THOROUGHBRED SPORTSCAR CHAMPIONSHIP

[Alec Pringle]

I've had some past experience of discussing historic eligibility with FIA officials . . . . not encouraging.

 

Whatever might have happened in the USA is likely to be discounted. For example, cars entered by a North American subsidiary operation are not 'works' cars. North American races were not International. The rules of a particular event, series or championship were not recognised by the FIA at the time. And so it goes on, ad nauseum.

 

Naturally, if the equation involves a French car and/or driver, reinterpretation is always on the cards . . .

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[alan57]

Excused Neil! Championship rules as ratified by MSA. FIA technical rules do not come into it - but the use of the word "works" in the draft regs is obviously confusing the issue!

[Mike Hazlewood]

Hi

 

As soon as I can find a way of posting the E.mail I sent to Pam McCarthy( championship co-ordinator ) this was after reading the draft regs sent to myself and all current competitors within the TSCC championship and the response which I received back I will do so. This will hopefully throw some light to the reason for the proposed rule changes.

Yes I feel the same as everybody on this one, I was not at the drivers meeting where any rule changes on this subject should have been discussed and voted on, and I too think it is underhanded of the committee to take this decision afterwoods.

[Guest ntc]

Excused Neil! Championship rules as ratified by MSA. FIA technical rules do not come into it - but the use of the word "works" in the draft regs is obviously confusing the issue!

 

 

Thank you Alan in my day if it was draft it was a warning that things were to change, unless it was a safety issue it gave the competitors time to make adjustments and it was not with immediate effect.

[alan57]

Neil - agreed! I have no axe to grind nor interest to serve and it'll be interesting to what if any response the Championship comes up with. It does though try to stay away from "modsports" style, and also tries to equalise perfomance- everyone may feel free to debate in which favour or direction!!!!!!

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Roy,

 

Triumph entered the team of TR4S cars at Le Mans 1960 and 1961 - prototypes, not production cars, and they ran with a windscreen not aeroscreens. Admittedly the screen was lower than subsequent TR4 production, but technically that is not relevant to the TR4 or subsequent production cars.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Mike Hazlewood]

Email sent by Pam McCarthy to myself, reasoning behind the rule changes regarding aero screens;

 

 

'Dear Mike,

 

 

 

Lovely to hear from you. Roy is now well on the mend, hair growing back and getting stronger all the time.

 

 

 

When the Thoroughbred Regs were written back in 1999 ish they were based on the MGA Regulations that had been in existence since 1976. The basic set of MGA Regulations were expanded upon, but as you can appreciate all marques are different and we were trying to keep the Championship alive. We were trying to incorporate other Championships into the Thoroughbreds who wanted another race at a meeting and therefore we always said we would use the other Championships Regulations if they were in existence so we needn’t have the problem of policing everything and it didn’t upset their own Championships. The MGA Regs always said Aeroscreens permitted because they were, as they were in period so it was never amended beyond that statement.

 

 

 

Colin and I have genuinely believed that you were running with your TR Regs and have never looked into it further because firstly Alan Charlton used to look after the TR’s and then you took it over so we kept out.

 

 

 

Since you have now brought things to a head with the TR4’s in the B class and now we understand that you have never used the TR Regs but the TSCC Regs then we have looked at the TSCC Regs in a different light and note that they are there to be used and abused in certain areas. The Aerocreen bit was definitely intended to be used for period or as used by factory/works, never a general usage for anybody to change the appearance of their car. Colin and I thought they were being used by the TR’s because it was part of the TR Regulations so didn’t say anything.

 

 

 

The basis of the Championship is for Production cars of the 1950’s 60’s and now 70’s. Therefore I believe the answer to your question is that they should run with screens (with an option of either hard tops or soft tops as an aerodynamic aid). I have looked at the drivers who have registered in this years Championship and of the TR6’s 8 have screens and only Mike Hughes and Dave McDonald have aeros. Mike Hughes didn’t come out all season. Of the TR4’s all three of you have aeros.

 

 

 

Rob Roodhouse has purchased a well know ‘fast’ car and at the AGM he said he just wanted to race it and would go into whatever class we felt it eligible for (class D), or would alter the car to suit. Young Josh Files has a screen and top and there was no stopping him at Snetterton.

 

 

 

Best wishes to you and yours and again good to hear from you.'

[roy53]

Thanks Alex

I knew that you would know this kind of detail, but as you say it dose not help their cause.

Re the number of TR6s running without screens, you must have been going to fast for them to see the rest of you!I guess they only see what they want to see.

I don't think that the roof thing is that big of an issue its just the way it's being done.

I am not personally affected by this as my TR3 is allowed an aeroscreen an my TR5 has a surrey top but i dont like the way it seems that TRs are being picked on.Mike have you as our rep heard if this affects the other marques ie JAG , MORGAN ,ETC and from when they plan this change?

Regards ROY

[Mike Hazlewood]

Hi Roy,

 

From what I can gather the Jaguar D Types,MGBCV8,MGAs and Morgan Challenge drivers all run under there own regulations and do not have to comply strictly to TSCC regs,

Well not until they start winning all the time anyway.

We the TR drivers from the very early days of competing in TSCC have always run under TSCC regs and not TR register rules,this is where the problem lies and why it was stated this season to us that we was mixing the rules together to suit ourselves.

From my point of view I personally think all cars which competed this season and in previous seasons where legal to TSCC regs.

[Mike Hazlewood]

When I said they run under there own regulations I mean there own championship regs

[Rob Roodhouse]

Sorry I've entered the dabate a little late but Dave McDonald has just kindly let me know that my name is up in lights in the body of Pam's e-mail to Mike.

 

I just want to make it clear that the conversation with Pam was one that took place over a coffee before the AGM, not at the AGM, and that Pam and Colin's view on Class D was based solely on the current silhouette of the ex Richard Wright car which is very wide at the front and will rely on the Race Modified Class D rules around wheelarch flares "utilising existing material" to be legal (and still needs work to comply with the 120 degree wheelarch cover rule that the scrutineers are so hot on)

 

No mention at all was made of aeroscreens, running open etc and it certainly hadn't entered my mind, having seen TRs run with aeros for years..I have a photo of both my cars at Donnington in 1995, white car with screen and roof, silver car (some four places behind!) running with minimal perspex aeroscreen.

 

There is another issue relating to the Richard Wright car and that is weight...it's currently having a welded in front cage added (with no consideration to the future fitting of a screen)and based upon the corner weights established two weeks ago it is going to be circa 50kgs below what I think the 80% of kerb weight limit for Class C is. Nobody seems to be able to confirm what the agreed kerb weight should be...based on manufacturers data the KWs varied hugely from beginning to end of production and whether it was a UK/US car and injection or carbs. The lowest weight stated is 1035 but Carfolio (which I have heard rumour is the benchmark) states around 1130kgs...a big difference.

 

We could achieve a resolution on the aeroscreen issue and then get thrown out for being underweight if we don't get a common understanding

 

I do not think that the Championship should cite me as an example on which to base a new regulation, if that is what the comment in the e-mail is alluding to? Look at my results in the two races I have done this year...yes I was giving the Class D Morgans a hard time but only when they were trying to lap me! Admitted, I am now the proud owner of a faster car, but I do not have the time or the budget to make the significant modififcations to it that will allow it to run in Class C if windscreens become mandatory, too much of the structure has been removed to get the weight down...nor do I feel inclined to ruin the period appearance of the car, which has run that way for a considerable time...witness the Classic and Sportscar article on the car dating back to 1991.

 

2010 will be my first full season and I have no great expectations other than continuing with what I found to be hugely enjoyable, great camaraderie, great sport, great competition (even towards the back of the field) based upon the 2009 outings.

 

I agree with the comment made earlier in one of the threads ref the word "marque" rather than "model"...if that loophole gets written into the regs then who knows???

 

That's all for now

 

Rob

[jellison]

SO is someone going to put a thread where it should be - on the TSCC Racers only forum.

 

This neeed bring up with the racers in the championship and the people that look at the forum - all should be mailed onthis as, as I see it this is a Kangaroo type situation, where nothing on screens was ever discussed or chaired at the meeting.

 

In ALL the of the series TR's have ever been allowed to run, US, UK, Europe, SA, Aus, etc. (in club racing bat fia (not club racing) or HSCC where virtuall NO mods are allowed) we have always had the option to run with or without a screen - up to the driver.

 

Let get this done properly.

[Mike Hazlewood]

Jon,

 

As the TR represenative for the TR drivers who compete in the TSCC I feel that it should be myself who puts our case forward to the committee but unfortunately having being accused by your friend Richard Evans of manipulating the rules last year for my own benifit and supposedly geting you banned from the championship for a year I think I should let some one else put our case forward.

 

Perhaps you might offer Jon in your usual diplomatic way.

[Dave McDonald]

I have tried twice today to enter a new topic on this issue on the Brakehorsepower/Thoroughbreds Forum and twice it has not been accepted. I have e mailed Chris Acklam, web administator a few minutes ago.

 

Dave McD

[Dave McDonald]

Rod

My information on weights of TR6 is that 1035 kg was the manufacturers kerb weight that applied to most models.

 

Dave McD

[Alec Pringle]

As far as kerb weights are concerned, for TRs and deriratives alike, surely the best qualified person to offer a definitive answer is the appropriate TR Register model registrar - who should have access to most if not all of the relevant data published by the manufacturer in period, together with contemporary road test evidence as cross reference.

 

Earlier this year I looked at various UK and continental series in terms of listed weights for Peerless, Warwick and Swallow Doretti. The discrepancies were remarkable, to say the least. In a couple of instances, apparently the consequence of taking a particular magazine road test as 'gospel' - regardless of the fact that the weight quoted in said road test was clearly a typographical error, and known to be such.

 

For less obscure marques than the above, from the early 60s onwards, surely period homologation papers will list an officially accepted weight ?

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[jellison]

This is way off topic and I think the thread needs closing as this is something that should be discussed with the drivers of the TSCC championship not on here.

 

By the way - all the weights **** was brought up at the meeting with 1 source for all the car weights to be taken from. That was done. This is to get a fixed set of figure in the regs so any %age weights could be right there with no quibling. That was done correctly.

 

UNLIKE THIS stuff on screens which was never discussed and the more I think about it the more P8ssed off I am about it. If I wanted to race with a screen I'd be doing it same for the racers on here. A rule change in this and other similar series has to be raised and discussed and specifically voted on.

 

Let drop this.

 

Several of us have written to the championship organisers, now this needs to be put in a TSCC forum thread so all TSCC members can see that things have not been done correctly (and they have to be).

[Alec Pringle]

Hi Jon,

 

765 views of this thread, which suggests to me that it is of interest to more than just the drivers involved in the TSCC ?

 

After all, the requirements of a major race championship tend to be reflected in due course in lesser series, and ultimately in sprint/hillclimbing series. Not to mention the interest of spectators and ordinary marque owners, or potential future entrants.

 

I can't agree that weight issues are 'way off topic' - in the past there have been many instances where series organisers have used issues of both weight and coachwork (including windscreens) as trade-off means of establishing a more level playing field.

 

As a little lad in the 50s, regularly attending race meetings, I was convinced that racing sports cars had to have aeroscreens - that was the norm, save for vestigial screens (D-types) or steeply raked screens (Healey 100M). That all changed in 1961 with 'windshield protected height' regulations under Appendix J. By the mid-60s aeroscreens were the preserve of Vintage racers and modsports cars, they had more-or-less vanished from production series - at least that's how I recall the grids.

 

It might be worth recalling the gist of the original windscreen regs for production Sports/GT cars - that windcreens should be symmetrical about the axis of the car, equipped with at least one automatic wiper, and for cars over 1 litre be at least 100cms wide, 25cms high (vertical measure) across that minimum width, and screen frame height not less than 80cms above the low point of the seat cushion (also measured vertically).

 

Not much room for creative interpretation there, aeroscreens are not included (!), and that philosophy (with evolutions) has prevailed now for nearly half a century.

 

As has previously been pointed out, drivers have no more and no less input that that granted to them by the series or championship regulations. In any case, one can have a surfeit of democracy. There is an argument that neither drivers nor entrants are necessarily the best assessors of changes/evolutions in regulations. From my past experience, as series organiser and championship steward, I'd tend to agree with that argument. Too many series have dwindled away into oblivion thanks to the input of drivers and/or entrants unable to see the proverbial bigger picture.

 

Finally, it's all very well suggesting discussion on TSCC Forum . . . doesn't appear as if the powers-that-be necessarily welcomed Dave's attempts to instigate discussion ? Unlike the TR Forum !

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

[Dave McDonald]

All

New topic now succesfully posted on Brakehorsepower/Thoroughbreds Forum

 

Dave McD

[Mike Hazlewood]

I think it was only fair that the TR drivers in the TSCC where notified of the Possible changes of regs regarding screens and had the opportunity to air there views on the TR forum beforehand.

I agree it is a good time for us to open up the subject on the TSCC forum and get the issue sorted.

However as Alec said it is always a good thing to keep the members of the TR Register notified as this is no dought an area where possible new drivers wishing to compete may come from.

It has certainly attracted a lot of interest and debate.

 

I noticed on the for sale section of the forum there were some ex Reg Woodcock TR4/5 wings with big flared arches. Who dares to buy them put them on there car and come out in the road going class of TSCC and see if anyone complains. Mind you from what was said about my car last year they still would not cover the wheels.

 

Regards Mike.

[Mike Hazlewood]

Well done Dave Just viewed your posting on TSCC forum and I could not have put it better myself.

It has already had 10 viewing so wait for the flack.

Have you thought about going into politics Dave. The facts and straight to the point.

[jellison]

Well done Dave Just viewed your posting on TSCC forum and I could not have put it better myself.

It has already had 10 viewing so wait for the flack.

Have you thought about going into politics Dave. The facts and straight to the point.

 

I am writing my reply now (in the TSCC).

[roy53]

THE CAN OF WORMS HAS BEEN OPEND

[JRCWeedon]

I noticed on the for sale section of the forum there were some ex Reg Woodcock TR4/5 wings with big flared arches. Who dares to buy them put them on there car and come out in the road going class of TSCC and see if anyone complains. Mind you from what was said about my car last year they still would not cover the wheels.

 

Go on Mike you know you want them!!!!!!!!

Regards

John

[Guest ntc]

So now it is a closed shop again so why did you raise the subject on here? Mike