|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
31 Jul 2008, 19:05 (Ref:2261173) | #26 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,441
|
FBF25T has a point there. The scrutineers at meetings are there to make safety checks and not to check eligibility, you would have to have a dedicated eligibilty scrutineer there if you wanted to check the legality of cars. This checking of eligibility is something we've also had trouble with in racing this year too.
|
||
__________________
"Miss Stroplash" - The Hooker - BGP 2009 |
31 Jul 2008, 19:46 (Ref:2261200) | #27 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
FBF25T To me, the regs are clear.....
......how they have been applied is not |
||
|
31 Jul 2008, 20:38 (Ref:2261247) | #28 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
31 Jul 2008, 21:39 (Ref:2261284) | #29 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
It should be pointed out that eligibility scrutineers are usually not well versed in the rules either! Just a few weeks back a competitor was told by an eligibility scrute that his car was fine at a Nat B event when it broke a whole bunch of rules |
||
|
1 Aug 2008, 12:55 (Ref:2261652) | #30 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
|
Its ok to have an 16v head ontop without fouling the regs according to my previous engine builders - Is that 166 @ the flywheel or the wheels -If you don't mind me asking ? (Q for smkeown)
Last edited by Pugdriver205; 1 Aug 2008 at 12:59. |
||
|
1 Aug 2008, 18:09 (Ref:2261773) | #31 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
Quote:
I have spoken to a scrutineer, I was advised that to have a definative ruling I would have put in a protest but why should I have to put money up when a car is clearly outside the regs? |
|||
|
2 Aug 2008, 11:12 (Ref:2262063) | #32 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
In that case you were unlucky, or the scrutineer didn't agree with you [but he should have said]. I queeried a ''standard production car'' with a scrutineer last year, after scrutineering, and before timed runs, it was sorted and the car was moved the correct class. I have known other occasions when it has been dealt with on that basis. I have also had email correspondance with a CofC re Vauxhaul and over two litre engined escorts, and he refused to move them without a protest. In fact the championship i was chasing gave extra points in big classes, and it was advantageous to leave em in as I won the class!!
Last edited by FBF25T; 2 Aug 2008 at 11:14. |
||
|
2 Aug 2008, 12:55 (Ref:2262079) | #33 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Aug 2008, 13:03 (Ref:2262080) | #34 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Aug 2008, 13:21 (Ref:2262087) | #35 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
84 says ''chassis must remain to original specification etc'' ''inner wheel arches only may be modified to allow the attachment of damper mountings'' I was always under the impression that was the rule which stopped 5 link, it is however silly, as the set up is gp4 homologated/permitted and Ford once argued that they had built 400 two seater escorts... |
|||
|
2 Aug 2008, 14:18 (Ref:2262121) | #36 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
IIRC it rule 84 states "original specification in construction and material" which means it has to be one piece welded steel. The wheel arch bit is only relevant to damper mountings as it means that you can't modify any other part of the body for said damper mountings.
should read:Inner wheel arches are the only parts that can be modified for attachment of DAMPER MOUNTINGS. Rule 71 (road going) States original in construction,DIMENSIONS and material |
|
|
4 Aug 2008, 11:49 (Ref:2263148) | #37 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
So why say in the first place that a 1905cc Visa isnt allowed when capacity is irrelevant as long you stay within the class capacity boundries that the vehicle was originally in! No idea where you are getting your block code names from as none of them exist in PSA's history but ignoring me being pedantic I understand your point. Its not the fact that it wasnt "an option" but whether its the same. If you believe a car is running a XU block of the same external dimensions but that isnt externally identifiable as one originally fitted to that car then you should point it out to the owner as they probably didnt know. Same engine type, same physical size so its very unlikely anyone would ever know about it.
Of course its easy with Escorts running 205 blocks as the oil temp sensor is in a different place and they have '205' stamped on them! Regarding the floorpan, it is not (upto 2007 at least, dont have a 2008 Blur book) allowed to be modified between the wheel centers in modprod! Therefore any Escort with a 4/5 link rear end is illegal. Its not the fact that they have the 5 link as its an addition to the standard suspension and so you retain the original setup, its the fact you have to cut and lift up a small box section under the rear seats to mount the forward section of the links, therefore modifiying the floorpan between the wheel centres, therefore not allowed. |
|
|
4 Aug 2008, 13:36 (Ref:2263210) | #38 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
Seems clear to me that only the stated mods are allowed, it specifically says inner wings may be modified and holes for certain things are allowed, mounts may be repositioned, not that boxing may be added for link bars. |
|||
|
4 Aug 2008, 14:55 (Ref:2263254) | #39 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
Yep thats the rule I was referring to. Cannot modify the floor pan between the wheel centres. You could actually interpret it as 5 links are not allowed at all as with them you are not repositioning bits of the suspension, you are actually adding to it...
If any intended modification is not listed in the Blue book then its not allowed |
|
|
4 Aug 2008, 16:47 (Ref:2263333) | #40 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
5-linked Escorts are illegal for that reason in many series - even in something liberal like the DMN series.
|
|
|
4 Aug 2008, 17:27 (Ref:2263350) | #41 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 Aug 2008, 17:35 (Ref:2263352) | #42 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
Please see my previous post re link boxes. The problem seems to be with suspension type NOT bodywork anyway. Last edited by Copperbottom; 4 Aug 2008 at 17:38. |
||
|
4 Aug 2008, 19:25 (Ref:2263425) | #43 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Aug 2008, 19:26 (Ref:2263426) | #44 | |||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
The issue is not the suspension type, as additional links are allowed, but modifying the floor pan is not allowed, as it isn't in DMN as far as I know [not that racing holds any interest to me] |
|||
|
4 Aug 2008, 19:36 (Ref:2263435) | #45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 860
|
An Mi16 block is very ,very similar to an 8 valve block but not identical externally.
Reading one of the proposed changes and i quote; " For road-going series production cars, the cylinder block and cylinder head must remain in the original position and be of the original type and material." I don't remember any 205 coming as standard from the factory with an Mi16 block or head, so as i interpret the proposed change only 8 valve blocks and heads will be legal for road going in a 205. Also to fit an Mi16 into a 205 you have to tilt the block backwards a bit to clear the bonnet iirc. |
|
|
4 Aug 2008, 19:54 (Ref:2263442) | #46 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
|
Anyone tilting their engine to fit a 'Mi16' into a 205 deserves the instant bottom end oil surge failure that will happen!
Copperbottom: As ive already said in my earlier post. The only different between the 1580cc and 1905cc 205's is the stroke, the block is identical. You can buy a 1580cc 205 and run it from any capacity from 1401 to 2000cc in that class by stroking it however you want and its irrelevant, likewise with a Visa. Interesting that Escorts can run 5 links in class A, I wonder how many of them in lower classes are running illegally! Certainly most sprint ones are. They have started kicking them out into Sports Libre in the West country so no doubt that will spread across the nation. Rescue dude: Correct but talking about modified production classes here where the head is free, if they made a 48v head you could fit it to a 205 they would be tiny valves though lol |
|
|
4 Aug 2008, 20:15 (Ref:2263458) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 Aug 2008, 20:21 (Ref:2263463) | #48 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
The problems I've heard of with 5 linked escorts is because they don't have leaf springs,as I've already stated the rules about floor pans say nothing about shape or size only material and construction |
||
|
4 Aug 2008, 20:55 (Ref:2263480) | #49 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
If they don't have leaf springs then it is clearly not the original with additional links/springs [whatever the wording is]. Simple, but the other reg still prevents it.
You are the only person referring to XU19, not DLR . |
||
|
4 Aug 2008, 21:00 (Ref:2263481) | #50 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
|
DMN doesn't really interest me and therefore is not something I have read all the regs on, but you are correct it does allow floor pan mods for RWD, which as I said above is sensible I think and should be allowed in sprints. I should know better and realise to read all the regs!!
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Production engines in P1 | JAG | Sportscar & GT Racing | 19 | 17 Jun 2008 08:12 |
LMP1 indipendants to run GT1 6.0 V12 production engines? | knighty | Sportscar & GT Racing | 80 | 11 Apr 2008 18:46 |
BARC CTCRC Toyo modified production classic thunder saloon car championship | big andy | National & Club Racing | 57 | 29 Sep 2006 13:54 |