Bent (or not) cars, Wealth (or lack of) and Scrutineering (ex Goodwood thread)

[terence]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

a BRDC member racing in the Fordwater who raced MGB's in period told me in the changing room that due to the size of something technical (I glazed over at this point) it is impossible to make a legal sized B with any poke... and never has been. Is that correct? Also somebody must tell Sideways to stop being such a miserable git...

That would depend on the amount of 'Poke' being looked for Simon,in standard form,ie,off the prodution line,they deliver about 85bhp at the flywheel,in todays 'legal' form thats more like 145/155 depending on who's building what and how much BS you ordered with the build. As for Slippery Diff,why change the habbit of a lifetime!
With my old engine,it was giving a conservative 144 Flywheel reading.That was with the late type 18V head on it [Jeremy,if you hadn't been so busy in Scrutineering and come and looked,you would have seen the oft requested reversion back to a period head.]But,as above,the reversion to a period head casting,Burgess Modified,has increased that to 152bhp.Yeah,I was amaized as well! Time for a longer look at cams methinks.

[He's OK really,just need's someone around to give orders to.

[simon drabble]

well his inferrence was that they cheated in period so why get upset now!

[terence]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

well his inferrence was that they cheated in period so why get upset now!

One of the completely un-molested works cars still exisist's Simon,the engine needed a refresh,as the bores were in excellent order,it just had a set of new rings fitted,piston size was/is +40,exhaust valves were just a tad oversize.

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

well his inferrence was that they cheated in period so why get upset now!

Well I never, who'd a thowt it, I'm amazed at such a suggestion, if I remember correctly; one was allowed in the regs to resize bores to the maximum size of replacement pistons available as listed by the manufacturer of the car/engine, thats why there were no standard 3-8 litre E's racing all a tadge over 4ltr just as then as now!

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by p261brm

Well I never, who'd a thowt it, I'm amazed at such a suggestion, if I remember correctly; one was allowed in the regs to resize bores to the maximum size of replacement pistons available as listed by the manufacturer of the car/engine, thats why there were no standard 3-8 litre E's racing all a tadge over 4ltr just as then as now!

Not 100% certain but I thought App K general regulations allowed a 1.2mm overbore (or was it 60 thou -1.524mm?) which overides manufacturers allowances and is allowed provided the increased capacity keeps the car in the same capacity class.
For the E Type the capacity would increase to about 3880cc with 1.2mm overbore and to a little over 3900cc with 60 thou.
Would these capacity checkers that are on the market work on the E Type engine?

[terence]

Thats correct,once it used to be the 60thou max,but now I think that with decimation that got changed to,as you say,1.2mm max o/bore. Whats wrong with re-sleeving when the bores need attention after the 1.2mm has been worn? there really is no excuse for exceeding that bore size.

Henrik,I think you have cracked the 'code'. IE,'If we want it',obviously something thats not wanted in the UK!
Such a great shame that we simply cannot abide by a set of very simple reg's.!!

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Not 100% certain but I thought App K general regulations allowed a 1.2mm overbore (or was it 60 thou -1.524mm?) which overides manufacturers allowances and is allowed provided the increased capacity keeps the car in the same capacity class.
For the E Type the capacity would increase to about 3880cc with 1.2mm overbore and to a little over 3900cc with 60 thou.
Would these capacity checkers that are on the market work on the E Type engine?

The 3-8 in period was of course lined with Laystall Chromard liners, 'dry' with Brico tin plated pistons. Warren Pearce had used Mahla slipper pistons, which allowed too much blow by, we reverted to 'standard type' after much discussion with Les Ryder in the then comp shop. All this with standard production blocks, blocks today are being recast which would allow overboring made easier. +040" was the max available from factory sources with original liners. Appy days

[rogerwills]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Wouldnt a piece of kit like this saved all that head pulling, I mean for a start its bloody agro to do at the track then there is the cost of the gaskets. http://www.precisionmeasure.com/test1.htm It says it may not work on all OHC engines as the valve action has to be stopped but I would have thought ideal for the Minis and yanks.

No, as they were not just interested in checking capacity. Valve sizes etc were also a focus as there is a lot that can be achieved there power wise.

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by rogerwills

No, as they were not just interested in checking capacity. Valve sizes etc were also a focus as there is a lot that can be achieved there power wise.

I quite agree, also, to the trained eye one can turn an engine over and tell whether geometry is std, or otherwise, also . . . . I'd wager a few minis run long rods and unbelievably short slipper type pistons

as does everyone else I think

[Al Weyman]

Have a deco up the plug hole then with that snap on camera thibg.

[Henrik Pedersen]

Was I the only one that noticed the blistering fast Stanguellini of Colasacco.

I don´t think that FIAT engined cars, where faster than the Ford engined FJ cars in the period, or am I wrong ??

[compte deGraves]

Originally Posted by Henrik Pedersen

Was I the only one that noticed the blistering fast Stanguellini of Colasacco.

I don´t think that FIAT engined cars, where faster than the Ford engined FJ cars in the period, or am I wrong ??

You are opening a can of worms with any enquiry into that car. At Monaco in 2004, during qualifying, I was overtaken in the tunnel by Robin Longdon in his Lola 2 with Ford engine. In the middle of the tunnel that Fiat engined Stanguellini caught and overtook Robin, when the Lola was flat out!

The engine had arrived at the garages cling wrapped!

I would expect a decently built 7 port Fiat 103 engine to produce 85 - 90 (at a pinch). A Bandini 8 port 103 engine (legal on Volpinis and Bandinis as there were used by these manufacturers in period) can manage 95 - 100. A Ford 1100 cc should get at least 110, and that's not a Richardson.

In addition the Lola will be approximately 25 kg lighter than a standard Stanguellini.

In speed trap 2 at Goodwood I understand that the Stanguellini was clocked at 139 mph, the Volpini 102 mph!!!!!!!!! Pip,Pip

[Henrik Pedersen]

Yes, I can see that, and I am fine with that.

But why are "we" so afraid of touching the subject of these illegal cars, that we all know is around, and we know who they are, because it is so clear and obvious.

Beside, this might be more relevant in another thread, I don´t know?
But I feel it is degrading the Goodwood Revival a little, because its a great meeting.
There can be close racing with clean App.K. car too.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by compte deGraves

You are opening a can of worms with any enquiry into that car. At Monaco in 2004, during qualifying, I was overtaken in the tunnel by Robin Longdon in his Lola 2 with Ford engine. In the middle of the tunnel that Fiat engined Stanguellini caught and overtook Robin, when the Lola was flat out!

The engine had arrived at the garages cling wrapped!

I would expect a decently built 7 port Fiat 103 engine to produce 85 - 90 (at a pinch). A Bandini 8 port 103 engine (legal on Volpinis and Bandinis as there were used by these manufacturers in period) can manage 95 - 100. A Ford 1100 cc should get at least 110, and that's not a Richardson.

In addition the Lola will be approximately 25 kg lighter than a standard Stanguellini.

In speed trap 2 at Goodwood I understand that the Stanguellini was clocked at 139 mph, the Volpini 102 mph!!!!!!!!! Pip,Pip

yet the same car was invited for the 2006 event.....

[compte deGraves]

Originally Posted by henk4

yet the same car was invited for the 2006 event.....

Actually it was the same driver but not the same car. In 2006 it was a rear engined Stanguellini and this time he was rejected at scrutineering. As I heard it he was offered the race but from the back of the grid. He declined and went home in a huff! Great to see good sportsmanship is alive and well.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by compte deGraves

Actually it was the same driver but not the same car. In 2006 it was a rear engined Stanguellini and this time he was rejected at scrutineering. As I heard it he was offered the race but from the back of the grid. He declined and went home in a huff! Great to see good sportsmanship is alive and well.

I realised I was wrong with the year, when I had written it down, but in 2008 the front engined car was back (and did not win). The Delfino story is pretty well known...but afaik he did make it to the first qualis, was very fast, and then others raised a protest...and then he packed up

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by compte deGraves

I would expect a decently built 7 port Fiat 103 engine to produce 85 - 90 (at a pinch). A Bandini 8 port 103 engine (legal on Volpinis and Bandinis as there were used by these manufacturers in period) can manage 95 - 100. A Ford 1100 cc should get at least 110, and that's not a Richardson.

Are Richardson engines not frowned upon by the, shall we say, more 'period' owners/preparers ? I've not had one to inspect but I don't think his head castings are the same as the Ford/Cosworth ones . . .apart from the bolt holes!

[oldzink]

Please note this Stanguellini was found to have correct (68mm bore, 75mm stroke) displacement at Goodwood. The head removal would also have uncovered any illegal valve gear. Also he had the proper 4 speed gear box.
I believe the Colasacco Stanguellini is near the class minimun, so the Lola could only have been 25kg lighter if it had been significantly under weight.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by oldzink

Please note this Stanguellini was found to have correct (68mm bore, 75mm stroke) displacement at Goodwood. The head removal would also have uncovered any illegal valve gear. Also he had the proper 4 speed gear box.
I believe the Colasacco Stanguellini is near the class minimun, so the Lola could only have been 25kg lighter if it had been significantly under weight.

Are inlet valve sizes homoligated? This engine would never make over 100BHP with the standard 30mm Fiat valves, IMHO. Neither would a MK IX Coswort FJ engine with standard 32.1mm valves. I'm interested to know if valve sizes are free in FJ?

[Alan Morgan]

I saw the car in the scrutineering shed after the race, being prepared for what looked like cylinder head removal. It would be interesting to know the outcome...

[john ruston]

Was it the same car that was stupidly fast at Monaco and Goodwood four years ago?

[Henrik Pedersen]

Yep !!

[john ruston]

Oh!Well that answers that.

[rogerwills]

I watched the FJ cars in the collecting area as they were going out. Most of the engines seem to be a nightmare to keep running at low revs and everyone was having to rev them to keep them going. Yet a certain car seemed to be sitting there at tick-over quite happily. There were a few knowing glances from the FJ boys - some trick engine management employed was the rumour around the paddock......

[simon drabble]

am I missing the point of historics? Why bother having a car that fails srutineering due to eligibility - would it not make any victory (if undetected) hollow? I must admit I am speaking as someone who is winding down the races I enter to a few meetings I enjoy but it seems that some are clearly taking this far too seriously - it is only a hobby after all!!
All rather pointless given we are only competing for a plastic cup and a mention in the club section of Autosport!!