Jump to content


Photo

RS500 rear axles


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 12 June 2012 - 18:39

Useless information department .... even before the RS500 was homologated, it was clear that the existing 7.5in. rear axle (7.5 in was the diameter of the crown wheel) would not withstand thr massive torque of a race-tuned engine. Accordingly (and perfectly legally) Ford homologated an alternative, 9.0in. rear axle, which was very expensive but at least stood a chance of staying in one piece.

Memory (fading fast) tells me that there were at least two different types of 9.0in. axle - one being British, via FF Developments, the other being Australian (courtesy of Dick Johnson, and with roots in a Holden diff, they say ....).

Eggenberger's axles were even more special, the Swiss team sometimes responding to queries with the quip that they were using 'panzer steel' ....

Edited by AAGR, 13 June 2012 - 07:32.


Advertisement

#2 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,576 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 June 2012 - 18:54

Eggenberger's axles were even more special, the Swiss team sometimes responding to queries with the quip that they were using 'panzer steel' ....


They probably were, the literal translation of panzer is "armoured".


#3 PAUL S

PAUL S
  • Member

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 June 2012 - 19:22

A Harrop diff based on the ones used in the Holden Commodore was homologated for the aussie RS500s and some used a US Ford based detroit locker. I have a period aussie magazine in the attic with better details if you need specifics GR .

The 9" ford FF version is still available new as its been remanufactured in the UK.

Edited by PAUL S, 12 June 2012 - 19:24.


#4 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:47

Originally posted by AAGR
.....Eggenberger's axles were even more special.....


After Bathurst, 1996, does anything Eggenberger did count?

#5 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 June 2012 - 23:16

Useless information department .... even before the RS500 was homologated, it was clear that the existing 7.5in. rear axle (7/.5 in was the diameter of the crown wheel) would not withstand thr massive torque of a race-tuned engine. Accordingly (and perfectly legally) Ford homologated an alternative, 9.0in. rear axle, which was very expensive but at least stood a chance of staying in one piece.

Memory (fading fast) tells me that there were at least two different types of 9.0in. axle - one being British, via FF Developments, the other being Australian (courtesy of Dick Johnson, and with roots in a Holden diff, they say ....).

Eggenberger's axles were even more special, the Swiss team sometimes responding to queries with the quip that they were using 'panzer steel' ....

The 'Dicky' diffs were 9" Ford gears in a special made housing to suit the Sierra. Made by Harrop Engineeering.Everything was near unbreakable though some components were lifed to about a 2000km
The Commodores also used 9" diffs but they were still a [adjustable though] live axle.
As far as I know they all used spools, Supercars defenitly do.And they are just an evolution of those VL 9"diffs from 25 years ago.

#6 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:30

After Bathurst, 1996, does anything Eggenberger did count?


'Bathurst 1996' ? What is going on here ? Eggenberger cars won the Bathurst race in 1987, and were then robbed by chauvinistic scrutineers: the same Eggenberger cars, after all, had previously been racing all season without a single complaint. What has 1996 got to do with this ?

#7 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:39

'Bathurst 1996' ? What is going on here ? Eggenberger cars won the Bathurst race in 1987, and were then robbed by chauvinistic scrutineers: the same Eggenberger cars, after all, had previously been racing all season without a single complaint. What has 1996 got to do with this ?

the eggenberger cars were cheating. End of story. That is why they were disqualified.
The same as the M3s were disqualified at Spa?
It seems that most of the european cars ignored the rules, some more than others.

#8 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 801 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 13 June 2012 - 07:53

And Bathurst 87 was the catalyst for the kind of racing we have in Australia now...

#9 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:05

the eggenberger cars were cheating. End of story. That is why they were disqualified.
The same as the M3s were disqualified at Spa?
It seems that most of the european cars ignored the rules, some more than others.


So they were cheating, were they ? Having made minor changes to suit the Australian scrutineers, Eggenberger then carried on winning for the rest of the 1987 season in New Zealand and Japan, then completely dominated the 1988 European season as well. The fact is that at this time they were the best RS500 race cars out there .... and in any case my thread was started merely to ventilate the 9in. axle story.

#10 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:14

And Bathurst 87 was the catalyst for the kind of racing we have in Australia now...

unfortunatly true.

#11 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:17

So they were cheating, were they ? Having made minor changes to suit the Australian scrutineers, Eggenberger then carried on winning for the rest of the 1987 season in New Zealand and Japan, then completely dominated the 1988 European season as well. The fact is that at this time they were the best RS500 race cars out there .... and in any case my thread was started merely to ventilate the 9in. axle story.

Yeah, smaller front tyres, because they had legal guards.
And how many other cheats didnt they find.
There was quite a few informed rumours at the time about a few teams,, and makes. All Euro based or sourced cars.

#12 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:39

My apologies for the wrong year...

The length of time and the trouble taken to prosecute the Bathurst complaint must have been daunting, but it was a serious issue and couldn't be left unresolved.

On the other hand, some Australian competitors were found to be cheating as well. It was good to see some action taken.

#13 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,770 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:53

The thread is about rear axles. It is not about cheating.
There are plenty of other RS500 cheating threads to post in. (actually every RS500 thread turns into a thread about cheating)

#14 Lola5000

Lola5000
  • Member

  • 1,664 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:44

i can remember reading that Moffat ran 9 inch diffs from his group C Falcons?

#15 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:29

They came fitted with them...

The GTs from about the XW onwards were so equipped from the factory.

#16 David Shaw

David Shaw
  • Member

  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:34

IIRC at Bathurst the Klaus 'n' Klaus Sierra was very slowly away from pole, dropping down to about twelfth at the start. This was apparently to ease the strain on the susceptible rear axle as that round had a unique standing start. Then the next week at Calder, the same car had to have the diff replaced during the race.

DJR exploited the rules that allowed a second diff assembly to be homologated to try and find some durability, which they did.

#17 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 801 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 13 June 2012 - 14:23

IIRC at Bathurst the Klaus 'n' Klaus Sierra was very slowly away from pole, dropping down to about twelfth at the start. This was apparently to ease the strain on the susceptible rear axle as that round had a unique standing start. Then the next week at Calder, the same car had to have the diff replaced during the race.

DJR exploited the rules that allowed a second diff assembly to be homologated to try and find some durability, which they did.


Was the 9" Diff in the DJR Sierra`s one of the reasons Dick claimed ( in the 1987 race ) that he had the fastest Sierra`s in the world.. or was it the trick Turbo mod? Or did that come in 88?

#18 RS2000

RS2000
  • Member

  • 2,572 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 13 June 2012 - 19:53

It's worth recalling just how restrictive the original Group A regulations were before certain manufacturers' lobbying changed things, in some cases almost out of recognition (but even then not as bad as in Group N, later changes to which were an insult to anyone's intelligence and warranted a new category).
Unfortunately, what the FIA post today on their site as "historic Appendix J" must be incomplete for the years shown. Only a vague reference to "the alternative gearbox" and no reference to an alternative diff. Just which market was supplied with the "big" Sierra Cosworth diff if it was "alternative production source" or "evolution in production"? (a question that might well be asked about axles that made some previous "works" Fords reliable...). When I was struggling to build a GpA car in 1981, the new for 82 draft regs made no allowance whatsoever for evolution.
I was with the Aussies on the Bathurst exclusions, having encountered the same scrutineer in his home country in another branch of the sport in two consecutive years, well before he became WTCC series scrutineer. Quoting Appendix J fact, even in the original French, to him merely provoked worse hassle. I eventually scored a draw. Then when a friend's car was challenged over interpretation of "l'aspect" regarding the headlining, I waded in as support and I thought he was going to have a heart attack. He had previously been indelibly associated with a fixation against Gp1 cars being built up from a bare shell, co-incidently (or not...) more a British practice than European at the time. Championship regulations are not one man's opinion (as the BHRC could do with learning today).
A similar cosy agreement/understanding with European ETCC teams over interpretation of GpA regs suddenly came up against a different stance elsewhere in the WTCC - which he lost. Laugh? I nearly died Laughing!

#19 Lola5000

Lola5000
  • Member

  • 1,664 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 22:26

They came fitted with them...

The GTs from about the XW onwards were so equipped from the factory.

well aware of that Ray,having had a father whom owned many GT's when new and having raced Mustangs myself.
What I ment was he ran the 9 inch diffs out of his Group C Falcons in the RS500s he raced.

Advertisement

#20 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 June 2012 - 00:00

Surely he wouldn't have had the whole rear axle in there?

Most likely the reference was to the diff centres themselves...

#21 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:25

Surely he wouldn't have had the whole rear axle in there?

Most likely the reference was to the diff centres themselves...

And they were modified diff centres at that. As far as I am aware it was only the 9" ring and pinion used. Though maybe a complete centre. On that I am not sure. Though by then the Commodores were generally using complete alloy centres and light weight [sometimes] alloy spools. Having helped on Tourers in that period I tried to steal [ in jest] a diff centre for my Sports Sedan!!They were a LOT lighter than my cast iron ones.
GpC cars used std Ford centres, generally then with lockers. Though some used spools, as often for diff and axle life if nothing else.
Having used both I hate lockers clunking and banging in the back of the car. and unlocking when the should be locking on trailing throttle.

#22 Hank the Deuce

Hank the Deuce
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 14 June 2012 - 02:14

DJR were looking for a suitable alternative to what Dick Johnson described as the "Morris Minor rear end" originally homologated, and since in the local racing experience, the old Ford 9" centre was as robust as anything ever built, it was the assembly chosen. Harrop did the castings for the local homologation (although the unit used for the homologation photos and process was allegedly a fibreglass mockup) of a suitable unit for the Sierra's IRS.

Curiously, from memory, the 9" diff centre wasn't a production item after about 1973 and the XA, but was homologated for every Falcon race variant until the end of the local Group C touring car category in 1984. Or is it the Top Loader gearbox I'm thinking of?

The Commodores were using a 9" diff centre from 1986 I believe, in the VK's.

The whole brouhaha at Bathurst in 1987 stemmed from the locals having built their cars to a more strict interpretation of the Group A regs than the Europeans did... it seems that it was common knowledge amongst the WTCC entrants that all sorts of cars were illegal, but one lot wouldn't protest the other lot about their respective "interpretations" if the other side left them alone in return.

The differences between the indiginous Sierras and the Eggenberger cars were profound when the cars were side-by-side, and the story of the TAFE-crew rebuild of the Stermitz/Meeviussen M3 contained a story about the chief panelbeater asking the BMW crew chief if he wanted the shell repaired to legal spec, or "how it was before the crash". Apparently, without batting an eye, the guy replied that the way it had been prior to the crash would be fine, thank you.

#23 packapoo

packapoo
  • Member

  • 731 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 14 June 2012 - 04:55

unfortunatly true.


:up:

#24 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:46

DJR were looking for a suitable alternative to what Dick Johnson described as the "Morris Minor rear end" originally homologated, and since in the local racing experience, the old Ford 9" centre was as robust as anything ever built, it was the assembly chosen. Harrop did the castings for the local homologation (although the unit used for the homologation photos and process was allegedly a fibreglass mockup) of a suitable unit for the Sierra's IRS.

Curiously, from memory, the 9" diff centre wasn't a production item after about 1973 and the XA, but was homologated for every Falcon race variant until the end of the local Group C touring car category in 1984. Or is it the Top Loader gearbox I'm thinking of?

The Commodores were using a 9" diff centre from 1986 I believe, in the VK's.

The whole brouhaha at Bathurst in 1987 stemmed from the locals having built their cars to a more strict interpretation of the Group A regs than the Europeans did... it seems that it was common knowledge amongst the WTCC entrants that all sorts of cars were illegal, but one lot wouldn't protest the other lot about their respective "interpretations" if the other side left them alone in return.

The differences between the indiginous Sierras and the Eggenberger cars were profound when the cars were side-by-side, and the story of the TAFE-crew rebuild of the Stermitz/Meeviussen M3 contained a story about the chief panelbeater asking the BMW crew chief if he wanted the shell repaired to legal spec, or "how it was before the crash". Apparently, without batting an eye, the guy replied that the way it had been prior to the crash would be fine, thank you.

The Ford truck diff[9"] was standard on 351 Falcons until XC in 79. XD was the first to use the B/W item with a 351.
AFAIK the VK GpAs used the Holden Salisbury, not the 9". I think the rules were freed up a little in 86 or 87. VLs defenitly used 9".
What youy say about the europeans though is correct, but Eggenberger really was cheating, not just fudging the rules. As were the M3s early on.
The cheating started in V8 Thupercars big time. Light weight body shells from Ford. Holden only used light weight hangons!! And really only after Ford were found to be cheating

#25 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:08

There's a lot of bad feeling floating around this thread, which I assure you was not started by me :

i) If Eggenberger was 'cheating', how is it that the cars had gone right through the season, up to October 1987, without eligibility problems ? And, yes, the self-same cars were always used ....

Oh, and by the way, it can't have been a big 'cheat' if the cars were then mildly modified, and passed as race-legal for the very next race, also in Australia, just a few days later.

Fact is that there is a difference between 'cheating' and 'interpretation' - as many people found out when they tried to have a discussion with Tom Walkinshaw.

ii) On the question of Ford-Europe 9in. axles - there is no doubt that these were available in very significant numbers, but sold only slowly because they were also sold at very significantly high prices. I recall browsing in Motorsport Parts' warehouse at the time, and being mildly surprised to see just how much was in stock.



#26 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 9,699 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:25

Surely this is simply a case of "He's faster than me - he must be cheating!" :mad:
And what's left unsaid is "I wonder how? - Can I do the same?" :confused:
Then "If I can't, can I protest him without him protesting me back?" ;)

Ah! The problems of regulating "Production" cars :drunk: :stoned:

Edited by D-Type, 14 June 2012 - 11:55.


#27 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:43

The above summation by Hank the Deuce basically sums it up.
The Euoropeans all effectivly agreed to cheat. Here in Oz the cars were raced as the rule book said.
I believe a lot of the conjecture about the illegalities of the eggenberger cars came from the Euro teams anyway. But it was fairly obvious to a remotely discerning eye.But the Eoro teams could not open their mouths too much or their fudges will be found out too. Lets face it, most cars were hassled, some unfairly but most fairly.
As for running the next week they did, with about a foolscap page of faults to be fixed. And a lot already had to be.
Not being there I am going by the media reports,, and competitors, officials and personel who were there. the WTCC lasted all of one year, and was rife with cheating.

#28 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:56

The above summation by Hank the Deuce basically sums it up.
The Euoropeans all effectivly agreed to cheat. Here in Oz the cars were raced as the rule book said.
I believe a lot of the conjecture about the illegalities of the eggenberger cars came from the Euro teams anyway. But it was fairly obvious to a remotely discerning eye.But the Eoro teams could not open their mouths too much or their fudges will be found out too. Lets face it, most cars were hassled, some unfairly but most fairly.
As for running the next week they did, with about a foolscap page of faults to be fixed. And a lot already had to be.
Not being there I am going by the media reports,, and competitors, officials and personel who were there. the WTCC lasted all of one year, and was rife with cheating.


Facts, please, facts, Lee ....

'I am going by the media reports ....' - which sounds like hearsay to me.

Apart from the disputed query regarding rear wheel arch modifications, and clearances, what precisely, were the Eggenberger cars accused of ? In my contention, smears (as opposed to facts) in these threads, are really not justified.



#29 GeoffR

GeoffR
  • Member

  • 694 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:32

Seeing as this thread has got away from RS500 rear axles to RS500 illegalities ....

http://www.carsales....urst-1987-19395

From the horses mouth??

#30 racer69

racer69
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:49

Eggenberger cars won the Bathurst race in 1987, and were then robbed by chauvinistic scrutineers: the same Eggenberger cars, after all, had previously been racing all season without a single complaint.


FISA themselves ultimatly disqualified the Eggenberger cars, and the head scruiteneer at Bathurst in 1987 was FISA-appointed Belgian Marcel Servais.

The same Eggenberger cars hadn't been racing all year either, the RS500 version only debuted Brno for Round 6 of the WTCC (Bathurst was Round 8)

Weren't the Eggenberger Sierra RS Cosworth's booted from the Monza season opener before practice as their cars didn't meet the regulations too (something to do with the engine management system?)

i) If Eggenberger was 'cheating', how is it that the cars had gone right through the season, up to October 1987, without eligibility problems ? And, yes, the self-same cars were always used ....

Oh, and by the way, it can't have been a big 'cheat' if the cars were then mildly modified, and passed as race-legal for the very next race, also in Australia, just a few days later.


The cars were not modified for the next race at Calder.

The Eggenberger cars were only protested on at Bathurst (a few teams initially were part of the protest, but ultimatly it was Frank Gardner's JPS BMW team that followed the protest through). There were no protests filed at Calder or Wellington i can only assume because they were waiting on the Bathurst hearing?

The hearing for the protest was not held until many weeks later, and the decision was not handed down until the Friday of the final WTCC round at Mt Fuji, Japan. After the decision diaqualified them from Bathurst, the Eggenberger Sierra's were suitably modified to fit the regulations, and raced that weekend in 'legal' spec.

#31 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 801 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:50

It was Frank Gardner that made the initial protest against the Eggenberger cars wasnt it?

I think that says a lot.

#32 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 14 June 2012 - 13:22

You state :

The same Eggenberger cars hadn't been racing all year either, the RS500 version only debuted Brno for Round 6 of the WTCC (Bathurst was Round 8)

Weren't the Eggenberger Sierra RS Cosworth's booted from the Monza season opener before practice as their cars didn't meet the regulations too (something to do with the engine management system?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i) The same Eggenberger cars (the same chassis, that is) were certainly used all season - correct. The self-same chassis were converted from RS Cosworth to RS500 Cosworth immedately before homologation was secured. This was done to several other Sierras cars throughout the world at the same time.

ii) Ford Sierras AND BMWs were all disqualified by Italian scrutineers before the Monza race. Guess what - this handed victory to an Italian team of Alfa Romeos !



#33 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 June 2012 - 14:28

It was interesting at the post-race press conference in 1987...

Peter Brock was subjected to a lot of questioning about the legality of the Sierras, in particular the use of unapproved fuel. I gather some regular super-grade fuel had got into one of the cars and the test sample showed it up.

Brock was succinct. He explained that they would have had no advantage from the incident. I doubt that any of what he said was put into print.

#34 Hank the Deuce

Hank the Deuce
  • Member

  • 286 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:18

Facts, please, facts, Lee ....

'I am going by the media reports ....' - which sounds like hearsay to me.

Apart from the disputed query regarding rear wheel arch modifications, and clearances, what precisely, were the Eggenberger cars accused of ? In my contention, smears (as opposed to facts) in these threads, are really not justified.

the Bathurst scrutineers were paying close attention to fuel during the race, and it seemed that the issue that they had late in the race with the Eggenberger cars, were that the fuel spilling out into the overflow catch bottle was markedly dissimilar to the fuel being churned into the cars. This was reported live via the pit reporter who sensationalised it at the time, but I don't believe that the fuel was ultimately mentioned when the disqualification took place.

As far as facts went:

- the Eggenberger guard and bumper clearances were dramatically different to any of the other Sierra entrants at Bathurst 1987.
- the absolute truth of who was correct was difficult to ascertain during what was likely to have been the busiest Race Week at Bathurst in history, especially as road-going RS500's and M3's weren't exactly overflowing out of the Mt Panorama carpark. And with much of the technical information not on hand, it was also difficult to get the whole picture off a fax of a photocopy of a gestetner copy of a blueprint. Most of us here would shudder to think of the resolution of the information streaming onto thermal paper in the Race Control centre.
- there was ill-feeling resulting from local competitors failing to distinguish Tim Schenken's role of Clerk of Course at this FIA-governed race meeting, as seperate from his usual CAMS role.
- there was ill-feeling resulting from local car builders being so remote from the European hub of Group A; the Australian scrutineers had applied their most literal interpretations of the regulations, whereas in Europe, there was more liberty taken (which the link supplied up the page, ref Klaus Niedzwiedz touched upon), and so the locals not only had their jaws dropping at the sheer amount of manpower and money that the Euro teams were throwing at the venture (and not surprisingly, given that this was the WTCC after all), but were getting their doors sucked off on-track as well.

The aftermath was one of nothing but ill-feeling. The Australian punters felt robbed, many of the Australian teams were embarrassed at their poor showing on home turf. The ongoing litigation sullied the race result for months, the ultimate result cost Ford a prestigious title, and earned Frank Gardner - formerly one of their shining stars in days gone by - their eternal enmity. It sowed the seeds for Dick Johnson's questionably-successful raid on the Silverstone TT the following year, and arguably did nothing for the European perception of Australia at all.

Regardless of how you might feel about hearsay and "unjustified smears", it's well-documented that Bathurst scrutineering was a bunfight from one end to the other, and that Eggenberger were excluded from the Bathurst results for irregularities surrounding specific dimensions on their RS500's.

Given that we are in the midst of a rather robust debate regarding one race meeting from 25 years in the past, one can imagine the depth of feeling that surrounded these events at the time.

Edited by Hank the Deuce, 15 June 2012 - 01:19.


#35 racer69

racer69
  • Member

  • 225 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:27

You state :

The same Eggenberger cars hadn't been racing all year either, the RS500 version only debuted Brno for Round 6 of the WTCC (Bathurst was Round 8)

Weren't the Eggenberger Sierra RS Cosworth's booted from the Monza season opener before practice as their cars didn't meet the regulations too (something to do with the engine management system?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i) The same Eggenberger cars (the same chassis, that is) were certainly used all season - correct. The self-same chassis were converted from RS Cosworth to RS500 Cosworth immedately before homologation was secured. This was done to several other Sierras cars throughout the world at the same time.

ii) Ford Sierras AND BMWs were all disqualified by Italian scrutineers before the Monza race. Guess what - this handed victory to an Italian team of Alfa Romeos !


The point was that, no matter what the chassis was, the specifications of the car were different from Brno onwards.

Just because the car wasn't protested on before Bathurst doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with it. The car was protested at Bathurst and FISA themselves handed down their decision on the protest on Friday 13th November, 1987 (while the first free practice session in Mt Fuji was taking place) which disqualified them from Bathurst.

The cars had stayed in 'Bathurst trim' ever since Bathurst, and were immediatly black flagged by the race officials. The front guards were required to be returned to their original contours and standard wheel arch extensions fitted. The cars returned to the track in legal specification the next morning.

The cars were not robbed because of 'chauvinistic scrutineers' as you stated earlier, they were found guilty by the sports governing body of breaking the rules, and duly punished.


#36 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:15

Facts, please, facts, Lee ....

'I am going by the media reports ....' - which sounds like hearsay to me.

Apart from the disputed query regarding rear wheel arch modifications, and clearances, what precisely, were the Eggenberger cars accused of ? In my contention, smears (as opposed to facts) in these threads, are really not justified.

Read what I wrote. A lot of my info came from people there, on teams and officials.Verified by media reports.
Eggenberger in particular where cheats. No ifs buts or maybes. And not it seems just in Australia.

#37 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:30

Speaking to a bloke who was very involved with GpA in that period he says that the freedoms in diffs that were approved in part was to keep the Sierras on the track. Yes it helped others too but no other model competing at that time had such fragile components.

And the fuel was effectivly formulated for turbo engines. There has been a few articles over the years about that.

GpA really was a disaster anywhere but Europe. The trackside attendance proved that, better than 2 litre but not by much in this country.Who wanted to go watch a few Euro prams race? Not in Australia, Not it seems in Japan, Nobody in the US.
In some respects the Commodores as total underdogs made the series, and it seemed won when the cheats were excluded!
Initially the Jags were the heros? and they were a bit suss too. As were there seat mounts. Gossy and Co won Bathurst with the seat held in with zip ties. The car should have been parked at that time on commonsense safety grounds.

#38 PAUL S

PAUL S
  • Member

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 June 2012 - 10:40

Wow this threads really gone off topic, and there seems to be a heck of a lot of bad feeling over incidents that happened nearly 25 years ago now.

I guess most of you fellas dont actually realise who AAGR is, believe me he has written a thing or two about fast fords, as well as many other marques.

The arch mod that was carried out was probably the one that is still done today, the mounting point of the front part of the front outer wing is untacked from the inner wing and a spacer fitted and then rewelded, which allows greater front wheel clearance and therefore a bigger wheel/ tyre combo.

They were all at it back then, just as they are now, bending of the rules to gain an advantage. I doubt the aussies are any whiter than white than anyone else in this regard.

BMW were actually given a complete new road going RS500 by Ford, and vice versa I believe in order to allow checks to be made against the race versions throughout the seasons. That road car still exists today.

Interstingly in 1989 Ford made a batch of new road and race RS500 bodyshells, which had a number of advantageous tweeks included into the construction in comparison to the 1986 versions, including thinner gauge steel, but by the time they arrived the Sierras days were numbered and very few actually were built up into race cars.

I guess it will always be the case down under if theres not a v8 under the hood then its not a proper race car :)

Edited by PAUL S, 16 June 2012 - 10:44.


#39 stuartbrs

stuartbrs
  • Member

  • 801 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 16 June 2012 - 13:31

Wow this threads really gone off topic, and there seems to be a heck of a lot of bad feeling over incidents that happened nearly 25 years ago now.

I guess most of you fellas dont actually realise who AAGR is, believe me he has written a thing or two about fast fords, as well as many other marques.

The arch mod that was carried out was probably the one that is still done today, the mounting point of the front part of the front outer wing is untacked from the inner wing and a spacer fitted and then rewelded, which allows greater front wheel clearance and therefore a bigger wheel/ tyre combo.

They were all at it back then, just as they are now, bending of the rules to gain an advantage. I doubt the aussies are any whiter than white than anyone else in this regard.

BMW were actually given a complete new road going RS500 by Ford, and vice versa I believe in order to allow checks to be made against the race versions throughout the seasons. That road car still exists today.

Interstingly in 1989 Ford made a batch of new road and race RS500 bodyshells, which had a number of advantageous tweeks included into the construction in comparison to the 1986 versions, including thinner gauge steel, but by the time they arrived the Sierras days were numbered and very few actually were built up into race cars.

I guess it will always be the case down under if theres not a v8 under the hood then its not a proper race car :)



Sorry, maybe I`m thick skinned, but I see nothing but a heathy discussion based on a topic... Bathurst 87 is very much tied to the RS500. These threads should be allowed to meander back and forth over the subject line, like this one.

Advertisement

#40 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,770 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 17 June 2012 - 03:29

The thread is specifically RS500 rear axles. It is not about cheating at Bathurst. Like I said earlier every thread about the Sierra ends up turning into a cheating at Bathurst thread. It is usually hijacked by the same people some of which don't even know which end of the car was illegal but they will still chime in regardless.

#41 AAGR

AAGR
  • Member

  • 397 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 17 June 2012 - 08:52

The thread is specifically RS500 rear axles. It is not about cheating at Bathurst. Like I said earlier every thread about the Sierra ends up turning into a cheating at Bathurst thread. It is usually hijacked by the same people some of which don't even know which end of the car was illegal but they will still chime in regardless.


I agree with that. Incidentally, only yesterday a one-time top man from Ford-UK Motorsport confirmed to me that the 9in. axle was a totally fresh design, and had no links with any existing truck or Ford-USA layout. It had an aluminium casing. He also confirmed that the RS200 rear axle, which had preceded it, was an 8.5in. design, with a magnesium casing, and was totally different from the RS500 unit which followed it three years later.

[Incidentally, I always thought that the 'illegality' controversary surrounded the clearances at/around the rear tyres, not at the front. Make of that what you will ....]


#42 PAUL S

PAUL S
  • Member

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 June 2012 - 13:30

Back on track, here are some of the variations of the 9" diffs used during the period, euro first which were all the FF version then some aussie alternatives.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

and this is the standard 2wd 7.5" set up used on the road cars

Posted Image



#43 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 17 June 2012 - 22:21

We really need front-on shots of the US-based 9" version...

The rear cover doesn't tell us much.

#44 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 June 2012 - 22:44

We really need front-on shots of the US-based 9" version...

The rear cover doesn't tell us much.

None of those appear to use any 9" US stuff. 9" uses a pinion support that bolts into the main bolt in centre. Quite a short in relation to diameter pinion shaft.
As an aside I used the same tailshaft with 3 entirely different diffs, Banjo Holden, Aussie 10 bolt Salisbury and Ford 9" with a short Barge Fairlane type flange. And the US 10 bolt also uses the same length tailshaft. The US diffs Ford and GM use a 2032 uni which has odd cups to the GM Aust 4 even size cups 2030.This was very handy when changing diff styles over the years, and occasionally back and forth for appropriate ratios.
The 9" Ford diff has a very low pinion, this causes a lot of mechanical drag. While quite strong they never were what they were cracked up to be in standard form. Any big dollar racecar never uses any Ford Component, just the design beefed up in all the weak areas. And lightened in every way as they were a very heavy diff. Though surprisingly the original Ford ratios [tooth counts] are very often used. This was one of the reason they are so popular as factory they had diff ratios to cover most application between cars and commercials. 2.75 3.00. 3.25. 3.5 3.55 3.7 3.89 3.9 4.11 4.3 and possibly a couple of others over about 25 years in car and commercials.
They are an item not fitted in any production vehicle since about 1980

#45 David Shaw

David Shaw
  • Member

  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 18 June 2012 - 04:34

ii) Ford Sierras AND BMWs were all disqualified by Italian scrutineers before the Monza race. Guess what - this handed victory to an Italian team of Alfa Romeos !


Umm, no. The Sierras were disqualified prior, and the BMWs after, the Monza Race. Guess what - this handed victory to an Australian team in a Holden Commodore!

http://www.touringca...1987 Monza.html


#46 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,592 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 18 June 2012 - 06:04

To be fair, thanks to the hefty $60,000 championship registration fee, the Holden (along with most of the other starters) was not registered for the WTCC. Thus after the mass BMW disqualification, the championship leaders after Monza were Alfa Romeo and Maserati. The Maserati Biturbo had 'won' the big car class despite being 16 laps down at the finish.

#47 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 80,066 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 18 June 2012 - 09:11

Originally posted by Lee Nicolle
.....one of the reason they are so popular as factory they had diff ratios to cover most application between cars and commercials. 2.75 3.00. 3.25. 3.5 3.55 3.7 3.89 3.9 4.11 4.3 and possibly a couple of others over about 25 years in car and commercials.....


Yes, stacks of ratios... and one interesting story from that...

Pete Geoghegan was at Oran Park in 1972 trying his different options in the GBs Super Falcon and Mick Lambert was sweating away changing the diffs. They made one change and found a full second a lap.

The odd thing was that it was a miniscule change, like a 3.55 to 3.5 or something (I suspect it was actually lower than that), but it gave the car the grunt in just the right places to eat up the lap times, that was the meeting where he did his 46.4 from memory.

It's not unusual for the wide range of ratios to exist. From memory, the 8¾" Chrysler centre has the following:

2.76 2.93 2.94 3.01 3.15 3.18 3.23 3.31 3.55 3.73 3.91 4.10 4.30 4.56 4.86 5.3

#48 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 24,592 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 18 June 2012 - 09:28

Here's how Motoring News summed up the Bathurst hoo-ha in their review of the 1987 WTCC:

It was the trip to Bathurst which perhaps summed up the whole year. Everybody had looked forward to it so much - Europe meeting Australia. In reality, the combination of foul weather and foul politics hastened a speedy departure from Mount Panorama. Much has been said, berating the Australian teams at Bathurst in their actions towards the visiting teams. If ever the series needed a strong finish to its year, to state an even stronger case with FISA for the following season, then the races in late '87 were it. The protests on eligibility carried out in Australia gave FISA all the evidence it ever needed to conclude that a WTC simply could not succeed.

In truth though, FISA had stage managed the whole operation. Through regular Technical Scrutineer Marcel Servais, FISA had given the nod to the unofficial alliance of teams which, although never acknowledged, was known to exist. It set its own rules and parameters on car eligibility, quietly berating those who overstepped the mark. If any one manufacturer refused to play ball, it felt the might of the cartel's anger - just ask Volvo.

Unfortunately, FISA's levy of registration fees had excluded any chance the Aussie teams had of regular competition in the European WTC races. When the regular runners, in their cartel-accepted trims, went Down Under therefore, they met teams and scrutineers who played a straighter game. Either you played to the Aussie rules or you came out second best.

That's not to say our Antipodean cousins were perfectly legal - far from it. However, the actions of the aforementioned Monsieur Servais gave the Aussies all the evidence they ever needed to prove a crooked case. When Nissan, JPS, Les Small and Larry Perkins lodged their Bathurst protest on the wheelarches of the Eggenberger Fords, the scrutineers took plaster casts of the offending areas - for posterity you understand. These were later presented to Servais, who somehow managed to misplace both items. Perfectly understandable, just the sort of thing you or I could easily just put down and leave behind.

When both casts had been recovered from the dustbin (!) where they had been "misplaced", they were used in evidence which eventually saw the two Fords kicked unceremoniously out of the top two slots. The cartel had failed to operate because it wasn't on its normal ground and, by throwing the two opposing parties together, a mudslinging match had almost been guaranteed. Having supplied the gun, the Parisian politicians sat back and watched the WTC shoot itself. By the end, though not by luck or judgement alone, Ford took away the Manufacturers' title with BMW holding the Drivers' crown. After their respective efforts, it was fitting the honours were shared.



#49 PAUL S

PAUL S
  • Member

  • 239 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 18 June 2012 - 14:41

I dont have any front shots on file sorry, those are the best I have found. I believe the euro spec 9" FF unit tended to use a 4.1 and 4.3 ratio couple to a getrag 5 speed box, as opposed to the road cars 3.6 ratio 7.5" diff and Borg Warner T5 world spec box.

Once I find ther aussie mag I will scan the article that talks about the boxes and axles used

#50 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 19 June 2012 - 05:55

Yes, stacks of ratios... and one interesting story from that...

Pete Geoghegan was at Oran Park in 1972 trying his different options in the GBs Super Falcon and Mick Lambert was sweating away changing the diffs. They made one change and found a full second a lap.

The odd thing was that it was a miniscule change, like a 3.55 to 3.5 or something (I suspect it was actually lower than that), but it gave the car the grunt in just the right places to eat up the lap times, that was the meeting where he did his 46.4 from memory.

It's not unusual for the wide range of ratios to exist. From memory, the 8¾" Chrysler centre has the following:

2.76 2.93 2.94 3.01 3.15 3.18 3.23 3.31 3.55 3.73 3.91 4.10 4.30 4.56 4.86 5.3

Often all those very similar gear numbers are updates for extra gear strength or manufacturing costs. That is with all manufacturers.
The 9" has umpteen different aftermarket gear ratios from about 2.6 up to low 6s these days.
Speedway gear sets on the other hand can be very close in numbers with quick change diffs. Then it depends on what diff ratio the ring and pin is too. A bloke I know thought he pulled tall gears in the 70s, turns out he was using the wrong chart and insead of 5.9 he was about 6.3. Which then was about the norm. And still is just tyres have grown in diameter immensly!