FIA Homologation Papers & HTPs

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Ok thanks for this. Got to keep regulations up to date. Looks like it’s been a very productive meeting and it’s right to give time so everyone can get ready when they can.

So which type of historics will be most affected by this? Hope you guys keep up the good work

Obviously will affect those cars needing a new HTP or renewal.....

Glad the new Historic Technical Passport application form meets with your approval. I have no doubt the FIA will be equally impressed......

[terence]

Originally Posted by Duddha

Nope, the engine block has to be period unless you prove that as an alternative it's in accordance with 3.6.7.1 which means dimensionally and structurally equal to the period one.

So as this ruling has never changed, does this mean that scrutineers will now be carrying a magnet to check on alloy blocks also?

[S griffin]

Scrutineers have always found ingenious ways to check things, so I wouldn't put it past them. Depends if they have no better way to do it

[Duddha]

Originally Posted by terence

So as this ruling has never changed, does this mean that scrutineers will now be carrying a magnet to check on alloy blocks also?

Scrutineers all have magnets but I would say you need a proper magnet to be sure it's not just covered with ferous paint.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Duddha

Scrutineers all have magnets but I would say you need a proper magnet to be sure it's not just covered with ferous paint.

But people would never stoop so low, surely.(tic) One mayor problem with alloy replacement heads for the Scrutineers is how to tell if the porting has been totally redisigned internally. It has been known to be the case with, to name just one mark, Alfa Romeo 105s
Aparently at a cost of €75,000,but it's only money.

[Gerard C]

Wasn't the cheaper mod found on a 105 was an injection system hidden inside a Weber carb? May be what inspired Jenvey throttle bodies, you never know…

[terence]

Hadn't heard of that one Gerard, but not surprising. I decided I needed a break from historic on the grounds that so many very bent cars were not being pulled by the Scrutineers.
Build your car to how it should be then the new crop of win at all costs drivers came along. Mgb's with 2.1ltr engines I know for a fact who the first stroker crank went to so wasn't surprised at seeing that car knocking out 3.04s at Spa.
The car in question was bought from B S-S by my old boss Arthur Car. Arthur got me to take the car(it had been rebodied with a new shell) but it was a Slug. I suspected a standard engine so removed the head, sure enough, totally standard.
When the car changed hands, the new owners ordered an engine from Cambridge Motorsport in a self build kit, including our, at that time, a stroker crank from Arrow Engineering. Arrow used to look after our crank road supply as it was our own design and would make any crank we ordered. The stroker was at the time a one off, but soon became an 'in demand'
product.

[Duddha]

Originally Posted by terence

But people would never stoop so low, surely.(tic) One mayor problem with alloy replacement heads for the Scrutineers is how to tell if the porting has been totally redisigned internally. It has been known to be the case with, to name just one mark, Alfa Romeo 105s
Aparently at a cost of €75,000,but it's only money.

It's only up to people to take charge and protest a competitor if they feel there is something wrong. But a) that never happens in historic b) your promoter might not allow you back c) you better be sure that your engine is correct and d) have a proper original component to compare with.

Everything is a declaration in terms of compliance but if no real checks are carried and that nobody takes responsibility, it's like the Lance Armstrong story, everybody knows and everybody moans, yet in the end, they all become complicit of the story by letting it run.

[S griffin]

Just like the old days then! A car can only be checked if it's protested and it's seen as a bit underhand to protest someone. That's proper sportsmanship there. And I doubt that many in historics run anything dodgy anyway. They believe in fair play more than most other sports.

[Gerard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

And I doubt that many in historics run anything dodgy anyway. They believe in fair play more than most other sports.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by S griffin

And I doubt that many in historics run anything dodgy anyway. They believe in fair play more than most other sports.

Believe what you want...... some might not agree. Utopian ideology springs to mind.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

[terence]

Originally Posted by Gerard C

I assume this to be tongue in cheek

[Duddha]

The problem with protesting a fellow competitor is that you have to be sure of what you are going to ask. In historic motorsport, populated by amateur who highly rate themselves, very few have the actual knowledge of the regulations applicable and even considering a homologated car, the knowledge of their own car and form which is the first issue.

However and if you were to measure or weigh a number of standard parts and/or dimensions, you would be surprised as to how many cars are illegal today although standard checks and procedures could have avoided those practices.

If you are into MG B I would love to know who uses the standard lower wishbones, not the one that gives camber and enlarges the track of the car making it illegal, or the correct gearbox, the one homologated and not the one from Moss. More generally, do people know that a flywheel has a homologated weight, that clutch and number of plates are too? These are just a few things. If you were to look into engines, there are heads as per the Alfa example but consider cranks in the English equivalent engines at the moment. These are just a few examples.

The end of the deal here is that with no control, the little issues become a plague and in the end common practices. And when as an example you try and get papers for a car and start being told you cannot use such and such parts but have been racing for some time with it, the issue grows even bigger and who do you think are the bad people? The ones who say you can't.

It's easier to go racing in the historic world of outlaws than getting papers but consider the above...

[Gerard C]

Its sometimes surprising to read detailed adverts about homologated cars supposed to be compliant and sometimes htp'd. Watching some videos allow to count the number of speed into a gearbox, just an example. The real problem when protesting is, as you said above, you wont be invited by the promoter anymore.

[S griffin]

Of course some will always be looking for some liberal interpretations I'm sure, but how do you actually prove the letter of the law has been broken? As you say, it's not in the spirit of historic racing to protest

[zefarelly]

I have around 1000 flow tests in my flow bench data base.

Back in the 60's Ford cast special 'thick floor' heads for Cosworth. This is noted on the Cortina GT homologation, move the chamber floor down 4mm of so to increase compression without skimming, and also increases short side radius, which improves flow ( there's a bit more going on but its technical ;-) ). I have seen a few over the years. FJ ones, never a specific 1500 one though. The early Richardson head is almost identical. And it flows much better than a std 105 head. In fact they flow as well as the best 1500 heads, hence FJ's jumping from 105 to 120+ BHP. One I did for a Caravelle made 125 BHP @7800 . . . later rebuilt by a leading FJ engine Co. It made 123 BHP at 9000!!

105 heads . .the ports are too big, I've not seen a new one but I have been informed the ports are smaller. They look better than they flow. Sound better than they go, very Italian ;-)

Other new 'improved' heads I know of

Lotus TC (better casing for cam/follower/lift and 10mm plugs to enable bigger valves without cracks, probably more meat for bigger ports without breaking into the inlet cam bucket area ( seen a few with raldite under the spring seats

TR (2-4) New TR head missed a trick, big ports and no valve throat.

A series ( not seen one in detail, but the limits and weak spots are obvious even to the uninitiated)

289 Ford (I've seen some very expensive original heads with totally OTT porting which in some ways made them worse)

I've seen a lot of CNC heads, V8. V6 and xflow. all pretty crap really. Bling not science.

A good example was a very expensive pair of 289 heads. I spent a few days on them, got 10% flow gain in some places and the engine jumped from 390 to 425 BHP on the Dyno with no other physical changes. The V8 like x-flow suffers from turbulance if ported in a certain way . . .the v* howled, I stuck a screw driver in the port and moved it about . . . . until the noise stopped . . . the flow went up!



Ally CNC xflow head was a chunk of Sh!t . . ports weren't even the same, you could see it, didn't need a flow bench!

A lot of FF heads seem to have been ported for pub talk. good flow at a point the valve won't get to.

I'm no rocket scientist, but its pretty bloody obvious a lot of things have been developed for profit. Equally there are some great performing things out there, most of dubious legality.

I guess we all have our own threshold of acceptability. most claiming reliability, as do I . . . . but reliability at 6-7000, the natural limit of an original engine is one thing . . . . reliability at 8-9000 is something else.

If you were to strip and check most FiA engines and go to the letter of the law more than 90% would be illegal. At a guess half of them would be sensibly uprated and deemed acceptable, the other half . . . part of the ongoing debate, from pushing it a bit to 70's modsports!

Last FiA TC engine I built had Farndon crank and Rods, as per acceptable design, an original head, block and correct length valves, I think it made about 165 BHP at 7000, good torque from 3500. the gains over period will be better valve throats and low lift flow, better pistons/rings slightly higher CR and better cams.
Getting 180+ at 8-9000 is another engine entirely.

[andy97]

Apropos nothing, but out of interest I was browsing RCD the other day, as you do, and came across a Pre 66 Mustang with an HTP until 2026, and former Spa 6 hours race winner/ Masters/ HRDC/ Goodwood history etc that was RHD. Not a performance advantage maybe (except for a driver who might be uncomfortable with LHD) but I was a bit surprised. Surely that’s not a homologated modification is it?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by andy97

Apropos nothing, but out of interest I was browsing RCD the other day, as you do, and came across a Pre 66 Mustang with an HTP until 2026, and former Spa 6 hours race winner/ Masters/ HRDC/ Goodwood history etc that was RHD. Not a performance advantage maybe (except for a driver who might be uncomfortable with LHD) but I was a bit surprised. Surely that’s not a homologated modification is it?

I've always carried the simple assumption that a RHD car has a slight advantage on clockwise circuits as the driver's weight is on the inside of the corners. (And by the same token is at least half a cars width further away from the barriers...)

[zefarelly]

You are allowed to convert LHD to RHD and vice a versa. At least it says so in most regs I've read . . . . I haven't read App K for a while though.

can't take the excitement now I'm over the hill.

[The Fat Clerk]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I've always carried the simple assumption that a RHD car has a slight advantage on clockwise circuits as the driver's weight is on the inside of the corners. (And by the same token is at least half a cars width further away from the barriers...)

Reminds me of a driver I was 'doing' @ Mallory for overtaking under a waved yellow.
His excuse was, he was in a left hand drive car and so couldn't see the flag!
Needless to say, I didn't buy it.

[S griffin]

I guess you saw through it because there were plenty of other drivers with LHD cars that day?

[The Fat Clerk]

I pointed out that on the 1st lap of qualifying and the lap before the race start, all Flag Posts show a waved Green Flag.

[S griffin]

Aha, very good. He can't see one flag and claim not to see another!

[The Fat Clerk]

Exactly