Historic Racing for Dummies.

[Duddha]

Have a look at this and you'll probably understand Appendix K:

http://duddha.me/2015/10/22/historic...t-some-basics/

Then, further informations are available on history of the sport and where we're heading here:

http://duddha.me/2015/01/09/historic...s-changed-and/

Enjoy more content on - http://duddha.me

[Tim Falce]

Thanks for the links Louis very interesting reading.

Just a word of warning to other members, some parts of the site that Louis links to are not family or possibly work friendly.

[canamman]

Spent most of the morning going through the old
articles at this site. Several are near and dear
to me ie : JP Sr and Jr , McClaren CanAm , JaguarXJR9.
Very cool. Thanks.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

Thanks for the links Louis very interesting reading.

Just a word of warning to other members, some parts of the site that Louis links to are not family or possibly work friendly.

Agreed, on all counts. Think we'll let it stand though Tim as the piece that Louis was pointing to is relevant and useful.

I did read one or two other bits including the 'Dudes' reference to Cobras at Goodwood being quicker than in their heyday due to all sorts of reasons rather than the obvious one which is that just like the E -types, the quickest ones are banging out the best part of 100bhp more than they were in period!

[Duddha]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Agreed, on all counts. Think we'll let it stand though Tim as the piece that Louis was pointing to is relevant and useful.

I did read one or two other bits including the 'Dudes' reference to Cobras at Goodwood being quicker than in their heyday due to all sorts of reasons rather than the obvious one which is that just like the E -types, the quickest ones are banging out the best part of 100bhp more than they were in period!

I am not arguing regarding development of cars and especially engines here but rather stating that performance is a package, give me a Cobra or whatever you want but without the package, taking EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT, including the driver, setup and multiple other stuff, I would be useless around a track with one.

Give me a Porsche 919 from Le Mans but I don't think I would match Mark Webber's laptimes there...

[John Turner]

Louis, you are an enthusiast; that's all that matters!

Oh, and the 919 is a truly fantastic piece of kit. The current crop of WEC cars are so fast that someone close to me has suggested that they may have their performance pegged back for 2016, so nothing new there!

[p261brm]

[QUOTE=Duddha;3588688]Have a look at this and you'll probably understand Appendix K:QUOTE]

Thought provoking stuff, the more I read about regulations the less I understand them, put simply no matter what period a 'Historic' racing car purports to represent, individual cars were 'modified' in period, with various 'tweaks' usually between testing, practice, and the race, and also usually before the 'works'/manufacture's modifications had been added, it was a continual round of progress. The periods as defined by the FIA are in essence far too long, consequently certain mods made by individual teams were never included in 'works' cars leading to the mod never being homologated. The air boxes on Chevron B19/21 are one example, but no scrutineer official ever contested their use in period to my knowledge. The same applied to various aero trim tabs, brakes, another headache, add ride heights, pickup points, all this is now an area of dispute, the headache just gets bigger for the 'Historic' enthusiast. Having recently been involved with an owner of a car, and the FIA, HTP's, a car much involved with in period, to get in reality, an insignificant unseen from the outside body work mod, accepted, not a headache, a nightmare.

[Duddha]

[QUOTE=p261brm;3590341]

Originally Posted by Duddha

Have a look at this and you'll probably understand Appendix K:QUOTE]

Thought provoking stuff, the more I read about regulations the less I understand them, put simply no matter what period a 'Historic' racing car purports to represent, individual cars were 'modified' in period, with various 'tweaks' usually between testing, practice, and the race, and also usually before the 'works'/manufacture's modifications had been added, it was a continual round of progress. The periods as defined by the FIA are in essence far too long, consequently certain mods made by individual teams were never included in 'works' cars leading to the mod never being homologated. The air boxes on Chevron B19/21 are one example, but no scrutineer official ever contested their use in period to my knowledge. The same applied to various aero trim tabs, brakes, another headache, add ride heights, pickup points, all this is now an area of dispute, the headache just gets bigger for the 'Historic' enthusiast. Having recently been involved with an owner of a car, and the FIA, HTP's, a car much involved with in period, to get in reality, an insignificant unseen from the outside body work mod, accepted, not a headache, a nightmare.

I do not disagree with you, however, let me just say that it must remain the FIA HTP applicant responsibility to prove the use of "this or that" in period on the car at a certain TIME and certain RACE.

It can be a nightmare of course but let me just present it the other way around, would a competitor, you, a friend or myself engage in building a car as a proper and so-called "historic enthusiast" and finally come up to a race with a car that took a lot of time to build correctly with money invested and finally race against cars built to:

"According to period wording it was possible and therefore I can do it. Was it achieved ? I don't care, it was allowed and basically the specifications I have suits how I see and understand it".

No, I don't believe in this, to me history is history, you either replicate what was achieved in period or you go modern racing or let's say "modern racing that tends to look historic" and therefore, no need to prove anything.

Final point, I also believe that as an "historic enthusiast", you should have interest in history. I'm not old but when I see a Batmobile with 76 wheel arches and the engine and gearbox of a 1973 spec car, no, you can't say it's historic as it's not related to what the history is.

[wnut]

[QUOTE=Duddha;3590985]

Originally Posted by p261brm

Final point, I also believe that as an "historic enthusiast", you should have interest in history. I'm not old but when I see a Batmobile with 76 wheel arches and the engine and gearbox of a 1973 spec car, no, you can't say it's historic as it's not related to what the history is.

And yet that would be the spec that many of the privateer cars would have been running!

[Moosehead]

[QUOTE=wnut;3591909]

Originally Posted by Duddha

And yet that would be the spec that many of the privateer cars would have been running!

Exactly. I've spoken to many an old racer who have told me the spec of their cars in period, most of them stating similar in that they couldn't afford or didn't have access to the pukka parts so made do with other stuff or parts they made themselves.

AppK, its all a bit of a fantasy is more ways than one for me

[Simon Hadfield]

Actually no they wouldn't. The point Louis is trying to make is that the regulations for Group 2 changed dramatically in the mid 1970s - it made the GA Capri obsolete for example - and you could not use the period freedoms given for the early 70s in the later period. We are restoring a real 1979 Zakspeed Escort at the moment and had to have a correct 1840cc BD built for it, the pre 76 cars could use a full 2 litres. Almost all the detail regulations changed......

[Duddha]

[QUOTE=Moosehead;3591975]

Originally Posted by wnut

Exactly. I've spoken to many an old racer who have told me the spec of their cars in period, most of them stating similar in that they couldn't afford or didn't have access to the pukka parts so made do with other stuff or parts they made themselves.

AppK, its all a bit of a fantasy is more ways than one for me

Yeah, well, if an M49 BMW Straight-6 with 24-Valves head with all magnesium and funny bits was cheaper back then (said to be - 100 produced), then a standard 12-Valves was f*****g expensive... And also, remember that Mr Luigi made the later post 75' CSL work very good on that 12-Valves engine and that's how he really made his name...

People say a lot of things, of how it was or how they (want to ?) remember it, facts are better than saying... And well, more privateers than works team from 1976' onward prove that it wasn't that expensive, right ?!

[Moosehead]

OK, bit of a missunderstanding. I wasn't refering to BMW's, I was talking 'in general' and more about the 1960's and if i wanted to be specific then it would be Mustangs.

Ho hum, I'll get back in my box

[Duddha]

Originally Posted by Moosehead

OK, bit of a missunderstanding. I wasn't refering to BMW's, I was talking 'in general' and more about the 1960's and if i wanted to be specific then it would be Mustangs.

Ho hum, I'll get back in my box

No problem, but hence the period specifications then.

The road to understand HTP and Appendix K is that, for homologated cars, you take the Homologation form, the period Appendix J (for what was commonly approved but not necessary in Homologation form) and then, the period specifications which were the specs of the concerned car in situ.