john.r.davies Posted September 28, 2009 Report Share Posted September 28, 2009 These regs have been posted on the TSSC MsB, as so many there are keen to take up hill climb, but many are dismayed by them. I am too, as with great respect, I think they need to be rethought. Maybe I'm a dreadful nerd, but I study regs. I used to study the TRR/TSSC race regs, for loopholes, until that was scotched by the catchall, "If it don't say you can do it, you can't " reg. It's an interesting discipline, with some illustrous alumni, Colin Chapman and Smokey Yunnick for two. This time, I'm looking at the regs with an eye to bringing in new drivers, and those who want to take part but are being put off by some of their provisions. Regs are written to a standard proforma, provided by the MSA, but this proforma is more suited to a hitech, high spending, semi- or fully professional race series, not a tiny part of a club that wants to have a few inexpensive events. The MSA will accept variation if that is what a Club wants, so why stick to this minutely defined pattern that can only be enforced by for instance, costly engine dismantling, in the workshop of a professional, independent engineer. Then, as an example of micro-regulation, in each class, " the block must be externally identifiable as that fitted to the original model or specified option." That could mean the same engine as fitted in the factory, but I don't think you do mean that. I think you mean to prevent some idiot fitting a 6 litre V12 to a TR3 - fair enough, good intent - but why the original engine? Won't another from the same model's series do? Spitfire engines changed from less than 1300 to nearly 1500. Only the early ones could really rev, but many cars now have 1500s as the original sizes are unavailable. You would exclude them by insisting on this. Again, the regs for each class go on to define the acceptable gearbox as, "Any gearbox from a standard production car of any manufacture may be fitted in the original location." What? Ford, Audi, anything? As long as it isn't an Alfa transaxle? I know that people are fitting such gearboxes, and differentials, but why so free with those when you are so minute about engines? Please, consider rewriting these regs, going through them all, not just these examples, with the users in mind, their cars and their budgets. In particular, new drivers who may not have built their cars with your series in mind, but want to come into it. Give them some latitude. The TR (with TSSC) Hillclimb series cannot prosper without them. I'm independent in this, as I'm not a Hill-climber (well, once a year as a local entrant at Barbon). I've no incentive, except to encourage people into motorsport as a whole. Best wishes and good luck to the Hill Climb! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rcmcewen Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 These regs have been posted on the TSSC MsB, as so many there are keen to take up hill climb, but many are dismayed by them.I am too, as with great respect, I think they need to be rethought. Maybe I'm a dreadful nerd, but I study regs. I used to study the TRR/TSSC race regs, for loopholes, until that was scotched by the catchall, "If it don't say you can do it, you can't " reg. It's an interesting discipline, with some illustrous alumni, Colin Chapman and Smokey Yunnick for two. This time, I'm looking at the regs with an eye to bringing in new drivers, and those who want to take part but are being put off by some of their provisions. Regs are written to a standard proforma, provided by the MSA, but this proforma is more suited to a hitech, high spending, semi- or fully professional race series, not a tiny part of a club that wants to have a few inexpensive events. The MSA will accept variation if that is what a Club wants, so why stick to this minutely defined pattern that can only be enforced by for instance, costly engine dismantling, in the workshop of a professional, independent engineer. Then, as an example of micro-regulation, in each class, " the block must be externally identifiable as that fitted to the original model or specified option." That could mean the same engine as fitted in the factory, but I don't think you do mean that. I think you mean to prevent some idiot fitting a 6 litre V12 to a TR3 - fair enough, good intent - but why the original engine? Won't another from the same model's series do? Spitfire engines changed from less than 1300 to nearly 1500. Only the early ones could really rev, but many cars now have 1500s as the original sizes are unavailable. You would exclude them by insisting on this. Again, the regs for each class go on to define the acceptable gearbox as, "Any gearbox from a standard production car of any manufacture may be fitted in the original location." What? Ford, Audi, anything? As long as it isn't an Alfa transaxle? I know that people are fitting such gearboxes, and differentials, but why so free with those when you are so minute about engines? Please, consider rewriting these regs, going through them all, not just these examples, with the users in mind, their cars and their budgets. In particular, new drivers who may not have built their cars with your series in mind, but want to come into it. Give them some latitude. The TR (with TSSC) Hillclimb series cannot prosper without them. I'm independent in this, as I'm not a Hill-climber (well, once a year as a local entrant at Barbon). I've no incentive, except to encourage people into motorsport as a whole. Best wishes and good luck to the Hill Climb! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rcmcewen Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Hi John, I think you may have misinterpreted what you have seen. The Regs posted on the TSSC website have been developed by TSSC members such that they can participate in the Revington TR / TR Register Sprint and Hillclimb Championship, rather than enter as guests. These proposed changes are up for discussion at our Drivers' Meeting in November. As you rightly say the regs follow a format layed down by the MSA but it is very wise not to deviate from this format if you want to get approved status quickly at the year start. The TR regs have been in existence for many years and get slightly modified each year where necessary following discussions at the Drivers' Meeting in November in an attempt to allow current practice in the TR world to be accepted. The Championship is designed for enthusiasts who enjoy a bit of reasonably cpompetitive motor sport to compete against each other and enjoy a good social meeting at a reasonably low cost. I would suggest you read the Regulations in the spirit in which they are written and applied by the Technical Committee and Scrutineer, where it says that "a gearbox from a standard production car of any manufacture can be fitted in the original location" it means it, because it is getting fairly common now for TRs to have Ford and Nissan gearboxes fitted. I have been involved in the Championship now for ten years, the last five as Coordinator, and I have never had problems with those wishing to join regarding compliance with the Regulations.....It seems to me that if it ain't broke why fix it! How about joining in and seeing how things really work Regards Roger McEwen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted September 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Thank you Roger! For a reply very much in the spirit of my post. I hope I may pass on your words about new drivers and compliance to those considering entry? John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted September 29, 2009 Report Share Posted September 29, 2009 Hi John, I've kept an interest in the Sprint and Hillclimb Championship since Steve Wolf started it, and that must be nigh on 30 years ago. It just developed naturally from the TR Goodwood Sprints, 1977 onwards . . . . Under Roger's stewardship, the TRaditional approach of finding ways in which people can compete, as opposed to finding reasons why they can't, has been successfully maintained. Couching the regs in an MSA approved format is a tried and tested technique, and it works. How the appointed officials interpret those regs is an art form in itself, and I'd suggest you'll find they're well accomplished in terms of keeping both competitors and MSA bureaucracy contented . . . . I'd be amazed if the Sports Sixers encounter any real difficulty in blending in to an evolved mix - I'd suggest they need only refer to Roger to informally discuss any potential pitfalls and the means of avoiding them. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wayne S Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 2 cases in point racing in this years championship at the Harewood round: TR7 - fitted with a 4.6 Litre Coscast Rover V8 engine. Spitfire - fitted with a GT6 6 cylinder engine. All can be seen on the video's section of the Yoof facebook page.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
john.r.davies Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 That is all most encouraging, thank you. Encouragement that I have passed on, on the TSSC site, to (ahem) encourage them! Power to the Hill Climb! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rcmcewen Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The point of the Revington TR / TR Register Sprint & Hillclimb Championship Regulations is to allow any member who would like to try a reasonably cheap form of motor sport to have a go. The issues raised about engine sizes are within the Regulations. The 4.6litre TR7 would compete in Class 3C whereas the six cylinder Spitfire would compete in Class 4. This in no way removes the competitive element of the sport. Our classes are divided into Roadsport (Class 1), Tuned Roadgoing (Class 2) and Modified (Class 3). These classes are then divided by engine capacity / number of cylinders. In addition we have a Class 4 for 'other' Triumphs which is currently being discussed regarding a proper structure. Each sub class has a Bogey Time against which individual times are compared to arrive at Championship Points. It is quite possible for 'standard' side screen car to win the Championship, as happened a few years ago, as equally as a full blown V8 race car on slicks. The Regulations can be down loaded from this website by following the links in the Competition News area, and I am always willing to discuss particular issues with prospective competitors, or pass them on to someone who can. In 2004 it was agreed at the Drivers' Meeting that:- “Whilst we all take it seriously – we do not want a serious championship. It’s the taking part rather than the winning ( though that’s a bonus) that counts. The primary aim is to allow any TR driver to compete without making it too difficult to get started., to get as many involved as possible AND to enjoy ourselves." Regards to all Roger rcmcewen@lineone.net Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjsquire Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 In 2004 it was agreed at the Drivers' Meeting that:-“Whilst we all take it seriously – we do not want a serious championship. It’s the taking part rather than the winning ( though that’s a bonus) that counts. The primary aim is to allow any TR driver to compete without making it too difficult to get started., to get as many involved as possible AND to enjoy ourselves." Regards to all Roger rcmcewen@lineone.net I have to say I find the above remark somewhat amusing in the light of what took place at the drivers meeting at the end of the 2008 season. If this is not a serious championship and the taking part is the most important aspect, why did the drivers consider it necessary to remove the GT6's from class 3 a/b when they have been allowed to compete in that class since 2000? This ban is a serious matter for me having spent many hours and a not inconsiderable sum developing a car specifically for that class over a period of several years. If someone could give me one sensible reply to that question, I would try to accept it but no rational explanation has ever been forthcoming. As an aside, the TR7 with sprint engine is allowed and this was never even sold to the public. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjsquire Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 A deafening silence - why am I not surprised! Come on Rog, as coordinator, head above the parapet and give us some input even if it is only to say G-T L--T! Regards Patrick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi Patrick, Roger's 'member profile' shows that he hasn't been on this Forum since 1.07pm Oct 9th, when he last posted - so in fairness he may well not be aware of your comments ? You could always email him suggesting that he might like to look at the Forum and respond ? Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rcmcewen Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Thanks Alec for the prompt. I must admit that I didn't think it was worth commenting on Patrick's post, as the subject has moved on from the issues that Patrick can't accept. Patrick was asked, and accepted some years ago, to produce a set of Technical Regs for non TR cars in the Championship. This never happened for reasons that I don't want to go into, but Ian Horsfall, an enthusiastic Hillclimber in his Spitfire / GT6 has taken up the challenge and produced a structure in the Regs for non TR cars. This proposal will be considered by the Competitors at the Drivers Meeting in November. If approved the Championship will have properly controlled classes for non TR cars as well as TRs. This will eliminate the reasons for the differences that occurred a few years ago with the non TR drivers. I would like to point out that I am only the Coordinator of the Championship. The Technical Committee oversees proposals regarding Regulation changes, and these are passed or rejected by those Championship Drivers that turn up at the Drivers Meeting. This means that if you want to change you have to take part: change from outside is not possible. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed awaiting the recommendations of the Drivers at Novembers meeting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjsquire Posted October 14, 2009 Report Share Posted October 14, 2009 Thanks Alec for the prompt. I must admit that I didn't think it was worth commenting on Patrick's post, as the subject has moved on from the issues that Patrick can't accept.Patrick was asked, and accepted some years ago, to produce a set of Technical Regs for non TR cars in the Championship. This never happened for reasons that I don't want to go into, but Ian Horsfall, an enthusiastic Hillclimber in his Spitfire / GT6 has taken up the challenge and produced a structure in the Regs for non TR cars. This proposal will be considered by the Competitors at the Drivers Meeting in November. If approved the Championship will have properly controlled classes for non TR cars as well as TRs. This will eliminate the reasons for the differences that occurred a few years ago with the non TR drivers. I would like to point out that I am only the Coordinator of the Championship. The Technical Committee oversees proposals regarding Regulation changes, and these are passed or rejected by those Championship Drivers that turn up at the Drivers Meeting. This means that if you want to change you have to take part: change from outside is not possible. As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed awaiting the recommendations of the Drivers at Novembers meeting. Roger. I am sorry you feel, despite the fact we competed and socialised with each other very amicably (I thought!) over some eight years, that the matter I refer to is not worth commenting on and is now closed. I would have expected a little more respect than that. As to the fact I haven't been able to accept it, I would ask the casual observer of this thread to picture the scene. I hope that by going into a little more detail, it might be clearer why I do have difficulty accepting what has taken place. I eventually won the 2008 championship by the slenderest of margins on the very last event at Castle Combe from a fast charging John Weedon who was competing in the same class as myself. I had had a head start that year as he only started using 'slicks' after a number of the events had taken place. I arrived at the annual get together to proudly accept my award and to say a few words of thanks (as you do) to all those concerned with helping with the championship. At that point I had absolutely no inkling of the bombshell that was about to be dropped. It is customary at these events to have a drivers meeting prior to the dinner which involves a pint or two and a discussion about any issues or changes that need to be addressed, usually of an insignificant nature. I noticed on the agenda handed out at the start of the meeting that there was an item regarding class 3 a/b and TSSC cars but it did not say specifically what was to be discussed. Nor had there been anything said to me in the paddock at any time during that season. When the meeting moved on to that item, I was told for the first time that the proposal was to eject non TR's from the class, this after some 8 years of amalgamation. To say I was shocked is an understatement. I was dumbfounded. I had had no time to give the matter any thought, prepare any defence or offer any logical opposition to the proposal so there was very little discussion on the matter and no specific reason given for the change of direction. As I was the only non TR driver there I could see that if it went to a show of hands, I was onto a loser so I sat there shocked whilst it took place, and I must re-emphasise without any prior warning whatsoever. Please also bear in mind I have spent 10 years progressively developing my car to compete in this specific class and have competed non-stop every year in that time. It was a total bomb-shell! It was only at this point I was asked if I would think about some form of regulations for all non TR's and as the change was only to take effect from the 2010 season, it was suggested there was plenty of time to consider it. I numbly said I would think about it. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say you do not want to go into reasons as to why the proposed non TR regulations never happened. As far as I am concerned, it didn't happen because I simply didn't do it. I was so shocked and miffed at what had taken place at the meeting which with hind-sight was quite clearly stage-managed beforehand. All the above is open to perusal by the other drivers concerned at the time, all of whom I feel sure will have no option but to corroborate my version of events. I hope that having read the above, any reader of this thread can understand why I am well pee'd off about what took place and particularly about the manner in which it was contrived. It might help to explain why I am still unable to accept being thrown out along with others without any reason being given to this day, neither just nor unjust. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rcmcewen Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Patrick, Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger, as I tried to explain previously. As a matter of fact and to keep the record straight, on the 1st October 2007you were issued with an e-mail, as were all Registered Championship Contenders, and attached to that e-mail were two documents. The first entitled Agenda 2007, the second entitled Proposed Changes 2008. Subsequent to the meeting a set of Minutes were written and distributed to all members and on this subject they state "The discussion surrounded the lack of any regulations for non TR Triumphs within the championship and the following possibilities were aired. a) Invite the TSSC to produce a relevant set of regs. Exclude non TRs c) Allow TSCC cars to compete but within their own Class. Patrick offered to write a suitable set of regulations for a TSSC class to apply in 2009 which would mean that only TRs could win the Championship overall from 2009 onwards. This proposal was agreed." Roger Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjsquire Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Patrick,Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger, as I tried to explain previously. As a matter of fact and to keep the record straight, on the 1st October 2007you were issued with an e-mail, as were all Registered Championship Contenders, and attached to that e-mail were two documents. The first entitled Agenda 2007, the second entitled Proposed Changes 2008. Subsequent to the meeting a set of Minutes were written and distributed to all members and on this subject they state "The discussion surrounded the lack of any regulations for non TR Triumphs within the championship and the following possibilities were aired. a) Invite the TSSC to produce a relevant set of regs. Exclude non TRs c) Allow TSCC cars to compete but within their own Class. Patrick offered to write a suitable set of regulations for a TSSC class to apply in 2009 which would mean that only TRs could win the Championship overall from 2009 onwards. This proposal was agreed." Roger Roger I have checked my archived E Mails and the E Mail was not received at my home. However, a further search at work confirms it was sent to my work address and unfortunately I did not spot it amongst the many I receive that are thought to be spam by the PC and are treated as such and put in a SPAM folder. It does not in any case alter the facts though it is true the proposed change would not have come as quite such a shock had I seen the E Mail. I now realise I am totally wasting my time trying to discuss this, but to summarise, I still can see no good reason why it was considered necessary to remove GT6's from 3a/b after 8 years of eligibility. All modifications to our cars fitted the regulations of this class entirely fairly and the MSA scrutineers were happy. The times put up by the quickest GT6's are no better than the fastest TR5 and TR7 sprint that have shown themselves, the former only latterly. So WHAT WAS THE POINT? You almost seem to be advocating a different class for every type of Triumph car that wishes to compete. Anyway, I certainly don't intend to bin my car just because of your wish to manipulate the regulations to suit TR's, so sadly, goodbye TR Register series from at least one longstanding and regular competitor and goodbye Revington TR for any future work (I seemed to be one of the few regulars that have supported RTR). It's nice to see at last what one is dealing with! Patrick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted October 16, 2009 Report Share Posted October 16, 2009 Not often I'm discumknockerated, but this topic is definitely having that effect . . . . I've had the occasional involvement with the Sprint and Hillclimb Championship over the years, for quite a few seasons I was a Championship steward, I've been part of the organising team at various TR Register sprints at Goodwood, Curborough, Daedalus and Boscombe Down in years gone by. As such I've had the pleasure of attending a few annual drivers' meetings, and jolly occasions they were too. More than 20 years ago I hosted a small competitors and officials meeting at my home here in Mere . . . . one of the items under discussion was encouraging Triumphs other than TRs, Neil Revington was keen on widening the appeal, as I recall. So was I. In recent years my involvement has been restricted to spectating at the odd event, but I still chat to competitors now and again. I have to say, Patrick's comments and the tone in which they appear to be expressed seem to me to be very different from anything else I've ever heard about the Championship in 30-odd years. One aspect that particularly concerns me - Patrick's apparently being kept in the dark about proposed changes in rules and the possibility of creating new rules for TSSC cars, the 'bombshell' as he puts it of 2008. And yet he was contributing to a thread on that same topic in 2007, on this Forum . . . . http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index....12179&st=20 I know we're all getting older, short term memory loss affects me regularly (or so the V8 Lady insists! ), but I can't quite equate comments on this thread with those of 2 years ago . . . . If I'm misreading or missing something, of course I stand to be corrected. Hopefully the TSSC lads will continue their endeavours, I can't for one moment imagine that they would not be welcomed by TR competitors and organisers alike. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjsquire Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Not often I'm discumknockerated, but this topic is definitely having that effect . . . . I've had the occasional involvement with the Sprint and Hillclimb Championship over the years, for quite a few seasons I was a Championship steward, I've been part of the organising team at various TR Register sprints at Goodwood, Curborough, Daedalus and Boscombe Down in years gone by. As such I've had the pleasure of attending a few annual drivers' meetings, and jolly occasions they were too. More than 20 years ago I hosted a small competitors and officials meeting at my home here in Mere . . . . one of the items under discussion was encouraging Triumphs other than TRs, Neil Revington was keen on widening the appeal, as I recall. So was I. In recent years my involvement has been restricted to spectating at the odd event, but I still chat to competitors now and again. I have to say, Patrick's comments and the tone in which they appear to be expressed seem to me to be very different from anything else I've ever heard about the Championship in 30-odd years. One aspect that particularly concerns me - Patrick's apparently being kept in the dark about proposed changes in rules and the possibility of creating new rules for TSSC cars, the 'bombshell' as he puts it of 2008. And yet he was contributing to a thread on that same topic in 2007, on this Forum . . . . http://www.tr-register.co.uk/forums/index....12179&st=20 I know we're all getting older, short term memory loss affects me regularly (or so the V8 Lady insists! ), but I can't quite equate comments on this thread with those of 2 years ago . . . . If I'm misreading or missing something, of course I stand to be corrected. Hopefully the TSSC lads will continue their endeavours, I can't for one moment imagine that they would not be welcomed by TR competitors and organisers alike. Cheers, Alec Sorry Alec, yes, you "have misread something". This one can't be put down to my memory, though many things are by my version of the V8 lady. If you check the dates and the detail of my contributions, you will see they were subsequent to and as a result of THE MEETING in question. You will also see from my comments that my views were no different then from now. I am saddened by my involvement in this matter as I am not by nature a belligerent or complaining type but my bitter tone is a reflection of my view that this whole business is a big mistake for the championship and the Triumph movement in general. It goes against Rogers comments that it is the taking part, not the winning that matters and makes those words sound very hollow. His views are clearly not held by a very small number of those involved who have been able to lead the rest to this devisive conclusion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Hi Patrick, I probably am being obtuse and misreading your comments then !! I had taken your posts #9 & #13 above as referring to the drivers' meeting at the end of the 2008 season, which I think is what you've written ? The reference in my post #16 above was to an earlier thread discussing similar matters after the drivers' meeting of the preceding year, 2007 . . . . Sorry if that's confused life. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjsquire Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Hi Patrick, I probably am being obtuse and misreading your comments then !! I had taken your posts #9 & #13 above as referring to the drivers' meeting at the end of the 2008 season, which I think is what you've written ? The reference in my post #16 above was to an earlier thread discussing similar matters after the drivers' meeting of the preceding year, 2007 . . . . Sorry if that's confused life. Cheers, Alec Alec No, I'm sorry to have caused or at least helped to cause the confusion by being a year out. There was just one meeting at the end of 2007 prior to the 2008 season which is when the decision was taken. The results of the decision could not take effect until the 2009 season. Patrick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted October 17, 2009 Report Share Posted October 17, 2009 Thanks Patrick, the proverbial mistyping fingers then ? We all have those occasionally ! Know the feeling . . . . OK, all drops back into perspective now, it was the 2007 meeting after you'd won the 2007 Championship . . . . Meanwhile a full two seasons have been and gone, and it would seem like there's at least some enthusiasm for a wider franchise to include more Standard Triumph models. That's surely not a bad principle, however the fine detail might pan out ? Presumably the 2009 drivers' meeting will come up with some encouraging protocols - I'm aware from local friends in the TSSC that there is positive interest in sprinting and hillclimbing, so with a bit of luck there might be bigger grids and a wider range of Triumphs competing in the future. Which can't be a bad thing. Cheers, Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.