WESSEX WANDERINGS

The first Acorn of the New Year came with cover photos that looked somewhat familiar - two of them appear to have been taken at the same spot  (the Rodeberg yump?) as the one on my kitchen wall, dating from the 1983 Ypres International. 
Co-incidentally I recently had the opportunity to provide input to proposed regulations for a "classic" rally category (for 1975 -79 cars) to follow on from the existing Historic and Post-Historic ones.  The idea is that this should be basically to the then current FISA Appendix J group one regulations, with some minor flexibility to cater for unobtainable components.  This addresses the problems of previous attempts (including FISA Appendix K currently) that produced cars that could win "modern" events.
I commend it to anyone (including the MSC Rallies Committee which I am told has seemed unconvinced to date).  It brings the prospect of sufficient additional entries to make all historic/classic rallies viable and provides an outlet for older road and stage rally cars (which in the latter case, now face fitting modern 16 valve DOHC engines to remain competitive).
On the question of rally regulations, I was re-assured to see the word "diabolical" linked to the MSC/MSA handling of the change - by a current Rallies Committee member ! I too am basically in favour of a return to treaded tyres - but we must not lose sight of the fact that uncut slicks were originally allowed as an economy measure (extending life significantly beyond that of "3 grooved" slicks). My sympathies, as always, are with the occasional competitor who may need several years notice to use up stocks of any item "outlawed" on any grounds. The MSA and most of the MSC consistently promote the view that it's a minor element within a competitors overall budget. Bollocks! - it is the difference between competing and not competing for the many people and it applies to all aspects of all branches of the sport.
Is it not the real problem that too many Stage rallies have become longer Sprints and it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify different safety standards between the two?  Lack of suitable venues, organizational costs and the price of fuel mean the average stage rally is now a comparatively short single-venue event (no, I won't use the official term "multi-use"). We can't avoid this. I loathe the concept of 3 day "nine to five" World Championship Rallies - but we can't turn the clock back to long distance road races across Europe. I'm too young to remember such a "golden era" of events like the "Liege" (in which current 7Oaks Vice Presidents made their names) and did not that era only last 10 years or so as full-blooded competitive events anyway?   Recent debate on limiting the RAC Rally (sorry, "Rally of Great Britain" - even if it is 3 Welsh clubbies strung together!) to 60 cars or less was the forecast in a letters to Motoring News following the 1982 event (I know I wrote one of them).
I just worry that the future of affordable Nat B non-race events could be better served if the MCS/MSA were bringing together best practice from stage Rallies and Speed events, because, lets face it, both now share venues and are becoming closely related.
On the subject of diabolical handling of regulation change, do all you Speed competitors out there realise that all cars now require a basic roll hoop?  I agree they should - but I do not expect to first find out about such a change by reading the Blue Book for the new season. Such a requirement is a far more important safety matter than wearing basic Proban overalls in speed events (where, particularly on hillclimbs, a fire marshal will reach you before you've realised you've gone off - not that it will help you at all if the roof has collapsed on your head) - but it spells the end for bog-standard cars in any form of "fast" motorsport. (What do you mean "except road rallies" - surely you don't exceed a 30 mph average????)
I suppose I get the blame for this one too. I returned from Canada last year to find urgent messages from Wales and elsewhere to the effect that scrutineers at Gurston Down had demanded a rear diagonal on mod-prod cars' roll cages and couldn't I produce an argument to prove it was not required? Well … yes … I could: no car, even in mod prod, let alone roadgoing, with standard bodywork was required to have a roll cage at all, let alone a particular type of cage.. (but why me, can't other people read?).
Avid Blue Book readers may also note E.11.3.11 has changed.  In fact, only to exempt period-defined cars. When did you ever see the existing rule enforced? As the owner of two white competition cars, I had never noticed, or encountered, the need for a
Wessex Wanderings (continued)
"black delineation"!  Many will also be relieved to note that the most common standard for helmets remains valid, despite the previous implication that it would be deleted on 01.01.01. Only a revalidation sticker from a scrutineer is required - but why were we not told a year or more ago??   I also see (L.10.7.4) we are still (a year late) catching up on all the required changes arising from the loss of leaded petrol. It is alleged that we only have the "additive" suppliers pointed out the facts of life to the MSA in 1999 (who were doing nothing about the problem at the time).
Since the continuity rules apply to all non-safety aspects, we must still be 2 years away from standardisation regulations for roadgoing cars in speed events. I will refrain from commenting on various items in Acorn on that subject over the last year or so. I no longer have my finger on the pulse across the entire nation as I did 3 years ago (when it seemed I and the 7Oaks Speed Secretary were the only ones who remotely did). Some contributors need to refer to earlier editions of Acorn to answer the question they have asked - particularly as to the nonsense of the South West Association and some one-off events still running to different rules, particularly on tyres and capacity classes.
I was recently shown an article in the magazine of a club not a million miles from Bristol in which a former Chairman of the MSC Speed Committee launched into a further tirade against List 1A tyre - without clearly having the slightest comprehension of the benefits. Most would see a conflict of interest in that the same individual is Secretary of the one Regional Associations having it's speed championship not running List 1A and sponsored by a tyre supplier. My experience of List 1A was: 2 seasons from a pair of 1A rears versus 2 or 3 pairs of non List 1A rears per season. Enough said?  Perhaps not!  Why is section R List 1A still titled as "tyres for racing"?  For years, by far the greatest use of these are for speed events surely? It was raised years ago with the MSA, who is the guilty party ?
These evil non-list 1A "replica" road tyres (contrary to one or two items seen in past Acorns, they are not just List 1B: there are others) date back to when racing tyres were banned from road rallies. When introduced, "sticky" Avon CR28's would last less than half a Motoring News Championship event, when Michelin TB15 racers would last the full distance. Why then do current road rally regulations not specify List 1A?
The remould argument is invalid. List 1A is policed by the Rubber Manufacturers Association (no jokes please!) not the MSA. There is no reason whatsoever why a Colway or Maxsport of suitable specified compound could not be included in List 1A for speed events, road rallies (dare I suggest it - all Nat B Stage Rallies?). Is it the "no remoulds in racing" argument - on a list no longer used extensively in racing?

Keith Lay

Back to February's Home Page