vhrr.com Forums  

Go Back   vhrr.com Forums > News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-02-2013, 08:25 AM
admin admin is offline
Grant Campbell
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mt Eliza Victoria Australia
Posts: 656
Default Discussion Paper - FIA - Australian historics

Discussion Paper on a proposal to integrate cars with FIA HTPs into Australian Historic Racing
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Integration-discussion-paper.pdf (952.8 KB, 963 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 27-02-2013, 08:00 AM
admin admin is offline
Grant Campbell
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mt Eliza Victoria Australia
Posts: 656
Default Comments on the proposal circulated by the Australian Historic Motor Sport Commission

Comments on the proposal circulated by the Australian Historic Motor Sport Commission that cars accompanied by an FIA Historic Technical Passport be accommodated under CAMS 5th Category Regulations.
I have been asked to comment on the above proposal which has been the subject of three well presented papers circulated to Australian historic motor sport clubs and promoters.

Firstly I believe it is important for all considering the proposal to be aware of the history and background to FIA Appendix K. Originally it was intended to provide a “Historic Scheme” for racing cars which had participated in World Championship series and sports/racing cars which had participated in significant sports car races such as Le Mans and Spa. Basic to this concept was the identification of makes and models which had qualified. To provide an example, the first mid-engined car to record a FI victory was the 2.2 litre Cooper Climax in which Moss won the 1958 Argentinian Grand Prix. The principle was that any similar model Cooper Climax, provided the technical specifications were exactly similar to the Moss car would be accepted under Appendix K. There was no requirement that the candidate car possessed competition history in the period, nor that the candidate car even existed in the period.

It is difficult to determine why such a loose prescription was adopted by the FIA. Perhaps it was the fact that in the UK there was already an established industry devoted to the manufacture of replicas ( I prefer the word fake) of the original cars. Remember FIA President Max Mosley went on record as saying the original cars were priceless, should be consigned to museums, and if there was a movement for competitive events for historic cars, replicas of the original should be used.

This early concept of Appendix K was extraordinarily elitist as it catered for a very small percentage of cars of the past – the minority of cars at the apex of the motor sport pyramid. Those enthusiast with a broader outlook could see that if the FIA was to claim it managed the total motor sport scene it would have to accommodate all down to the most menial level such as ‘club racing’.

My predecessor on the HMSC John Dawson Damer, before his untimely death in 2000, put it to the HMSC that Appendix K was quite ‘Euro-centric’ and if the aim was for the FIA to be a ‘world body’ it would have set about enveloping the historic movement in countries like USA, Australia, and New Zealand. During my subsequent service on the HMSC from 2000 to 2007 I supported this proposition and was rewarded by seeing the HMSC extend Appendix K to cover cars having competition history in national events. I believe a factor in this change was the experience of HMSC President the late Gunnar Elmgren, had during a visit to Australia. He attended a major historic meeting at Sandown where he drove laps in the Maybach thanks to the generosity of Bob Harborough, then a visit to the Phillip Island circuit ( he could not drive the circuit because a Japanese MotoGP team had hired it for testing) whilst the following weekend he made timed runs in the Maybach at the Geelong Sprints. I believe that experience demonstrated how wide the total historic movement was, and was not just the realm of the few makes and models with International competition history.

Turning now to the proposition before us, I ask Just what is the objective of the proposal, given:-
1. We have a number of local competitors enjoying racing overseas in cars which have C. of D. documentation plus HTP status.
2. We have an arrangement whereby we accommodate visiting cars from overseas on the basis of their HTP documentation conditional upon the car not being a replica.

Given the above, it seems to me the objective of the proposal is to accommodate a handful of individuals who have imported cars of questionable provenance and are now pressing for their cars to be accepted in 5th Category. It would be naïve to think the motive was other than to gain advantage on the race circuit.

The paper circulated by our Commission glibly states (page 4, para 3(i):- “confirmation that the actual date of construction of the actual car as recorded on the HTP was within the CAMS group period (i.e. replicas or continuation could be rejected);”. The use of that wording “could be rejected” is rather less than ‘watertight’. It is true the HTP regulations define “Date of original manufacture asserted: The date when the actual car, which is subject to the HTP application, was first assembled as an entity, as claimed by the applicant”. However it is reported to me many HTPs do not quote “Date of manufacture asserted”. It must be remembered the HTPs are the work of ASNs world wide many of whom have no interes in, nor the slightest conception of, the historic movement. Thus I ask can we trust such documentation? To sum up, a very ‘rubbery’ proposition!

In our 5th Category regulations we have undoubtedly the best historic regulations in the world. They are the envy of many ASNs who conduct historic events. Monaco for their Historic Grand Prix accept only genuine cars with significant history. I have had MSA (UK) historic officials admit to me privately they would love to ‘turn the clock back’ but they opened the gate years ago, the mob of horses escaped and there is no way they can get them back.

Let is not open the stable door and let the horse escape – even with the skills of “The Man From Snowy River” we could not recover the animal.

Graham Hoinville: 22 February 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-03-2013, 12:09 AM
BMH COMIC BMH COMIC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 18
Default AHMSC discussion Replicas

Thank you for making your response public Graham, your background knowledge is invaluable for us relatively new comers to this and we seek guidance and experience, some of us are lucky enough to have competed at international events under the jurisdiction of other ASN’s but most would not have and I presume won’t make comment to the Commission, so it is left to the rest to put forward the ideals and objectives, however one thing has always bugged me and it is: we hear that the other ASN’s recon we have the best system, but, never have I ever seen it written or quoted by the hand of those people. Nor have I seen why they think so. Is this just a convenient throw away comment made by those here in control or is it a cold hard indisputable fact and if fact where is the evidence or even the smoking gun? My experience tells me that we can successfully run in other jurisdictions without undue penalty (Except for that grandfather clause for Roll Bars in NZ) but when the boot is on the other foot it is a problem. Is that evidence alone?

My passion is for the Australian Special and assumes it an easy fix for them, if it isn’t Aussie made and it doesn’t have a competition history in at least club level competition then it’s a no brainer, it isn’t an Aussie Special in much the same vein as Champagne only comes from one region in the world. Dead easy to control, even cars with race history in Aus would very easily fit into this umbrella, reimport them and set them up to the Aus spec and hey presto problems gone. I do question our own replica system where pre war cars are readily acceptable and they carry the same log book. We run against replicas and square riggers without a history and that doesn’t seem to bother many, but if a D type replica rolls up and it doesn’t matter if its nut and bolt accurate it’s shunned even from club level racing? To my way of thinking that’s an equality that exists in some classes of our sport, pity the poor buggar with a genuine historic touring car up against the best money can buy! Why the inequality?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-03-2013, 10:05 AM
dat2kman dat2kman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The Gap Brisbane QLD
Posts: 13
Default

I too own and race Aussie specials, with genuine history in Australia, but they are rejected when entering certain Victorian events, for three years now.

CAMS has happily taken the COD and logbook fee, and list the categories for these two groups on the website, but it would seem that some event organisers are adamant that some cars and groups will not be given a run, even under the quite workable CAMS Compatability Matrix, of "best fit" when it comes to combining groups.

However, replicas, that very rich owners have thrown millions of dollars at, to recreate, or particular "desired" model/makes, are feted, and permitted to compete alongside the genuine cars.

But when time comes and the enthusiasts, the spectators are asking, "Where are all the original cars?" due to the fields full of "recreations" or " in the spirit of" where it doesnt really matter if these get damaged or destroyed, because the originals are sitting in garages or museums, un-used.

I could elaborate further, i have made submissions to the Historic Commision, in past, but it would seem to have had no effect.
Why bother?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27-03-2013, 03:55 PM
admin admin is offline
Grant Campbell
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mt Eliza Victoria Australia
Posts: 656
Default In relation to the circulated proposal of the Australian Historic Motor Sport Commiss

Comments: In relation to the circulated proposal of the Australian Historic Motor Sport Commission re FIA regulations and HTP documentation. Firstly we must define our present position accurately. We, as a community, are involved in Historic Motor Racing.

That is, the preservation and exercise of vehicles with HISTORY, by racing them as they were presented and raced in a chronological or technological period in past eras. We are not involved in MODERN racing, but for OLD cars, and we are not involved in racing MODERN cars, made to look OLD. Once either of these premises is introduced, such as the racing allowing of replicas or continuation models as in Europe, or the Biante series run here, we no longer have HISTORIC racing. We have something entirely different.

At the present time we have the acknowledged “World’s Best Practice” for the certification of our Historic Racing Cars. Why would we be coerced into diluting our system in favour of an inferior one?

Our system caters for all cars with history. The FIA system caters only for cars with “significant” history, the significance being at their discretion , for replicas , for continuation models and for updated cars with no history in that form. For this read, F1 or Le Mans type , or Targa Florio , Mille Miglia type history.

More specifically there is a list and usually only “Factory” cars are accepted and an elitist culture abounds. Our system allows of genuine historic cars of all eras and of all genres from F1 and Indy to backyard “Specials” and is egalitarian and all encompassing. The inclusion of HTP cars that DON’T satisfy our 5th Category Regulations, of replicas, or the upgrading of cars to a specification which was available in the day holds no advantage to Historic Racing in Australia.

As at 2004 there were in excess of 1500 genuine cars certified by the CAMS. Viz: 5th Category Historic Cars Status Report 2/07/04
In the ensuing years many more have been added to the data base. The argument that there are not enough cars for the amount of prospective new competitors without the influx of foreign certified cars holds no water at all and cars from this data base are regularly advertised as being available.

We should therefore ask, “Why do our numbers need bolstering with non compliant HTP cars, replicas, continuation cars and upgraded cars?” The answer is easy, and clear!! Follow the money, the advantage, or the status!!

There will be behind the scenes those pushing for these changes who will either have cars in the wings, or have access to cars with which they can either: Turn a profit. Get a technical or track advantage.
Or:
Who will move into a social, political, or coterie position that would not be available to them without the ownership or use of one of these cars. We, as members of the Historic Racing community, do not need to slavishly follow Europe, who have patently got it wrong. We also cannot have an oligarchy directing us to acceptance of a proposal to which they might adhere, but to which the body politic does not. We need to lead from our position of integrity and historical accuracy. Similar to events in Europe between 1936 and 1945, bad things happen if good men do nothing, or just “follow orders”.

As a founding member of the Victorian Historic Racing Register and one who has worked diligently to uphold it’s principles, I, for one, oppose ALL the proposed changes as being detrimental to our movement and it’s ethos and only of advantage to those with a vested interest in them proceeding.

Sincerely G.K.Smith
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.