Development in Historic racing and should results reflect history

[Simon Hadfield]

With real F1 having seen sense and put a halt to engine development (amongst other things) is it not time to bring a halt to the race for more power, torque etc in historic racing? Would it not be possible to measure engine components, get a set of standard component weights etc and to be able to say this is it? This would apply across the board, a spec for everything from MGBs to DFVs. This is for me one of the great attractions of formula ford - (although I would like the drivers weight included, its sad the lightweight wussies cant agree to it!) - it is terribly difficult to buy an advantage. Again it seems bizarre to wibble on and on about electronic ignition when huge sums are spent having evermore esoteric engine specifications developed. Where series have specified rev limits all the customer/competitor has had to do is buy the engine builders latest cams, trumpets, lightweight crank and port shape and the good intentions of the organisers have gone.

[John Turner]

Ahh, can of worms! I like this; looking forward to the responses. The problem for me, looking in, as it were, is where do you draw the line. I don't think that we can return completely to originality, can we, Simon?

[simon drabble]

a very good point and interesting that a leading prepper suggests it - but Simon how could it be reasonably policed?
I wonder if the recession will naturally limit development as people start building engines for durability and longevity rather than the last ounce of performance

[Simon Hadfield]

No, but we can stop everything going even further away! If competitors can feel they no longer have to compete in an arms race it leaves more money in their pockets to race - surely this benefits everyone, from circuit owners to organisers to the tyre guys to eventually even the engine builder?

[Simon Hadfield]

Ok, simply all the engine builders register their engine specification as it is today, if you dont register your engines they cannot be used in that category, and when you register your spec you have to justify the spec difference between period and what you have today......I believe if there was a real will this could be done, sadly I also feel that there are too many vested interests for it to ever happen.....I would then go further and specify for example a silencer for each category, any component that can be standardised should be - the cost savings are just as applicable to us as to Formula One.

[simon drabble]

more so as we dont enjoy the luxery of sponsorship...

[terence]

Simon,this could turn out to be one of the best threads yet.One area that every-one is overlooking is Valves.The size's of which are all on the various homologation sheets and the HTPs.Currently I would say that there are 90% of ALL cars running are using illegally sized valves,to name only one of many "developements" in historic engines.One area I personally am very interested in is Exhaust systems,one reason being that whilst the manifolds should be to the same as originally homologated,there is no reason why the rest of the system cannot be modified from the collector back.Whilst working with Chris Conoley on the dyno one Saturday morning,we knocked up an extended version for a TR4 engine that was destined to be fitted in the CMS car.This alone gave a 12bhp increase,we did not belive it so reverted back to the normal fitment,12bhp drop showed up!No prize for guessing which version we used!.Back to valve sizes,not much point in trying to get any bigger than they are because of the restrictions of port design,valve size and so on,then of course the other fly in the ointment being carb size homologation.
[Just read post 5,it could workbut the specs would need checking by the FIA/MSA,you know what engine builders are like! Any listed engine would need to be alloted a recognisable number/tag once the inspector was satisfied]

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

Ok, simply all the engine builders register their engine specification as it is today, if you dont register your engines they cannot be used in that category, and when you register your spec you have to justify the spec difference between period and what you have today......I believe if there was a real will this could be done, sadly I also feel that there are too many vested interests for it to ever happen.....I would then go further and specify for example a silencer for each category, any component that can be standardised should be - the cost savings are just as applicable to us as to Formula One.

All very nice in theory but the problem with that is the people at the bottom end of the food chain who may prepare their engines themselves will then have to spend even more money in registration fees (it wont be FOC will it ) and proving what they have. How much would it cost a competitor if someone challenged their engine and where does it stop, you don't want to end up like certain one make series where you have to buy parts from the organisers.

[esper]

make sence all these good ideas! but how control it? Historic FF is less complicated as people can hear an non standard cam and flywheel or dark sounding 1600 plus engine from 2 miles, but what about historic GT with all those different engines? I do think the top events should have a rolling road for controling these spec engines etc.
Surely in historic racing where today less talented drivers with a filled rear pocket who really want to win and buy a faster car than the competittion. (there was a thread about cheating was there?)

[Simon Hadfield]

All these points are sortable; for a self preparer the process could be free, you would simply have to add you component source along with your specification, the professional engine builders would only have to pay if their spec differed from that homologated!?! I joke but if there was the will these points could happen - dont you get fed up with a continual drip drip drip of expense to simply maintain the status quo? We more or less have spec tyres across the board, why cant we follow F1s example in these other areas? Then there exists the concept of a single type of LSD for each class, all of this would very quickly stop a lot of the finger pointing!

[p261brm]

In theory, agree, in practice difficult, unless like Monaco the entry in question is excluded; Before the event though, not after so the organisers do not benefit from the promised grid, the entry goes home with mud and expense; then and only then will the rule benders heed the message, or at least a good chance they will.

[john ruston]

Totally agree Mr Hadfield but we could start with ,weight,engine size and then components.Standard sizes for engins and a stop the use of all this electronic stuff,data loggin etc that are used on later Historic Formula and sports cars.F1 stopped testing why not cut down with Historics

[terence]

Really everything stops with the MSA Scrutineers/ Officials,everytime someone sign's thier race entry form,they are declaring that "The car complies with the regulations applied to that Series",if it does'nt ,the signee is committing fraud,until the MSA actually doe's something about the fraud side of things and is seen to be serious about enforcing said rule's,people will continue to cheat.

[zefarelly]

Quite frankly I've almost given up my side of the argument and come to the conclusion that if I want to be competitive I have to cheat, and I mean I have to. my cars is slowly getting quicker and I'm sliding down the order . . . . even when it does work properly!!!

read App K, and read your cars homologation papers, sizes, weights and tolerances are all there, its very very simple. NOTHING IS POLICED

Even U2TC, as good a name as it may have, is a free for all, I was asked if I had a spare dog box at one race, in the collecting area before qualifying! look on youtube, you can hear dog gears engaging in cars run by 'professional' teams, signing a piece of paper is utterly worthless you may as well save a tree and not bother. when did a std geometry points set up lotus twin cam rev to and past 9k RPM for an hour reliably . . . .

many people are recession proof, and non std parts in 'competition' spec are often more expensive than modern equivalents. not many use std parts as its not fast enough to catch the top end cars . . .which are cheating!

[esper]

so the best wayt to run a honnest kent engine is in historic ff????
all is organised to strict rules , the for the last 40 years.

[zefarelly]

they have simple regs, clearly defined, well managed and openly debated, as and when deemed necessary, all involved are invited to be so and it works, simple.

the same goes for FJ

App K is similar and should be in the same boat, but it patently can't even get off the jetty . . . . it continually astounds me that its something car owners/preparers aspire to for various reasons ( nice invites and residual values it would seem) yet virtually no one even bothers to adhere to it in anything more than getting the papers.

personally I'd like to see the FiA legally stop people misusing their nomenclature, either do it or don't . . .at the moment no one is actually 'doing it'

[Al Weyman]

I think and have often argued for a rev limit formula. For example GM state that using their factory steel crank (as fitted to trucks) their more or less standard rods and screwed together properly with the right valve train and fasteners the engine is OK to 7800rpm so there you go thats the bench mark for that unit. There must be many similiar benchmarks for other engines from the manufacturer in period (incidently the 7800rpm on the small block dates back to the late 60's). As soon as you limit the revs you must limit the spend and the power as revs kill engines not power and all that exotica is simply not worth having in there if the revs are limited.

[john ruston]

The basis of Simon's thread is that why do you need to develope Historic cars.The whole point of racing Historic Cars is lost but 90% of us who post on here are party to this development route.Dont BS me that you are not.

[terence]

Surprisingly enough,I agree with that John.Wether as preppers or driver's,we all want to go quicker than the next car/driver.But some of us will only go so far as regards bending the rules,which is what it is.But I will only do that WITH-IN the rule's.I quite simply hate cheats.As has been said many many times of the various cars with the oversized engines,these drivers are only kidding themselves because we all know who they are!
Back to Simon's original question,as said,the only way for the developement to stop is for the governing bodies to take severe action,make examples of the cars that are so incredibly quick,once that has been done,then perhaps we could all get back to proper racing and not thinking about some other little tweak.
'

[john ruston]

There is only one major problem .Some are the cars are quick because of Simon,Garry,Gareth etc.There are about 8/10 very quick drivers and it's surprising how many people do not understand how much quicker they are than the average Driver.They point a finger at the cars which is unfair.
Don't get to carried you middle age boys , LH would be as quick again! A basic check on weight and capacity would be a start.Organisers will not do it next year as they are worried about losing customers.It's wrong but that's what will happen.

[Neptune]

Having a Richardson head on a 105E based FJ engine is the key to power. It allows one to safely bore to 85mm and have 13 and 14:1 CRs and bigger valves than can be safely installed in a REAL 105E head. And these heads are easy to spot externally, so they'd be easy to police. Let's all ban these modern heads. I've got a half dozen original heads stacked by my bench.

Current regs ban roller rockers but most front runners admit to having them.

Roger

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by john ruston

There is only one major problem .Some are the cars are quick because of Simon,Garry,Gareth etc.There are about 8/10 very quick drivers and it's surprising how many people do not understand how much quicker they are than the average Driver.They point a finger at the cars which is unfair.

Absolutely which is why I rarely point a finger at anyone. Its only those who I can normally race with who suddenly find ten secs at Spa, who give me gyp. FWIW I discovered the other day that I just beat the CTCRC Class B lap record at Combe this year, so it appears I'm not too decrepit yet.

Originally Posted by john ruston

A basic check on weight and capacity would be a start.Organisers will not do it next year as they are worried about losing customers.It's wrong but that's what will happen.

Again no argument from me.

The basic premise is excellent but if there are "mods" that have been permitted, and which the proposal would ban, then that would be additional cost, albeit one off, which may put existing racers off.

[terence]

What,like 95% of them!.Show a Totally legal car and I'll show you a back marker.

[Al Weyman]

Err sorry to burst your bubble Peter but I was at both the Combe races and they were not ideal track conditions in either, very cold and greasy as I recollect if you can consitantly beat Jims times then I take my hat off to you. Whats the big deal with roller rockers, if they are not allowed check for them it should take about two minutes to whip off a valve cover.

[terence]

After re-reading JRs post,yes I agree on the finger pointing,and those mentioned are indeed very quick drivers,BUT there are still drivers out there who certainly would not be so far ahead were they to campain a car that was not so far "developed" and we all know who they are!.Is it thier fault? not really,this "development" started many years ago,thats when the authorities should have taken action,not now,it's too late!