hillclimbracers.com

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.

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 ?

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

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 EU 117 compliant - but list 1C are not.. 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)

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 ..

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.

I have had an email confirmation from Tim Wilson (Sprint & Hill Climbs Sub-Comm. Chair) that this topic is on the agenda for the next Sub-Committee meeting in July. ..

Lets wait and see if any movement / common sense prevails on this topic ,,, as soon as i know anything i will post the response here

So .. I had a chat to Tim Wilson (chair of the hillclimb committee for msuk) at Shelsley today, to see if there had been any progress with the question that I have raised re ‘e’ marked tyres and their use in road going classes …

Put simply .. due to the msuk having only received two letters with an indication of the issue … in their eyes there can’t be a problem .. despite this thread having received over 75000 views...

So I don’t hold out for any change … it won’t be coming.

The only way that this topic / issue will receive any traction is if all road going competitors actually write to musk supporting my paper - or state in their words that there is an issue that needs attention …

Its that simple .. if you want change .. we all must write to musk

i will attempt to post my original paper on here in full...

my original paper to MSUK in full...

Review of ‘E’ marked tyres and the lack of options for road going car classes.

Graham Woodcock - Licence number xxxxxx
19/3/2026

Preface
Lets remind ourselves of the MSUK vision statement and goals: -
Our vision Together, we will power the future of motorsport and get more people enjoying motorsport more often.
Almost 40% of UK adults now identify as motorsport ‘fans’, but most don’t know how to get involved. That gap between passion and participation is our greatest opportunity. At the same time, we must ensure that current participants stay active in the sport.
People’s expectations have changed: time and money are tight, leisure choices are broader, and environmental awareness shapes how people live and travel.
Younger audiences expect flexibility, simplicity and experiences that fit their lives.
We need innovative products and pathways that make joining in easier and more accessible for everyone

Competitors are the lifeblood of motorsport. Growing their numbers, confidence and enjoyment is central to our future.
Motorsport isn’t just for the few, it’s for everyone who feels the spark.
Whether you’re trying an auto SOLO for the first time, joining a club rally, or competing on the international stage, participation drives our sport. Why it matters: Participation is how passion becomes progress.
Yet cost and time pressures, environmental expectations and changing lifestyles all shape how people engage.
The appetite is there – the thrill, the connection, the community. Our job is to make entry easier, journeys smoother and experiences more rewarding.

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.

Problem statement
Over recent years there has been an exodus of tyre manufactures from the market, or manufactures withdrawing tyres from the MSUK lists, which has led to a dynamic reduction in the choice of tyres available for the road going classes for sprint and hill climb cars.
Whilst this could be just dismissed as market forces, hence get on with it, it does pose a problem to the grass roots motor sports competitor.

This paper is not going to analyse why manufactures are exiting, but more as to how the MSUK could / should respond to the challenge.

Instead it will pose several questions that could be considered in the way that the choice of tyres could be enhanced and pose the fundamental question as to the use of ‘E’ marked tyres and the operation of the MSUK tyre panel.


Background

Road going car classes
All hill climb and sprint venues / events use the MSUK car categories (Standard Cars / road going / specialised production etc), and they work well in providing a levelized competition for drivers and cars. I would support keeping these categories.

MSUK Tyre lists
There are several tyre categories that are applicable to road going car classes
• In List 1A are regarded by the manufacturers as Standard Road Tyres
• All tyres on List 1A and 1B must carry type approval markings (‘E’ mark) in compliance with ECE Reg 30 and Reg 117. ECE Reg 108 for retread tyres. Or ECE Reg 30 for tyres designed for use on cars first registered before 1st October 1990
• Tyre List 1C is solely for Competition Tyres with type approval markings (‘E’ mark) in compliance with EEC Reg 30 or Reg 108 but no longer in compliance with Reg 117

If I am understanding the EU regulations correctly and their use in the MSUK tyre lists, then in their fundamental form ECE Reg 30 is concerned with safety of the tyre, and ECE 117 is specifically concerned with the rolling resistance.

Current situation
There are certainly road going tyres that can be sold in the UK market that are road legal, but not MSUK list 1A/B compliant, for example, and this is not an exhaustive review (using just a simple filter from the Demon Tweeks web site of list 1c tyres as of 4/3/2026):
• Dunlop Direzza DZ03G Race / Track Day Tyre– E11 marked for road use in UK
• Kumho Ecsta V70A Tyre - E-Marked (for road use)
• Hankook Ventus RS4 Z232 Tyre - E-Marked (for road use)
• Maxsport RB6 Tarmac Rally Tyre- E-Marked (for road use)

Additionally, there are: -
• MRF MOTORSPORT ZTR series trackday tyres (E-Marked)
• Yokohama Advan A050 - E-Marked (for road use)
• GitiCompete GTR2 - E-Marked (for road use)

All of the above tyres can be legally fitted to a road car, and without taking further time to review all tyre suppliers, I am sure that there will be many more tyres that are available but not on any MSUK listing.

Conclusion.
So in its simplest form – there are road legal tyres that cannot be used in road legal MSUK competition classes.

Lets take that just a short step forward – in reality a competitor can purchase a road legal tyre and be in compliance with UK road traffic legislation – but not the MSUK rules, so would have to change tyres at the track from those that they drove to the track on .. in my humble opinion this is pure madness.

This not only restricts competitors but also adds increased costs to competition. Clearly this is contrary to the MSUK vision and goals, as quoted above.


Proposal for consideration
Wouldn’t it be so much simpler if all road going classes (as is – no change to MSUK classes) can run any road legal tyre .. as any ‘E’ marked tyre.
This would remove the requirement for list all the 1 A/B/C tyre lists .. and, without doing any investigation, it would also simplify the whole situation for new, and seasoned, competitors and additionally the scrutineers.

This is not to say that a specific championship could still stipulate a control tyre that all competitors must use, that should stay wholly in the gift of the championship co-ordinator.

The adoption of this proposal would underpin the MSUK ethos and mission 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



Governance and oversight
Who oversees the direction of tyre applicability?

I believe it’s the “tyre panel” that sets the lists of applicable tyres to the classes, and by simple observation I would proffer that its only a select list of manufactures that sit on the actual panel which meets once a year.

I understand that several committees e.g. speed, do contribute to the panel but that the panel actually works in autonomy .. they themselves submit / support the tyres to be on the list(s) and by definition have the casting vote as to when tyres are added / removed.

It’s unclear as to who from the MSUK provides the governance and direction that the panel has. Which MSUK person is responsible for the oversight of the tyre panel and establishes the “rules” for the respective lists?

This panel does have a direct impact on the competitors, so as such should have a clear line of reportability within the MSUK structure … but who is it?

If my assumption is correct, in that the tyre panel sit in isolation, then you could argue that there is a ‘sudo’ cartel in operation re the tyre applicability, with little or no visibility to the respective committees, the MSUK or more fundamentally the grass roots competitors.


In summary.
If the MSUK want to grow the sport and encourage new competitors to experience the thrill of competition, then I feel that there needs to be a far more simplified approach to applicable tyres…

I would propose the simplification of the list 1 A/B/C tyre lists .. which would enable simpler scrutineering, competitor choice and reduced cost, all of which can easily become a barrier to entry to the sport.

This change would wholly support the MSUK vision statement and goals, so what’s stopping this simple change?



G.Woodcock