66 replies to this topic

[TerryS]

Last Friday, the ex Bob Jane 1963 Jaguar E Type Lightweight Competition was sold at the Bonham's auction in Arizona for just under AUD 10,000,000.

In addition there is a Buyers Premium of 10% of hammer price. So just add another AUD 1,000,000 to the total.

The car is the 10th of only 12 ever built, and believed to be the most original. It has never been disassembled or rebuilt in any significant manner.
It has had only 3 owners and has only done 4,000 miles.

When the original ordinary E Type was introduced it was claimed by Jaguar to be a 150 mph car. Yet this lightweight full competition version could only achieve 146 mph
down Conrod Straight at Bathurst.

I like the small print that you can pay by cash or other normal means however "the amount of cash that can be accepted from a given purchaser may be limited."

So you might have trouble fronting up with AUD 11M in cash......

http://www.bonhams.c...s/23945/lot/24/

[SJ Lambert]

I can't make out the tyre bulge on the rear guards in that link that the car was sporting around 1965/6.

[RCH]

Regarding top speed I suspect aerodynamics and gearing. I believe the Cunningham Lightweights were considered disappointing on the Mulsanne at Le Mans 1963. The roadster and hardtop configuration was perhaps not as aerodynamically good as the standard coupe and certainly not the "Low Drag" cars. The Lightweights were generally used on short British tracks with no long straights so would have been geared accordingly.

[Paul Parker]

Regarding top speed I suspect aerodynamics and gearing. I believe the Cunningham Lightweights were considered disappointing on the Mulsanne at Le Mans 1963. The roadster and hardtop configuration was perhaps not as aerodynamically good as the standard coupe and certainly not the "Low Drag" cars. The Lightweights were generally used on short British tracks with no long straights so would have been geared accordingly.

 

Despite their smooth lines, the E type, road or racing, suffered from extreme front end lift which even afflicted the 'low drag' cars, to a lesser degree whilst the factory built German car for Lindner in 1964 had a ride height that would not have disgraced a rallycross car.

 

I well recall reaching an indicated 143 mph in 1969 in a 1966 4.2 litre FHC which was all it would do, it was scary as above 115-120 mph the road in front of the car gradually disappeared from sight and a similar speed in a roadster version as a passenger a few years later whilst a friend who had a totally rebuilt early '61 car which had been gas flowed and generally improved maxed out at an indicated 145 mph.

 

In 1964 Samir Klat's modified 49 FXN for Sargent/Lumsden was 4 inches lower at the front due to relocating the steering rack and lowering the inside pick up for the upper front wishbones to achieve the desired amount of negative camber which increased grip and also eliminated the E type's bump steer.

 

As for the Cunningham roadster lightweights in 1963, these had spotlights inset into the nose either side of the air intake which surely made the already poor aerodynamics even worse, circa 160 mph was about the maximum apparently although Le Mans stats in period were not consistent.

[Ray Bell]

A couple of inconsistencies caught my eye on the cited page so I checked it out...

If December 6 was the car's debut at Calder (Aust GT Championship over ten 1-mile laps!) then claiming that the car won the Production Sports Car event at Catalina was strange. Catalina was November 10 and I'm sure that was the red car.

And the lap record claimed for the car at Warwick Farm (December 1... again, before Calder) was in fact the Touring Car.

'Wins at Calder and Sandown'? Calder on January 26 saw Bob score wins all right, in the Fiat 2300 and the Mk 2 Jag. No E-type present at Calder, but it was at Sandown to be an also-ran (dicing with Carter) while Bob's win was in the Mk 2 once again.

Yes, it did score second in the ATT at Longford, second at Calder to Thomson's Mallala and at Bathurst it was third in the NSWSCC, also the April Sandown third place and fastest lap are correct.

1965... Bathurst on February 21? Here we see two results claimed for one meeting, with two wins at Bathurst and a 147mph top speed (what's 1mph between friends?), but the Lakeside (May 2) 1-hour result is really mystifying.

Bill Jane is said to have driven the car in this race, but it simply wasn't there. It was a Touring Car race for Series Production cars! The E-type was not at that meeting.

Later in the year it was fourth in the ATT, but reference to Longford is incorrect and the crash with Demuth's Lotus 23 at Lakeside is not mentioned.

Perhaps the hardest one to work out is the October, 1966, Sandown... 'Martin was third'? Not in the E-type, Bob blew its engine on the Saturday, Spencer's only race was the Gold Star event and he won that in the Brabham.

Unfortunately Terry McGrath's name is linked to all of these results and I'm sure he wouldn't have given all this erroneous information. He wouldn't have claimed Bob won 'four consecutive Bathurst 500s' either, he would have known that two were at Phillip Island.




.

Edited by Ray Bell, 23 January 2017 - 16:01.

[D28]

Unfortunately Terry McGrath's name is linked to all of these results and I'm sure he wouldn't have given all this erroneous information.




.

For the second time in a few days, I see rather dubious claims posted on a noted auto seller's page. Is buyer beware really the operating principle in place; it is up to the peruser to verify the information as best he can? Problem is that once posted on the net, details simply get repeated and it becomes impossible to correct them. I would have expected more from Bonhams, but probably shouldn't.

[Ray Bell]

Of course, it came awfully close to a fact that this car might not have made it this far...

Back in the early seventies it was on display at Bob's T-Mart showroom in Granville. Alongside it were the D-type and McLaren M6 and on the roof was a would-be suicide intent on going out in a blaze of glory.

He lowered himself down to the cars, fitted his battery to the McLaren and it failed to start. Then he tried the E-type and it wouldn't start either. The D-type did, so he gunned it through the low brick and plate-glass window and headed off towards the Great Western Highway. His plan was to drive to Victoria Pass and plunge over the cliff in the car.

Bob was distraught enough with the result of the episode, which ended less than a mile up the road when the man spun the car turning out of Church Street and left it 'beached' on the median strip. He left the car there, holes in the bodywork from the shower of plate-glass it had endured and a fair bit of blood from the glass that hit him.

[D-Type]

I read somewhere that Jaguar got round the homologation issue by listing the Lightweight as the "Standard Model" and the normal steel-bodied car as a "Variation".  This allowed them far more scope for additional modifications.  But I can't remember where I read it and it may just be a "penny-a-liner" inventing the story.

[Paul Parker]

I read somewhere that Jaguar got round the homologation issue by listing the Lightweight as the "Standard Model" and the normal steel-bodied car as a "Variation".  This allowed them far more scope for additional modifications.  But I can't remember where I read it and it may just be a "penny-a-liner" inventing the story.

 

You probably read it in Paul Skilleter's JAGUAR SPORTS CARS (P263) whilst in Andrew Whyte's Jaguar Sports Racing and Works Competition Cars From 1954 it states, METHOD OF DEALING WITH HOMOLOGATION CARS BY THE FIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPENDIX J TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE January 1963.

 

According to Skilleter Jaguar were using the production car figures and the obligatory 100 cars was easily exceeded by the production E type which Jaguar apparently registered as the racer and the racer as a production car, additionally one of the allowances was that alternative coachwork could be declared for GT cars, that took care of the alloy bodywork

 

As an aside Aston Martin's DP 214 GT racer was an out and out racing car, just 2 were built and its only nod to the production cars was that it used a modified wet sump engine from the DB4 GT road car, unlike the prototype 215 which had a dry sump 4 litre motor.

 

Ditto the 250GTO that was also a bona fide racing car that nevertheless was also allowed.

 

At the time the GT cars were in favour and perhaps the FIA wanted some viable competition in the GT class, otherwise Ferrari would just dominate the category as it had done with its 'prototypes' in period.

[D28]

 

 

Ditto the 250GTO that was also a bona fide racing car that nevertheless was also allowed.

 

At the time the GT cars were in favour and perhaps the FIA wanted some viable competition in the GT class, otherwise Ferrari would just dominate the category as it had done with its 'prototypes' in period.

Authors Keith Bluemel and Jess Pourret in their tome Ferrari 250 GTO  go to some length to make the case that the model was a logical evolution  of the 250 GT and not the outright cheater that is often portrayed. They do document many timely homologation papers filed with the FIA. The numbers produced never approached 100, but a run of 36 dwarfs those of rivals including the light weight Jags and the Cobra Coupes. The authors had this to say:

 

"the issue of production numbers was the particular bogey with rival manufacturers, but again one wonders why complaints were not directed against the Aston Martin DB$ Zagato and Lightweight Jaguar E-type which were homologated on a similar basis"

 

This probably has been  discussed here before. The authors make a reasonable case as far as I can make out, but is their real merit to the argument?  Certainly the model is forever referenced  as somehow hoodwinking the FIA regulations, I wonder how much of that is really deserved?

Edited by D28, 23 January 2017 - 19:43.

[TerryS]

A few photos from Autopics of Jane's lwt E Type showing more flared rear guards.

http://autopics.com....wick-farm-1965/

http://autopics.com....r-sandown-1966/

http://autopics.com....adrien-schagen/

http://autopics.com....wick-farm-1966/

[SJ Lambert]

One of Dad's images from a Mallala meeting.

 

[Paul Parker]

Authors Keith Bluemel and Jess Pourret in their tome Ferrari 250 GTO  go to some length to make the case that the model was a logical evolution  of the 250 GT and not the outright cheater that is often portrayed. They do document many timely homologation papers filed with the FIA. The numbers produced never approached 100, but a run of 36 dwarfs those of rivals including the light weight Jags and the Cobra Coupes. The authors had this to say:

 

"the issue of production numbers was the particular bogey with rival manufacturers, but again one wonders why complaints were not directed against the Aston Martin DB$ Zagato and Lightweight Jaguar E-type which were homologated on a similar basis"

 

This probably has been  discussed here before. The authors make a reasonable case as far as I can make out, but is their real merit to the argument?  Certainly the model is forever referenced  as somehow hoodwinking the FIA regulations, I wonder how much of that is really deserved?

 

I agree, it was not my intention to criticise Ferrari or indeed Aston Martin, just pointing out the situation.

 

Much the same could be said of the Daytona Cobras surely which were another limited run and significantly different from the production model.

 

However it should be pointed out that the 'lightweight' E types, even in 'low drag' form, were still much closer to their production car origins than the GTOs, 214s and Daytona Cobras.

[Paul Parker]

One of Dad's images from a Mallala meeting.

 

 

Those wheels look like widened originals rather than the BRM style rims used in 1964 by the Coombs, Lindner, Sutcliffe, Sargent/Lumsden et al.

[RCH]

The Ferrari GTO got around homologation because the rules allowed for alternative bodies so long as the chassis was the same. Not sure how close the chassis was to the SWB but presumably Ferrari got away with it, however the SWB was a cheat as well because it needed to rely on LWB 250GTs for the numbers, and the chassis was different because it was shorter. The alternative body situation applied to the Zagato DB4 GT as well but then they needed to rely on standard DB4s for the numbers then again the chassis wasn't the same, it was shorter. As for the P214 Astons, who knows, presumably they claimed the same chassis again. As for the Lightweight E Type I have read that Jaguar merely claimed that the steel and aluminium shells were standard options and future production would be aluminium. Because they were monocoque shells they couldn't get away with claiming a standard chassis with an alternative body.

 

There seems to have been a situation of waving through a car with far fewer than the required numbers if the manufacturer claimed they would be making the necessary cars in the future. I assume this was the basis on which Ferrari thought he could homologate the 250LM. However with GTO v. Cobra v. E Type v. P214 having the potential for good racing presumably the FIA thought that the LM would upset things and they turned it down.

[Paul Newby]

Ray, I never heard the story about the E Type, D Type and the McLaren M6 in the Granville T-Mart story before - do you recall what year this was? Was there any press coverage?

 

Also I didn't know that Bob Jane owned a D Type? Which one was it?

[Tim Murray]

According to the info on the page below the D-Type was XKD532 and the theft occurred in 1976:

http://www.coventryr...datahistory=yes

[TerryS]

A couple of inconsistencies caught my eye on the cited page so I checked it out...

If December 6 was the car's debut at Calder (Aust GT Championship over ten 1-mile laps!) then claiming that the car won the Production Sports Car event at Catalina was strange. Catalina was November 10 and I'm sure that was the red car.

And the lap record claimed for the car at Warwick Farm (December 1... again, before Calder) was in fact the Touring Car.

'Wins at Calder and Sandown'? Calder on January 26 saw Bob score wins all right, in the Fiat 2300 and the Mk 2 Jag. No E-type present at Calder, but it was at Sandown to be an also-ran (dicing with Carter) while Bob's win was in the Mk 2 once again.

Yes, it did score second in the ATT at Longford, second at Calder to Thomson's Mallala and at Bathurst it was third in the NSWSCC, also the April Sandown third place and fastest lap are correct.

1965... Bathurst on February 21? Here we see two results claimed for one meeting, with two wins at Bathurst and a 147mph top speed (what's 1mph between friends?), but the Lakeside (May 2) 1-hour result is really mystifying.

Bill Jane is said to have driven the car in this race, but it simply wasn't there. It was a Touring Car race for Series Production cars! The E-type was not at that meeting.

Later in the year it was fourth in the ATT, but reference to Longford is incorrect and the crash with Demuth's Lotus 23 at Lakeside is not mentioned.

Perhaps the hardest one to work out is the October, 1966, Sandown... 'Martin was third'? Not in the E-type, Bob blew its engine on the Saturday, Spencer's only race was the Gold Star event and he won that in the Brabham.

Unfortunately Terry McGrath's name is linked to all of these results and I'm sure he wouldn't have given all this erroneous information. He wouldn't have claimed Bob won 'four consecutive Bathurst 500s' either, he would have known that two were at Phillip Island.




.

In addition I don't believe Jane was ever an ex truck driver.

He never raced the D Type and its engine was never enlarged to 4.2 litres.

So much for the accuracy of auction publicity.

[AJB]

AU$11,000,000 for a second hand E-Type!? They could have bought a brand-new one for £1,000,000 last year. And with no disputes over its provenance either. :-)

[Ray Bell]

Do misleading statements amount to questions of provenance?

Just mild surprises to the next owner, I guess, unless he'd sought more accurate information elsewhere.

[RCH]

I suspect that if you were prepared to pay 11million for a car you would already know its story!

[arttidesco]

The Ferrari GTO got around homologation because the rules allowed for alternative bodies so long as the chassis was the same. Not sure how close the chassis was to the SWB but presumably Ferrari got away with it, however the SWB was a cheat as well because it needed to rely on LWB 250GTs for the numbers, and the chassis was different because it was shorter. The alternative body situation applied to the Zagato DB4 GT as well but then they needed to rely on standard DB4s for the numbers then again the chassis wasn't the same, it was shorter. As for the P214 Astons, who knows, presumably they claimed the same chassis again. As for the Lightweight E Type I have read that Jaguar merely claimed that the steel and aluminium shells were standard options and future production would be aluminium. Because they were monocoque shells they couldn't get away with claiming a standard chassis with an alternative body.

There seems to have been a situation of waving through a car with far fewer than the required numbers if the manufacturer claimed they would be making the necessary cars in the future. I assume this was the basis on which Ferrari thought he could homologate the 250LM. However with GTO v. Cobra v. E Type v. P214 having the potential for good racing presumably the FIA thought that the LM would upset things and they turned it down.

Can't remember where exactly I read it but my understanding is that the sanctioning body started taking it's own regulations more seriously when Porsche homologated the 904 with the correct minimum number of vehicles ready for inspection.

[BRG]

There seems to have been a situation of waving through a car with far fewer than the required numbers if the manufacturer claimed they would be making the necessary cars in the future. I assume this was the basis on which Ferrari thought he could homologate the 250LM. However with GTO v. Cobra v. E Type v. P214 having the potential for good racing presumably the FIA thought that the LM would upset things and they turned it down.

 

Can't remember where exactly I read it but my understanding is that the sanctioning body started taking it's own regulations more seriously when Porsche homologated the 904 with the correct minimum number of vehicles ready for inspection.

Far more recently, BMW got a waiver for their V8 engined M3 on a promise that they were definitely going to make some, honestly guv.  And then they didn't.  Even more recently, Ford have raced their GT long before they actually made any for sale, which they supposedly now are doing.  So things don't change much.

[Kenzclass]

In case it hasn't been aired on the Forum previously, there's lots of info on Bob's No 10 Lightweight, including the original spec sheets, plus correspondence, including factory upgrade details (esp. the wide wheels), parts orders by Bryson's etc. at

http://www.jaguarher... files/ltwt.pdf

All the other Lightweights get similar documentation, too - hours of fascinating reading for Jag aficionados.

[D28]

The Ferrari GTO got around homologation because the rules allowed for alternative bodies so long as the chassis was the same. Not sure how close the chassis was to the SWB but presumably Ferrari got away with it, however the SWB was a cheat as well because it needed to rely on LWB 250GTs for the numbers, and the chassis was different because it was shorter. The alternative body situation applied to the Zagato DB4 GT as well but then they needed to rely on standard DB4s for the numbers then again the chassis wasn't the same, it was shorter. As for the P214 Astons, who knows, presumably they claimed the same chassis again. As for the Lightweight E Type I have read that Jaguar merely claimed that the steel and aluminium shells were standard options and future production would be aluminium. Because they were monocoque shells they couldn't get away with claiming a standard chassis with an alternative body.

 

There seems to have been a situation of waving through a car with far fewer than the required numbers if the manufacturer claimed they would be making the necessary cars in the future. I assume this was the basis on which Ferrari thought he could homologate the 250LM. However with GTO v. Cobra v. E Type v. P214 having the potential for good racing presumably the FIA thought that the LM would upset things and they turned it down.

In Ferrari 250 GTO  the authors state that the 250 GT SWB was an evolution of the LWB model, and the GTO was a further evolution; by 1962 they say the SWB production numbers had reached 100 and these formed the basis of the GTO homologation. The 250 GT Comp/62 (factory designation for the GTO) had the same wheelbase, 2400 mm, as a SWB GT,  but the chassis was modified, so not the same.

[D-Type]

I read somewhere that Jaguar got round the homologation issue by listing the Lightweight as the "Standard Model" and the normal steel-bodied car as a "Variation".  This allowed them far more scope for additional modifications.  But I can't remember where I read it and it may just be a "penny-a-liner" inventing the story.

I forgot to say that the loophole that Jaguar reputedly exploited was that the regulations called for a minimum number of "the variation" to be made but set no minimum for the basic model.

[Paul Parker]

The Ferrari GTO got around homologation because the rules allowed for alternative bodies so long as the chassis was the same. Not sure how close the chassis was to the SWB but presumably Ferrari got away with it, however the SWB was a cheat as well because it needed to rely on LWB 250GTs for the numbers, and the chassis was different because it was shorter. The alternative body situation applied to the Zagato DB4 GT as well but then they needed to rely on standard DB4s for the numbers then again the chassis wasn't the same, it was shorter. As for the P214 Astons, who knows, presumably they claimed the same chassis again. As for the Lightweight E Type I have read that Jaguar merely claimed that the steel and aluminium shells were standard options and future production would be aluminium. Because they were monocoque shells they couldn't get away with claiming a standard chassis with an alternative body.

 

There seems to have been a situation of waving through a car with far fewer than the required numbers if the manufacturer claimed they would be making the necessary cars in the future. I assume this was the basis on which Ferrari thought he could homologate the 250LM. However with GTO v. Cobra v. E Type v. P214 having the potential for good racing presumably the FIA thought that the LM would upset things and they turned it down.

 

The Aston Martin DP214s were a cheat as John Wyer admitted in print, (RACING WITH THE DAVID BROWN ASTON MARTINS VOLUME ONE P198). Unlike the very heavy DB4 platform which had been used in the 212, the 214s/215 had very light box section girder frames, quote "Because the 214s were to run in the production class the new chassis was strictly illegal but we did not think that anyone would look too hard and so it proved."

[arttidesco]

I suspect that if you were prepared to pay 11million for a car you would already know its story!

The accuracy of which might depend on the reliability of ones investment advisors ;-)

[Peter Morley]

I suspect that if you were prepared to pay 11million for a car you would already know its story!

 

I used to think that but it turns out that many people who can afford such things don't have the time, inclination or knowledge to do so and rely on advisors, which has been known to go wrong occasionally!

[Lee Nicolle]

I used to think that but it turns out that many people who can afford such things don't have the time, inclination or knowledge to do so and rely on advisors, which has been known to go wrong occasionally!

And people who do know the real story of said vehicles usually require one or two naughts off the end of the price!

I bet Bob Jane is crying that he sold it!

[bill p]

Far more recently, BMW got a waiver for their V8 engined M3 on a promise that they were definitely going to make some, honestly guv.  And then they didn't.

Oh yes they did, the E92 M3 which had a 4-litre V8........

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Paul Newby
Ray, I never heard the story about the E Type, D Type and the McLaren M6 in the Granville T-Mart story before - do you recall what year this was? Was there any press coverage?
 
Also I didn't know that Bob Jane owned a D Type? Which one was it?

It was the Jack Murray car, as has been posted...

The Granville incident took place in June, 1976. There's a Bits & Pieces item in the July RCN on page 6. It reminds me that the Maserati 300S, which Jane did race, was also in the showroom.

I have no doubt that some newspaper carried the story at the time. Sorry it took so long for me to find this item.

[BRG]

Oh yes they did, the E92 M3 which had a 4-litre V8........

..but not the E46 model which was the cheating one.

[bill p]

..but not the E46 model which was the cheating one.

Sorry BRG, I stand corrected...

Bill P

[Ray Bell]

Getting back to the E-type...

The 'major win' Jane scored in his debut outing bears a bit of consideration. The event was the Australian Gran Tourismo Championship of 1963.

Such Championship races were relatively new in Australia at the time. Our Gold Star Championship had been established as a series only six years earlier in 1957 and the only 'Championships' to predate this were the Australian Grand Prix (since 1929 officially) and the Australian Tourist Trophy, reinstated in 1956 as a support for the big international contingent her for the Grand Prix of 1956. In fact, this had not become an annual event until 1958, and I'm not sure of the standing of the pre-War ATT event/s.

In 1960 the GT Championship and the Touring Car Championship were established.

It was the practice of the CAMS to allocate these races to different circuits around Australia and to move them, generally, from year to year according to the ability of the circuit to conduct the races and their willingness to do so. In practice, circuits would apply for the titles depending on how confident they were that they could attrace a field and use it to attract spectators.

So on to the GT Championship...

In 1960 it was conducted over 13 laps (50.375 miles) at Bathurst. It attracted over 35 entries and about 30 started the race with the Geoghegan Elite winning from Gavin Youl's Porsche and Ian Geoghegan in the ex-Touring Car Holden.

1961 saw the race at Warwick Farm, AMS says it was over '50 miles', but that can't be exact as the Farm was 2.25 miles around, typically major races of this length were held over 51.75 miles or 23 laps. I have no idea of entry and starter numbers, but the AMS report does mention 16 in the main race and another in one of the two preliminary heats, indicating to me a decent entry list overall. Frank Matich ran away in the D-type with a roof, second was David McKay in the similarly modified Lola and Brian Foley in a Sprite.

Lakeside hosted the race in 1962, running it over 50 laps - 75 miles. with twelve starters. No big cars came from the Southern states but there were some serious local cars. John French won in the Centaur from Basile in Sid Sakzewski's Porsche Carrera and Bill Pitt in the 3,4 Jag stripped of bumpers and rear seat.

It can be seen from all of this that GT racing was the lurking place of stripped Touring Cars, Sports Racing cars and Production Sports cars with hardtops added as well as the rare genuine GT car. Cars which otherwise had no other place to go or which were hastily altered to fit into a category where they could get another run.

So we move on to the one this E-Type won, Calder in 1963.

It was scheduled to be run over 20 laps of the circuit which was shorter than any on which an Australian title had ever been run, about one mile to the lap. This was no race of stature apart from it having the title, and then on the day it was reduced to just ten laps because of the paltry entry. The report in RCN reads:

The new alloy fuel-injected "E" Type Jaguar of Bob Jane had its debut amongst a mediocre field in the GT Championship and won without even trying.

Bob circulated quietly getting further and further in front of Murray Carter's {carter} Corvette and brother Bill in the red "normal" E Type.

The organisers in their wisdom chopped the distance from 20 to 10 laps and saved the crowd from being too bored, What a difference from the GT Championship of a few years ago!

The above named cars filled the placings and Brian Foley brought the P & R Williams Sprite into fourth ahead of sundry Austin A30s and Peter Manton's MGB Coupe driven by Ian McDonald.

.....Bill Jane drove very well in his first outing in the red car and finished only a few seconds behind Carter.

I am quite sure that, even if the CAMS didn't specify a minimum distance for this event, the moment it was reduced to ten laps it was no longer an Australian Title race.

But it remains in the record books...



.

Edited by Ray Bell, 30 January 2017 - 01:46.

[terry mcgrath]

I saw the material in the auction and gasped but probably to late to get it amended, irrelevant to sale of E anyway,

The race results they referred to I prepared back prior to peter briggs selling the car in 1999 and they are below. With the aid of the internet/Autopics on line etc etc  now it could be much improved on.

And in fact if anyone can add anything on the list below or has photos of the car at any of these races I would love to know.

regards terry

 

 

LIGHTWEIGHT E TYPE

 

Brief Resume of Race History

 

8/12/63                 CALDER                                                       (  )           1^st Aust. G.T. Championship.

                                                                                                                        51.8 secs.  G.T. lap record

 

26/1/64                 CALDER                                                       (7)     1^st

 

9/2/64                   SANDOWN A.G.P. MEETING                        (7)     1^st

 

28/2-2/3/64            LONGFORD                                                (16)    2^nd Aust. Tourist Trophy.

                                                                                                                        Timed at 156 mph.

 

8/3/64                   CALDER

 

29/3/64                 BATHURST                                                 (  )    3^rdN.S.W.SportsCar Championship.       

 

5/4/64                   CALDER                                                      

 

19/4/64                 SANDOWN PARK                                       (23)   3^rd Vic. Sports Car Championship.

                                                                                                                        Fastest lap 1:20.8s.

 

7/64                     BRANDS HATCH G.P.                                 (34)   10^th in supporting event

 

21/2/65                 BATHURST                                                (9)    Timed at 147.5.mph Fastest lap 2:38.7s.

 

21/2/65                 SANDOWN (?)                                            (8)

 

13/6/65                 CATALINA PARK                                       (2)   Hit Fred Gibson Elan

 

26/9/65                 SANDOWN                                                 (5)

 

14/11/65               LAKESIDE                                                 (6)    4^th Aust. Tourist Trophy.

                                                                                                                        Raced without hardtop.

 

13/2/66                 WARWICK FARM                                      (4)

 

20/2/66                 LAKESIDE 31^ST A.G.P.                               (36)   Ran over Lotus 23B

 

27/2/66                 SANDOWN                                                (16)

 

5-7/3/66                LONGFORD                                               (6)          

 

22/5/66                 CALDER                                                    (  )   Driver Spencer Martin

 

13/6/66                 Mallala                                                       (  )   Driver Spencer Martin fastest lap 1:26.5s

so if this is the june 66 meeting it was race number 7

https://postimg.cc/image/au3avampp/

 

16/10/66               SANDOWN                                                (  )   3^rd  Driver Spencer Martin

 

28/8/66                 SANDOWN                                               (7)   Driver Spencer Martin

 

18/9/66                 WARWICK FARM                                     (4)  Drv Spencer Martin.Won G.T. race.

                                                                                                                        Fastest lap 1:44.0s.                                     

 

16/10/66               SANDOWN                                               (  )  Bob Jane haemorrhaged the E Type

                                                                                                                        in practice.

 

(  ) race number.

[AJB]

 

 

There seems to have been a situation of waving through a car with far fewer than the required numbers if the manufacturer claimed they would be making the necessary cars in the future. I assume this was the basis on which Ferrari thought he could homologate the 250LM. However with GTO v. Cobra v. E Type v. P214 having the potential for good racing presumably the FIA thought that the LM would upset things and they turned it down.

I seem to recall that at the time Ferrari claimed that the 250LM was an "evolution" of the GTO, which is possibly why it continued to be called a 250 when it was actually a 275 and why the 1964 GTO had a roofline very similar to the 250LM to 'prove its bloodline'. Even the FIA couldnt fall for this, but luckily for Ferrari the homologation requirement was dropped from 100 to 50 allowing the 250LM to be accepted as 32 was close enough for the FIA.

Maybe 50 have been built by now (but not by Ferrarri!).

[D28]

I seem to recall that at the time Ferrari claimed that the 250LM was an "evolution" of the GTO, which is possibly why it continued to be called a 250 when it was actually a 275 and why the 1964 GTO had a roofline very similar to the 250LM to 'prove its bloodline'. Even the FIA couldnt fall for this, but luckily for Ferrari the homologation requirement was dropped from 100 to 50 allowing the 250LM to be accepted as 32 was close enough for the FIA.

Maybe 50 have been built by now (but not by Ferrarri!).

The 250 LM was homologated in Feb 66, about 2 years too late to be competitive as a GT racer. Still it did provide the last ever outright Le Mans win which is something worthwhile. I think a case can be made for GTO homologation (see post 10) but the 250 LM was never an evolution of any model, simply a P car with a roof. But 32 models is still an impressive production number.

[Ray Bell]

Thanks for coming to the party with this, Terry...

Calder January 1964 - third (Stillwell, Thomson, Jane)

Sandown February 1964 - seventh (Matich, Stillwell, Geoghegan, Gardner, Roxburgh, Thomson. Jane. Carter)

Calder March 1964 - third (Stillwell, Thomson, Jane)

Bathurst March 1964 (6) - third (Geoghegan, C. Smith, Jane, Cusack)

Calder April 1964 - second (Thomson, Jane, Roxburgh)

Sandown February 1965 - I don't believe the car was there, no mention in race reports

Bathurst April 1965 - first in both 4-lap and 13-lap races for 'Improved Production Sports Cars'*

Catalina June 1965 - retired with body damage after crash, had been leading. DNS second race.

Sandown September 1965 - third (Bartlett, Martin, Jane -1 lap, Demuth)

Warwick Farm December 1966 - fifth (Cusack, Martin, Howard, Demuth, Jane, Gibson)

Calder January 1966 - third (Hamilton, Mitchell, Jane)

Warwick Farm February 1966 - fourth (Cusack, Demuth, Geoghegan, Jane)

Lakeside February 1966 - third Saturday 6-lap (Cusack, Demuth, Jane, Gibson), Ret 15-lap retired after crashing over Demuth Lotus 23

Sandown February 1966 - DNS

Longford 1966 - DNS

Calder May 1966 - Martin third (Stillard, Reed, Martin) after first lap spin avoiding Osborne, 51.0 fastest lap (?)

Mallala June 1966 - Martin second (Hurd. Martin, Cook - Elfin Mono, Thorp - Cobra)

Sandown June 1966 - third main race (Matich, Hamilton, Martin, Cusack), third in heat (Hamilton, Roxburgh, Martin)

Warwick Farm September 1966 - first in GT race (Martin, Allen, Bartlett); third 10-lap open sports (Cusack, Buchanan, Martin)

* Bathurst report mentions that this was first outing since Brands Hatch, confirming non-appearance at Sandown.

I don't know where you have mixed up the Sandown 1966 results, there was no meeting there in August and you have the June meeting redated to October.




.

Edited by Ray Bell, 02 February 2017 - 05:37.

[TerryS]

Ray, what about the March 1964 Longford result? Do you agree?

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by TerryS
Ray, what about the March 1964 Longford result? Do you agree?

It took some digging, Terry...

Jane was second in the ATT to Matich after Stillwell and Coad were disqualified for not starting on the starter motors before the start. But two points are open to question:

1. 156mph? Stillwell did 156, Matich 150, one report said '145mph was well within the stride of Jane's car'.

2. The race was held on February 29, not in March.

3. It's possible Jane ran in a Sports Car Handicap on the Monday, but no reports mention him.

[TerryS]

It took some digging, Terry...

Jane was second in the ATT to Matich after Stillwell and Coad were disqualified for not starting on the starter motors before the start. But two points are open to question:

1. 156mph? Stillwell did 156, Matich 150, one report said '145mph was well within the stride of Jane's car'.

2. The race was held on February 29, not in March.

3. It's possible Jane ran in a Sports Car Handicap on the Monday, but no reports mention him.

So it seems the 146mph that Jane achieved at Bathurst was the fastest the car went in Australia.

I remember at the time that there was a lot of talk about only achieving that because the factory at the launch of the ordinary E Type claimed it was a 150mph car.

Here we had a special competition version could only achieve 146mph down Conrod Straight.

[Tim Murray]

My understanding is that the cars supplied for Motor and Autocar magazines to road test when the E-Type was launched had significantly more powerful engines than those in standard production models:

http://www.aronline....-jaguar-e-type/

[GMACKIE]

I'm sure an E-Type would could achieve 150 MPH...with help from a long down-hill, and a tail-wind.

[TerryS]

My understanding is that the cars supplied for Motor and Autocar magazines to road test when the E-Type was launched had significantly more powerful engines than those in standard production models:http://www.aronline....-jaguar-e-type/

That is a great article Tim and supplies a lot of info i wasn't aware of.

The old story of "special" models for the press to sample.......

Still going on isn't it?

[TerryS]

I'm sure an E-Type would could achieve 150 MPH...with help from a long down-hill, and a tail-wind.

Greg, the old Conrad Straight was a pretty good "long down hill"......

[GMACKIE]

Yep, Terry...only the cross-wind on Con-Rod did more harm than good.

[Ray Bell]

With many cars the speed down Conrod is hampered by gearing...

It's a well-known story that climbing the mountain is where most of the lap time is saved, so with a car without multiple gears it was commonplace to gear for Mountain Straight and feather slightly down Conrod.

[RCH]

The E Type was launched as a car capable of 150mph so Jaguar made sure the cars supplied for road tests were that fast, I think the racing tyres were a sensible option given that road tyres would have been doubtful at such speeds.

 

As Ray says and as I suggested earlier the top speed recorded at Bathurst probably had much to do with gearing. Also it has been pointed out that the E Type had a tendency to front end lift and there was a crosswind on the Conrod Straight. Maybe discretion played a part in limiting speed?

[Kenzclass]

With many cars the speed down Conrod is hampered by gearing...

It's a well-known story that climbing the mountain is where most of the lap time is saved, so with a car without multiple gears it was commonplace to gear for Mountain Straight and feather slightly down Conrod.

So perhaps nothing to be gained top speed-wise, either, with the intended ZF 5 speeder, as 5th was direct drive. And apparently much heavier than the 4 speed.

Although, picking up on Ray's mountain climbing point, using that box may have allowed a higher diff ratio, with the more favourable spread of intermediates up the mountain.