Over (?) Development of Historic Racing Cars

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by andmark4389

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.

Belated welcome from me, too. Do you think they have twigged yet? And yes, I agree, singling out Griffs (which I've never denied are a great favourite of mine) from some of the quicker E-types and Cobras is unfair selection.

Originally Posted by 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.

Generally true but depends on the size of the car performance gap. Also what if you've got a good driver in the 'bent' car? I do agree with JR though that the biggest single performance increase to be gained is by putting the best nut behind the wheel!

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

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 ?

The thing is Gordon, it's now a historic car in its own right, and should be preserved ...... rather like its owner!

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by John Turner

The thing is Gordon, it's now a historic car in its own right, and should be preserved ...... rather like its owner!

Good point John, actually I'm off on Saturday night to "preserve" myself with a few bottles of Rioja ! However I am just off to the Doc's to get a medical, so watch this space

[John Turner]

Good luck, on both counts, Gordon!

[GORDON STREETER]

Well I passed the MOT !. The licence application is in the post

[jminsh]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

Well I passed the MOT !. The licence application is in the post

Along with all the parking ticket payments ?? Ha notice no mention of speeding ones ref the not remotely (Smart) car.

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by jminsh

Along with all the parking ticket payments ?? Ha notice no mention of speeding ones ref the not remotely (Smart) car.

It's now all legal and registered in your name Jason

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

I would suggest in most cases (and I would include myself) driver coaching would be cheaper and more effective!!

I concur. I wish I had the time.

[midgetman]

I was talking to a chap here yesterday at MG Live who is building "an Appendix K car". He's building a completely new bodyshell with panels available from major retailers. Presumbly assembled in a way sympathetic to racing.

How does that work then? The only thing "Historic" will be the chassis plate. In my tiny mind, I thought "Historic" racing meant racing old cars, not new cars on old designs.

Or am I being naive?

[Tim Falce]

You are being naive.

[terence]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I was talking to a chap here yesterday at MG Live who is building "an Appendix K car". He's building a completely new bodyshell with panels available from major retailers. Presumbly assembled in a way sympathetic to racing.

How does that work then? The only thing "Historic" will be the chassis plate. In my tiny mind, I thought "Historic" racing meant racing old cars, not new cars on old designs.

Or am I being naive?

Continuation MGBs have been around for a long while,it must have been these that set the trend!

[Peter Mallett]

Once again this is not the thrust of the thread but hey ho. You can define Historic Motorsport many ways IMHO, a couple may be "racing historically important cars" or another may be "racing cars that reflect history".

Thus restored Ford Cortina GTs or Lotus Cortinas etc. are just as valid as if the original racing versions were still on track.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by midgetman

I was talking to a chap here yesterday at MG Live who is building "an Appendix K car". He's building a completely new bodyshell with panels available from major retailers. Presumbly assembled in a way sympathetic to racing.

Surely even in the day 'road' cars were assembled (or stripped and re-assembled) in ways sympathetic to racing (or rallying, or whatever ....)

Pure racing cars were forever being reprepped or repaired. The question of whether to re-chassis/re-tub/re-shell being based on time available, budget available and components being available.

Relatively unique F1 cars were, in the early days of few chassis builds, fairly easy to identify, though it probably became more tricky if you were talking about customer car manufacturers like March.

The specs varied from race to race, components came to be changed regularly, engines were upgraded and replaced pretty much every race. I suspect few engines that started a season had many if any original components by the end of a year. Likewise gearboxes, though casings may have survived.

The same was true to a large extent for sports cars. Touring and saloons were less likely to be so significantly changed so often but with manufacturer involvement some would change frequently as has already been written about many times on 10 Tenths.

Therefore Peter Mallett's distinctions above seem to me to be very pertinent.

Now, forgetting for a moment the consideration of engines, tyres and the potential use of modern aids for tuning and preparation, modern safety requirements, notably safety cages, must surely make a noticable difference to early cars - say almost anything from befoere the 70s or possibly late 60s. A 'sympathetically. designed safety cage would surely also have the effect of stiffening the 'chassis' (if not, why not?) and one woould assume that for most car tis would be an aid to handling. The benefits might be offset by additional weight and possibly a changed CofG but I would guess they could be countered without too much trouble. Maybe some cars work best with a flexible soft chassis and so would be disadvantaged by a safety cage .... but then if they were relying in chassis/body flex one would assume they would probably have a shortish active competition life.

So it seems to me that at least some areas of the rules in some classes relating to originality will have been adjusted to suit current safety requirements to a point well beyond anything that was current at the time. In which case building a new shell or chassis (or engine) using modern tools and equipment and engineering standards could be seen as no more than an extension of what people would do, with whatever tools and technology they had available, over the years. OK it's a 50 year extension rather than a 50 week extension but in principle there is little difference. In my view.

I would rather that than have a declining pool of cars available resulting in ever decreasing grids even if it does push the boundaries of a definition of 'original', whatever that was.

[Richy_Rich]

Absolutely. I'd also posit that 99.314159% of spectators aren't really that bothered if the gearbox internals are the same as in period? (However, they'd probably upset if E-Types started sprouting wings and ridiculous looking air intakes etc.)

[zefarelly]

dog boxes **** me off in production cars, no need, easy to check and everyones totally blase about their illegal use. they trash perfectly capable drive train as well, which isn't getting any easier to find . . . .

todays rant over

[JSF]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

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.

Hello Peter,

The tyres used on the Interserie cars are Avon control slicks, they are a crossply construction and are made using A11 compound, which is in the middle of the Avon range of compounds. They are designed with this period of car in mind and don't produce the levels of grip that would cause a problem on the car.

hopefully this helps.

[Al Weyman]

Good to meet you yesterday Gordon, was ever a guy I met in tenths as I imagined it must be you!!

[john ruston]

Of course Pre War cars should not have Dog Boxes and nor should many of the Post War cars.But some do!

Don't get the bit about spectators and rules of the hobby.The rules are for the competitors and as long as its a level playing field the few paying punters will watch Historic Racing not pretend Historic Lookalike Racing.It easier and cheaper for the competitors if people play to the rules and use cars as in period.

[Peter Mallett]

Welcome TSF and thanks for the clarification.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Don't get the bit about spectators and rules of the hobby.The rules are for the competitors and as long as its a level playing field the few paying punters will watch Historic Racing not pretend Historic Lookalike Racing.It easier and cheaper for the competitors if people play to the rules and use cars as in period.

Perhaps I should retrain myself to like modern 'all look the same' cars.

As a matter of interest how many cars/engines/transmissions/etc. are damaged beyond 'same component' repair each season? And how easy is it to find suitable period replacement parts? How many road going 'original' MGBs are out there wating to be snapped up to replace a damaged original historic racer?

How many GT40s? McLaren Can-Am cars of various ages? Lotus Elans with original chassis?

If someone is running a late 60s or early 70s F1, say DFV powered, should the engine spec be required to match the materials, tolerances and specification of engines made in the year the car purports to be from?

Road derived cars may have documented homologation that can be referred to and it may even be reliable as documentation even though the spec. of the cars actually raced may have been 'different'. The recent observations about TVRs and wheelarches for example ... suggest that the FIA requirements used today can be out of kilter with what was generally around at the time. But in the main the chances are that for mot cars that are still around in some numbers the historic specs as they SHOULD have been can be discovered.

But if you take pure racers, run when new by factory teams, the picture changes - as did the detailed specifications of the cars and their components from race to race.

I'm not sure that anyone could, realistically, create an unarguable set of ruls that allowed continuation of the sport in historic form and at the same time held costs in check, Not even if we assume that 'period ready' parts and components were to continue to become available at prices that would ensure the preparation and running costs could be contained at 'sensible' levels. But then what does 'sensible' means for those that can afford to buy and run elderly racing cars to period specs?

[john ruston]

A B gearbox can be bought to original spec even if its new parts.Same thing applies to 99.9 % of car parts needed so there is no excuse/reason to change the type of box in any car including Pre Select or Crash.

This is just an example and goes for any part of car and in most cases it is cheaper to stick with original type than replace with improved things.

HTP's and things,I do not understand them!

[zefarelly]

I have 30 odd engines stashed, all std genuine Ford, and all capable of being recycled to make competitive race engines, reliable road/rally engines or whatever, where there's a wil theres a way.

Of course I could, with considerably less effort spend a small fortune on brand new exotic bits and not have to go to the trouble of scouring jumbles and shows, but to me thats part of the fun and the challenge of racing a (nearly) 50 year old car.

same goes for gearboxes, drive train, brakes etc etc, of you hae the will and dedication you can restore/repair anything, buying everything new is not always the best thing to do anyway, as I proved (again!) this weekend, a lot of new bits are of a lesser quaity than old

[p261brm]

Here we go again as the song says; agree broadly with Mr Ruston and grantp have to say, with regard to replacement components replicating original materials design and so on. Development took place in period and generally once a car/s left original teams/manufactorer, progress on modifications and records tend to become sketchy to say the least. The Lumsden/Sargent E a case in point, the car after leaving Brown's Lane very soon bore little resemblance to the original product, yet today development continues and the car accepted as an epitome of originality, which is quite frankly absolute rubbish. Mr Ruston in another thread points out, and rightly so, organisers have to fill grids, can not John, have it both ways. If the organisers, and they should, eliminate the dodgy and over developed cars, no grids; simple. The number of engineers [?] and expensive equipment surrounding an 'E' that was not clean on 6 at last years revival was a circus that would not have been out place in a current F1 garage. Once upon a time if your man missed one and hit nine plus, with an FVC you knew you had a fair nights work in front of you changing big end bolts, today's rev limiters go a long way in preventing that and the same applies to other components developed over the years. Either hunt with hounds or Fox I fear will remain.

[zefarelly]

I thought it was Whitesnake . . .here I go again on my own . . .

whats a rev limiter?

[terence]

It's the pedal on the far right Zef
Am in complete agreement with JR,cars with HTPs are the one's under scrutinee here.It matter's not what car it is,E-Types are known to be over developed,Griffiths as well are in the same boat,[just that some bear more resemblance to Mod Sports racers than what,to my mind,they should]. How much farther can the rule's be twisted in order to get paper's for any given make?Had time to have a look around a few cars yesterday at Snetterton,some wheel base's were different to others on some LCs,it's an endless list that needs trimming down but that will take years to sort out.

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

I thought it was Whitesnake . . .here I go again on my own . . .

whats a rev limiter?

Wrong song, much earlier...

I'll not bother, cos the answer that srang to mind was a definite blue pencil job!

We are all broadly singing from similar hymn sheet, I am only a spanner neither entrant or driver, those who pay those bills have the whole answer, refuse to race against the car's who are way outside of the 'spirit of the regulations'......money on you won't or don't