TVR Griffiths 200/400 and their Chassis Numbers

[marcel koreman]

9" wheels are not fitting under the homologated body.
I think the homologation is not updated in the period.
And terence i think there are no original racing body's anymore

[Jeremy Hall]

Hi Marcel good to see you up and about, hope to see you in Copenhagen
Just to address the bodywork issue.
The homologation of bodies on GT cars prior to 1966 was straightforward. Once 100 identical bodies had been manufactured bodywork was free, this meant that for air ducts, wheel arches etc there was no need to homolgate them-but dimensional stuff like track etc had to be respected.

[Peter Mallett]

So that means the wide arched E Types and Griffs etc. are ok then?

Also, do they then need to run the homologated rim or can they go wider?

[Jeremy Hall]

Appendix K says that bodywork must conform to a complete configuration which took part in an International event in period- I think that is pretty comprehensive and simple. On the HTP there is a space for a photograph to support the cars' claim to the configuration it runs.I think-but do not know-that the Griffith is having some difficulty providing the picture required.
Wheels must be as were homologated, as must track.
In period if larger wheels were homologated there was no need to re homologate the bodywork

[terence]

So if the body is standard,no problem,and if you aint got big wheels,no problem!

[Mike Wroe]

For what its worth my Griff (the ex David Plumstead Mongoose) is chassis number 200 GB 5024 despite the fact that it has always run a 400 body as did EH Pauls car which also had a 200 chassis number. Once I upload it I will enclose a period shot of the car from 1965 which shows that it was running wide arches and wheels in period.

[FISCracer]

Originally Posted by marcel koreman

peter
I am a dutch scruteneer, the overall with of the TVR is 162.5 cm
Homologation 206

Agreed.

The width issue and hence size of rear wheels/tyres is the issue as the UK FIA scrutineers are not clear whether cars ran with big arches in period F - they did in period G as there is a picture of Gerry at Brands in 1966.

According to JL the widest part of the car is not at the rear but between the front wheels and the A post, hence the measurements of my car at Spa last year. FWIW mine is between 1580mm and 1600mm depending on where you measure it.

BTW if you open the (correct, original) side vents on the front wings that will add 50mm.

[FISCracer]

Originally Posted by Mike Wroe

For what its worth my Griff (the ex David Plumstead Mongoose) is chassis number 200 GB 5024 despite the fact that it has always run a 400 body as did EH Pauls car which also had a 200 chassis number. Once I upload it I will enclose a period shot of the car from 1965 which shows that it was running wide arches and wheels in period.

Mike

You should ley JL know. If the picture is from an International event in 1965, that will be an end to the matter. If not, or cannot be proven to be I suspect this matter will rumble on.

[John Turner]

I'm obviously in 'confused' mode this morning. I thought the 'Mongoose' was a one-off pre Griffith car developed privately with a 3.5 Buick V8, and I thought it still existed in that form.

[terence]

As far as I know,it is still in that state John.A car I have gotten to know quite well over the years.We now await Mikes response.

[esper]

but a nice picture of a widearched TVR griff at you sister in laws wedding has only emotional value

[Peter Mallett]

Not if she was marrying a foreigner in which case it would be an international event.

[Mike Wroe]

Originally Posted by John Turner

I'm obviously in 'confused' mode this morning. I thought the 'Mongoose' was a one-off pre Griffith car developed privately with a 3.5 Buick V8, and I thought it still existed in that form.

The David Plumstead Mongoose which is the one referred to in most of the books is a RHD 400 bodied 289 Griffith which is the car I own. It was raced & developed by Plumstead throughout the 1965 season & entered at times as the Mongoose TVR before his business failed and it went as part of the business assets when these were bought by Colin Vandervell. Vandervell entered the car in the Motoring News Special GT championship for Mike Greenwood in 1967 as the Vandervell V8 where it finished second in class, it then was put out to grass for several years before being ressurected as an FIA spec car (all be it with granada uprights) which is how I bought it.

[John Turner]

Mike, thanks. I honestly thought I remembered the Mongoose from a year or so earlier, and as I described it. Age is a terrible thing!

[marcel koreman]

Hi jeremy
Where in App K the 100 cars rule ????????
See you in copenhagen

[jellison]

Originally Posted by FISCracer

Agreed.

The width issue and hence size of rear wheels/tyres is the issue as the UK FIA scrutineers are not clear whether cars ran with big arches in period F - they did in period G as there is a picture of Gerry at Brands in 1966.

According to JL the widest part of the car is not at the rear but between the front wheels and the A post, hence the measurements of my car at Spa last year. FWIW mine is between 1580mm and 1600mm depending on where you measure it.

BTW if you open the (correct, original) side vents on the front wings that will add 50mm.

Richard - if the FIA scrut's now have this measurement of your car AND the 162.5mm width measurement in the App K regs, are they able actually say HOW this is being applied, If I knew I could flare my arches I might (even though mine will not be fia in a few areas), but then don't get me started on why an early car supposed ly cannot have pappers and a later 200 or 400 car (that make NO Sense).

Do you know how wide the cars that were at Spa racing in 08 actually were at the arches?

[simon drabble]

can I just say that even though I am not a TVR nut this is a fascinating thread... a real subject being discussed rather than B's at Spa!!!

[terence]

Quite true Simon,but it is strange how it's usually non B drivers who raise the subject.

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

can I just say that even though I am not a TVR nut this is a fascinating thread... a real subject being discussed rather than B's at Spa!!!

I'll take that as a compliment; why do you think I started it in the first place? It's great stuff isn't? The ultimate 'pocket rocket' along with the slightly later Tuscan V8s.

Originally Posted by terence bower

Quite true Simon,but it is strange how it's usually non B drivers who raise the subject.

It's a pre-emptive strike, Terry.

Seriously, great response from everybody. Keeping it coming. Not only the technical discussions but the chassis no. info. From what has been said here, it looks like we need to be compiling two sets of numbers; one for American built cars, and another for TVR built cars.

[Jeremy Hall]

Appendix K says:-

17. Bodywork
17.1 For Competition Grand Touring cars only, it is permitted to include, for the bodywork, modifications carried out in the period within the limits of the international rules for Grand Touring cars in force at the time, as stated in Art. 2.3.7.
The bodywork must be in conformity with a COMPLETE configuration used on the model concerned, in an international competition run to FIA regulations in the period.
To find the regulation for period body work the FIA website offers a link to AppendixJ of the Period and 1965 Special Bodies is the applicable regulation.

There is no need to comply with any specific body dimension if a car ran in period with the special body.
I understand the current issue relating to the TVR Griffith is that there is some difficulty in providing a period photograph showing a ''complete body'' configuration showing a car as they are now presnted from 1965.
However there may well be someone who knows better.

[Moosehead]

Agree with Simon, this is one of the most interesting threads I've read for a while and yet I too have no real interest in these cars.

[Peter Mallett]

Many years ago (1975 ish) I drove a Grantura (I think) it was a 1600 ford crossflow. Lovely driver's car if a little basic. On the same day I drove a Ferrari Dino. Equally lovely but a crap gearchange.

[terence]

Probably a Vixen,far better drive because of its longer wheel-base.

[Peter Mallett]

May have been I don't recall the name just that it was fun driving around the lanes from Holmbury St Mary to Dorking and back.

[simon drabble]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Many years ago (1975 ish) I drove a Grantura (I think) it was a 1600 ford crossflow. Lovely driver's car if a little basic. On the same day I drove a Ferrari Dino. Equally lovely but a crap gearchange.

I have the very good fortune of driving a 246 Dino on a pretty regular basis and I would say that the gearchange is great, just not super quick. They are delightful cars to drive and I look forward to every trip in it.