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

[terence]

Just as I've often said Henrik,I know of a few people who would come back to Historics if that were to happen.

[grantp]

Mindful of RW's comments about his Mercury Comet Cyclone block ... and the comments of someone else I have contact with about the problems he would have if the engine in his 1960's Porsche were to fail ...

... what would happen if large numbers of cars representing variety were to become ineligible because original parts were no longer available anywhere? Would competition continue in a 'few makes' series? Would the rules be adjusted (and what effect would that have)? Would historic racing as we know it tail off to a very specialised and rare series of events?

Or something else entirely?

[john ruston]

So what do you do if you have a 4 cam Porsche engine?
Park the car.

[Al Weyman]

Isn't the Comet block a Ford of some sort, should be a few about still. Thats the danger of the American Cash for Clunkers scheme. They insist some chemical is put in the engine to kill it, so whats the sence in that?

[johnh875]

Yes Mercury is part of Ford and the Comet is a cousin of the Falcon. I would say that 289 blocks would be rapidly disappearing off the face of the earth, due to the scrap metal boom over the last decade and disappearing "old-school" scrapyards. Note the late model 5.0/302 blocks are also notorious for splitting in half!

I assume it is legal to sleeve blocks?

ps thanks for the great contributions from those who were at the event! We popped into the race circuit the day before the Festival of Speed started so I have actually seen a bit of it now, will have to make it back for this event one day.

[zefarelly]

given the rapid rate ov development and remanufacture of parts for more common engines ( Ford,VW,Lotus,BMC, Healey) we know anythings possible . . . . then for really posh motors theres C&G and other mortgage inducing 'consulting engineers'

for everything else theres merely the dedication of owners and however brave/mad they are with their hard earnt.

All my rare/valuable original parts are in the loft for the other car . . . the race car gets the cooking bits and repro parts for combination of relaibility, affordaility and safety.

[rogerwills]

Ford 289 blocks are getting harder and harder to find in a condition that can be used. There are a lot of aftermarket repro blocks but these are not right.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by rogerwills

Ford 289 blocks are getting harder and harder to find in a condition that can be used. There are a lot of aftermarket repro blocks but these are not right.

right in what sense? Quality wise? not "period correct"? Who then would buy them?

[rogerwills]

They don't even look right on the outside let alone the things that have been done to make them better on the inside. No way are these allowed and neither should they be.

Lots of people still run 289 Fords just like they still run small block Chevs. So there is a huge market for these aftermarket blocks.

Just not allowed in App K racing......

[henk4]

Originally Posted by rogerwills

Just not allowed in App K racing......

want to make a guess how many passed the filter already???

[Al Weyman]

They are generally made by World Products and other companies and even at my level of Historic racing are a no, no. There are massive gains to be had form these blocks with features like splayed main caps and thicker cylinder walls allowing big overbores plus more clerance for longer stroke cranks and better cooling from improved water jackets they are also easy to spot. 8.4 litres from a small block configuration is obtainable.

[henk4]

are they allowed in the US quarter mile scene?

[Al Weyman]

Depends on what racing body and series I guess, some are very strict and allow stock only some allow stuff like World Products S/R Torquer heads that are basically stock but made a bit better for reliability. I do find and although I have no personal experience only what I have read that many american race organisations seem to have a sensible approach on some of the aftermarket stuff. For example allowing guys to fit the S/R heads instead of hard to obtain and unreliable (read my post on perferated small block heads and the trouble it caused me) Camel Hump heads from the 60's or expensive GM Bowtie heads. Same as my Steve Sphon Torque tube on my later model car, mandatory in SCCA racing because the standard one runs off the gearbox and has a tendancy to tear off the tailshaft casing, fortunately CTCRC can take a similar sensible approach to our historic racing and the committee allowed me a concession to run the device which actually is heavier and does not improve handling, just bloody more reliable (my tail housing kept coming loose) and safer.

I think with all this stuff it has to move on and if there is solution maybe it should be concidered like the S/R heads. World Products also do some serious stuff that would give big gains but if the FIA or organisers made themselves a bit more proactive and allowed certain products like the S/Rs but not the more radical ones then fine. Same with blocks my above example was for what is available I am sure if they said well allow the more plentiful 302 Ford engine blocks instead of 287's it would be a solution.

[henk4]

http://www.worldcastings.com/product...k-ford-blocks/

so what these people are making is basically an upgrade, (see the word "type" in several descriptions), without (some of) the flaws of the original engine? A "continuation" engine

[terence]

Exactly that Pieter.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Exactly that Pieter.

so continuation Lolas with continuation small blocks.......

[john ruston]

Here we go again fakes,continuation,re engineered,replicas etc,etc,
And what about those ally engines in 210's
They would have had them if anyone had thought at the time so it quite a reasonable thing to do and whats the point of copying when the design/material can be bettered.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Here we go again fakes,continuation,re engineered,replicas etc,etc,
And what about those ally engines in 210's
They would have had them if anyone had thought at the time so it quite a reasonable thing to do and whats the point of copying when the design/material can be bettered.

just to answer your question: Apparently the regulations do not allow you to better things over the standard to which they homologated.
And yes, if there is anything "continuation" it will be the discussion about it.

[Tim the Grey]

I thought a 'continuation' car was made with original materials off teh original tooling? i.e. fit form and function identical with the original item?
So it should be OK. After all, you may need a 'continuation' hub and suspension bits after a crash. Ditto the bodywork. Then you may also need to re tub something involved in a heavier impact?

So long as it performs in teh same way I fail to see an issue.

If it IMPROVES performance, including reliability, then it's cheating.

Or have I missed the point here?

[James Murray]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Here we go again fakes,continuation,re engineered,replicas etc,etc,
And what about those ally engines in 210's
They would have had them if anyone had thought at the time so it quite a reasonable thing to do and whats the point of copying when the design/material can be bettered.

John are you referring to Lola T210/12? If so should either have FVC with cast iron block or if has a BDG the FIA in Appendix K allows the use of an aluminium block. The flaw is that the alloy block is 2000cc and cast FVC block is 1790cc. Alloy block BDG didnt come out until 1973 in works Chevron F2 I think and was designed by Brian Hart otoh so shouldn't be allowed in pre 73 cars strictly speaking, but noone seems to care.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Tim the Grey

I thought a 'continuation' car was made with original materials off the original tooling? i.e. fit form and function identical with the original item?
So it should be OK. After all, you may need a 'continuation' hub and suspension bits after a crash. Ditto the bodywork. Then you may also need to re tub something involved in a heavier impact?

So long as it performs in the same way I fail to see an issue.

If it IMPROVES performance, including reliability, then it's cheating.

Or have I missed the point here?

In a word,yes. Most of the improvements that are available are there for one thing only,redesigning ANYTHING seems to incorporate an improvement somewhere along the process.In your second point Tim,you say 'So long as it performs the same'.Since when are things remade that do not perform in a better fashion. Like Alfa Heads,having the inlet ports soooo much more efficient allegedly because there were no decent originals available? The people responsible have,more often than not,set out to find that little extra performance in the first place.
An example,I had been having talks with the MSA concerning the manufacture of new three synchro gear sets for MGAs and Bs,also some earlier formula cars.The reply from them,I had mentioned that the manufacturing process would be considerably cheaper if we were allowed [as in the MSA agreed to it and not following others movements!] to use dog selection,their response was,'If you have a problem with a car,either drive around it or change the car you race'! Thought that summed it up nicely really.

[Brendan Roberts]

As an infrequent visitor to these pages I cant help thinking that 9/10ths of all threads seem to end up in the same debate about legality, FIA compliance, scrutineering, suspiciously fast cars etc. I enjoyed reading Rowan Atkinson's column in Octane recently which expressed his view and aired the issue rather well I thought. I dont see that the concerns are likely to be addressed any time soon since no-one is motivated to do so, indeed if anything all organisers are more motivated to preserve the status quo. As to the extremely fast Stanguellini, which has been discussed widely, it has been re-scrutineered on more than one occasion and passed inspection even though the fuel arrives by special delivery in a Customs sealed container and the timing was seen being set up on a lap top! I had a good race with him at Monza last year, he eventually won I think, I was 3rd, but the interesting thing was that he lapped at pretty consistently at 1:25 and had a good battle until he spun then did a couple of 1:22 laps to make up ground and won by a whisker.......what a pro!

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Brendan Roberts

I had a good race with him at Monza last year, he eventually won I think, I was 3rd, but the interesting thing was that he lapped at pretty consistently at 1:25 and had a good battle until he spun then did a couple of 1:22 laps to make up ground and won by a whisker.......what a pro!

He surely must be as the lap record by Barrichello in a 2004 F1 Ferrari is somewhat above 1.21.....

[Henrik Pedersen]

I just looked at the resultlist from Coppa Intereuropa if that was the event?

It states that Brendan Robert is lapping at 2.25.
The qualifying there are a: A.Lawrence in car no.3 Stanguellini, then in the race it is mr. Colassacco lapping at 2.23.

If he is doing a great job outthere, or he has an engine that really can pull, is a big question.

But if the petrol he is using is not from a normal gasoline supply, then I would like to know what it is.
App.J.Article 16 states that only commercial fuel that are available from servicestation, must be used.

But Brendan, are you not the least disappointed if he runs an illegal car, and yours are by the book??

[simon drabble]

I would imagine after being punted off the track and out of the Lurani Championship he was leading at the time as a result, that is the least of his gripes about FJ's!!