Jump to content
Sirpent

Gordon Dobie

Recommended Posts

Gav, that wont cut it with the EO's at CAMS.

For other readons, I got Weber DCOE's approved in place of Mikuni PHH44 for the Datsun 2000's, this now appears on the Spec Sheets for Group S.

Never sold with them, never listed in any Option Parts book, either.

 

I wont be getting myself invlolved with the silly crap that gets bandied about by all the Hysterical Experts, leave that to the young ones to persevere with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I recall of the claimed requirements for getting option parts eligible for Sc was that they had to have been shown to have been sold in Australia. So the dealer stamped cattle dog Gavin has linked goes at least part way there, for anyone interested it would be worth while running this by CAMS again. Is anyone from that dealer still around?

 

I guess you are no longer interested Jason because you have sold your SC Zed so there is nothing in it for you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I recall of the claimed requirements for getting option parts eligible for Sc was that they had to have been shown to have been sold in Australia. So the dealer stamped cattle dog Gavin has linked goes at least part way there, for anyone interested it would be worth while running this by CAMS again. Is anyone from that dealer still around?

 

I guess you are no longer interested Jason because you have sold your SC Zed so there is nothing in it for you now.

Wayne Couacaud worked at Johnny Rockerbox Nissan.

 

post-1-0-67687300-1500633672.jpg

 

1 of his first jobs was to clear out all the old stock, which at the time was many (now very rare) sports options parts... If only we knew the location of the landfill, we'd go ET Atari style on it.

 

So the parts did exist, they were for sale here and I'm sure someone bought them...I cry to think about what got sent to the tip though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

there are a lot of misinformation about Group S eligibility on this forum.

 

Car and parts sold for motorsport are not allowed so part list from the datsun motorsport catalog is useless. Stamped or not stamped.

 

Having said that it boiled down to the person (idiot at times) responsible for the category eligibility, once you can push through him and get rubber stamp by CAMS historic commission it's in.

And like any good recalcitrant organisation they never want to admit to errors etc... once it's in, it's in.

 

The biggest stuffed up they had was classified the 240z as Sc instead of Sb, because the 240z had been produced and sold in 1969. You need a lot of patient or engage legal people and threaten them to reverse this decision.

 

I know the big Porsche boys have use their own lawyers in some of these matters, same with Rusty French (who part owns Ford Performance Racing) with his Pantera.

 

Money rules in the real world.

Edited by hmd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I recall of the claimed requirements for getting option parts eligible for Sc was that they had to have been shown to have been sold in Australia. So the dealer stamped cattle dog Gavin has linked goes at least part way there, for anyone interested it would be worth while running this by CAMS again. Is anyone from that dealer still around?

 

I guess you are no longer interested Jason because you have sold your SC Zed so there is nothing in it for you now.

Apparently the owner of DATSUNSPORT was Bruce Wilkinson which Jason has already referenced here.

http://www.viczcar.com/forum/topic/13309-ross-dunkerton-and-datsun-in-australia/?p=157292

 

The early Z cars, would have had Bruce Wilkinson involved, he was the one that started collecting the good bits from the cars before they went back, along with retaining the large quantities of Option spare parts, that came out with the cars, at the time.

Bit of a case of, "you had to be there!" and listen in to some of the discussions back in the day!

I think this might go in circles as is, since I don't actually know what CAMS wants myself and I haven't spoken to anyone involved with CAMS and over seeing what regulations apply. Is there any documentation that states what they will and will not accept?

 

I feel like starting a new thread with the aim of figuring this all out might be the best approach. I'm happy to try and hunt down this information - even though I don't plan to race any of mine at this stage, but I just feel it's absurd to see S30Z's neutered by SU carbs, small brakes etc.. when alternatives designed for purpose were available if so required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the owner of DATSUNSPORT was Bruce Wilkinson which Jason has already referenced here.

http://www.viczcar.com/forum/topic/13309-ross-dunkerton-and-datsun-in-australia/?p=157292

 

 

I think this might go in circles as is, since I don't actually know what CAMS wants myself and I haven't spoken to anyone involved with CAMS and over seeing what regulations apply. Is there any documentation that states what they will and will not accept?

 

I feel like starting a new thread with the aim of figuring this all out might be the best approach. I'm happy to try and hunt down this information - even though I don't plan to race any of mine at this stage, but I just feel it's absurd to see S30Z's neutered by SU carbs, small brakes etc.. when alternatives designed for purpose were available if so required.

 

No need for a new thread Gav.  There has been plenty of chat about this before:

 

http://www.viczcar.com/forum/topic/13347-cams-australia-and-eligible-parts-for-s30zs/

Edited by andyk_79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At last some reliable info from someone directly involved in Sc, thankyou hmd. All this time us 'outsiders' have been misinformed about the status of Sports Option parts while some of us have been putting some effort into trying to help, those of us who have nothing to gain but simply would like to see the S30 be less handicapped. 

 

It looks like all this has come about through Nissan's lack of consistent support for motorsport and particularly for the Z car and the privateer drivers, something that I rant about occasionally. On the other hand Porsche consistently back their product and owners by gaining whatever advantages they can for them. That's the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like all this has come about through Nissan's lack of consistent support for motorsport and particularly for the Z car and the privateer drivers, something that I rant about occasionally. On the other hand Porsche consistently back their product and owners by gaining whatever advantages they can for them. That's the difference.

 

Huh? What's all this got to do with Nissan?

 

It looks like an entirely local problem to me. Typically with a national race sanctioning body, a bunch of participants who lobbied to make sure things got set up to suit them, and a healthy dose of marginalisation on top. SNAFU.

 

What jumped out at me from hmd's post:

 

Having said that it boiled down to the person (idiot at times) responsible for the category eligibility, once you can push through him and get rubber stamp by CAMS historic commission it's in.

And like any good recalcitrant organisation they never want to admit to errors etc... once it's in, it's in.

 

The biggest stuffed up they had was classified the 240z as Sc instead of Sb, because the 240z had been produced and sold in 1969. You need a lot of patient or engage legal people and threaten them to reverse this decision.

 

....and I have to say (allow me this as an outsider looking in from a long way away...) all that previous talk of "getting a letter from Nissan", the works rally cars, the Japanese Police cars etc etc was just pie in the sky nonsense and neither here nor there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dat2Kman & myself were told at dinner one night during the Morgan Park historic's weekend as few years ago by a CAMS Group S Historic Eligibility officer, and I quote:

"I opened the loophole in the Sc rules to allow the late 260Z I was building to be log-booked as a 280Z (with the appropriate parts), then when I received the log book, I closed the loophole! *laughs*"

So then I myself asked the question:
"So if someone came to you & said: 'I have a factory delivered car with 8" rims, triple Mikuni 44's & larger front MK63 brakes & disc rears' I'd be able to log book a Z within GrpS with these options?"
"Yes" came the reply...

Nothing.
I repeat NOTHING you say changes anything you perceive to be an injustice to Z racing in Australia, Richard.
It all came down to who shouted loud enough & who had the deepest pockets...

Your argument is completely irreverent, Granddad.
Go back out to your shed & work on your Z, because you sure as shit aren't being productive here!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan, are you being deliberately obtuse about Nissan? In the US they have consistently supported motorsport which has resulted in all model Zeds being raced and with a lot of the older cars still being raced, Nissan/NISMO have a regular sports option cattle dog for a start. You would know about Nissan Japan, the support seems to be strong there too.

 

In contrast Nissan Australia has never been consistent with it's racing support and that never involved Zeds anyway. Factory backing carries weight and that includes with bodies like CAMS. I've mentioned Porsche several times as to how this is done well, not all their racing success is attributable to their cars even if the fanboys would like to think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? What's all this got to do with Nissan?

 

It looks like an entirely local problem to me. Typically with a national race sanctioning body, a bunch of participants who lobbied to make sure things got set up to suit them, and a healthy dose of marginalisation on top. SNAFU.

 

What jumped out at me from hmd's post:

 

 

 

....and I have to say (allow me this as an outsider looking in from a long way away...) all that previous talk of "getting a letter from Nissan", the works rally cars, the Japanese Police cars etc etc was just pie in the sky nonsense and neither here nor there.

 

I have been over this ad-nauseum,,,,,

Yes, if we can show that a factory buiot, prepared, or dealer built and prepared car, WAS fitted with items, tyen the historic Elegibility committe here in Australia, WILL acdept this.

 

Lurch refers to a certain meeting, At tyat meeting the Eligibility Officer, he speaks of, is, in fact, the Chairman of one of the Historic Commision departments, that considers, and, if can be shown, approves such cars.

 

His words,,,, "Show us it was built, and we will approve it, but, it cannot be a modified for Group 4 purpose car. A car prepared by a dealer, or the factory, that was legally road registered, and used on public roads, anywhere, in the World"

 

Pretty cut and dried.

Alan and Richard seem to think they know otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if we can show that a factory buiot, prepared, or dealer built and prepared car, WAS fitted with items, tyen the historic Elegibility committe here in Australia, WILL acdept this.

 

His words,,,, "Show us it was built, and we will approve it, but, it cannot be a modified for Group 4 purpose car. A car prepared by a dealer, or the factory, that was legally road registered, and used on public roads, anywhere, in the World"

 

Pretty cut and dried.

 

If it was that "cut and dried" it would have been done and dusted by now.

 

The problem is you've left out one vital piece of the challenge. It's the bit about such cars actually being put on sale to the general public, as new cars, and sold via a normal point of sale with an agreed, listed price as a viable and legal commercial product. They would probably want all the demon tweeks listed and unimpeachably documented too.   

 

It never happened. At least not in the accepted form that they demand to see proof of. The 432s and 432-Rs don't help you (different models), the Works rally cars don't help you (never sold to the general public) and the Japanese police cars certainly don't help you (they were almost stock anyway, and not sold to the general public). No "letter from Nissan" is going to help you.

 

I'm not taking any joy from that. I'd like to see the cars represented in a form that they could easily have existed in during the relevant period too, but if the racing classes in question are anything like the UK's 'Historic Roadsports' classes then they've purposely set it up to try to level the playing field to suit certain participants and make it as much about good driving as anything else. All such series and classes are full of politics, self interest and smug status quo. That's just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dat2Kman & myself were told at dinner one night during the Morgan Park historic's weekend as few years ago by a CAMS Group S Historic Eligibility officer, and I quote:

"I opened the loophole in the Sc rules to allow the late 260Z I was building to be log-booked as a 280Z (with the appropriate parts), then when I received the log book, I closed the loophole! *laughs*"

 

So then I myself asked the question:

"So if someone came to you & said: 'I have a factory delivered car with 8" rims, triple Mikuni 44's & larger front MK63 brakes & disc rears' I'd be able to log book a Z within GrpS with these options?"

"Yes" came the reply...

 

Nothing.

I repeat NOTHING you say changes anything you perceive to be an injustice to Z racing in Australia, Richard.

It all came down to who shouted loud enough & who had the deepest pockets...

Your argument is completely irreverent, Granddad.

Go back out to your shed & work on your Z, because you sure as shit aren't being productive here!

 

 

 

If you seriously think chook that factory weight is worth nothing in these circumstances then I suggest that you you go back to chopping rust and leave the discussion to those who have a brain.

 

The Sc eligibility thing has been going on off and on here for ages and only now do you decide to provide fresh information, apparently not to help but to score points as seems usual with you. Not that a dinner table conversation is definitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been over this ad-nauseum,,,,,

Yes, if we can show that a factory buiot, prepared, or dealer built and prepared car, WAS fitted with items, tyen the historic Elegibility committe here in Australia, WILL acdept this.

 

Lurch refers to a certain meeting, At tyat meeting the Eligibility Officer, he speaks of, is, in fact, the Chairman of one of the Historic Commision departments, that considers, and, if can be shown, approves such cars.

 

His words,,,, "Show us it was built, and we will approve it, but, it cannot be a modified for Group 4 purpose car. A car prepared by a dealer, or the factory, that was legally road registered, and used on public roads, anywhere, in the World"

 

Pretty cut and dried.

Alan and Richard seem to think they know otherwise.

 

The problem is Jason that over time you have changed the relevancy of certain Sc eligibility criteria, what you and chook have now come up with is a new one, not that it's definitive. Previously it was all about sports option parts for Datsuns, Porsches got wider wheels because a dealer fitted them and same with carbs for a British car. That's all from memory but it's all on this forum, that's the problem for people who change their story when it's all in writing.

 

I can only guess that you ran this nonsense in the past because at the time you had a Sc Zed for sale. Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are and old curmudgeon, arent you.

Many on here know this, and think to themselves the same,

 

I have always contended, here, that, if we can show the same information that the Porches, the Morgans, the MGB's, the Corvettes, the Mustangs, and no doubt others, were able to produce, many many decades after the cars were built off the factory floor, that "some certain dealers" ( in the majority of cars, it was just one single dealership) fitted to a new car, for use on public roads, somewhere in the World, and with that "proof of fitment and supply" document, the Historic commission will accept and allow it.

 

When the Chairman of that commission was approched, by me, and, also asked by Lurch, at a later time,, "what do we need to show or do"

The reply was "do what the others have done, show evidence of dealer or factory fitment of these items that we know of, in that Option book, for a road registered car, and we will allow it"

 

No story change there. I had been pursuing this for many years prior to selling my car, and after.

Why do you claim i am "pathetic"? Selling my 280Z, when you eventually comprehend, and realise a few simple facts, about that cars specification, you might happen to actually understand something.

But you wont, and never will, you dont have one iota of sense or knowledge in your addled geriatric mind, about what this means for a earleir model Z.

But, of course, you are an expert oracle in all things to do with racing,,,,,, and the fastest Z car too, apparently,,,,,

Just stick to welding welds upon welds, and making a plasticene Sports Sedan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are back with your original story Jason so why did you nix Gavin's comment about pursuing the dealer stamped option cattle dog lead? Obviously it's possible that someone from such a dealer may know, and could even have a record of, dealer fitment of option parts. That's all that was being suggested and anyone with half a brain could understand that. Lurch doing a troll couldn't, neither apparently could you.

 

I find it amusing that you and your mate are so desperate to come up with something to criticise me about, it appears that some of the tech stuff in my Z31 build thread is a bit beyond you. Is that what it's about? As for reputations, every time at Bathurst someone who finds out I'm from Qld asks if I know you and then proceeds with telling something that is not complimentary at all about you. And as for the Qld Z car club, well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Chairman of that commission was approched, by me, and, also asked by Lurch, at a later time,, "what do we need to show or do"

The reply was "do what the others have done, show evidence of dealer or factory fitment of these items that we know of, in that Option book, for a road registered car, and we will allow it"

 

Sorry for the interruption to internet war

 

It's not what someone says that matters it what is written in the rule, my understanding of it are

 

Factory option to production car, YES

Options fitted for Motorsport use, Datsun Motorsport catalogue or rally car parts, NO

Single dealer fitted option to production car, may be you will need a favourable commission at the time of your submission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dat2Kman & myself were told at dinner one night during the Morgan Park historic's weekend as few years ago by a CAMS Group S Historic Eligibility officer, and I quote:

"I opened the loophole in the Sc rules to allow the late 260Z I was building to be log-booked as a 280Z (with the appropriate parts), then when I received the log book, I closed the loophole! *laughs*"

 

 

Yes the VIN number range on the spec sheet dictate this. If you can get something through when the spec sheet is wrong then your car is considered a 'grand father' car. There is an AFLA with 1750 instead of 1600 and a datsun roadster 1600 with 2000 engine.

 

There was a rumour that a run of the mill 2.7 911 passed through as a Carrera 2.7

Edited by hmd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you are back with your original story Jason so why did you nix Gavin's comment about pursuing the dealer stamped option cattle dog lead? Obviously it's possible that someone from such a dealer may know, and could even have a record of, dealer fitment of option parts. That's all that was being suggested and anyone with half a brain could understand that. Lurch doing a troll couldn't, neither apparently could you.

 

I find it amusing that you and your mate are so desperate to come up with something to criticise me about, it appears that some of the tech stuff in my Z31 build thread is a bit beyond you. Is that what it's about? As for reputations, every time at Bathurst someone who finds out I'm from Qld asks if I know you and then proceeds with telling something that is not complimentary at all about you. And as for the Qld Z car club, well.

You been spending way too much time in the sun, great-grandad,,,,,

Better go check up your assertion about getting "dealer stamps on an option catalogue"

You'll find it wasn't me!

But you just keep sticking to your opinionated views, being that you are the oracle of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the interruption to internet war

It's not what someone says that matters it what is written in the rule, my understanding of it are

Factory option to production car, YES

Options fitted for Motorsport use, Datsun Motorsport catalogue or rally car parts, NO

Single dealer fitted option to production car, may be you will need a favourable commission at the time of your submission

hung,

There have been quite a number of so called "letters" from dealers, regarding the "we fitted xyz parts to a new car, off the floor" obtained by quite a number of Marques, armed with that "letter" the Historic Commission concedes and allows those items.

 

We were advised that if we can also present the same, or similar, regarding either dealer fitment, or, factory build, and with stipulation that it must be for a road registered car, anywhere, that, it too, would be considered, and approved.

Nothing new there, been done before, however, there are special circumstances that can, and do, over rule this, and substitute parts, of similar petiod/style are allowed, but that takes a bit of legwork, to get done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gav, that wont cut it with the EO's at CAMS.

For other readons, I got Weber DCOE's approved in place of Mikuni PHH44 for the Datsun 2000's, this now appears on the Spec Sheets for Group S.

Never sold with them, never listed in any Option Parts book, either.

 

I wont be getting myself invlolved with the silly crap that gets bandied about by all the Hysterical Experts, leave that to the young ones to persevere with.

 

This is what you said Jason concerning Gavin's thought that a dealer stamped  options cattle dog may be of use. It's quite clear from the above that you dismissed Gavin's comment. Suggestion for you, if you are going to change your story to suit the circumstances then don't forget what you have already said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really msconstrue things dont you!

Where did I say, what you claim I said???

Read the comment you quoted above.

Nothing whatsoever about requiring a dealer to stamp a catalogue for parts.

 

My quoted comment was to do with Dato 2000's being given dispensation to fit alternative, and, these alternatives, were never fitted by any dealer, factory, or listed in any Datsun option catalogue.,, in period, or later.

Yes, Gav's thought that a dealer stamping a booklet, may have some sway, unfortunately, not, and I pounted this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gav,

 

Here are the documents for Group S (Production Sport) and 240, 260 and 280 z spec sheets.

 

 

At last some reliable info from someone directly involved in Sc, thankyou hmd. All this time us 'outsiders' have been misinformed about the status of Sports Option parts while some of us have been putting some effort into trying to help, those of us who have nothing to gain but simply would like to see the S30 be less handicapped. 

 

It looks like all this has come about through Nissan's lack of consistent support for motorsport and particularly for the Z car and the privateer drivers, something that I rant about occasionally. On the other hand Porsche consistently back their product and owners by gaining whatever advantages they can for them. That's the difference.

 

What????

 

These documents are and have been readily available from the CAMS website for many years, as are the FIA homologation papers able to be ordered from CAMS.

 

From reading these documents and the CAMS manual of motorsport, that lays out the rules for general competition plus the general requirements for automobiles in various schedules, plus the actual rules for each category, 1, 2, 3, 4 and the 5th category for historic cars it's pretty easy to get all this information, that has been bought up and quoted over the years in various threads on this forum.

 

After reading the last few pages, and other threads, are you generally interested in historic racing and trying to help get some more freedoms for S30 cars as per some of the competitiors, or are you just trolling to continue whatever yelling at clouds vendettas you have against certain people on here????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×