Jump to content


Photo

Tec Mec - when all else fails, try TNF


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 17 August 2012 - 08:19

It only raced once in its heyday (heyday? - hardly) but I have decided that I want to make a Tec Mec for my 1959 U.S. Grand Prix.

Having tried various people who possess great knowledge, I am still clueless about any of the dimensions of this odd car. So I resort to the fount of all knowledge - TNF. All I need really is a wheelbase measurement. I have a very nice side-on view of it and have tried scaling it up from the presumed wheel size but I get what seems like a ludicrously short measurement - 82 inches, which seems silly given that a Cooper from that era was around 90.

Anyone have anything to offer, please?

Advertisement

#2 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 17 August 2012 - 08:36

Maybe you should contact Hall & Hall since they sold it. They might be able to help.
Visit their website

I found the wheelbase. According to histomobile.com it's 88.5" or 2.25m.

Edited by Duc-Man, 17 August 2012 - 08:47.


#3 tbolt

tbolt
  • Member

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 17 August 2012 - 08:49

You can find images and dimensions here http://www.maserati-...k/alfieri85.htm

#4 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,126 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 17 August 2012 - 09:00

You can find images and dimensions here http://www.maserati-...k/alfieri85.htm


According to this, the wheelbase is 91".


#5 hamsterace

hamsterace
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 August 2012 - 09:11

Maybe you should contact Hall & Hall since they sold it. They might be able to help.
Visit their website

I found the wheelbase. According to histomobile.com it's 88.5" or 2.25m.


I believe it has recently been sold to Barry Wood in Scotland, and is prepared by IN Racing of Nottingham, England.

They can be contacted via the website here:

https://www.inracing.co.uk/



#6 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 17 August 2012 - 09:18

I KNEW TNF wouldn't let me down. This is all excellent and I thank you all very much.

I wonder if the car will be at Goodwood. I might just take a tape measure.

#7 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 17 August 2012 - 10:59

Looking at a front on view on the Maserari-Alfieri website, I'm wondering if the cockpit was slightly offset. The badge on the nose doesn't seem to line up with the headrest or the steering wheel.

#8 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,126 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 17 August 2012 - 11:06

Looking at a front on view on the Maserari-Alfieri website, I'm wondering if the cockpit was slightly offset. The badge on the nose doesn't seem to line up with the headrest or the steering wheel.


In the first pic showing the chassis plate, it's clear that the transmission is offset, which must mean that the whole cockpit is. You can see this offset on one or two of the other pics as well.


#9 john ruston

john ruston
  • Member

  • 949 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 17 August 2012 - 11:25

As the owner for the past ten years posts on here he will know all the answers.

He has now sold it and transferred his dosh to some superb BRM's..A very good move!

#10 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 17 August 2012 - 11:48

Probably true but then I wonder how many guys who own old racing cars actually bother to find out how long it is or how wide etc etc etc.

Just a thought.

#11 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:18

Probably true but then I wonder how many guys who own old racing cars actually bother to find out how long it is or how wide etc etc etc.

Just a thought.


If a car is raced, the dimensions should be in the car's papers. Finding out isn't very hard for a car owner then.

#12 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 4,565 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:28

Bary, I am sure that if you e mail Ian Nuttall on the contact link below he will be pleased to help you with dimensions and photos etc.
https://www.inracing....asp?pageidx=15
Roger Lund

Edited by bradbury west, 17 August 2012 - 12:28.


#13 Macca

Macca
  • Member

  • 3,309 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 17 August 2012 - 13:06

Just to throw another Spaniard in the works, DSJ's little Racing Car Pocketbook gives the Cooper as 7'7", the 250F as 7'6" and the Tec-Mec as 7'5".

(no scaling off photos involved!)

Paul M

#14 driverider

driverider
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:43

It only raced once in its heyday (heyday? - hardly) but I have decided that I want to make a Tec Mec for my 1959 U.S. Grand Prix.

Having tried various people who possess great knowledge, I am still clueless about any of the dimensions of this odd car. So I resort to the fount of all knowledge - TNF. All I need really is a wheelbase measurement. I have a very nice side-on view of it and have tried scaling it up from the presumed wheel size but I get what seems like a ludicrously short measurement - 82 inches, which seems silly given that a Cooper from that era was around 90.

Anyone have anything to offer, please?


The answer is 2209mm
The drive is not offset

A fantastic car from the drawing board of world champions!
all the best, Barrie

#15 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:51

All Tec Mec problems are resolved. Thanks to a certain TNF member I was put in touch with the very gentleman whose organisation is looking after the car for its current owner.

I have been given all the measurements I will need to make my car.

Oh yes, and by the way, the wheelbase in its present form is...... 2230 mm!

#16 driverider

driverider
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 22 August 2012 - 13:50



Glad you have all you need and sorry the precise info didn't help - I spent a bit of time with Mr Colottii and have copies of all of the original drawings, calcs and pictures direct from his drawing board

Good Luck with your venture

BJB

#17 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 August 2012 - 13:55

It's certainly not that it didn't help - it's just that certain dimensions of this car have obviously changed through the decades. I think I now how FIVE different wheelbase options but I will go with what the car has now.

It is, of course, possible that when the car was first built, the wheelbase was not quite as per Signor Colotti's original drawings. I guess that was not uncommon back in those days.

#18 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,126 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 22 August 2012 - 14:12

It is, of course, possible that when the car was first built, the wheelbase was not quite as per Signor Colotti's original drawings. I guess that was not uncommon back in those days.


Did you measure the wheelbase on both sides to take an average? I've seen significant differences on supposedly symmetrical mass production cars in years gone by.


#19 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 August 2012 - 14:21

I didn't measure anything - it was measured by the boss of the team that looks after the car.

Anyway - I'm only building a 32nd scale slot car and I'm not a commercial operation so between you and me, who cares about a millimeter or two either way?

Advertisement

#20 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,126 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 22 August 2012 - 14:35

Anyway - I'm only building a 32nd scale slot car and I'm not a commercial operation so between you and me, who cares about a millimeter or two either way?


I'd imagine that you're a lot more easy-going, but in my distantly remembered slot racing days, club scrutineers were much feared characters, they could make or ruin your day. Partly our own fault of course, as we all worked to the absolute limit of allowed tolerances for every dimension like wheelbase, track, guide lead & depth, wheel dimensions and ground clearance. If you're only going to be competing against yourself of course, there isn't much point in stretching things in this way.


#21 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 August 2012 - 14:43

Although I doubt I shall ever take my Tec Mec to the Earlybirds event in Wolverhampton, if I did, Dave Jones and Mac Pinches would have problems determining whether or not my wheelbase was accurate because so far I think we've had five options.

#22 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,017 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 22 August 2012 - 15:34

Did you measure the wheelbase on both sides to take an average? I've seen significant differences on supposedly symmetrical mass production cars in years gone by.


I believe the Renault R4 and R5 were designed to have asymmetric wheelbases to fit the torsion bars[?] swing arms[?] or some element of the rear suspension.

And I was told the Triumph TR4 had a rear track that was asymmetric because of a cock up between drawing office and chassis fabrication.

#23 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,126 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 22 August 2012 - 17:03

I believe the Renault R4 and R5 were designed to have asymmetric wheelbases to fit the torsion bars[?] swing arms[?] or some element of the rear suspension.

And I was told the Triumph TR4 had a rear track that was asymmetric because of a cock up between drawing office and chassis fabrication.


We had a discussion on production car asymmetry quite recently on another thread, and this came up then. Back in the 70s and 80s, most cars seemed to have differences from one side to another, though fairly minor in most cases, Ford Capris were particularly bad with a significant wheelbase difference between port and starboard. At SM we did quite a few rear spoilers, lightweight bonnets and front ends, and discovered that we seemed to work to tighter tolerances than Ford or BL, at least as far as bodywork was concerned. Some years later I had an involvement with a company that produced fitted rooftop luggage containers, we worked on lots of different cars from many manufacturers, and often found small inaccuracies that shouldn't have been there, the worst by far was a TVR closely followed by a Scimitar GTE, though that will surprise no-one here. I imagine that things are better today with CAD etc.


#24 Duc-Man

Duc-Man
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 22 August 2012 - 17:22

Sorry for getting OT here, but: who would put a rooftop container on a TVR????? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

#25 DogEarred

DogEarred
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:54

We had a discussion on production car asymmetry quite recently on another thread, and this came up then. Back in the 70s and 80s, most cars seemed to have differences from one side to another, though fairly minor in most cases, Ford Capris were particularly bad with a significant wheelbase difference between port and starboard. At SM we did quite a few rear spoilers, lightweight bonnets and front ends, and discovered that we seemed to work to tighter tolerances than Ford or BL, at least as far as bodywork was concerned. Some years later I had an involvement with a company that produced fitted rooftop luggage containers, we worked on lots of different cars from many manufacturers, and often found small inaccuracies that shouldn't have been there, the worst by far was a TVR closely followed by a Scimitar GTE, though that will surprise no-one here. I imagine that things are better today with CAD etc.


Yes, things go better with CAD. For example, a Formula 1 built plan makes very little allowance for mis-fits & the first car of the season goes together in couple of days or so. But a great deal of effort is put into the design & mock-up stage to ensure that. It is also handled by very skilled people with high motivation, which makes a huge difference. There is little room for error, so even a small mis-fit can create expensive, instant re-design. Different from a more commercial vehicle, which is designed by many diverse companies with different working methods/skill levels/ motivation/profit margin requirements. What seems perfectly workable on CAD can still become a dog's breakfast in reality. I only hope Airbus & Boeing have the right people....

#26 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:19

I think it's worth pointing out that the range of wheelbase variations quoted for the Tec Mec show a difference from smallest to largest of 21 mm. Remembering that I am dealing in 32nd scale, this represents a difference of two thirds of a millimeter.

Er.... I really don't think I'm going to worry about that.

#27 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,016 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 23 August 2012 - 07:31

Remembering that I am dealing in 32nd scale

Nah, Barry the only worthwhile scale is 12" to the foot :cool:


#28 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 23 August 2012 - 11:35

When we first put together the Donington Collection, Jenks and I somewhat nerdily checked the wheelbase of every car for cataloguing. Very, very few had identical wheelbase on both sides...

DCN

#29 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,621 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 August 2012 - 17:44

When we first put together the Donington Collection, Jenks and I somewhat nerdily checked the wheelbase of every car for cataloguing. Very, very few had identical wheelbase on both sides...

DCN


Just wondering how much work that would have involved ?

Did you take all four wheels off every car ?

Did you take into account the differensces in front and rear track ?

Or did you just run a tape measure between the approximate centres of the wheel hubs ?



#30 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 23 August 2012 - 17:48

I learned today that the Tec Mec arrived at IN Racing with 2231 on one side and 2245 on the other. It has been modified and is now the same on both sides - 2231.

#31 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 5,995 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 August 2012 - 18:17

I learned today that the Tec Mec arrived at IN Racing with 2231 on one side and 2245 on the other. It has been modified and is now the same on both sides - 2231.

Grown by a millimetre since yesterday?

#32 Sharman

Sharman
  • Member

  • 2,315 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 23 August 2012 - 18:18

Doug you need to take a dose of syrup of figs, as my dear old mother would have said, your in-box needs a good clearout.

#33 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,199 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 23 August 2012 - 18:31

Grown by a millimetre since yesterday?

It was colder in Nottingham yesterday. :drunk: :lol:

#34 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 23 August 2012 - 19:41

Just wondering how much work that would have involved ?

Did you take all four wheels off every car ?

Did you take into account the differensces in front and rear track ?

Or did you just run a tape measure between the approximate centres of the wheel hubs ?


None of the above. ):

DCN

#35 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,621 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 August 2012 - 19:54

None of the above. ):

DCN


:confused:


#36 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,017 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 23 August 2012 - 20:11

None of the above. ):

DCN

OK, I'll take the bait.

How? :drunk:

#37 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,621 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 August 2012 - 20:56

OK, I'll take the bait.

How? :drunk:


:up:

#38 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,016 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 23 August 2012 - 21:49

When we first put together the Donington Collection, Jenks and I somewhat nerdily checked the wheelbase of every car for cataloguing. Very, very few had identical wheelbase on both sides...

DCN

Since the usual way of measuring w/b is between hub centres, we usually measured both sides and took the average to allow for the effect of the steering being not quite centred - after all finding centre it is a bit unreliable.

#39 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 23 August 2012 - 22:07

Doug you need to take a dose of syrup of figs, as my dear old mother would have said, your in-box needs a good clearout.


I did wonder where you were going with what I 'need'. Part unclogged now. Figorifico avoided.

Back to the point, wheelbase measuring. At Donington Wheatie had a mass of building equipment from which we could choose useful bits and pieces, including about a foot-high, rigid, straight-edge frame, and a couple of large T-squares. We lined-up each car's wheels against the straight-edge so they were for practical purposes properly in-line, arranged the T-squares carefully to align with the hub centres and then measured distance between the two T-square verticals. Time consuming, fiddly, frustrating but interesting when so many results didn't match what the published record was telling us...

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 23 August 2012 - 22:08.


Advertisement

#40 Repco22

Repco22
  • Member

  • 707 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 24 August 2012 - 01:03

Since the usual way of measuring w/b is between hub centres, we usually measured both sides and took the average to allow for the effect of the steering being not quite centred - after all finding centre it is a bit unreliable.

Allan, in a situation where the steering WAS in fact central and you struck an average from two different measurements, wouldn't you be missing the fact that something was out of whack?

#41 Allan Lupton

Allan Lupton
  • Member

  • 3,016 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 24 August 2012 - 07:52

Allan, in a situation where the steering WAS in fact central and you struck an average from two different measurements, wouldn't you be missing the fact that something was out of whack?

We were measuring Veteran and Edwardian cars as part of an authentication process, not as roadworthiness testers or maintenance mechanics. What we needed to know the wheelbase for was to compere it with that recorded for the car it was claimed to be.

#42 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,621 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:02

I did wonder where you were going with what I 'need'. Part unclogged now. Figorifico avoided.

Back to the point, wheelbase measuring. At Donington Wheatie had a mass of building equipment from which we could choose useful bits and pieces, including about a foot-high, rigid, straight-edge frame, and a couple of large T-squares. We lined-up each car's wheels against the straight-edge so they were for practical purposes properly in-line, arranged the T-squares carefully to align with the hub centres and then measured distance between the two T-square verticals. Time consuming, fiddly, frustrating but interesting when so many results didn't match what the published record was telling us...

DCN


So a lot of work with interesting results :clap: :up:

Any particularly interesting assymetric wonders ?


#43 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,307 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:27

So a lot of work with interesting results :clap: :up:

Any particularly interesting assymetric wonders ?


I haven't got - or perhaps more precisely am not prepared to mount a search for - the results, but from memory I think the Talbot-Lago was way out, as were the ex-Davison Ferrari 500/750, the Maserati 250F (now there's a surprise) and - I think - the BRM Type 48...way, way out by about 2-inches...

But it's 40 years ago now. Sheeeeezsh!

DCN


#44 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,432 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 24 August 2012 - 20:17

Interesting - Wheel rims are an accurate datum point; I would have rolled the car back and forth a few times, just as when we were checking toe-in, then measured trailing or leading edge of the wheel rims and adjusted if the wheels were of different diameter. More accurate than trying to judge the hub centres I would have thought. If the wheels are of different diameters, mark an equal height from the floor on both leading and trailing edges of the rims, measure inside edges then outside edges, add the two dimensions together and divide by 2 - this would work for wheels of radically different diameters.

#45 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,432 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 24 August 2012 - 20:20

The Renault R4, and I think R5, were designed with different wheelbases on each side.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 24 August 2012 - 20:21.


#46 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,017 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 24 August 2012 - 21:49

The Renault R4, and I think R5, were designed with different wheelbases on each side.

See post #22

#47 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,822 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 10 October 2012 - 19:42

After much struggle and hassle I have finally completed the Tec Mec. As usual it looks much stubbier in the photo than it does in the 'plastic', but then my car photos always do.

Posted Image

I owe Ian Nuttall a great vote of thanks for all his assistance.

#48 Hse289

Hse289
  • Member

  • 588 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 10 October 2012 - 20:47

:wave: Hi Barry, very good, i think you have done a great job. Exhaust looks good too.
Paul

#49 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,621 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:42

After much struggle and hassle I have finally completed the Tec Mec. As usual it looks much stubbier in the photo than it does in the 'plastic', but then my car photos always do.

Posted Image


Posted Image

As seen in for real but in 1/32nd scale sunshine :cool:


Great job Barry :clap:

#50 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,017 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 16:34

After much struggle and hassle I have finally completed the Tec Mec. As usual it looks much stubbier in the photo than it does in the 'plastic', but then my car photos always do.


I wonder: is the "stubbiness" a function of the camera you are using and it's short focal length semi-wide angle lens? If you took a photo from further away with a longer focal length would the proportions be better? Certainly in your pictures of groups of cars they don't look "stubby". Just speculating - one of our photumgraphers may know.