FIA App K regulations - 01-01-2012 - Page 4

terence · 20 Nov 2012, 07:18 (Ref:3168926)

Quote:

Originally Posted by morninggents

I don't think it has to be proven, Joe. The mods allowed for App K cars are either on the homologation papers or contained in the overriding App K regs as shown in post 1 of this thread. Surely it is up to the entrant of any car running to App K regs to ensure that their car complies. If they believe ABC or XYZ applied in period they must prove it. It is not enough to say that this or that person/company cheated in period and, therefore, that is OK today.
It bloody well isn't!

Sorry for the language - it get's me a bit hot under the collar.

No need to apologise,has/had the same effect on me,so decided to walk away from "FIA" Historics,so much wrong,it'll never get put right.

Robyn Slater · 20 Nov 2012, 08:01 (Ref:3168932)

Quote:

Originally Posted by terence bower

No need to apologise,has/had the same effect on me,so decided to walk away from "FIA" Historics,so much wrong,it'll never get put right.

Thats one of the main reasons i run under HRSR regs. There is a CLEAR set of regs which allows me to modify/develop my car without ambiguity.

zefarelly · 20 Nov 2012, 13:03 (Ref:3169034)

I think you misunderstood my post Peter, I agree with you, but we've had people saying 'I was there in period and we did this' Well maybe they did, but it was cheating then and is now . . . or they're being asked to lie. either way its wrong.

re the regs, there are many club series with simple, pragmatic, practical and effective regs, not just HSCC, but CTCRC and HRDC amongst others.

The problem with the FiA stance (IMO) is not the Homologation papers of any individual car ( they're very black and white) its the moving target which is App K . . .it changes year on year, this is what gets re-interpreted by lots of wannabe Red bull historic race preparers. the Original pre 66 App J hasn't changed, andmaybe thats what should be used, and I'm sure the same exists for later periods also.

morninggents · 20 Nov 2012, 16:55 (Ref:3169098)

Didn't misunderstand, Joe - just took the opportunity for a further rant. I well know your views on pushing the App K boundaries and I think, generally, we sing from the same hymn sheet.
Sorry if you thought I was getting at you.

The overriding App K regs as detailed in post 1 of this thread are pretty specific, in my view, and don't leave any area for 'interpretation'.

terence · 20 Nov 2012, 17:01 (Ref:3169099)

What a shame that all "Historic" racers dont have the same mind set Peter.

imperatore · 3 Jan 2013, 15:05 (Ref:3184226)

Hi everyone,
in UK you're lucky! You can race in historyc challenge without the HTP paper! In Italy this isn't possible or you obtain a HTP or your historyc racecar stay in the garage....

Robert Farrell · 4 Jan 2013, 09:45 (Ref:3184522)

[QUOTE=zefarelly;3169034]I think you misunderstood my post Peter, I agree with you, but we've had people saying 'I was there in period and we did this' Well maybe they did, but it was cheating then and is now . . . or they're being asked to lie. either way its wrong.

I have some sympathy for the "I Was There" people. Everyone from blokes in sheds to the works teams were always experimenting. This meant lots of modified components were built, some adopted some discarded. Not all of them were adopted for homologation. (They were however good for getting 11 year olds wandering round the paddock excited.)
Even the factory teams would not waste resources by designing and building componenets in order to homologate them before using them in competition. So I don`t believe it was neccessarily cheating in the day.

Al Weyman · 4 Jan 2013, 11:30 (Ref:3184557)

When has there never been cheating in this sport, its everywhere, rife and always will be, sad really but thats the nature of the beast.

terence · 4 Jan 2013, 18:07 (Ref:3184718)

[QUOTE=Robert Farrell;3184522]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zefarelly

I think you misunderstood my post Peter, I agree with you, but we've had people saying 'I was there in period and we did this' Well maybe they did, but it was cheating then and is now . . . or they're being asked to lie. either way its wrong.

I have some sympathy for the "I Was There" people. Everyone from blokes in sheds to the works teams were always experimenting. This meant lots of modified components were built, some adopted some discarded. Not all of them were adopted for homologation. (They were however good for getting 11 year olds wandering round the paddock excited.)
Even the factory teams would not waste resources by designing and building componenets in order to homologate them before using them in competition. So I don`t believe it was neccessarily cheating in the day.

In some respects I agree,considering the MG Magnette with all alloy panels,wasn't disclosed until a scrutineer had a play with a magnet.
I think the biggest problems are hidden away in the mechanicals though.They did not have the materials available in period.Probably couldn't turn a 3.8 into a 5 litre etc etc etc et----e.

zefarelly · 7 Jan 2013, 07:57 (Ref:3185840)

As has been said before though, we can't unlearn what we know. You don't wear straw shoes in the rain!

Al Weyman · 7 Jan 2013, 08:12 (Ref:3185843)

So what's the point if it all?

zefarelly · 7 Jan 2013, 08:38 (Ref:3185852)

Thats the question . . . . although, in my opinion the specific homologations are pretty black and white and a majority of people take the ****.

I guess the point is, its supposed to be enjoyable and competitive, we all get more enjoyment from different aspects.

terence · 7 Jan 2013, 09:12 (Ref:3185865)

Or as the FIA or MSA state,"It's supposed to be FUN".Although if certain people,instead of being overwhelmed by their own supposed self importance,it could be a lot more!

**Peter Mallett** · 7 Jan 2013, 09:15 (Ref:3185866)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

So what's the point if it all?

We're all doomed, doomed I tell yee.

Perhaps the App K regs should exclude the bit about proving that a certain vehicle raced in period as such and just say, if you want to race this car then this is what you can do. We didn't have Photoshop in the 60s.

zefarelly · 7 Jan 2013, 11:58 (Ref:3185924)

nothing more!

GORDON STREETER · 7 Jan 2013, 13:49 (Ref:3185979)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Perhaps the App K regs should exclude the bit about proving that a certain vehicle raced in period as such and just say, if you want to race this car then this is what you can do. We didn't have Photoshop in the 60s.

Maybe we didn't have Photoshop in the 60s Pete but I used to fake photographs in the 60/70s in the darkroom with no problem .
The Cottingley Fairies of 1917 proved it could be done before it was proved to be a fake.
Before a photo can actually be used in evidence it must be taken in a strict code and authenticated.
I remember one incident on a Top Rally where a car was swapped for a double and was found out by someone looking at photos and found the decals weren't quite the same on the car that started and finished and was disqualified.
Although the car was probably swapped this could have opened a minefield if it had been proved the photos had been tampered with

**Peter Mallett** · 7 Jan 2013, 13:51 (Ref:3185981)

Ok.

Robert Farrell · 9 Jan 2013, 12:06 (Ref:3186825)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

We're all doomed, doomed I tell yee.

Perhaps the App K regs should exclude the bit about proving that a certain vehicle raced in period as such and just say, if you want to race this car then this is what you can do. We didn't have Photoshop in the 60s.

Sounds like a new series and thread. " Pre`67 Club/National Level racing"
I can hear all the 1650 pre-crossflow Anglias stirring already.

GORDON STREETER · 9 Jan 2013, 14:46 (Ref:3186863)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Farrell

Sounds like a new series and thread. " Pre`67 Club/National Level racing"
I can hear all the 1650 pre-crossflow Anglias stirring already.

Great idea !

zefarelly · 10 Jan 2013, 09:12 (Ref:3187211)

a pre66 club series would be great, as well as 1650 Anglias there's still plenty of 1500 A40's around as well!

GORDON STREETER · 10 Jan 2013, 13:00 (Ref:3187277)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zefarelly

a pre66 club series would be great, still plenty of 1500 A40's around !

I thought most were ? at least 1480 !

Tel 911S · 30 Dec 2013, 10:50 (Ref:3348858)

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...8131220%29.pdf

Link to the 2014 Appendix K . Published a few days ago . Not many changes from last year , but the changes are highlighted for easy reference .

one-two · 31 Dec 2013, 19:15 (Ref:3349291)

Thanks for posting the link! Most of the changes seem to concern roll hoops and cages as might be expected after the recent overhaul, but is that a new table on fuel tank capacities too? I hadn't noticed it before. Best wishes, Robert

zefarelly · 2 Jan 2014, 08:45 (Ref:3349605)

Thanks for that, just having a look myself . . . one thing I will be doing during my rebuild is a new cage.

p261brm · 25 Feb 2014, 12:45 (Ref:3372014)

Quote:

Originally Posted by terence bower

Or as the FIA or MSA state,"It's supposed to be FUN".Although if certain people,instead of being overwhelmed by their own supposed self importance,it could be a lot more!

Something about FUN?
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools."
Spent time discussing 'rules' 'HTP's' with a scrutineer yesterday, still none the wiser, perehaps if we all sat in the middle of a circuit, refused to move....

wonder how much time Mr Newey spends finding ways to avoid rules, at least re-applying for HTP's this summer will help pass the time, and getting the object car accepted could cause endless hours of amusement

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
01.01.02 - An Important Day	Aysedasi	Sportscar & GT Racing	11	5 Jan 2002 22:42
Callaway 01	pink69	Sportscar & GT Racing	6	12 Apr 2001 23:27