The availability of 13" road going list 1A/B tyres has diminished, and the demise of Avon (now Nova) has increased the problem of supply.
So back in March this year, I put together a proposal paper to the MSUK to review the List 1 A/B/C tyre lists ..
Principally, there are road going tyres that can be sold in the UK market that are road legal 'E' marked , but not MSUK list 1A/B compliant.. so you can drive to the venue on road legal list 1c tyre, but not compete with it .. this just doesn't make common sense. .. so i'm suggesting that road legal classes should be able to compete with any 'E' marked road legal tyres.
Also it doesn't underwrite the MSUK vision to "Promote accessibility. Support affordable, adaptable vehicles for all competition levels. Simplify regulations. Modernise and clarify technical rules to make them easier to understand and apply".
I am not claiming to have solved the issue, but with new EU reg ECE 117 due this summer, there will be further implications im sure. My aim is to raise the profile of the issue and try to get the MSUK to consider the grass roots motorsport competitor.
I have received an acknowledgement from the MSUK sustainability committee re my proposal, and i also am aware that the hill climb committee (and possibly the technical) are reviewing my paper.
With this forum now gathering pace and membership, i though i would share my paper - unfortunately the forum system wont let me post either a pdf or word doc of my paper .. so if you want to read it then message me and i will forward it by email.
I am providing this for information, but if you agree with my thoughts then it would be good to know.
Review of ‘E’ marked tyres
Could you upload it to a public folder in the cloud and post a link ? Just a thought.
I suppose the rationale was 1C tyres are quicker & more track focussed (and more money) whereas 1A/B are more road focussed (and cheaper) - but is that true anymore ?
I suppose the rationale was 1C tyres are quicker & more track focussed (and more money) whereas 1A/B are more road focussed (and cheaper) - but is that true anymore ?
-
hillclimber
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2026 2:33 pm
13" looks easy, compared to 14"...
Even 14's from List 1A that I used to run, disappeared from the list subsequently - although the tyre remains available. A move that widened choice would be very welcome before I have to buy another set of more expensive Yokohamas from 1B that are inferior when cold.
Cheers, Colin
Even 14's from List 1A that I used to run, disappeared from the list subsequently - although the tyre remains available. A move that widened choice would be very welcome before I have to buy another set of more expensive Yokohamas from 1B that are inferior when cold.
Cheers, Colin
-
castlecroft
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2026 9:08 am
let me update ..
I had a discussion with the chair of the hill climb committee in the MUSK at last months prescott event, and it was indicated that rather than waiting till their normal September meeting - they are going to hold a impromptu zoom call to discuss the issue ... and that they acknowledge the issue that i have raised ..
then notably - the following week the MSUK issued out a consultation that stated that from Jan 2027 all cars will be able to run the list 1b pre 1990 annotated tyres - for reasons of fairness to competitors.
my understanding of the pre 1990 listed tyres is that they are not EU 117 compliant (this being the reason why list 1C was introduced by the manufacturers tyre panel in the MSUK) - as in list 1B are NOT EU 117 compliant - but list 1C are... but all tyres are 'E marked .. (the EU117 reg governs the rolling road resistance, noise etc ... )
so you could argue that as the pre 1990 tyres are NOT EU 117, AND we can use them from Jan 2027, then what is the point of having a list 1C at all ... just let competitors use any 'E' marked tyre from the lists.
im sure its in the gift of the MSUK to regulate so that NON EU117 tyres can be used by all -- just look at the rally cars - there is lots of special dispensations being given to those competitors.
im still awaiting a formal reply from the technical and hill climb committees in the MSUK, but i suspect that this wont be till after the impromptu zoom call ... as and when i receive a reply will update the thread
if any body does want my paper then send me a DM with your email and i will respond .. but it would be useful if this forum was able to accept pdf files...
I had a discussion with the chair of the hill climb committee in the MUSK at last months prescott event, and it was indicated that rather than waiting till their normal September meeting - they are going to hold a impromptu zoom call to discuss the issue ... and that they acknowledge the issue that i have raised ..
then notably - the following week the MSUK issued out a consultation that stated that from Jan 2027 all cars will be able to run the list 1b pre 1990 annotated tyres - for reasons of fairness to competitors.
my understanding of the pre 1990 listed tyres is that they are not EU 117 compliant (this being the reason why list 1C was introduced by the manufacturers tyre panel in the MSUK) - as in list 1B are NOT EU 117 compliant - but list 1C are... but all tyres are 'E marked .. (the EU117 reg governs the rolling road resistance, noise etc ... )
so you could argue that as the pre 1990 tyres are NOT EU 117, AND we can use them from Jan 2027, then what is the point of having a list 1C at all ... just let competitors use any 'E' marked tyre from the lists.
im sure its in the gift of the MSUK to regulate so that NON EU117 tyres can be used by all -- just look at the rally cars - there is lots of special dispensations being given to those competitors.
im still awaiting a formal reply from the technical and hill climb committees in the MSUK, but i suspect that this wont be till after the impromptu zoom call ... as and when i receive a reply will update the thread
if any body does want my paper then send me a DM with your email and i will respond .. but it would be useful if this forum was able to accept pdf files...
I would support a move to E-marked tyres forthe small Road-going Production class.
As the screen-name suggests, I run an Austin Healey Sprite and used to run it in Class 1a (Road-going Production up to 1400cc) but had to switch to Pre-1971 class when the Yokohamas I used were de-listed as Loton Park does not require listed tyres, only road-legal; Harewood, however, stipulates that tyres must be 1A,B,C or a couple of specials from Dunlop and Goodyear but I got away with it for a couple of years as nobody noticed! The Yokhamas were only on the list for three years, which, for the most grass-roots Speed class is ridiculous. I gather it is the manufacturers who decide which of their tyres should be listed.
The number of tyres in the list 1a available in 13" sizes has reduced and, as versions are superceded, increasingly the later generations are not available in anything smaller than 14". My problem is compounded by being limited to 165/13s; while I could use list 1B tyres, there are none available narrower than 175.
Roadgoing Production is frequently the starter class for people giving speed events a try and having to shell out for listed tyres just because the ones fitted aren't on the list must put some folk off.
I would, however, limit the E-marked tyres rule to the Up to 1400cc category as, without researching it, I suspect there is likely to be a much better selection of listed tyres available for larger-engined cars.
Colin (A different one)
As the screen-name suggests, I run an Austin Healey Sprite and used to run it in Class 1a (Road-going Production up to 1400cc) but had to switch to Pre-1971 class when the Yokohamas I used were de-listed as Loton Park does not require listed tyres, only road-legal; Harewood, however, stipulates that tyres must be 1A,B,C or a couple of specials from Dunlop and Goodyear but I got away with it for a couple of years as nobody noticed! The Yokhamas were only on the list for three years, which, for the most grass-roots Speed class is ridiculous. I gather it is the manufacturers who decide which of their tyres should be listed.
The number of tyres in the list 1a available in 13" sizes has reduced and, as versions are superceded, increasingly the later generations are not available in anything smaller than 14". My problem is compounded by being limited to 165/13s; while I could use list 1B tyres, there are none available narrower than 175.
Roadgoing Production is frequently the starter class for people giving speed events a try and having to shell out for listed tyres just because the ones fitted aren't on the list must put some folk off.
I would, however, limit the E-marked tyres rule to the Up to 1400cc category as, without researching it, I suspect there is likely to be a much better selection of listed tyres available for larger-engined cars.
Colin (A different one)
-
castlecroft
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2026 9:08 am
Hi Colin..
Yes, it's the tyre manufacturers that propose which tyres are listed... And in my paper I indicated that there is no clear line of visibility as to the governance and oversight of the tyre panel by the msuk... Hence I would argue that it's a sudo certel....
Your experience of "getting away with some tyres that suit your car but were possibly non compliant with the tyre regs although were 'e' marked highlights the issue the grass roots are facing... And that the scrutes are in a difficult position to spot non compliance, they only have a few minutes per car for the checks... Again this points to a ridiculous position that has developed...
A clear move to get rid of list 1a/b/c towards having just an 'e' marked rule simplifies the whole position for all...
But that is the challenge for the msuk.. Making it simple could be too easy for musk ..
Yes, it's the tyre manufacturers that propose which tyres are listed... And in my paper I indicated that there is no clear line of visibility as to the governance and oversight of the tyre panel by the msuk... Hence I would argue that it's a sudo certel....
Your experience of "getting away with some tyres that suit your car but were possibly non compliant with the tyre regs although were 'e' marked highlights the issue the grass roots are facing... And that the scrutes are in a difficult position to spot non compliance, they only have a few minutes per car for the checks... Again this points to a ridiculous position that has developed...
A clear move to get rid of list 1a/b/c towards having just an 'e' marked rule simplifies the whole position for all...
But that is the challenge for the msuk.. Making it simple could be too easy for musk ..
The Scrutes at Harewood had me worried one time when they were waiting to inspect tyres on batch return. It turned out someone had been spotted on 50 profile tyres where the class regs specified nothing lower than 60 (now lowered to 55 I think). Mine were 70 profile and he didn't spot the Yokohama markings.
Perhaps one option for Roadgoing Production, is to allow E-marked but excluding extreme low profiles unless they were a factory option.
Perhaps one option for Roadgoing Production, is to allow E-marked but excluding extreme low profiles unless they were a factory option.
FORUM SPONSORS
