Rule Bending

There’s a discussion in the touring cars forum concerning the inclusion of the AUDI TT in the revived DTM. I think the organisers have changed the rules because there aren’t enough manufacturers interested.

However Michael M raised the point that its not a new scenario, however usually it’s the teams bending the rules.

Michael mentions the Alfa Romeo in 1964, which became the GTA because the original car had a roof 2cms lower than the regulations allowed. It also gained some aluminium panels.

TWR managed to turn two perfectly good GTs or Sports Tourers into Touring Cars. I refer to the XJS and before that the Mazda RX7.

If he sees this I’ll ask Yelwoci to tell us all he knows about the Mazda ‘cos that’s what he races.

Anybody else got some stories about regulations being “flexed” to suit a particular situation? ;)

How about them allowing all those little shims and spacers that Alfa Romeo supplied with showroom 155s?

Remember? The wings were not homologated at the same height as the production car, and so Alfa pleaded the little box of bits delivered in every 155TS boot.

A good looking car, but the start of the rot from the fascinating series that once was the BTCC to the aerodynamic scalextric that is Super Touring.

Hallo Peter, nice that you put my GTA story here to the historic section. By the way, it seems that you are my preferred correspondence partner!
No misunderstanding, I don't believe that Alfa bended the rules with the GTA. They produced the required number of cars necessary for homologation, which had been offered to the public. So the GTA was a separate model, and fully conform to the regulations. Tricky and expensive, but okay!

You should specify your question concerning "flexing" the rules. By whom, governing bodies, race organizers, or teams? I don't believe you mean the latter, because then this would be the first thread reaching over 1000 replies! By organizers? For sure, because they are constantly squeezed by major teams. First thing which comes to my mind is Le Mans 1969, where the rear flaps of Porsche's 917 had been declared illegal, as well as Ferrari's rear window cover. Statement of both team managers: either our cars race as they are, or we withdraw the whole team! The question what happened is redundant, cause in those times, what has Le Mans been without Porsche and Ferrari?

Examples of rule flexing by governing bodies, like FIA, CSI, or national MSA's need some more brain storming. Last year's Ferrari - FIA affair is not "historic", so let's drop it.
Most famous example of course is the story of the Ferrari GTO. After old Enzo failed to convince FIA that the GTO is only a slightly modified version of the 250 SWB (haha!), he managed it to make them believe that the 100 cars necessary for homologation had been built. We all know that only 33 genuine ones are produced, plus some replicas making a total of 39 or 40 (I will n o t participate in any thread discussing the number of genuine GTOs!). There are 2 potential solutions: first is that the FIA inspector had been made drunken, the cars displayed in a circle, so each car has been counted 3 times. The second is more simple: sports car racing in the 60s without the famous prancing horse? No way! So have a good lunch, some wine, and ..... , sorry, this was solution one!

I also remember that former FIA president, Jean-Marie Balestre, was well known for rule bending, mainly to increase FIA's (meaning his!) superiority over FOCA and GPDA, but also to protect his protege, Alain Prost. However, I'm unable to remember any precise details, so I leave this to others.

Peter is definitely right about the RX7, it was sold around the world as a sports car. It only ever competed as a saloon car where TWR had run it. In the SCCA in the USA it is classed with Datsun 240s, Toyota GT2000 etc.

As I understand it there were two levels of scam that got it homolgated (allegedly Mr W).

Firstly, if you took the 4-seater Savannah Saloon RX7 from the US and subjected the seat backs to severe pressure then became thin enough that 4 japenese gentlemen could sit in and the various distances met the homologation requirements.
Secondly, there never was a US 4-seat model as it would fail the stricter US safety laws. The European 4 seater sports model had altogether thicker seats.

I had a brief natter to Wynn Percy (BTC Champion in 78/79(?) in RX7 ) about this at the weekend.

Further, the season they won, TWR were the only people running them, so they were not able to collect full championship points. There are to this day somewhere a load of 'TWR Grp1 RX7 racers' that are nothing more than caged hairdresser cars. I believe even John Hammersley of Aintree Racing and ex-Mod Prod champion started his carrier with one of these stooges, which made up the numbers and enabled Wynn to collect full points.

The cars (mine anyway) are pigs to drive, very quick in straight line, no engine breaking, extraordinary heat inside car (you can burn your hand or foot through race gear on tunnel...925C exhaust T), NOISE.....But they are different!

Sorry it was so long!
IanC

Hi Michael,

So in the case of the GTA the rules actually gave us a superior road car. Actually, the GTO story is the kind of thing I mean. Do you think that anybody (even Ferrari) would get away with something like that these days? (1999 notwithstanding because the original protest should not have been made). It’s a bit like the old three card trick. Other teams have pulled stunts like that. Tim’s Alfa Romeo story is very apt in this respect.

Le Mans has always been an anachronism. The rules never seem to match what the rest of the world is doing.

Ian’s Mazda story is also interesting. Why did TW even think of running the car? As he says in his post it was necessary to run additional “makeweight” cars in order for the points system to work. That was the car that finally killed the Alfa Romeo dominance of Class C in Group one racing.

BTW Ian. I think TWR won the ’78 BTCC and the ’80 ETCC with the Mazda. Worth checking that one.

What about the Syracuse GP in 1939? The Italian authorities were aware of the dominance of Mercedes Benz so they changed the rules by restricting engine size to 1500cc. What happened? Mercedes built three specials of 1500cc displacement and whipped the field. Good start for a “where are they now” thread?

I’ve mentioned elsewhere the apparent anomaly that allowed MG to run a car at Le Mans with the same registration number as one that may well have been on the high seas travelling back to the UK from the USA. Not in the spirit of the regulations at all.

Thinking of MG. When they first ran in the Mille Miglia they discovered that railway crossings would close as a non-Italian car approached, but conversely, the gates would be open as an Italian car arrived. The next year, MG arrived with red paintwork and the cars ran entirely unfettered by railway crossings. ;)

Hallo Peter,
for sure the GTO story nowadays could not happen in the same manner. Remember, lawyers had been aliens in motorsport then, and today they are dominating it.
It happens of course, but much more sophisticated, see Mercedes with the CLK-GT1
homologation.

Concerning Le Mans you are correct, however, we have to admit that exactly that was - and hopefully still is - the success of Le Mans. Changing the regulations to the benefit of the sports, to keep competition alive!

I don't know more about the Mazda story than what is said here in this forum, but I believe the background is commercial. The RX was never a good seller, and the rotary principle died slowly a commercial death, mainly due to technical unreliability. Mazda had invested so much in it that they needed a really good campaign, and what is better to prove reliability than racing? Only one thing, winning races, or even championships!
TWR has been founded 1976, and first clients had been Mazda and BMW. Why favourizing an unpredictable and unsuitable car if the other option was BMW, if not for commercial reasons?

No, it was not Syracuse, but Tripolis. It was also no real rule bending, because the race was announced officially as "Voiturette Race", comparable with F2. It was still named GP, but as far I know didn't count for the European Championship. Of course it was tricky, but allowed. As far I know it had been only 2 cars, from which the second was completed during shipment from Italy to Tripolis, and only Carraciola and Lang got a drive.
Both W165 survived the war, and Mercedes intended to use them within the new GP regulations (1.5 supercharged / 4.5 atmospheric), as the W158/163 with its 3 ltr supercharged engine was not admissable. Finally the project was dropped, because making the cars race-ready would be too expensive in terms of money and manpower, both elsewhere much more in need in the early postwar years. One of the cars can be seen in the Mercedes-Benz Museum, the other I don't know, but most proobably it is still with MB.

Had MG the official permission to do so? Or was it simply cheating?

The Mille Miglia story is true, that's one of the reasons I love this good old times, and why I love Italy (not because they troubled MG, but because of the mentality in general!).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael M:


No, it was not Syracuse, but Tripolis. It was also no real rule bending, because the race was announced officially as "Voiturette Race", comparable with F2. It was still named GP, but as far I know didn't count for the European Championship. Of course it was tricky, but allowed. As far I know it had been only 2 cars, from which the second was completed during shipment from Italy to Tripolis, and only Carraciola and Lang got a drive.
Both W165 survived the war, and Mercedes intended to use them within the new GP regulations (1.5 supercharged / 4.5 atmospheric), as the W158/163 with its 3 ltr supercharged engine was not admissable. Finally the project was dropped, because making the cars race-ready would be too expensive in terms of money and manpower, both elsewhere much more in need in the early postwar years. One of the cars can be seen in the Mercedes-Benz Museum, the other I don't know, but most proobably it is still with MB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for putting me right there. The thing about the Tripoli GP was that it was supposed to be part of the same series as the other GPs that year. The Italains changed the rules because of national pride. Not without precedence though. The French did it in (I think) 1934. Another one to check. ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Had MG the official permission to do so? Or was it simply cheating?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I could tell from records and books the car in question was registered with a chassis number. That means they couldn't swap registrations. Yes it was a cheat (allegedly) because they either had two log books with the same registration and different chasis numbers or nobody checked the chassis numbers during scrutineering. I suspect the latter.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The Mille Miglia story is true, that's one of the reasons I love this good old times, and why I love Italy (not because they troubled MG, but because of the mentality in general!).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Great story. Just to make you jealous I have a limited edition print of the Lurani K3 on the 33(?) MM with the count's original signature. They were produced by the MG Car Club and there are only 251 of them. ;)

Peter, of course the Tripolis action was pure national pride (or chauvinism?), because the Alfa 158 was the best voiturette around. Tripolis was always part of the European Championship, but I'm not sure whether this was the case also in that specific year. All records I know mention the wins and places of the various drivers, and finally Lang was Champion, but no points are given. I'm interested in the silver arrow era since more 20 years now, but only now I realize that I have absolutely no idea about the governing body of this championship! Who fixed the rules, and who decides which GP will count for the EC??
If you don't mind I will start a new topic on this.

Be my guest. ;)

I’m surprised that this rather interesting and often emotional topic did not create more replies. I give it a try, and introduce some more examples, hopefully one or another may create some reactions.

CanAm in the 60s and early 70s was so successful, because there had been no technical restrictions. For 1974 a fuel consumption rule was introduced, officially due to the oil crisis, but in practice to stop Porsche winning with their unbeatable 917K’s.
After that CanAm died a slow death.

German DTM 1992. The Audi V8 Quattro engine was declared illegal because crankshaft was 180° type instead of 90°. The rules said that engine must be derived from stock engine, but not in full accordance to stock engine. The decision must be seen under the aspect of the Audi dominance, causing other teams to step out. Note: better loosing one works team than the remaing 2 others! Next year BMW declared retirement because they had not been allowed to place the engine so far backwards that part of it was located in the interior cell, leaving Mercedes the only contender for 1993, if not Alfa-Romeo decided to enter.

In 1952 and 1953 the World Championship for drivers was anounnced for 2 ltr F2 cars instead the 4.5 / 1.5 ltr F1. As far I remember the official reason was too small starting grids. Or was the real reason to break the Alfa Romeo dominance with their 1.5 supercharged, and to increase the chances of Ferrari, who besides the 4.5 ltr engine of course had a perfect 2 ltr available?

Or coming to sports cars, for 1958 the rules had been changed to engine limitation of 3 ltrs only without any reasonable explanation. 1957 Ferrari won the WC, but only very close to Maserati, from 1958 on no serious competitor was in sight.

Staying with sports cars, from 1968 on the FIA allowed only prototypes with engine capacity of max 3 ltrs, and sports cars limited to 5 ltrs. In order to guarantee that the sports cars are road going models, a minimum of 25 (or was it 50?) must be built, and cars must have roadgoing equipment like 2 seats, indicators, luggage department, and spare wheel. We all know what Porsche and Ferrari made from this regulation: the 917 and the the 512S – typical road going cars for every day‘s use!
By the way, Ferrari managed it again: at the start of the 1969 season only 17 finished cars and 7 in parts could be presented to the FIA inspector! But Ferrari missed already the 1968 season by lacking a competitive car, so another season without Ferrari ... ?

These are only another few examples of rule bending, or at least target-orientated rule making. The strange thing is that very often – or even too often! - the prancing horse is involved in such incidents. To avoid any discussion into this direction – I’m an absolutely Ferrari fan, so no wrong ideas please!

Michael,

The reason Formula 2 cars were entered in the 1952 and 1953 World Championship had nothing to do with the dominance of Alfa Romeo.
In fact, Alfa Romeo announced their withdrawal from Grand Prix Racing before the FIA agreed to let F2 cars in.
At the end of 1951, Alfa Romeo realised that to beat the Ferrari's in the coming season, a new and more powerful car was needed.
In order to finance development costs, a government subsidy had been sought, but without success.
As a result Alfa Romeo announced their withdrawal.
This, together with the demise of Lago-Talbot, disintegration of the Simca-Gordini partnership and continual failure of the BRM project, left only Ferrari with competitive Formula 1 cars.
Race organisers then turned to Formula 2 cars which, in turn, led to the FIA agreeing that the World Championship series would follow suit for the coming season.
This way, constructors could use the Formula 2 cars as the proving ground for the new 2.5 litre/750cc unsupercharged formula due to come into effect in 1954.

Michael
Boththe MB W165 survived the war, they had been given to Caracciola by MB. They sat in a garage in Zurich. The cars were painted red and when the weather was nice the garage doors would be open and you could see 2 mechanics working on the cars.
I walked past this garage going to school during the war. After the war, in 1946, on of the cars was entered in the Indy 500. Caracciola tested the car one early morning on the only 4 lane road in Zurich, about 500 meters from my house. The road was closed by the police and but we witnessed the test.
Caracciola was trown from his car in the southeast turn during practice for the 500. He was seriously hurt. To this day there are many unanswered questions about this accident.
While working in Germany in 1993 I visited the Nurberg Ring Museum and there was a W165 in the museum now again painted silver and in peistine condition.
Got to go my wife just called me for luch.

Hans, that's an amazing glimpse at racing history, thanks for sharing it with us.

What did you have for lunch? ;)

Hans, you really make me jealous!
Now as you are telling this story, the fog is lifting a little bit more on my side. I have read the memoires of Alfred Neubauer abt. 20 years ago, gave the book away, and since then it is out of print. Carracciola emigrated to Switzerland already in the 30s, still different opinions around whether for political or tax reasons. Neubauer knew that any potential GP formula after the war must be an 1.5 ltr one, and so he sought a solution to rescue the cars for peace time which had to come - sooner or later. The cars had been given to Carraciola who was Swiss citizen, to prevent any legal claim on the cars by foreign companies or governments against MB or the Reich. To hide any relation to Germany, the cars had been painted red. The 2 mechanics had been employees of the MB Rennabteilung, who spent some wonderful years in Switzerland, while all around the world was burning.

During writing of my earlier posting I remembered also that one or both cars had been raced at Indy 500 in the very early postwar period, but after checking the Indy starting grids of that era without any success, I dropped this matter. Now you brought the solution - crash already during practice, so no official participant.

The car you have seen at the Nuerburgring was that from MB museum, however, it may well be that they restored both cars, with one as reserve for loans or demonstrations. These guys are keeping their real inventories as top secret, I don't know why!

Hans, you really make me jealous!
Now as you are telling this story, the fog is lifting a little bit more on my side. I have read the memoires of Alfred Neubauer abt. 20 years ago, gave the book away, and since then it is out of print. Carracciola emigrated to Switzerland already in the 30s, still different opinions around whether for political or tax reasons. Neubauer knew that any potential GP formula after the war must be an 1.5 ltr one, and so he sought a solution to rescue the cars for peace time which had to come - sooner or later. The cars had been given to Carraciola who was Swiss citizen, to prevent any legal claim on the cars by foreign companies or governments against MB or the Reich. To hide any relation to Germany, the cars had been painted red. The 2 mechanics had been employees of the MB Rennabteilung, who spent some wonderful years in Switzerland, while all around the world was burning.

During writing of my earlier posting I remembered also that one or both cars had been raced at Indy 500 in the very early postwar period, but after checking the Indy starting grids of that era without any success, I dropped this matter. Now you brought the solution - crash already during practice, so no official participant.

The car you have seen at the Nuerburgring was that from MB museum, however, it may well be that they restored both cars, with one as reserve for loans or demonstrations. These guys are keeping their real inventories as top secret, I don't know why!