V8s, Are There Now too Many?

[zefarelly]

I've had exactly the same at Castle Combe with what must have been a relatievely std/period correct Galaxy, it pitched at such a wild angle under braking I didn't dare try and dive up the inside, when I finally got it at Camp Corner it just blew me away on the start finish straight

there are plenty of Anglias Gordon, Likewise other smaller cars, they're just staying at home. If spliting the tin tops into 2 series is a bad idea why are the MAsters of the universe doing it with GT's ? ? ? ? ?

[Al Weyman]

I think we could be talking different things here although the title is 'Too many V8's' my mindset was saloons, heavy saloons and thereby natural equality with a lightweight like Gordons flyer. I was not considering GT40's, Lola T70's, Cobra's kits and/or continuations or even the real thing because they have the best of both worlds, awesome power and a light chassis weight.

Incidently how come sportscars and saloons race together which seems more the problem to me? Also according to the FIA site there is as I suggested earlier a wieght per cc ruling adopted by CTRCC at least for homologated saloons so is that not adhered to here because if it was I am sure the V8 saloon race car would only be driven and owned by genuine enthusiasts of the marque like myself and Moosehead because if entered as per the intended regs they can take a hell of a lot of living with and the casual pot hunter will soon get bored and the increase in V8's will naturally peter out.

However I doubt this is going to happen if you are talking sports cars so I suggest you just have to live with it or race in saloon only events that adhere in someway at least to the spirit of the regs and the weight per cc ratio which is a great equaliser. BTW its my understanding that there are moves a foot for one or two longer distance races within CTRCC for next year including Spa so that may just become a viable alternative for some of you guys.

[Peter Mallett]

I think we're talking Saloons and GTs Al. The Sports Prototypes are a different beast and I don't know of anyone who would want to lose or restrict them (apart from continuations). If we look at Sports cars you might say there's too many Healeys etc. But they tend to be well driven and thus don't create the problems that appear to be the case here.

Yep,

Weight limits as homologated are a way forward but again that comes under regs so if the problem is they're too fast then its not for this discussion. Personally I'd love a Boss Mustang to chuck around but I'm sensible enough to know I'd spend too much on it.

[Al Weyman]

But from reading the pdf posted here from the FIA site it appears weight limits are or were applied and if you are trying to recreate what was back then surely they should be used now, they are quite clearly laid out.

Also can I correct a possible assumption I have seen a few times relating to 'Roller Rockers' (prehaps more on Zefs other thread relating to cheating) on for example GT40's and V8s in particular and how these are seen to give some great performance advantage, simply on their own they don't. They do allow less oil to be required at the top end of the engine if replacing a ball type rocker system if fitted with gallery oil restrictors and prehaps the oil to run a tad cooler however..... the fitting of Roller Rockers probably means a roller lifter camshaft is also fitted as they go hand in glove and that is where the real power advantages come in for out of period specification V8's. From frictional losses alone they are reported to be worth an extra 30/40bhp on a biggish performance engine against a flat tappet cam also the oil runs cooler but the real advantage is the far steeper ramps and hence radical profiles that can be achieved using a full roller set up, Chevrolet even started fitting them a few years ago to get better fuel consumption figures (and performance).

How can you tell without a fill strip down if one of these magical bumpsticks is fitted? Well one way is to pull the dizzy and if it has a bronze gear chances are it has a roller cam made from a steel billet as a steel dizzy gear will wear too quickly on steel roller cam.

[terence]

Agree on that Al,but the whole idea of roller rockers is to enable higher rev,s to be used,to compliment the other"Improvements"that have been made.The other trick is to use Volvo Rocker,s which are of a stronger design[Ford one,s are not shy at breaking].The problem there is,once the Volvo one have been cleaned up and polished[Allowed] only the eagle eyed would spot them!

[Al Weyman]

And of course a different (increased) ratio rocker arm would also pay dividens.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

And of course a different (increased) ratio rocker arm would also pay dividens.

Oh,Did,nt I mention that!

[Al Weyman]

This is why I like a freer rule book as per the CTRCC championships, little incidentels like that are irrelevant and if you want to change the rockers go for it, about all you cannot do internally is overbore and stroke and you should have the original or accepted block. All these Appedix K this and FIA that are fine in principle but as seen here its a different matter policing them.

[terence]

Absolutly Al,but it wont be long before the FIA come up with the solution

[Moosehead]

Al, in the CSCC Swinging Sixties we race sports & saloons without a problem and their regs are quite 'open'. Their way of equalising things is to make V8's run on CR65's whilst the rest can run much grippier Yokos..........seems to work quite well to my eye (apart from the price of Dunlops)

My engine runs a roller cam and I have to use a steel dizzy gear so the checking for bronze gear is out.

[Al Weyman]

Thats odd Moosehead, it is definitely the other way around on the SBC engine, bronze gear on steel billet cam I have several dizzys thus equiped and have always been told and read thats what is required, hope you have been told right. DOnt you have a weight limit as well? I tried my old Chev out on 16" Kumhos for the pre-93 race at Snetterton, man what a difference I swear I was flat around Coram, try that with the Dunlops and you would be taking an early bath!

[zefarelly]

correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the idea of historic motorsport was to replicate racing history

not build a new car with an old skin, in a modsports stylee.

either do it or don't, policing the grey area it seems is the hardest bit . . . . if you like the opriginals so much why deviate from them ?

although back on topic, yes there are too many V8's at the moment, and they seem to be presented by people who've bought them in the vain hope they might win, from what I've observed some drivers are quicker in their smaller cars, my biggest concern is the carnage caused by them.

[terence]

Saw a good example on the formation lap at Spa Zef,I was in Peters Capri,we were all coming through Stavelot[Exit is blind] so this guy in the V8 decides to floor it,everyone in front had all but stopped,panic braking,this tank took to the grass to avoid shunting into the car,s in front of us.!

[Al Weyman]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the idea of historic motorsport was to replicate racing history

not build a new car with an old skin, in a modsports stylee.

either do it or don't, policing the grey area it seems is the hardest bit . . . . if you like the opriginals so much why deviate from them ?

although back on topic, yes there are too many V8's at the moment, and they seem to be presented by people who've bought them in the vain hope they might win, from what I've observed some drivers are quicker in their smaller cars, my biggest concern is the carnage caused by them.

And hope everyone else who enters plays ball which clearly they dont and never are going to if concerns highlighed in your other posts are anything to go by so why not just free the regs up a bit at least as far as basically uncheckable engine internals are concerned. In period with big manufacturers money funding things and the much higher status of the meetings such fine tooth comb checks were more feasable but I dont think they ever will entirely be with what is basically a modern day recreation I think you just have to be realistic.

[Tainan]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

In period with big manufacturers money funding things and the much higher status of the meetings such fine tooth comb checks were more feasable but I dont think they ever will entirely be with what is basically a modern day recreation I think you just have to be realistic.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. A set of rules that works fine for a series run by professionals, for professional teams, doesn't necessarily work for a more amateur, and budget conscious series.

[zefarelly]

well judging by a lot of historic motorsport amateurism and budget doesn't come into the equation, far from it.

asides which, in my experience, well checked/graded original parts are a fraction of the price of new, and as good, frequently better, not all parts obviously, particularly safety critical.

an example is ford Kent rocker arms . . . unavailable.
I have a few sets stashed and another few in use, all new old stock, never paid more than £40 a set. . . . its a whisker shy of £450+ for titan roller rockers . . . .

It may be optimistic, I don't believe its unrealistic, and I'm sorry if I have high standards and aspirations.

its a tough job . . . . .

[Al Weyman]

£450 for a set of roller rockers for a 4 cylinder engine! No wonder people are racing so many Yanks.

[Moosehead]

Al, no, I definitely have to use steel dizzy gear (take a look in Real Steel catalogue......think its mentioned there) it was on the instruction sheet that came with the engine.....(Ford crate -supposedly 345hp but 300 in reality!!)

Zef........Re: deviating from original.........I quite agree, I run a '60's car I expect it to act like a '60's car and so in the case of a Mustang that means it ain't gonna be as good as an Elan on corners or braking.

You can't complain about V8's being fast on straights and slow on corners as thats how they were.

I'd love to run in App K spec but the way the rules are you need money to do that. For instance, you have to run the original cast iron manifolds - to make them flow better they need to be machined - I've been quoted getting on for a grand to have that done (by more than 1 company). A set of (illegal in App K terms) manifolds cost around £200 and will provide a similar performace gain. There's no way I can afford to have all the different machining jobs done to run too App K spec so if I were to run effectively standard I'd be miles behind the other technically legal Mustangs......not my idea of fun. Hence I run in a more open series which allows me to improve performance within my budget.

[Moosehead]

Ha Ha, yea, my mate just paid twice as much for a set of crossflow pistons (road spec) as I could a set of race Ford V8

[Simon Hadfield]

Run the original manifolds? You are at least a year behind in the development stakes ( and a fair bit more than a grand!)

[Moosehead]

About right then........I last looked into it about 18 months ago.

[terence]

But Moose is absolutly correct,you do have to run the standard manifolds Simon.They are available new from Steve Warrior,[Machined internally if required]Not too sure on the legality of that though.The last Mustang I was involved in was built strictly to the the reg,s,it was just about as qick as some,after spending a not inconsiderable sum building the car,the owner decided to sell after three races because it was not a front runner,he is an above average driver!

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Moosehead

You can't complain about V8's being fast on straights and slow on corners as thats how they were.
I agree!
Suggestion to all: organise a track / test day and swop cars. Then you can find out what it is like to drive a something heavy, no brakes, and little handling ; in turn, V8 drivers can be enlightened by a light, nimble car which turns corners when you turn the steering wheel, not 2 mins afterwards, and you can step out fresh as a daisy...maybe both sides (if that is what it has come to) would appreciate each other and their respective cars more!

I'd love to run in App K spec but the way the rules are you need money to do that

Sorry, but I don't buy that (no pun intended). I started racing with HSCC and what was then Historic Roadsports, then progressed (?!) to AMOC Anglo American Challenge, and then went Appendix K and have not looked back. App K gives you a passport to Europe and elsewhere , and as stated elsewhere by others in this thread, is really the only true "historic" format. In every series there is potential for a large chequebook to come in handy especially when it comes to what Simon Hadfield terms "development".The only thing that I don't like about App K is the price of Dunlops, the continual swopping between L's and M's depending on who you are racing with , and my cars appetitie for both...

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by terence bower

But Moose is absolutly correct,you do have to run the standard manifolds Simon.They are available new from Steve Warrior,[Machined internally if required]Not too sure on the legality of that though.The last Mustang I was involved in was built strictly to the the reg,s,it was just about as qick as some,after spending a not inconsiderable sum building the car,the owner decided to sell after three races because it was not a front runner,he is an above average driver!

I think that there is a process referred to as 'extrude honing' or something - basically you can hone / smooth out cast iron manifolds buy forcing an abrasive paste through them. You can of course port match using using conventional means.........but then I am getting out of my depth here....

[terence]

I quite agree,having driven a "V8",yes they can be a handfull,but we all have our choices.Just because there is a stonking V8 under the bonnet,does,nt mean that you,ll wipe the floor with the opposition though[as many drivers have already found out].

Another thing to consider is the fact that if we were all out in V8s,would that give the green,s more of a lever against our sport?