TVR Griffiths 200/400 and their Chassis Numbers

[Everilda]

If you are looking to buy this car as a Fia car, i suggest you examine the papers before you buy. I don't think they will be current.

if you want a Fia car then you need to talk to Nigel Reuben at http://www.nigelreubenracing.com

CRT 999C could be converted to Fia spec at a cost.

The John Spires Fia car JFR 600E (which was the last of the 10 Martin Lilley built Griffs) has just sold at Silverstone auctions for £165 000. It has a Nigel Reuben rolling chassis and bodywork.

[zefarelly]

The FiA have just inspected a very original Griffith for reference.

It'll be interesting to see if they see anything similar on an current race cars

[Everilda]

What Griffith was that then?

[Terence Bower]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

The FiA have just inspected a very original Griffith for reference.

It'll be interesting to see if they see anything similar on an current race cars

🤣🤣

[Duddha]

I would correct that, what is interesting is to see a leaf spring car for the engine bay picture of the Griffith Homologation and in fact the Willment Coupe CSX2131 if taking the origin of that pic to the full extent....

Then I would say, how is it possible the 400 runs on the homologation of the 200? Aren't they different and not just bodywork? If so that isn't covered by the special body rule of Appendix J of period.

Added to that, would the TVR crew put together a base of documentation and period pictures of the cars in order to truthfully detail what these were back exactly?

But a car just came up on bringatrailer.com which is supposedly a standard 200 road car from 1965, an interesting car for suspension, parts and all to look at. I won't say it's perfect and period as it's had a life but at least it shows what they may have truly looked like.

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by Duddha

I would correct that, what is interesting is to see a leaf spring car for the engine bay picture of the Griffith Homologation and in fact the Willment Coupe CSX2131 if taking the origin of that pic to the full extent....

Then I would say, how is it possible the 400 runs on the homologation of the 200? Aren't they different and not just bodywork? If so that isn't covered by the special body rule of Appendix J of period.

Added to that, would the TVR crew put together a base of documentation and period pictures of the cars in order to truthfully detail what these were back exactly?

But a car just came up on bringatrailer.com which is supposedly a standard 200 road car from 1965, an interesting car for suspension, parts and all to look at. I won't say it's perfect and period as it's had a life but at least it shows what they may have truly looked like.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. and you at first glance appear to have very little knowledge!! I am not sure where any relevance to transverse leaf springs relate to any TVR !! You must be dreaming or getting yourself very confused.

[Simon Hadfield]

I suggest you go and take a look at the TVR Griffith 200 homologation form. One of the two engine bay images clearly shows a leaf spring. The other image is of the same car - in reality the Willment built and raced Daytona Cobra - from the opposite side. These images have nothing at all to do with any Griffith, wherever they might have been built.
Having done that maybe a polite apology might be in order?

[Heightswitch]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

I suggest you go and take a look at the TVR Griffith 200 homologation form. One of the two engine bay images clearly shows a leaf spring. The other image is of the same car - in reality the Willment built and raced Daytona Cobra - from the opposite side. These images have nothing at all to do with any Griffith, wherever they might have been built.
Having done that maybe a polite apology might be in order?

I think anyone banding around theories about transverse leaf springs on Griffiths should be apologising Mr H. The post reads to me like a conspiracy theory.. Perhaps the intent is lost in translation! Its a funny old world the world of Historic racing and their seems to be cliques of people who have strong opinions about cars which they have limited knowledge.. I sense a clique here! If a Homologation form is incorrect then this evidently will be an error within that organisation which seemingly makes up rules on cars to suit themselves. A further lack of knowledge perhaps to have let such an obviously incorrect photograph appear on a document?? Granted I don't know a lot about E-types and Ferraris but I do know lots about TVR's Some of my dearest departed friends built the cars that some people have strong views about.. Its great to see competitive Griffiths to an agreed historic standard racing up at the front against Ferraris, E-types, Cobras et al. I shall retire back to my clubman Garage.. No wish to muddy any waters however this thread is about Griffiths rather than Willment Cobras... as you say it is very important to ensure that period details are correct.

N.

[Simon Hadfield]

The homologation form would have been self compiled by the manufacturer. It was then ovestamped by the ASN, in 1965 that would have been the RAC. The simple fact is that TVR used the engine bay images lifted from the Willment Daytona Cobra. Which had, and is therefore visible, a transverse leaf spring. Most probably TVR were looking to show a Ford V8 with 4 Weber IDAs as evidently they had not built one themselves. It is just incompetence that led to the photographs being badly cropped and showing rather more. None of the above is conspiracy, nothing there shows a clique, it is simply factual reporting.
As I have always understood things internet groups work best when there is a robust attitude to the post, not the poster.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

As I have always understood things internet groups work best when there is a robust attitude to the post, not the poster.

Indeed. It’s in the FAQs under ‘Posting Guidelines’.......

[zefarelly]

Even in B&W it's pretty bloody obvious the car in the engine bay photograph is a totally different colour, and forgetting the leaf spring entirely the chassis bulkhead and steering column are completely different. I've only ever owned one TReVor but can spot that, I'd have thought a marque expert would have a pretty good Awareness of the only defined period documents on any one car.

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

The homologation form would have been self compiled by the manufacturer. It was then ovestamped by the ASN, in 1965 that would have been the RAC. The simple fact is that TVR used the engine bay images lifted from the Willment Daytona Cobra. Which had, and is therefore visible, a transverse leaf spring. Most probably TVR were looking to show a Ford V8 with 4 Weber IDAs as evidently they had not built one themselves. It is just incompetence that led to the photographs being badly cropped and showing rather more. None of the above is conspiracy, nothing there shows a clique, it is simply factual reporting.
As I have always understood things internet groups work best when there is a robust attitude to the post, not the poster.

[Duddha]

I do have very little knowledge, I apologize for being right...

Pictures will speak for themselves, have your look at 206 GT on the FIA Historic Database, where these pictures originate from and a full scan of the RAC/MSA copy of the Homologation they have in house for records.





CSX2131 and Willment Coupe engine bay basically, according to my Cobra knowledge, additionally, upper right corner of first picture and you'll notice the leaf spring.

[zefarelly]

Looking at the bottom photo again, the TVR is in the background!

Originally Posted by Duddha

I do have very little knowledge, I apologize for being right...

Pictures will speak for themselves, have your look at 206 GT on the FIA Historic Database, where these pictures originate from and a full scan of the RAC/MSA copy of the Homologation they have in house for records.





CSX2131 and Willment Coupe engine bay basically, according to my Cobra knowledge, additionally, upper right corner of first picture and you'll notice the leaf spring.

[Jeremy Hall]

The blank homologation form provided by the RAC Motor Sport Department in period required a photograph of the engine.Given a generic engine was used it seems if none were available to the manufacturer on the day he would reasonably use a photograph of the correct engine from another source.Which is obviously what has happened.
Photographs showing the exhaust manifolds and inlet manifolds were separately required. These items put together produced the specification for the motor for the car.
It seems to me that in this case the ''claimants'' for the car have taken more than the engine picture and claimed the entire engine bay,inlet and exhaust systems.
Quite clearly this is an error and needs revisiting by all parties ASAP to clarify.