ERC Race Series - Euro Saloons & Sports

[Jac Mac]

[color="#0000FF"]The addition of a cage to any saloon has an effect on the chassis stiffness, most competitive cage builders will probably try to take advantage of this.
Wider race type slicks or DOT Hoosiers etc will by virtue of extra grip will distort the compliant factory rubber bushs in the suspension to the point where you have to make changes to get the tire in full contact with the track ( the dropped inner fulcrum point of the top wishbone on Dale & John Mck's cars along with probably many others, is a step in that process ).[/color]

[Jac Mac]

[color="#0000FF"]The addition of a cage to any saloon has an effect on the chassis stiffness, most competitive cage builders will probably try to take advantage of this.
Wider race type slicks or DOT Hoosiers etc will by virtue of extra grip distort the compliant factory rubber bushs in the suspension to the point where you have to make changes to get the tire in full contact with the track ( the dropped inner fulcrum point of the top wishbone on Dale & John Mck's cars along with probably many others, is a step in that process ).[/color]

[Bryan]

The addition of a cage to any saloon has an effect on the chassis stiffness, most competitive cage builders will probably try to take advantage of this.
Wider race type slicks or DOT Hoosiers etc will by virtue of extra grip will distort the compliant factory rubber bushs in the suspension to the point where you have to make changes to get the tire in full contact with the track ( the dropped inner fulcrum point of the top wishbone on Dale & John Mck's cars along with probably many others, is a step in that process ).

That's the bit that scares me about building up an "historic" 1972 saloon, even for ERC, when the factory designed the suspension for skinny standard crossplies (or 165x13 radials on the "performance" model).

Do all the suspension mods necessary to stop it tripping over on "sticky" tyres take it outside the spirit of the rules, or just plain bust the budget?

[John McKechnie]

That's the bit that scares me about building up an "historic" 1972 saloon, even for ERC, when the factory designed the suspension for skinny standard crossplies (or 165x13 radials on the "performance" model).

Do all the suspension mods necessary to stop it tripping over on "sticky" tyres take it outside the spirit of the rules, or just plain bust the budget?

Always talk to people who have already been down this track- too expensive being a trailblazer

[Bryan]

Too right, John .

Fortunately I'm "blessed" with the a similar obsession for quaint and unusual cars as some other forum members, so I already know far more than is probably healthy about my particular choice . Suffice to say, the tweaks to get it to handle adequately on road tyres are relatively easy (and cheap), but to make it work with DOT tyres is a different ball game. Just as well I'll be happy to be a "clubbie", having fun plodding around at the back of the field.

[RogerH]

That may be the case for a post December 1977 car but the T&C rules are different for pre 31 December 1977 cars.

For these pre cars, brakes are "free" subject to disc and drum friction surfaces being ferrous. "Free" means that the original part may be replaced with a newer part as long as the new part provides no additional function relative to the original part and must be from the same era and was available or used on that make and model in period. "Era" means the period when a particular vehicle model and its components were actively used in motor sport competition.

This could be interpreted to mean that an original 4 pot calliper could be changed to a Wilwood 4 pot of similar dimensions if it could be proved that the Wilwood (or the form of calliper on which the Wilwood was based?) was available to be used in the period (era) related to the subject car.

Further to my post, there is an interesting possible interpretation of what "era" means. This is a relatively important definition as it defines during what time period you can select parts that were available (not necessarily fitted to a subject car or model). You could then fit these parts and on the face of it, have a compliant T&C car.

Under the T&C definition "Era" means the period when a particular vehicle model and its components were actively used in motor sport competition. I understand in an initial draft of the rules, era was limited to the model production life of a specific car - for example the"era"of a Mk1 Escort would have been January 1968 to November 1974.

Under the present definition (using the Mk1 Escort example), we would need to determine when the Mk1 Escort was actively used in motor sport competition. What does this actually mean? It seems to be a very subjective assessment as some could no doubt argue that the Mk1 Escort has been continuously actively used in motor sport competition and therefore any component available up to 2014 could be fitted to a compliant T&C car?

[Bryan]

Further to my post, there is an interesting possible interpretation of what "era" means. This is a relatively important definition as it defines during what time period you can select parts that were available (not necessarily fitted to a subject car or model). You could then fit these parts and on the face of it, have a compliant T&C car.

Under the T&C definition "Era" means the period when a particular vehicle model and its components were actively used in motor sport competition. I understand in an initial draft of the rules, era was limited to the model production life of a specific car - for example the"era"of a Mk1 Escort would have been January 1968 to November 1974.

Under the present definition (using the Mk1 Escort example), we would need to determine when the Mk1 Escort was actively used in motor sport competition. What does this actually mean? It seems to be a very subjective assessment as some could no doubt argue that the Mk1 Escort has been continuously actively used in motor sport competition and therefore any component available up to 2014 could be fitted to a compliant T&C car?

Or would you use the FIA Appendix J homologation period "homologation expiring at the end of the fifth year after production ceased", which would allow a Mini Cooper S 1963 to 1975, and 1275GT 1970 to 1985, and Mk1 Escort to 1979?

[ERC]

Having absorbed the above and a small mountain of personal emails that arrived in the time it took to get lunch, it appears that the onus is indeed on Series organisers to make a call. Typical. I have to make a call on a subject I know very little about...

Dons little black moustache and proceeds...

I see practical difficulties in administering the handicaps when drivers swap willy nilly, but as we do run a 100% handicap system, then whereas I normally use a mixture of historical and current best times for the weekend, maybe 4:1, or 3:2, I may have to have a play, but I think that what will happen if we allow these tyres in, is that once a driver has recorded his fastest time using these tyres it will show up in the system just as a fast time, but if it then rains and his performance is vastly reduced in percentage terms, compared to those using the same tyres throughout, then the handicap is going to work against them. To which I would reply - hard luck!

In other words, a bog standard MGB on good, fresh Toyos may only be 3% slower in wet weather at Pukekohe (Old track) but a stonking V8 switching from the good tyres may then be down 10%.

The handicap system sorts it all out eventually other than we will enforce the 1:13 speed bar at HD and a similar time at Pukekohe. That means that say Derek Atkinson and Tony who were NOT running the tyre we are talking about would gain no advantage, but would have to button off anyway. Equally, Neil may have to button off because of the tyres.

We will trial it for a season as Neil suggested and if there is a wet race and there are incidents, or throughout the season, if there are suspension failures attributable to using these tyres, then we'll reserve the right to ban them as from the next meeting. Unless I get a differing view, I'll incorporate that into our rules so that everyone knows where they stand.

The points above regarding T & C, the era and an exact period, are fine but for us and given the stance of two thirds of the drivers not having a CoD or interested in having one, I see no specific problems.

If the HMC/U3L is opened up to CoD only cars of any capacity, (scrap the U3L limit) this gives an arena for those who object to our stance somewhere to play with like minded drivers. In other words, banning the Hankook from that grid. If one or two drivers switch to that grid and leave the ERC grid, that is fine, it is a matter of choice based on not just performance, perceived equality etc but also on driving standards.

That a seems a reasonable compromise to me so now I'll remove the moustache.

[Howard Wood]

If the HMC/U3L is opened up to CoD only cars of any capacity, (scrap the U3L limit) this gives an arena for those who object to our stance somewhere to play with like minded drivers. In other words, banning the Hankook from that grid. If one or two drivers switch to that grid and leave the ERC grid, that is fine, it is a matter of choice based on not just performance, perceived equality etc but also on driving standards.

So why ban the Hankooks from U3L? If U3L cars are able to run with the Hankooks at say NZFMR alongside HMC (with their own specific tyre regulations which seems to have settled on the Hoosiers) the relative speed gap will close and U3L entrants will enjoy a tyre cost reduction as well. Win win it seems to me.

I for one am keen to try the Hankooks, what do you think Tony, Chris and Jim B, bearing in mind that currently the Hankook as a DoT rate tyre probably fits the regulations? There is currently well over 2 seconds a lap between the fastest HMC and U3L cars so no issue of the HMC cars being beaten but the whole field will close up.

[ERC]

Good point Howard. Is it then up to Arthur to make a call on behalf of the U3L group? I for one would think that as there are no series/points as such for U3L anyway, then most are just running to enjoy themselves, but, if drivers object to them in ERC, then maybe they need a sand pit to play in that is 'pure'?

Personally, I'd love to see cars such as yours mixing it with the HMC cars to overcome the massive capacity advantage that the HMC cars have. Long term, if/when HMC becomes viable in NZ without padding the grid, then it might be time to have another look anyway.

[nzeder]

I think a lot like to see the David vs Goliath on the track which makes the U3L and HMC combined grid so entertaining and with a handicap even more so.

[RacerT]

So why ban the Hankooks from U3L? If U3L cars are able to run with the Hankooks at say NZFMR alongside HMC (with their own specific tyre regulations which seems to have settled on the Hoosiers) the relative speed gap will close and U3L entrants will enjoy a tyre cost reduction as well. Win win it seems to me.

I for one am keen to try the Hankooks, what do you think Tony, Chris and Jim B, bearing in mind that currently the Hankook as a DoT rate tyre probably fits the regulations? There is currently well over 2 seconds a lap between the fastest HMC and U3L cars so no issue of the HMC cars being beaten but the whole field will close up.

Hi Howard
I'm one of the people emailing Ray off line to ruin his lunch!
Personally I don't think these tyres are in the 'spirit' of the regulations. They may be DOT approved, but a testing station would not give them a warrant of fitness, as they are clearly only for dry usage.

Ray's proposition of running the Hankooks, as it will slow V8 cars down when it rains doesn't wash, (if you'll excuse the pun), because competitors will simply have a set of 'wet' tyres/wheels that they can swap on to if it rains. I don't think moving people like Derek (Morgan) and Tony (Corvette) into 1.10's at Hampton Downs is going to do anyone any good. Then the question comes, what will be allowed at the Festival?

The new, tailor made, Historic Sanctioned Series regulations would be a fine place for each series to specify the tyre that they want to use. MSNZ and the Commission have come up with a very user friendly sanctioning strategy and there are already three series looking to sign up.

[ERC]

From what I gather, some testing stations will pass them and some will not, in which case, we have a much bigger problem!

If just one driver turns up with a current WoF using those tyres, (not that we'd know of course, what tyres were fitted at the time) then are they road legal or not?

I'm like some others on here, I really want a black and white definition. We can rule on exceptions if we so wish, but we do need a proper assessment o these tyres. If they are indeed illegal, then they are not a road tyre and therefore can't be used in the ERC Series. I believe that some cars have been issued a WoF, so the real problem isn't so much ours, but belongs elsewhere. So are we going to get a specific NZTA (or whatever they call themselves these days) ruling?

My big worry is when it rains part way though a race that started dry. If they behave like slicks in the wet, then surely they should never get a WoF? If the race starts wet, then they'll have to go a road legal tyre anyway.

As I also pointed out above, we will not allow the faster cars to do 1:10s. We will invoke the speed bar at 1:13 anyway, however, we all know that drivers will always be able to rush past and then back off! It has always been so with a speed bar.

Apart from the recent commission discussion about sanctioned historic series, I have nothing yet in writing setting out either the application procedure or the structure or what it really means to either drivers or convenors. Up until now, we have had a set of rules anyway and apart from safety implications at a meeting plus the usual driving standards, the MSNZ race stewards do not interfere in any way shape or form, into any race series that is not currently sanctioned.

[Howard Wood]

Thanks Tony. We seem to have hi-jacked Ray's thread but these things need to be discussed and rulings made. I am unaware of the Historic Sanctioned Series regulations you refer to but keep us posted especially as regards what you propose to allow at the Festival. At least you know my preferred option.

As an aside, most serious competitors will have a set of "wets" anyway, regardless of tyre choice/ regulations, in my case I try to keep a set of scrubbed Dunlops in the truck and manage/ rotate/ eek life out of the "drys" available. I don't think we have had a wet race this year so several times the "wets" have become the "drys".

[ERC]

Luxury Howard! I'd like to do the same, but I only own 4 wheels for the car and it takes me about an hour to change all 4 using the equipment I have. So trying to sort out the two handicap grids, I really don't have the luxury of a 'Harry' or the time to do the work.

Tyres have to last me about 4 seasons anyway, by which time even the Toyos are two a seconds a lap slower in the dry and not too good in the wet. If I have a puncture, I am out. Full stop. If as happened last time when the tyres were worn out, there is a three month wait for a new batch of Toyos, then I either have to purchase secondhand (Mal Clark usually has a couple) or do without.

Dunlop Direzzas as on the Magnette, I gather are no longer made.

[Howard Wood]

Luxury Ray! We were so poor, we had to live in shoe box.......etc, etc (copywrite Monty Python).

[RacerT]

Luxury Howard! I'd like to do the same, but I only own 4 wheels for the car and it takes me about an hour to change all 4 using the equipment I have. So trying to sort out the two handicap grids, I really don't have the luxury of a 'Harry' or the time to do the work.

Tyres have to last me about 4 seasons anyway, by which time even the Toyos are two a seconds a lap slower in the dry and not too good in the wet. If I have a puncture, I am out. Full stop. If as happened last time when the tyres were worn out, there is a three month wait for a new batch of Toyos, then I either have to purchase secondhand (Mal Clark usually has a couple) or do without.

Dunlop Direzzias as on the Magnette, I gather are no longer made.

Hi Ray
You will run a fancy foreign car and then complain that you can't get bits, wheels, tyres etc - you're not English are you?

The answer may be to specify a minimum treadware rating, as is done in the 2K Cup Series (theirs is 190, which is quite hard).
It sounds like a treadware of 80 – 100 is probably appropriate for most Classic/Historic cars and could be the simplest solution.

[ERC]

LOL Tony. Can I borrow Harry? We English don't have a manservant to change the wheels like the Kiwis!...

Until today, I wasn't even aware there was a treadwear rating! Is it moulded onto the tyrewall or just a specification? (Too full of curry - the English national dish - now, to go down on my hands and knees to check.)

[Kiwiboss]

LOL Tony. Can I borrow Harry? We English don't have a manservant to change the wheels like the Kiwis!...

Until today, I wasn't even aware there was a treadwear rating! Is it moulded onto the tyrewall or just a specification? (Too full of curry - the English national dish - now, to go down on my hands and knees to check.)

I spend most of my life on my knees Ray so yes I can tell you that it is imprinted into the side of every DOT rate road legal WOF tyre I have ever seen in NZ, the Avon CR6ZZ is about the most period correct DOT radial historic race tyre there is and they are 80 tread wear, this should be the minimum wear rating requirement and would eliminate all these other no threaded slick type DOT tyres and solve the problem!!

Enjoy your English dinner

Dale M

[CobraV8]

Bugger I just went and checked the tyres on the Cobra! The kumhos that central muscle cars used to run, so we're cheap as second hand and better in both the dry and wet than my road dunlops, but... Tread wear is 50.