Repowered Classics

[ERC]

The Alfa & Riley are running under VCC. The Ohlsen Cobra runs with us anyway. If Mr H were to bring along the 'GTO', it is a Ferrari powered car and is no more of a problem to me, than make believe Lotus Cortinas, Peranas or Mini Cooper S.

If they wanted to run with us, then I'd be more than happy to consider them. I generally look for reasons to include rather than exclude cars. The Riley is a magnificent creation and appears to be acccepted by VCC who seem to have a philosophy similar to my own. I doubt the H & C Commission would accept it, as it wasn't built in period, hence this thread...

[jim short]

The Alfa & Riley are running under VCC. The Ohlsen Cobra runs with us anyway. If Mr H were to bring along the 'GTO', it is a Ferrari powered car and is no more of a problem to me, than make believe Lotus Cortinas, Peranas or Mini Cooper S.

If they wanted to run with us, then I'd be more than happy to consider them. I generally look for reasons to include rather than exclude cars. The Riley is a magnificent creation and appears to be acccepted by VCC who seem to have a philosophy similar to my own. I doubt the H & C Commission would accept it, as it wasn't built in period, hence this thread...

Sorry Ray can they run at a TACCOC meeting is what I meant??

[Russ Noble]

Where I differ from TACCOC and many others as stated before, is that I believe a period repower belongs at a classic meeting. Many do not, hence this thread. Fortunately we do have a series in which they can run - for now, but they are not accepted as T & C conforming cars and would not qualify for a CoD even if they wanted one.

Not under T&C but isn't that what CR is for? Most of these cars with period parts can get a CoD under Sched. CR.

[RogerH]

Sorry Ray can they run at a TACCOC meeting is what I meant??

TACCOC doesn't cater for cars like the Alfa and the Riley so they would race in VCC events (which accept recreations and replicas). The replica Cobra has not been accepted in TACCOC events as it was a newly created replica car built in more recent times - it was not an actual period car that was subsequently modified. The 250GTO hasn't come up for consideration yet but would possibly be accepted on the basis that it is an actual period car using all marque components and is effectively how a GTO was built in period by essentially modifying a 250GT SWB - in that respect it may be similar to the Escort 1100 turned into an Escort Twin Cam or perhaps a standard Jaguar E Type turned into a "works" lightweight racer.

[RogerH]

Not under T&C but isn't that what CR is for? Most of these cars with period parts can get a CoD under Sched. CR.

That's correct Russ - they can get a COD under CR - but the problem is that not many classic events (at least in the upper North Island) cater for CR cars so they find it difficult to find places to compete.

[ERC]

Isn't CR only for single seaters? There is no category that caters for saloons created out of period parts, which is why T & C doesn't cover them and even though the commission has debated my car, so far, it hasn't accepted that it comes under their jurisdiction.

The fact that many accepted cars run quite happily with modern components and acres of Kevlar appears to be OK, yet one built out of 100% period parts isn't, is difficult to accept.

As I said before, I try to find reasons to get a car onto the grid, not exclude it. To paraphrase, isn't one of MSNZ's objectives also to get cars out there?

I have just had a quick look through my categorised photographs to see what I already had under replica's and recreations. I note Jaguar C & D types, XJ13, Aston Martin sports racing, Lotus 11 & 7, Cobras galore - and there are hundreds of cars out there.

Yet, if I offered a grid to replicas and recreations and even repowers, at a race meeting, I guarantee there wouldn't be enough to make it viable and that is one of the reasons for my pragmatism. Why deny these cars grid space? If there are too many and they start to swamp existing, genuine (sic) cars, and push them off the grid, only then it is time to create a class for them.

The other aspect is that a D Type Jaguar replica may well have been built yesterday but can still be the most valuable car on the grid and one where the owner fears panel damage just as much (or more) than drivers of run of the mill machinery.

If we need a category for cars built out of period parts then we need to say so, but so far this thread has not given the Commission any support for such a category, so at this point, I remain a lone voice! Such is life... It doesn't alter my stance as there has not been major opposition against it either. I don't expect TACCOC as a club to support it, as it is totally against their philisophy, yet there are past TACCOC board members who appreciate such cars.

The MGCC were approached very early on in the piece with a request from me that if there was opposition from the club from what I was proposing, then I'd not submit any articles about the build. What I in fact got back from MGCC was massive support, encouragement and interest, locally and internationally. So the marque club accepts a repower (people have been doing their own MGB - V8 conversions for years, so why not a saloon?) but the MSNZ structure does not.

If anyone should be throwing their arms in the air, it should be the MGCC. What they see is an old bodyshell saved from the crusher (which is where it was destined - and at times, I wish it had gone there...) rather than the bastardisation of an old saloon with no real worth anyway.

It is all a matter of perception. There is no right and wrong about this, but it can be controlled if the desire is there, with a workable framework of rules.

[crunch]

Hi Ray

It's an interesting and sometimes frustrating question. Simplistically it comes back to a question I ask at every H&C meeting at Conference;...what is a classic? We all know what a Historic car is, but then the definitions get a bit blurry...

At the moment Schedule CR does not cater for saloons and the Commission are currently examining ways to introduce that it can. But we are finding many loopholes that are sometimes hard to fill.

For me personally; I think there could be a place for repowered cars as you describe, the seemingly simple answer is where do they fit in the classification. At times the simple is not so simple....

I am interested to see more discussion on this as it gives us an idea of what we are actually trying to deal with.

[jim short]

Isn't CR only for single seaters? There is no category that caters for saloons created out of period parts, which is why T & C doesn't cover them and even though the commission has debated my car, so far, it hasn't accepted that it comes under their jurisdiction.

The fact that many accepted cars run quite happily with modern components and acres of Kevlar appears to be OK, yet one built out of 100% period parts isn't, is difficult to accept.

As I said before, I try to find reasons to get a car onto the grid, not exclude it. To paraphrase, isn't one of MSNZ's objectives also to get cars out there?

I have just had a quick look through my categorised photographs to see what I already had under replica's and recreations. I note Jaguar C & D types, XJ13, Aston Martin sports racing, Lotus 11 & 7, Cobras galore - and there are hundreds of cars out there.

Yet, if I offered a grid to replicas and recreations and even repowers, at a race meting, I guarantee there wouldn't be enough to make it viable and that is one of the reasons for my pragmatism. Why deny these cars grid space? If there are too many and they start to swamp existing, genuine (sic) cars, and push them off the grid, only then it is time to create a class for them.

The other aspect is that a D Type Jaguar replica may well have been built yesterday but can still be the most valuable car on the grid and one where the owner fears panel damage just as much (or more) than drivers of run of the mill machinery.

If we need a category for cars built out of period parts then we need to say so, but so far this thread has not given the Commission any support for such a category, so at this point, I remain a lone voice! Such is life... It doesn't alter my stance as there has not been major opposition against it either. I don't expect TACCOC as a club to support it, as it is totally against their philisophy, yet there are past TACCOC board members who appreciate such cars.

The MGCC were approached very early on in the piece with a request from me that if there was opposition from the club from what I was proposing, then I'd not submit any articles about the build. What I in fact got back from MGCC was massive support, encouragement and interest, locally and internationally. So the marque club accepts a repower (people have been doing their own MGB - V8 conversions for years, so why not a saloon?) but the MSNZ structure does not.

If anyone should be throwing their arms in the air, it should be the MGCC. What they see is an old bodyshell saved from the crusher (which is where it was destined - and at times, I wish it had gone there...) rather than the bastardisation of an old saloon with no real worth anyway.

It is all a matter of perception. There is no right and wrong about this, but it can be controlled if the desire is there, with a workable framework of rules.

Ray you are not the only one,I was a member of TACCOC from the start,the first five years they were without doubt the club to be with ,then with replicas starting to seen those in control took a dislike ,now not wanting to get into another debate as to how its ended up thirtyfive years later ,what person who claims to be a car lover would not let that Alfa and Riley ect run,then explane how the Lycoming{a home built special} can run, at the same time there ,the bona fide ones with modern internals fitted are ok At the Ardmore reunion at Puke 1983/4 a Lotus Cortina driven by two of NZs top drivers laped at 1.24.Five app. yrs later its doing 1.16 How many race meetings do TACCOC put on in a year now days,or is it more important as to what place we were seen out enjoying ourselves on Sat. night???

[ERC]

My car is now 9 seconds faster at Pukekohe than when I started with it in 1991 and the car is still standard. The engine has never been modified and even after its 1993 engine rebuild, lap times were no different. The improvement in lap times is down almost entirely due to tyres and a slight change to track surface in places. Driver improvement I would put at no more than 1 or 2 seconds.

This is almost exactly the same as the improvement in lap times for the winning Lotus Cortina from my first Pukekohe race in 1985 (with an Allegro Equipe...) at 1:20, now doing 1:13s. If they had lopped 4 seconds off their lap times from the 1983 reunion meeting to 1985, then I suggest that was also due to tyres.

Your on-going beef with TACCOC needs its own thread Jim. Start one.

[Carlo]

In my mind there is a difference between a Historic and a Classic car. As an example a 1938 Ford V8 Coupe as an origonal car is a Historic car and a 1938 Ford V8 Coupe with chopped top, guards removed and a thumping great OHV V8 sitting in the engine bay is a classic car. Both are special cars worthy of recognition

A Historic replica is one that replicates the origonal car and built to the regulations which applied during that period.

A Classic replica is one that could have been built by to the regulations which applied during that period. As an example it could be an OSCA class or S.I Sports and Specials class vehicle, the car it replicates never existed but it could have for the car replicates the regulations and not the vehicle of the period.

A straight out Classic car could be anything for "Classic" is in the eye of the beholder.

In general terms what I am now seeing around the traps is a car that is built to resemble by appearance as a historic car but is now fitted out with a lot of late model parts, equipment and technology and described by all and sundry as a classic car.

In rallying both historic and classic run together in the regional type events and side by side in both the NZRC and the Silver Fern without any difficulty and from what I have experienced in South Island historic/classic racing again they appear to have no difficulty running together there either.

Just maybe the real issue/s are with the mindset of some people organising some events and the fact that in the begining we used the terminology "Classic" in the wrong context when in truth we probably meant "Historic"

[RogerH]

Isn't CR only for single seaters?

Schedule CR caters for single seaters AND two seater sports racing cars AND some saloons.

Under Period Grouping CR One it covers the single seaters and sports racing cars with a period classification up to 31 December 1960.

Under Period Grouping CR Two it covers the single seaters and sports racing cars with a period classification post 31 December 1960.

In the period up to MSNZ Manual 34 there was another CR group being CR Three which covered replica saloons up to 31 December 1977. I would think that replica saloons which were constructed and approved within the CR regulations prior to the removal of the CR Three Group in Manual 35 would maintain that approval as it could not be retrospectively withdrawn.

[crunch]

Once a COD is issued, it cannot be withdrawn unless an audit shows that the vehicle is not what is described in the COD.

[jim short]

Ray I have no beef with TACCOC or anyone ,I have had my say and that is it,as to the time from 1 26[ not 24] Angus Hyslop, as good a driver as any was at the wheel this was before, the improvments to the track changed,, was put down to Randell I will now sit on the fence with my car loving mates

[Racer Rog]

No
Roger

[ERC]

In the period up to MSNZ Manual 34 there was a another CR group being CR Three which covered replica saloons up to 31 December 1977. I would think that replica saloons which were constructed and approved within the CR regulations prior to the removal of the CR Three Group in Manual 35 would maintain that approval as it could not be retrospectively withdrawn.

Exactly. So unless it is a replica saloon, a period saloon has never been covered? This raises another question. Would anyone really be happy with 3 replica Corvette Zephyrs on the grid or even Algie Alfas? Is there any limit or control of replicas of unique cars? Is it limited to NZ cars? Could we build our own Baby Bertha or John Pope Aston/Firenza?

On another tack, Triumph Stags were notoriously fragile initially, so there were many Rover V8 conversions - note, conversions, not a distinct model offered for sale like the Perana. Does that make a Rover V8 engined Stag acceptable because it was offered in period?

We know there were works 4WD Zephyrs, V6 "Savage" Cortinas and even a 4WD Mini (and we do know where that is!) plus V8 Marina, and probably a works V8 Triumph 2500 and who knows what else in period. Jack Knight 5 speed gearboxes and Arden cross flow heads, Derrington cross flow heads (as per Jimmy's Wolseley and also the Magnette I believe). So we allow modified period saloons and re-creations so it seems an omission to leave out repowered period saloons!

PS: Got my logbook today but at the moment, I have no intention of seriously racing the car anyway, but I'd like the option - ready for when I can't get out of the Marcos unaided!

[Bruce Sollitt]

Once a COD is issued, it cannot be withdrawn unless an audit shows that the vehicle is not what is described in the COD.

Crunch, how does this relate to the replication of similar cars when a COD has been incorrectly issued? I'm thinking specifically of the Escort with the YB Cosworth engine. Which of the 3 following statements would reflect policy?
1. We'll limit the mistake to one car.
2. We must allow replications of this model whenever produced.
3. We must allow all similar deviations across all makes & models .i.e. KE25 Corolla can run 3SGE.

[crunch]

Crunch, how does this relate to the replication of similar cars when a COD has been incorrectly issued? I'm thinking specifically of the Escort with the YB Cosworth engine. Which of the 3 following statements would reflect policy?
1. We'll limit the mistake to one car.
2. We must allow replications of this model whenever produced.
3. We must allow all similar deviations across all makes & models .i.e. KE25 Corolla can run 3SGE.

There are probably quite a few cars out there with COD's that maybe should never had got them. Of course; you try to limit the mistakes.
However the car you refer to (and I think Carlo was in on the discussion at the time) had an owner that provided written material such as magazine articles to show that in 1982 the Mark 2 Escort was tested with the engine that ended up in the Sierra Cosworth. Therefore a period modification. If you have a problem with that; and I know you have asked me and I have explained this in the past; please take it up with the Rally Commission Chairman

[RogerH]

There are probably quite a few cars out there with COD's that maybe should never had got them. Of course; you try to limit the mistakes.
However the car you refer to (and I think Carlo was in on the discussion at the time) had an owner that provided written material such as magazine articles to show that in 1982 the Mark 2 Escort was tested with the engine that ended up in the Sierra Cosworth. Therefore a period modification. If you have a problem with that; and I know you have asked me and I have explained this in the past; please take it up with the Rally Commission Chairman

Under T&C regulations you can get approval if you comply with the fundamental T&C requirements and can supply documentary evidence that the "modification" concerned was used or available in period. It sometimes takes a lot of research but it is surprising what happened to various cars in period. The catch is that you need to comply with the basic T&C rules first.

[crunch]

Under T&C regulations you can get approval if you comply with the fundamental T&C requirements and can supply documentary evidence that the "modification" concerned was used or available in period. It sometimes takes a lot of research but it is surprising what happened to various cars in period. The catch is that you need to comply with the basic T&C rules first.

This particular car was Schedule RH, but the same philosophy applies.

[crunch]

Back to repowering of classic cars,
What would be good lines-in-the-sand if this is to go further.
For instance Ray mentions he thinks his car is a classic, not an old clubcar. I am not disagreeing (or agreeing).How can we define the difference? I hasten to add I am not picking on anyone, it's jus that Ray's comment got me thinking.

Someone used the example of a rotary powered Austin could be possible, but I'm sure all sane thinkers amoungst us cringe at that thought, so how could this be quantified?

Already a lot of aspects of H&C motorsport are subjective, and traditionally may always have been. This unfortunately causes blurred lines.
Interesting eh?