FIA Homologation Papers & HTPs

[Al Weyman]

I had one of those pass through my hands once years ago, as I recollect it even has a Watts linkage standard does'nt it?

[Jeremy Hall]

Originally Posted by Sabre Rattler

If you find that Homologation paper for the Reliant coupe, please PM me a copy as it might be enough of a push to make us finish ours!

Assume it's the straight six with side rail & overdrive box? (if you have the ZF box, sell it! the Elite boys will give you thousands for it and once the Zodiac engine output exceeds 150 bhp you will knacker it anyway)

With triple SUs and a decent exhaust, a reliable 160 to 170 bhp can be found without a mays head & webers, although the Sabre Six was homologated with triple 40s and the Mays head if you find one that's not porous.

The critical thing is that it is oly homologated with the Webers or a single Zenith, the SU option is not homologated.

[Sabre Rattler]

The critical thing is that it is only homologated with the Webers or a single Zenith, the SU option is not homologated.

Some time ago I had a copy of the FIA papers for the Sabre Six, but where they are now is anyone's guess.

I do recall that only the Zenith and the Webers were homologated. I also recall there was an option for a watts linkage, four trailing arms, LSD and rear disc brakes, all from a DB4. Trouble is, Astons are a bit rare in the breakers yards.

I though there was a chance the Scimitar Coupe was homologated with the 3 su's as that was the only version sold as far as I know, at least until the v6 version came out.

The real surprise is that the coupe got homologated at all, as I thought it had no sporting history, or was that the GTE?

[simon drabble]

Originally Posted by terence bower

I would have thought it to be 198.What year is your car?

Just remembered,[I think] the 508 is for the GT,so that leaves you with a choice of two.

was the BGT homologated??? why doesnt anyone race this in appendix K? I always thought they were nicer looking than the regular B

[Peter Mallett]

See http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115857

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

Terry has them tattoe'd on his . . .

It must be a low number then

[FISCracer]

Originally Posted by JP12

Does anyone have a copy of the MGB homologation papers?

PM me off piste and I'll send you a scanned set - No 198

Remarkable that some people can build a car to a specification they don't have a copy of.......

Richard

[terence]

Thought it was just common knowledge these day's? Perhaps it comes as second nature after building so many.

[terence]

Originally Posted by FISCracer

PM me off piste and I'll send you a scanned set - No 198

Remarkable that some people can build a car to a specification they don't have a copy of.......

Richard

What ,do you mean the people using the illegal 48DCOE Richard?

[zefarelly]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Thought it was just common knowledge these day's? Perhaps it comes as second nature after building so many.

I didn't think you'd written yours off once yet Terence?

[gilduffy]

Now here is a question.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]Appendix K says in 5.10.1
For racing two rear view mirrors must be fitted with a minimum total glass area of 90 sq. cm.

Am I correct in thinking that means each mirror can be 45 sq. cm?

It just seems pretty small to me
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG]

[Farbrooke]

Originally Posted by gilduffy

Now here is a question.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Gil/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]Appendix K says in 5.10.1
For racing two rear view mirrors must be fitted with a minimum total glass area of 90 sq. cm.

Am I correct in thinking that means each mirror can be 45 sq. cm?

45 sq cm each complies with the way it reads - but you could also have larger areas if you required

[Jeremy Hall]

Originally Posted by Farbrooke

45 sq cm each complies with the way it reads - but you could also have larger areas if you required

No it doesn't; it says 90sq cm total -you can make that up however you like-be b. silly if you had 1sq cm and 89 s cm but it would comply with the regulation.

[terence]

Just reminiscing,I remember not so long ago,trailering a Sunbeam Tiger down to Slough,armed with the required batch of photo's etc,with the intention of obtaining the FIA papers for the car.I left approximately one hour later,with the papers![Good old days eh Jeremy]
Now though it takes forever,even after supplying ALL required documentation/photographs [fourth set supplied because previous sets have been repeatedly lost] E-mails just dont get answered neither the phones calls,just what is happening to our main motorsport club?
In answer to Simons question,I have often wondered how well a nicely sorted MG C would do in the Eau Rouge Trophy.Get rid of potential breakage's like the o/drive box,[bit of weight loss as a bonus] Then again,apart from the MGCC,not much else to race it in,or is there?

[zefarelly]

it'd probably race well with a scimitar, in the dry!, and a Marcos 3L, TVR Tuscan V6, Gilbern etc

a new series sponsored by Brut33

[John Turner]

Do we see the seeds of an idea, here? I think that a 'C' would have to be fairly well modded to compete with some of those. Sebring style body and engine mods come to mind; always loved it in that form.

[terence]

With todays build techniques,I would have thought one to at least be competitive John.The engine should be capable of over 220 bhp,rear axle is just about bullit proof.Just needs a decent sized fuel tank and get it down to homologated weight,it could be very interesting.

[John Turner]

Well it would have to be fairly well modded to increase it to 220 from the standard 145bhp or so. It doesn't even feel like that in mine, even after Pater Baldwin's attention; no reflection on Peter, they just don't rev, but it's lovely old thing though. Hoping to get it back from the paint shop for Spring!

[terence]

220 is relatively easy John,it does cost though.

[DaveGT6]

My recent dealings with the MSA regarding HTP papers was a mixed bag. The inspection of the car was done on my premises and the required 'photos selected from a load I had taken in advance plus a few taken during the inspection. The papers came through pretty quickly - within a couple of weeks but unfortunately there was a fundamental error in the designation of the car (nothing to do with the inspection - happened somewhere between MSA/FIA). I visited the offices to return the docs and ask for re-issue (OK as I was passing anyway). Didn't hear anything and chased but no real update. Put together a dossier to further support my application and got the corrected papers back within 2 weeks. Overall I thought it was all quicker than I expected and even given the initial hiccup wasn't the long drawn out process I was lead to believe it would be.

With regard to the MGC, there is currently an MGC GT running with the Swinging Sixties although presumably not to FIA HTP spec. It's not anything like as quick as it might be expected to be on paper but then I guess it suffers from the same issues that the GT6 did - spec looks great on paper but in reality getting them to get around a circuit quickly is quite a different matter! Mind the big Healeys are fairly handy and they must share some of the same dynamic issues as the C?

[zefarelly]

the biggest issue with disparity ( drivers aside) is whether one races a standard car or one thats been developed . . . . its an ever increasing gulf.

[JP12]

Originally Posted by terence bower

220 is relatively easy John,it does cost though.

I know it's not the same engine, but the front running Healeys are producing a fair bit more than 220BHP. I think with some decent development (can I say that word!) and investment you really should be aiming closer to the 250BHP mark.

[terence]

Like I said,the 220 is relatively easy,the trick is getting it over that for a C to be competitive.

[p261brm]

As to their intended purpose these documents are about as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard.

[zefarelly]

I find mine are about as much use as a waterproof teabag usually, on odd days a solar powered torch though