The "development" of Historic Racing Cars discussion Post Spa 6Hrs 2013.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by john ruston

A twin cam is about 185/195 these days and two people have units that are more powerful than that.

So if a 26R was competitive in period with 160bhp it should be competitive now with 185 - 195bhp. Yes?

Simon H used his Europa / 47 to win Guards at Croft couple of months ago, I think.

[Peter Mallett]

Out of interest, where does the hike in power come from? Is it new materials allowing higher revs, or is it better build tolerances?

[GORDON STREETER]

You only have to listen to know the answer !

[terence]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

You only have to listen to know the answer !

And a couple of up to date cams to suit the hike.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

You only have to listen to know the answer !

Well I'm listening, what's the answer?

[midgetman]

I'm guessing revs?

I've never heard the engine though so its only a guess.

[Peter Mallett]

Well, if it's revs then it raises the question of whether it is simply components built/manufactured to the original dimensions that are capable of withstanding higher stresses, or have dimensions of the components been altered?

If the former then although it may not be original it is at least providing reliability and allowing the cars to be raced. If the latter then those dimensions must be within the original homologated (or the regulation) dimensions, otherwise it would be cheating.

I think JT has often made the point that, as an enthusiast, he would rather see cars finishing regularly, than retiring due to adherence to the sword of originality. A philosophy that may find the approval of many enthusiasts.

I confess that I don't know the answer but frankly if I can make a car reliable, within the regs, it is surely cheaper than regular engine rebuilds.

[GORDON STREETER]

It's a combination of all you said Peter.
I have always been involved with the "ubiquitous" Ford Kent engine in both crossflow and noncrossflow form.
In the 60s early 70s 140bhp for a 1500 was considered good and the 1600 crossflow gave about 15bhp more.
I have seen 200bhp on a test bed with a big 1900 + cc engine but at the time probably would'nt have lasted very long on the track !
However throwing money and paying attention to a 1700cc crossflow that will rev over 9000 all day long and 185 +bhp "reliably" is achievable !

[Peter Mallett]

I think the interesting point may be that whilst someone "throws money" at the problem, if the results are beneficial then others will want to do the same, then of course the economies of scale come into play and the cost may well reduce.

Some people have had components re manufactured in order to keep a car or type of car, running. In doing so, the production run has included "spares" which can then be sold on.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I think JT has often made the point that, as an enthusiast, he would rather see cars finishing regularly, than retiring due to adherence to the sword of originality. A philosophy that may find the approval of many enthusiasts.

Peter, my view expressed better than I could do it myself! I love originality but I don't approve of slavishly sticking to original parts where those parts were known to fail regularly in period. Thus if they can be made more durable from different materials or through strengthening, it makes no sense to continually fork out for the originals even if you could obtain them. These cars are no longer owned by works teams who, in period, would have routinely replaced components for each race but by enthusiasts, whether wealthy or not, who quite rightly not only want to finish their race but are able to enter the next one without expensive rebuilds/overhauls.

I think we need to recognise that the word 'development' covers a multitude of possibilities. Taking Gordon's point above, I think that better knowledge of materials, careful assembly, gas flowing, cam profiles etc is likely to produce better outputs these days, up to 30%, I believe, in certain engines without breaching regs. It's the 'development' in trick engineering that is the issue. I also hear that some of the engines in some of our historic cars, and at particular events, have engines of greater capacity than they should have, which also takes us over the line of what is acceptable, in my view.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by John Turner

I think we need to recognise that the word 'development' covers a multitude of possibilities. Taking Gordon's point above, I think that better knowledge of materials, careful assembly, gas flowing, cam profiles etc is likely to produce better outputs these days, up to 30%, I believe, in certain engines without breaching regs.

Yes, I understand this to be the case with many engines, not least the Rover V8, which is my current area of interest. Although it may not be as much as 30%.

Originally Posted by John Turner

It's the 'development' in trick engineering that is the issue. I also hear that some of the engines in some of our historic cars, and at particular events, have engines of greater capacity than they should have, which also takes us over the line of what is acceptable, in my view.

Agreed and this is frustrating. When a car of similar spec is somewhat faster going down a straight but no quicker under braking or through a corner then it is a bit disheartening.

Hmm, thinking about it, I suppose when I'm not running the Rover I could always slip the engine into the MG......................

[zefarelly]

Quite agree John.

race engines are lifed . . . . 1-2 years seems to be what most of us mere mortals require from our budgets . . . 3-4 hours is not unheard of however.

Originally Posted by john ruston

It's not what is sporting or non sporting its what can make historic racing more accessible to a wider circle of interested people.

I don't consider it cheating on basis that all the front runners can throw buckets full of dosh at car development so its even for top handful of cars but in my opinion has a detrimental effect on the rest of the historic racing world.

Pity ,it was a great hobby but getting to the situation where because of what is being allowed makes it not worth bothering with.

[Al Weyman]

Revs kill engines not power simple as that. In the 70's in F5000 etc era GM state that the Small Block Chevy can run reliably to max of 7800 rpm with factory components, (pink rods, Steel GM crank etc) so suffice to if that is being exceeded today something is amiss. OK so the argument is going you want more reliability hence the use of aftermarket cranks etc so use those and limit the revs, the things will run all day long. Its the greatest leveller there is surely, just finding a reliable way to monitor it is the challenge.

[terence]

Ultimately I think its the capacity thing that should be scrutinised a lot more thoroughly,cams,crank materials,con rods etc give revs/reliability,but its capacity that gives more torque and power.So,all the talk of 5ltr e-types etc etc,is obviously more than likely what has brought about the much improved lap times of most marques. Another thing that could quite easily be checked is conformity to combustion shapes and design,as these are all supposed to be of a given shape and design,ie,homologated,oh,while the head is off,just check the crank throw while youre about it.lol.

[simon drabble]

I was told the latest all singing all dancing E Type engine from JD Classics is £125k eclipsing C and G's £100k engines! However if they are now quicker than Cobra's I suppose its relative value....
It doesnt make much sense to me and makes modern GT start to look good value!!

[john ruston]

Extra capacity is old hat!

It's all about bore and stroking to give more revs.

I was being told 8500 revs for C/D type engines.

Didn't believe it but then looked at the fastest laps by the fancy 50's Jags.

Probably true

[Al Weyman]

£125k XK engine, that's just ludicrous! Are the scruts on a bung or something, how on earth can they fail to see the difference between that and an original? I saw a racing Westminster engine stripped down on the bench and it was obvious to me by a casual glance that was nothing like the internals of my old Healey 3000 engines. If the will to stop this is there it would be stopped I just don't think it is.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

£125k XK engine, that's just ludicrous.

Shhh- Simon's got two on order for his Mk2! Gotta beat 3:42 at Spa next year...

Changing bore & stroke relationship, flat plane cranks, altered firing order..... All happening, am sure.

[Al Weyman]

I know of a flat plane cranked Mustang racing and anyone with half a brain can just hear the different noise it makes, as I said no will to stop it so it won't happen.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I know of a flat plane cracked Mustang racing and anyone with half a brain can just hear the different noise it makes, as I said no will to stop it so it won't happen.

In UK? I know it is allowed in SVRA across the pond, but as you say, sounds completely different! I did hear recently of a series eligibility scrutineer requesting a competitor not to enter a particular car again. It does happen, just needs to be more often- but with organisers desperate to fill grids.....

[simon drabble]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Shhh- Simon's got two on order for his Mk2! Gotta beat 3:42 at Spa next year...

Changing bore & stroke relationship, flat plane cranks, altered firing order..... All happening, am sure.

haha even I have ambitions below 3-42... sadly the Mk2 engine is somewhat stymied by twin SU's and an iron manifold....
My Mk2 (when its finally finished!) will not be troubling the sort of Itailian exotica others on this forum will be piloting - merely acting as a very stylish mobile chicane

[grantp]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

haha even I have ambitions below 3-42... sadly the Mk2 engine is somewhat stymied by twin SU's and an iron manifold....
My Mk2 (when its finally finished!) will not be troubling the sort of Itailian exotica others on this forum will be piloting - merely acting as a very stylish mobile chicane

Would an 8-track tape unit for entertainment be allowed under the regs?

Actually I can't recall when 8 track became available - probably never in a Mk2.

I suppose you would need to leave sound proofing in place to be able to enjoy the output. So plenty of scope for lightening everything else ...

[zefarelly]

Colin will know, I'm sure he's got both!

[GORDON STREETER]

I have about 50 8 track cartridges at home if anyone wants them !

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

I have about 50 8 track cartridges at home if anyone wants them !

What sort of music? I've got a few tapes and also a couple of players.