13 replies to this topic

[Team Result]

A recent pic & comments on FB's Old Motor Racing Photographs page, activated my grey matter on the above subject, which I should be able to answer, but am having some doubts. Help me, please.

So the early Bathurst enduros stipulated Australian manufactured or assembled touring cars in minimum numbers. Whereas Series Production allowed FIA Group ! cars as well plus had different minimum production numbers from the Bathurst regs. Correct, so far?

 

Didn't Bathurst regs also stipulate mandatory use of all standard factory parts including consumables like drive belts, filters, brake linings and dampers(shocks)? I believe these were free as to make (though not spec) in Series Production, at the time. Of course, as the race grew in stature and event naming sponsors appeared, use of those major sponsors product became not only permissible, but a condition of entry. I am thinking of Armstrong (shock absorbers) and Hardie-Ferodo (brake materials). Have I got this correct?   

 

Any other differences between cars when competing at Bathurst and other Series Production races of the 1960s?

 

                                                                                                                              

[Ray Bell]

The race came out of a desire, as I understand it, to publicise Armstrong dampers...

 

The suggestion came from their promotional people and they sought out organisers who could promote the race. And a condition of all of this was that it be televised live.

 

The use of Armstrong dampers was a requirement, of course. And I assure you that cars other than Citroen IDs which didn't have Armstrongs, but other dampers painted the right colour to look like them.

 

Very little was allowed to be changed on the cars in those early years. Brake lining or pad materials were, I think, free in the interests of safety. Certainly, by the time they got to the Mountain the use of Hardie-Ferodo products had to be possible as they sponsored many events conducted by the ARDC at other meetings. The use of Hardie-Ferodo products was wise anyway as the company put a lot of effort into developing products to suit such racing and often had people at the circuit servicing the competitors. Safety belts could be fitted.

 

I don't know about belts and hoses and I don't have the resources to check. Minimum production numbers were a part of it all, of course, and the cars had to be built or assembled in Australia. 100 was the minimum number of identical cars which had to be sold and registered prior to the closing of entries.

 

For the first 100 miles of the race there were severe restrictions on servicing. The original toolkit which came with the car had to be used and only the driver could do the work, while there were other rules pointed at requiring the cars to be reliable.

 

As for the comparison with Series Production, yes, a very different field. This category came in later, it could have been 1964 or 1965 and it was always intended to allow overseas-produced cars. Immediately there was a clash with the 500 cars, though some were eligible. There probably (why don't I have the CAMS Manual?) was a 'local production' provision of, perhaps, 1,000 cars rather than the 5,000 of Group 1. And 'homologation' by the CAMS rather than by the FIA.

 

The overseas cars were allowed in at Bathurst from 1967, while another major difference between the 500 cars and Series Production was their class divisions. It was all on engine capacity for Series Production and the 500 was on price.

[cooper997]

Rules and numbers changed on the former and CAMS manual is probably the best place for Series Prod rules. Potentially some related info can be found in this old thread lurking in the TNF archive.

 

https://forums.autos...ates-1960-1990/

 

 

Stephen

[Lee Nicolle]

As happened on more than one occasion there was genuine parts, and genuine parts. The 327 HK Monaro that used replacement heads from a GM dealer which were a good deal better than the ones factory fitted to HKs 

That car from recollection was disqualified after starting on pole or near the front,

There was a few other similar things that happened also in the late 60s.  Mazda and Valiant?? I cant remember,

And a bit later cars with reputedly 500 sold,, to the dealers!! So were actually raced in contravention of the rules. I have a feeling at various times all the front runners did that

[Ray Bell]

Datsun and Toyota flouted the rules a fair bit in the tiddler class...

 

I think one of the quick Mazda 1300s got busted at some stage, but memory says that might have been at Sandown.

 

The heads of which you speak, Lee, were on the car of Des West and Ron Marks, prepared by Bruce Burr. The story they put up was that a valve seat got damaged in initial preparation so they bought a pair of replacement heads from the dealer and these had larger valves. They claimed that was what the dealer supplied, the rule book said the valves were still oversize.

 

They had crossed the line second. The next year Des would be third driving for Harry with Peter Brock supposed to be learning from him. A misfire dogged the car for thirty or forty laps.

[Lee Nicolle]

Datsun and Toyota flouted the rules a fair bit in the tiddler class...

 

I think one of the quick Mazda 1300s got busted at some stage, but memory says that might have been at Sandown.

 

The heads of which you speak, Lee, were on the car of Des West and Ron Marks, prepared by Bruce Burr. The story they put up was that a valve seat got damaged in initial preparation so they bought a pair of replacement heads from the dealer and these had larger valves. They claimed that was what the dealer supplied, the rule book said the valves were still oversize.

 

They had crossed the line second. The next year Des would be third driving for Harry with Peter Brock supposed to be learning from him. A misfire dogged the car for thirty or forty laps.

From memory the 327 HK still used small valve heads.  Same as a 307 head. Base model engine really. Why GMH did not use the better more powerfull engines that GM had in the US amazes me.  Vette or upmarket Camaro engines. An option on most models. Those engines were all imported and I doubt the price was very different. Even if brought in via Canada.

I do remember talk of the small cars cheating. The A12 Nissan comes in many different forms. Reputedly power is similar,, but where the engine makes it is a different story.

 

Edit, why didnt GMH also use the Muncie close ratio box, that alone would have been probably 2 sec a lap. And use the Hurst shifter that the upmarket Vettes and Camaros used. The diff ratios were homolgated from 3.7 down too 2.78. It would be interesting to find out what diff ratios were used. In all the manual V8 HKs I have seen they were all 3.36, as were the Powerslide auto GTS. I owned a HT 350 auto that had 3.08, a friend has a very noisy one in 350 manual HT GTS.

This is not hindsight but plain commonsense, they were road racing those cars in the US in 1967 with more power and close ratios than the gunker 2bbl 327s with 4bbl intake and carb and the less than ideal Saginaw box with that hatefull floor mounted shifter

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 22 June 2021 - 00:02.

[Ray Bell]

They already had some cubes on the XT Falcons...

 

GM-H were also assembling Chevs at that time, it could be the heads were from the Chev engine and they rationalised the spares. The disqualification of the West/Marks car was appealed, if I recall it went all the way to AMSAC.

 

There were definitely exclusions from results of some of the smaller cars over a few years. It wasn't just talk.

[cooper997]

1967 CAMS Manual pages for Series Production rules.

 

 

cooper997 collection

 

 

Stephen

 

 

[Team Result]

,,,

Edited by Team Result, 16 June 2021 - 13:10.

[Team Result]

Stephen Stockdale posted this exert from the 1967 Gallaher 500 regs on his SS Memorabilia FB page today. So now we can see the eligibility and technical rule differences between both categories (for 1967).

[Ray Bell]

Any chance of a link, Ross?

 

There was a definite difference between Bathurst eligibility and Series Production, but that ended some time in the late sixties and it's hard to pick the date.

 

Classes were chosen differently too.

[cooper997]

SS Memorabilia FB page 1966-67 programmes and regs should be here

https://www.facebook...?type=3

 

 

Stephen

[KBY191]

The 1968 Bathurst programme states that the event is run under the International Sporting Code of the FIA, the National Competition Rules of CAMS and the Race Rules and Regulations of the Australian Racing Drivers Club. The ARDC Rules provided that competing cars be in effect showroom standard as distinct from the Series Production Touring Car Rules laid out by CAMS (Group E). It is also evident that cars competing in the 500 need not have been issued a CAMS Log Book.

Edited by KBY191, 19 June 2021 - 01:03.

[Ray Bell]

The 1972 race was run to those strange price/capacity rules for the classes...

 

I suspect that was a Series Production thing. But I could be wrong.