Your best cheating stories!

This is a fascinating thread.

I remember a story about Williams' (I think) engine covers standing up in the pits at Montreal despite a wind which blew everything else over. The heavy engine covers were fitted before the cars went to be weighed. I imagine similar things happened with heavy rear wings too.

Originally posted by moxonvee
One of the stories I heard it that of Alan Moffat at Bathurst in the RX7. The rule was that the car had to clear a 50mm block without scraping, so the officials lined up the lead cars to pass over the block. When it was Moffats turn it looked obvious he would fail as the spoiler was so low to the ground. He rolled up to the block being directed by a team mechanic. When directed to drive over the block, he revved up the motor, dropped the clutch and in doing so, the front lifted under acceleration and cleared the block. All the opposing teams in seeing this applauded the ingenuity Another rule bent.

Hardly 'ingenious'...

Moffat would have been watching at Oran Park in June 1973 when, after Moffat's own car had picked the steel 'block' up with its exhausts and 'spat it out the side', Brock launched his XU-1 over it neatly to qualify to sit on the grid. Perhaps it's best to refer to the Racing Car News report?

Moffat held pole after dominating practice in both categories and, as cars rolled out for the Title race, a ground clearance frame was put down for each car to pass over. Moffat's exhausts took it up and tossed it out the side, Brock staged a drag-start to get the front to clear, but several others were in trouble. Manticas tried a 'Brock' for his second run and had people scattering as his front wheels remained off the ground and he had to stop on the rears only. John Goss' Falcon was among the last out, and it was quietly slipped down the side and onto its spot while nobody was looking.

I sincerely doubt the Bathurst story, to be honest. I wasn't there that year, but I'd reckon that the scrutineers at Bathurst wouldn't have countenanced that at all.

Originally posted by beighes
.....The sad part is that he was always one of the slower entries, & this large expense did not help him in the least.

This is incredibly common...

Some of the slowest cars in the field are cheating trying to catch up, their owners not realising that the problem lays with them or is more related to sorting than what equipment the car has.

I think I've told the story about Formula Vee here in Australia where there was a lot of talk about direct top gears being used at Amaroo Park. One meeting the most vociferous of the complainants watched as all the top cars were checked and all found to have the mandatory overdrive top. But his car, which had vied for last place in the races that day, didn't!

Another irregular poster here talks about having taken over the regular preparation of a particular touring car back in the seventies. He says that the car was full of illegal components and that as he removed them the car became quicker and quicker.

Heard this unique story for the first time this past weekend at our annual event here in Augusta.

One of the old time Southern boys describes how they got away with Ford V-8 Flat head modifications.

Seems when viewing the engine compartment all wires, hoses, etc were routed on the passenger side of the engine to produce clutter. And, it seems when doing an engine inspection after races 99% of the time the drivers side "head" was removed to check dimensions of driver side cylinders, bores, etc.

Well, the driver side bank of cylinders were stock of course, but the passenger side four cylinders had been over bored, sleeved, over bored again and sleeved again thereby producing untold amount of extra cubic inches.

The story goes own that this was never discovered and produced many, many wins.

Henry

I recall reading something similar years ago in Hot Rod Magazine...

A competitor observed that the 'through the plug hole' measuring of the stroke was only ever done on one of the front two cylinders. He therefore had a crank stroke on the remaining three throws only.

Don't know what all of this does for engine balance!

Penske was not always the portrait of virtue...
The book written by his best known driver (Mark Donohugh) wasn't called the unfair advantage for nuthin...

Back in the can Am days people wondered why the Camaros he was using were all fitted with a canvas covered top.
It seems that the cars were acid dipped to lighten the bodies for racing and the acid dipper left the bodies in the acid too long. The tops had holes in the metal. Penske had no choice but to cover it up with canvas.

Amaizing!
ZOOOM

That is a classic, although just for clarification those porous tops were covered with a conveniently popular road car option: the vinyl roof. Currently available scale model here:

http://www.motorspor...P69Camaro9.html

Another case of Penske's "forward thinking" was when he began development of the AMC Matador for NASCAR racing. For NASCAR road races, he realized an advantage could be found over the poorly set-up competition by fitting superior disc brakes from a car he was fielding in another series: The Porsche 917/30's ventilated discs. One hurdle was these brakes had to be classified as an available option from AMC. So, no problem, a phone call or two, a little paperwork, and presto, anyone could theoretically order their AMC with 917/30 brakes (not installed, but delivered in the trunk) in the early '70's.

This isn't really cheating I guess (or is it?), but it was either 1974 or '75, I attended a quarter-midget (miniature "sprint" cars for kids) regional in Dayton, Ohio - a major event for them... There was this one kid who was running really hot practice laps and overnight, between all the practice and the next day's racing, someone managed to get into the camp where this kid's car was and smashed the engine block with a sledgehammer.

This isn't really cheating I guess (or is it?), but it was either 1974 or '75, I attended a quarter-midget (miniature "sprint" cars for kids) regional in Dayton, Ohio - a major event for them... There was this one kid who was running really hot practice laps and overnight, between all the practice and the next day's racing, someone managed to get into the camp where this kid's car was and smashed the engine block with a sledgehammer.

Not so much bare faced cheat more a fit of pique!

Not so much bare faced cheat more a fit of pique!

Blimey, Nelson was there as w...oh, wait, no t. Sorry.

Not so much bare faced cheat more a fit of pique!

Or perhaps in the light of current events, a fit of Piquet...?

Edit, beaten to the draw by about one second. Ensign, you should be a racer not a solicitor.

Edited by kayemod, 17 September 2009 - 16:06.

The good cheaters are the ones you never hear about.....

At the 71 Watkins Glen T/A race, a certain camaro competitor had his engine "tubed" by John Timanus (chief SCCA tech) and was found to have a 350 engine. This "tube checker" gadget was new on the scene, and we had not seen it before. The offender, whose car was part owned by a famous racing name, was told to put the car on the trailer and take it home.

That same year at the Glen, Swede Savage showed up with an A J Foyt entered 71 camaro that just didn't look right. Turned out it had been built by Smokey Yunick who had somewhow "massaged" the bodywork to gain some aerodynamic advantage, and sure enough, it recorded the fasted trap speed down the front straight (from top of the esses to the carousel turn). No matter - in the race the car caught on fire soon after the start and was a dnf. It is apparently alive in the vintage race world somewhere.

John Timanus would have a constant battle every race weekend, trying to stay on top of the factory teams, all of whom were trying to gain that "unfair advantage".

At the coming "Tribute to Trans Am" at the Petersen on Nov. 12 there will be a discussion group starting at 2 pm related to "how to cheat in the T/A" I will try and sit in on this one to hear what else I didn't know about, that the factory guys were up to. This should be interesting.

Robert Barg

If anyone can lay their hands on a book called "Sunday Driver" by Brock Yates, Car and Driver magazine tried to run a comparison test between various supposedly stock "muscle cars" in 1965. His accounts of just how "stock" - or not - these cars were is hilarious...

I've got that book, somewhere - I think I got it for about 50p in Woolworths bargain bin, many years ago! I remember the bit you mention - one of the 'stock' cars even turned up on the back of a trailer...

One of my favorites comes from US bike racing. Back in the the 80's Honda was running the AMA Supersport series taht required DOT tires and wheels. The DOT provides registration numbers that are molded into the tires and cast into the wheels and these items must be certified to pass the US federal regulations.

Honda had sets of wheels cast with all the appropiate DOT numbers but they were magnesium not the aluminun that was certified. It was discoverd when a competitor managed to pick up one of the wheels at the tire tent. The gig was up. No one knows how long Honda had been running these and they are pretty careful about not letting anyone get too close to stuff so it could have been going on for a while.

I've got that book, somewhere - I think I got it for about 50p in Woolworths bargain bin, many years ago! I remember the bit you mention - one of the 'stock' cars even turned up on the back of a trailer...

I think my copy came from a Woolies bargain bin, too - probably the Altrincham branch - although I'm sure I paid only 10p.

My favourite bit of motorsport treachery was related by someone who worked on Group 2 Datsuns during the early 1970s. The cars were homologated with a four-speed gearbox, but were fitted with five-speed 'boxes and four-speed gearknobs. I'm told this pleasingly devious ploy was never rumbled.

At a race at Meadowdale out side of Chicago for one of the Can Am races, I noticed that Penske had a fueling tank on stilts so the fuel would have a head of speed going into the tanks of the cars.

Not so much a cheat as a creative approach to getting around a rule, but it's funny you should mention that- I was just looking through a book on the Monza 1000km sportscar race and found a photo of Alfa Romeo's refuelling rigs at the 1970 Monza race. The caption reads 'Pressure refuelling was not allowed by the regulations, so every team tried to obtain an advantage by utilising the acceleration of gravity. Alfa Romeo held the record for the highest fuel tower in the paddock...'

If we assume an average Alfa mechanic to be about 5'10", then comparing the rig with the guy standing next to it, I reckon the tanks on Alfa's fueling tower were somewhere in the region of 20 feet above ground level...

Edited by Kevan, 17 September 2009 - 22:01.

The difference between a creative approach to getting around rules & cheating can be a bit vague. Back in the '70's one particular Corvette racer (name withheld, but he later went on to run a lime green IMSA car) had the problem of "where to locate the oil/water catch tank" in the engine compartment. The ideal location was ahead of the motor, the only issue was nowhere to mount it. The best solution was to run a tube across the engine compartment. At that time SCCA had a rule prohibiting bracing the upper suspension pick up points (you could run a roll cage, but couldn't properly brace the chassis). They just happened to be the only available spots for fitting the mounting tube. As the rules specifically forbid suspension reinforcing, there was nothing about catch tank brackets, or the dia./wall thickness for the mount. So he welds in a piece of roll cage tubing to support an alloy tank. Tech said, "It is illegal bracing", the driver said, "It's a bracket". As I was told, after some discussion, he was allowed to race. The issue was passed onto the higher authority. Within a month catch tank brackets were appearing on Corvettes. SCCA relented & changed the rules. There were some odd rules back then.

Edited by beighes, 17 September 2009 - 22:32.

It seems that all those TransAm cars from 69 on where cheating. What with acid dipped bodies, drooped noses, different guage sill panel material plus shonky brakes etc were any actually legal and if so where did they run? Midfield and back!

It's hard to say how many guys were "cheating". My guess would be that all the factory cars were bending the rules, as there was a mad race to keep up to the other guy, and probably a few of the independants who had financial resources, and some technical expertise. Of course, you needed to know what the tricks were!

In my case, that old 67 camaro (ex Mo Carter) was purchased as a roller in the spring of 68. It was raced almost in stock form with a roll cage, stock 302, street Konis, and rear drum brakes initially. After I sold it end of 68, it was gradually updated with better brakes and shocks etc. by the new owner in 69 who was kind enough to let me drive it for another few years. We had no resources to start cheating and didn't know what the tricks were.

There was no chance of keeping up to the factories or well heeled independants, but there were another 15-20 racers in the same boat as us, so we had our own "race within a race" on those T/A weekends. Those races were over 2 hrs. long so there was a chance to finish in the top ten or at least close to it if you stayed out of trouble and the car survived. The goal was to finish well and make some prize money.

Robert Barg

I remember talking to Harry Stiller, sitting in a Lotus Elite, on the dummy grid at Brands Hatch. He told me about another Elite that he drove for someone that had been lightened by grinding away the fibreglass on the inside. He felt that they had overdone it, because when the sun came out the whole interior of the car lit up.

Again at Brands, there was a class for Mini's which was quite restrictive. After practice the Scrutineers ordered all of them to reinstall the interior trim. They complied, with much grumbling about extra weight and how it would slow them down. When they next came out they were lapping faster! Probably the trim was stiffening the body structure.

Not sure if everyone can find the Canadian Globe and Mail story today about "Crashgate" - the latest F1 fiasco. It's quite a condemning article about the state of F1 today and echoes my sentiments.

For those of us who remember F1 "back in the day" this recent nonsense only confirms my opinion that we saw the best of it.

Robert Barg

Back in the Seventies there was a manufacturer whose visible arm did some advanced research that led them to the conclusion if they could run their Production-car engines several thousand RPM faster, with concomitant horsepower and performance gains, the payoff could be big. The limiting factor on RPM was lubrication of the cam-lobe/follower interface on the single overhead cam engines, which would fail if run beyond certain speeds. They designed and built a lubrication system that overcame the lube barrier and resulted in a class win first time out. A protest ensued, and the Stewards of the Meet disqualified the car, since in the rules there was a specific prohibition against modification of that particular system in that particular manner.

The Visible Arm appealed the SOM's decision. I was on the panel who heard the appeal, which was denied. The argument in favor of allowing the lubrication modification was: "It's an oil cooler. The oil passes through tubing and air in an area of lesser heat prior to being distributed over the camshaft, thereby cooling the oil". That was one of the shortest, most entertaining appeal hearings I ever attended.

I suppose the Visible Arm was obliged to follow every avenue in order to maintain a lucrative relationship with the manufacturer, but hey ...

I also suppose it's like trademark protection: if you don't defend it, anyone can use it. Or some change on that theme.

Not sure if everyone can find the Canadian Globe and Mail story today about "Crashgate" - the latest F1 fiasco. It's quite a condemning article about the state of F1 today and echoes my sentiments.

Would it be this one?

http://www.theglobea...article1291557/

[this article first appeared in the (UK) Times.]

Another good article from Richard Williams in the (UK) Guardian, about how the 'good guys' like Pat Symonds get corrupted:

http://www.guardian....ichard-williams

Edited by Tim Murray, 18 September 2009 - 08:43.

Realitically this is nothing new. In big time motorsport one team driver has been known to block the opposing team, crash them out and other means to effect the results.Since pacecars this has happened on several occasions in all levels of professional motorsport and on occasion amatuer. Sometimes other teams are in on it too.
Which includes letting No1 win as required.
One would suggest that Piquet Snr might have done similar too!

I helped a guy with a BMW that ran IMSA RS. Our list of "mods" was fairly extensive, so I won't go into that. I do remember a story about the 6 cylinder Hornets and Gremlins. The rules called for a stock carb, which was in effect an air restrictor on most cars. Seems there were some holes drilled in the bottom of the intake manifold to let a bit more air into the motor. So happens that one cool morning a Tech guy was walking past when the cars were started, and noticed the back-fire from the bottom of the manifold. End of that cheat.

The good cheaters are the ones you never hear about.....

Kind of like street racing back in the sixties and seventies (of course I never took part in those).

You had better watch out for the guy that rolled into the local hamburger joint without his engine running.

Henry

I remember talking to Harry Stiller, sitting in a Lotus Elite, on the dummy grid at Brands Hatch. He told me about another Elite that he drove for someone that had been lightened by grinding away the fibreglass on the inside. He felt that they had overdone it, because when the sun came out the whole interior of the car lit up.

Ah, Harry Stiller. Now there's a name to conjure with...

Although not doubting the story, I think it probably had rather more to do with weight-saving paint application than an over enthusiastic internal grinding job. The Elite was of course a GRP semi-monocoque, and one of the big advantages of the material is that thickness, and consequently weight and strength can be accurately graduated over the structure during the moulding process in a way that is very much more difficult to achieve with a lightweight metal construction of similar design. What that means in practice, is if the moulding thickness is greater in some areas, then there would be a good reason for that, it's never been a good idea to try to lighten a Lotus, especially if that involves grinding away structural material. I don't know much about the lightweight competition versions that left Cheshunt, but as far as I know, all production Elites had a body made from polyester resin and chopped strand mat, and almost all had doors bonnet and boot lids in epoxy resin and glass cloth. All were unpigmented, so they were semi-translucent until paint was applied, you could read the big print of a newspaper through them, I've done it. Internal grinding would have been inadvisable, as these cars didn't have great reserves of strength as built, rear suspension and final drives were pretty insecure on earlier road going versions, so for track use, you certainly wouldn't want to risk weakening the structure in any way. When I was at Hethel, we had friendly relations with Reliant at Tamworth, although their cars were dreadful things, and I'm including the Scimitars in that blanket condemnation, my father once owned a truck-like GTE, they were no fools where GRP production techniques were concerned, and I visited their factory once or twice. To qualify for the motorbike tax rate, those horrible little Robin and Regal three-wheelers had to be under a specified weight, from memory something like 8cwt I think. They knew what every single component weighed of course, and the only variable was the fibreglass body. Each moulding was weighed after it had been trimmed, and if too close to the critical weight, a man would get inside the thing with an angle-grinder, removing whatever he could until it was within the specified range, some of those roof panels must have been paper-thin, so definitely never a car to have any kind of mishap in. I witnessed this process, there was dust everywhere, noise inside the shell must have been horrific, and the guy was just wearing one of those flimsy gauze masks that loop over your ears. Ground glass and resin like that can be quite seriously carcinogenic, and even if it was your lucky day, emphysema would be about the best you could hope for. I sometimes wonder if the worker I saw lived to old age, but somehow I doubt it. Where were Health and Safety when we really needed them?

Edited by kayemod, 19 September 2009 - 10:27.

I heard an interesting story about a certain Showroom Stock competitor whose car was built out of two halves. When the two halves were welded back together, some roll bar tubing "happened to fall " into the rocker panels, improving the stiffness of this car.

Back in the Seventies there was a manufacturer whose visible arm did some advanced research that led them to the conclusion if they could run their Production-car engines several thousand RPM faster, with concomitant horsepower and performance gains, the payoff could be big. The limiting factor on RPM was lubrication of the cam-lobe/follower interface on the single overhead cam engines, which would fail if run beyond certain speeds. They designed and built a lubrication system that overcame the lube barrier and resulted in a class win first time out. A protest ensued, and the Stewards of the Meet disqualified the car, since in the rules there was a specific prohibition against modification of that particular system in that particular manner.

The Visible Arm appealed the SOM's decision. I was on the panel who heard the appeal, which was denied. The argument in favor of allowing the lubrication modification was: "It's an oil cooler. The oil passes through tubing and air in an area of lesser heat prior to being distributed over the camshaft, thereby cooling the oil". That was one of the shortest, most entertaining appeal hearings I ever attended.

I suppose the Visible Arm was obliged to follow every avenue in order to maintain a lucrative relationship with the manufacturer, but hey ...

I also suppose it's like trademark protection: if you don't defend it, anyone can use it. Or some change on that theme.

Dim memory here. I seem to recall that when the Eagle Formula Ford was first fielded there were questions about it's engine cover which extended back over the gearbox and past the rear wheels. Apparently the rules at the time said the bodywork could cover the engine but not the gearbox. The Eagle folks explained that the cover was in fact a cooler for the gearbox in that it shaded it from the sun.

One other story. Not so much a cheat as a clever interpretation of the rules. In SCCA production racing in the '70s you were very limited in what you could modify. In some cases the rules simply stated that certain items were "free" meaning you could pretty much do what ever you wanted. One of the areas designated as "free" was the cars heater. Of course most people just removed them to save weight. Well, one clever Mini racer used the "free" heater to his advantage. The rules stated that you could fit a larger radiator but it must be in the same location as stock. Well, not much room for a larger rad in a Mini and even so the airflow wasn't very good. And, if you are racing in Southern California where it can hit 110F+ at some tracks, well overheating is an issue. The Mini racer used a bog standard Mini rad in the stock position and then fitted a oversize heater core in the passenger compartment. The oversize heater core was an aluminum Chevy crossflow rad out of a Corvette. It was mounted flat on the passenger side floor which had vent holes cut in it. A shroud was built over the "heater" with ducts from the side window and from the headlamp bucket. That was one fast Mini and it didn't overheat!

Kurt O.

Over the years a lot of racing rules and regulations have made competitors fudge the rules for practicalities sake.Both big time and club level. No great performance gains but you can make the car work with a readily advailable quality parts for a reasonable cost instead of unobtainium stuff.
Most rule books are written by well meaning people with one idea [and car type] in their head. Or by a committee even worse!
This is not so much cheating for performance but for practicality

There's a neat bit of modern technology called metal sheet hydroforming. Manufacturers use it to create very smooth or very complicated pressed components. No doubt some manufacturers are using it to create lightweight panels without the perils of acid dipping. You could even make homologation specials using panels of one gauge and make the real motors out of more substantial metal.

I'm sure there are a lot more Penske stories out there. Here are 2 I've heard of.

In 1968, Roger had a "special" light weight Camaro (with help from the Chevy production line). It was entered in the 1968 Sebring race, along with their previous season's 1967 based car (which officials told them discretely to never return becasue it had been acid dipped and way under weight). He had them both fitted with 1968 trim pieces, and there were identically painted and decaled. Roger had the in-spec older car go thru tech for both cars, and then had the light-weight car qualify for both cars (they only needed the numbers slightly altered to pull it off). The light weight car was #15, and the other car was #16. One big difference that nobody caught was that the 1967 car had the small vent windows on the door, but the other car didn't.

Here is the story of it from the current owner:

http://74.125.113.13...lient=firefox-a

Do you know why Roger and Mark took the Sunoco 917/30 out of mothballs (the CanAm was dead, and there was no other place it could be raced)? As I recall, Roger got caught using illegal parts in the NASCAR Matador, and was fined. Roger worked out a deal to get the money back if he could set the World Closed Course Speed Record with the 917/30 at one of the NASCAR races (basically, a publicity stunt for NASCAR's benefit). They had engine problem first at Daytona, but did set the record at Talladega.

Edited by Cam2InfoNeeded, 08 October 2009 - 03:28.

Interesting Thread,other Posters here know more than me but Series Production Racing in Australia in the early 1970's,particulary the Bathurst Race, was rife with rumours of cheating and rule bending some of which have already been mentioned. Special lightweight panels,heavier oil being substituted in shockers and "treated" coil springs,larger capacity heater coils fitted,use of compressed air to bloat the fuel tank to increase capacity,drilling out of carby jets,special pistons ect. The series whilst extremely popular with fans developed into a cheatathon,one of the regular class winning Datsun 1600 was running an Auto. diff(in a manual) and never scutineered.

Very enjoyable thread!

I used to be a technical inspectors eons ago, so here go a few stories I personally witnessed:

1.) Sao Paulo State Touring Car Championship
Quite a few times we caught rollcages that were absurdly off the rules. In my first race as an inspector I caught a Volkswagen Voyage (sort of Brazilian Jetta) with a rollcage made of PVC pipes made to look like the real thing. It looked absolutely perfect - until you touched it.

2.) Rally Championship for College Students (regularity rallies) - Sao Paulo, Brazil
Simple calculators were allowed, but scientific/financial ones not. Needless to say, enforcing that was almost impossible. First some competitors begun to hide them in the glove compartment, but that was too obvious. Creative solutions, such as underneath the seats or inside door panels, quickly popped up. By the third round of the series we need to have male and female inspectors to tap the body of competitors of the respective genders, as we would often find calculators hidden inside undergarments...

3.) Speed 1600 series (championship for VW Beetles)
It was my first time working in a race of that series. I was surprised to see that, just before the start and with the cars already on the grid, the drivers would get out of the cars and tighten the wheel nuts with wrenches kept in the cockpit. Most drivers did that. I found that quite odd, and asked a fellow marshal what was going on. "Wait and see", she told me. Well, a few laps into the race and some cars did indeed lose some wheels!

It turned out that tightening the wheel nuts just before the start was not a bad idea. Just about all competitors - clearly breaching the rules, by the way - had cut the wheel bolts short, saving "significant weight", or so they thought...

Cheers,


Muzza

Another NASCAR example was the "Bumpergate" incident featuring Bobby Allison's winning car in the 1982 Daytona 500.

Following his victory, Allison's car was inspected and was found to have lost its rear bumper. It appeared to have fallen off in a slight bump between two cars at the beginning of the race. However tests were performed on the car without its rear bumper and it was discovered that the car was faster and handled better without the bumper. It has been claimed that Allison and his crew modified the bumper so that it would fall off easily at the beginning of the race. NASCAR never fined him and the victory stands. Allison and his crew denied the allegations.

Similarly, in Australia Harry Firth was appointed chief CAMS scrutineer... to applause at how smart the CAMS were setting a thief to catch a thief...

But one of the best cheats I know of here was Bob Jane's Camaro ZL1.

At Lakeside during the period I heard talk - quite open talk - about it having a Ford gearbox. I asked why nobody protested, but was told that "everybody's cheating so they can't..."

Later I wrote about that car and followed this story up. Pat Purcell and others told me about how they fabricated a steel housing that was similar but just a little larger than the original box, sandblasted it till it looked like a casting, painted it to look like aluminium... Peter Holinger made the gearset. Jane won the title using that box.

But the sequel has wider ramifications. Jane sold the box to Frank Gardner, who took it to England...

Only about 8 years later. That gearbox was the original Muncie, BUT with a fabricated steel case as the original alloy one used to stretch the case, a steel plate front and rear was also used in that period. These days most people simply sleeve the alloy case where the cluster pin goes through, that seems to fix the problem. And these days you can buy far stronger alloy cases too.

And in the early mid 70s the only reason Ford got away with all their cheats is that Harry was cheating too!!

The gears were on shafts that ran a little further apart, Lee...

That was the story from Pat Purcell himself.

The gears were on shafts that ran a little further apart, Lee...

That was the story from Pat Purcell himself.

Those 'steel' case Muncies were hardly a secret, they would have been used in the Camaro,HQ and probably the Torana.And possible even the Monza. I heard the story about them 25 years ago from the guy that fabricated them.
Myles you should know about them?

Not long after Harry Firth's appointment as CAMS Chief Scrutineer, he found a 'problem' with Jane's car at Oran Park.

I think everyone at Oran Park heard Bob, when he told Harry that he [Harry] was "the biggest f...ing cheat of all time". Firth just grinned!

IIRC Richard Petty got caught running a 385 cui motor when he went to victory lane for the last time as a driver, when every one else was running 358 cui, the result stood but The King did get fined.

Then a couple of years ago NASCAR nearly bankrupted Carl Long for attempting to run 0.17 cui over spec

When you start on or near the limit an engine that has had a couple of rebuilds [as it sounds that this one had had] maybe a thou or two over bore.
But as has been said this bloke must have done something else to earn the fine. And if it was a big team probably would be excluded from the results.

IIRC Richard Petty got caught running a 385 cui motor when he went to victory lane for the last time as a driver, when every one else was running 358 cui,

Perhaps the engine builder, or someone else, was a little dyslectic, and reversed the '58'?

When you start on or near the limit an engine that has had a couple of rebuilds [as it sounds that this one had had] maybe a thou or two over bore.
But as has been said this bloke must have done something else to earn the fine. And if it was a big team probably would be excluded from the results.

When we won the class at Bathurst in '79 we were beaten over the line by the Alan/Kel Gough Gemini, but post-race scrutineering showed it had been over-bored by 40thou (1mm). They denied cheating as the rules required standard bore and stroke, but allowed honing. They just claimed that they'd power-honed it exactly 40thou bigger...and fitted pistons accordingly, despite standard pistons being required...
Even though it was a substantial gain and took them from 1584cc to 1623cc (and outside the class), surprisingly enough the scruts bought it and we had to protest and take it all the way to AMSAC (Australian Motor Sport Appeals Court) before justice was finally done 6 months later...

Edited by seldo, 06 July 2011 - 02:30.

At Le Mans there was a rule that jump starting wasn't allowed. The Fords were rigged for jump starting just in case. Autolite built battery jackets that looked just like all the other crew members jackets, each car had one crew member equipped with one of the jackets. One arm contained the positive lead and the other arm the negative. If need be the crew man would lean over and appear to jiggle the battery cables and presto the car would then start.

Edited by Tom Smith, 06 July 2011 - 05:32.

When we won the class at Bathurst in '79 we were beaten over the line by the Alan/Kel Gough Gemini, but post-race scrutineering showed it had been over-bored by 40thou (1mm). They denied cheating as the rules required standard bore and stroke, but allowed honing. They just claimed that they'd power-honed it exactly 40thou bigger...and fitted pistons accordingly, despite standard pistons being required...
Even though it was a substantial gain and took them from 1584cc to 1623cc (and outside the class), surprisingly enough the scruts bought it and we had to protest and take it all the way to AMSAC (Australian Motor Sport Appeals Court) before justice was finally done 6 months later...

1mm is cheating, 1 thou is bad luck!!

Originally posted by Lee Nicolle
Those 'steel' case Muncies were hardly a secret, they would have been used in the Camaro,HQ and probably the Torana.And possible even the Monza. I heard the story about them 25 years ago from the guy that fabricated them.
Myles you should know about them?

Yes, where is Myles?

Was there more than one? Pat spoke as if they only had one and it went to England with Frank Gardner's Camaro.

The Monza probably had a 5-speed, which was quite within the rules by that time.

At Le Mans there was a rule that jump starting wasn't allowed. The Fords were rigged for jump starting just in case. Autolite built battery jackets that looked just like all the other crew members jackets, each car had one crew member equipped with one of the jackets. One arm contained the positive lead and the other arm the negative. If need be the crew man would lean over and appear to jiggle the battery cables and presto the car would then start.

Lucky no one got electrocuted

Lucky no one got electrocuted

From 12V or possibly 24? Had this discussion recently over something else.

[quote name='Ray Bell' date='Jul 7 2011, 09:03' post='5149376']
Yes, where is Myles?

Was there more than one? Pat spoke as if they only had one and it went to England with Frank Gardner's Camaro.

The Monza probably had a 5-speed, which was quite within the rules by that time.

[/quote
I believe all the Monzas used 4 speeds originally, Moffats did, as did the Briggs car. Almost certainly Muncies. In the 80s it was
'trendy' to use Top loaders though why was alwys the question. If you had a Ford use them and solve all the oiling troubles but with a Chev use the Muncie. Which had some great ratio sets
There was a couple of steel case ones I was told. Beechey evidently had one with steel plates on either end,[by Hollinger] as did I think the Jane team also. The gear strength on a Muncie is fairly good, BUT the alloy case spreads and then blows gears. Plus they break the top left hand mounting ear off of the case. Using a steel bellhousing does actually help both these problems. Super T10s have the same problems.
I used a T10 with nodular iron case and had few troubles apart from the usual synchro cones and flattening the dog teeth that you have with Muncies. T10s have the first gear sleeve grooved also so you do not friction weld Ist gear on the sleeve. Though modern oils largely solve that trouble anyway.
I never broke a Muncie after simply having steel sleeve inserted in the case for the cluster pin and using the steel bellhousing. But by then the T10 was the 'main' box with the Muncie as the spare.
These days you can buy a brand new Muncie with all the good modifictions that supposedly handle 700hp [and 600 foot lb] with confidence and at least Stateside are elegible for historic racing

A mate with a Group A car got sick of breaking alloy T-10s so he painted a top-loader silver and run it instead.

Lucky no one got electrocuted

Yes - would have been shocking...revolting even...OK - that's ample.