NSW HRA? (was Alpine Lessons Learnt).

[matt ruggles]

This is a quick summary of the flier for the competitive rally, 12th to 14th March:
550 km competitive, total over 1000 km and sounds like catering for driver/navigator for 3 day event. Price $1375. Find own accommodation, event based in Port Macquarie.

There is also a touring road event the day before (250km, $275) which is more navigation/average speed section orientated but still using good roads.


Back to the topic at hand, the Alpine - tell us more. [/B][/QUOTE]

Andrew,

The Alpine was great as usual. I think the reason it it so good apart from its history, is the fact that the club is strong and caters specifically for Classic/Historic cars. We dont have that here. Yes AMSAG run good events I've done one and really enjoyed it, however crossover of car eligibilty can be a problem. It would be great if we had a cams car club in NSW dedicated to these vehicles and specific events as per VIC. The AHRG as you say are only interested in " social events " and with respect if I want to have a picnic I would join the local mothers group.

The Cross has the makings of another classic re run such as the Alpine, however I feel that a big entry fee for these type of cars will only attract few competitors . We want to run, but affordably. Even International events such as Otago in NZ has reasonable enrty fees I believe. The makings of Classsic/Historic rallying is club level competitors and whilst I dont disagree with Ross Dunkertons aspirations for the class, it has to start somewhere and work up from the bottom not the other way around.

In NSW we dont seem to have a specific forum for communication and thats largely what my initial question was asking , so far the reponses whilst informative dont answer the question why dont we have an association for Classic/ Historic competitors. I regularly talk to competitors who are asking the same question. It seems there is a lot of interest and if there is then it makes sense to channel it into running like events.

[DaveTrees]

Originally posted by matt ruggles
The Alpine was great as usual. I think the reason it it so good apart from its history, is the fact that the club is strong and caters specifically for Classic/Historic cars. [/B]

Thats not QUITE true.

When the HRA started out, it was very much geared towards "historic" cars - as in pre 1968.

As it has developed, the emphasis these days is as much on "historic style events" as the cars themselves.

The majority of the Alpine field was NOT in fact Historics. And the Alpine is the only special-stage type event we run.

Our club's normal vehicle classes are :

Historic (pre 68 )
Post Historic (68-75)
PRC80 (Pre-81, 2wd & normally aspirated)

We added the PRC80 class a year or so ago to cater for "normal" competitors who wanted to do historic-style events (predominantly navigational) - and also to boost our field numbers. It seems to be working reasonably well.

Interestingly, in most of the events, the Historics seem to beat the PRC cars anyway ! probably because most of the real navigators are in Historic cars.

Dave G

[Spac]

Matt, that was well said, and for the most part, I agree.

I tried to get some coherent discussion happening months ago on the NSW E-group, but as always, the E-group's apathy meant it went nowhere...

My thoughts (in an attempt to answer your question):

1. I'm not interested in navigation events or TREs. This is not to say that they have no purpose or value, just that they are outside the bounds of what I want to dedicate my time and/or money to. I wonder if the NSW being totally dominated by Special Stage, A-A timed events has killed off too much of the potential competitor base for 'other' types of events.

2. The current Historic rally car regs are too restrictive - I don't want to rally something with 8" rear drums and 9" solid front discs with 200hp. But then again, the circuit racing Historic regs allow some real monsters to be built, that are WAAAYY beyond what was actually used.
As we've seen, nobody can agree with what the regs SHOULD be (beyond the fact that nobody is happy with ARCom's version... that was hardly a suprise though was it?).
The discontent WRT this is possibly the single biggest hurdle a fledgling NSW HRA would face - people want regs before they start building cars, and some of them want the regs to suit them.

To put it another way, I get the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong, Hagar) that the HRA was born from an informal meeting of the minds, and said minds were building cars that were 'close' to what they wanted, even though they didn't fit into any particular class at the time. People who didn't fully agree probably built their cars to meet the unofficial regs simply because they were so much closer than anything else that was happening.

There's more, but I think its more diversion than answer, so I'll leave it (well, that and the need to actually do some work this afternoon).

[Jme]

I'm sure thats true Hagar, but the intention of Matt was I think to highlight that in NSW classic rallying has no representation.

Matt makes a lot of sense in what he says..... but it's more than that- rallying in general under CAMS has very little competitor representation.... and a lot of competitors are unhappy.

I'm constantly amazed by our sports administrators- but I won't start.

AMSAG is a definate alternative in NSW. I think we should start to vote with our feet, and give AMSAG a chance......

...... and not just in 2wd- lets take the 4wd's there as well.

There are a lot of ripples under the surface in NSW rallying, similar to Matt's concerns, and they are finding there way to AMSAG.......

AMSAG just needs some more influencial people and it will be off and running in a much bigger way.

[DaveTrees]

The current CAMS Historic regs are actually (pretty much) the HRA's ones from about 5 years ago - they basically adopted our clubs regulations.

Since then, ours have been modified somewhat (allowing a few more "sensible" freedoms) but the CAMS ones havent kept pace. We are currently reviewing our regs with a view to bringing it all in line for 2005, hopefully.

That said ... on the issue of brakes etc .... we keeping the cars pretty much "standard" because thats how rally cars were back then. Its not just about "rallying old cars", but "rallying old cars in old-style specs". This includes brakes & stuff.

Mostly its not a drama, as our events are prewdominantly navigational. Note - we have run some VERY interesting "touring road events" which have been completely in the forests

Another side-effect is that we have managed to get access to areas that normally dont allow rally cars .. on the basis that we are running low-spec cars, at minute timing, etc.

[raybak]

Why don't we form our own NSW HRA. I for one am bulding a Volvo Historic rally car. I know that I will do some TRE's but would really love to do some events like the Alpine but maybe a NSW Alpine.

I'm willing to help organise a committee and Consitution.

Ray

[matt ruggles]

Thats the sort of reply we need thanks Ray,

I also am willing to " put in " to get things going so I guess its up to others to join and form some action group whatever you want to call it to get things going...........

Hagar.......... couldn't agree more....I built my car specifically to recreate the way the car was rallied originally by Bond, Stewart... Riley etc....... Its bog standard SS, which means it has disc brakes but standard ones which fade after about 4k downhill.....but hey thats the way it was..... **** I've got some respect for those guys in the past. I can also appreciate why the lttle thing was so successful in long distance rallies, its 33 years old and has 100% finnishing record.

Not everyone will want to run a car such as mine..... ie Spac etc and if there is interest sufficient then the rules should accomodate what the paying competitors want, after all thats the main reason the sport exists. I bet if we had more events like last weekend as club rallies and value for money very quickly people who are not necessarily chasing a champoinship would gravitate.

CAMS have said it themselves...............that in this class " the spirit of competition is held in higher regard than winning ". Lets build a category around this concept so those that want weekend fun can enjoy their sport affordably..

By the way out of 90 entries I was the only car in my class.......mmmmmmmmmm maybe HRA havn't got it entirely right yet.......but gee they do a bloody good job.

[DaveTrees]

Thanks Matt - we try !!

If you guys want more info on the HRA & the way its organised etc, contact our secretary (Mike Novak) on unigold@universal.alphalink.com.au and I am sure he would be happy to send you a copy of the club constitution etc.

Also - we had a committee meeting last night, and it seems at this stage that God is willing to do it "one more time" in 2005

Probably Gippsland again, probably a smaller (more manageable) field of 60-ish, and probably HRA members only. There's an incentive to join !!

Stuart also commented that the event was basically run as a 1980's-standard ARC (like the Alpines he directed back then) and was about the same amount of work to organise .... it took him a year to pull it together.

[fro]

Matt,

Please don't take this the wrong way... I'm not having a crack at you, just stating my position, so that you can understand it.

If a "NSW HRA" was set up, I'd probably join and be a general member. I support the idea of people seeing something that they want, and getting it together. Good for you.

I don't know how many of your events I'd be entered in, but an Alpine-like event would certainly have me thinking long and hard about it.

I definitely wouldn't be complying to "Historic" rules. As much as I salute those who ran Monaro's with brakes the same size as a Barina, it's not my cuppa tea. I can't see myself moving on from a PRC naturally aspirated 2WD though, so if you can cater for that, that'll work for me.

If CAMS rules were to allow Group G replicas to run (Fury-like 240Y?), I could be interested in going down that road, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

Summary

I'd probably join a "NSW HRA", but I wouldn't be that involved, an would pretty much want to run the PRC 180B I currently run, unless someone can get Group G cars approved for enough events to make it worthwhile.

[Ben Wilson]

Originally posted by fro
If CAMS rules were to allow Group G replicas to run (Fury-like 240Y?), I could be interested in going down that road, but I can't see that happening any time soon.

A modern car built to Group G specs - That would be an interesting sight

[Daniel]

I can see you licking your lips Ben and thinking GTR powered Silvia or Soarer powered Trueno

[Bogan]

Originally posted by Daniel
I can see you licking your lips Ben and thinking GTR powered Silvia or Soarer powered Trueno

I'd rather have an IS300 powered Celica.

T.

[fro]

Originally posted by Ben Wilson
A modern car built to Group G specs - That would be an interesting sight

Not quite what I wa thinking... You're right, that would be cool, but wouldn't it just rapidly turn into "Who can shoehorn the biggest motor into the smallest car, and then throw the most money at it?"

My point was more aimed at Historic Group G - 240Y's, Dazdas, etc. Along the lines of the HRA regs, but including the "full monty" Group G cars.

Otherwise you're just looking at SportsSedans on dirt.

[fro]

Originally posted by Daniel
And the difference between that and now would be?

Touché, touché.

I guess my point is most of those dudes are in trubo 4WD's. There's still a couple in 2WD's, but those that are are there because they still enjoy it. They limit the money that you can spend on a Turbo$wd by limiting the parts you can put on it via homologation... but that's all a moot point.

I guess this was just a long winded way of saying that I'd consider going historic, if historic allowed me to go at a similar pace to what I do now (without increasing my costs).

Bahh. I think you get my point.

Does anyone know how to do the e's with the little accent marks above them... I can never get them to work...
Thanks Bede!

[Spac]

I think Fro and I agree, although we're approaching it from different directions.

This is very much 'bouncing ideas' only, so don't flame me for the gaping holes...

How I see it:

1. Group G.
A) Some of the Gp G cars would be embarassingly fast, which presents possible problems with upsetting the status quo - it doesn't matter if YOU think that would be good, YOU will have to convince "them" that it would be OK. This them re-opens the same old can of worms WRT PRC regs (weights, pre-86 regs for all 2WD NA cars, etc etc).

B) Gp G is politically incorrect. It was killed off for some very legitimate reasons. I'm not interested in the argument about whether it was the right way to go, just wishing to re-iterate that the rego/image probelms with Gp G WERE real problems and you'd need to solve them if you wanted to run Gp G cars again.

C) Most Gp G cars were pieces of crup compared to what we run now. This directly relates back into the image problems I mentioned in 1B.

D) As Ben alluded, a 2003 built Gp G car would be a real piece of work, much like the modern built Gp Nc (circuit historics) are.


2. Current HRA style Historics.

A) I know everyone says "but that's how they were run in the day", but lots of other things were very different in the day too - what was the entry cost to a club event like compared to the average weekly wage, compared to the same measure nowdays?
I (and I know that I lack the experience, being under thirty and a relative new-comer to rallying in general) think that unless you can regularly have old style events at old style prices with an old style lack of stress, then this category is always going to struggle. I know it works in Vic, where they've "always" run events along these lines, but I suspect that NSW has killed off too much of the competitor base for these sorts of events.

B) Personally, I would have a lot more enthusiasm for these regs if you could change the intake and exhaust manifolds - if you've gotta run stock manifolds, it skews the 'fast' cars to those that came factory with twin carbs (Datsuns, twin cam Toyotas and not much else), at the expense of other things. I think a 'niche' category like this cannot afford to turn away someone like myself who can't see the point in running a RX-3 with a thermal reactor exhaust manifold.

C) Brakes. Sure this is a really clear area for "the way it was" and "endurance / car presevation" arguments, but like I said in the previous post, I don't really care - I like a car that stops decently, particularly for a rally car where you don't know the upcoming road conditions (is it a long, tight, winding downhill to the finish, or a fast uphill blast?).

3. Other.

A) There needs to be a balance of what WAS done "in the day" and what could have been done. Using Nc as an example again, you cannot bridge-port a rotary, because nobody in Australia was doing so pre-1973. But you can put roller bearing cranks into 202s because you could have done so in 1972, even though nobody was....
The rotary Mazdas keep coming up, because they (and the effective modifications) only were "discovered" in the mid 1970s, so the development was pretty tame before then. Should you be allowed to put big brakes into a 2003 built Datto 1600 because someone did it in 1970, but not allowed to do the same thing to a Historic Toyota because it took until 1975 for someone to do it to a Toyota? If you limit the Toyota owner, are you making your category more or less healthy?

B) I have previously bounced the idea of only allowing "replicas" to be built. I like the idea on the surfave, but its totally unworkable, but I'll share it anyhow (because the thinking required to prove its unworkable reveals a fair bit for the bigger picture).
Basically, the idea is that if we're trying to re-create an era, then the MIX of cars should closely replicate the actual cars used at the time. So if you want to build a 'new' historic car, you must choose a particular car that was run in that era. You must then replicate that car as carefully as you possibly can, and then nobody else replicate it.
If the real car still exists, then that car takes precedent.
If the owner of the original car wants to run a replica of his/her old car, then they get priority.
Going this way with make for a much more faithful replication of the era than anything else.

Now, if you haven't already seen a dozen gaping holes in that idea, go and have a good re-think. And think about how those holes apply to other areas of any possible Historic rules.

4. Events.

A) As I've already alluded, is there the enthusiasm needed for a viable NSW HRA? Are there enough people out there to run, and compete in navigational rallies? Particualrly if you consider that to get the areas needed, you'd have to go to fairly far-flung spots.
This is not a rhetorical question.

3. Other (again).

C) If you build it, will they come? If someone got their act together, and formed NSW HRA it would be a big start - you'd have someone steering the whole idea in a coherent fashion (and you could set up a NSW HRA forum to get useful discussion from everyone who was interested). Obviously this runs the risk of being steered by someone who thinks differently to everyone else and could kill the idea nearly as easily as it could nurture it.


Thoughts?







.