Over development, specifically engines.

[zefarelly]

This could run and run, or quickly die, depending on how deep in you are, or whether you give a sh**!

It's patently obvious even to someone who can barely check tyre pressures, that development of historic cars has been on an ever increasing climb in the last ten years or so, largely down to the kudos of success at certain high profile events, the influx of professional teams/drivers and their significant business interests, all fuelled by a new wave of corporate racers, who like the lifestyle aspect and possibly value compared to modern racing? (I'm guessing there!) Whatever the minutiae, the demographic has changed considerably.

I've just been reading through a pile of old race tech magazines from the late 90's and early 2000's, which, whilst cutting edge then, seem almost normal now. That's entirely acceptable if you're running contemporary cars, but surely not for historic racing.

One article from late '98 was about v10 engine development with John Judd, their engine was competitive at the time, another about NASCAR v8's from early 99, so Much of the articles mirror exactly what is happening with 'modern' historic race engines. I won't single out any one engine as it's happening to virtually all of them, there are half a dozen or so prominent European engines and a few US ones. I may only be near the bottom of the engine development ladder but I do know a few facts!

Without boring the pants off everyone, the crux of it Is increasing crank speed to make more peak power, often at the expense of efficiency and 'quality' of combustion, so doing anything to maximise intake volumes ( radical cyl head modification and cam profiles) then doing whatever is necessary with all the internals to make it cope with increased revs and stay together. What's happening to the rest of the car to cope is another chapter!

Hogging ports out and reprofiling valves etc is nothing new, but new cast and heavily redesigned cylinder heads to give even more flow and allow massive valve lift isn't quite right IMO, whilst cam profiles are 'free' in App K there aren't many period cylinder heads that allow very high lift (About 11mm is a normal limit) and the key to making big power at higher revs is out and out flow, via heads and cams, the gains outweigh all the inefficiencies in combustion resulting from a loss of swirl/tumble and having to use crazy ignition advance curves ( or programmes!!!)

Whatever you think of that, one inescapable fact is friction. There is no way revolutions per minute increasing by 20-30% or even more, is a viable or reliably possible option without significant change to major engine components, in size, dimensions and weight. None of which is permissible, even in most club racing series. Let alone as homologated. Materials is another consideration, alThough coatings aside, most exotic materials have been around as long as the chassis plates.

The word FIA is bandied about everywhere, yet only a small Minority of races and series are actually FIA sanctioned . . . . Perhaps it's time the use of the phrase was outlawed?

For a vast majority of series, If 'modern' engines (and everything else for that matter) are so common place and acceptable, maybe it's time to just say f*** it, anything goes. At least that may preserve a few genuine old cars.

The horse bolted, ages ago, the gates hanging off . . . . So I guess the question is, Is there any desire anywhere, or any point in fitting a new gate, and finding a replacement nag, or do we just accept an open gate policy with a millennial spec quadruped!

[Simon Hadfield]

Pretty much exactly what I asked all those years ago. That thread still exists on here somewhere.
The answer I now think is that the sport is being overrun by people who have little real interest in Historic cars. What I see in some paddocks, in some places in fact that shout very loudly that their cars are totally as they should be, just make me think that money and self interest has won.
There are still one or two places where correct cars and a sporting spirit exist but.....

[Gerard C]

Simon I guess the people you're referring to all have HTP'd cars using this form as a passeport or blank cheque. May be in a while we'll have to promote clubs thoroughly checking the cars but not requiring any HTP. The way our world goes…*

[Duddha]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

Simon I guess the people you're referring to all have HTP'd cars using this form as a passeport or blank cheque. May be in a while we'll have to promote clubs thoroughly checking the cars but not requiring any HTP. The way our world goes…*

There's a problem here and this is where the HTP is mistaken or misunderstood. HTP is today granted on period specification but apart from the items on pictures, body, suspension, brakes, wings, engine bay, diff or gearbox casing, nobody knows what is inside, the understanding is based on the declaration made by the Applicant and unless incorrect, these are validated and issued.

Where the process is flawed is when it comes to scrutineering, ASNs do not enforce regulations in historic motor sport but only check safety aspects mainly and although 98% of the historic motor sport grids are telling the crowds they run to Appendix K, they actually do not enforce it or they do not dare to take control.

This has the resulting effect of either grids becoming world of outlaws, with cars only looking historic by their aspects rather than technical side and going because nobody cares or the bad effect of becoming a success and then just dying because of the spiralling costs of development reinforced by the fact nobody dares to take control.

So altogether, the HTP is only important for true FIA racing, if you actually used it to check information and possibly take things apart. Other than that, it's mainly a selling tool if considering the market.

Last, the Mini Cooper S is the best example of the nonsense, they declare a standard gearbox on the HTP, straight cut gears are allowed through Appendix K and that's a given, then they tell you it's a period specification LSD diff as homologated.

If one would dare to open any Mini, they would find a dog engagement gearbox and a quaife differential.

The owners will tell you it's for reliability reason, well, I would say that if people were simply to run period specification engine and would stop reving their engine so they can reach the moon, things could be handled period.

[Gerard C]

Agreed. The HTP became a sales argument for some. I'd like to add that at least some organisations try "to make something" like PA. Even if not perfect, at least the Cobras and E Types follow the same rules now. This must not be interpreted as the others can do anything, obviously.
Just out of my curiosity, talking about reliability, even though being period correct the points and condenser thing is sometimes a hassle. What would be the technical inconvenient to replace them by a single trigger?
And if I'm right, Appendix J '65 from memory allowed the front Grp1 brakes to be cooled via air ducts. A good thing in my opinion. This mention disappeared later if I'm correct. Then sometimes its hard to have them accepted unless you like to go to Grp2.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

Just out of my curiosity, talking about reliability, even though being period correct the points and condenser thing is sometimes a hassle. What would be the technical inconvenient to replace them by a single trigger?

Apparently it is acceptable to use a Mallory distributor with two sets of points because it works on the original points/condenser principle.
But you can't use an electronic points replacement.
Seemingly the Mallory offers a real performance increase (due to increased control over the spark) whereas the small performance benefit from the electronic one is only down to accuracy.
Surely the reliability and limited performance benefit of the electronic version is just sensible - in a similar way to replacing aluminium conrods with iron/steel ones etc. being accepted.

[Duddha]

Originally Posted by PeterMorley

Apparently it is acceptable to use a Mallory distributor with two sets of points because it works on the original points/condenser principle.
But you can't use an electronic points replacement.
Seemingly the Mallory offers a real performance increase (due to increased control over the spark) whereas the small performance benefit from the electronic one is only down to accuracy.
Surely the reliability and limited performance benefit of the electronic version is just sensible - in a similar way to replacing aluminium conrods with iron/steel ones etc. being accepted.

Where are those practices accepted Peter? I can't see anything written in my rulebook on that.

On ignition, points and condensers were never reliable, in period and for trusty engine builders that still use them, there were dyno tests for ignition systems involving points and knowledge was key.

What people call unreliable today is that they cannot withstand 8000 or even more RPM on a 289 Ford V8 and as they start bouncing, it's a "f**k-up". Well no, the engine and ignition system just matches the period design and period figures, if you develop it and become able to permanently use the maximum revs sustainable as an average, you've got to find a solution with all components that are around or part of that achievement surely. That's the problem.

[zefarelly]

I run points on all my engines, If you use good quality bits its reliable and performs.

I have in the past done back to back tests with electronic on the dyno and it made no difference to the power.

a few years back I gave SH a point distributor at Brands for his FF . . . .electronic conked out. . . . he said afterwards the car had never run better.

there are 'new' parts out there which fail if you stare at them hard enough, won't rev over 5000 without points bouncing, utter rubbish, and from 'reputable companies, however, there is plenty off good quality available, you just have to make some effort to do the right thing and sort the wheat from the chaff

[Moosehead]

I love reading adverts for AppK cars where it states ''latest spec'' (engine/box/suspension). I naively used to think how can this be? Surely they should be the same as in period

I laughed my socks off when I saw an advert for Steve Soper's Lotus Cortina recently where it mentioned it was the 2018 car not the 2017 car (or something like that). A new car to an updated spec each year, jeez

[grantp]

Presumably things start to get really tricky when the argument "there are no original [name a primary component of an engine] available any more" is true (or is accepted as true because it is becoming close to true) leaving the only options as

1. Allow parts manufactured with new specifications
2. Disallow new parts and watch that engine fade from the scene
3. See what other ideas people may have to somehow refurbish old original components that might still be acceptably reliable running at original levels of performance.

However, policing that might require the introduction of sealed engines and economies of scale requirements for reasons of costs as well as consistency that are unacceptable to most of the competitors.

How long would such interests last?

20 years? Less?

What would happen to development if, for example, fuel options and levels of supply changed significantly in the next decade?

Are there any other simply applied constraints that could be deployed to curtail and perhaps reverse some of the most extreme developments?

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by Duddha

Where are those practices accepted Peter? I can't see anything written in my rulebook on that.

On ignition, points and condensers were never reliable, in period and for trusty engine builders that still use them, there were dyno tests for ignition systems involving points and knowledge was key.

What people call unreliable today is that they cannot withstand 8000 or even more RPM on a 289 Ford V8 and as they start bouncing, it's a "f**k-up". Well no, the engine and ignition system just matches the period design and period figures, if you develop it and become able to permanently use the maximum revs sustainable as an average, you've got to find a solution with all components that are around or part of that achievement surely. That's the problem.

6 cylinder Zephyr engines run them, fitted to AC Ace, Sabres and others, it's what the now deceased specialist always used - apparently used on other engines as well (given the FIA form just asks for the type of system it ticks that box).

It's true that cars were very unreliable in period, but the events they did tended to be much much longer and were competitive, given historic racing is a bit of fun and the results don't count for anything surely improving reliability is a good thing!

Good point that development means parts are now expected to do things they were never designed for, so it's no surprise when they fail.

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

I run points on all my engines, If you use good quality bits its reliable and performs.

I have in the past done back to back tests with electronic on the dyno and it made no difference to the power.

a few years back I gave SH a point distributor at Brands for his FF . . . .electronic conked out. . . . he said afterwards the car had never run better.

there are 'new' parts out there which fail if you stare at them hard enough, won't rev over 5000 without points bouncing, utter rubbish, and from 'reputable companies, however, there is plenty off good quality available, you just have to make some effort to do the right thing and sort the wheat from the chaff

True enough, even the reputable names can produce some dross - there was a rush to buy used methanol fuel pumps when the most popular manufacturer changed production location and it turned out the glue used to hold the winding in place wasn't resistant to methanol...

I recently bought a rotor arm from Distributor Doc (who I assume sells good stuff?), strangely he convinced me to buy a second one even though his new one will apparently last far longer than the car it is attached to!

[zefarelly]

DD rotor arms are the same as the ones I was buying from the US 10 years ago . . . they're good, at least have been . . . good points are available, but not in some of the better known distributors . . . . likewise condensers.

[Cliff Ryan]

Zef, I don't think you are going to get many disagreeing with you on here, as most if not all of this parish are in agreement with you, but how do you stop it with the majority of competitors not caring, they just want to win at all costs.

It's not just FIA either, I had my Mustang engine rebuilt in the US, which runs to Trans Am spec - 305 cu in. I received a phone call from the engine builder to say that due to the amount of work he was doing it wouldn't cost me any more for a stroker engine, like he builds for everyone else.

When I said no, he said 'but nobody will know', to which I replied 'I will'. his response was - 'I thought you would say that, but I had to ask!'

[zefarelly]

Given the lengths people go to in order to optimise, redesign and remanufacture so many components, for virtually ever 60's car out there, supply is far from a problem in any way shape or form.

Fuel quality has gone up in recent years as good race fuel is vommonly available at every race meeting . . . . . 10 or so years ago it was Super UL, additives or Avgas. . . .now, just flicj through the catalogue, selct 115 octane leaded to keep your 14:1 cr and 36 degrees advance happy!

Originally Posted by grantp

Presumably things start to get really tricky when the argument "there are no original [name a primary component of an engine] available any more" is true (or is accepted as true because it is becoming close to true) leaving the only options as

1. Allow parts manufactured with new specifications
2. Disallow new parts and watch that engine fade from the scene
3. See what other ideas people may have to somehow refurbish old original components that might still be acceptably reliable running at original levels of performance.

However, policing that might require the introduction of sealed engines and economies of scale requirements for reasons of costs as well as consistency that are unacceptable to most of the competitors.

How long would such interests last?

20 years? Less?

What would happen to development if, for example, fuel options and levels of supply changed significantly in the next decade?

Are there any other simply applied constraints that could be deployed to curtail and perhaps reverse some of the most extreme developments?

[Peter Mallett]

I recall raising these points (no pun intended) from the perspective of professionals driving the amateur out of historic motorsport. Because it seems to me that the professional teams are the ones driving this and it started with Mustangs which were being beaten by Falcons (something to do with headers as I understand it); and thus all of a sudden Ford Motorsport blocks were being used. This permitted higher revs and so along came roller rockers etc.

I think it was one of our number who cried enough and sold the Falcon.

The reliability thing is a two edged sword. I like the idea of points but the only time I've failed to finish due to electrics was when the points broke at Spa a few years ago! So, as long as it's ok to run it, I run electronic ignition in the MG.

The Rover was born with EI so is not an issue. That said I can't believe the "development" I've seen on some of the Group 1.5 cars over the past five years. Things that were homologated in period but now provide much more power because they have the same name but are so much more efficient.

A Group 1.5 Capri engine in its best tune in period was 250BHP, now they are throwing out 300BHP and revving beyond anything that could be done in period.

[Gerard C]

It so good to have people speaking their truth here. Whatever the opinion, at least its democratic and knowledgeable.
Grant, there are replacement parts allowed, just have a look to Appendix K, Minis, and Big Healey's and BD engines are concerned to name few. All the details of castings are written and the makers are named (Welch for a Healey, Swift for a Mini, Richardson…)
I can't be called rich because far from being, but to have my next engine checked and sealed for capacity, valves diameter and stuff seems a very good thing. The increase in cost looks worth the relief. I just hope a UK seal will be accepted on another continent but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't!
Cliff Ryan, I'd love to say you're wrong saying a majority of competitors want to win at all costs…*but…
Zef, 36° is to much for my purse! Anyway thank you for suggesting!!

[Geraint Owen]

It strikes me that Masters may be onto something with the imposition of rev limits. It is a relatively easy way to control the out of hand development. I am sure that it will lead to a mass of development of max torque engines, but as an interim it is easy to achieve and at least makes some of us amateurs feel the playfield is slightly level

On the subject of lap time improvements mentioned on the U2TC thread, the other factor is brake pad material improvements. Although this is a relatively low cost option and is available to all

The real challenge has to be to stop the more wealthy owners bashing into me when I am in front of them!!!!

[coppice]

I absolutely understand the anger and frustration of owners of genuine , virtually unmolested old racing cars . It must be galling to see one's lovingly preserved piece of heritage being left for dead by a car whose oldest component is its driver , and which attains speeds an original could not even begin to match .Not back then, even with a Clark behind the wheel.



There's another side though. BTCC apart , most modern racing in UK is f***ed . Small grids , too many tedious spec formuale , cars with no soul but insane grip and silly costs . But go to an HSCC or CSCC meeting and for most races you will see big grids and great racing . And drivers , teams and spectators enjoying themselves .



Why ? Because some younger drivers have given up the struggle of getting a budget for a drive in BTCC or GT , other , older drivers are having fun in their dotage and regular Joes are racing a car they know won't depreciate like a modern will. They all love driving analogue cars with no aero and no paddle shifts . And we know what happens when a series becomes big - winning becomes more important and the envelope starts to be pushed in both driving standards and car preparation.



Historic racing is always an oxymoron - we haven't got time machines and we cherry pick the best of what we think we remember of the past and ignore the stuff we didn't like so much - y'know , all that bad stuff like fire, injury and death, amateur hour marshalling , rubbish catering and people blowing Woodbine smoke in your face . So we end up with Goodwood , and the host of Classics which every circuit now runs. They are all homages to the past , often pastiches and sometimes parodies - but they are popular.



The cars have followed exactly the same pattern and the only surprising thing is that anybody is remotely surprised ...

[Simon Hadfield]

The point should be made that every time there is a rule change - of pretty much any type - the wealthier competitor gets an advantage. Restrict the revs and its feasible that people can make lighter pistons, lighter crankshafts, revised camshafts, more testing to optimise the settings - the simple fact that some competitors can rent an entire circuit to facilitate the process divides us anyway. Mandate suspension settings and the same criteria kick in.
However, as before, I make the point that the times of Jan Magnussen and Jamie Spence in 1600 Formula Ford set in 1992 at Mallory Park have still not been beaten, with all the car development since then. Contrast that with the year on year development in Historic racing and we now see Lotus 15s 9 seconds a lap faster than Graham Hill in the works car in the final round of the 1959 World Championship at Goodwood.
The fact is that there should not be development in Historic racing. If everyone was still running the precise, mandated period specification components none of this would be necessary.
As some one far wiser than me once wrote “Historic racing is a discipline apart, in which one of the essential ingredients is a devotion to the cars and their history....”

[zefarelly]

HFF is one of the few series which maintains any sensibility. I'm doing a few heads for someone at the moment, it's as pleasureable as grinding iron can be as I have a few excellent bench marks on the flow bench and in my note book, and there's no pressure or desire to try and reinvent the wheel or cheat!

[Mike Bell]

HFF2000 stands out too, for the same reasons.

[Simon Hadfield]

Quality of regulation and competence of scrutiny. It’s not rocket science.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

Quality of regulation and competence of scrutiny. It’s not rocket science.

Precisely!

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

HFF2000 stands out too, for the same reasons.

Same thing here with HF3, even if the grid size is in no way comparable. Scrutiny is mainly focused on wings and airboxes the ambiance is relaxed. And the best scrutineer is often you box neighbor…