FIA App K regulations - 01-01-2012

[Mike Bell]

Has anyone got a scanned copy of #1224 that they could email? I think that number is correct for pre '66 racing, but please correct me if not! My neighbours have restored a (genuine Lotus) LHD race car and I'm trying to help with the HTP application. Hopefully the owner will get a paper copy from MSA but would be useful to have a scan through sooner.

Not a problem if no-one can help, but if you don't ask.......

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Has anyone got a scanned copy of #1224 that they could email? I think that number is correct for pre '66 racing, but please correct me if not! My neighbours have restored a (genuine Lotus) LHD race car and I'm trying to help with the HTP application. Hopefully the owner will get a paper copy from MSA but would be useful to have a scan through sooner.

Not a problem if no-one can help, but if you don't ask.......

1224 is the 63 Lotus Cortina . There are other papers but they are after 1966 .
PM me with your E mail for a copy .

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

1224 is the 63 Lotus Cortina . There are other papers but they are after 1966 .
PM me with your E mail for a copy .

Thanks for the clarification! Confirms my take that for pre 66 has to be #1224.

PM sent.

[Nick JM]

Ok. I am afraid I am going to show my ignorance.

How does a dog box actually work? My understanding is that providing the engine sped is momentarily reduced the downshift can be engaged without use if the clutch and to some extent one can almost preselected. I am not an engineer and have also never used a dog box but can one of you engineering types explain in layman' terms what happens; how you use it; and if it's that great why wasn't it used in period?

[terence]

Laymans terms.A synchro box has synchro rings that act like the brake shoes in a brake drum when changing gear.
Dogbox has gears that have extensions like fingers if you will,those fingers engage into the next gear by the fingers sliping into the same number of slots as the one with the fingers.Very simple, hope you can understsnd it Nick.
RE Dogboxes being allowed.About five years ago I invested a fair bit of time/cash in sourcing a manufacturer/supplier of gear sets for B type boxes as the gear set suppliers had developed a bad reputation for actually supplying the items advertised.My manufacturer explained that dog type gears were cheaper to make than synchro type simply because there are less components.
I tried for several weeks to get The Blazers as MSA to see the sense of allowing a brand new gearbox (yes, I had made arrangements with an alloy foundery as well) , but no chance of that happening,"if it wasnt available in period" .Ectcetera.
Funny thing is the four synch box that everyone uses is not in period anyway.!!!!! Go figure as they say.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Nick JM

Ok. I am afraid I am going to show my ignorance.

How does a dog box actually work? My understanding is that providing the engine sped is momentarily reduced the downshift can be engaged without use if the clutch and to some extent one can almost preselected. I am not an engineer and have also never used a dog box but can one of you engineering types explain in layman' terms what happens; how you use it; and if it's that great why wasn't it used in period?

Mmmm, that's a challenge. Early gearboxes required user to double de-clutch in order to synchronise gear speeds and facilitate crunch free change. Each gear spun independent of it's neighbours. The early form of automatic synchroniser was the dog clutch type, it used toothed 'dog rings' between the gears that locked them together as the gear was moved along the shaft. Very crude, abrupt and still noisy. Then the cone synchromesh was invented, which gradually by friction slowed the gear down to correct speed for engagement. Quiet and best option for road cars. Downside was wear, requirement for correct oil so that friction level was as designer intended, and ability to be overcome if gear change too aggressive.

So 'dog boxes' were still popular for competition / race cars, and are still used today where regs allow. (Hewland for instance.) But for FIA, if a production car was homologated with cone synchros, that's what you use.......

Not sure any suggestion of 'pre selection' is correct, but you can change gear without using the clutch- in fact changes can be smoother that way. Downside is that the 'dogs' wear and have to be replaced regularly. Ask any historic Hewland user!

Any help?

Whoops, see that Terence and my posts have overlapped!

[Nick JM]

Many thanks both Mike and Terence. Two most erudite explanations leaving me the wiser.

Why weren't they used in period? I can understand road/racing MGB's not for obvious reasons but the works cars etc?

Terence I thought the 4 sync box was available from 1965 which would render it FIA legal.?

[terence]

Hi Nick, 66 with the GT being announced.As is widely known, dog engagement was nothing new even in 65.
I tried one argument of the b box didn't like more than 135bhp, the reply was"get everyone to detune thier engines then"! After various other comments of a similar nature I thought 'oh well, spent enough already so ******** to it and them'.
Completely new gearbox, far superior main and layshaft material, dog selection gears, brand new casings.All for a managable £3000.?

[Thurner_fan]

Originally Posted by terence

... the four synch box that everyone uses ...

I don't believe that statement is really true any more. Many people these days are using the correct pre-66 3-synchro in their MGBs, TVRs and other BMC-based cars.

It doesn't take clumsy gear changing quite as well, but it does weigh a little less, and it is compliant with the App-K rules. That matters to some, whether they agree or not with the often inconsistent enforcement of those rules.

TF

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by Nick JM

Many thanks both Mike and Terence. Two most erudite explanations leaving me the wiser.

Also Nick most "dog box's" have straight cut gears that are noisy as apposed to helical ones to lessen power loss, but as others have said (and I can vouch for it) not that strong if abused as I was forever welding the edges back on the dogs and reshaping with the angle grinder !!!!!
A lot of people don't understand how a "constant mesh" gearbox works that is fitted to just about every manual car, every forward gear is in mesh with the layshaft but is not actually doing anything until you engage a movable hub on the mainshaft to lock whatever gear you require that up until now revolve freely.
The same applies to dog or syncro engagement boxes.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Thurner_fan

I don't believe that statement is really true any more. Many people these days are using the correct pre-66 3-synchro in their MGBs, TVRs and other BMC-based cars.

It doesn't take clumsy gear changing quite as well, but it does weigh a little less, and it is compliant with the App-K rules. That matters to some, whether they agree or not with the often inconsistent enforcement of those rules.

TF

Sorry but I find that very hard to believe.After around twenty years of racing FIA Bs and also biulding them, I know very well what the situation is.Hence the reason for trying to get the three synch copies built.The standard mainshaft will not take more the 130/5 reliably, the reason why after perseverance of five years of them breaking I switched to the four synch version.

[Thurner_fan]

Well, my observation is based on talking to a cross-section of UK racers over the past couple of seasons.

Maybe things have changed in that more people are now choosing to abide by the App K rules and (1) adjusting their driving style accordingly and (2) accepting that they may have to rebuild their 3-synchro gearboxes slightly more often than the 4-synchro. I've heard the "3-synchro 'boxes don't last" mantra for years, but maybe people are now successfully challenging it.

The same thinking probably applies to their choices not to use other post-65 era components that could be fitted but which are not allowed under App K.

TF

[Nick JM]

Thanks Gordon. I can accept the noise point - if the racket my straight cut box makes is anything to go by, at least in the first three gears . Fourth must be almost 1:1 as it backs off considerably.

In fact the first outing I had after the box was fitted was Silverstone GP circuit and going down Hangar Straight the silence was deafening. Still at least it gave me enough time to get comfortable, have a scratch, make a cup of tea....

[GORDON STREETER]

Top gear on a "normal" 4 speed box locks the input shaft to the mainshaft so doesn't actually rely on driving through any gears hence less noise.

[terence]

Further to the B boxes, it matters not how careful you are with you gear changing, its done to the exyra torque being developed be a decent amount that does the damage.There is a detent drilling in the mainshaft that is over halfway through the shaft-that is where it will brake
Poor quality material doesn't help either.I cant remember the actual measurements but the replacement we had planned was over twice ad strong.

[Mike Bell]

Just been told by an MSA Inspector that FIA have now decided that struts / dampers with adjustable spring platforms 'locked in position', (where homologated originals were fixed platform), are no longer acceptable when applying for an HTP. Presumably that means they are no longer acceptable on cars which already have papers as well!

Easy thing for an eligibility scrutineer to check, so be aware......

[farres_jr]

One quick question about brake/clutch master cylinders.
I'm building a pre-1966 App.K Austin Cooper S (homologation paper #1300).
I've been racing with other Mini the last years and every standard brake or clutch master cylinder I've fitted leaked after a few laps, so what master cyilinders I'm allowed to fit?
Are new masters like Girling or AP Racing with remote reservoir allowed? Problem with standard ones are the seals.
Many thanks!
Albert

[Mike Bell]

Further to previous post on adjustable spring platforms on App K cars, sounds like a 'tightening up' by FIA. Only cars original fitted with adjustable platform struts and dampers should be and will in future be allowed to use them. Rendering the adjustment inoperable not acceptable, it would appear. Hopefully this will be confirmed in print at some point!

[Normal Bloke]

Originally Posted by farres_jr

One quick question about brake/clutch master cylinders.
I'm building a pre-1966 App.K Austin Cooper S (homologation paper #1300).
I've been racing with other Mini the last years and every standard brake or clutch master cylinder I've fitted leaked after a few laps, so what master cyilinders I'm allowed to fit?
Are new masters like Girling or AP Racing with remote reservoir allowed? Problem with standard ones are the seals.
Many thanks!
Albert

Never had a problem racing with standard master cylinders in 25 years. If by "new masters like Girling or AP Racing", you mean the ones with plastic reservoirs then no, they are not allowed.....although I see this hasn't stopped one well known driver/builder who's got them onc his new car on his Facebook page

[Duddha]

Latest update of Appendix K available here.

[zefarelly]

Me neither, albeit in only 12 years.

personally I don't think bias pedal boxes and the like should be allowed in a majority of historics, theyre not period correct and were never used in those periods. As a minor aside, most major manufacturers put intelligent engineers to task designing braking systems and usually get it about right.

Originally Posted by Normal Bloke

Never had a problem racing with standard master cylinders in 25 years. If by "new masters like Girling or AP Racing", you mean the ones with plastic reservoirs then no, they are not allowed.....although I see this hasn't stopped one well known driver/builder who's got them onc his new car on his Facebook page

[Duddha]

Dear All,

please find the link to the latest version of the FIA Appendix K here.

Any information on the updates, please see the news here.

Best, Louis.

[Peter Horsman]

Can anybody enlighten me in relation to the Seat Belt rules (para 5.15) shown in green on that which Louis has provided a link.

I have an original seat on my 1962 Lotus 18/21 single seater which would appear to be outlawed since it does not permit seat belts to be passed through it either at each side or at the crotch.

[Duddha]

Latest version available here for 2016 !

[Robert Farrell]

6.3.5 Adjustable spring platforms may be used on all cars if period
specification
As I remember since 2010 I have encountered various interpretations of this one.
Just this week I have had one supplier tell me that "They are banned by the FIA"
Another told me that " They are clamping down on it in 2016"

It would help if someone could define "Period Specification". They were in use in the same period the car was raced? Manufactured and available in the relevant period or were actually used by a particular model in period?

Also if it were obvious to individual scrutineers, as we have been subject to varying interpretations over the last 5 years. No two scrutineers seem to think the same and in one memorable series we had differing interpretations from the same individual over a period of time.