Appendix K Register
-
Mini4Ever
- 998 Cooper
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:46 pm
- Location: Netherlands
Appendix K Register
I just browsed through the December issue of the Mini Cooper Register (MCR) Magzine and was pleasantly surprised with the new Appendix K Register. I think this is really a nice idea for those who enjoy early Mini's with period modifications.
Too many cars...
-
steady eddie
- 850 Super
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Re: Appendix K Register
Thank you for your appreciation of this initiative, this is exactly what it is hoped to promote, minis racing as near as possible as it would have been in period.Mini4Ever wrote:I just browsed through the December issue of the Mini Cooper Register (MCR) Magzine and was pleasantly surprised with the new Appendix K Register. I think this is really a nice idea for those who enjoy early Mini's with period modifications.
regards
Eddie
-
Mike
- 850 Super
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:53 pm
Re: Appendix K Register
Hi Eddie,
As those of us involved know there will be very few Minis, if any at all, racing in FIA categories that comply strictly to the exact letter of the Appendix K regulations.
The very fact that a blind eye is turned to the use of dog boxes, the use of modern specification connecting rods and other components, the bending of top arms to provide negative camber etc.. confirms this. Fortunately the pragmatic acceptance of a shortage of genuine parts has resulted in the rules being amended to allow the use of non-original blocks and cylinder heads and this is to be applauded but could and in my view should be taken further.
Surely the essence of historic racing such as the Masters and U2TC is to have the maximum number of cars on the grid, prevent anyone exploiting or bending the rules to gain unfair performance advantage and trying to make it as affordable as possible, so as not to create an arena for only the very wealthiest and thus diminish grid numbers.
I applaud your initiative but have little knowledge of it as I am not a Cooper register member. Perhaps you will consider an addendum to your register which I suggested to the Masters Office. Why not get every competitor to complete a declaration of the exact specification of their individual car (not just what it should be on the homologation papers) listing any element that does not comply strictly with the Printed Text of the Appendix K regulations. This would allow the event organisers to consider and accept each car on its merits to maximise the number of equally competitive cars on the grid.
These may be items allowing easier maintenance and adjustment but would not provide a performance advantage on the race track beyond those already stated above as accepted exceptions.
As examples, the following might be considered: -
1) Dog boxes
2) Torque biasing instead of the originally homologated plate or cam and pawl type diffs.
3) Arrow type connecting rods.
4) Cylinder head casting.
5) Cylinder block type.
6) Rear camber adjusting brackets.
7) Hi-Lo units.
8) Negative camber front arms.
9) Adjustable tie rods.
10) Bulkhead Weber boxes.
For the strictest of International Events these may not be allowable but at least you have the choice of the specification of your car and would be honest upfront as to your specific car specification and avoid any inference of bending the rules. Anyone found to be tendering a false specification declaration could be excluded.
I still contend that these "stricter International Events" are flawed because the letter of the rules is not applied, so why not be open about it.
Mike
As those of us involved know there will be very few Minis, if any at all, racing in FIA categories that comply strictly to the exact letter of the Appendix K regulations.
The very fact that a blind eye is turned to the use of dog boxes, the use of modern specification connecting rods and other components, the bending of top arms to provide negative camber etc.. confirms this. Fortunately the pragmatic acceptance of a shortage of genuine parts has resulted in the rules being amended to allow the use of non-original blocks and cylinder heads and this is to be applauded but could and in my view should be taken further.
Surely the essence of historic racing such as the Masters and U2TC is to have the maximum number of cars on the grid, prevent anyone exploiting or bending the rules to gain unfair performance advantage and trying to make it as affordable as possible, so as not to create an arena for only the very wealthiest and thus diminish grid numbers.
I applaud your initiative but have little knowledge of it as I am not a Cooper register member. Perhaps you will consider an addendum to your register which I suggested to the Masters Office. Why not get every competitor to complete a declaration of the exact specification of their individual car (not just what it should be on the homologation papers) listing any element that does not comply strictly with the Printed Text of the Appendix K regulations. This would allow the event organisers to consider and accept each car on its merits to maximise the number of equally competitive cars on the grid.
These may be items allowing easier maintenance and adjustment but would not provide a performance advantage on the race track beyond those already stated above as accepted exceptions.
As examples, the following might be considered: -
1) Dog boxes
2) Torque biasing instead of the originally homologated plate or cam and pawl type diffs.
3) Arrow type connecting rods.
4) Cylinder head casting.
5) Cylinder block type.
6) Rear camber adjusting brackets.
7) Hi-Lo units.
8) Negative camber front arms.
9) Adjustable tie rods.
10) Bulkhead Weber boxes.
For the strictest of International Events these may not be allowable but at least you have the choice of the specification of your car and would be honest upfront as to your specific car specification and avoid any inference of bending the rules. Anyone found to be tendering a false specification declaration could be excluded.
I still contend that these "stricter International Events" are flawed because the letter of the rules is not applied, so why not be open about it.
Mike