Development in Historic racing and should results reflect history

[zefarelly]

bigger and better port layout also . . .I think they where sold on the basis of being a direct replacement for the original Cosworth thick floor casting ( as homologated for my car, but I can't find one) but they're quite clearly not

I've seen these haeds on other cars as well, non single seaters, with a crossflow crank and rods in a 120 block, bored to 85mm, 1760cc with a head that will breath and let it rev accordingly will get you 160ish BHP + which is more than the 135-140 you can get from a pukka App K 1500

I wonder how many sets of roller rockers Titan sell every year . . . .

Originally Posted by Neptune

Having a Richardson head on a 105E based FJ engine is the key to power. It allows one to safely bore to 85mm and have 13 and 14:1 CRs and bigger valves than can be safely installed in a REAL 105E head. And these heads are easy to spot externally, so they'd be easy to police. Let's all ban these modern heads. I've got a half dozen original heads stacked by my bench.

Current regs ban roller rockers but most front runners admit to having them.

Roger

[Peter Mallett]

It might be wise to consider the OP who is not only thinking of Saloons and GT's but Formula and sports cars. In which case standardising components is even more feasible. Most F1 cars either run a DFV or if earlier a Climax FP. The FJ's run a Ford 105 etc. So there is a possibility of standardisation and indeed the ability to police based on what one can see. Unless the scrutes can't count cylinders etc!

Also F1 cars were built to regs that dictated weight and wheelbase etc. so a much simpler exercise to police IMO.

What scares me is the thinking behind telemetry and engine mapping. Apparently this is to save the engines and give the driver the opportunity to go faster by identifying the weaker parts of a lap at any particular circuit! Riiiiight. As has been said these things are unnecessary if you stick to the basics and stop thinking Ron D is going to call you after a sunday afternoon cruise.

The other side of this is the homologation certs which give the basic components that were manufactured for a particular class. Although I carry mine with me, I've never been asked to produce it nor have I been asked to confirm that the components comply! (The car does comply with the regs BTW).

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Err sorry to burst your bubble Peter but I was at both the Combe races and they were not ideal track conditions in either, very cold and greasy as I recollect if you can consitantly beat Jims times then I take my hat off to you. Whats the big deal with roller rockers, if they are not allowed check for them it should take about two minutes to whip off a valve cover.

As it was a Rover that is listed I don't think it was Jim who set the time.

[Simon Hadfield]

I agree Terrence, so thats why the thrust of the idea is to say ok this is as far as it goes, now we draw a line and say that from here we stay as we are. If in the discovery process only one or two were found to be way over specced it would be hoped they could be drawn back, where the vast majority have a component (like the FJ head) then that would stand with the proviso that the spec is frozen. Anyway must go the boys have just shouted up that the pigs are circling........

[Al Weyman]

I can't see a Rover listed Peter, look at Dave Thomas's time in PHTC in the 1.22's then Jims in the Capri in Group 1 at 1.26's (damper track). http://www.classictouringcars.com/pa...astlecombe.pdf

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As it was a Rover that is listed I don't think it was Jim who set the time.

Apologies there Al. It was Jim on 1:26.394 in 07. I did 1:24.839 in aug 08.

Must have been looking at another cuircuit last night.

[delta]

Guy's been off line for a couple of days. The answer is easy "air restrictor plates" Cheap, easy too fit, and easy to police". We have it in CF3 with our 24mm air boxes. I build my own engines but a lot of the others have Swindon,Stuart Rolt ect. I dont have a dyno but use Baldwins rolling road what im getting at is there is little or no difference on the engines across the grid and its easy for the srutineer to check.

[Al Weyman]

Yes and it was a damp old day as I remember as it was so greasy in qually all the big cars started at the back and I ended up tapping one of the Historic Minis up the chuff (very gently you understand) on the opening lap and have never heard the last of it!

[Podd37]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

As has been said these things are unnecessary if you stick to the basics and stop thinking Ron D is going to call you after a sunday afternoon cruise.

What...He's not going to call me.....?

[Peter Mallett]

Anyway the point is, I was not suggesting I'm better than anyone just that as a benchmark I'm about the same as many, which is why, when cars I usually keep up with disappear into the distance, I'm somewhat surprised.

[delta]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Anyway the point is, I was not suggesting I'm better than anyone just that as a benchmark I'm about the same as many, which is why, when cars I usually keep up with disappear into the distance, I'm somewhat surprised.

Terrance says your Megga.

[Brendan Roberts]

Isnt it simply a case of 'policing' cars to ensure they run to the correct regs? The regs are there, the period homologations are there and the HTPs are there. Seems that technical scrutineering is the missing component. By simply having technical scrutineers who pull 2 or 3 cars out at random in Parc Ferme after each qually/race to check weight, capacity, ignition, would be a good start.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by delta

Terrance says your Megga.

Fortunately he's not the only one!

[zefarelly]

stop talking obvious sense you daft git! I tried that, and it gets ignored, why address the simplest issue head on when you can bury your head in the sand and change the topic reading some of this you'd think most of us where politicians.

Originally Posted by Brendan Roberts

Isnt it simply a case of 'policing' cars to ensure they run to the correct regs? The regs are there, the period homologations are there and the HTPs are there. Seems that technical scrutineering is the missing component. By simply having technical scrutineers who pull 2 or 3 cars out at random in Parc Ferme after each qually/race to check weight, capacity, ignition, would be a good start.

[Peter Mallett]

I guess it does depend who you tell it to. And if you have it in writing too.

This still doesn't address Simon H's original question though. I think his point is why not standardize everything thus solving the issue. So far all we've done is resurrect that old soar about cheating etc. which if I understand it correctly is not where Simon is coming from. He's suggesting that the ability to develop on a chequebook racing basis is wrong.

So, is there merit in Simon's idea?

[Brendan Roberts]

Simon H's question is the same one many have raised before except that he sees 'freezing' of development as a potential solution. It may well be, but that in itself will require new or modified regs to allow many of the 'developments' that may come to light. Then it will require 'policing' to ensure that the development stops there. Surely by simply policing what is already the set of rules that we all agree to when we sign and return an entry form we could stop/undo development anyway. I guess the difference is that policing to the regs that we currently subscribe to will require many to undo developments whilst Simon's thinking is to control and allow some of what has been done and then police it. I reckon we should all pay an extra £50 - or whatever is deemed appropriate - to the relevant Club each year strictly for 'a technical scrutineering fund' and then ask the Club to use it to fund proper scrutineering. First offence noted and a warning given, 2nd offence exclusion from the meeting, 3rd offence go and race in something else..............but I guess the reality in a recession will be to collect as many entry fees as possible and go easy on scrutineering.
I would also support the idea of drivers weight being taken into consideration in HFF1600, providing it was also adopted by HFJ!

[Al Weyman]

I think you could just leave it at the 2nd offence without banning anyone, that way the club will still get the entry and the offender will soon tire of paying and not racing.

Peter I think it tells when a similar car to what you are racing just cruises away from you down a straight like Snetterton or Thruxton, thats where the extra power really shows that or an underweight car and I am not talking about pulling out of the bend I am saying when both cars are hooked up and one just pulls away from the other. I think lap times as has beens suggested can often be down to superior driving and/or setting up and preparation.

[Andy Bacon]

Here's an idea that will never see the light (the same as proper technical scrutineering) but how about we work out what a legal say App k Ford V8 should cost: £15k? or a Ford TC: £10k? I may be way off here but I am sure a concesus could be reached.

Then at any race meeting any competitor would have the right during the meeting to put down said amount (plus a margin of say 25%) to any other competitor and take his/her engine away at the end of the meeting. The engine will be sealed and the money is to be held by the organising club. If said engine turns out to be illegal the purchaser gets to keep the engine and gets his money returned.

How many big-budget illegal engines would be seen then?

[zefarelly]

If you freeze developement and legitimise whats already been done, then your affectively permitting a load of highly modified non period correct cars to race as legitimite classics.

that, to my mind is all wrong.

it also iradicates the point of having the original spec to start with, which you have, in the form of homologation papers, even non homologated cars could have papers simply drawn up from manufacturers information.

[Simon Hadfield]

If you take FJ as an example, no car in the period had an engine as used today. However virtually everybody now has the same engine and thus its a fait accompli, if we now say ok this far but no further there is a chance to regulate everything. When the FIA specified round main bearing caps on twin cams all that happened was that someone forged some round caps in unobtainium and everybody had to spend even more to stay where they were. I am not saying cheating is acceptable or desirable but with a standard laid down and checkable we have at least a "ground zero" for many cars for which homologation forms do not exist - eg Lola T70, Tyrell 008

[terence]

Simon,I fully agree with you,but I would have thought this angle was thought of back in the seventies when the rule books were written,what has happened since then,deep pockets have found ways around just about everything ever described as legal,whilst I know that it all has to stop we are now faced with the problem of not enough policing,obviously the reason for the many threads/discussions on Historic Racing for quite some time now.I personally think that this is where the problem lies,the MSA have put themselves up as the "Police Force",I think the ball is in thier court.
We are now so far away from original manufacturers spec's that what you suggest is the most sensible route for the likes of FJ etc but then we get to the five litre E-Types and so on,it would take years to sort this mess out.As JR put it,weight/capacity,and bugger what the driver weighs,thats upto him/her.

[Al Weyman]

What you are suggesting Andy is a buying plate similar to what we had in the original ModProd rules but it was for the whole car and until the bright sparks with the big wads got it chucked out for what its worth although argued as unworkable I think it did the job. When it was dropped I did suggest we make it just the engine but it fell on deaf ears. What happened after then was a slow decline from 140 odd paid up members wth cars to it becoming defunct and I think the rot set in then with the big spenders frightening the genuine club racer away.

[Simon Hadfield]

Certainly some things are set in stone - capacity, weight etc, I am talking about the use, say, of Titanium main bearing caps, smaller main bearings, remanufactured reprofiled cylinder heads, recast and reprofiled exhaust manifolds, do I have to go on? (The drivers weight issue should have its own tread!) All the above are or have been used.... how on earth are they good for historic racing?

[delta]

Originally Posted by Andy Bacon

Here's an idea that will never see the light (the same as proper technical scrutineering) but how about we work out what a legal say App k Ford V8 should cost: £15k? or a Ford TC: £10k? I may be way off here but I am sure a concesus could be reached.

Then at any race meeting any competitor would have the right during the meeting to put down said amount (plus a margin of say 25%) to any other competitor and take his/her engine away at the end of the meeting. The engine will be sealed and the money is to be held by the organising club. If said engine turns out to be illegal the purchaser gets to keep the engine and gets his money returned.

How many big-budget illegal engines would be seen then?

I might be wrong Andy but i think your idea was used in modsports back in the 70's and thats what killed it off.

[delta]

Sorry Al just read your post. You beat me to it.