Ray Bell's 'Auto Action' column

Thanks Mick, after winning the Mildren Trophy at Eastern Creek a few years, but no-one else seems to be interested---typical !  Nevertheless this sort of thing keeps the enthusiasm going despite any negatives that crop up from time to time.

Dick certainly looks like he is enjoying his racing by the smile and the body language of the others in their driving suits indicates that they did too!

 

I am all for one day meetings for club events.  The Mallala 1 dayers (day night usually) give us practice and 3 races and then we have Sunday to recover which for the ancient pilots is good!  Good too for the officials I would think.  And I for one appreciate the efforts put in by the officials even if sometimes I have been known to swear (under my breath of course) at some of them. 

 

On a happy note I know of one Farrell clubman car being put back to original specs to come out historic racing 'soon'.  Soon maybe a while off because of the time that seems to be involved in this sort of thing.  There is another one in a shed that just needs the owner to get his finger out too (instead of wasting his time and money on private practice days flogging his Porsche (and its gearbox) to bits (you know who you are David - come on you did promise)!

Edited by 2Bob, 23 April 2014 - 05:53.

Now having had the chance to read Rays article yes I agree, it raises many questions which has even less answers.
I like the idea of car sharing but have seen many examples here in the west where one multi vehicle owner does this and on many occasion he got back a worn out car after a season or so rather than what would have been originally agreed. It's a big ask to have to pick up the tab and a harder one to get blood off a washed stone.
I guess it gets back to mitigated risk. I like the idea of letting someone out in my car, but I can't afford the cost of a rebuild if something went wrong. This it totally different to accepting the costs of damage if I cause it.
So in the end it still gets back to trust and the size of a prospective drivers bank account and there willingness to come good if the worst should happen.
Given in historics if driven appropriately an accident is rare they seam to do happen more often than they should.
It's a tough one to definitively answer Ray.

Edit. Your looking pretty good in your photo in autoaction there Ray.
( bloody IPhone typing )

Edited by giffo, 23 April 2014 - 06:02.

Oh, that photo's a couple of years old...

Mind you, the one in RCN is getting seriously old, taken in June 1972!

Thanks Mick, after winning the Mildren Trophy at Eastern Creek a few years, but no-one else seems to be interested---typical !

It could be worse Dick....poor Kenny has no one to congratulate him, the group on the left are busy yabbering and KB is just shuffling his feet!

Yeah, and Kenny really had something to celebrate. As a fellow "old bloke" I have really admired Kenny's efforts in F5000s against a heap of younger drivers 

It would also be helpful if the old hands like Lee would encourage new comers and pass on some wisdom instead of making sniping comments about CAMS mandated roll cages in newly built historic cars...

 

Some years ago when I got back into Kart racing, and turned up at the track for my first practice day in 20 years, I was feeling pretty clueless.. Jason White (multiple Targa Tasmania winner) spotted us fumbling around and spent an hour with us setting up the Kart and getting us running, top bloke, and went out of his way to help muppets like us. Newcomers to the sport are vital to keep it healthy, as vital as getting those old cars out of sheds. We also know the value of our cars, and don't want to throw them into the wall (or worse, another competitors car), especially after spending hundreds and hundreds of hours building them. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

It would also be helpful if the old hands like Lee would encourage new comers and pass on some wisdom instead of making sniping comments about CAMS mandated roll cages in newly built historic cars...

 

Some years ago when I got back into Kart racing, and turned up at the track for my first practice day in 20 years, I was feeling pretty clueless.. Jason White (multiple Targa Tasmania winner) spotted us fumbling around and spent an hour with us setting up the Kart and getting us running, top bloke, and went out of his way to help muppets like us. Newcomers to the sport are vital to keep it healthy, as vital as getting those old cars out of sheds. We also know the value of our cars, and don't want to throw them into the wall (or worse, another competitors car), especially after spending hundreds and hundreds of hours building them. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

WTF? I made no comments re this. Just HANS devices, universally unpopular among most historic competitors.

And I have helped people for a long time. Though some will not listen now. and keep breaking stuff !

 

Edit. Actually I will apologise. BUT the roll cage in the Porsche is not the CAMS requirement. If you read the CAMS manual  that cage is way over the top for an historic car. Not period at all. Depending on the year [and category] that the car will be raced as they did not have a rollcage at all. And no I am not saying race without a cage!

 Just glimpsing the regs and hi shoulder yet alone head support seats are not legal, nor is monster tachs, shift lights etc that seem to proliferate in many of these cars.

Too many GpN and Group S cars use technology way newer than the era of the car. Worse CAMS have allowed Mustangs to use late model blocks which will make them faster than they already are,,, and EH Holdens are finally allowed to use a 3 speed all synchro gearbox. Something mooted 20 years ago. Yet Mustangs seem to get away with  late 60s gearboxes and diffs!

And ofcourse Nc and I believe Sc are not racing to the rules raced too in the 64-73 period. So have no real historic value.

CAMS too are being inconsistent allowing modern cages but not seats. Whats next,, 2" 3 point belts?

 

I am not sure about open classes, my involvement has always been tin tops though I know many categorys are using modern technology. Especially 5000s. As Brenton alluded too before.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 26 April 2014 - 03:22.

Let us suppose that I have not raced since 1970,s & in those days I raced a bug eye Sprite, over tha last few years I have been refurbishing the car to how it was back in the earlier days.

The things that I would have to look at are what tyers are in use now & what would the cost be.

What requirements are required by CAMS for me to obtain my Licence, Safety equipment including Race Suit, Underware, Helmet etc. what would the cost be to first of all get on the track.

All of the above is hypothetical but it would be interesting to have a reply on the cost as I feel that could be a large factor in returning to the Sport

Let us suppose that I have not raced since 1970,s & in those days I raced a bug eye Sprite, over tha last few years I have been refurbishing the car to how it was back in the earlier days.

The things that I would have to look at are what tyers are in use now & what would the cost be.

What requirements are required by CAMS for me to obtain my Licence, Safety equipment including Race Suit, Underware, Helmet etc. what would the cost be to first of all get on the track.

All of the above is hypothetical but it would be interesting to have a reply on the cost as I feel that could be a large factor in returning to the Sport

A decent 'budget' suit, helmet, boots, gloves and seemingly HANs device will be at least 2k. Probably $2500. Though modern 3"belts are half the cost of 20 years ago. A liscence with medical and ECG is probably 7-8 hundred.

Tyres depends ofcourse on the class being competed though you will start at a grand.

The rest though is the cost of entries, fuel for the racecar with AVGAS around the $3 a litre mark plus fuel for the towcar [and bearing in mind towing regs in some states now maybe having to buy a towcar] at at least currently a $1.40 a litre. Plus if you go too far from home accomodation too, though the 4wd towcar may well make a good bed!

Tyres

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 28 April 2014 - 23:32.

right hand corner, right hand wheel damage, which means simply overtake on outside, car ended up between middle and right hand side of the track.....simple analysis.

the point is basic at best, why take on the most expensive car on the grid when in reality that clubman thing was never going catch either the f1 or the 5000's which is indicative in race 4 and 5.

my video footage shows the aftermath, the F1 luckily wasnt damaged and he got to drive onwards anf upwards, funny who won the sheep station trophy. Its time to re-evauluate ones ambitions when its about beating a car with more provenance just for BS bragging rights in some outer burb garage, time to get a life, some of us do historics for the event, others do it for their BS ego. If it means that much, step up to the plate, spend the money and take on the real boys........but we all know that wont happen when people whinge about a 300+ dollar entry fee....wtf

 

Don't want to string this thing out as it is off topic, but I can't let one of South Australia's best (and most successful) racers be accused of stupidity or "bragging rights". When you have been winning trophies for 40 years you don't need bragging rights. You race because you love it!

 

In fact comments like this are another reason that some drivers give up racing....

 

Ex Natsoft -

 

33 Ian Ross 1:21.7027 1:14.8380

39 Jim Doig 1:19.9719 1:14.7954

 

and let's see it from Jim's point of view -

 

Ohh Dear! Not a fairy tale ending then
 
Loved the spliced 2014/2008 footage....and Jim certainly ain't squeamish about that red line!
 
Thanks - great footage   (yours didn't load for me...)

That would tend to mean...

Originally posted by Lee Nicolle
.....Really it just makes one a racer and one a dreamer.

...this is a pretty true assessment of the situation.

Not that this has much to do with the topic.

Ian is no slouch behind the wheel and has been circulating in Historics for many years....

I for one, would be very interested in what Ian Ross or someone from his camp has to say about this incident (HOWEVER) I also understand that it may be the subject of an investigation etc

In racing, as in life, things aren't always as they seem to be...

Ian is no slouch behind the wheel and has been circulating in Historics for many years....

I for one, would be very interested in what Ian Ross or someone from his camp has to say about this incident (HOWEVER) I also understand that it may be the subject of an investigation etc

In racing, as in life, things aren't always as they seem to be...

I like your philosophy - that's what we need to keep historic racing fun.

 

As I said in another thread, Ian was looking after a prized investment and got faster all weekend. I understand that he and Jim shook hands later.

I doubt that there's any 2008 footage in there...

Someone just didn't bother to set the date on the camera.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and will probably get smacked down severely but I really don't mind.

I was secretary of the HTCAV at the time that group NC was thought about and helped in a small part to write the regulations.

The category was designed as a follow on from the rejigged App J/ Group N regulations. It was designed to replicate cars that raced in the period of 1964-1972. Now that is a hell Of a long period in which to write a set of regulations to cover.

The category was to cover vehicles that competed in rounds of the Australian Touring Car Champoinship and the Improved Touring Category in that period. IIRC there are/ were about 8 sets of different regulations covering the two categories over the period.

So the regulations were set out in parallel and worked through consistently to try and come up with a single set of agreed rules to cover the period.

I am sure that I speak for the majority of members of the various committees whe I say that I am some what aggrieved to hear some of the derogatory comments about the Group Nc category and the rules.

I have a copy of the original rules and all the minutes of the meetings that went in to trying to formulate them and it was many hours of tic tacking get even get some kind of agreement.

Originally there was no scope for cars that ran only as series production cars to run in the Nc category. This was brought in a couple of years later. Cars that competed as production touring cars were allowed to be built to the Nc regulations as even then it would have been impossible to build a car that strictly complied with the series prod regulations and then which year of which prod touring regulations does one select at the basis for building said car

Really there is no difference between a "historic" bug eyed sprite racing in Group S that doesn't have a COD or an "historic" XU1. Racing under the Group N category.

The preamble for both categories is fairly self explanatory they are for for production based sports or touring cars.

So if any one want to blame me for part of the problems with Group Nc then fine. I helped write the regulations and so I guess that I am partly blame for any bun fight that now appears to cop so much criticism from the bleachers. It was the natural progression from App J/ group N.

As far as the touring car masters cars are concerned they are a break away group from Group N not because we kept changing the rules but because we wouldn't change the rules to go with what they wanted to do with the cars. The original concept of the category before the break away was for a core group of cars to race at rounds of the V8 super cars back filled with cars from the state based Group N categories. That worked fine for about 12 months and then some wanted to get better and less breakable parts from the for group as they were having problems with losing cars from the core group. They also wanted to run signage and individual advertising which was not supported by the various state bodies or the HCC at the time. The HCC only wanted category sponsorship where the competitors down the grid received the same sort of assistance for competing as did the front rows of the grids. That didn't suit as neither did the sort of things that they wanted to change so off the went into the wild blue yonder and they are wher that are today.

It's a category for the mega big buck guys and we at the Historic level go on our way sometime blindly but with our hand over our hearts saying that we as much as anyone else are trying to stay within the spirit of the regulations. Sometime some people step over the line but it's always been that way and sad to say probably always will be.

"Name with held to protect the innocent".

Ian is no slouch behind the wheel and has been circulating in Historics for many years....

I for one, would be very interested in what Ian Ross or someone from his camp has to say about this incident (HOWEVER) I also understand that it may be the subject of an investigation etc

In racing, as in life, things aren't always as they seem to be...

 

I don't wish to prolong this discussion too far but, given what has already been said, I agree that some words from Ian's side would be appropriate.  I am not yet back in action following a recent date with the surgeon and therefore went over to Mallala with Dick Carter.  We shared a garage at the circuit and a house in Gawler with Ian for the weekend so I feel pretty well placed to offer his perspective on the incident with Jim Doig. 

 

Ian was firmly of the view that he had passed clearly in front of the ASP before moving a little to the left just before the braking marker and that Jim simply ran into his left rear wheel when they hit the brakes.  The marks on Ian's rear tyre would seem to have confirmed that.  I saw the incident from the grandstand and, having now also seen the video, it seems to me that Ian was essentially correct in believing he was in front but that he was probably not as far in front as he thought and, given the enormous difference in the braking capabilities of the two cars, contact in the braking area was probably inevitable. Unless you have driven one the braking performance of an F1 car like the Beatrice is difficult to comprehend and could never possibly be matched by the ASP.  With both cars approaching the corner so very close together at a similar speed it would have been difficult for Jim to have avoided contact when Ian braked in front of him.  As someone has already suggested the collision should probably just be written off as a 'racing incident' although it does confirm the need for great care when mixing cars of such disparate performance characteristics.

 

Its also worth mentioning that the lap times in the 1.14's for the two cars in this race which have previously been posted give a somewhat false impression that they were generally close in performance over the weekend.  Times recorded in each of the Q and R events over the course of the weekend show that Jim's fastest in each event was in the 14's but that, in all races other than that in which they collided, Ian got down to 11's and 12's.  When observing the races it was quite apparent that Ian spent the early part of each race carefully warming his tyres before putting the hammer down and moving forward later in the race.  That was precisely what he was doing at the time he caught and passed Jim.  Their times to that point of the race were very similar and, following the collision, Ian had no opportunity to record the sort of quicker times he did in other events.

 

It must be born in mind that Jim Doig and Ian Ross have very different levels of experience and motivation and their cars at this event were so vastly different that it is hardly fair to regard their contest at Mallala as a serious motor race.  I don't know Jim but he has always impressed as a very dedicated racer with a lifetime of experience in the ASP and local knowledge at Mallala greater than most others which all results in quite frequent giant killing performances.  There can be no doubt that he is far better placed to exploit the performance potential of the ASP than Ian could with any of his collection of cars which would all have a performance potential well in advance of the ASP.

 

Ian is first and formost a collector who simply enjoys driving a diverse range of motor cars.  He is certainly competitive but  he comes from a different mould to a racer like Jim Doig.  Whereas Jim is focussed on the one car he has driven for as long as I can remember, the diversity of cars in which Ian has demonstrated competent performances is quite staggering.  Those I can recall in recent years include the Beatrice Lola F1 he had at Mallala, a Ralt RT4, Elfin 600 Repco V8, the MRC Repco V8 sports car and an Elfin 300 sports car.  He maintains them all himself and comes to race meetings without any support other than that which may be offerred by any interested bystanders. He took the Beatrice to Adelaide on his own for the previous weekend's demonstration event and stayed for the Mallala meeting at the request of the organisers although not originally having expected to race the car at all.  Those of us who observe his activities are continually surprised that he is able to manage it all with so very little assistance and I doubt that any one else would contemplate the prospect of taking a 1000 bhp turbo F1 car 1200k from home for two successive weekends of competition without any assistance at all.

 

Despite their differences of approach and attitude our historic events benefit from the participation of both Jim and Ian and we should all be glad that in the pit area after the Mallala incident they appeared to part without great rancour although I suspect that they still have somewhat different perspectives on it.

There is a thread in the racing forum about the decline in TV viewer numbers for F1. I found this to be a particularly interesting post and it kinda paints a big picture for what is ailing just about all forms of motorsport.

 

 

 

I think it's pretty simple: Mobility, speed and noise, first by train and then by car and plane, and the war-industrial (mechanical) machine were THE defining "cool" tech news for a few generations in the 20th century. Read the Italian futurist writings from the 1920ies and look at the paintings, by Marinetti et al.

 

Quote

Manifesto of Futurism

(...)

(4) We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.

(...)

(8) We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.

 

 

And listen to the Jimi Hendrix Experience's EXP on the Axis: Bold as Love Album from 1968. (Equipment with good stereo accuracy recommended)

 

This image of the car, and the racing car in particular, as well as of the daring heroes who tamed these machines, extended into the 80ies and maybe 90ies. I was born at the end of the 60ies and grew up with a fascination with cars that was shared by all men and even some women in my extended family. People like Lauda were nearly universally revered. Car washing was a common family weekend pastime through the 70ies in the residential area I grew up in, which was nearly exclusively populated by young people who had started their families in these new buildings (still part of the post-war rebuilding effort) through the 60ies. These families got their first hard-earned cars during this time, and learning to drive them was an adventure. The car brought them the then-mindboggling freedom of packing in their kids and going to places like Italy and France, so amazingly different from the lameness of the  Austrian countryside. They did not need a mobile DVD player to shut me up because I'd watch for hours with fascination how my parents drove that car with the unknown landscape streaming by, until we arrived at the sea.

 

The Senna interview where he talks about his famous Monaco quali lap is still part of this quasi-Futurist imagination of speed and the car as the new frontier. Enlightenment and, for Senna, closeness to god through speed, man becoming one with the machine.

 

It is inevitable that the car loses, or has lost, this connection to the tech frontier. The unity of human and machine is now imagined in transhumanism. Though I don't know why one would rather unite with a phone than with a race car, it's obvious that generations for whom cars were the most normal and frequently annoying thing during their childhood, while the internet, computers, and smartphones were in incredibly exciting change every day, have a different relationship to car racing.

 

Edit: Bunch of edits.

Edited by Wirra, 01 May 2014 - 18:40.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and will probably get smacked down severely but I really don't mind.

I was secretary of the HTCAV at the time that group NC was thought about and helped in a small part to write the regulations.

The category was designed as a follow on from the rejigged App J/ Group N regulations. It was designed to replicate cars that raced in the period of 1964-1972. Now that is a hell Of a long period in which to write a set of regulations to cover.

The category was to cover vehicles that competed in rounds of the Australian Touring Car Champoinship and the Improved Touring Category in that period. IIRC there are/ were about 8 sets of different regulations covering the two categories over the period.

So the regulations were set out in parallel and worked through consistently to try and come up with a single set of agreed rules to cover the period.

I am sure that I speak for the majority of members of the various committees whe I say that I am some what aggrieved to hear some of the derogatory comments about the Group Nc category and the rules.

I have a copy of the original rules and all the minutes of the meetings that went in to trying to formulate them and it was many hours of tic tacking get even get some kind of agreement.

Originally there was no scope for cars that ran only as series production cars to run in the Nc category. This was brought in a couple of years later. Cars that competed as production touring cars were allowed to be built to the Nc regulations as even then it would have been impossible to build a car that strictly complied with the series prod regulations and then which year of which prod touring regulations does one select at the basis for building said car

Really there is no difference between a "historic" bug eyed sprite racing in Group S that doesn't have a COD or an "historic" XU1. Racing under the Group N category.

The preamble for both categories is fairly self explanatory they are for for production based sports or touring cars.

So if any one want to blame me for part of the problems with Group Nc then fine. I helped write the regulations and so I guess that I am partly blame for any bun fight that now appears to cop so much criticism from the bleachers. It was the natural progression from App J/ group N.

As far as the touring car masters cars are concerned they are a break away group from Group N not because we kept changing the rules but because we wouldn't change the rules to go with what they wanted to do with the cars. The original concept of the category before the break away was for a core group of cars to race at rounds of the V8 super cars back filled with cars from the state based Group N categories. That worked fine for about 12 months and then some wanted to get better and less breakable parts from the for group as they were having problems with losing cars from the core group. They also wanted to run signage and individual advertising which was not supported by the various state bodies or the HCC at the time. The HCC only wanted category sponsorship where the competitors down the grid received the same sort of assistance for competing as did the front rows of the grids. That didn't suit as neither did the sort of things that they wanted to change so off the went into the wild blue yonder and they are wher that are today.

It's a category for the mega big buck guys and we at the Historic level go on our way sometime blindly but with our hand over our hearts saying that we as much as anyone else are trying to stay within the spirit of the regulations. Sometime some people step over the line but it's always been that way and sad to say probably always will be.

"Name with held to protect the innocent".

My take on Nc is, there was two main sedan type categories in the late 60s and early 70s. improved Production with the likes of Geoghans, Beecheys Mustangs, Chev Novas etc from about 65 on. And lots of others too, modified cars with modified original engine, gearbox and diff. With bigger wheels and racetyres.  Very quick and quite expensive. And on occasion some legendary racing. Which I personally ever only saw the once. But have seen some on TV, and quite a bit on the net in the last decade.

 

Or Series Production which for most of that period were showroom type cars and which more and more homolgated versions kept arriving. GT500, Cooper S, GT, GTS, XU1, RT etc. Far less quick but full fields though the cars started to be obsolete quite quickly. Though many ended up as used cars!  These cars morphed into GpC which is really irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Both were very different to each other, and very different to Nc. Which is a bit of both, with on a couple of occasions the Geoghan Mustang  complete with flares and 10" rims. And it did not fit!

 

Muscle Cars is as described, though really not that more expensive than Nc. Because the components dont break nearly as often. Though they are Sports Sedans really so are not historic. Just kind of look like an American Trans Am car. Which is ok, the racing can be good though too many people are racing for sheep stations. Most of them very experienced drivers who should know better.

 

I look around Nc cars with all their far later components allowed, or just used anyway and am justified in the comment they are not historic. They depict nothing from the era. Excellent racing at times from a wide variety of often interesting cars. But not historic. And allowing late model blocks for the V8s will make the problem even worse. The blocks are far better and will allow more power. So they will be even faster!

This does not apply for the most part to Na and Nb. Though it should have been limited to cars raced here pre 65. I think I am right that Norm Beecheys Mustang was first raced 65?

Getting back to later type components. On most models, Na Nb and Nc I see more modern intakes, carbys, gear shifts, that are it seems allowed. As well as rollcages, both alloy and modern design, seats, shift light monster tachs as well as wheels that are too modern. Some of it is ofcourse commonsense, some is pure performance. That is without what is internal in all engines. Pistons, valves, cams, springs, clutches etc are all 40 years better. But really we will not go there!

Then we have the tyre debate, maybe the scruts should enforce the safety rules instead of the nitpicking that happens too often. At PI 2012 we had 160mph cars racing on 120mph tyres, worse many cars were using tyres either too small or too large for the rims. In part because of the shortage of the correct sizing. But tyres failed and caused accidents. CAMS needs to police this far better. If and when a car gets in the crowd, or just injures another competitor the insurance repercussions will be huge. Unfortunatly the  big cars have got too fast for the rubber on open circuits. And the tyre manufacturers are not interested in the small volumes needed. So the V8s are still on H rated tyres [the Yokohamas do seem to be safe at the higher speeds] and are 40MPH faster than the ratings, or XU1s and Mazdas etc are 20mph faster than the tyre rating.

Other categories too have the same problem. Both historic and Improved Productions and the like.

I cannot offer an answer, any similar size road tyres have the same issues. The more modern sizes generally come in higher speed ratings, though a V8 at PI is way past a V rating tyre. Proper race tyres may be the answer,, but then the cornering speeds get higher and the rest of the mechanicals are just that much more fragile.

I guess this is just not an Aussie problem either, it seems the US and Europe have the same basic problems. 

A lot of the above applies to most historic categories. 

And people please read what I have written, dont can me. But think about what I have said.

Crikey.....I'm glad I did my touring car [Appendix J] racing when I did, in the early '60s.

 

OK, I'm a 'grumpy old man', but this is all mad.

Just to clear up the roll cage in my Porsche. The car is being built to current Cams regulations and the cage has been inspected by the CAMS scrutineer during construction (to make sure I will get a log book). Obviously the Porches that ran in period did not have a cage that complex but my cage had to comply with current regulations as it is a new car and the cage has to be built to the 2014 regulations. The obvious change (and the one that added a lot of cost) was the extra leg running down the front pillars.

 

And I apologise to Lee for being grumpy that night

And I apologise to Lee for being grumpy that night

Yeah, that's fine...but what about all the other nights you were grumpy!

Just to clear up the roll cage in my Porsche. The car is being built to current Cams regulations and the cage has been inspected by the CAMS scrutineer during construction (to make sure I will get a log book). Obviously the Porches that ran in period did not have a cage that complex but my cage had to comply with current regulations as it is a new car and the cage has to be built to the 2014 regulations. The obvious change (and the one that added a lot of cost) was the extra leg running down the front pillars.

 

And I apologise to Lee for being grumpy that night

Hating to be narky BUT that is far above the CAMS standards. I looked at the manual, and have spoken to a CAMS scrutineer who builds rollcages who says the same as me. The cage is not period and is way above the standard required.

In fact that cage would not be accepted in Improved Production as it is too extensive. That is a 'modern' class.

From memory a half cage is still acceptable though I too would build a car with a full basic cage. eg main hoop with cross brace [ing], bracing to the rear,  front hoop and very maybe simple intrusion bars.

For a modern car with far more reclined screen pillars that type of cage is more needed.

An historic car is supposed to be period, though commonsense upgrades should be ok. But not a Touring Car cage who use it to stiffen the car, not just for rollover protection

So can I ask which cars are interesting in the category but not historic. I can't think of any cars that are currently competing that were not competing in the period. We are fairly hot what is permitted vehicle wise.

I wanted to run a a late model LC GTR which came with the 173 engine and the Aussie 4 speed. Despite being built by the factory that way. None was ever raced in that format so was not permitted. There are other cars that have been put forward in a similar way and have been knocked back.

As there were so many sets of regulations covered in the period , could I ask which one should have been used. Cause no one at the time of drafting the regs could agree on a single set that were suitable.
Later model blocks have been permitted in some cars because there was not enough suitable blocks available. If you are talking mustangs they were having real problems with the webbing of the main caps tearing out. There heads were not much bettering that the cooling passages were rusting out. So what are we supposed to do have no cars on the grid. There is really no car in the category that doesn't have some kind of problem with parts failure.

The redrafting of the rules in the 1980's for App J were written fairly well but no real thought was given that cars that didn't race in the period in Australia would be raced. Maybe it was an oversight but it is what it is.

Tyres are the perennial issue and have been since I started in Group N. We have looked at control tyres, period racing tyres and everything in between.
Control tyres are not possible as there is no manufacturer that make a tyre in 10,12,13,14 and 15" diameter in what are suitable widths.
Period racing tyres have been tried at least down here in Victoria not sure about other states and were found wanting. Even Hoosiers have been tried ant they were just a POS. So we are using radials which seem to be hanging in there reasonably well and despite the odd occasion when ther is things like an earthquake in Japan or a factory fire availability is reasonable.

Even in the days of Improved touring the internals of an engine and gearbox were free. That's still the same.

Seats and rollover protection were a safety item seats introduced after a couple of near disasters when the drivers seat frame broke in an accident. Now that was not a good thing. Would we really like to see a spinal injury from a six foot six guy driving a mini with a low back fairly flimsy original seat happen. Because it has nearly happened a couple of times.

So some mightn't like the way the rules have developed but I believe we have over the years allowed fairly limited changes aimed at keeping cars on the grids and preserving driver safety as well.

And even Austin 7's are racing on much grippier tyres than original are we going to stop them. For heavens sake times have moved from no seat belts cardigans an string backed gloves.

I'll get off my soap box now. I have some idea of where this has come from and how it has got there as I have been involved with the Victorian arm of the App J assoc and HTCAV since 1984.

Cheers
Peter Sneddon

Edited by Piquet959, 01 May 2014 - 10:54.

There are at least three that have gone on from Historics ( group N) to higher ranked categories that I can think of. Kim Jane, James Brock and Elliott Barbour.

A lot have come back the other way Peter Hopwood, the Baragwanna brothers, Glenn Seton, Gary Rogers, Lawrie Nelson. I'm sure there are others.

From memory, Bart Mawer started in Historic FFs...

Jim Richards is another for your 'backwards' list, also John Bowe, now driving an old F1 car.

Hardly a retrograde step, of course... but it's the perception, isn't it?

There is a thread in the racing forum about the decline in TV viewer numbers for F1. I found this to be a particularly interesting post and it kinda paints a big picture for what is ailing just about all forms of motorsport.

 

Glad you liked it. Between where I had written "Read the Italian futurist writings from the 1920ies and look at the paintings, by Marinetti et al." and the image of the painting, the original post had this quote, which was left out when you quoted. Without it, the post makes less sense, so here it is:

 

Manifesto of Futurism

(...)

(4) We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.

(...)

(8) We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 01 May 2014 - 14:02.

Apologies, it seems the quote system doesn't like quotes.

 

All a bit futile reallly as it appears lost on the philistines.

Edited by Wirra, 01 May 2014 - 18:50.

I wanted to run a a late model LC GTR which came with the 173 engine and the Aussie 4 speed. Despite being built by the factory that way. None was ever raced in that format so was not permitted.





 

.

Yes they were. As under three litre touring cars. At least one in Victoria and at least two in NSW.

Dale.

It is quite obvious no-one knows the answer to [or forgotten] the original question......how to "Get them out"?

 

If politicians don't know the answer to a difficult question, they talk about something else, and hope no-one notices.

So can I ask which cars are interesting in the category but not historic. I can't think of any cars that are currently competing that were not competing in the period. We are fairly hot what is permitted vehicle wise.

I wanted to run a a late model LC GTR which came with the 173 engine and the Aussie 4 speed. Despite being built by the factory that way. None was ever raced in that format so was not permitted. There are other cars that have been put forward in a similar way and have been knocked back.

As there were so many sets of regulations covered in the period , could I ask which one should have been used. Cause no one at the time of drafting the regs could agree on a single set that were suitable.
Later model blocks have been permitted in some cars because there was not enough suitable blocks available. If you are talking mustangs they were having real problems with the webbing of the main caps tearing out. There heads were not much bettering that the cooling passages were rusting out. So what are we supposed to do have no cars on the grid. There is really no car in the category that doesn't have some kind of problem with parts failure.

The redrafting of the rules in the 1980's for App J were written fairly well but no real thought was given that cars that didn't race in the period in Australia would be raced. Maybe it was an oversight but it is what it is.

Tyres are the perennial issue and have been since I started in Group N. We have looked at control tyres, period racing tyres and everything in between.
Control tyres are not possible as there is no manufacturer that make a tyre in 10,12,13,14 and 15" diameter in what are suitable widths.
Period racing tyres have been tried at least down here in Victoria not sure about other states and were found wanting. Even Hoosiers have been tried ant they were just a POS. So we are using radials which seem to be hanging in there reasonably well and despite the odd occasion when ther is things like an earthquake in Japan or a factory fire availability is reasonable.

Even in the days of Improved touring the internals of an engine and gearbox were free. That's still the same.

Seats and rollover protection were a safety item seats introduced after a couple of near disasters when the drivers seat frame broke in an accident. Now that was not a good thing. Would we really like to see a spinal injury from a six foot six guy driving a mini with a low back fairly flimsy original seat happen. Because it has nearly happened a couple of times.

So some mightn't like the way the rules have developed but I believe we have over the years allowed fairly limited changes aimed at keeping cars on the grids and preserving driver safety as well.

And even Austin 7's are racing on much grippier tyres than original are we going to stop them. For heavens sake times have moved from no seat belts cardigans an string backed gloves.

I'll get off my soap box now. I have some idea of where this has come from and how it has got there as I have been involved with the Victorian arm of the App J assoc and HTCAV since 1984.

Cheers
Peter Sneddon

Peter,, please read the current CAMS manual. Seats are restricted  high side but no shoulder or head support. Race seats yes but old fashioned ones that are actually near impossible to buy. And that has only been in the recent past anyway. 

Rollcages can be substansial and still be period. In period some cars never had them at all! I am never going to condone that.

 

2850 GTRs were raced as series production car.Just look at old entry lists for Bathurst. For GpN there is no advantage racing one unless you want to play under 3 litre.  Where a rotary or a Capri will be quicker anyway. And buying pistons then is custom made only,,, I am having to buy such for a EH engine I am doing at the moment.

 

As for Windsors with main problems, do not turn them as hard and that problem is resolved! And as for heads!!!!!!!  All 40 y/o engines are rusty inside. Those early heads really are not that hard to find, especially in the US. The made hundreds of thousands of them. And the Yanks were always more likely to use inhibitors or antifreeze so less corrosion than the Aussies who used plain old water! As a Torana racer I know has said' if they can use modern heads we should be able to use alloy heads' Many porters are going too close to the water on Holdens,, and getting water injection! One bloke is on his THIRD. But dont port them so big and again problem resolved.

A similar thing has happened with Chevs too. That extra 10-20hp and 300 rpm can cost a lot of money!

The original components limit the power, using modern increases it, considerably with a Windsor. 

 

As for tyres. 205x60x15 should be on max 7.5" rim. Conversley 275x60x15 Hoosier should be on mininum 8.5" rim. Hoosier make a 245x60 which suits an 8" rim so all those 275s should be knocked back. The smaller tyres will be faster anyway. Not rolling all over the rims. Use them on a 10" rim they were designed for.Though the 032 Yokey is still a better tyre in my eyes. As seems to be proven. Those 205 Bridgestones were quick, but more than a few shredded.  Stretched and speed rating problems.Interestingly too the Hoosiers have no speed rating on them at all. So they are not a legal road tyre, they are actually a race tyre. My local Hoosier bloke reckons they are 150mph rated,, but on the proper size rims.

Hoosier though can equip most cars, 10" 13" 15".  Who uses 14" yet alone 12"? And being a specialist supplier is more equipped to handle small orders.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 02 May 2014 - 01:03.

Hi Lee
The only 2850. I could find was a 4 door.
The reason that I'd go that way is that all Group N racing is class based and the cut off is under 3.0 ltr. Racing an LC XU1 like I do is a hassle since the regulations were changed to require cars to use tha cylinder block and head of the year, make and model. This was brought in after lobbying from someone north of the border after being beaten by an LC fitted with a 202.

Guess what there are No cars in Nc that comply with that section of the regulations.

Especially XU 1's. As they had a specific cylinder block and cylinder head. Before that change in the regulations I was happy and there were no problems with having a 202 in an LC. Now I'm not competitive against the other toranas not only because I don't run a roller cam but also because of the nominal decrease in capacity to 3048 as opposed to 3300.
A 173 puts me below in the under 3000 cc class and at least I might be able to fluke a class win down here as there is only a couple of Capris' competing.

Edited by Piquet959, 02 May 2014 - 21:25.

It is quite obvious no-one knows the answer to [or forgotten] the original question......how to "Get them out"?
 
If politicians don't know the answer to a difficult question, they talk about something else, and hope no-one notices.

Geez Greg...there is enough politics in Motorsport without getting real politicians involved

Maybe the answer is as simple/complicated as encouragement via a car club or another... a mobile "working bee" or something. 

 

"Hear you've got <insert car here> in the shed... if you were interested in a low key club day, a few of us fellas could come around and help knock it into shape..."

 

 

 

Dumb idea, I know...

With the regard to "get them out". Perhaps historic motor racing could look to motorcyclings Broadford Bike Bonanza, which is an event over the Easter weekend at Motorcycling Victoria's Broadford motorcycling complex.

This is a non competitive, but still spirited weekend of people just getting their bikes out and exercised in a friendly environment. It helps that they have a road circuit, a motorcross circuit and a speedway oval within the complex, but it has been a huge success, with people just getting their bikes up and running for this one event, and if you have a suitable road bike, feel free to enter as well, just don't leak oil, OK?

In car racing terms, its Regularity class, but while motorcycling seems to keep it simple, car racing seems to bring in complications, for whatever reason.

Hi Leee
The only 2850. I could find was a 4 door.
The reason that I'd go that way is that all Group N is class based and the cut off is under 3.0 ltr. Racing an LC XU1 loke I do is a hassle since the regulations were changed to require cars to use tha cylinder block and head of the year, make and model. This was brought in after lobbying from someone north of the border after being beaten by an LC fitted with a 202.

Guess what there are no cars in Nc that comply with that section of the regulations.

Especially XU 1's. As they had a specific cylinder block and cylinder head. Before that change in the regulations I was happy and there were no problems with having a 202 in an LC. Now I'm not competitive against the other toranas not only because I don't run a roller cam but Aldo because of the nominal decrease in capacity to 3048 as opposed to 3300. A 173 puts me below in the under 3000 cc class and at least I might be able to fluke a class win down here as there is only a couple of Capris' competing

2850S LC GTRs were not uncommon. And were raced, probably just updated 161 GTRs. XU1 Blocks are just handpicked standard blocks [and some were not very good either] Wether it is 186 for LC or 202 for LJ. Head castings are all very similar to production heads, just better finished plus valve size etc.

 

Unlike a Chev for instance that used several very different castings, both blocks and heads.

 

Windsors were a little more year specific. They got better over nearly 40 years! Even a late 80s 302 is a LOT better than a 60s block.[I have done a couple] Not just casting design but material too. Virtually interchangeable but a distict power advantage potentially. Even in comparison to the very special Boss blocks. 20 years of trying they got it right.

Fords were cast better in the 80s than the 60s,,, GM were cast worse, especially Holdens.

Having seen dozens of red 202s as a HQ engine sealer you can see the shitty castings. Sometimes a slightly blind eye was turned about cleaning up casting flash. This is probably part of the trouble too with big ported race heads. The difference in casting quality is huge.

Getting back to the original topic (remember that?), which was, getting the old cars back on the circuit, perhaps we only have to look at motorcyling's Broadford Bike Bonanza, held for the last couple of years at Motorcycling Victoria's complex at Broadford Victoria over the Easter weekend. (google it if you need to).

It is a non-competitive but still spirited weekend of just getting your bike out for the weekend and going at your own pace for all to appreciate.

It helps that the Broadford complex has a road circuit, a motocross track and a dirt speedway, which means more people can get their own bike out,both competitive or road bike, but it also means the paying spectator can swap from one discipline to the other and see everything that historic motorcycling  has to offer, all within the same complex.

A bit like the Goodwood Festival of Speed in Australia's own backyard. It does seem though that the motorcycling people have a bit more relaxed attitude to officialdom to events such as this, and if the car people tried the same thing , it would be bogged down in red tape to the point that its not worth going on with. Lets hope that events like these can prosper. 

From the outside looking in and as a average dumb-ass numpty, someone who goes to historic meetings when I can having with absolutely no previous race experience as either an owner, driver or pit crew, but just as an average fan of motorsport, its always find it extremely disappointing that more historic cars don't participate in historic events. But after reading some of the posts on here, sadly I can now understand why you don't participate Without some form of affordability and clear definitions of the term 'historic' I couldn't do it either!! Excessive fees, expensive maintenance, excessive track fees, entrants fees, changing regs, different rule interpretations etc etc I don't know how you do it. But as Ray alluded to, we need to get cars 'out of the sheds' to participate. But how? Can we some how make it cheaper by negotiating track fees so entrants as a whole aren't paying over a weeks wage to just compete? Do respective regulations for a number of categories need an overhaul to bring them more in to line as to period correct?? The impossible allure of sponsorship for a race weekend?? , As I said, apart from being a fan, I have no concept of what you guys go through to 'entertain' me. I just wish there were more of you trackside.

G'day gtsmunro - it is good to hear an opinion with no hidden agenda!

 

I have been out of the scene for nearly 10 years whilst overseas, so my comments have to be seen in perspective, but my guess is that the big barriers are fees and bureaucracy/politics. 

 

These issues have to be overlayed on the various stages of family life and financial demands but many of us are now free of the need to support kids... albeit not necessarily dripping with cash!

 

As we get older we naturally have less tolerance for issues that impede our daily life and from my own point of view, if it becomes "too hard" then it is no longer fun to do.

 

From what I hear, the GEAR meetings at Wakefield Park and John Tetley's non-CAMS events in Queensland are designed to minimise both the cost and bureaucracy.

 

More power to them!

Its really not that expensive if you pick the right historic category based on what you can afford to run and where you want to run in the field... You can run safely, and have a lot of fun, without filling your cabinet full of cheap trophies...

 

We ran Karts for a few years.. and the closer we got to the front the more we spent and to be truthful, the less fun it became..  Club days were fun, the big meetings not so much fun, and then the mainlanders would come down and blow us into the weeds. Now, I`m not suggesting money buys victories, we got flogged by old equipment by guys that were way better than us, but there is a difference between a hobby and a profession... we are hobbiests.

 

And Lee, you are correct, my cage is well above group NC standards...  I went back and looked through the group NC regs and yes, I could have got away with a much cheaper cage..but I`m happy with what is in my car, its still just a six point cage, and does leave the car eligible for tarmac rallies should someone choose to do so with it in the future.

Edited by stuartbrs, 03 May 2014 - 15:04.

This isn't a purely Australian problem.  See the current thread about [the British] Donington Park.

 

There are several issues:

(1)  The average contemporary fan seems to no longer be interested in attending any race meeting

(2)  Those who were fand 'back in the day' need to be tempted back to watch historics

(3)  The average enthusiast would-be competitor has a limited budget, both money and time

(4)   If constantly changing regulations mean he has to spend hard-earned money to change his car merely to comply he may not be able to afford to do so

(5)   If regulations allow non-period parts, the owner of a period correct car may feel that his car is no longer competitive with "2014 vintage hot rods" and opt not to race

(6)   If period parts are costly or unavailable, an owner may feel that he should be allowed to substitute newer components.  With the proviso that they should not enhance the performance

(7)   Not everyone can win but some people feel they should

(8)  A particularly Australian problem appears, judging from what's written on this forum, to be that some CAMS officials are out of touch with reality while others appear to enjoy over-regulation.

What may be an even worse scenario is that the Oz cars could go straight for the sheds to overseas markets.

 

The Dawson-Damer Lotus 49 (their last F1 Lotus) is to be auctioned at the next Goodwood 'Festival of Speed' and much to my dismay the ex Mildren BT11 had a 'for sale' sign on it a SMSP today.

 

.

Just picking-up on the last few posts, not having read the whole thread, it seems to me that cost is the Number One killer in these categories.
Just looking at a few of the latter posts in another thread about Australian historics, I see photos of an Austin A30, a Bugeye Sprite, an Alpine, and a TR3, all with Minilites....
Racing at the time, I don't recall any of those types of cars having anything better than standard wheels, other than a couple of Bugeyes which had knock-off wires...
And, I look at my own situation - I have recently been offered a "free" drive in a competitive Mustang in a category known as Australian Muscle Cars, which is a "cheaper" historic touring category for American muscle-cars, but with cost-limiting control items, like tyres, brakes, engine mods, etc.
I've reluctantly knocked it back, purely on the basis of cost.
I can have the car supplied and prepared, free of cost. But I have to provide entry fees, fuel, tyres, breakages (blow-ups), and damage...... And that's the big one. I know I'm not going to crash it, but the other goons....
And, because my Treasure simply hates any motor-sport, I cannot justify spending a bunch of our money on this, especially when you get some dick-head who will put you in the wall and just shrug his shoulders and walk away...
The attraction of these cars is that you can apparently build a brand-new competitive Mustang/Camaro/Firebird etc for about $130,000... and that's pretty cheap...
Just off the top of my head, if I wanted to go out tomorrow and fit myself out for a drive it would probably cost me the best part of $5000 just for licence renewal and kit...Current-spec suit, boots, helmet, gloves, balaclava, Hans-device, licence etc
OK, you need this stuff, but the costs are just out of control.
And, I like to do things properly, or not at all, so I'd want a set of tyres for every weekend, $2000, fuel, entries, a few minor scrapes and trims,etc, etc and I'd reckon you would be lucky to get away with under $5000 per weekend, provided it wasn't an "away" weekend which would double that with travel and accommodation.
Too much.

Edited by seldo, 04 May 2014 - 11:37.

I aggree with Seldo on costs, motor racing to me was a Hobby, there for low costs, if you wish it to be a Sport then dig very deep into your bank account.

Seldo states that even as a Hobby or a Sport the initial fitting out to go motor racing is now in the $5000 range with the new Cams rules this is also going to effect SuperSpints & Hillclimbs, what will the costs be in another 5 years.

Even in days past Motor Racing was allways costly but it was affordable, today it has reversed it costing structure.

Dan, you are correct...it was affordable "in days past". With some help from Midge Wood, NSW CAMS state secretary, I managed to get my [reasonably-priced] provisional G.C. licence - in 1961. Midge [a very efficient lady, who worked in a tiny office in East Sydney] seemed to be able to process all CAMS 'stuff' almost single-handedly. Now CAMS is a multi-million-dollar business, and seems to me a bit like "The tail wagging the dog".

 

Yesterday, at Eastern Creek - sorry, SMP - I had a chat with [as well as many other old friends] Geoff Stone, F.Vee driver. Geoff and I drove Vees together in the late '60s, early '70s. He tried very hard to talk me into "getting a Vee again", and join in the Historic Racing. A fairly good 1200 Vee can be bought for less than $10,000, however the start-up, and running costs are quite high. At this stage it's GEAR Cub days for me!

Cost was the reason i got out off car racing years ago ,and took up Karting again so much fun for the $$$ and you can race 52 weeks a year if you wanted to and your Back and Neck can stand it.

What may be an even worse scenario is that the Oz cars could go straight for the sheds to overseas markets.

 

The Dawson-Damer Lotus 49 (their last F1 Lotus) is to be auctioned at the next Goodwood 'Festival of Speed' and much to my dismay the ex Mildren BT11 had a 'for sale' sign on it a SMSP today.

 

.

Isn't the problem that some people want far too much for their cars, hence they sell them overseas to the bigger market.

 

This Brabham is a beautiful car with a great history. It has been for sale for at least five years, maybe longer, and advertised extensively, but never with a price mentioned. He must want over the odds for it

Just picking-up on the last few posts, not having read the whole thread, it seems to me that cost is the Number One killer in these categories.
Just looking at a few of the latter posts in another thread about Australian historics, I see photos of an Austin A30, a Bugeye Sprite, an Alpine, and a TR3, all with Minilites....
Racing at the time, I don't recall any of those types of cars having anything better than standard wheels, other than a couple of Bugeyes which had knock-off wires...
And, I look at my own situation - I have recently been offered a "free" drive in a competitive Mustang in a category known as Australian Muscle Cars, which is a "cheaper" historic touring category for American muscle-cars, but with cost-limiting control items, like tyres, brakes, engine mods, etc.
I've reluctantly knocked it back, purely on the basis of cost.
I can have the car supplied and prepared, free of cost. But I have to provide entry fees, fuel, tyres, breakages (blow-ups), and damage...... And that's the big one. I know I'm not going to crash it, but the other goons....
And, because my Treasure simply hates any motor-sport, I cannot justify spending a bunch of our money on this, especially when you get some dick-head who will put you in the wall and just shrug his shoulders and walk away...
The attraction of these cars is that you can apparently build a brand-new competitive Mustang/Camaro/Firebird etc for about $130,000... and that's pretty cheap...
Just off the top of my head, if I wanted to go out tomorrow and fit myself out for a drive it would probably cost me the best part of $5000 just for licence renewal and kit...Current-spec suit, boots, helmet, gloves, balaclava, Hans-device, licence etc
OK, you need this stuff, but the costs are just out of control.
And, I like to do things properly, or not at all, so I'd want a set of tyres for every weekend, $2000, fuel, entries, a few minor scrapes and trims,etc, etc and I'd reckon you would be lucky to get away with under $5000 per weekend, provided it wasn't an "away" weekend which would double that with travel and accommodation.
Too much.

In that category you need new tyres every event and a good crash repairer on pernemant call. And to get that even at cost of materials etc these days is fairly hard. The 5k though is probably a bit excessive IF you do all the basic prep yourself. Though 5k on a broken engine would be cheap!

And as I said the other day too many people who should know better are racing for sheep stations in that class.

Though those cars are not historic in any way except for looks. They are Sports Sedans, especially with mechanicals, eg Chrysler powered AMC, 9" diff for all, Jericho gearboxes and the like.

 

Also just as a point the 'Minilites' you see around are normally Performance Superlites that are under a grand a set. Made here in Adelaide. I sell them! It costs most of that to get a set of std Sprite, A30 etc rims widened these days. And you still have fragile 50 y/o centres to contend with. That dont take the grip of the current tyres. Wether they be bias belt or radial.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 05 May 2014 - 07:14.

So I sat down and worked on this one a bit and I find if I cost it out correctly I can run the March for $1000 to $1200 per meeting excluding entry & tyres. (assuming I save the difference, which I don't) That being not all are up front costs but a collective of those which would become deferred costs like engine rebuild & some parts etc which can typically done over several years between rebuilds. So every other cost is an addition from there on. Tyres I can usually make last 2 seasons here in the west which is about 8 club meets for me.

What concerns me the most and I would image most other drivers of open wheeled cars is the potential of a 30k+ engine damage (BDG) & similar if you do a tub, so hence I drive accordingly and accept the risk. I can fully appreciate needing several sets of tyres per season in the east given the level of competition and the differing level of competitiveness of allot of the drivers there so that would clearly drive costs up further.

 

As for cars being sold off to O/seas. Yes there are some very good ones on their way out which is sad but has anyone done a stocktake of what's arrived over the last 5/6 years? I think you may be surprised of the quality and quantity of cars that have landed here as well. 

 

For me personally I didn't get into this because it was cheap, I did it because I love my motor sport & found historic racing (again here in the west) was the best value for money of them all (dirt included) despite the initial start-up 'getting into' costs which fortunately also equates into a fairly reasonable exit return. (reasonable exit = about same as entry)

Edited by giffo, 05 May 2014 - 06:55.