22 / 28
22
What's more, there's a culture of
omertà
in the Historic racing business and most folk we
spoke to asked not to be named.
And why, you might wonder, are the rules not being enforced more rigorously by the RAC
MSA? This leads us into another sorry byway, known as the Historic Technical Passport -
HTP. This is in essence an identity document, which is supposed to accompany every
entrant in an FIA endorsed meeting. It details what the car was like when it left the factory
(its homologation papers), against what it is (or should be) now. It replaced the Historic
Vehicle Identity Form (HVIF), which had a truncated history of the car that, as one expert
said, 'usually contained more misinformation than truth'.
In the last year the FIA has introduced a new structure involving payment by the
competitor for the inspection process and licence, which is renewed every five years ( since
extended after widespread protest to every ten years). These new HTPs are the source of
great ire among competitors, especially those with a few cars, as the process can cost
upwards of £1000 a car.
Many feel that they are not only a grubby way of coercing money out of Historic motor
sport, but also an acknowledgment of the incredibly lax past management of the system. At
one time the system was so hopeless that, in some cases of rare but desirable racing cars,
there were more than twice the number of 'genuine' HVIF validated cars out there than had
ever been made by the manufacturer.
And it's not getting that much better. I've been shown three separate HTP papers for the
same car in different specifications and I understand this is by no means exceptional.
Not all cars (Grand Prix racers and GT cars, for example) have homologation papers, which
leads to wide differences of opinion about what was original. Although it should be up to the
competitor to prove the specification that's being applied for, the MSA's irregular army of
volunteer inspectors aren't always universally experienced enough to judge, and some of
them feel cruelly exposed. As one inspector told me: 'We're really vulnerable, competitors
hate us, we're open to be sued by wealthy owners if we get it wrong, and we're doing it for
pin money'.
Furthermore, Rod Parkin says: 'We're all conscious that we don't have enough expertise out
there,' admitting that the new HTPs are perhaps 'an acknowledgment that we don't have
ability to monitor cars as well as we could.'
So who's to blame?
'It's a big exercise in buck-passing between the competitors, the organisers and the clubs,'
sighed one senior official with a long-standing UK motor club. The FIA is exasperated at the
delays in implementation by the MSA, the MSA points the finger at competitors and, even
when individual cars are judged to be breaking the rules and remedial action taken, 'the next
time we see them on the grid, they're back the way they were,' said one official. 'Organisers
don't seem to care.'
Several fingers point firmly at event organisers. On the one hand they're more keen on
spectacle than the letter of the law and also making quite tricky and dangerous cars easier
and safer to drive; on the other, they're trying to equal things up on the grid in the face of
the dilemma of the single dominant car of its period. Goodwood, for example, has permitted
some super-tuning of its entrants, though Will Kinsman at the motor sport department
strongly refutes any suggestion that Goodwood's particular rules have encouraged a
lackadaisical attitude to rule-breaking.
'We have more people checking rules than at any other meeting; he says. 'Ride height,
weight, wheelbase, displacement, trick suspension or materials, we're checking them.' He
also says that Goodwood works closely with the MSA and the FIA Historic commission to