Classics/Historics/GroupG (was Classics ARC)

[Marcus]

It's not Classic until they let REAL Group G cars run.

Same goes for any other classic rally class, if it doesnt let in Group G, it's NOT classic Aussie rally. And as I have said in the past, my co-driver and I have a real classic Group G and it's even got a list of historic drivers who have had it. It meets every bit of historic as you want but it's illegal as a Historic or classic.

Because it's Group G!

So until they let Group G back, Classics or Historics are NOT true Aussie classic rally cars.

Besides that, payign for cars to turn up is BS. It's not going to do dick until the real fundamentals and real problems are fixed.... LIKE NSW RALLY REGO!!!!!!

Screw this **** until we have the real issues dealt with.

[TKM]

[Spac]

The Historic class is designed to represent an era that pre-dated Gp-G (as we know/remember it) - so its a valid class despite the absence of Gp-G cars. In fact, I'd argue that Historics would be a less valid class if they allowed Gp-G cars in.

Don't let your desire to run Gp-G cars cloud your view of the big picture...


Now, back to the topic at hand...
I think that a (recent) history lesson/refresher would be in order:

When Aussie-style "Classics" first gained momentum ~8 years ago, it was primarily the work of Bill Dunn and Ross Dunkerton.
The idea at the time, was that they'd drag out the ARC contenders of the era, sit them in cars of the type that they ran back in the day, and they'd run as a (spirited) "demonstration" even at the head of the ARC field.
Remember that the ARC was looking a lot healthier than it currently does, and that the broader concept of "Classics" was not really even a blip on the rally-community radar.

Obviously, a lot has changed in the years in between, but that was the broad concept (very simply put).

I would feel fairly safe in saying that this mindset is where the latest "Pay to get Greg Carr out there"* suggestion has come from.

Overall, I think that Mr Ruggles has hit most of the nails squarely on their heads - once again, we seem to be faffing around with the glitz and glamour, while ignoring the real issues.


*I honestly don't know if Carr's possible participation is at all related, but my gut feeling says that it is.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Spac

The Historic class is designed to represent an era that pre-dated Gp-G (as we know/remember it) - so its a valid class despite the absence of Gp-G cars. In fact, I'd argue that Historics would be a less valid class if they allowed Gp-G cars in.

Don't let your desire to run Gp-G cars cloud your view of the big picture...

I'm sorry, but this is denying what exactly was IN Australian rally history. THAT is what Historic or classics should be truly about. Wether you want to acknokwledge it or not, Group G are now over 25 years ago, (So it is historic), was actually PART of Australian rallying (classics) and also was what many would legitimatly debate was the high water point of the sport where huge crowds and top level drivers were a-plenty (Classic AND Historic)

So in fact it's less valid NOW without genuine rally history.

And I for one am NOT adovcating building new Group G Dattos. I am simply saying that the original actual verified Group G should be part of this. Not a single person can put up ANY resonable argument why the genuine cars cant be allowed back - everyone dances around the issue because it's got Group G label - well frankly lets grow a nut sack as a collective group and bring the REAL and famous cars back of OUR rally history.

[Spac]

FFS Marcus...

What you're saying is like arguing that GpC circuit race cars should be allowed in Group Nb Historics.

To bitch at the Nc guys for not including the GpC guys is grossly unfair to the Nb guys - they're doing what they want to do: recreate the pre-1967 era.
Nothing more or less.

For someone with a Group-C car to stand on the sidelines scowling (sp?) and demanding to be allowed to compete with the Nb guys, is just stupid.
The smart Gp-C enthusiast would talk to the Nb guys and work out what they did to be recognised by CAMS as a legitimate, seperate category, rather than complain about them...

Oh, wait, my analogy is failing because the Gp-C enthusiasts did do that, and now they have their own category.

One size does not fit all, even if they're all 'old' cars.

I'm sure you're smart enough to see the parallels with rallying, but I'll spell it out just in case:
Historic Rally cars do not incorporate Gp-G cars because they don't want to. The Historic Rally Car category is designed for cars that are to be used in ye olde style navigational events.
This has SFA to do with the (also historically valid) Gp-G era.

[Swill]

Hey Spac. When did Group G start?

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Swill

Hey Spac. When did Group G start?

The concept that we're all talking about when we say "Group G" is a late-1970s~late 1980s thing.

The whole discussion of Historic vs Classic vs Gp-G vs whatever is continually hamstrung by people focussing on the names and forgetting the ideas behind the names.

If were were to talk about:
1. Really old cars like those that were used in Australia;
2. Old cars with an international pedigree; and
3. Old cars like those that were used in Australia;
then 90% of the bitching and bickering would evaporate.
But for some reason, as soon as the names "Classic" or "Historic" are applied, everyone thinks that they have the right to define what the names mean.

Personally, I'm all for a historic class that allows genuine, old-school Group-G cars to run. It would be great to see stuff like Heimo's 180B SSS, or Paul L's "EH XU-1" out throwing rocks again.
The problem (from CAMS' point of view) is that a huge portion of the people that want a 'historic Gp-G' category set up, are really using is an an excuse to build a full-house Schedule R car.
Whether wildly modified cars is good or bad for the sport is a valid topic for debate - just don't call them historic if they're not bound by historic limitiations.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Spac

The concept that we're all talking about when we say "Group G" is a late-1970s~late 1980s thing.

The whole discussion of Historic vs Classic vs Gp-G vs whatever is continually hamstrung by people focussing on the names and forgetting the ideas behind the names.
.

Oh I see, you are just trying to define classics under your own terms.

Explain how a car that has real pedigree as a Group G, it's spec can be proven, was ex George Kahler, is now known to be one of the very few remaining real Southern Cross competeing cars is not a Classic OR Historic in ANY of it's forms.

The fact is that this debate is utter garbage in the first place when by ANY definition Group G is AUSTRALIA'S classic era. But oh no, we have to do it by some person's narrow definition and ignore the true era Australian rallying had and the fact is that YET again you ignored the fact that some of us are asking for the genuine and provable article to be acknowledged as classics or historic - because it just doesnt make sense to not to.

Now going back to what you said about historic, one of the points of historic was to keep GENUINE raced cars back. Not modern builds. Well have a guess what Group G defenders really want? The original cars, back in their true forms back out there - and we are losing them due to rotting away somewhere and no one giving a damn

The problem (from CAMS' point of view) is that a huge portion of the people that want a 'historic Gp-G' category set up, are really using is an an excuse to build a full-house Schedule R car

Wrong. Old true classic, old true Group G. Verified. I have NEVER said anything else like a modern build should be allowed to be called Group G and allowed to run. I want the genuine articles and if it cant be proved, then tough, not allowed. But in this case and I am sure in some others you most certainly can prove rally hertiage so it should be allowed back now it's over 20 years old as a true example of classic rallying.

There is nothing wrong with this and a lot right. Let the genuine legends back.

(And no, the RX2 cant return to Southern Cross days, it's body shell is 7cm too wide and there's a lot of other things just not possible to return to the car anymore to make it 1972 form)

ACRA was initially set up as a club for like minded enthusiasts with Classic cars, it started to go off the rails when CAMS couldn't work out what a classic car was which I believe is still the case.

Frankly, screw CAMS, how about we decide? It's our sport and our hertiage and history. And Greg Carr or Wayne Bell in the real cars, be it pre or actual Group G days when thousands flocked to see the cars would be just plain awesome!

[Kaptainballistik]

And a scedule R car cant be used in any event that has any Cams series attached. How many events is that......

Hence that Monster J got given back to its owner!

End of the day, a ARC with 15 competitors has bigger issues than which we are discussing.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Oh I see, you are just trying to define classics under your own terms.

Exactly not what I was trying to do.

As I previously said, I am more than happy with the idea that Gp-G cars have a place in the broader "old rally car" world - but people like you keep messing up the debate, and undermine your own intention of getting these cars back into the forest, because you're so hung up on the words.

I only entered into this part of the discussion because you insisted that Gp-G cars have a place in the existing "Historic" category (Note my use of capitalisation), which is patently unreasonable, if you can be bothered to look at the goals of the group of people who set up the "Historic" category.

So how about we use the words "Classic" and "Historic" only for the current classes that use them for the names, and go with "old rally cars" for the broader picture that incorporates Classics, Historics and Gp-G cars?
There is a really good discussion to be had, but not while we confuse the issue by trying to make accepted words like Historic and Classic (note capitals again) mean different things without understanding their current meanings...

Let's put this another way:
The HRA basically 'owns' the Historic Rally Car category. They built it, and it works well for them. If you (or anyone else) come in and tell them that the Historic category is no good, and tell them that they must allow Gp-G cars, then I reckon you'll meet with a mix of resistant and resentment.
However, if you approached them and told them that you wanted to set up a Gp-G 'old rally car' category, then I think you'd find that a lot of the HRA membership would be quite interested and willing to help...

Originally Posted by Marcus

Wrong. Old true classic, old true Group G. Verified. I have NEVER said ...

What makes you so sure that I was talking about you?

If you can take a few deep breaths, and actually read what I'm saying, you'll realise that I agree with you in principle.

[Dave Kelly]

Hey Marcus and Spac,

You sure you two aren't married to each other?

Watching this little disagreement (where in fact in large part it seems you might actually curiously be in agreement) so reminds me of arguments I used to have with my ex... that its uncanny!

But hey... you both have good points, and the disagreement, such that it exists, seems to be on semantics or definitional grounds....

How about we all agree...

• the ARC is a mess
  
• We like the spectacle of the cars of yesteryear...(oh and some of us (me included) also quite separately like modern $WD Turbo stuff too.. but thats not what this is about)
  
• There are many of us who have a particular affinity with stuff that happened specifically in the late 70's to mid 80's (ish)
  
• There are also some who like even older more technical rallying (what I call the geography teacher/navigational stuff) (but I'm not really that excited by it, although have done a few of those sorts of events)
  
• The name "Historics" has become (in a CAMS sense at least) a definitional term that is relatively narrowly defined, and in current (and long standing regs) allows relatively little vehicle performance modification
  
• The name "Classics" has sadly been a source of some argument between various groups and for reasons best known to those particularly involved (especially with ACRA and any influence they have had with CAMS) and it seems that what many of us might easily agree is a "verifiable true Group G competition car with proven heritage" isn't agreed by everyone (hence the current apparent carve out).
  
• The ARC is in a mess
  
• Wouldn't those of us who are relatively like minded (that includes BOTH of you Marcus and Spac... plus I reckon a fair proportion of the rest of us that express reasonably opinionated stuff on here) be better to work on what we agree on and see whether we can get something better to happen that suits US all?
  
• oh yes, and thats right..the ARC is a mess!

My apologies for the sermonising, but its simply doing my head in reading your opposing views, but finding myself agreeing (mostly) with both of you

Now.. feel free (both of you) to tell me to go forth and multiply! (oh and you'll need to get in quick on that one, because if you don't, I'm sure Dallas will )

Cheers (and smiles),

David

[DaveTrees]

Originally Posted by Marcus

one of the points of historic was to keep GENUINE raced cars back. Not modern builds.

Actually Marcus, you are incorrect - Spac is much closer to the mark.

The "Historic Rally Car" category was not a CAMS invention. It was originally conceived (& the rules written) by the Historic Rally Association in Victoria for their own events in around 1993, and was subsequently adopted by CAMS after the HRA asked them to recognise it (in about 1996, IIRC, when they were introduced as a class in the VRC).

It was never conceived as a category for "bringing back genuine cars rallied in the 70s-80s era" ... originally it was only for pre-1968 cars, with limited modifications, but has been expanded since to allow later cars (with similar rules/restrictions) to increase participation.

Whether there should be a category for the type of "classic aussie rally cars" you are talking about is another issue entirely. No one suggests these cars are not part of Australian rallying history, but they are not what the Historic Rally Car category as it exists was originally designed for.

Dave

[bob moore]

Originally Posted by Dave Kelly

But hey... you both have good points, and the disagreement, such that it exists, seems to be on semantics or definitional grounds....

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ..................... ironic ....................... seeing kiddies squabble about cars and rules that died out before they were born?

[Ric Cary]

Originally Posted by Kaptainballistik

And a scedule R car cant be used in any event that has any Cams series attached. How many events is that......

Ummmm Nope !!!!!! Prizemoney is the criteria !!!!

[Factor]

Someone explain to me why letting MAd Coote run his Datto 1200 at a few rallies would be a bad bad thing. Happy to listen. - And Ric - in fact its no awards other than trophies, and/or part of a series.

Personally I thought about offerring a trophy for schedule R cars that was a Stilo WRC hemlent in a box with a sticky label on it (the box) saying this is a trophy.