSNZ. If say Pukekohe, Hampton Downs, Taupo and Manfield, banded together and pulled away from MSNZ and took the NI race members with them, then what?

All they'd lose would be the MSNZ so called Tier 1 series - and judging by the support that hasn't had over recent years, no great loss, except for the NZ GP maybe - and I'd be more than happy if that went to the South Island. If the South Island tracks also banded together, MSNZ would be stuffed. The only losers overall might be those with International aspirations, but in the overall scheme of things, they are relatively few. I'm sure Australia would be happy to adopt them.

[quote="Oldfart"]The FIA is not only a body involved with Motorsport, it has many other interests, and AA is still a member.
Who gave FIA any authority to e the "super body"? As far as I know they just took it on themselves, in the same way as MSNZ has, they don't have a right bestowed on them by anything other than folks being prepared to bend over and take it.
If what you have said above Alan Hyndman, why were a number of quite prominent drivers threatened with removal of licence for competing at Speedway events? Jim Richards for one.
I could quote many instances where what MSNZ dictates differs from FIA and even more from what other similar bodies around the world suggest, but as Trevor has said in his last paragraph above....[/quote]

"and AA is still a member." Is this documented as a fact? If so where can I find the evidence? It could indicate the train of authority I had envisaged.