42 replies to this topic

[mariner]

I don’t profess to understand very much about the FIA/FIVA historic eligibility rules but I have been told by a Lola T 70 Mk1 owner that he can’t run a dry sump as only mk11 T 70's had that in period, despite the rule costing lost engines where the track has long bends like Monza.

 

So I was very puzzled when looking at the Brands Hatch entry list for this weekend to see all three "proper" Canam cars listed with 8,800 cc engines. They are a McLaren M8C from 1970, an M8F from 1972 and a March 717 from 1971.

 

Switching to cubic inch sizes 8,800 c is 537 cubic inches. There were two basic aluminium big blocks used in CanAm IIRC. The GM ZL-1 block used by Chapparal, and I think most other runners plus the special Reynolds linerless block used exclusively by McLaren. All the McLaren cars through the last M20 are quoted as running an engine never bigger than 509 c.i. engine. That is the classic 4.50 bore * 4.00 stroke GM set up. As the linerless blocks are very hard to overbore I don’t see how you can get 537 c.i. or where Mclaren ever used it.

 

On the ZL-1 block you can still get one and it lists the maximum bore as 4.30 inches and max crank stroke capacity of 4.375" which builds out to about 508 c.i.

 

There is no doubt you can have a big block built today at 8.8 litres , in fact 9.5 or 10.1 litres are easily available but they use the gen V block which post dated CanAm or special aftermarket blocks.

 

So, assuming the entry list isn't a typo how can you legally run 8.8 litres? I'm not for one second accusing the owners of doing anything wrong but I just don’t understand how the FIA/FIVA rules/passport system works.

Edited by mariner, 28 May 2016 - 08:58.

[Allen Brown]

I see where you've gone wrong here. You assume the rules work. There are huge problems with the way cars are allowed to run and it's getting ever harder for the FIA to hold any line.

Edited by Allen Brown, 28 May 2016 - 10:56.

[Lee Nicolle]

I don’t profess to understand very much about the FIA/FIVA historic eligibility rules but I have been told by a Lola T 70 Mk1 owner that he can’t run a dry sump as only mk11 T 70's had that in period, despite the rule costing lost engines where the track has long bends like Monza.

 

So I was very puzzled when looking at the Brands Hatch entry list for this weekend to see all three "proper" Canam cars listed with 8,800 cc engines. They are a McLaren M8C from 1970, an M8F from 1972 and a March 717 from 1971.

 

Switching to cubic inch sizes 8,800 c is 537 cubic inches. There were two basic aluminium big blocks used in CanAm IIRC. The GM ZL-1 block used by Chapparal, and I think most other runners plus the special Reynolds linerless block used exclusively by McLaren. All the McLaren cars through the last M20 are quoted as running an engine never bigger than 509 c.i. engine. That is the classic 4.50 bore * 4.00 stroke GM set up. As the linerless blocks are very hard to overbore I don’t see how you can get 537 c.i. or where Mclaren ever used it.

 

On the ZL-1 block you can still get one and it lists the maximum bore as 4.30 inches and max crank stroke capacity of 4.375" which builds out to about 508 c.i.

 

There is no doubt you can have a big block built today at 8.8 litres , in fact 9.5 or 10.1 litres are easily available but they use the gen V block which post dated CanAm or special aftermarket blocks.

 

So, assuming the entry list isn't a typo how can you legally run 8.8 litres? I'm not for one second accusing the owners of doing anything wrong but I just don’t understand how the FIA/FIVA rules/passport system works.

Coz they are running modern aftermarket big blocks. I have heard the some cars are not allowed dry sumping? As is was not available then? The principles of that have been around a 100 years, but some models did not use it so cannot now.  But can still have another 200hp.. DoooOH

The same as 'historic' 5000s running modern cylinder heads, injection, ignition. Does anyone even check capacity?  Something that gets my goat,, internals too hard to police, but when you see modern style injection, modern style heads, sheet metal rocker covers,, hey what is historic.

[Allan Lupton]

I think this sort of thing is why many of us, although we are deeply interested in the cars that used to race in the past, are not particularly interested in the "historic racing" events of today.

A little post-period improvement in the interests of reliability, when a private owner has to run an historic car without the support it had in period, is all very well but this is clearly rather more than that.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 28 May 2016 - 11:26.

[john aston]

M8s ran with up to 8 litres I believe  ;and personally I'd rather see and hear a slightly inauthentic M8 from trackside than stay at home and cry into my beer that the world has gone to the dogs. All historic racing is somewhere between homage and pastiche, whether drivers, cars or circuits.   That's fine by me - if I want 100% authentic I will watch modern BTCC - it is what it is, even though I preferred Sierras and Cortinas. 

[D-Type]

It depends whether you think historic racing should be historic racing or historic racing.  Unfortunately some [usually rich] owners have a "win at all costs" mentality.  On the other hand some owners are so concerned that their historic car might get damaged if they race it so they just tour round.  We need to strike the balance.

[D28]

My take on vintage racing is that the stock specifications of some of the cars must be taken with a grain of salt. There are any number of examples, but my disbelief was heightened when I first saw E Type Jags running rings around Ferrari GTOs and LMBs at The Goodwood Revival TT. Racing Jags, even the few original Lightweights were simply not competitive in period with their  Ferrari counterparts. There are explanations of course, and one is that E-Types have been continuously developed since the mid sixties, while the Ferraris must be closer to stock. The price differential of the models favour Jaguar, we are lucky to even see GTOs on the track and certainly can't expect owners to hot rod them to make them more competitive in vintage racing. Their point was made in the original races they have nothing left to prove.

This is just the way things are, and I still enjoy seeing various vintage cars in action, regardless of their claim to authenticity. The results of various classes do not mirror what could be expected 50 years ago and so be it, but the spectacle is still worth watching.

Edited by D28, 28 May 2016 - 16:18.

[Allen Brown]

A numbet of current F5000 owners have told me that when they bought their car, they replaced its 5.7 or 5.8 litre engine with a "proper" 5.0.

Edited by Allen Brown, 28 May 2016 - 16:27.

[Bob Riebe]

You cannot detune an engine so it is the "same" as it was forty years ago.

 

I have an article of one who built a Boss 302 Mustang to as close as humanly possible to the specs. it ran in 1970.

The engine dynoed at 525 hp.

 

The Can-Am did not have displacement rules and any are silly.

Wet sump systems have been improved over the decades to the point that one who puts in time and effort should be able to make one live.

 

If they want to call is historic RACING,  then let it be racing; otherwise admit it is historic PARADE LAPS.

 

 I used to belong to a historic sprint car group. The boys who had the cars said some places are real racing; others are parade laps where if you actually race they will tell you to take your car and go home.

The boys preferred the racing as they said if they did not want to they did not have to come.

Sending those who dare race home,  boy that really treats the fans who pay to see these shows fair, now doesn't it.

 

Sadly the old guard who got this going are dying off and the young ones do not care about it.

I learned about it years ago at the Mn State Fair, but they are no longer there as the State Fair board preferred they not be there.

 

As far as big block Chevy engine sizes, top builders can take old blocks to sizes that forty years ago were not possible or were had hand-grenade reliability.

 

If you want to see what U.S. engine builders can do nowadays, read some of the articles from the Engine Masters series.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 28 May 2016 - 17:28.

[mariner]

I once went to a meeting where a board member of the VSCC was present. He said quite openly that no VSCC car probably had any significant original parts as they weren't made to last 60 years of racing etc. So I can see why you need replacement blocks, in the end its cheaper overall than patching old ones. GM will sell you an improved ZL1 block today.

 

I also am aware of how 40 years of painstaking work has let US engine bulders get huge power out of "old"  designs. I mean I can buy a NASCAR spec 5.8 litre engine with 800bhp at 9,500 rpm if I ask nicely.

 

What I can't understand , hence the post, is how the FIA/FIVA can issue a passport to a vaildated car fitted with  8.8 litre engine when they were never  that big in period.

 

I have had some of the agonies of passporting explained to me by an Historic racer. The justification for the work is that your car will be much more valuable if it is " authentic"

 

To my simple mind you can't have it both ways - a clearly aftermarket only motor to win races and it stil is a £500K+ car because its original?

Edited by mariner, 28 May 2016 - 17:53.

[opplock]

Perhaps the answer is that the CanAm cars (all two of them if we ignore the rather slow McLaren M1) are not competing in an FIA championship. There are 2 FIA sanctioned races being held at Brands this weekend - FIA Historic F1 and FIA Historic Sportscars. We were told at the marshals briefing this morning that all other races are subject to MSA flag rules. I assume that Masters Historic Racing can accept whichever cars they like into their own events. Without the 8.8 litre cars they would be unable to advertise a "CanAm 50" race. The rest of the field consisted of Lola T70 Mk3Bs and 2 litre sportscars. 

 

Another possible complaint is that the sole "Maserati" 250F to be seen today (CM7) was, according to David McKinney's book, constructed in the late 1980s. Some of the Ford GTs looked in great shape for 50 yo cars......, likewise some of the T70s.      

[D-Type]

Attitudes vary from organisation to organisation.  The owner of a 1.5 litre Lotus 16 was told his car would be ineligible if fitted with a 2.5 litre engine as that particular chassis only had a 1.5 litre engine in period.  But 2 litre BRM and Climax V8 "Tasman" engines are accepted for pre-1965 Formula 1, 1220 cc Climax FWE engined Lotus XIs and Lolas abound, 3.8 litre D-Type Jaguars with no works or Ecurie Ecosse history are the norm, etc etc

[Lee Nicolle]

A numbet of current F5000 owners have told me that when they bought their car, they replaced its 5.7 or 5.8 litre engine with a "proper" 5.0.

I suspect that some still have them! In reality a 350 turned to 7200 makes no more power than a 302 turned too 8200. And lasts a deal longer too . And is cheaper,, but the extra torque blows the Hewland apart more often!

  A big block Chev was probably only using 6800 in the day,, and now have a 100 ci more and are being turned to 7500.

[Lee Nicolle]

I once went to a meeting where a board member of the VSCC was present. He said quite openly that no VSCC car probably had any significant original parts as they weren't made to last 60 years of racing etc. So I can see why you need replacement blocks, in the end its cheaper overall than patching old ones. GM will sell you an improved ZL1 block today.

 

I also am aware of how 40 years of painstaking work has let US engine bulders get huge power out of "old"  designs. I mean I can buy a NASCAR spec 5.8 litre engine with 800bhp at 9,500 rpm if I ask nicely.

 

What I can't understand , hence the post, is how the FIA/FIVA can issue a passport to a vaildated car fitted with  8.8 litre engine when they were never  that big in period.

 

I have had some of the agonies of passporting explained to me by an Historic racer. The justification for the work is that your car will be much more valuable if it is " authentic"

 

To my simple mind you can't have it both ways - a clearly aftermarket only motor to win races and it stil is a £500K+ car because its original?

The production based 358 Chevs in 1970 used factory blocks and heads, then the hi nickel blocks were used and effectively off road  cylinder heads and power increased, then aftermarket blocks with in the end very aftermarket heads and intakes, and yes they did turn nearly 10000.

BUT go use those rpm on a factory block and it will be a complete grenade over 8000 rpm, at least in 500 mile races. Sprintcars used 8500 but only in short races and use methanol. But they do break!!

360 Sprinters 4 years ago were turning 7500 and dead reliable, now using over 8000 and no longer reliable. So it is pricing many racers out now.

[Kenzclass]

Denny Hulme ran a 565ci (9.26 litre) Reynolds-blocked "hand grenade" qualifying engine in his M20 at Riverside, October '72 to split the Porsches in qualifying.

He reverted to their usual race engine for the next day, as he described the 'grenade" as having the "life expectancy of a butterfly".

This is according to Pete Lyons' Can Am book. 

[Belmondo]

Slightly off-topic, but can anyone identify the 3-litre powerplant in the M8C raced at Brands this weekend by Stefano Rosina?

 

In the '80s the HSCC had a 5-litre limit for all formulae, so all the CanAms, T70s etc were 5 I think. Occasionally they hosted the international series and you'd get the odd bigger car like the Foulston L&M Lola and Charlie Agg M8F, but I don't think even they were anything like 8.8 litre back then.

[mariner]

I think I was somewhat mislead by th huge FIA logo on the header of the Brands entry list document on line. I assumed that meant al the races were under FIA approval and hence all cars neeeded a passport.

 

I had also missed the huge practice engine for Riverside although that wasn't in a M8 of any type.. I know later in CanAm various teams like Shadow tried GM "monster motors" and turbos to try to catch the turbo Porsches but McLaren had gone by then.

 

I suppose that raises another question about "in period" . Does it include any practice configurations and things later owners did to the cars within the series?  If so  then there should be good living for some chassis experts here to act as consultants to prove, somewhere , somehow almost any modifcations were put on most cars!

 

I did hear that one Historic racer got practice defined as racing which resulted in a very signicant increase in the value of a sports car he owned which had no actual RACE history but did get used in practice only.

Edited by mariner, 30 May 2016 - 10:53.

[opplock]

The M8C is DFV powered. One of Alain de Cadenet's ideas but never successful as I recall.

 

The programme referred to the M8F as being "one of Bruce McLaren's finest creations". Oops.

 

Still, one of the best meetings I have attended for a while. The one hour Historic Sports Car race was excellent.

[Peter Morley]

My take on vintage racing is that the stock specifications of some of the cars must be taken with a grain of salt. There are any number of examples, but my disbelief was heightened when I first saw E Type Jags running rings around Ferrari GTOs and LMBs at The Goodwood Revival TT. Racing Jags, even the few original Lightweights were simply not competitive in period with their  Ferrari counterparts. There are explanations of course, and one is that E-Types have been continuously developed since the mid sixties, while the Ferraris must be closer to stock. The price differential of the models favour Jaguar, we are lucky to even see GTOs on the track and certainly can't expect owners to hot rod them to make them more competitive in vintage racing. Their point was made in the original races they have nothing left to prove.

This is just the way things are, and I still enjoy seeing various vintage cars in action, regardless of their claim to authenticity. The results of various classes do not mirror what could be expected 50 years ago and so be it, but the spectacle is still worth watching.

 

One owner did hot rod his GTO for historic racing, it had a larger engine than in period but this was some time (decades) ago when it was worth rather less and it was cheaper to fit the larger engine which had the bonus of being quicker!

A similar principle applied to chassis, it was far cheaper to replace a space frame than repair one and it had the added bonus of being faster, sorry safer.

 

As you say these cars made their point years ago, historic racing does not add to their real history but some owners think that winning means something, fortunately others are waking up to the value of originality.

[Peter Morley]

Attitudes vary from organisation to organisation.  The owner of a 1.5 litre Lotus 16 was told his car would be ineligible if fitted with a 2.5 litre engine as that particular chassis only had a 1.5 litre engine in period.  But 2 litre BRM and Climax V8 "Tasman" engines are accepted for pre-1965 Formula 1, 1220 cc Climax FWE engined Lotus XIs and Lolas abound, 3.8 litre D-Type Jaguars with no works or Ecurie Ecosse history are the norm, etc etc

 

Single seaters have usually had to be to the specification of that particular chassis, in terms of engine size, specification and even colour scheme for 3 litre F1s.

For some reason sportscars are allowed to use anything that was fitted to an example of the type - so a Lotus or Lola can run a larger engine than an Elva because one person did an obscure race with such an engine in a Lotus/Lola whereas the vast majority all had the smaller engine.

And road cars can have anything that was done in period (rather, is currently acceptable) even if the nearest the car ever got to a race was the spectator car park.

 

There are some single seater exceptions like the 1½ litre cars allowed to run 2 litre Tasman (which are usually early 3 litre F1) engines 'because all the engines were converted to Tasman spec.' but there has been an effort to stop that and the cars are expensive enough that the cost of a new crank etc. (or whole engine) is 'viable', whereas there has been no attempt to stop the oversized Climax FW engines etc. in sportscars which I've never understood.

[john aston]

ISTR the M8C did win an Interserie race at Croft ?

 

The wonderful irony in this  thread about rules is , of course, that in period Can Am was rightly famous for effectively having only one rule - which was that were no rules   

[2F-001]

At the 1970 Croft Interserie, Chris Craft (with the aforementioned Ecurie Evergreen M8C-DFV) was on pole and took fastest lap, but didn't finish; Kelleners won with the new, and implausibly wide, 707. Did it race again at Croft, I wonder?

 

I wondered if that was the car when I saw it entered at Brands, but didn't get a close-up look at it.

 

Stefano posted something about it a few years ago on "that other forum"; I think he said it was restored on the original chassis after it had languished unused for some time in South America. It was commented elsewhere that whilst only one was built (a DFV-engined version, I mean - presumably that which is now Stefano's) but one or two other recreations were claiming the heritage of the original. A familiar story: one built, three survive!

Edited by 2F-001, 30 May 2016 - 16:30.

[john aston]

Tony thanks. I should know-I was there , marshalling at Spa  Bend,  but all I really recall now  is the monstrous size of the March and the Gesipa Rivets 917 of Jurgen Neuhaus  

[Perruqueporte]

I believe it inevitable that before long there will be an almighty stink when a historic racing entrant/competitor protests a blatantly "illegal" car and is willing to spend whatever it takes to make the point. The resulting bureaucracy could not only damage historic motorsport at its most exclusive levels, it could make it prohibitively expensive at the grass roots. Which will be a shame.

Christopher W

[Lee Nicolle]

At the 1970 Croft Interserie, Chris Craft (with the aforementioned Ecurie Evergreen M8C-DFV) was on pole and took fastest lap, but didn't finish; Kelleners won with the new, and implausibly wide, 707. Did it race again at Croft, I wonder?

 

I wondered if that was the car when I saw it entered at Brands, but didn't get a close-up look at it.

 

Stefano posted something about it a few years ago on "that other forum"; I think he said it was restored on the original chassis after it had languished unused for some time in South America. It was commented elsewhere that whilst only one was built (a DFV-engined version, I mean - presumably that which is now Stefano's) but one or two other recreations were claiming the heritage of the original. A familiar story: one built, three survive!

I would have thought that a DFV would have been underpowered to cart the M8 around. Probably why it did not finish.

M8s I believe were also raced in some series with 6 litre limit, meaning modified 350 Chev in those days and probably just as quick as a legit 427/ 454 Chev, just turn it a bit harder. Though 8 litres will beat a 6 litre!!

[GreenMachine]

M8s ran with up to 8 litres I believe  ;and personally I'd rather see and hear a slightly inauthentic M8 from trackside than stay at home and cry into my beer that the world has gone to the dogs. All historic racing is somewhere between homage and pastiche, whether drivers, cars or circuits.   That's fine by me - if I want 100% authentic I will watch modern BTCC - it is what it is, even though I preferred Sierras and Cortinas.

As a point of reference, this year's Phillip Island historic meeting ("held under the international sporting code of the FIA and the National Competition Rules of the CAMS permit number 816/1303/01") had three M8s entered, 2x 1972 M8F (8400 and 8095), and 1x M8E (8000). I could dig out last year's program, that year CanAm was the featured category and ISTR big engined Lola and March cars there as well as McLarens.

[Kenzclass]

The event referred to in #26 is likely to be the 2013 International Sports Car Challenge at the PI Historics, featured the following very large capacity (8000+cc) Can-Am/Interserie cars:

the winning Michael Lyons-driven  March 717 (8800 cc), the Andy Newall-driven, orange & very smokey JCB McLaren M8F (also 8800, which I've seen touted- doubtfully in my eyes- as an original Reynolds engine), the Duncan McKellar yellow ex- Roy Woods M8E (8100cc),  Sting GW1 (9000cc), the Peter Schleifer Lola Chevrolet T310 (8700cc) and Harry Read's McLaren M8C (8800cc).

I read earlier today, elsewhere, that 8.8 litres was the maximum size allowable in the erstwhile British Supersports (sic - think they meant Thundersports) series in the mid-to-late 80's. This probably explains the number of cars running this capacity.

Despite the big-inch sounds from these, the Matras still sounded way better, and a lot more thoroughbred!

[Lee Nicolle]

About 10 min research has the M8E hand grenade engine @ 8 litres and race engines 7620.

The later M20 used  a 509 Reynolds block aprox 8.3.

So 8.8 and 9 litre engines are not period! 454 is about 7.4

Chevrolet far later built 502 8.2  and 572 9,4 crate engines.

The aftermarket usually for a race engine the largest is 540. Though those engines are at least 20 years newer than the M8 series of cars.

[GreenMachine]

Thanks Ken, yes it was 2013.  I can't find my program, but I did find my photos from that year which confirm my memory was time-shifted a year or two  .

 

The Matras sounded great for sure, though seemed to have been troublesome.

[Kenzclass]

Here's a link to an article about the March 717. 

forums.finalgear.com/motorsports/march-717-8-8l-v8-41983

In keeping with the theme of this thread, it should be noted that the 717 never ran in the original Can Am series, only in Europe; I guess then, loosely, it's a "Can Am-type car" (in the sprit of the contemporary FIA Group 7 regs).

In terms of dubious originality, it's always been an easy justification to say that they would have done this (made the engines this big, or bigger) if they'd kept making them. The same irrational logic is often trotted out for such "replicas" as D-Type Jaguars with independent rear suspension, 4.2 litre road-based XK engines, etc. 

To some degree, I can understand the latitude allowed with the big-block Chev engines - it would be near impossible to utilise a period Reynolds or Chaparral unit without dire consequences - but a later repro unit built to period displacement is entirely possible. The McKellar M8E at 8.1 litres (495 ci) is period correct, size-wise.

I mentioned the Matra MS670's that ran at the 2013 PI meeting. Having read an article in one of the Australian racing mags, I was astounded to discover that the engines are not the original units, or even a faithful copy thereof; they're a completely re-engineered, lower-revving "improved unit" commissioned by the owner from Nicholson's in the UK.

So...all have sinned, it seems, when it comes to retaining much of the authenticity of the various cars' Glory Years.

For all that, PI was a great show that year, and proved that a 935K3 Porsche (Rusty's) is good enough t o see off most, or all of, the "small-block" Can Am cars. 

[2F-001]

I would have thought that a DFV would have been underpowered to cart the M8 around. Probably why it did not finish.

The M8C-DFV didn't finish at Croft because it crashed; after a delay on the opening lap, Craft was picking his way through the field and reeling in the leaders (707 and 917). Nothing got near it on lap-times.

 

I believe the chief reason for going with that chassis-engine combo was in order to race it as a sports-prototype (and possibly they already had DFVs). The Buenos Aries 1000km was how it got to South America.

 

But even with a big-block Chev, an M8 was much, much lighter than the 917 of the era and with a DFV could have similar p-to-w. The DFV would have been, what?, 50 or 60kg or so lighter than the big-block Chev in 1970 - someone will know. Even with the DFV, but with Craft driving, had it run in Can Am it might have been fairly competitive against all but the works McLarens and a handful of others. 

 

Reliability of the DFV could have been a big issue in endurance racing, but might have had a good run in Interserie. It could never have the sheer grunt of the best of the Chev-powered cars; even in the later CanAm era, a well-driven DFV car had a hard time against the very best of the 5-litre cars.

[kayemod]

I would have thought that a DFV would have been underpowered to cart the M8 around. Probably why it did not finish.

M8s I believe were also raced in some series with 6 litre limit, meaning modified 350 Chev in those days and probably just as quick as a legit 427/ 454 Chev, just turn it a bit harder. Though 8 litres will beat a 6 litre!!

 

A quote from driver Chris Craft on the de Cadenet M8/DFV.

 

"His next wheeze was to put a Cosworth DFV F1 engine in the back of a Can-Am McLaren M8C. Keith supervised the installation at Broadspeed, and it worked fantastically well. It didn't have the straight-line speed of the big Chevy McLarens, but the handling and the brakes were just great. The 1970 Swedish GP at Karlskoga was for sports cars: Ronnie Peterson and Niki Lauda in 908s, Reine Wisell in a Lola T70, Gijs van Lennep in the Porsche 917 that had come second at Le Mans. We beat them all and won. It was a gloomy day, though, because in the saloon race a car went into the crowd. Five spectators were killed and 27 injured. After that they didn't use Karlskoga for many years."

 

Clearly not too underpowered to beat an impressive field.

[Dick Dastardly]

Did Chris Craft use that de Cadenet M8/DFV to win the 1971 Norisring race where Pedro Rodriguez was killed? 

Edited by Dick Dastardly, 02 June 2016 - 18:06.

[opplock]

Craft won at Norisring in a 7.6l McLaren M8E. Autocourse report that the team did not compete in later rounds as they couldn't afford to carry on.  

[RA Historian]

Craft won at Norisring in a 7.6l McLaren M8E. Autocourse report that the team did not compete in later rounds as they couldn't afford to carry on.  

The M8E was sold to Bob Brown, who raced it in the Can Am. That car is currently in the Tom Malloy collection.

[Paul Parker]

My take on vintage racing is that the stock specifications of some of the cars must be taken with a grain of salt. There are any number of examples, but my disbelief was heightened when I first saw E Type Jags running rings around Ferrari GTOs and LMBs at The Goodwood Revival TT. Racing Jags, even the few original Lightweights were simply not competitive in period with their  Ferrari counterparts. There are explanations of course, and one is that E-Types have been continuously developed since the mid sixties, while the Ferraris must be closer to stock. The price differential of the models favour Jaguar, we are lucky to even see GTOs on the track and certainly can't expect owners to hot rod them to make them more competitive in vintage racing. Their point was made in the original races they have nothing left to prove.

This is just the way things are, and I still enjoy seeing various vintage cars in action, regardless of their claim to authenticity. The results of various classes do not mirror what could be expected 50 years ago and so be it, but the spectacle is still worth watching.

 

'even the few original Lightweights were simply not competitive in period with their Ferrari counterparts'.

 

Not so although I don't want to go into detail, just to note that Jaguar never properly developed the 'lightweight' E type concept, the boss used racing as a means to selling more road cars, not racing them per se and the one 'lightweight' they did further develop in house was the ill fated 'low drag' German car of Peter Lindner.

 

As an example the original ‘low drag’ E type (EC1001) with a light gauge steel centre section designed by Malcom Sayer had been tested at Goodwood by Roy Salvadori in March 1963. Yet it had been built in 1961/62 as one of a projected number of GT racers but it was left in the Experimental Department gathering dust until Dick Protheroe, who was friendly with Bill Lyons, was allowed to buy it for £1,635 including purchase tax. He took it straight to Reims and finished 2nd to Abate's Ferrari Testa Rossa and 1st in the GT class beating the Ferrari GTOs in the French GP support race.

 

Also it might interest some to know that in early 1964 Graham Hill recorded a 1m 26.8 second lap during testing at Goodwood in the Coombs 'lightweight' E type, which was four tenths quicker than Gurney's Goodwood TT practice lap in the Daytona Cobra in August.

[D28]

'even the few original Lightweights were simply not competitive in period with their Ferrari counterparts'.

 

Not so although I don't want to go into detail, just to note that Jaguar never properly developed the 'lightweight' E type concept, the boss used racing as a means to selling more road cars, not racing them per se and the one 'lightweight' they did further develop in house was the ill fated 'low drag' German car of Peter Lindner.

 

As an example the original ‘low drag’ E type (EC1001) with a light gauge steel centre section designed by Malcom Sayer had been tested at Goodwood by Roy Salvadori in March 1963. Yet it had been built in 1961/62 as one of a projected number of GT racers but it was left in the Experimental Department gathering dust until Dick Protheroe, who was friendly with Bill Lyons, was allowed to buy it for £1,635 including purchase tax. He took it straight to Reims and finished 2nd to Abate's Ferrari Testa Rossa and 1st in the GT class beating the Ferrari GTOs in the French GP support race.

 

Also it might interest some to know that in early 1964 Graham Hill recorded a 1m 26.8 second lap during testing at Goodwood in the Coombs 'lightweight' E type, which was four tenths quicker than Gurney's Goodwood TT practice lap in the Daytona Cobra in August.

Yes I am familiar with some individual successes Jaguar enjoyed against Ferrari, but overall I think it fair to say the E-Type was intended as a weapon against the 250GT with  which it would have been competitive. The GTO was a whole different game, as Ferrari upped the ante significantly. The philosophy of Enzo Ferrari and William Lyons toward racing vs production cars was  markedly different. With determined development of the special lightweights along the lines of Ferrari, perhaps they could have won more often, but this was not forthcoming. I wished at the time that the teams like Cunningham could have been more competitive at Le Mans.

My main point is that in current Vintage racing the E-Types seem much faster than they were in period.

Edited by D28, 03 June 2016 - 18:11.

[john aston]

Some current 'E Types' racing in historic  series are ballistically quick - Alan Minshaw's goes like no E type I have seen before or since. But as I said above , Historic motor sport is at best  an approximation of the past - which is why one sees cars winning now which never won in period. Stand up Bizzarini Stradas and Sunbeam Tigers...  

Edited by john aston, 04 June 2016 - 07:05.

[D28]

http://www.motorspor...54/passage-time

 

A bit of searching brought up this story by Tim Scott, which answers the question of why certain historic racers are quicker than the originals.

The Jag E-types Lightweights are not featured, but the results would be similar to the models showing great improvement. Nick Mason's GTO is featured and the explanation given is that it is more or less as raced in 1962, with no engine development..Common sense really, the car was not purchased with vintage racing in mind. Tires seem to be a factor in all the improved lap times, modern rubber even copies of originals are better made today.

Historic racing is meant to be enjoyed, and even if vintage Ferraris aren't trading paint with quicker rivals, their very appearance is a plus for enthusiasts..

[Duc-Man]

Just my opinon.

I think all historic race cars that had parts replaced in the nearer past got improvements, even if they were not intented, for a simple reason: the parts that were used 50 or 60 years ago are hard to get now. So they were replaced either with something that fits or a reproduction. And reproductions will be made from better materials than what was available back in the day.

Cars with intented improvements as in changed suspention geometry or way bigger engines shouldn't get a car pass unless it can be proven that it is a period correct modification.

[Allan Lupton]

 Tires seem to be a factor in all the improved lap times, modern rubber even copies of originals are better made today.

That's an often overlooked point. I remember that when the 250F Maseratis came to race as historic cars at Silverstone, when the track layout was still as it had been in 1954, a private owner (Charles Lucas or Angus Clydesdale?)  got round faster than Marimon, Moss, etc. did in period. Mostly tyres but a little help from a smoother surface I think.

[Andrew Fellowes]

?....... a private owner (Charles Lucas or Angus Clydesdale?)  got round faster than Marimon, Moss, etc. did in period. Mostly tyres but a little help from a smoother surface I think.

Charlie Lucas I believe.

[Lee Nicolle]

Just my opinon.

I think all historic race cars that had parts replaced in the nearer past got improvements, even if they were not intented, for a simple reason: the parts that were used 50 or 60 years ago are hard to get now. So they were replaced either with something that fits or a reproduction. And reproductions will be made from better materials than what was available back in the day.

Cars with intented improvements as in changed suspention geometry or way bigger engines shouldn't get a car pass unless it can be proven that it is a period correct modification.

Correct. Many parts are better. With no actual mods maching these days is better,replacement , pistons, rings, valves valve springs, cams are all better making more power, oils are better meaning you can rev the engine harder safely. Even if actually no harder but you can do it far longer.

Brake materials are  better, brake fluid is better meaning you can work the brakes harder.

Tyres are so much better meaning with all of the above you can lap seconds better than in the heyday.

SOME of the drivers too are better, more experience and having studied [sometimes subconsously] the dynamics of driving the car and the track.

Plus ofcourse the tracks are far better too.

 

Then ofcourse the majority have modified the cars with current thinking and have far better engines, transmissions and brakes and suspension. 

A modern 8 litre plus Chev in a M8 has 200 more HP with better everything.

And those Jags are turning 1500 more RPM modified and making a lot more power too.