Looking at buying a one of there engines,alloy block,wide angle head,dry sump,Lucas butterfly fuel injection also magnesium gearbox casing and diff housing,for my '61 Jaguar E-type roadster.As I taking overseas next year to race and rally.Has anyone had experience with C and G above motor's.My car at the moment runs Motec 200kw rear wheels but would be illegal o/s racing regards Rob Bailey.
Crosthwaite & Gardiner info re Jaguar E-type
Started by
Robert Bailey
, Oct 11 2006 03:30
45 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Ted Walker
-
- 1,432 posts
- Joined: November 01
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 07:13
Would have thought C&Gs record would have spoken for itself !!!!!!!!
#3
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 10:27
I don't doubt that,was just wanting to know anyone might have one of their wiz bang alloy,drysump ,Lucas Jag motors.As I will be replacing/swapping over a 200kw at the rear wheels motor.Originally posted by Ted Walker
Would have thought C&Gs record would have spoken for itself !!!!!!!!
#4
Paul Parker
-
- 2,198 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 13:55
You'll certainly need to beef up the clutch, spring rates, dampers and brakes (vents to extract hot air from the rear inboard units and also consider under bonnet temperatures) if you've not already done so, and probably have to consider cooling too.
I recently drove Lord Cowdray's 'low drag' E types at Goodwood (49 FXN and CUT 7) that have C & G motors and they were very quick indeed. They can be driven on the road even in this state of tune (350-355bhp) and with silencers but they are not as robust as a standard iron block XK engine. You'll have to consider plugs, fuel quality and octane rating as well. Oil pressure is much higher than standard with twin oil pumps (80 p.s.i. rather than 40-60 p.s.i.)
You might also consider the standard E type aerodynamics. These are not very good and above 115mph the car(s) start to take off, raising the nose alarmingly (take a look at some of the b/w photography of the '61 racing season in Philip Porter's excellent E type book.) I suspect that the airflow under the car exceeds airflow over it. As a result the car's frontal area and drag co-efficient increases exponentially as the underside is exposed. This explains why the Cunningham lightweight E type roadsters struggled to better 160mph at Le Mans in 1963. Also with standard ride height suitable for road conditions braking at high speed can promote rear wheel steering. Avon CR6 ZZ Sport tyres are good all purpose track/road tyres, although they are a bit too heavy for serious track use with the mag alloy wheels used on the 'lightweights'.
Essentially the whole car's dynamics will need to be dramatically improved if you want to make proper use of the 50%+ power increase. For British track use most Jag powered cars use a 3.77 final drive but 3.54 is a better compromise giving a reasonable top speed (you can rev these motors to 6,400 without too much harm) plus good acceleration. The standard road cars 3.31 and later 3.07 final drives are much too high. You will need a gearbox oil cooler and a close ratio all synchro 4 speed Jag box (not the Moss XK unit) is best unless you are going for a modern 5/6 speeder that presumably is ineligible for competition.
My apologies if I am telling you things you already know and I hope this helps.
I recently drove Lord Cowdray's 'low drag' E types at Goodwood (49 FXN and CUT 7) that have C & G motors and they were very quick indeed. They can be driven on the road even in this state of tune (350-355bhp) and with silencers but they are not as robust as a standard iron block XK engine. You'll have to consider plugs, fuel quality and octane rating as well. Oil pressure is much higher than standard with twin oil pumps (80 p.s.i. rather than 40-60 p.s.i.)
You might also consider the standard E type aerodynamics. These are not very good and above 115mph the car(s) start to take off, raising the nose alarmingly (take a look at some of the b/w photography of the '61 racing season in Philip Porter's excellent E type book.) I suspect that the airflow under the car exceeds airflow over it. As a result the car's frontal area and drag co-efficient increases exponentially as the underside is exposed. This explains why the Cunningham lightweight E type roadsters struggled to better 160mph at Le Mans in 1963. Also with standard ride height suitable for road conditions braking at high speed can promote rear wheel steering. Avon CR6 ZZ Sport tyres are good all purpose track/road tyres, although they are a bit too heavy for serious track use with the mag alloy wheels used on the 'lightweights'.
Essentially the whole car's dynamics will need to be dramatically improved if you want to make proper use of the 50%+ power increase. For British track use most Jag powered cars use a 3.77 final drive but 3.54 is a better compromise giving a reasonable top speed (you can rev these motors to 6,400 without too much harm) plus good acceleration. The standard road cars 3.31 and later 3.07 final drives are much too high. You will need a gearbox oil cooler and a close ratio all synchro 4 speed Jag box (not the Moss XK unit) is best unless you are going for a modern 5/6 speeder that presumably is ineligible for competition.
My apologies if I am telling you things you already know and I hope this helps.
#5
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 14:31
Years ago Dick Crosthwaite told me that they had built more Lightweight E-type gearboxes than Jaguar had built cars! It is presumably a similar situation with engines.
Assuming that some were used it must be a safe bet that the owners were happy with them e.g. they didn't have any problems.
But if as Paul Parker says you need to address aero issues, I wonder if you would get better value for money by spending it on the bodywork?
Apparently a Lotus 6 with aerodynamic bodywork (Mark 8) is 20 mph quicker, with the same running gear, so there could be a lot to gain there - of course an E-type is nothing like the brick that a Lotus 6 is, so the gains would be much smaller.
Assuming that some were used it must be a safe bet that the owners were happy with them e.g. they didn't have any problems.
But if as Paul Parker says you need to address aero issues, I wonder if you would get better value for money by spending it on the bodywork?
Apparently a Lotus 6 with aerodynamic bodywork (Mark 8) is 20 mph quicker, with the same running gear, so there could be a lot to gain there - of course an E-type is nothing like the brick that a Lotus 6 is, so the gains would be much smaller.
#6
Paul Parker
-
- 2,198 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 14:59
Yes I think you might be right Peter, but not being privvy to any competition regs that Robert might submit his car to I'm not sure about eligibility.
Basically the nose needs to be kept as low as possible, difficult to achieve without a front spoiler so ride height is all important. The lower the better but this compromisesOn the E type the angle of the front upper wishbones is critical according to Brian Playford who re-engineered 49 FXN in 1964 and standard cars suffer from bump steer.
My comments are based on observation and experience and the later 4.2 E types with the bigger nose intakes were even worse than the originals for lift. 49 FXN of course has an elongated Vanwall style snout with a NACA duct but this would not be practical or desirable for road/rally use.
So maybe a warmed up standard iron block motor (they can be made to deliver prodigious bhp/torque even on SUs these days) with the balance spent on the chassis/set up might be a better use of funds even though you forfeit the weight advantage (and slightly better handling entering corners) of the alloy block engines. Also worth noting is that the fuel injection motors have smoother, consistent throttle responses in corners (and superior torque at certain revs) compared to the Weber 45DCO3 setup that can suffer some occasional stuttering on acute curves.
Basically the nose needs to be kept as low as possible, difficult to achieve without a front spoiler so ride height is all important. The lower the better but this compromisesOn the E type the angle of the front upper wishbones is critical according to Brian Playford who re-engineered 49 FXN in 1964 and standard cars suffer from bump steer.
My comments are based on observation and experience and the later 4.2 E types with the bigger nose intakes were even worse than the originals for lift. 49 FXN of course has an elongated Vanwall style snout with a NACA duct but this would not be practical or desirable for road/rally use.
So maybe a warmed up standard iron block motor (they can be made to deliver prodigious bhp/torque even on SUs these days) with the balance spent on the chassis/set up might be a better use of funds even though you forfeit the weight advantage (and slightly better handling entering corners) of the alloy block engines. Also worth noting is that the fuel injection motors have smoother, consistent throttle responses in corners (and superior torque at certain revs) compared to the Weber 45DCO3 setup that can suffer some occasional stuttering on acute curves.
#7
Paul Parker
-
- 2,198 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 15:09
Sorry I hit the submit button too soon just now.
Para 2 second sentence should read 'The lower the better but this compromises public road use'.
Para 2 second sentence should read 'The lower the better but this compromises public road use'.
#8
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 16:34
A thought, it is stated that at present getting 200kw at wheels ie 260 bhp, lets assume 25% losses so the engine bare is giving 345 plus. Question, why are you changing the engine for ,according to Paul, an expected 350/355, or are you talking rolling road power Paul. All E types are floaty, I had 2 from new. It doesn't 'alf make you concentrate and the thought of 350 gee gee's in a none reworked body makes you gulp
#9
David Birchall
-
- 3,291 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 18:00
Originally posted by Paul Parker
I recently drove Lord Cowdray's 'low drag' E types at Goodwood (49 FXN and CUT 7) that have C & G motors and they were very quick indeed. They can be driven on the road even in this state of tune (350-355bhp) and with silencers but they are not as robust as a standard iron block XK engine. You'll have to consider plugs, fuel quality and octane rating as well. Oil pressure is much higher than standard with twin oil pumps (80 p.s.i. rather than 40-60 p.s.i.)
I Just acquired a very special new crank for my Aston DB2. It is essentially identical to the crank in the DB2 that is stirring everything up in the UK right now--beating DB3Ss and even a DBR1 on occasion!
The interesting thing about this crank is that it does not require high oil pressure even though it can run to 8000rpm. It can do this due apparently, to a patented method of working the oil passageways called the "Lings Dixon Low Pressure Offset Compound Angle (LPOCA) oilway drillings. Keith Dixon has been the AMOC Technical Advisor for the DB2 type engines for many years-his father preceded him in this position! I met Keith at the first Goodwood Revival in '98 before I ever owned an Aston Martin. I subsequently bought a rather rough DB2 on ebay and rebuilt the engine (As documented on this site) with Cunningham rods, Venolia pistons, solid 'cheeses', bigger valves and Lamborghini cam profiles. The crank however, was the original cast iron lump that was thirty thou under after cleaning up--not a happy prospect and hence the fancy new crank. Now I know what I will be doing during the winter!
The reason I am mentioning this is that Keith Dixon has designed a similiar crank for Jaguar engines which will enable the use of 8000rpm at much lower oil pressure--just thought you might like to know.
#10
doc knutsen
-
- 734 posts
- Joined: May 03
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 20:40
Originally posted by David Birchall
I Just acquired a very special new crank for my Aston DB2. It is essentially identical to the crank in the DB2 that is stirring everything up in the UK right now--beating DB3Ss and even a DBR1 on occasion!
The reason I am mentioning this is that Keith Dixon has designed a similiar crank for Jaguar engines which will enable the use of 8000rpm at much lower oil pressure--just thought you might like to know.
8000rpm with a 106mm stroke? Shudder to think of the piston speed...
#11
Stoatspeed
-
- 235 posts
- Joined: June 06
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 21:03
Originally posted by David Birchall
It can do this due apparently, to a patented method of working the oil passageways called the "Lings Dixon Low Pressure Offset Compound Angle (LPOCA) oilway drillings.
The reason I am mentioning this is that Keith Dixon has designed a similiar crank for Jaguar engines which will enable the use of 8000rpm at much lower oil pressure--just thought you might like to know.
I assume the "Lings" in the name is the esteemed Peter Lings, formerly Jaguar's own in-house calculation guru and for the past 15 years or so an independent consultant. Although some of the numbers sound a little out of range, if Peter Lings says it works, I believe it ... never known to be wrong in my experience!
Rather disarmingly, Peter used to do all his calcualtion work on blank paper with rather thick felt-tip pens - not the precise, neat appearance you might expect, but hs grasp of the physics of engines is extraordinary. Prior to the advent of CAE (and the growth of a colossal team of men and computers), Peter served the entire analysis needs of all Jaguar's drawing offices out of a tiny office a couple of doors down from the Engineering Director with the aid of a slide rule, desktop calculator, and (later) THE computer teletype terminal at Browns Lane - yes, he had the only one for years!
Dave
#12
David Birchall
-
- 3,291 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 21:19
Yes it is the same Peter Lings.
I may have overstated the Jag crank revving to 8000rpm-I may have attributed the Aston rev limit to it
In the early eighties I was running a front engined Elva Junior and one day at Seattle Raceway a guy we had never seen before (or since) turned up running an E type Jag. After seeing and hearing him run in practise I asked him what revs he was using, "8000rpm" he said, "These things will run all day at that speed in my experience!". We were in the same group as him since this was the early days of 'Vintage Racing' at Seattle and everybody ran in one group at SCCA events.
When we started the race he has pole position and I am beside him, my friend Robert Follows is behind us in a Cooper and the rest from Abarths to Volvos spread out behind.
The flag drops (rolling start) and the Jag takes off; since Seattle's main straight is the drag strip plus the runoff area it is looong. I gain a little in the first few turns with Rob Follows right behind me. We accelerate onto the bottom straight and the Jag is within striking distance when suddenly there is a BANG that I hear over the engine noise, the Jag slews sideways in more smoke than a naval destroyer escort could make and disappears! I went right, Rob went left and somehow we missed the Jag which by now had an engine that provided a wonderful 'exploded view' of Jaguars best.
As I said, we never saw him again.
I may have overstated the Jag crank revving to 8000rpm-I may have attributed the Aston rev limit to it
In the early eighties I was running a front engined Elva Junior and one day at Seattle Raceway a guy we had never seen before (or since) turned up running an E type Jag. After seeing and hearing him run in practise I asked him what revs he was using, "8000rpm" he said, "These things will run all day at that speed in my experience!". We were in the same group as him since this was the early days of 'Vintage Racing' at Seattle and everybody ran in one group at SCCA events.
When we started the race he has pole position and I am beside him, my friend Robert Follows is behind us in a Cooper and the rest from Abarths to Volvos spread out behind.
The flag drops (rolling start) and the Jag takes off; since Seattle's main straight is the drag strip plus the runoff area it is looong. I gain a little in the first few turns with Rob Follows right behind me. We accelerate onto the bottom straight and the Jag is within striking distance when suddenly there is a BANG that I hear over the engine noise, the Jag slews sideways in more smoke than a naval destroyer escort could make and disappears! I went right, Rob went left and somehow we missed the Jag which by now had an engine that provided a wonderful 'exploded view' of Jaguars best.
As I said, we never saw him again.
#13
Paul Parker
-
- 2,198 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 11 October 2006 - 22:48
I have seen a Jaguar wide angle head motor running Weber 45DCO3s in a Lister with the telltale at 7,000rpm and still in one piece but never more.
Anything beyond this, trick cranks, engineering wizardry or otherwise would surely result in what the late Patrick Lindsay observed of a Lago Talbot once, with a hole in its side after blowing up. "You've got windows dear boy!
As for the power output I quoted 355 bhp is at the flywheel to the best of my knowledge, and yes Sharman unmodified E types (that typically only had a genuine 210 bhp or thereabouts in production form rather than the claimed 265) are very floaty indeed at high speed.
Anything beyond this, trick cranks, engineering wizardry or otherwise would surely result in what the late Patrick Lindsay observed of a Lago Talbot once, with a hole in its side after blowing up. "You've got windows dear boy!
As for the power output I quoted 355 bhp is at the flywheel to the best of my knowledge, and yes Sharman unmodified E types (that typically only had a genuine 210 bhp or thereabouts in production form rather than the claimed 265) are very floaty indeed at high speed.
#14
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 00:24
Thanks Paul and others for your input. Should of said from the beginning that my car is a beautifully restored car, that was restored by the Healey factory in Melbourne, I run a hard-top as well. Much of the input into the handling was done by a colleague who raced two E-types over many years and the first car was initially set up by Frank Gardner. The reason I wish to change engines is that my engine would be illegal in historic circles as it is 4.5 Litre and running full Motec injection. Suspension wise, sway bars, torsion bars, springs, and fully adjustable external Konis are fitted. My car is fine at high speed, as I run plenty of rack and a large amount of Caster at 135 mph up the back straight at Sandown, and I can take my hands of the wheel. Brake wise, I run copper art brakes and ventilated discs on the front and on the rear ventilated discs and Calipers which I sourced from a Ford Laser TX3 Turbo. Wheels - 7 inch front and 8 inch rear. The rear I run different hubs/uprights. Our chosen tyre down under is the Yokahama Advan. I guess if I'm going to run it in historics I need to really look at a manual to see what is illegal. I also run a 5 speed Gertrag gearbox.
Regards,
Rob.
PS. What I'm thinking would be a good comprimise would be to keep my iron block, purchase the injection and the wide angled-head.
Regards,
Rob.
PS. What I'm thinking would be a good comprimise would be to keep my iron block, purchase the injection and the wide angled-head.
#15
David Birchall
-
- 3,291 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 02:52
I'm sure I am speaking for all of us if I ask for some photos of your car Robert. 
#16
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 03:05
Will do tomorrow as photos on lap top.Originally posted by David Birchall
I'm sure I am speaking for all of us if I ask for some photos of your car Robert.
#17
doc knutsen
-
- 734 posts
- Joined: May 03
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 07:37
Originally posted by Robert Bailey
Thanks Paul and others for your input. Should of said from the beginning that my car is a beautifully restored car, that was restored by the Healey factory in Melbourne, I run a hard-top as well. Much of the input into the handling was done by a colleague who raced two E-types over many years and the first car was initially set up by Frank Gardner. The reason I wish to change engines is that my engine would be illegal in historic circles as it is 4.5 Litre and running full Motec injection. (snip)
PS. What I'm thinking would be a good comprimise would be to keep my iron block, purchase the injection and the wide angled-head.
If you are contemplating doing Historics, you would need the homologation documents to start with. Yours sounds like a wonderful car, but some of your mods may be some way off those of FIA Period F ;) I am contemplating doing a 3.8 Mk II for the pre 65 category, and sorting out what is supposed to be legal is a bit of a pain. Still, the Nordic historic scene could do with a Jag in amongst the hordes of Minis and Cortina-Lotii....all it would need, is Grant Williams to drive it
#18
Paul Parker
-
- 2,198 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 08:28
Good luck Robert (and Doc Knutsen) with your projects and I look forward to some pics of the beasts!
#19
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 08:42
My girl was built up for track days and rally work.Need to get rid of Motec FI,gearbox unsure of brakes and get the weight down,as someone said put money into items like alloy doors,boot bonnet ect .Originally posted by doc knutsen
If you are contemplating doing Historics, you would need the homologation documents to start with. Yours sounds like a wonderful car, but some of your mods may be some way off those of FIA Period F ;) I am contemplating doing a 3.8 Mk II for the pre 65 category, and sorting out what is supposed to be legal is a bit of a pain. Still, the Nordic historic scene could do with a Jag in amongst the hordes of Minis and Cortina-Lotii....all it would need, is Grant Williams to drive it
Advertisement
#20
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 13:34
Originally posted by doc knutsen
. Still, the Nordic historic scene could do with a Jag in amongst the hordes of Minis and Cortina-Lotii....all it would need, is Grant Williams to drive it
Now if you.d said "Barrie" not Grant (no disrespect intended), did you ever see him in the EGAL? For those of you who who have never heard of it , that was an E type with a 7 litre Galaxie unit stuffed into it.
#21
doc knutsen
-
- 734 posts
- Joined: May 03
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 15:09
Originally posted by Sharman
Now if you.d said "Barrie" not Grant (no disrespect intended), did you ever see him in the EGAL? For those of you who who have never heard of it , that was an E type with a 7 litre Galaxie unit stuffed into it.
Hm yes I do remember the Jaguar Egal, but i never dared to go watch it being driven in anger...
I have a nervous disposition you know!;)
#22
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 12 October 2006 - 23:45
Even down under we remember that one.Originally posted by Sharman
Now if you.d said "Barrie" not Grant (no disrespect intended), did you ever see him in the EGAL? For those of you who who have never heard of it , that was an E type with a 7 litre Galaxie unit stuffed into it.
#23
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 13 October 2006 - 01:54
http://img223.images...cture531yr2.jpg
http://img147.images...cture385hx9.jpg
http://img223.images...cture382pv9.jpg
http://img223.images...cture434sx5.jpg
[http://img223.images...cture521ee4.jpg
Sorry about the way I've done it, but here are some photos of my E-type.
http://img147.images...cture385hx9.jpg
http://img223.images...cture382pv9.jpg
http://img223.images...cture434sx5.jpg
[http://img223.images...cture521ee4.jpg
Sorry about the way I've done it, but here are some photos of my E-type.
#24
David Birchall
-
- 3,291 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 13 October 2006 - 15:30
Vry nice looking car, but then the E type IS such a good looking car isn't it?
Given that the cars raced in period with injection would not that make the Motec injection acceptable? I am not familiar with this brand of injection system. Tecalemit Jackson systems were available and I have seen the odd one for sale.
I would think the C&G engine with all the trimmings would cost as much as a nice E Type
Given that the cars raced in period with injection would not that make the Motec injection acceptable? I am not familiar with this brand of injection system. Tecalemit Jackson systems were available and I have seen the odd one for sale.
I would think the C&G engine with all the trimmings would cost as much as a nice E Type
#25
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 13 October 2006 - 17:04
Originally posted by David Birchall
I would think the C&G engine with all the trimmings would cost as much as a nice E Type
I think you could buy several nice E-types - the price list is on their website, around 8 grand for the head & block (each!) means just those 2 components would buy some kind of E-type.
#26
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 20 January 2007 - 05:58
I have been emailing the above to place a order.no response would they still be on holidays.Originally posted by Robert Bailey
Looking at buying a one of there engines,alloy block,wide angle head,dry sump,Lucas butterfly fuel injection also magnesium gearbox casing and diff housing,for my '61 Jaguar E-type roadster.As I taking overseas next year to race and rally.Has anyone had experience with C and G above motor's.My car at the moment runs Motec 200kw rear wheels but would be illegal o/s racing regards Rob Bailey.
#27
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 20 January 2007 - 08:58
Originally posted by Robert Bailey
I have been emailing the above to place a order.no response would they still be on holidays.
When I asked Ollie Crosthwhaite for some information at Silverstone last year he told me to phone him, I suggested an e-mail and he said that would probably go unanswered, the theory being that anyone who was serious about wanting something would be prepared to phone them.
BTW I was talking to a friend who is connected with Adrian Newey and he said how much it cost to have the lightweight E-type prepared for historic racing, the amount of money was amazing - over ÂŁ300k!!!
#28
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 20 January 2007 - 09:50
There must be a comment somewhere about money and sense. It is no wonder that modern "historic" racing has gone completely OTT if a not very good amateur pays that sort of moola to bounce off the Sussex countryside. If the car is FIA accepted, what has been done to it to warrant a bill of that size. Stripping it down and doing a race prep is within the capabilities of any competent, with the word competent stressed, mechanic. If more than that i.e. Development work is done it should not be eligible.
#29
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 20 January 2007 - 12:48
phone call it is then,hope he don't mind being rang at odd hours,but i need some of their bits.thankyou for explaining why i have got no response,starting to think they were well just plain rude,nothing new down under with our historic people,main reason i wish to go O/S.Originally posted by Peter Morley
When I asked Ollie Crosthwhaite for some information at Silverstone last year he told me to phone him, I suggested an e-mail and he said that would probably go unanswered, the theory being that anyone who was serious about wanting something would be prepared to phone them.
BTW I was talking to a friend who is connected with Adrian Newey and he said how much it cost to have the lightweight E-type prepared for historic racing, the amount of money was amazing - over ÂŁ300k!!!
#30
bradbury west
-
- 6,096 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 20 January 2007 - 16:54
Originally posted by Sharman
There must be a comment somewhere about money and sense. It is no wonder that modern "historic" racing has gone completely OTT if a not very good amateur pays that sort of moola to bounce off the Sussex countryside. If the car is FIA accepted, what has been done to it to warrant a bill of that size. Stripping it down and doing a race prep is within the capabilities of any competent, with the word competent stressed, mechanic. If more than that i.e. Development work is done it should not be eligible.
John,
Until I got to your post I was fascinated to read about such silhouette hotrods, which is surely all they are , and they cannot run for three hours like they did in the original TT races, nor at the same consistent lap speeds , if the Revival times and retirement rates are anything to go by, so they are just old cars.
Re the level of preparation cost, expenditure will always rise to the level of the budget; fact.
Roger Lund
#31
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 21 January 2007 - 17:37
I sort of understand how they could spend that much money, but I have no idea why.
You don't win anything valuable and the car is presumably less original and should be worth less.
There was not necessarily a lot of development cost, that would have been incurred on the other cars that already similar preparation - once one has had the treatment the others need the same just to keep up.
Once a component is deemed an acceptable replacement, if it offers a performance advantage then everyone needs them just to keep up - which is a major problem for those of us with small pockets.
You don't win anything valuable and the car is presumably less original and should be worth less.
There was not necessarily a lot of development cost, that would have been incurred on the other cars that already similar preparation - once one has had the treatment the others need the same just to keep up.
Once a component is deemed an acceptable replacement, if it offers a performance advantage then everyone needs them just to keep up - which is a major problem for those of us with small pockets.
#32
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 21 January 2007 - 22:14
Peter
I stick with my opinion. If they are developed beyond their original design capabilities they should not be eligible, but then in motor racing when was the playing field ever level
John
I stick with my opinion. If they are developed beyond their original design capabilities they should not be eligible, but then in motor racing when was the playing field ever level
John
#33
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 09:56
Originally posted by Sharman
Peter
I stick with my opinion. If they are developed beyond their original design capabilities they should not be eligible, but then in motor racing when was the playing field ever level
John
I agree, the cars are meant to be historic (e.g. old) and should only be restored to original specifications.
Problem is a lot of owners get over excited about the racing and start to look at making the car go quicker, which is fairly easy with modern technology, and very easy with large budgets.
In some cases similar gains could be made simply by upgrading the driver which would have less effect on history.
Max Mosley keeps saying that he thinks the same, if a component isn't to original specification it should not be acceptable, problem is they haven't done anything about that - the new FIA forms are really no different to the old ones, all they seem to do is generate a large amount of income for the local MSAs.
There is also the safety issue, a lot of people think it is right that cars should be upgraded to take advantage of modern safety technologies, but this can lead to a performance advantage and might possibly lead to over confidence as regards accidents (in the same way as airbags etc make people less wary of accidents in modern road cars).
If people are worried about getting hurt they can always take it easy or take up a less dangerous hobby - or if they must go racing do so in safe modern cars.
When someone is going to the expense of making replacement components, it makes a lot of financial sense to avoid any design errors that lead to reliability issues - and most people would find that sensible/acceptable, but similar developments that increase performance should be avoided.
But how do you police such things!
These arguments have been going since historic racing started, fortunately the market seems to be placing more emphasis on originality these days so some of the worst cases will be sorted, but while people take the racing seriously there will always be someone looking to find an advantage.
#34
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 11:07
Peter
One thing I do agree about is the safety angle. In the 50s a friend had a 200 Mile Race Alvis, 70bhp and 3/4 of a ton, onto which he installed front wheel brakes. This car was being run in VSCC events and one, W. Boddy expressed the opinion that it was a shame and didn't oughter be allowed. The reply was succint and to the point "He doesn't have to stop the bugger"
John
One thing I do agree about is the safety angle. In the 50s a friend had a 200 Mile Race Alvis, 70bhp and 3/4 of a ton, onto which he installed front wheel brakes. This car was being run in VSCC events and one, W. Boddy expressed the opinion that it was a shame and didn't oughter be allowed. The reply was succint and to the point "He doesn't have to stop the bugger"
John
#35
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 12:10
John
Lack of front wheel brakes definitely falls into the engineering out fundamental design errors category!
Presumably it was less of a problem when everyone had useless brakes but given the mixed nature of historic grids I assume the other competitors would have helped slow him down!
A more controversial issue was when someone fitted a roll over bar into a Lotus 23 and braced it backwards with two stays - of course the stays made the roll over bar more effective/safer, but the back of the chassis was now so much more rigid that if it did have an accident it would probably be at a much higher speed!!
Peter
Lack of front wheel brakes definitely falls into the engineering out fundamental design errors category!
Presumably it was less of a problem when everyone had useless brakes but given the mixed nature of historic grids I assume the other competitors would have helped slow him down!
A more controversial issue was when someone fitted a roll over bar into a Lotus 23 and braced it backwards with two stays - of course the stays made the roll over bar more effective/safer, but the back of the chassis was now so much more rigid that if it did have an accident it would probably be at a much higher speed!!
Peter
#36
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 15:03
Actually Peter in its first design state front wheel braking was not important as it was a Brooklands car. Happily it did handle and saved my life when a Standard Vanguard Bakers Van (now that was a strange object) turned across in front of us on the Northwich bypass and with practically no suspension movement and just over a turn lock to lock we got round behind it.
#37
David Birchall
-
- 3,291 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 16:46
And a better effect on the racing!Originally posted by Peter Morley
[B]
In some cases similar gains could be made simply by upgrading the driver which would have less effect on history.
B]
#38
bradbury west
-
- 6,096 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 17:02
Originally posted by Sharman
Peter
.......In the 50s a friend had a 200 Mile Race Alvis, 70bhp and 3/4 of a ton, onto which he installed front wheel brakes. This car was being run in VSCC events and one, W. Boddy expressed the opinion that it was a shame and didn't oughter be allowed....... John
I suspect that under the VSCC regs the car would simply be re-classified it as a "special" as were a lot of other modified cars, and run accordingly..
Roger
#39
Robert Bailey
-
- 212 posts
- Joined: August 06
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 05:27
agreeOriginally posted by bradbury west
I suspect that under the VSCC regs the car would simply be re-classified it as a "special" as were a lot of other modified cars, and run accordingly..
Roger
Advertisement
#40
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 11:14
OK folks, please don't get me wrong. I have nothing at all against modifying and developing contemporary or older vehicles. I also think that the addition of fwb to the Alvis was eminently sensible as, if my fallible memory works, the rear brakes were only 7 inch drums. They were only intended for outer circuit racing and had no purpose other than enabling the driver to stop at his pit.
My point being that if an Historic car is being run in an Historic competition then it should be Historically correct. i.e. it should not have incorporated into it materials or technology which were not available at the time of its construction.
By all means do what the hell you please with your own car, tweak it, redesign it, have cylinder blocks cast in exotic metals etc but don't expect to run the thing against people who have not made these modifications. It goes back to what I originally said, that the fault lies with the organisers who do not stick by the regs and with national bodies who issue homologation papers which were written by Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm
My point being that if an Historic car is being run in an Historic competition then it should be Historically correct. i.e. it should not have incorporated into it materials or technology which were not available at the time of its construction.
By all means do what the hell you please with your own car, tweak it, redesign it, have cylinder blocks cast in exotic metals etc but don't expect to run the thing against people who have not made these modifications. It goes back to what I originally said, that the fault lies with the organisers who do not stick by the regs and with national bodies who issue homologation papers which were written by Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm
#41
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 14:11
Originally posted by Sharman
OK folks, please don't get me wrong. I have nothing at all against modifying and developing contemporary or older vehicles. I also think that the addition of fwb to the Alvis was eminently sensible as, if my fallible memory works, the rear brakes were only 7 inch drums. They were only intended for outer circuit racing and had no purpose other than enabling the driver to stop at his pit.
My point being that if an Historic car is being run in an Historic competition then it should be Historically correct. i.e. it should not have incorporated into it materials or technology which were not available at the time of its construction.
By all means do what the hell you please with your own car, tweak it, redesign it, have cylinder blocks cast in exotic metals etc but don't expect to run the thing against people who have not made these modifications. It goes back to what I originally said, that the fault lies with the organisers who do not stick by the regs and with national bodies who issue homologation papers which were written by Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm
As long as the pieces were avilable in period then the car should still be acceptable (subject to various rules about classes), presumably front brakes were available for the Alvis at the time so they could have been fitted in period if they were needed (I am assuming the front brakes that were fitted were from that period).
There is a current discussion about whether Formula Juniors should be allowed to run Hewland boxes, given that VW based boxes were available at the time fitting them is not historically incoreect (only some particular car's histories), there is an issue about what specification they should be but the casing itself can be considered a period item. What would be completely wrong would be to fit something that was not available at the time like an FT200 or LD200.
With 72 onwards 2 litre F2 cars, they didn't run alloy blocks until something like 1974 - but given a 72 car could have been re-engined in 74 (and was quite likely to be since the iron blocks weren't reliable at that capacity), I think that is more accurate than allowing them to run iron blocks made in 2007 for example (especially if the modern blocks are made in such a way that they don't mind being bored to 2 litres).
There is a huge difference between single seaters and sports prototypes, where the manufacturer had a pretty free hand in what they did, compared to a touring or rally car where the exact specification of the production car was homologated and should have been verified by the scrutineers. With such production cars it should be pretty easy to see whether a car comforms to the specification or not (if the original specs aren't available it should be fairly easy to establish a standard), but with the less restricted prototype cars it would be more difficult (but could easily be done with the more common cars).
#42
Manel Baró
-
- 134 posts
- Joined: July 06
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 15:13
Originally posted by Sharman
By all means do what the hell you please with your own car, tweak it, redesign it, have cylinder blocks cast in exotic metals etc but don't expect to run the thing against people who have not made these modifications. It goes back to what I originally said, that the fault lies with the organisers who do not stick by the regs and with national bodies who issue homologation papers which were written by Hans Christian Andersen or the Brothers Grimm
Bravo!
I couldn't explain it better.
#43
bradbury west
-
- 6,096 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 24 January 2007 - 22:07
John, I am with you all the way. As they were so they should be.
In a perverse way it amuses me that "people" censure the toolroom copies such as the TR Ferraris which someone of Neil Twyman's repute produced, known from the inception to be what they were, and claiming to be no more, no less, yet many historic category race cars are perhaps not quite as they were in period, yet are not only accepted as being correct but are often taken as the modern benchmark. I can understand running alternative tyre specs if the originals are no longer available, and series/race organisers dictate that, so long as that does not entail a major redesign of the suspension etc.
Surely this concept of continuous development is a great mis-nomer, since the cars should be as raced in period. Whatever guise FJ cars, for example, may have run in after Dec 1963 is irrelevant. Period spec is what counts.
Looking at period adverts for used FJ cars in '61/'62 into 63, most are advertised as having 97/103/even 105 bhp engines. That would not get you far up the grid today, I suspect.
Regarding the FJ gearbvoxes, I understood, IIRC, that the casing was derived from, or based on the Transporter vehicle, so there should be no shortage of cases, and internals should be able to be remanufactured. However, again IIRC, the rules changed for '63??? to allow the Hewland type to be used, hence the 5- speeders, whereas originally 4 was the rule.
I am sure Duncan will sort it all out.
Roger Lund.
In a perverse way it amuses me that "people" censure the toolroom copies such as the TR Ferraris which someone of Neil Twyman's repute produced, known from the inception to be what they were, and claiming to be no more, no less, yet many historic category race cars are perhaps not quite as they were in period, yet are not only accepted as being correct but are often taken as the modern benchmark. I can understand running alternative tyre specs if the originals are no longer available, and series/race organisers dictate that, so long as that does not entail a major redesign of the suspension etc.
Surely this concept of continuous development is a great mis-nomer, since the cars should be as raced in period. Whatever guise FJ cars, for example, may have run in after Dec 1963 is irrelevant. Period spec is what counts.
Looking at period adverts for used FJ cars in '61/'62 into 63, most are advertised as having 97/103/even 105 bhp engines. That would not get you far up the grid today, I suspect.
Regarding the FJ gearbvoxes, I understood, IIRC, that the casing was derived from, or based on the Transporter vehicle, so there should be no shortage of cases, and internals should be able to be remanufactured. However, again IIRC, the rules changed for '63??? to allow the Hewland type to be used, hence the 5- speeders, whereas originally 4 was the rule.
I am sure Duncan will sort it all out.
Roger Lund.
#44
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 10:03
Roger
Original FJ regs said engine & geabox from a road car of which umpty tump have been produced, weight classification. If you look back on other threads you will see that I have not changed my stance from those days and that I decry the trick engines made available by the manufacturers after the end of 1960
John
PS I'd still like an XSP engine but have you seen the prices?
Original FJ regs said engine & geabox from a road car of which umpty tump have been produced, weight classification. If you look back on other threads you will see that I have not changed my stance from those days and that I decry the trick engines made available by the manufacturers after the end of 1960
John
PS I'd still like an XSP engine but have you seen the prices?
#45
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 25 January 2007 - 10:54
I think we are all saying more or less the same thing.
Cars should be raced as they were/could have been at the time.
Engines should be of similar specification and not use later out of period developments (they will have a bit more power anyway because fuels & oils are better).
Given the current prices for Juniors it shouldn't be necessary to run a later specification gearbox, a lot of Juniors used the VW gear selector that exits from the back of the box rather than the forward facing Hewland version, fitting such a selector would not be terribly expensive.
Problem is with something like a Cooper where the Ersa boxes are a lot rarer and more expensive than a Hewland, if the car isn't worth as much as some of the front runners (especially if it is running a BMC engine) it becomes un-economical to fit the correct box.
As Roger says Duncan will sort it out.
Cars should be raced as they were/could have been at the time.
Engines should be of similar specification and not use later out of period developments (they will have a bit more power anyway because fuels & oils are better).
Given the current prices for Juniors it shouldn't be necessary to run a later specification gearbox, a lot of Juniors used the VW gear selector that exits from the back of the box rather than the forward facing Hewland version, fitting such a selector would not be terribly expensive.
Problem is with something like a Cooper where the Ersa boxes are a lot rarer and more expensive than a Hewland, if the car isn't worth as much as some of the front runners (especially if it is running a BMC engine) it becomes un-economical to fit the correct box.
As Roger says Duncan will sort it out.
#46
bradbury west
-
- 6,096 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 26 January 2007 - 11:34
Just out of innocent curiosity I ask this question.
Are all the components, ancilliaries and nuts/bolts/gaskets etc in these re-manufactured engines fully interchangeable with original engines from their period? I assume that the same goes for the re-made Climax engines too, although I believe that Tony Mantle's items are just as they were originally.
Roger Lund.
Are all the components, ancilliaries and nuts/bolts/gaskets etc in these re-manufactured engines fully interchangeable with original engines from their period? I assume that the same goes for the re-made Climax engines too, although I believe that Tony Mantle's items are just as they were originally.
Roger Lund.
