Jump to content


Photo

Cheating or bending the rules?


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#51 Pat Clarke

Pat Clarke
  • Member

  • 1,962 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 05 May 2008 - 22:50

Thank you Doug, ....But not that I would know anything about it ;-)

Pat

PS, had a long chat with Ron T. last evening. He was regaling me with the mathematics of Top Fuel dragsters as he went to his first drag meeting through the week.

Pat

Advertisement

#52 jm70

jm70
  • Member

  • 139 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 05 May 2008 - 22:58

I think one of the best series to witness cheating was the old IMSA RS Series. I know of some personally, and have heard a few more. One of my favorites was the story about the Gremlin/Hornet. The stock carb they were required to run was much like a restrictor plate, so the trick was to drill small holes in the bottom of the intake manifold. Then increase the size of the main jet in the carb to compensate. I heard it was working well, until a tech inspector happened to be walking by on engine start up, and flames shot out the bottom! Bit cold in the morning, and it back fired.
I know this will work, because in about 1985 we had a great deal of problem getting carburated vehicles to pass emission testing in Arizona. They "moved the goal post", and the carburated trucks such as Mazda's and Toyotas were very hard pressed to pass the cruise. They had been developed and tested to pass idle emissions. The guys in the shop tried many things, jet changes, sharp tune ups, all to no avail. Finally, they just drilled the hole in the manifold, took it to emission testing, brought it back, and welded up the manifold until next year. Where there is a will, there is a way.

#53 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,100 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:04

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Kayemod - re Chunky - I would go along with what you say. He explored the written regulations to the full, and to listen to him explaining the true (limited) meaning of the English language as published by the governing body was itself to enjoy an Oscar-winning performance. When he finally got burned by their out-interpreting his interpretation of their wing regulations with the Type 88 I remember his genuine disillusion as he took himself off to Cape Kennedy to witness a regulation-free launch of NASA's latest space shot.

DCN


Maybe I recalled incorrectly, maybe he said, an I paraphrase, "we never cheat, just seek the unfair advantage", if he didn't then I stand corrected, but I am sure it was a BBC interview, but then again............

#54 David Kipling

David Kipling
  • Member

  • 65 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 May 2008 - 14:19

Another Sprint car trick I've heard of ---- though I doubt its efficacy --- was to dampen (not soak) those huge conical air filters in nitromethane, freeze them, then install them a few minutes before a race --- theoretically the nitro would evaporate and get breathed in. :confused:

#55 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 488 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 06 May 2008 - 16:15

I've just remembered a story about Tom Walkinshaw Racing adjusting the rear strut mount points on the Rover 3500. When they got caught they tried to claim the bodyshell was a standard, but export-only, variation.

In an old CAR article about the ETCC Jaguar XJ-S, there's a bit about how the rules said you could mount an oil-cooler for the differential underneath the car. TWR mounted their cooler on an aerodynamic fairing, which didn't actual give any downforce, but wound the opposition up no end.

#56 tobbe j

tobbe j
  • Member

  • 90 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:04

Ferrari's rear wing Long Beach '82

#57 RStock

RStock
  • Member

  • 1,313 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:16

Originally posted by tobbe j
Ferrari's rear wing Long Beach '82


I'd say that would have to be the worst example of cheating , as it was in plain sight , for everyone to see , and resulted in a DQ .

#58 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 06 May 2008 - 18:33

... then again, it might as well have been regarded as a clever way of careful reading of the rules...

#59 Graham Clayton

Graham Clayton
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:17

Back in the mid-1970's Sydney speedway sedan driver Rick Hunter tried to race a Ford Capri based on the Perana model sold in South Africa, which featured a 289ci V8 as the
standard engine. However the scrutineers knew that the Capris that were sold in Australia only used the V-6 engine, so the Perana was banned after a couple of meetings.
Shame - it looked fantastic!

Posted Image

Advertisement

#60 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 20 April 2012 - 13:29

Some years ago I had a long chat with a touring car driver no longer with us. Over a few beers he told me about some of the routine cheats. Acid dipping the bare monocoque tubs to reduce weight. Specially made glass thinner than the standard stuff (glass is heavy); the supposedly original seat cushions and squabs lightened internally. There were dozens of them.

Another bloke I know bought a championship winning Cooper S touring car, back in the day when they had to be 'standard'. He was staggered to see how many rules had been subtly broken: lowering by shaving the rubber cones, lower suspension arms slightly longer than standard for negative cambler; and, everywhere nobody would look, drilled for lightness. He was equally amazed, once he started racing the car and put it back within the rules, that all those dodgy tweaks made no real difference.

#61 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,394 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 20 April 2012 - 14:16

Not to forget that the two German Sierras were finally found to be cheating at Bathurst...

It took about six months to get it through the courts, but I think the main issue was extra room inside the rear wheel wells.

Getting the Ford 9" diff homologated for the Sierra was never cheating, of course.

#62 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 20 April 2012 - 23:29

Not to forget that the two German Sierras were finally found to be cheating at Bathurst...

It took about six months to get it through the courts, but I think the main issue was extra room inside the rear wheel wells.

Getting the Ford 9" diff homologated for the Sierra was never cheating, of course.

The Euro cheats helped Holdens a couple of times. Eggenbergers illegal Sierras gave Brock his 9th win. The hordes of illegal M3s gave Harvey and Moffat an unlikely win at the first round of the then World title.

The 9" Harrop made Sierra diffs were homolgated so were never a cheat. The Commodores by that time were all using 9" diffs too, also homolgated. Cheap, far better range of ratios and with all the 'trick' alloy centres and spools readily advailable no heavier than the original. Though they do drag a lot of power!

Looking at the Tiny Tourers [2l] at Mallala they were blatantly Sports Sedans. If you read the rules and then looked at the cars you had 2 different categories!
And they all broke down!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 20 April 2012 - 23:46.


#63 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 20 April 2012 - 23:41

Good fun stories... try this on:

Garry Cooke won a race at Catalina Pk in a Peugeot 203, the suspicious ones talked to scrutineers, scrutineers put a seal around the engine and made a date to be at the Cooke & Saville Motors workshop a day or two later.
Ian Cook (no relation) was helping... he tells me:
"I cut the exhaust with a hacksaw, and slipped the seal wire through the cut, that gave me room to take off the manifolds, so then there was room to take off the head, and so there was room to get the block out of the car. We went into the 203 wrecking racks and got an old standard engine, pulled it apart and then reassembled it with the seal and wire, welding up the gap in the exhaust to finish the job. The scrutineers were amazed it went so well!"

Another was the well-known Bob Jane Camaro 7-litre gearbox, which I was told was out of a Ford. When I wrote up this car recently I got the full story.
They fabricated out of steel plate a new and more robust housing, then had a gearset made up to suit. The housing had a serious sandblast job done on it to make it look like a casting... everyone knew there was something going on, but nobody ever protested.

Bruce McPhee turned up at Bathurst with his XU1 looking for extra fuel capacity... he was in the surplus business, remember? He fitted a 3-gallon fuel filter - completely legal!

Those Eggenberger Sierras in the 86 race were disqualified for having the inner rear wheel wells too close together, giving Brock his ninth win.

Someone else can tell a really good one, about the car he prepared for one driver... I recall him telling me that every time he pulled another cheat out of the car that it went quicker!

Same culprit (the man prior to this mechanic) built Formula Ford engines, offset ground the crankpins to the side to get the same effect as putting the piston pins off to the side... a greater degree of effort at the start of the firing stroke... except once he ground all four, they were just a little bit out of timing sequence with the cam, so he had to make offset dowels (or was it keys?) for the cam drive, and he was back to square one!

Doesn't always work, you see!


The Jane Camaro had a Muncie with a semi fabricated case. The gears were ok, but the alloy cases stretched and flexed and the gears would then blow. The original cases always broke the top left ear off the case causing viabrations and eventual demise of the boxes. In that period it seems all the GM runners had steel plates front and rear of the case to eliminate these problems. Both here and in the US. Everybody cheated to keep the cars running.
That is the reason that most people used a nodular iron case on Super T10s which are only an evolution to the Muncie.

These days you can buy [aftermarket]Muncies that have far stronger alloy cases, and all the tricks learnt over 40 odd years. Supposedly legal for US historic racing and driven properly they stay together with no 'cheats'

The old Muncies, T10s Top loaders, new process boxes are stronger with better ratios than most of what modern cars have. Especially with modern evolution and modern lubricants.

#64 Piquet959

Piquet959
  • Member

  • 74 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 21 April 2012 - 11:36

Stretching the rules only.

What about the Alfa at Bathurst that had a lot of ice round the fuel tank to cool the fuel down, hence denser fuel and more in the tank. The ice melted and ran out of the holes in the boot floor.

Harry Firth who cut three webers in half because the regs stated that the same number of throats had to be used as the road cars. These were fitted to the great PB in his LJ Torana GTR XU1.

Edited by Piquet959, 21 April 2012 - 11:38.


#65 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 April 2012 - 11:49

Stretching the rules only.

What about the Alfa at Bathurst that had a lot of ice round the fuel tank to cool the fuel down, hence denser fuel and more in the tank. The ice melted and ran out of the holes in the boot floor.

Harry Firth who cut three webers in half because the regs stated that the same number of throats had to be used as the road cars. These were fitted to the great PB in his LJ Torana GTR XU1.

A lot of the XU1s in that period not just HDT ones used 3 45mm Webers, complete but with one throat blocked off. Others used 1 3/4 SUs
73? Brocks car had Webers and Bonds had SUs. Tortoise and hare scenario but Colin crashed in the first few laps. From memory Brock won.

#66 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 April 2012 - 12:06

Back in the mid-1970's Sydney speedway sedan driver Rick Hunter tried to race a Ford Capri based on the Perana model sold in South Africa, which featured a 289ci V8 as the
standard engine. However the scrutineers knew that the Capris that were sold in Australia only used the V-6 engine, so the Perana was banned after a couple of meetings.
Shame - it looked fantastic!

Posted Image

From memory the car was originally legal, as a Perana. They must have been later as Neville Eltze from Horsham campaigned one until the 90s.
The ASCF at that time was hot and cold over cars like that. And quick change diffs which some Sydney cars used before they were legal. Reading the magazines of the time was interesting. The sedans in those days were the biggest crowd pullers, more so than modifieds or speedcars and the ASCF bumbled along trying to do the right thing for the sport, but often as not got it wrong.
And at that time the ASCF only represented about 1/2 the competitors in Oz, no Victoria or SA which were strong with sedan racing

#67 Pat Clarke

Pat Clarke
  • Member

  • 1,962 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 21 April 2012 - 13:40

Thanks Lee for reviving this thread :)

Earlier, I posted about a motorcycle prepared for the Castrol Six Hour race which seemed to amuse some people.

I have to admit though, I was trumped by something that happened a few years ago in US Superbikes.

When Buell was Harley Davidson's sportsbike product, it was seen as necessary marketing to field a team in the Superbike series.
The HD based V twin was nowhere near a basis for a competitive engine. The engineers realised they needed to radically increase the bore and shorten the stroke so the engine could rev.

Hogging out the cylinders and resleeving them wasn't a problem, however there wasn't enough material in the crankcases for the cylinders to spigot into. Not only that, but the short stroke crank with the requisite length conrods posed major problems. The rules regarding the cases stated "All modifications are free except the addition of material" so welding up the cases was not an option.

The bikes turned up for their first race with small crankcases that accepted the big cylinders, shrinkwrapped the crank and looked nothing like the standard component.

When this was pointed out at scrutineering, the Buell guys pointed out that all modifications were free etc, and they had simply recast their cases without adding material.

Unbelieveably, this was accepted and the bikes raced, but I suspect this had more to do with Buell being an arm of a 'Murrican' bike maker than anything else.

Only in America ;)

Pat

Edited by Pat Clarke, 21 April 2012 - 13:41.


#68 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 7,897 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 21 April 2012 - 13:50

Thanks Lee for reviving this thread :)

Earlier, I posted about a motorcycle prepared for the Castrol Six Hour race which seemed to amuse some people.

I have to admit though, I was trumped by something that happened a few years ago in US Superbikes.

When Buell was Harley Davidson's sportsbike product, it was seen as necessary marketing to field a team in the Superbike series.
The HD based V twin was nowhere near a basis for a competitive engine. The engineers realised they needed to radically increase the bore and shorten the stroke so the engine could rev.

Hogging out the cylinders and resleeving them wasn't a problem, however there wasn't enough material in the crankcases for the cylinders to spigot into. Not only that, but the short stroke crank with the requisite length conrods posed major problems. The rules regarding the cases stated "All modifications are free except the addition of material" so welding up the cases was not an option.

The bikes turned up for their first race with small crankcases that accepted the big cylinders, shrinkwrapped the crank and looked nothing like the standard component.

When this was pointed out at scrutineering, the Buell guys pointed out that all modifications were free etc, and they had simply recast their cases without adding material.

Unbelieveably, this was accepted and the bikes raced, but I suspect this had more to do with Buell being an arm of a 'Murrican' bike maker than anything else.

Only in America ;)

Pat

Had someone learned his trade from Colin Chapman? :)

#69 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,222 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 21 April 2012 - 14:43

As happened for many years in America's Cup competition - the New York Yacht Club notoriously waived the rules...

DCN

#70 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,704 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 21 April 2012 - 14:59

As happened for many years in America's Cup competition - the New York Yacht Club notoriously waived the rules...

DCN



Talking of which a certain Mr Allan Bond of America's cup Australian entry fame, owned a lovely country estate not 2 miles from where I am sitting now, some 20 years ago shortly before he had to give it back and spend some time out of circulation

#71 Geoff E

Geoff E
  • Member

  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 21 April 2012 - 15:01

As happened for many years in America's Cup competition - the New York Yacht Club notoriously waived the rules...


... and ruled the waves.;)

#72 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,387 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 April 2012 - 23:38

As happened for many years in America's Cup competition - the New York Yacht Club notoriously waived the rules...

DCN

Doug, they did not waive [wave] the rules. They made their own. Though that competition seems to have gone now since that Mr Bond and Mr Lexcen beat them.

#73 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 1,603 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 22 April 2012 - 21:23

Although I mentioned this in another thread, it is probably more appropriate here.

George Reynolds VW was very fast in the early '60s, and the Appendix J rules were quite clear.....metal could be removed from the cylinder heads, but no metal could be added. George was a Dental Technician, and had experience with all sorts of 'plastics'. He filled the single intake ports with 'plastic', and bored nice new 'twin' ports - all within the rules. Clever.

#74 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,222 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 April 2012 - 21:34

For crying out loud you lot - the joke (remember them?) in period was that while Britannia ruled the waves, the NYYC waived the rules... Or is it just me getting old and testy...

NBG

#75 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 1,603 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 22 April 2012 - 21:46

I 'got it', Doug, however it seems to be the thing to do these days, to ignore witty remarks, or even 'rubbish' them.

#76 Repco22

Repco22
  • Member

  • 702 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 23 April 2012 - 02:21

As happened for many years in America's Cup competition - the New York Yacht Club notoriously waived the rules...

DCN

When Bond won the cup and the defence was next staged off Fremantle, a local entrepreneur put out a book containing the many cartoons that had been published on the subject. This one was from when the Americans cottoned on to Bond's 'winged' keel on Australia II ;
Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited by Repco22, 23 April 2012 - 02:23.


#77 Graham Clayton

Graham Clayton
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 02 June 2012 - 03:36

Audi withdrew from the 1992 DTM over the "crankshaft affair" in their V8 engined car:

http://www.audistory...e/old1/edtm.htm

#78 Graham Clayton

Graham Clayton
  • Member

  • 1,044 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:06

Bill Alsup was excluded from the 1979 Indy 500 when officials discovered that his Team Penske PC7 Cosworth had used the engine taken from teammate Bobby Unser's car, which had already qualified.

#79 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 488 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:56

Audi withdrew from the 1992 DTM over the "crankshaft affair" in their V8 engined car:

http://www.audistory...e/old1/edtm.htm


I don't know if something's got lost in translation, but I'm intrigued by the statement that crankshafts are cast at 180 degrees of throw and then 'forced into shape'. Even with the more complex shape of a 90 degree throw, surely it would be easier to cast it as such than physically distort a 180 degree crankshaft?


Advertisement

#80 Pat Clarke

Pat Clarke
  • Member

  • 1,962 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 17 November 2012 - 15:13

I don't know if something's got lost in translation, but I'm intrigued by the statement that crankshafts are cast at 180 degrees of throw and then 'forced into shape'. Even with the more complex shape of a 90 degree throw, surely it would be easier to cast it as such than physically distort a 180 degree crankshaft?


Nothing lost in the translation! I have seen V6 cranks made like this in Korea. They are forged flat and then twisted into their 120 degree (or whatever) throws and then machined.

Pat

#81 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,394 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 November 2012 - 15:38

Interesting...

Cadillac were the first to manufacture 90° cranks for their V8s and it was reputed to be a very expensive exercise. Henry Ford put a lot of development into being able to mass produce them for his 1932 models without the horrendous cost.

I'll bet they weren't being twisted into shape!



#82 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,074 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 18:26

Twisting is a lot cheaper, since you don't "lose" that much material during the machining. Remember, crankshafts aren't cast, they're forged, hence to machine a 90 degree crankshaft you'd need a huge blank! However, I'm not an engineer, nor a machinist so I actually have no idea how the twisting was done. But anyway, the Audi "excuse" is still bollocks, of course. Whether the crankshaft was twisted twice (a likely story, at best) or not, it was no longer a stock crankshaft, hence they cheated. Typically, the "fan" written website bought it all, line hook and sinker!

#83 GMACKIE

GMACKIE
  • Member

  • 1,603 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 22:21

I suppose it's a case of 'twisting' the rules, rather than 'bending' them. :lol:

#84 HeskethBoy

HeskethBoy
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:43

I suppose it's a case of 'twisting' the rules, rather than 'bending' them. :lol:


What are the thoughts on Ferrari's use of the rules to shift Alonso from one side of the road to the other at the USGP in Texas?
Personally, I think it was a clever use of the rules - one which some other team might have used to reset the red car to the LHS.
Perhaps other did think about doing this - perhaps not.

#85 fbarrett

fbarrett
  • Member

  • 981 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:09

I wonder what the lower-qualifying teams thought when their drivers were shifted from the "good" side of the grid to the "bad".

Ferrari evidently waited until the last minute to cut the seal, knowing that Red Bull could do the same with its second car and reverse the whole process, putting Alonso on the bad side!

Was such gross manipulation of the starting grid really sportsmanlike? Back in The Old Daze, no team would have done this.

Frank

Edited by fbarrett, 20 November 2012 - 04:11.


#86 uechtel

uechtel
  • Member

  • 1,501 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:07

If the rules are silly no one has to wonder about silly effects...

#87 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:08

I wonder what the lower-qualifying teams thought when their drivers were shifted from the "good" side of the grid to the "bad".

Ferrari evidently waited until the last minute to cut the seal, knowing that Red Bull could do the same with its second car and reverse the whole process, putting Alonso on the bad side!

Was such gross manipulation of the starting grid really sportsmanlike? Back in The Old Daze, no team would have done this.

Frank


I thought it was clever of Ferrari, the rules allowed it, so nothing wrong at all. Any 'fault' was surely with the organisers for imbalance in the track surface, though in the event it didn't seem to make very much difference anyway. Typical Ferrari though, at the first Indianapolis race they got the entire grid moved, so that their favoured driver on pole didn't have to start with his rear wheels going over that row of old bricks.


#88 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 2,964 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:48

Twisting is a lot cheaper, since you don't "lose" that much material during the machining. Remember, crankshafts aren't cast, they're forged, hence to machine a 90 degree crankshaft you'd need a huge blank! However, I'm not an engineer, nor a machinist so I actually have no idea how the twisting was done. But anyway, the Audi "excuse" is still bollocks, of course. Whether the crankshaft was twisted twice (a likely story, at best) or not, it was no longer a stock crankshaft, hence they cheated. Typically, the "fan" written website bought it all, line hook and sinker!

Actually, Michael, you only need the huge blank if you are machining from solid. Forging, whether it is being done by a blacksmith or a large industrial process, is a method of working a piece of hot metal into the shape you require. It is then machined as and where necessary (in the case of a crankshaft, journals and oilways).
What you certainly don't need to do is twist it later which is what I think is being written about here.
These days it may well be that production two-plane crankshafts for V8s are cast (as they once were!) but in the 1960s many if not all were forged.

#89 Pat Clarke

Pat Clarke
  • Member

  • 1,962 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:05

What you certainly don't need to do is twist it later which is what I think is being written about here.


Allan, the cranks I saw forged and twisted in Korea were done in successive operations. First the red hot billet was whacked in the forge, then whilst still red hot, was twisted into register. It then headed off to maching or whatever else happens. I didnt see the cranks again until they were assembled into the engines. They were 3.3 and 3.8 litre V6s used in Hyundai and Kia models.

Pat

Edited by Pat Clarke, 20 November 2012 - 10:06.


#90 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,539 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:11

If the rules are silly no one has to wonder about silly effects...


I thought the whole idea of rules was to set down all the things you were not allowed to do. Any subsequent changes are only brought in when some smart ass finds a way of navigating through or around the current rules.

I agree with Uechtal the current rules are rife with silliness and need to be thrown out. A completely new set of rules are required and they should be as simple and easy to follow as possible. They should be written in plain English. They should be enforced without prejudice or favour. There should be an Judicial Body that enforces these rules. The Judicial body should comprise of an odd number of people and the number should be less than three.

:blush:





#91 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:20

A completely new set of rules are required and they should be as simple and easy to follow as possible.


All that's needed is something similar to the Army rule my Dad used to tell me about, "Conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline" or words to that effect, it can cover just about anything. Enforced rigorously by someone like Alan Jones, what more would you need?

#92 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 2,964 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:31

Allan, the cranks I saw forged and twisted in Korea were done in successive operations. First the red hot billet was whacked in the forge, then whilst still red hot, was twisted into register. It then headed off to maching or whatever else happens. I didnt see the cranks again until they were assembled into the engines. They were 3.3 and 3.8 litre V6s used in Hyundai and Kia models.

Pat

I came late to this part of this thread and now I look back and see that although it refers to making a single plane crank out of a production two-plane one, rather than the other way about, I can see that I correctly got the idea that it was about changing a finished crankshaft.
What you describe is all part of what I would refer to as the forging process as it is done when the thing is hot before any machining is done. Think blacksmith work and you'll know how some is whacking with the Big Hammer and some is sticking the end of the workpiece in a hole in the anvil and leaning on the other end to bend it and various other methods of hot forming metal.

#93 nicanary

nicanary
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:44

All that's needed is something similar to the Army rule my Dad used to tell me about, "Conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline" or words to that effect, it can cover just about anything. Enforced rigorously by someone like Alan Jones, what more would you need?


Like Sgt-Major Brittan's charge for freewheeling a bike - "Idle whilst cycling".

(Sorry, very OT)


#94 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,890 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 November 2012 - 13:12

All that's needed is something similar to the Army rule my Dad used to tell me about, "Conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline" or words to that effect, it can cover just about anything. Enforced rigorously by someone like Alan Jones, what more would you need?


The more clearly defined the rules, the better. Judgement calls create questionable situations. Though blind allegiance to the regulations also creates situations like only 6 cars starting the 2005 US Grand Prix.

#95 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,037 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 13:31

The more clearly defined the rules, the better. Judgement calls create questionable situations. Though blind allegiance to the regulations also creates situations like only 6 cars starting the 2005 US Grand Prix.


I think that they should let the collective expertise of TNF make any judgements that are necessary, they'd have to fly us out to all the races of course.


#96 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,074 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 19:18

Actually, Michael, you only need the huge blank if you are machining from solid. Forging, whether it is being done by a blacksmith or a large industrial process, is a method of working a piece of hot metal into the shape you require. It is then machined as and where necessary (in the case of a crankshaft, journals and oilways).
What you certainly don't need to do is twist it later which is what I think is being written about here.
These days it may well be that production two-plane crankshafts for V8s are cast (as they once were!) but in the 1960s many if not all were forged.


Well, it's actually semantics. Yes, the twisting (or, to use the original phrase "forcing into form") is part of the forging process (at least as far as I understand it). It's not only the huge blank that would be prohibitive without that process, but think of all the man hours "wasted" in machining a 90 degree crank "in 3D"! In any case, I think it's clear that it's impossible to twist or force a finished crankshaft "back" into a single plain, which is what the Audi fan fool was having us believe.

I'm curious about the possibility of casting crankshafts - call me naive, but I was under the illusion that all crankshafts HAD to be forged for durability. Where early crankshafts really cast? :confused:

#97 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 2,964 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 20 November 2012 - 19:23

I'm curious about the possibility of casting crankshafts - call me naive, but I was under the illusion that all crankshafts HAD to be forged for durability. Where early crankshafts really cast? :confused:

Not the really early ones, but Ford in England (for example) used a cast crankshaft for the 105E engine and many more. Can't be bothered to look up others - on a smaller scale of production the 2½ litre Lea-Francis engine (designed in the 1940s) used a cast crank and I used to have (as a museum piece) a spare bit of one that broke loose!

#98 David Beard

David Beard
  • Member

  • 4,875 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:37

I thought it was clever of Ferrari, the rules allowed it, so nothing wrong at all.


I agree. So did the other teams, apparently.

Edited by David Beard, 20 November 2012 - 22:37.


#99 HeskethBoy

HeskethBoy
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:36

I think that they should let the collective expertise of TNF make any judgements that are necessary, they'd have to fly us out to all the races of course.


I'll vote for that! :clap: :up: :wave:

Advertisement

#100 La Sarthe

La Sarthe
  • Member

  • 97 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 18:53

I think that they should let the collective expertise of TNF make any judgements that are necessary, they'd have to fly us out to all the races of course.


That would be terrible. There'd be a stand full of miserable-looking people, tut-tutting a lot and saying things like "It's not as good as it used to be". Not what Bernie would want. :)