ERC wrote:Steve, you are falling into the same trap as other critics. Handicapping levels the playing field and we already have cars from the 1950's competing against cars from the 1990s.
Aus has a catchment of 16 million people and we have 4. The UK has a catchment of 60 million plus close and easy proximity to Europe via the channel tunnel.
Even if everyone in the north island who REALLY wanted to race, did so with their older sports cars, we still wouldn't have a full grid.
If there really was a demand for period purism, why doesn't TACCOC have an over subscribed grid of them, as they have run meetings for the purists? This argument is constantly advanced by critics of our series yet there are already alternatives for the purists, but we still don't see them competing. We only do six meetings a season, leaving plenty of space for others to run other series if they so desire
Classic Trials also caters for those with classic sports cars but we have only really seen a few - Arthur's TR3 for example and Mike Sexton's Austin Healeys. Traditionally, that has been the stepping stone for many drivers and if they were over subscribed, or over represented, a grid for them would very soon have been established.
As Rhys Nolan has already found out, the same applies to older saloons. They have never been excluded from race meetings and when given a grid of their own, there is little support. The opportunity to race pure cars has never ever been denied but if there was a real demand, then where are they?
I grew up when a sports car grid contained interesting cars and there were many makes and specials (Tojeiro, HRG, Keift, Lea Francis, Lister, Turner, anyone?). Over the years, fewer and fewer makes of sports cars were available and not many people these days own or drive sports cars.
Those that have survived are rarely raced not because they are facing modern technology but racing is hard on the car. A sector of our sport believes that you shouldn't lock away the scarce and valuable wings or trim and fit fibreglass replicas or fit a bullet proof gearbox, and that doesn't help get them on track either. Others believe that even with a full cage, you have to wreck a dash board or a rear seat and refit them or refit a headlining. Lets not discuss roll protection!
These issues are excluding cars and maybe some should be looking at the real reasons why cars are not out on the track instead of pointing fingers at areas where cars are running.
Don’t get me wrong Ray. I’m not criticizing your ERC series, or the fact you’re racing at the Festival in 2015. I applaud your efforts in running an excellent, well organised class that caters to, and welcomes a great variety of classic car owners, with an emphasis placed on fun, safe motor racing. I think your being included at the Festival is just reward for your efforts. And, it should be remembered, the organisers haven’t excluded another class to allow ERC to enter. So, really, whats the harm?
As the moderator of this website/forum, I’ve usually made an effort to remain neutral on most subjects, and have avoided making criticism of the NZ motorsport governing body. But in my opinion, many of the issues we’re seeing now are the result of decades of long-term neglect at the top level, and of letting the historic side of the sport run amuck for the last thirty years.
Remember, Australia may have a larger population, but competitors also have a much greater distance to travel to national events, so usually stay within their local State, be it Queensland, Victoria, NSW etc. New Zealand, on the other hand, is a small, compact country, with eight race tracks, and is a relatively inexpensive place to go motor racing, when being compared to other countries.
CAMS, the Australian motorsport governing body, was pro-active and forward-thinking, by implementing rules to create historic racing groups forty years ago, and has gone to great lengths to then protect what they’ve created. Likewise, they’ve moved with the times, creating new groups to then embrace newer cars, as they become older, but the rules have been produced just as thoughtfully, to ensure period correctness, within reason. Certainly, they’re not perfect, but at the same time, I personally prefer what they’ve achieved over what we currently have in NZ. Of course, CAMS are far better financed than Motorsport NZ, and those involved in the governing of the historic side of NZ racing are often doing so as enthusiasts, paying their own way, rather than being paid for the work they do, which in itself deserves great admiration. I’m also encouraged by what I’ve seen regarding some of the efforts being made by the NZ governing body towards paving the way to a more historically focused future.
It should be noted, that much of the discontent and confusion in NZ historic racing relates to saloon cars. Other historic racing groups, such as Formula 5000, Historic Formula Ford, Formula Junior etc, all feature cars prepared as period correct, ie, as they raced in period. Imagine the response if someone turned up to run with Historic Formula Ford in a 35 year old Van Diemen fitted with a turbocharged Sierra Cosworth motor, 5-speed sequential gearbox, and slick tyres. How quickly would they be asked to leave? Yet, in the saloon car side of historic racing, this scenario is so common, people think you’re a pioneer (or insane) to consider the prospect of fielding a grid of period correct cars. If it can be done in historic single seater racing, why is it so inconceivable in historic saloon car racing?
In historic saloon car racing, with much less guidance, and more fragmentation throughout the country, a case of ‘anything goes’ has become the norm, and we’ve seen numerous off-shoots all head in different directions, making up their own rules. And this has nothing to do with population size. The cars are out there racing, its just that they’re not period correct, as those in various historic single seater categories are. Why would someone go to the effort of building a period correct, Lotus twin-cam powered Escort to T&C or Schedule K rules when they’re likely to be racing against a similar make/model fitted with modern technology, which is therefore much faster? Further still, if someone owned an original car that raced in period, why would they want to bring it out to race against a modern variant, hidden beneath the silhouette of an old car? Honestly, if someone is given the option to fit modern technology into their car to make it faster, of course they’re going to do this. But is this historic racing?
And this is the underlying problem in NZ historic car racing. Because there has never been any policing of regulations from the top, as there are in other countries, so the interpretation of what actually constitutes a historic race car has become so blurred, even those racing in it are confused. And so now, we have this situation where people argue over what does, and what doesn’t constitute a historic racing car. Some argue that as long as the classic silhouette is still there, its OK to have modern technology underneath, because the punters in the grandstands don’t know the difference. Others say historic racing is a celebration of motorsport of the past, and therefore, historic racing cars should be built to represent how cars raced in period.
Yes, I agree, the handicapping system does level the playing field, but is this not a band-aid approach that masks a greater problem? Again, I’m not criticizing your group Ray, and indeed, I think handicapping could even be utilized in historic racing with period correct cars, as even when period correct, not all cars are created equal. But you have suggested handicapping to be the answer to a great many issues, whereas, to my mind, handicapping is required because of the infiltration into historic racing of modern technology, which has increased the speed difference between fast and slow cars.
I know you disagree with pretty well everything I’ve written above, and that’s OK, as this is only my opinion. I’m not trying to suggest I’m right, but in other posts, and other threads, you’ve made it known your preference to a large field of non-period correct cars over a small or medium sized field of period correct cars. So this in itself opens the door for discussion, which is all I’m doing.
Back to that 50 car production sports car grid at the Phillip Island Classic. Given the size of Australia, and even with 16 million people, to form a 50 car grid suggests that, around Australia, there are four or five times this number of similar cars, conforming to these same rules, that weren’t at this event. Working on that theory (an assumption, I know), surely putting together even a 25 or 30 car grid of similar cars, and even with a cut-off date through to 1977, if working off a set of T&C or Schedule K rules, is not that far-fetched? But then again, is it already too late?
