FIA Homologation Papers & HTPs - Page 3

GORDON STREETER · 15 Aug 2009, 21:09 (Ref:2522025)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zefarelly

Terry has them tattoe'd on his . . .

It must be a low number then

FISCracer · 3 Sep 2009, 23:54 (Ref:2534129)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP12

Does anyone have a copy of the MGB homologation papers?

PM me off piste and I'll send you a scanned set - No 198

Remarkable that some people can build a car to a specification they don't have a copy of.......

Richard

terence · 4 Sep 2009, 05:33 (Ref:2534190)

Thought it was just common knowledge these day's? Perhaps it comes as second nature after building so many.

terence · 7 Sep 2009, 15:28 (Ref:2535933)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FISCracer

PM me off piste and I'll send you a scanned set - No 198

Remarkable that some people can build a car to a specification they don't have a copy of.......

Richard

What ,do you mean the people using the illegal 48DCOE Richard?

zefarelly · 7 Sep 2009, 20:54 (Ref:2536150)

Quote:

Originally Posted by terence bower

Thought it was just common knowledge these day's? Perhaps it comes as second nature after building so many.

I didn't think you'd written yours off once yet Terence?

gilduffy · 30 Dec 2009, 16:45 (Ref:2606460)

Now here is a question.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]Appendix K says in 5.10.1
For racing two rear view mirrors must be fitted with a minimum total glass area of 90 sq. cm.

Am I correct in thinking that means each mirror can be 45 sq. cm?

It just seems pretty small to me
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG]

Farbrooke · 30 Dec 2009, 17:08 (Ref:2606467)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilduffy

Now here is a question.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]Appendix K says in 5.10.1
For racing two rear view mirrors must be fitted with a minimum total glass area of 90 sq. cm.

Am I correct in thinking that means each mirror can be 45 sq. cm?

45 sq cm each complies with the way it reads - but you could also have larger areas if you required

Jeremy Hall · 30 Dec 2009, 17:51 (Ref:2606487)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farbrooke

45 sq cm each complies with the way it reads - but you could also have larger areas if you required

No it doesn't; it says 90sq cm total -you can make that up however you like-be b. silly if you had 1sq cm and 89 s cm but it would comply with the regulation.

terence · 3 Jan 2010, 08:48 (Ref:2607548)

Just reminiscing,I remember not so long ago,trailering a Sunbeam Tiger down to Slough,armed with the required batch of photo's etc,with the intention of obtaining the FIA papers for the car.I left approximately one hour later,with the papers![Good old days eh Jeremy]
Now though it takes forever,even after supplying ALL required documentation/photographs [fourth set supplied because previous sets have been repeatedly lost] E-mails just dont get answered neither the phones calls,just what is happening to our main motorsport club?
In answer to Simons question,I have often wondered how well a nicely sorted MG C would do in the Eau Rouge Trophy.Get rid of potential breakage's like the o/drive box,[bit of weight loss as a bonus] Then again,apart from the MGCC,not much else to race it in,or is there?

zefarelly · 3 Jan 2010, 09:22 (Ref:2607560)

it'd probably race well with a scimitar, in the dry!, and a Marcos 3L, TVR Tuscan V6, Gilbern etc

a new series sponsored by Brut33

**John Turner** · 3 Jan 2010, 10:05 (Ref:2607580)

Do we see the seeds of an idea, here? I think that a 'C' would have to be fairly well modded to compete with some of those. Sebring style body and engine mods come to mind; always loved it in that form.

terence · 3 Jan 2010, 10:21 (Ref:2607586)

With todays build techniques,I would have thought one to at least be competitive John.The engine should be capable of over 220 bhp,rear axle is just about bullit proof.Just needs a decent sized fuel tank and get it down to homologated weight,it could be very interesting.

**John Turner** · 3 Jan 2010, 10:31 (Ref:2607589)

Well it would have to be fairly well modded to increase it to 220 from the standard 145bhp or so. It doesn't even feel like that in mine, even after Pater Baldwin's attention; no reflection on Peter, they just don't rev, but it's lovely old thing though. Hoping to get it back from the paint shop for Spring!

terence · 3 Jan 2010, 10:39 (Ref:2607595)

220 is relatively easy John,it does cost though.

DaveGT6 · 3 Jan 2010, 15:31 (Ref:2607662)

My recent dealings with the MSA regarding HTP papers was a mixed bag. The inspection of the car was done on my premises and the required 'photos selected from a load I had taken in advance plus a few taken during the inspection. The papers came through pretty quickly - within a couple of weeks but unfortunately there was a fundamental error in the designation of the car (nothing to do with the inspection - happened somewhere between MSA/FIA). I visited the offices to return the docs and ask for re-issue (OK as I was passing anyway). Didn't hear anything and chased but no real update. Put together a dossier to further support my application and got the corrected papers back within 2 weeks. Overall I thought it was all quicker than I expected and even given the initial hiccup wasn't the long drawn out process I was lead to believe it would be.

With regard to the MGC, there is currently an MGC GT running with the Swinging Sixties although presumably not to FIA HTP spec. It's not anything like as quick as it might be expected to be on paper but then I guess it suffers from the same issues that the GT6 did - spec looks great on paper but in reality getting them to get around a circuit quickly is quite a different matter! Mind the big Healeys are fairly handy and they must share some of the same dynamic issues as the C?