rules??

[David Towe]

Hi everyone, I see that on another forum David Towe has been getting a bit antsy about the interpretation of the rules applicable to Group C/A cars, is it true that if a car was a cheat in its' heyday then it's OK to run the same cheats now? If so where is it printed please, or is it simply an unwritten rule that will be tolerated? If so, who made this decision? Or is Mr. Towe just being a pedantic pain the the ass? I can't work it out.

[Bill Cutler]

I would like to see what David has written - could you please post up the link?

However the CAMS policy is "as it was, so it shall be". Of course this implies that if the car was wrong in the day, then this would allow a car with PROVEN illegal componentry to run in the same configuration today.

The recent test of this policy was in regard to Paul Stubber's 6-speed RX7 at phillip island. He was granted one permit only, provided he ran with a lockout on 1st gear.

Clearly all this is a problem for us !!

So this is going to be discussed in detail at the next Commission meeting in May.

This is an important topic for discussion, so please air your views on this post, or come and see me at Bathurst, or call me directly 0407.337600

thanks

Bill

[David Towe]

It starts here Bill, http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121230&page=5 there are a few pages so happy reading. Is he wrong? Where is the "as it was, so it shall be" rule written? I thought all of these cars (well most anyway) were in original trim? Who else is cheating and in what way?

[redesp]

Small Bangers.. I have read this ongoing saga on ten-tenths for the past couple of weks.

looking at both sides of the argument I would tend to lean towards the viewpoint that the car should be presented "as homologated" not as raced.

I understand the RX7 was homologated as a 5 speed although it may have "cheated" and raced with a 6 speed... if they got away with it 25-30 years ago then great.. but besides replacing components that are no longer available OR unsafe to use today then in the spirit of the event, and category, then the cars should be presented and run as homologated.

I'm just a group C/A fan.

Is the current group of owners /drivers that competative amongst themselves?:eek:

surely these guys are not playing for sheep stations and that some form of gentlemens agreements and understandings are applied amongst group of drivers and that racing is a fair as it is competitive?:rolleyes:

but I 'spose that once the helmet goes on... red line feaver develops.:(

[drbob]

If there is a CAMS policy of "as it was so it shall be" then in my opinion it conflicts with the rules which I think clearly do not allow any items that are not homologated (apart from replacements etc that the current rules allow ).

I would like to see where that policy is written down. If it is not, then is it just the personal opinion of some people. The job of CAMS and eligibility officers is to apply the rules not to apply their personal opinion however emminent they may be.

Is there in fact a policy. What are the details of it. If there is where and when did it arise and did it cover Group A and C.

If it is not written in some rule or protocol or something then it has no force at all.

There needs to be a set of rules that apply to everyone so we know where we stand on issues otherwise you really will see sports sedans on the grid that were not like it in the day.

I can understand why some people think that a car can be run in an illegal form if it ran like it in the day but if that is to happen then it should be clearly stated in the rules.

I would really like to know the answers to these questions because I am thinking of putting nitrous back into one of my cars.

[Chris Bowden]

Ahhhh yes, the nitrous. I can't believe you took it out Robert?! :)

My 2c is that sanity must prevail, but history should not be erased, just so we can get our jollies.

Period correct and proven chassis cheats should be tolerated, but "easily" interchangeable component cheats aren't.

While maybe not his intention, I think Paul has done a service by bringing this to the fore, as it is always been a popular BS session at our place, about "dropping an aluminium engine/ 5 speed/ bigger turbo's, etc, etc, back into this and that blah, blah, blah..."

We have the homologation docs and we should use them, can you imagine how farcical this could get if we didn't?

Cheers, Chris.

[Frank Binding]

Rather than worring about who cheated in the period maybe we should be looking at competitors that have changed the ECU in their cars without the approval of the Historic Commission and are now running traction control,launch control,sequential injection and god knows what else.

[Adam]

Hi Guys,

this is a problem as you all know my car is a perfect example of the "as was shall be" as if we go to the other option I would be taking the car away from what it was and I'm sure no one would want this.
I had a long discussion with the David (Group C eligability officer) and Frank Lownes at Phillip Island and they informed me that they would make exceptions based on each cars history, as I understood this to mean if you could prove that a car had and ran a certain item that wasn't exacly to the rule of the day then you could run that same today.

[David Towe]

Rather than worring about who cheated in the period maybe we should be looking at competitors that have changed the ECU in their cars without the approval of the Historic Commission and are now running traction control,launch control,sequential injection and god knows what else.

Frank, am I to read that you would be tolerant ECUs being allowed if they don't run traction control, launch control etc.?

Adam Workman's car has a few cheats that are of varying degrees of repairability. One being the boost control knob which could easily be disconnected leaving the car with a preset, but adjustable between races boost level, and the other is the tubbed rear guards that only allowed the car to run the wheel/tyre width as homologated for the class, but would be expensive to return to original as homologated? Stubber's car with the replaceable 6 speed box? It's just a bolt in item not a major repair. The heads on some of the Toranas are apparently not cocher (spelling?) but are a bolt on item and surely a satisfactory replacement could be approved?

I think all the owners and/or drivers should be surveyed for their opinions re this matter so it can be raised at the Historic Commission meeting by Bill.

[Adam]

Yes I could put the car back to homolgated specs but that's not the point, the car is what it is and was, and that's the history think of it as piece of valuable Australian art.
If I we are to put these cars back to what should have been then we are distroying Australian History and I don't want that and I'm sure others will agree.
Does anyone know what the other historic catagories are doing? F5000, I'm sure no was bending the rules in those catagories in there day!
I also agree that we should send a vote out to all members asking which way the rule should read.
Some one said it earlier we not racing for sheep stations infact at the FoSC event at Bathurst we raced for what these cars had done in the past.

[shaun]

interesting read and discussion , i would vote for rules to be now as per the homologation rules in the hey day , how easy would it be to say my torana ran a stroker engine in the day , pay for a signed letter from a mechanic or engine builder from the day and run a stroker engine now !!! just a thought as to how things could get out of hand .

this is historic group A/C not biante !!!!

[David Towe]

Quite a dilema???? If you return to as homologated some will be out as their strut tops are too close together, or the guards have been tubbed or other major repair;)s. If you don't then you run the risk of becoming Biante as Shaun put it and alienate the rest whose cars are correct. :rolleyes:
More opinions??

[Michael Ward]

Dont all cars have to have reverse gear as required under general requirements...schedule b 12::rolleyes:

[Chris Bowden]

Enlarged wheel tubs, altered suspension pick up's, etc, They're all chassis mods that would be be absurd to alter/remove. I would support that, only once someone has convinced me that removing period cigarrete sponsorship is socially responsible, as it conforms to today's rules... Not bloody likely.

Every car in our fleet and 3/4's of the field would most likely be illegal. Its the bigger turbo's, brakes, trick ecu's, +1 gearbox's, etc, that give performance gains that should be policed (IMHO I think Paul would have, and will still, kick ass with a 5-speed. If you can find one, I have been looking for 6 months now.).

Frank's comments about TC and sequential FI have me curious... and kinda' jealous :) NO NAMES mate! Makes and models are fine though? Or are you making a confession about the XD?

[GMSEXA]

This is a big can of worms. I cant see anyone changing body work.

[Art Racing]

I think we have to come to the conclusion that there are 'illegal mods' done to cars which actually define the car and should not be changed, a la the altered tubs in some Group C cars, and there are mods which are simply illegal and do not define the car, such as stroker engines etc - these should remain illegal today. Some cars could simply not be put back together legally without major modification and throwing away many original parts; no sense there. It does need sensible oversight from CAMS rather than rigid application of rules.

My Group A car has an early model Motec in it rather than the original EPROM programmable GEMS computer. Even GEMS were unable to reprogram the EPROMS anymore hence the computer change. It was sanctioned by CAMS who required me to use the original sensors only, and to ensure I did not use a model ECU which would allow sequential injection on the car (ie single or 4 injector drivers only for my 6cyl car), no Lambda etc. Again to my mind this represents a good compromise which allows reliability with no additional functionality.

John

[RXseven]

Ever since the very first motor race, builders, engineers, mechanics & drivers have found ways to bend, twist or break any given rule book. Looking at the Group C & A rule books of the day you can see holes like a block of Swiss cheese, waiting for any individual's "interpretation". It's the nature of the beast.
However, Group C & A both have that key on track element which no longer exists in today's sanitised, hi-speed processions, the "David & Goliath effect", which give them their character & iconic status to this day. The added bonus now is having the "surreal effect" of seeing the 2 categories dicing wheel to wheel.
Every car on the grid is an individual & charismatic piece of Australian motor racing history. If it was all for a 1 million dollar prize purse, then yes bring on the lawyers. Until then..........let them race !

[Bill Cutler]

There are actually two parts to this discussion:

1) relates to existing cars with CoD's and the "allegations" of "illegal" bits and pieces. This is the domain of the eligibility officers to "police". You may be surprised how intimately the EO's know your car, and the ECU situation is certainly one area currently being looked at. And if "you" have knowledge of "discrepancies" on a fellow competitor's car and you have problems with that, then have a quiet word with an EO, I'm sure they will listen. But be prepared to back up what you say with FACTS...

2) relates to cars where there is a new CoD application - eg Paul's RX7 etc.
This is where the Commission is looking at discussing the issue in detail and possibly revising some of the policies. No decisions have been made yet, we're just all talking about it at the moment....

Bill

[Rod W]

Some may still think the sheep stations are up for grabs,
Some can drive bloody well, some may think they can.
but if you need to cheat who are you really cheating on,your competitors or yourself.
We are happy that we have a car or two to play with on race weekends, do we drag them around so we can win? No we drag them around to compete to the best of our abbilities and the cars, we don't need ecu's or any other things to make the car faster the driver has 2 feet and 2 arms, We know who we can race with and who to stay clear of because we don't need a sheep station, just a straight and non broken car and a cold beer is fine at the end of a good weekend.

[Bill Cutler]

However the CAMS policy is "as it was, so it shall be". Of course this implies that if the car was wrong in the day, then this would allow a car with PROVEN illegal componentry to run in the same configuration today.


This is an "over-arching" policy which applies to all historic groups, and exists in the CAMS manual under item 3.1.2 Vehicle Eligibility - Philosophy.
It states ...."Where any doubt exists between Historic regulations and the original period specification, the latter will take precedence."

Section 3.4.3 of the CAMS Manual, Vehicle Eligibility, Historic Touring Cars, Grp C/A Regulations, requires vehicles to comply with period Homologation Papers or Recognition Documents, but this is subject to the Philosophy statement above.

However the Commission meeting will seek to expand and clarify this point.

Bill

[David Towe]

Dr.Bob, would you like to give your professional aopinion of this? Will all this argie bargie (spelling?) be put to rest now? Or can I still fit the stroker 2Litre engine to my car?

[RXseven]

If the rules are enforced to the letter, then say goodbye to some famous machinery (& much of the appeal of the class). Whether it was the teams who built these cars being savvy enough to avoid detection, OR, the scrutineers of the day not wanting to fill out the extra paper work. Either way, the current owners are facing condemnation over issues that happened 25+ years ago. I for one wouldn't want to do major chassis surgery on a famous 6 figure race car.........& all for a plastic trophy!
In regards to "vehicles to comply with period Homologation Papers or Recognition Documents", well, they had to way back then too.......& yet they still raced !!

[Willofan]

May I speak from my experience from the days between 1979 and 1985 when I worked with a few teams in the Grp C era spending lots os time in the pits and paddocks.

There were always speculations, rumours and accusations that certain cars ran illegal items, set ups and were stretching the rules, but very rarely would anyone put up the protest money because they did not have enough facts, therefore many cars would get away with the supposed irregularity like moved suspension pick up points or special materials which were very hard to prove.

Every car went through scutineering before a race, a few failed and had to be re-worked before being allowed out, then any high place car (usually top 3) would be straight back into scrutineering as they came in off the track and no-one was allowed near them until they has been fully checked.

On the odd occasion, a team would rally up support with others and pool in protest money to challenge a car that was clearly braking the rules (ah la big turbos on Sierra's), but only if they had the facts or had been told by CAMS they could not run a component that had not been approved, but the other team slipped it in anyway (I think we called it 'live track testing') Oooops, did I say that?.

My point being, there were cars out there that stretched/broke the rules, but they are true to their history and period when they are presented today. Reading through this thread, the concern should be about when the car is now not period correct and running items, components and engine gear that was only ever dreamed about. AND You could not run stroked/overbored engines then and you should not run them now. The officers of today should be able to tear down engines at there own discretion, I recall we had to always have spare head gaskets for this very reason.

Clearly there are some cars running around today that are faster and perform/handle better then they did way back regardless of the driver skills and technology of the period. This is wrong...........

If you want to further develop a Grp C/A car to go quicker than it was capable of in its period, then go elsewhere.

[David Towe]

Clearly there are some cars running around today that are faster and perform/handle better then they did way back regardless of the driver skills and technology of the period. This is wrong...........

If you want to further develop a Grp C/A car to go quicker than it was capable of in its period, then go elsewhere.

Perhaps the solution would be, or in part be, to allow current (as at today) body/chassis modifications eg tubbed guards, repositioned strut towers etc. but any bolt on component eg 6 speed boxes on cars that weren't homologation or wrong intake manifolds on Falcons or wrong heads on Toranas/Commodores should be removed. The Bluebird internal boost adjuster could be disconnected allowing boost to be adjusted when stationary only etc.

Your thoughts??

[Willofan]

Perhaps the solution would be, or in part be, to allow current (as at today) body/chassis modifications eg tubbed guards, repositioned strut towers etc. but any bolt on component eg 6 speed boxes on cars that weren't homologation or wrong intake manifolds on Falcons or wrong heads on Toranas/Commodores should be removed. The Bluebird internal boost adjuster could be disconnected allowing boost to be adjusted when stationary only etc.

Your thoughts??

My thoughts are if the body was modified in period, OK. If they have been modified during a restoration 'after period' with the aim to improve the cars performance in recent to current years, then you have missed the point and should be exposed for changing the cars heritage. As for any bolt on component, Homologations should apply, especially things that cannot be seen like big pistons and stroked cranks.

[David Towe]

Sounds like you and I are on the same page Willofan, I agree with you entriely.

[drbob]

There was a belief out there that this "policy" applies to Grp C/A. Wrong.

Section 3.4.3 of the CAMS Manual, Vehicle Eligibility, Historic Touring Cars, Grp C/A Regulations, clearly requires vehicles to comply with period Homologation Papers or Recognition Documents. This applies to new applications just as much as cars with existing CoD's. There are no other loopholes, regulations, or old HC minutes which over-ride this.

End of story. Thanks to all for your input and discussion on this issue.

Bill

Is this the Historic Commissions view or the view of BIll Cutler ? I thought this was to be discussed at the Historic Commission.

small bangers Dr.Bob, would you like to give your professional aopinion of this? Will all this argie bargie (spelling?) be put to rest now? Or can I still fit the stroker 2Litre engine to my car?

Nope no stroker me thinks. I have analysed the rules on another forum in late March and think that period illegalities are not legal now. I can post the links if mod does not mind.

That said and done some period illegalities would be difficult to modify back to homologated requirements so I tend to agree with Willofan. But the rules need to be changed to reflect that and need to be quite clear about whats OK or not OK. What if an illegal modifiication is later discovered, in period, and then changed back to legal, would you be able to pick the illegal event
now and say thats how it ran then.

If a car ran an illegal six speed gearbox in a period event and then later ran the legal 5 speed gearbox in period can you pick the event that it was illegal to spec it to and run that now. What about the modified Texaco Sierra guards that were picked up after the event. Can you run the car now with those modified guards because thats how it ran then.

So if certain non homologated changes are now allowed they will have to be pretty well specified in the rules

[RXseven]

The August issue of "Motor Magazine" features an article on Paul Stubber's ex-Moffat Rx-7. Within the printed story about his car Paul raises the issue of it's 6 speed gearbox, claiming that it was homologated by Moffat at the time. This is completely false!
Add this to the comments made by Mick Webb in another publication about a 6 speed box being used at Bathurst in 1983 & you have all the ingredients for what has turned into a "cheating" witch hunt.

However I have done my own investigation, using original footage & have found this.......

Watching hours of dvd footage of Moffat’s Rx-7 from Channel 7’s Bathurst telecasts from the years 1981, 82, 83 & 84. In all four races the gear change points are virtually identical.
I focused on 2 main points of the circuit, from The Cutting up through ReidPark & also from Forrest’s Elbow to the first hump on Conrod. From The Cutting, Moffat makes one gear change up to ReidPark (2nd to 3rd) & from Forrest’s Elbow he makes three gear changes (2nd to 5th) to the first hump on Conrod – all within metres of each other in all four years. The earth shattering noise of the rotary makes this an easy exercise. I welcome anyone else with this footage to take a look.

The idea of more gears is to make the ratios closer, not to give it longer legs as the final drive ratio is the same. Therefore there should be a noticeable difference in gear change points AND the amount of gear changes. The footage showed absolutely NO difference.

So in regards to Mick Webb’s comments on Bathurst 1983 & when / how the 6 speed box came to be in Paul Stubber’s Rx-7, all evidence suggests none of it happened at the time.

[Fast Eddie]

Hi everyone, I see that on another forum David Towe has been getting a bit antsy about the interpretation of the rules applicable to Group C/A cars....Or is Mr. Towe just being a pedantic pain the the ass? I can't work it out.

Small Bangers, have you had any luck working this out yet?

[David Towe]

Hi Eddie, I posted that under the psuedonym of "small bangers" as I believed I may have been refused access to the forum as I was in the past. Have I worked what out yet? I think that most have decided on their own about the legality of the car.
By the way, I probably am being a pain in the arse (see, I do actually know the correct spelling of the word "arse") but I don't want the waters muddied anymore for genuine, original cars. I actually am a bit surprised by the apparent silence of the Group C assoc. committee on this subject.:confused:

[Jetwreck]

In regards to cars chassis that were illegal in the day I think it needs a lot of thought as to the approval process.....personally I don't think it needs to enforced if we already know the facts. Gearbox's and motors are the easy part......we did it on the R31.....get them checked by Cam's and sealed.....all of them....no seal no race! Running cheating bits from the day needs 100% evidence.....not just some letter from Joe Blow. ECU's are ECU's guy's......some of the ECU's of the day are just as good as the current one's.....the only difference is that you can fix or tune the current ECU's.

Oh and on Franks comments about traction control ,extra sensors, illegal manifolds or bigger wheels .....it's easy! If your caught put a fine process in place and a remove the cheating bastards from the next two major events....also the top 3 cars from each of the class's in the feature race should be inspected straight after the race.....just like back in the day.

Pretty sure that will weed out anyone taking the piss of the current rules in historic's!

[Dazz]

The August issue of "Motor Magazine" features an article on Paul Stubber's ex-Moffat Rx-7. Within the printed story about his car Paul raises the issue of it's 6 speed gearbox, claiming that it was homologated by Moffat at the time. This is completely false!
Add this to the comments made by Mick Webb in another publication about a 6 speed box being used at Bathurst in 1983 & you have all the ingredients for what has turned into a "cheating" witch hunt.

So in regards to Mick Webb’s comments on Bathurst 1983 & when / how the 6 speed box came to be in Paul Stubber’s Rx-7, all evidence suggests none of it happened at the time.

The big problem with the 6-speed issue is that the box was stated as being bought off Moffat by Matt Wacker when he purchased one of the Moffat RX-7's in Mid 1987. He was quoted in a magazine back in the day as saying:

"Not long after I bought the car I went back to Moffat for the six speed and asked how much? He said it'd cost one thousand dollars for every gear so I went off to see my friendly bank manager and came back with six thousand dollars". Moffat then added" It's got reverse". Another thousand later and the six speed was Matts.

So there is little doubting the fact that Moffat had a six speed 'box for the car. One would assume if it was available it was used at some point. However, apart from chit chat, how can you prove when it was used, that's the tough one.

I think as far as the cheater bits go, if it was the actual component in the car at the time, then to be historically correct it makes sense for it to be left in the car.

I don't think anyone should be adding cheater bits on the basis that it may have been in the car. Two sets of rules, maybe, but really, who cares. The Group C Championships were all won 26= years ago. I'd suggest those lucky enough to be able to be racing these cars today enjoy what you have. If it annoys you that much, give me your car and I will gladly race against those "cheaters"

[RXseven]

Matt Wacker bought AMR-002 off Moffat in 1987, this is the same car that Paul Stubber now owns. Matt bought it "as raced" from it's last event (1984 Surfers 300 driven to 3rd place by Gregg Hansford) complete with 5 speed box, this explains why Matt had to return to buy the 6 speed.
Yes Moffat had a 6 speed gearbox, infact he had 2 of them! One for the 1985 Daytona 24 hour using chassis AMR-004, & one spare for the same event. The Daytona Rx-7 was sold the same year (1987) & is still with it's buyer to this day in "as raced" condition, complete with it's 6 speed gearbox.

Of the 3 Rx-7s sold by Moffat, only the Daytona chassis had the 6 speed.

[Bill Cutler]

Gents, the Historic Commission has finalised the additional wording of section 3.1 of the CAMS manual (the preamble which covers Historic Vehicle Eligibility)

The relevant bulletin has been posted on the CAMS website and the link is:

http://www.cams.com.au/Sport/Bulletins%20and%20Regulations.aspx

Please have a look at the Bulletin, but I have also cut&pasted it below, with the new wording underlined:

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

5TH CATEGORY – HISTORIC CARS

REFERENCE:
CAMS Online Manual of Motor Sport
http://www.camsmanual.com.au/08_historic.asp

RATIONALE:
To clarify existing requirements in respect of the required vehicle specification in all 5th Category Historic Groups.

ACTION:
Amend: General Requirements (all Groups), Article 3 Vehicle Eligibility, 3.1 General Requirements as follows;

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1 General: Except where specifically identified these general requirements are applicable to all 5th Category vehicles. Further detail requirements for individual groups are listed separately in articles 3.2 to 3.6.

3.1.2 Philosophy: The express purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vehicles in the various groups compete in a condition, mechanically and visually, compatible with the period of racing being portrayed. “Updating” in whatever form is not permitted. CAMS reserves the right to reject any vehicle which it considers not within the spirit of these regulations. Vehicles must conform with the appropriate group date specification in concept and in detail and which must represent one point in time in the vehicle’s history. Where any conflict exists between the requirements of current Historic regulations or the relevant period regulations, and the original period specification of the particular vehicle, the latter will take precedence except where;

 components in a vehicle’s original period specification have been deemed to be unsafe for use in current historic competition;
 components not in compliance with the relevant period regulations have been the basis for the vehicle’s exclusion from a period event; or
 a substitution of component(s) has been approved.

The following evidence (given in order of priority) may be accepted to prove period specification:

(i) Manufacturers’ specifications as evidenced by manufacturer’s handbook, workshop manual or spare parts list, sales brochures or magazine articles all of which must have been published in period.

(ii) Any document, drawing, sketch or specification produced in period, which demonstrates that a manufacturer’s specification was varied in a period competition event. Specifications in magazines and periodicals of the period should desirably come from at least two sources.

(iii) Reports from recognized experts who have inspected the car.

(iv) Of lesser value will be:
a. Books and magazine articles written out of period by reputable authors.
b. Recent letters or statutory declarations by manufacturers, mechanics, engineers, designers, drivers and team members of the period.

Where acceptable evidence of a car’s actual period competition specification is not available reliance may be placed on any FIA or CAMS recognition documents published in period for the relevant vehicle model.

For Historic Groups other than Jb, Kb, Lc, S and N, a full history of the ownership and competition record of each vehicle should be provided to support any request for historic classification. This “line of history” should identify a continual chain of ownership and competition history dating from the manufacture of the vehicle until the present time. The “line of history” confirming the vehicle’s provenance must follow the progressive history of the vehicle as an identifiable entity regardless of the possible replacement of any or, over time, all of the vehicle’s component parts. Component parts which have been discarded or set aside, including a replaced chassis frame or body unit will not retain any intrinsic element of the “line of history” of the subject vehicle. Where a chassis or body unit has been replaced this will normally be noted in the Certificate of Description.



These regulations very closely follow those of the FIA. They apply to any historic car (of any category) CoD Application. The onus is now on the owner to verify the specification of the car in the prescribed manner.

If anyone seeks clarification of this please contact me...

Bill

[NSW EO]

Hi All,

What must be remembered is that you guys run cars to a "specified competition event". A cheater car for the period is unlikley to have cheated at every event. A reasonable solution to cars that had events in the period where rules were stretched is to require these vehilces to race in livery and specification of an honest event.

Had the cheater been caught at the time, they would have been excluded from results. Easy enough to exclude today by not allowing the cheater configuration.

The HC will determine how they will handle this in the not too distant future. Comments above are my own thoughts on the matter.

My best regards

Your friendly NSW EO:)

[Bill Cutler]

Where acceptable evidence of a car’s actual period competition specification is not available reliance may be placed on any FIA or CAMS recognition documents published in period for the relevant vehicle model.


Warren is 100% correct, the above clause means that if you cannot prove the "cheater" components according to CAMS evidence requirements, you can still present your car as at an event where it did meet the Homologation papers or recognition documents

Bill

[David Towe]

Should we be able to run a Lamda sensor on cars fitted with ECU's? I believe we should! As long as they are left as an open loop and used only to download stored info and change the settings in the pits to avoid a car leaning out and detonating the engine. No closed loops on cars that didn't have them in the day. Cheap engine insurance I say. I carbie car can change the tune in the pits if they have the equipment, so why shouldn't an ECU car be allowed to do the same? What do you think??:confused::confused::confused:

I saw a pic on one of the motorsport forums recently showing the thoughts of a disgruntled Group NC competitor who had written on his number plate "my engines sealed, is yours? F&#king cheats" a frustrated, honourable man I'd say. Is this where we're heading?

[Coolvet]

[QUOTE=small bangers;1548]Should we be able to run a Lamda sensor on cars fitted with ECU's? I believe we should! As long as they are left as an open loop and used only to download stored info and change the settings in the pits to avoid a car leaning out and detonating the engine. No closed loops on cars that didn't have them in the day. Cheap engine insurance I say. I carbie car can change the tune in the pits if they have the equipment, so why shouldn't an ECU car be allowed to do the same? What do you think??:confused::confused::confused:QUOTE]

I see no reason why you can't tune your car on a dyno and use a lambda sensor to accurately set the fuel mixture, but what you are suggesting is going a step further and leaving the sensor fitted for adjustments at the track. I note you are not suggesting that they be allowed to operate dynamically while racing the car but only for subsequent analysis. Seems reasonable to me.

[David Towe]

I think so. A fan in front of the car while it's on a dyno can't replicate the same airflow as 200 + kmh at the track.

[David Towe]

I saw a pic on one of the motorsport forums recently showing the thoughts of a disgruntled Group NC competitor who had written on his number plate "my engines sealed, is yours? F&#king cheats" a frustrated, honourable man I'd say. Is this where we're heading?

I see the "rules" issue has raised its' ugly head again recently. I also note the complete lack of comment on such an important topic by the Group C Assoc. committee and wonder why that is? I have read comments on here from all of them over the months but the silence is deafening and the matter of cheating cars is not going away.

[Frank Binding]

Do those thoughts include the non authorised use of ECU's?

[Bill Cutler]

We are working on the ECU issue "as we speak"

Essentially we are working towards replacement ECU's possibly being approved PROVIDED they allow no extra functions over the original item (an example being sequential injection)

It's a complex issue, updates to follow......

[David Towe]

Do those thoughts include the non authorised use of ECU's?

Interesting question, how about illegal intake manifolds, larger wheels and brakes etc. which have been used by some in particular but never disclosed openly like my Motec has always been. I've never hidden or denied the installation of my Motec Frank, have you got or had anything you'd like to disclose now?

I've discussed the ECU issue here in the past and my thoughts have been well and truly aired, but I'm happy to answer any questions about it or have my cars measured, weighed, CC'd, gearbox and diff examined or anything else you or anyone else would like to check.

The anomolies with the ex Rahimtulla have been disclosed by me as soon as I had a chance to examine the car and will be fixed before I race it in OZ. For the record the car has a 2.4 motor when it should be 2.3, it has 8 injectors instead of 4, it has a slide throttle body instead of the butterfly, as far as I know these are the only parts that are wrong with it, all of which will be fixed before it races here. It will race in NZ in 2012 in its' current trim because NZ doesn't adhere to the same set of rules at the moment, but if they change to being more like ours it will bre changed to comply.

I have put myself in a very large glass house and I'm not going to be giving anyone opportunities to throw stones at me.

If we don't bring these cars into line we will end up with a sports sedan in a Group A/C body shell and that will be detremental to the whole category.

I actually can't understand the mentality of someone who feels the need to cheat to win, are they that desperate for some form of success and recognition in their life?

Just out of curiosity Frank, being as I openly admit I know bugger all about the components that were legal on most other cars, how legal is your Falcon? No, I'm not making any accusations, I'm just asking a question for my own education, as I say, I know nothing about the homologation requirements and conformity of other cars. I'm sure it is and always has been legal?

What do you think about the category as a whole in its' conformity to the rules? Are we good at it? Are we on track with your personal expectations? Let's hear from you, I value your coments.

[Frank Binding]

David with all due respect I very much doubt that you have ever valued anything that I have ever said. As for my car somewhere along the line you seem to haved been listening to the usual inuendo and rumours. If you wish to have my car inspected I am more than willing to let you and an eligability officer go over it at your lesure at my workshop, just ring me and we can arange it.

[David Towe]

I think you're a bit mistaken there Frank, I actually think we value very much the same things, we just go about it in different ways.
As I said Frank, I'm not making any accusations, I was just asking a question which you've answered and I happy with that answer.
I am still interested in your thoughts re the general questions, What do you think about the category as a whole in its' conformity to the rules? Are we good at it? Are we on track with your personal expectations?

[David Towe]

We are working on the ECU issue "as we speak"

Essentially we are working towards replacement ECU's possibly being approved PROVIDED they allow no extra functions over the original item (an example being sequential injection)

It's a complex issue, updates to follow......

Hi Bill, what about allowing a Lamda (spelling?) sensor if not set up as a closed loop? That way it's just used for data recording.

[Coolvet]

Hi Bill, what about allowing a Lamda (spelling?) sensor if not set up as a closed loop? That way it's just used for data recording.

You're repeating yourself, David! You already mentioned that in post #37.

[David Towe]

I know Carey thanks, I thought I had engaged one of the committee in a conversation that might have gone somewhere, but alas it was all too fleeting.