JAF ( Japanese Automobile Federation) Approval Documentation

[oldmates260z]

As provided by dat2kman ...... many thanks

 

- Cover page and page relating to rim sizes, this is for 1969 to 1976 models.

- USA 280Z (not ZX) 1977 to 1978 had 15" diameters

- The handwritten "not for PRC" relates to PRC rules for Australian rally (dirt) cars.

- The diagram shows the offset and track changes.

- This document was supplied by Nissan to be approved by the JAF, it is on this that many can fit the much wider rims.

- The allowance of 1" larger diameters to 15" is a great help, as tyre choice in 14" is lacking.

[andyk_79]

If someone wants to email me the original full size pics I'll add to my photobucket and post/link in this thread. Th resized pics are a bit grainy

 

Atkking at yahoo dot com

[oldmates260z]

Done

[andyk_79]

And here they are:

 

 

 

[HS30-H]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here.

 

The JAF and FIA homologation documents relating to the S30-series Zs were compiled, ratified and passed with the express purpose of legalising certain models and certain parts for use in competitive motorsports. They were not intended to facilitate the use of certain racing/rallying-related parts on private road cars, and that legal aspect was under the jurisdiction of local transport ministries and/or governments.

 

If your local transport ministry allows you to use the JAF/FIA homologations to 'prove' that you should be allowed to use something then all well and good, but let's understand that this is not what they were intended for. 

 

USA 280Z (not ZX) 1977 to 1978 had 15" diameters

 

Whereabouts on the JAF GT010 / FIA 3023 documents is this noted?   

[dat2kman]

As above, USA 280Z models were sold with dealer fitted optional 15" diameter rims.

Documentation indicating this, or something similar, and a submission was made to have 15" diam rims for any 280Z that may be used in Australia.

There are Historic Specification papers that now list this.

These are intended for cars that may or may not be, road registered.

 

 

Same principle was applied to pre 1976 Porsche where an Australian dealer fitted , to new cars, prior to customer delivery, an 8" wide rear rim, and a 7" wide front rim, in place f the factory stock 6" &7" wide rims.

 

You can then add the "plus 1 & plus 1" rule, which many do, and is permitted by various Australian transport authourities.

[HS30-H]

As above, USA 280Z models were sold with dealer fitted optional 15" diameter rims.

Documentation indicating this, or something similar, and a submission was made to have 15" diam rims for any 280Z that may be used in Australia.

There are Historic Specification papers that now list this.

These are intended for cars that may or may not be, road registered.

 

But NONE of that is anything to do with the JAF/FIA homologation papers, which was being implied in the first post on this topic and I have seen being implied on another post on this forum. It simply isn't connected.

 

Having been part of a long-winded and time-costly application to allow 15" dia. wheels to be used on S30-series Zs in FIA-sanctioned historic motorsport events, I can tell you that it's not as simple as pointing at something a dealer might have offered in-period. If CAMS accept that then good for you, but it won't wash for JAF/FIA-sanctioned events that are run more strictly to the letter of Appendix J and the JAF/FIA homologation papers do NOT prove legality of 15" wheels.      

 

 

 

[dat2kman]

CAMS Australia has!

It was result of a long running submission for Historic Production Sports Cars.

Surprised me that it got through!

A 280Z called a "Zapper" had Nissan Dealer fitted option of larger rims, and the CAMS position here s that it must have been either Factory fitted, or Dealer fitted. Crazy hey!

Thats how Porsche gets the big rims, MGB's get a Weber DCOE, Morgans get alloy radiators and five speed boxes and bigfer carbs, Shelby GT350 ( Mustang) gets bigfer Kelsey Hayes calipers and discs and bigger rims.

All due to "Dealer Fitment" which has to be proven.

 

What did DT Dobie in South Africa, and there was a Datsun Dealer in Woking, UK, what did they fit to new cars?

Whether it was sold to private, or not, or "given" to very talented drivers and navigators, it does not matter, we need to onow what was fitted to New cars, by either Factory or Dealers, and proof of this.

 

If we here in Australia can get this information, it can be submitted to the Governing body, here, who, for many years tend to "go it alone" when it comes to rest of the World.

New Zealand, under MSNZ allow the Option Parts to be fitted, but they must be petipd, with no need to prove fitment onto a New Car, ( unlike us in Australia!).

 

I note a USA 240Z recently competed in Japan, at a Historic meet, but was ruled illegal, as it had fitted a 2.4 litre engine, when it was supposed to have a 2 litre engine. ( a particular year period, or class pf car/category??)

[HS30-H]

CAMS Australia has!

It was result of a long running submission for Historic Production Sports Cars.

Surprised me that it got through!

A 280Z called a "Zapper" had Nissan Dealer fitted option of larger rims, and the CAMS position here s that it must have been either Factory fitted, or Dealer fitted. Crazy hey!

Thats how Porsche gets the big rims, MGB's get a Weber DCOE, Morgans get alloy radiators and five speed boxes and bigfer carbs, Shelby GT350 ( Mustang) gets bigfer Kelsey Hayes calipers and discs and bigger rims.

All due to "Dealer Fitment" which has to be proven.

 

But that's my point: What you are describing has nothing to do with the JAF / FIA homologation papers.

 

It's purely a local (in this case Australian/CAMS) thing. Why are people making the link to the JAF / FIA papers? 

 

What did DT Dobie in South Africa, and there was a Datsun Dealer in Woking, UK, what did they fit to new cars?

Whether it was sold to private, or not, or "given" to very talented drivers and navigators, it does not matter, we need to onow what was fitted to New cars, by either Factory or Dealers, and proof of this.

 

As I've said before, D.T. Dobie and Old Woking Service Station were franchised Nissan dealers, sold STOCK new cars and were connected to Nissan's works rally team (being used as a de-facto base for the rally operations in Kenya and the UK respectively) but the particular cars you are referring to were NOT sold to anybody as new cars. They belonged to Nissan, were being used outside Japan on temporary-export carnets, and in the cases where they DID pass into private hands (in contravention of their carnets) they were already USED cars. Therefore they don't qualify for what you are trying to prove.

 

Whilst I support the principle of what you are trying to do and think the rules are biased against 'our' cars, I think you are chasing a rabbit down a hole with the D.T. Dobie / O.W.S.S. thing. 

 

I note a USA 240Z recently competed in Japan, at a Historic meet, but was ruled illegal, as it had fitted a 2.4 litre engine, when it was supposed to have a 2 litre engine. ( a particular year period, or class pf car/category??)

 

No idea what rules were being applied in that particular case, but L24-engined HLS30-prefixed LHD 'Datsun 240Z' badged cars were being RACED in JAF-sanctioned competition in Japan during 1970 and beyond by privateers. One of said cars still exists in Japan and is owned by a friend of mine. Since this is proveable, it can only imply that the rules of the historic meet in Japan dictated that such a car wasn't legal for use in their meeting. Their choice.