Over (?) Development of Historic Racing Cars

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Yeah but may even make it slower and trust me I have seen that happen on Mk 1 Escorts to give an example!

Exactly Al. I built the car that I always wanted. I didn't build it to any set of regs to win a particular championship. The car will never be sold and yet I feel that the car will always in some circles be sneered at.

What always makes me laugh is the lack of knowledge of the cars around what is or isn't original. this is often totally different to what is or isn't percieved to be totally Fia compliant. believe me these phrases don't mean the same.

As one of the relatively few people who have "Built" historic TVR's I have seen all the tricks, tweaks, variations from standard. I suppose I am more fortunate in that some of my closest mates are ex factory employees. The bul**** around originality is often comical when you know the real stories behind the cars.

At the end of the day I am just a fat bloke who wants to have a bit of fun at the weekends in my old car!! What do I know.

A Friend of mine in racing came up with a phrase which has stuck with me.

"Points make Pratts" not prizes.

[zefarelly]

As an ex TVR owner (and a few other plastic oddities) and with some experience of other 60's kit cars I think I can safely say there where never 2 the same, same goes for Turners, GInettas, Marcos etc etc.

for those minnow manufacturers who managed to wangle homologation even that was vague. Whether you want to accurately replicate history or just run what you brung, your never going to get it 100% right, but thats doesn't necessarily matter.

the problem then perhaps lays with the HTP . . . if its homologated as a prototype then theres only one or two, thats the way it should stay for 'FiA' or 'historic' cars . . . not 10 times more now than they ever built, as nice as it is to see them. Theres plenty of sensibly and sympathetically administered places to go and play for everything else, the problems compounded by people playing one upmanship and making lurid ficticious claims about brand new toys.

its a bit simpler with production cars as the documentation is far more comprehensive and survivors far from scarce in many cases, particularly when it comes to structural and aesthetic detail.

[john ruston]

It's a Hobby!

Let those who want to have modified cars race and development in one set of races and those with standard cars race in another.The problem comes when the two types of cars are mixed as is now happening.You could call the modified stuff silhouette as thats what it is and was a normal class in 60/70's.

Someone builds a hot TVR,so another builds and even more modified E .It will all vanish up its own orafice as the costs are not sustainable.

Organisers must put cars in races where they are racing with similar cars.
Nobody wants to stop cars racing but just in correct racing classes.

So I will now sod off to Snetterton and ponder why someone has called me Mr ,first time thats happened and look at any Plastic Pigs in any race.I like things from Blaackpool ,went there as a child,yes I was young once!

[terence]

Quite right Zef,this is not an attack on any particular make of car,just that the cars mentioned highlight the degree of pi55 taking that is currently making a mockery of not only Historic Racing but also the FIA for allowing these obviously non conforming cars whether they be Griffiths,E-Types or whatever.
You can go buy the car you want,modify it however you feel right for your needs but dont then turn around and try to tell the world "Thats how it was in period".There are far too many very knowledgable people out there who know different, but unfortunatly,they aren't responsible for issuing HTP papers!
On the subject of E-Types,big arches etc are now under inspection,I know of one such new 'creation' that has been refused papers.Just goes to show that at least SOMETHING is being done!

[If anyone is currently in Blackpool and is coming down to Snett this W/End,please can you bring a stick of rock for JR]

[andmark4389]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Quite right Zef,this is not an attack on any particular make of car,just that the cars mentioned highlight the degree of pi55 taking that is currently making a mockery of not only Historic Racing but also the FIA for allowing these obviously non conforming cars whether they be Griffiths,E-Types or whatever.
You can go buy the car you want,modify it however you feel right for your needs but dont then turn around and try to tell the world "Thats how it was in period".There are far too many very knowledgable people out there who know different, but unfortunatly,they aren't responsible for issuing HTP papers!
On the subject of E-Types,big arches etc are now under inspection,I know of one such new 'creation' that has been refused papers.Just goes to show that at least SOMETHING is being done!

[If anyone is currently in Blackpool and is coming down to Snett this W/End,please can you bring a stick of rock for JR]

He's at it again.

Someone asked how the subject turned back to Griffiths. It was because an assertion was made that the current degree of rule bending - or cheating - by two Griffiths racing at Brands had become ridiculous. That's a fairly direct accusation. For the record, the results from Brands say that one of them retired, the other finished a distant second behind a Cobra.

The TVR may not have a class pedigree but as a marque it does have an extensive racing history, and for the same reasons as they are appearing now. It's cheaper to build one than an E-type or Cobra. In the right hands they could and did beat those cars in period, so the other favourite assertion that they were "nowhere near a Cobra" is simply not true.

I'm interested to know how the cars are "obviously non-conforming" and if that is the case why the people who have spent the money building special E-types don't spend a little more and make a formal protest. If the problem is obvious, it shouldn't be difficult to spot. If anybody knows exactly why the cars - any of them - don't conform to the rules, it would be good to hear the specific details. I still can't imagine why you'd want to move the differential on a Griffith, but if you say it loud enough on the web, it somehow becomes fact.

[simon drabble]

are Griff's the new MGB?! I think this has been discussed ad naseum on another thread.
Interesting to see Terry say an E Type has been refused papers - this could open a whole can of worms if existing cars are then pulled....
However let us not forget teams have forever been cheating in Motorsports - it goes with the territory. That is not a justification merely an observation..

[terence]

Originally Posted by andmark4389

I'm interested to know how the cars are "obviously non-conforming" and if that is the case why the people who have spent the money building special E-types don't spend a little more and make a formal protest. If the problem is obvious, it shouldn't be difficult to spot. If anybody knows exactly why the cars - any of them - don't conform to the rules, it would be good to hear the specific details. I still can't imagine why you'd want to move the differential on a Griffith, but if you say it loud enough on the web, it somehow becomes fact.

Obvious performance capability! Apart from the body mods/arches ect etc,that does not apply just to Griff's.I have been e-mailed by one of the leading lights of Historic racing,if I said that he was in total agreement with what has been said,would you be surprised?
As to the handling side of 'performance' it has been said by a certain Mr Moon that Griffiths "Were bloody dangerous,even when new"!
That being the case,what has changed? Once upon a time,just a little too much throttle at the wrong time would see you facing the direction you just came from whereas now the power can be put in an awfull lot earlier.This advantage is not simply because of better shockers or grippier tyres!

[terence]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

are Griff's the new MGB?! I think this has been discussed ad naseum on another thread.
Interesting to see Terry say an E Type has been refused papers - this could open a whole can of worms if existing cars are then pulled....
However let us not forget teams have forever been cheating in Motorsports - it goes with the territory. That is not a justification merely an observation..

I am also aware of a particular Cobra that has now been corrected because of some minor irregularities,but it is still as quick as before.This I would say is down to the two very capable drivers who really do not need any 'help' from the car.

[John Turner]

Remember this thread started out of John Grant's horrendous accident at Brands in his CanAm McLaren (we've done Griffs to death frankly), so let's look at sports racers in particular, bearing in mind Simon Hadfield's 'line in the sand' thread from a while back, which notwithstanding JR's accurate comments about the realities of the business effect on certain historic racing areas, I believe he broadly agrees with. I think, in order to be able to address some of the issues in bite sizes we could restrict ourselves to two areas - engine capacity and aero.

With engine capacity, did car x or y have one that size in period? Time consuming and costly to deal with but maybe the threat of random engine size checks may have the desired effect particularly if carried out occasionally. A no show/refusal should bring forth a disqualification. We've seen that at Goodwood, have we not? Guilty until found innocent; harsh but maybe effective.

However what is easier to check because it is so visible is aero (and wheelbase come to think of it). It's easy to check the appearance of cars when comparing them with in period photos and spec sheets that are available. Should that wing be there? Is it the right size and shape, and why does it appear to be set further back than the original? That front spoiler, is it the same as the original or is it bigger and more effective. And those little winglets; don't remember those in period. There is a true story that when one car was lined up in a paddock not so long ago alongside one of it's original and contemporary brothers, the former was so visually and obviously different to that original, that it was immediately wheeled away again. The understanding of aero is much more advanced now and tweaks to it on an old car can show substantial improvements in lap times.

As most agree, historic racing is about having fun, not pot hunting. If you are fotunate enough have the money to indulge in the purchase and development of a a historic racing car well beyond it original performance level simply to acquire a few pots, there is a credibility issue, and you have been kidding only yourself. If you really have confidence in your driving skill, then spend that money on a modern car racing car and pit yourself against the young hotshoes. You'll soon discover whether you are any good; chances are you'll get a big reality check, but at least you won't have screwed up another historic racing car, which if you are a genuine enthusiast, you should be comfortable about. Of course pigs might fly, too!

[zefarelly]

TVR - Gerald

Elan - Thompson

MGB, Midget, Mini as well . . and others I'm sure . . .you don't restore a competitive car to race you build a new one.

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by andmark4389

He's at it again.

Someone asked how the subject turned back to Griffiths. It was because an assertion was made that the current degree of rule bending - or cheating - by two Griffiths racing at Brands had become ridiculous. That's a fairly direct accusation. For the record, the results from Brands say that one of them retired, the other finished a distant second behind a Cobra.

The TVR may not have a class pedigree but as a marque it does have an extensive racing history, and for the same reasons as they are appearing now. It's cheaper to build one than an E-type or Cobra. In the right hands they could and did beat those cars in period, so the other favourite assertion that they were "nowhere near a Cobra" is simply not true.

I'm interested to know how the cars are "obviously non-conforming" and if that is the case why the people who have spent the money building special E-types don't spend a little more and make a formal protest. If the problem is obvious, it shouldn't be difficult to spot. If anybody knows exactly why the cars - any of them - don't conform to the rules, it would be good to hear the specific details. I still can't imagine why you'd want to move the differential on a Griffith, but if you say it loud enough on the web, it somehow becomes fact.

I tried to move my diff from the garage floor one day, I know exactly what you mean. I definitely never look forward to moving it

N

[andmark4389]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Obvious performance capability! Apart from the body mods/arches ect etc,that does not apply just to Griff's.I have been e-mailed by one of the leading lights of Historic racing,if I said that he was in total agreement with what has been said,would you be surprised?
As to the handling side of 'performance' it has been said by a certain Mr Moon that Griffiths "Were bloody dangerous,even when new"!
That being the case,what has changed? Once upon a time,just a little too much throttle at the wrong time would see you facing the direction you just came from whereas now the power can be put in an awfull lot earlier.This advantage is not simply because of better shockers or grippier tyres!

No specifics then... And I have also had an email from a leading light in historics who completely agrees with what has been said. Glad we got that one cleared up.

The facts are that the Griffith and Cobra share a similar engine, gearbox and differential and they weigh about the same. The Cobra has a 1930's ladder frame chassis and leaf springs, the TVR has a spaceframe and coil springs. I'd say that was progress. In practice, the Cobra is just as much a handful as a Griffith. You need to have driven both to know that.

As you can see, I'm new to this, but I do have one final question. If you were involved with race winning Griffiths, how did you get the job done when today's obvious rule benders couldn't defeat the Cobra at Brands ?

[Peter Mallett]

I think JT made a few good points. Aero, capacity and geometry would fit with the original thought behind the thread. Not really interested in covering the old "cheating in FIA Ap K" stuff because (and I stand to be corrected) the Interseries cars and other "formula" cars are not covered by App K. Indeed the subtle differences of wheel arch architecture on an E Type or Griffith are irrelevant and don't (IMO) lead to the events of Sunday.

A point that hasn't been made is the tyre technology. Whilst the Interseries cars ran on slicks back in the day I hazard a guess they were nowhere near as sticky as they are now, therefore more strain on those rose joints and thus the tub.

There are pictures from the accident in the thread in Marshals and they show the car apparently with a broken back (although this could be the bodywork only). But can extra grippy tyres cause a failure in a monocoque such as this?

BTW andmark4389 I don't believe anyone welcomed you so a belated welcome.

[terence]

Originally Posted by andmark4389

As you can see, I'm new to this, but I do have one final question. If you were involved with race winning Griffiths, how did you get the job done when today's obvious rule benders couldn't defeat the Cobra at Brands ?

Spa 6hr 95 &96,both done on homologated 7inch rims,[95 was done on Uniroyal road tryes] were particularly good to us
As for driving both, if I didn't know the similarity between the two cars,it would not be fair just to guess.
How did we get the job done? There were nowhere near the amount of 'non conforming' cars around as there are today,IE,it was more of a [quote JR] hobby and a little less of Must win at all cost's attitudes.

[Al Weyman]

Slight subject change but still on Plastic Pigs. A friend of mine was contemplating building a Chevrolet small block V8 engined Gilburn which was originally fitted with a 1600cc B series engine. Apparently he wanted to build this to Apps K or get FIA papers for histo racing because someone had cobbled together such a machine in period so that made it OK (a complete one off). Well I tell you I looked at the spindly chassis he was intending to fit the mighty up to 500bhp Small block into and quite frankly I recon it would have twisted it with the torque, IMHO it would have been downright dangerous yet presumabley OK with the FIA if this chap was correct. As it happens and thank God cause I like the bloke and wouldnt have wanted him to meet his maker early, he did shelve the project but it makes you wonder.

Its this sort of thing I just dont get about Historic racing, HTP papers and Apps K to be frank.

[zefarelly]

Fraud Cortina anyone?

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Slight subject change but still on Plastic Pigs. A friend of mine was contemplating building a Chevrolet small block V8 engined Gilburn which was originally fitted with a 1600cc B series engine. Apparently he wanted to build this to Apps K or get FIA papers for histo racing because someone had cobbled together such a machine in period so that made it OK (a complete one off). Well I tell you I looked at the spindly chassis he was intending to fit the mighty up to 500bhp Small block into and quite frankly I recon it would have twisted it with the torque, IMHO it would have been downright dangerous yet presumabley OK with the FIA if this chap was correct. As it happens and thank God cause I like the bloke and wouldnt have wanted him to meet his maker early, he did shelve the project but it makes you wonder.
Its this sort of thing I just dont get about Historic racing, HTP papers and Apps K to be frank.

Al- It's Gilbern The factory modded a chassis to take a Chevvy 4.7 litre engine, Jag gearbox and axle. Owner Ken Wilson (Autosport Sprint Champ 1964) tried it at Llandow June '65, scared himself half to death and the car was thus confined to sprints and speed trials. Subsequently the engine was taken out and I believe the car had a Lotus twincam fitted at some point! I can't see how a replica would get FIA papers- it wasn't homologated like that and didn't race. Maybe the original car could if presented in original form but as a protoype, not a GT!

[Al Weyman]

I was only relaying what he told me, I didfind it odd but he had the car and the engine and gearbox so was serious but maybe thats why he shelved the project.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

Fraud Cortina anyone?

Hmm. . . over developed? Maybe not!

[terence]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Hmm. . . over developed? Maybe not!

Well,it did have an auto fitted!

[andmark4389]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Spa 6hr 95 &96,both done on homologated 7inch rims,[95 was done on Uniroyal road tryes] were particularly good to us
As for driving both, if I didn't know the similarity between the two cars,it would not be fair just to guess.
How did we get the job done? There were nowhere near the amount of 'non conforming' cars around as there are today,IE,it was more of a [quote JR] hobby and a little less of Must win at all cost's attitudes.

You'll have to forgive me for my confusion. As I said, I'm new to this.

The TVR with which you were involved was a winner in 95 and 96 when "there were nowhere near the amount of 'non conforming' cars around" as there are today. Today, and at Brands last weekend, which was where this started, the Griffith can't beat the Cobras and E-types. What you say suggests that the leading lights in these cars are cheating better than the guys in the TVR.

[john ruston]

To get back on track and the thread, the thing seems to be that some want to able to develop cars and race based on old cars and others want to potter round in cars that shall we say similar to those in period.You ask the question do people bend the rules.The answer is yes .Are there standard rules and ways of interpreting rules with different organisers,no.
It's all a bit of a mess and I am firmly in the no development camp based on the way the cars are today but equally understand that others want to do the development thing.Not sure Historic Racing is big enough to cater for both and this split will lead to fragmentation and dilution and contraction of the Hobby.
This is not based on TVR's or any one class,we have many Pre War cars , ,50's Sports cars and I am sure open wheelers etc.that have been developed way beyond where they should be or need be.

It's the driver who makes the difference anyway.

[simon drabble]

I would certainly agree with JR's last comment. Historics are made up of those acting out their male menopause and former contempory drivers still wanting to race. No matter how bent the car the former will rarely outdrive the latter. I would suggest in most cases (and I would include myself) driver coaching would be cheaper and more effective!!

[GORDON STREETER]

I think that its easier to develop a car that in period was "unusual" and a non contender because not many people know what can be altered. Whereas the opposite applies on the "normal" type of saloons and sports cars that make up most of the field.
My own Anglia that we built in 1989 is virtually the same car suspension and engine wise from then, the only mods have been to try to improve parts that have broken or fell off ! It is still capable of lapping Brands Indy circuit in the low 56 sec bracket and the GP in 1.48s on skinny road tyres as I have proved on many occasions.
Many people have looked at it over the years and found it to be an "old nail" that is not very smart up close and certainly wouldn't win any concourse prizes !
My point is if I did loads of mods would I go any faster but be frowned on for over development because everybody knows about the Anglebox ?

[zefarelly]

I guess a lot of people fall into the spend spend spend trap when attention to detail and some time and care on prep and set up can be just as effective. It takes time to learn a car regardless of how much you spend and change.

I'm not particularly quick, and don't have the most competitive car but I'm still suprised how bloody slow some people are. no bother as long as they're safe with it.

As John suggests, the gulf in driving abilities is enormous and perhaps coching would be a better bet for some, as opposed to a bent engine or hot suspension set up, things which, potentially make things dangerous in incapable hands.