Anyone getting a sense of deja vu? Does the governing body launching a consultation on clumsy proposals without a proper explanation of the reasoning behind them sound familiar?
But, no, I’m not talking about the controversial changes to track-limits rules launched at the start of last year. Instead, I’m referring to the suggested alterations to the regulations surrounding race series.
These plans stem from the perfectly sensible aim to clamp down on organisers abusing the system. Some series have foolishly published their own points table online or awarded an overall winner at their end of season prize-giving, all while circumnavigating the rules for championships that require certain standards to be in place. So far, so logical.
But further tweaks that have gone out to consultation surround what words a series can use in its name - preventing “trophy” or “cup” from appearing - limiting series to only having six rounds on their calendar and barring any overseas trips, all designed to create clear differentiation between a series and championship. These proposals have really irked some, although others are not especially concerned.
“It doesn’t really affect us because we predominantly run championships,” says 750 Motor Club competition manager Giles Groombridge. “A few series we run tend to be running six rounds anyway, I think probably we might have to make a few name changes. For example, the CALM Porsche Trophy, which is very successful, may have to drop the ‘Trophy’ and just become a series or challenge.”
However, other organisers would be far more impacted, Equipe Classic Racing for instance. It does not run any championships and would therefore have to decide whether to shorten its calendars or switch its wealth of categories into championships and battle the logistical headaches this would involve.
“We believe there’s no justification for this and it amounts to a serious restriction on trade for racing clubs,” says Equipe partner Rob Cull, who describes the six-round figure as “arbitrary”. “We believe drivers know the difference between championships and series and there’s no evidence to show otherwise. Club racing is a hobby sport and drivers should be able to choose. The whole sport will suffer.”
Those are strong words, but that is hardly surprising when there is potential for financial consequences. One of the reasons some series have longer schedules is because people dip in and out; it allows them to pick and choose from a greater variety of venues and ensures more drivers are catered for. These proposals impinge upon that and in turn have a knock-on effect on other stakeholders, including circuits that could face fewer bookings.
But, with a little more thought, so much of this anger could have been prevented and it is clear some of the practicalities of these plans have not truly been considered – especially if a swathe of series switch to being championships.
Surely someone should have realised the rumpus the plans would create in that time, causing a rethink, and it’s concerning they did not
“If you run a championship, you have to have an eligibility scrutineer and they’re already multi-tasking,” says Classic Sports Car Club director Hugo Holder. “If we were to take 13 of our series [to become championships], we’d need to get an eligibility scrutineer to do that.” Such an undertaking would be a huge challenge given the shortage of scrutineers.
Then there’s the consultation document itself, which specifies that – if approved – the new rules would be implemented from 1 January 2025. Many clubs are angry that the decision to switch to a championship for next season was seemingly not an option as the deadline for registering a new championship is the start of August this year.
However, Motorsport UK has since revealed the new rules would only appear in the Year Book in 2025 and would therefore not come into effect until planning a series for 2026. But nowhere is that key piece of reassuring information stated.
“I think that's a key point and that's probably a little drop down in the communication from our side of the way those have been put out - it needs better explaining,” admits Motorsport UK sporting director John Ryan.
Of the idea of restricting series to six rounds, he adds: “It came from the working groups and they felt it's one way to differentiate a series versus a championship. And maybe it's a step too far. In this case, we got out of alignment with the regulation proposals. There are two of them that have quite clearly created a lot of questions and have to be reviewed.”
The other controversial one that will be reassessed at the end of this month concerns a ban on in-car devices that receive or transmit real-time data, unless they are specifically allowed within a category's individual regulations.
“I've spoken to some of the big manufacturers already explaining what the rationale was,” says Ryan. “What we don't want is for drivers to have a screen that tells them what the driving line is irrespective of what's in front of them - they're driving to a screen rather than what's on a track. It's those sort of things, we don't want them to potentially cause a hazard or become a distraction.
“Anything that's a coaching tool to help them after they've come back in and see what went wrong, that's all good. We don't want to stop people understanding when to change gear, we just need to get that balance.”
The timing of all this also causes concern. The original race committee meeting was held in June and it was nearly two months later that the consultation began.
This has been explained by the sheer volume of proposals – nine in total – and the need for half a dozen subsequent meetings to finalise the details. But surely someone should have realised the rumpus the plans would create in that time, causing a rethink, and it’s concerning they did not.
Unsurprisingly, Motorsport UK has already been inundated with responses to the consultation and it remains open for another week. It is also considering how the consultation process could be improved, potentially adding a vote element in order to judge how representative angry emails about proposals actually are of the wider community.
In the meantime, the governing body urges people to get in contact and, when they do, to come up with alternatives to what is being put forward. “It's good that people are responding to the consultation, you need to do that and be constructive with it as well,” says Ryan.
Ultimately, whatever form the consultation takes, the fact remains this is the second year in a row where Motorsport UK has sparked widespread anger and is also likely to have to backtrack to some degree for a second time.
You could argue this shows the consultation process is working successfully, as the community gets to have its say and force the governing body to alter its plans, but all of this frustration could be avoided if greater attention went into how the proposals could be perceived and implemented.
Trust is eroded, and some of the organisation’s good work is undone, when unjustifiable plans emerge. Motorsport UK must learn from this - it can’t happen a third time.
Anyone with concerns about the proposals is encouraged to email raceconsultation@motorsportuk.org before the consultation closes on 29 August.
