The MSA stae the reason for change as ‘Aligning the MSA regulations with those currently in use and accepted by competitors in the HRCR Road Rally Championship’

This reason for change is wrong. The regulations for the HRCR Road Rally Championship state:

‘2. ELIGIBLE CARS

2.1 Cars complying with the MSA Technical Regulations for Category 1, 2 or 3 Historic Road Rally cars, will be acceptable for use in the Championship.’

So the reason for the change is totally invalid. The MSA want the rules to fall in line with the HRCR whose regulations are the MSA’s very own !! this is ridiculous and therefore there is no reason to change, they are already aligned!

Furthermore if the MSA want to align their rules shouldn’t they be aligning them with FIA appendix K where there is no mention of handbrakes? Once again, as with 70 Profile tyres we are stepping out of line with the FIA.

Why should the HRCR road rally championship which probably attracts a core of twenty regular competitors be the reason for a change that affects all UK historic road events? There are many other events taking place in the UK which are not in the championship and which have nothing to do with the HRCR. Some owners of classic cars may wish to compete on modern events as well as historics where hydraulic handbrakes are and will be allowed. Whilst it is perhaps understandable that the committee would not wish to encourage handbrake turns on the highway, are stage rally drivers or the drivers of modern road rally cars (where hydraulic handbrakes are allowed), more responsible and less likely to perform the manoeuvre than the classic car counterparts? I don’t think so.

Lets look at a few of the other arguments put forward.:

They are not a period modification

Wrong, according to Google, Malcolm Lougheed (American) designed a hydraulic braking system for cars, receiving 7 patents for his idea between Dec 1917 and July 1923.

In 1924 the American Chrysler Six Phaeton B-70 and the British Triumph 13/35 models were the next two production cars to be equipped with the improved, four-wheel, Lougheed (Lockheed?) hydraulic brakes. Therefore any car with hydraulic brakes could be adapted to fit a hydraulic handbrake so it is a period mod and could have been used in 1924!

Hydraulic Handbrakes were common on mk 1 Escorts and widely used in the seventies on many rally cars, so they were used in period.

But there is a more important point than that.

If any one thinks that the road rallies in the HRCR championship bear any resemblance to the road rallies of the fifties/sixties and seventies they are living in fantasy land. Historic road rallies have evolved over the last twenty years to fit in with what is ‘acceptable ‘ in today’s over regulated society.

Then it was all about time controls and navigation most, if not all of which, was held at night. Today’s road rally consists of regularities with multiple changes of speed and are held in daylight. To make it interesting for the driver these are interspersed with driving tests, many of which feature manoeuvres around cones.,much akin to autotests, and this is why the driver needs a hydraulic handbrake. We should be allowed to adapt the car to suit the rallies that are being held now.

If you support the ‘not in period’ argument then the rallies themselves are not in period, we should ban Jogularities, regularities with multiple speed changes, digital stopwatches, high backed seats, Liege Timers, computerised results , halogen bulbs, full harness seat belts, roll cages ( unless homologated )and so on. The ‘ not in period’ argument just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

It’s not a level Playing field.

Hydraulic handbrakes are not expensive to install, £200 would probably be an average price, and can be installed on any car with hydraulic brakes, and it actually creates a level playing field. Otherwise front wheel drive cars, and Mini’s in particular have a huge advantage over rear wheel drive cars. Some such as Porsche 911’s have ‘parking’ brakes rather than hand brakes as do Saab 99’s, other cars used ‘umbrella ‘type handbrakes which are totally useless in rallying e.g. Ford Cortina’s, Mercedes and Alfa’s, some other cars have handbrakes working on the front wheels. Therefore allowing Hydraulic handbrakes allows rear wheel drive cars a chance to compete with Mini’s on to-days tests

We don’t want drivers doing handbrake turns on public roads.

What the MSA Historic Committee don’t seem to have grasped is that all the driving tests on road rallies take place on private land and not on the public highway, this is where the hydraulic handbrake comes into play most of the time so what’s wrong with that. Let the driver enjoy him/herself, lets create a spectacle for the spectators, it’s fun!!!. You never know perhaps more people would come out and watch, maybe generate an income for the organisers!

If the MSA don’t want the handbrake used on road sections ( eg hairpins round triangles) then they had better stop organisers putting timing points 10 yards after hairpin junctions. Just because you have not got a hydraulic handbrake won’t stop a driver from using the handbrake to get round tight junctions etc. Furthermore stage cars and modern cars are allowed Hydraulic handbrakes, both use the public highway, so if this issue is of concern to the MSA perhaps they shouldn’t single out Historic Road Rally cars, but ban the lot!.

This debate /discussion should have taken place before the MSA made the decision, and it highlights the need for the HRCR, as I outlined in last months Old Stager , to delegate a vigilant person to monitor these proposals on the MSA web site and then bring any contentious issues to the notice of the competitor. My belief is that the MSA exists for the benefit of the competitors and not the other way round. If you support my argument for the retention of Hydraulic Handbrakes please e mail me a brief message ‘ I support the use of Hydraulic handbrakes in historic Road Rallies’ to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Please tell your friends and then perhaps we can persuade the MSA to revoke this unnecessary rule.

Paul Wignall

July 2011