Over development, specifically engines. - Page 3

**Mike Bell** · 28 Jan 2019, 11:59 (Ref:3880153)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zefarelly

most of us got into it with the car we like as opposed to having a desperate desire to win a plastic pot.

I wouldn’t have been the first to build an FIA Gilbern GT, Joe, if that was my raison d’etre....

So, Peter Auto have issued technical bulletins for Cobras and GT350s competing in their 60s Endurance category this season. Included are a Cobra minimum weight with a max ballast of 30kg, and MSD rev limiters (as per Masters) for both car types. Good to see organisers taking concerns over development seriously, but will be interesting to see if lap times are any slower..... (Some engine types in their Classic Endurance Racing categories already have rev limits.)

zefarelly · 29 Jan 2019, 06:56 (Ref:3880357)

Likewise, I bought my GT because it was solid/original and genuine, we looked at 3 LC's as possible candidates And they were all turds. Reseller, reroofed, *******ised, rotten etc etc. Back in 2002/3 I was innocent enough to go looking for a genuine car . . . . Maybe that's part of the problem.

It would be interesting to see some of the new cylinder heads available as comparison to originals, one could, with a modicum of work, then report comparisons and give an informed opinion on whether they should be acceptable or not. It's quite understandable if originals are simply not available, but that's not the reason most have been redesigned/remanufactured?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

I wouldn’t have been the first to build an FIA Gilbern GT, Joe, if that was my raison d’etre....

So, Peter Auto have issued technical bulletins for Cobras and GT350s competing in their 60s Endurance category this season. Included are a Cobra minimum weight with a max ballast of 30kg, and MSD rev limiters (as per Masters) for both car types. Good to see organisers taking concerns over development seriously, but will be interesting to see if lap times are any slower..... (Some engine types in their Classic Endurance Racing categories already have rev limits.)

Gerard C · 29 Jan 2019, 07:33 (Ref:3880364)

Agreed, again. Ref to Pinto engines in Grp1, are the heads checked, meaning injection modified to carbs or 1.6 for instance. I seem to remember a series requiring a restrictor after the 44 IDA if a injection head was used, there are said to have a better flow. Not sure.
Acceptable replacement parts are listed in appendix K.

**Mike Bell** · 29 Jan 2019, 11:44 (Ref:3880404)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zefarelly

It would be interesting to see some of the new cylinder heads available as comparison to originals, one could, with a modicum of work, then report comparisons and give an informed opinion on whether they should be acceptable or not. It's quite understandable if originals are simply not available, but that's not the reason most have been redesigned/remanufactured?

The Peter Auto technical bulletin discusses remanufactured cylinder heads for the Mustang and Cobra 289 engines, and what is acceptable or not. Knowing naff all about the engines, it doesn’t mean a lot to me!

zefarelly · 29 Jan 2019, 12:48 (Ref:3880423)

Like pinto, Volvo heads are similar, the later injection head is much better than the earlier castings. Aside porting and chamber modifications, some heads had inherent faults when modified extremely, a lotus head for example suffers from a lack of valve spring height . . .restricting valve lift . . .if you bore the head to help, you encroach into the inlet port, especially if the ports are large. Another way is to use longer valves. . . Which causes other problems

I know a little about 289 heads, 380-420ish BHP seems to be the range for a top spec fia engine using 55 year old heads. I've not had my mitts on a new head, but I know it would be very easy to improve them, and I have it on good authority the new one have been. Which frankly ain't fair.

Gerard C · 29 Jan 2019, 15:49 (Ref:3880458)

I dont know 289 heads but have a good bloke using them. He reports they are becoming hard to source but convenient second hand ones are still available on the net for instance. Do you think allowing new heads will lead to a huge increase in power?
Interesting comment about Lotus heads, thanks.

Duddha · 31 Jan 2019, 14:38 (Ref:3880919)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerard C

I dont know 289 heads but have a good bloke using them. He reports they are becoming hard to source but convenient second hand ones are still available on the net for instance. Do you think allowing new heads will lead to a huge increase in power?
Interesting comment about Lotus heads, thanks.

The trouble with any new head is not about allowing them, it's a need BUT the real trouble lies with the component and respect of the period specification. In essence anyone can cast new heads but give that to a clever man and you will see a whole new internal design that will benefit performance.

If you move some of the water cooling stuff and make space for the flow and porting to be perfect, of course there will be a performance increase but it will look just correct from the outside..!

Why is there waiting list on new engines from particular engine builders for a supposed "evolution" ? If all was correct, there wouldn't be such, you would just wait for a build.

Gerard C · 31 Jan 2019, 14:46 (Ref:3880922)

I guess you already stated that evolution and historic can't go together well. Its obvious. And when it comes to give a new allowance to a certain model, all the grid will be affected, dont you think so? A never ending story needing people dancing on egg shells en français populaire! Quite a challenge.

MGDavid · 31 Jan 2019, 21:05 (Ref:3880995)

750MC often take a rolling road to the circuit to ensure legality of cars running in power-defined classes.
Why cannot the bigger upmarket organisers do the same?

midgetman · 31 Jan 2019, 22:05 (Ref:3880999)

Because they don't have power defined classes?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

MGDavid · 1 Feb 2019, 00:10 (Ref:3881020)

You don't need power-defined classes to have a (more) level playing field. F'rinstance in LM and GT or whatever it's called nowadays is done with BOP....

Gerard C · 1 Feb 2019, 03:56 (Ref:3881045)

From 750MC, we adopted the MX5 NA regulation. It works fine so far, people have fun, relaxed ambiance, few if no suspicion, reliable cars. The organiser reserves the right to exchange the ECU at any time of the meeting. The rolling road is a good idea and I'm sure Andy can comment that…

But this concerns modern cars, injection, electronic ignition… In no way related to a Cooper you want to race at Monaco. In this case its hard to believe that the price of a carb or copy of a carb will stop the process. Driving such cars at such places involves "some " money, dont you think so? So, one carb or two and may be three, WTF?

**Mike Bell** · 1 Feb 2019, 05:31 (Ref:3881055)

I’m sure other series / championships have used the RR idea, and others have / had a regulation requiring the cars to be tested at a certain RR pre season and then have particular parts sealed. With ECU equipped cars in particular, competitors still found a way to circumnavigate the sealed electrics / electronics.....

Gerard C · 1 Feb 2019, 06:19 (Ref:3881066)

We had a good laugh with Andy about that.

midgetman · 1 Feb 2019, 06:19 (Ref:3881067)

It looks like the conversation has moved on from "development" to "cheating".

What would an RR prove? That Fred had a number of horses more than Bill? Unless you have a maximum BHP level decided for a Lotus Cortina, it's not illegal to have more power. All you'd achieve would be to add a few zeroes to Fred's engine value.

In our world of racing generator engines a £150 motor can sell for £5000+ if you can prove it is a monster. Imagine what the biggest LC engine would fetch.

Where does development stand in the world of classic F1? Where most of the time the "original" engine is faster than the driver? Is there as much development?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk