It’s been a few weeks since the FIA released the news about a new Appendix K to the International Sporting Code for the coming year, and many have been vocal about it, good or bad, the new ruleset brings years 1991-2000 in the historic spectrum.

Having been involved in shaping the project along with the writing, I received a few phone calls from preparers or competitors to talk about the new prospects of the rule change and what this could bring into the sport, investments that could be made or the change this could bring to existing events. So here are my two cents to those discussions.

First and foremost, rather than just bringing years 1991-2000 into the historic spectrum, Project 2025 as it was nicknamed, served the purpose of a major overhaul for the existing rulebook. If you had the chance or the time to look at the old Appendix K, as many said, it evolved from a 5 page ruleset in 1975 to roughly a 120 pages. Additions and updates having been made over and over, it became unclear and the concept of rewriting it came to mind a few years ago, around 2016 to be exact but to get such a job done and published, it required a major update as well.

After the 10-year freeze effective from 2014, the idea of considering an extension of the eligibility criteria could come into effect, and with that the work to overhaul it completely. And that is where it starts, the tree structure where all articles and sections would be redistributed and organized, duplicates would be combined, and rules clarified where needed along with guidelines deleted as they are essentially not regulations if only recommendations.

The future ruleset as published features a lower number of pages, just a few some will say, but reads clearer, concentrates on the regulations applicable, along with bringing additional regulations to cover the new cars and periodicity, essentially and from an administrative point of view, it covers all the goals that were set when the project got started.

On the concept of adding the new eligibility criteria and that so far is what most articles or news seen on the world wide web have been talking about, they fail to grasp the core of the regulations applicable, which are essential to understanding the future prospects of these. They also overlap some major changes to existing regulations.

To start with, Period J1 and J2 see a change in their cut-offs, which to many sounds an administrative nightmare but is not. It brings back J1 under the 1.4 coefficient for non-NA cars and gives the 1.7 coefficient rightfully to the cars that were developed and homologated at the time with this in mind. It corrects a glitch in the previous regulations and aims at bringing back a diversity of cars through the fact that they can use evolutions and benefit from their rightful classification without having to take a more stringent coefficient or else.

Group C sees it’s last 2 years of existence, even though the ruleset extended to 1993 brought into consideration.

Then comes Turbo and 3.5 Formula One cars, along with F3000 being allowed to compete. While they could be eligible for demonstration previously, they can now be issued papers to race and that is one thing to consider, from there and taking into account that they are the epitome of the big single seater cars, they are also and along with Formula 2 or Formula 3, and sport prototypes, the categories through which composites were introduced to our sport.

And condition testing comes into play, with a strict process and list of standards which will become applicable to all composite chassis and structures from the seventies onwards. As many will say, this is a cost, but bear in mind that none of these cars were designed to have a lifespan of more than a few years. While they are safer cars to many, they are also prone to delamination and cracks can have a much larger impact on the integrity of the cars. I’m an avid cyclist and collector and my two cents are that, I get mine checked every two years or inspected when I restore those early nineties time trial superbikes because when a fork or frame fails, the implications can be devastating. Plus, who doesn’t remember that Ferrari Clienti tub from the 2000s that just seized in two halves coming down the corkscrew?

On production cars, there are considerations now given to DTM regulations, Class 1, Class 2 or Super Touring, along with the Kit-Car or World Rally evolutions for rally cars. And two key aspects should be considered here.

First, electronics. With Class 1 regulations, it will be pretty straightforward as everything was allowed but then comes the rest and the new Appendix 3 has been written to grasp and reconcile the history of the sport with the obsolescence of electronic components, while it is aimed at helping the sport through more straightforward processes which will develop in the Historic Technical Passport (HTP), adding specifics which will help the promoters and scrutineers at races.

Second, and that is specific to Kit-Car or World Rally evolutions, there will be stringent parameters to the eligibility of shells for these cars. This has nothing to do with originality as Kit-Car shells as an example are still built to this day but rather a parameter of compliance as these cars were specifically built in period and numbered to comply with the evolutions applicable, with specific reinforcements and roll-over protection structures (ROPS) which required a myriad of tweaks to the production shell. Therefore, only period or certified new-builds through manufacturers will be eligible for HTP purposes as there can’t be half a Kit-Car or World Rally shell, otherwise it’s not.

The above details most but is not exhaustive to understand the new regulations, and it takes a few hours to read the 107 pages of the 2025 FIA Appendix K available here.

On the development the sport will see, well, promoters are already allowing cars that go further than the 2000 cut-off but it gives a ruleset which legitimate some categories left aside up to now. And as a fellow friend said, it defines parameters which could benefit all of them further down the line, safety or specification included.

On seeing these take the track or stages, there are other parameters, most are talking about the big single seaters, and it will take the industry to take those standards and get them to materialize.

Condition testing will be one part, electronics another, getting the engines and drivetrain to be periodically correct the big step as the FIA will stick to the period specification mantra of “as it was, and so it should be” and for many of the cars already active, it will be a cost to bear for the industry to start.

All that will endeavor in bringing those cars to the track or stages must seize that parameter by pushing the compliance with the regulations from the start, safety first and period specification along the way. Otherwise, this will never pick-up and remember that historic racing didn’t get to the point we are now by ignoring those parameters, but yeah, time seems not to be relevant these days.

On rushing grids and altering existing ones to make way for the newly accepted cars, there are only a handful of these around, running the complete concept of the regulations. And I would think that good things take time, so possibly a few test events to observe along with stringent eligibility and scrutineering criteria will be the way forward to bringing this together but not the talk of the town which now lies with, let’s create a grid from 2025 onwards.

I mean, imagine making way for these and the result being 12 qualifiers for 7 cars taking the start of the race or a grid full of Benetton with Judd GV4 engines. At the end, this is no history nor anything to do with period correctness, it’s fantasy and won’t get the industry up to standard. Demonstration can be, if the promoters get the entrants to understand the standards which should at this point become “race ready” or not.

As said, my two cents. Louis.