Touring Cars- Gp1, Gp1b, Gp1 1/2. The differences?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Thanks. Hopefully when I can get hold of a copy, I will! Is that one of the 'Gp1 1/2' modifications?

When it comes to HTP, however, it will be the homologated manifold the FIA want to see. I am also trying to determine the level of interior trim required for said document- so far have had confirmation that rear seat(s) can be removed (App K, in order to accommodate cage) but all other trim should be present. So what trim did they have in BSCC- Carpets? Passenger seat.......?

8 track tape, door cards, airco... ok, well, maybe not. Walnut dash? Cocktail bar ....?


Gratuitous photos from Mallory Park testing ...

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by grantp

8 track tape, door cards, airco... ok, well, maybe not. Walnut dash? Cocktail bar ....?

In theory, yes. If the manufacturers base version of any particular model had air con, 8 track, cocktail bar or whatever, then they had to stay in Gp1......

Even spare wheel in original compartment, but at the end only one of 'nominally same circumference' as two of the fitted wheels. I believe the works Gp2 Capris had a special 'bicycle' wheel to conform to that one!

One typical puzzle is bumpers. In early 70s they could only be removed for closed speed events (off public roads) if the particular event regs allowed. Then later on App J allowed removal of said items for all events, then near end of Gp1 went to not even suggesting they could be removed for any reason. So depending on the year of a particular model, it could now need bumpers, or maybe not......

[Al Weyman]

The more I read this the compromise of the original CTCRC group1 regs make more and more common sense, you are never going to find a fair common ground for a revised championship with all these little changes over the years what CTCRC had (still have if you remove the plastic windows) was imho as good and as fair as it gets.

[davyboy]

... also can you imagine the challenges of post race scrutiny in period, let alone today [when the class straddles so many periods]. Is it any wonder that rumors abound of all sorts of illicit tweaks to these cars back in the day.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

The more I read this the compromise of the original CTCRC group1 regs make more and more common sense, you are never going to find a fair common ground for a revised championship with all these little changes over the years what CTCRC had (still have if you remove the plastic windows) was imho as good and as fair as it gets.

Al, d'you know what? I agree with you when it comes to a lot of things like furnishings, body addenda etc., but not some of the other CTCRC regs. I too believe an even playing field for the period is going to be very difficult to find!

Yes, eligibility scrutineering must have been really interesting in period.......

[Al Weyman]

Yes it did move on from the original concept when I joined the club in 2005 and I think some of the changes since then have been detrimental.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

In theory, yes. If the manufacturers base version of any particular model had air con, 8 track, cocktail bar or whatever, then they had to stay in Gp1......

Even spare wheel in original compartment, but at the end only one of 'nominally same circumference' as two of the fitted wheels. I believe the works Gp2 Capris had a special 'bicycle' wheel to conform to that one!

One typical puzzle is bumpers. In early 70s they could only be removed for closed speed events (off public roads) if the particular event regs allowed. Then later on App J allowed removal of said items for all events, then near end of Gp1 went to not even suggesting they could be removed for any reason. So depending on the year of a particular model, it could now need bumpers, or maybe not......

Appendix J did change from year to year .[ I have a lot of PDF copies of many different years if anybody needs them ].
But from memory , for Gp1 rallying we always had to have the bumpers fitted .
They were allowed to be removed for racing use as long as they were a separate item [ not part of the body ].
But as far as I can remember [ you can spend a lifetime reading up old FIA regs ] all trim & seats had to be retained . Even if you had to move it to fit the cage , it still had to be kept in the car . Which I think is where the Gp1 & 1/2 BTCC regs were different

[Mike Bell]

Yes, you are quite right, for Gp1 rallying bumpers were always reqd. Events held on circuits or where no public road was ventured on were where the fluctuations in requirements occurred.

Regarding the trim, there is App J of whatever period telling us one thing, then that needs to be cross referenced with latest App K to see what is allowed now. Defo rear seat(s) can be removed to facilitate cage fitment, and holes cut in dash etc for cage to pass through if necessary. But no mention of removing carpet, front passenger seat, headlining........... So my interpretation is that to gain an HTP a car would have to be presented with all that except for rear seat. Ironically my cage design allows rear seat to remain in place, even if it can't be used!

[Mike Harte]

Mike, from my memories of rules/regs from the 60s, please don't try to assume that there was any logic in the MSA's "bibles" of those times.

Even though the cars that I helped to prepare were all competing in the Special Saloon catagory, where nearly everything was allowed, there were some really stupid requirements. One was that a rear seat had to be included, although the front passenger seat could be removed as well as virtually everything else inside the car.

The really stupid part was that the rear seat did not have to be the original, and for all the years that I raced, my back seat comprised of a half inch thick foam sheet cut to size covered in ultra thin black vinyl. The scrutes never once even so much as commented on it, even though it didn't really serve any purpose.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Mike, from my memories of rules/regs from the 60s, please don't try to assume that there was any logic in the MSA's "bibles" of those times.

I will assume nothing! I know Gp2 also required a reasonable level of interior trim as it was based on Gp1, and remember the passenger seat on some cars looking like it had been lifted from a go-kart....

I've also found some info on the Australian GpC version of Gp1 that CAMS ran. Looks like they (CAMS) issued their own homologation papers for individual models based on manufacturers papers, with their own added interpretations, and the cars still run to same regs today. They did and still do require full interior trim including rear seats. Sounds clear and simple compared with our muddied waters......

[AntA35]

With regards trim levels, again it was the blue book that gave most guidance for what you could remove. I remember a scrutineer wanting to see seats, parcel shelves, linings, carpets, ashtrays and so on on my GP1 Dolomite last year. As far as I am aware the car never had them fitted... ever...

The blue book gave the local supplementary regs (national rules) for their local races BSCC or BTCC in UK. Production saloons were different to Gp 1. Prod saloons had to retain far more and couldn't modify much beyond a standard car. I have seen various copies of annual blue books and this is where I think you need to concentrate Mike, after you have considered the mechanical homologated Gp 1 spec of the car which inevitably means no carpets, seats, sound proofing, radios, heaters, air con, spare wheel, jacks, tool roll etc... otherwise it may as well be production saloons.

[Peter Mallett]

As Anthony says arguably the Blue Book provides the evidence that the car would have raced with the modifications in question, such as carburettor, exhaust manifold etc. so there's no need to conform directly to the App K requirements.

[Mike Bell]

I'm on the case as far as blue book is concerned, and will report back after some research!

The dilemma is HTP inspection, where FIA regs seem to take precedence- but maybe not. I will ask the question!

[Peter Mallett]

This is an extract from the HTP advice on www.msauk.org

[andy97]

Originally Posted by AntA35

Goodwood now over, a fabulous weekend, despite the car breaking it's throttle linkage (it was a new one, should have left the old one on!) Ho hum...

What a great thread!

In answer to some of your questions Mike, my Dolomite is the car to which Frank refers as the Vernaeve car, basically it's an original Group 1 Leyland Cars Dolomite (Belgium) that was developed alongside the Group 1 Leyland Cars Dolomites of Britain. The chassis was manufactured in Canley in 1973, it was then built into a race car and first raced in early 1974, alongside the Broadspeed Dolomite of Rouse/Dron and returned to the UK at the end of 1975 to be rebuilt and receive the latest Don Moore engine, works upgrades and new red, white and blue works livery. The car was retired by Vernaeve at the end of 1978/79, sat in the window of his Leyland dealership until the mid 80's. It was then left pretty much unmolested for 25 years spending quite a few of those in a museum, until I purchased it.

The car remains incredibly faithful to how I found it, which is pretty much as per the homologation papers of the period, some additional holes had been cut in the front panel in 1974/5 to aide cooling that were not homologated, which I have now closed off, but these are easy to recreate if necessary. However there were quite a number of improvements made and amendments and insertions to the homologation forms over the years of the Dolomite. Most notable of the improvements were the twin Weber 48's from 1/1/77 enabling an additional 40bhp over the twin SU's. I've spoken with some of the chaps who used to work in the Triumph dealerships and the road going Dolomite Sprints were offered with Webers, but they would come supplied in the boot of the car as a dealer fit (sounds like the Group A Alfa spoiler story doesn't it).

You also mention the brakes on this car, which were notoriously poor along with the rear axle. The standard disc, calliper and pad area was retained all the way through the Group 1 period of the car with only one notable modification enabling a vented front disc. Essentially, to accommodate the wider disc a spacer had to be made to widen the calliper, but that was all, the disc diameter remained as before. Oil coolers and the like were homologated for African markets, along with different gear ratios, differentials, springs and front roll bars etc.

The homologation forms for the Dolomite provide quite a variety of possibility for modifications. However, one thing I have noted... some of the homologated parts on the forms were either never manufactured or the sizes of items allowable (e.g. brake pads) bear no relation to the accepted item that was/is used. In this example, the allowable pad size for Group 1 front brakes according to the homologation form is almost 20% bigger than the one that will fit in the calliper?

It is possible I suppose that the manufacturers designed in some extra allowance into their figures for wiggle room or just to save them applying for an amendment later on, but then how were the physical examples measured by the RAC/MSA to convey them as accurate? Either the RAC were incompetent or Triumph had them measure larger pads that didn't fit the calliper! Unless the figures were just passed as read. However this happened, I think it is likely there are irregularities in many sets of homologation forms and the truth behind these points will only be known to very few, if any, people around today. What this does create however is the certainty that homologation was as difficult to control then as it is today.

In my example, I know that the brakes are what they used in period (as they were on the car), but the pads that fit are in fact smaller than what was homologated and I've yet to find a pad to the homologated allowance that will fit the calliper! So, the question of homologation and period correctness are already at odds, let alone a steady set of parts that you can find that will work.

On the question of the Escort RS2... Vernaeve in his Dolomite used to fend them off successfully on occasion and yet succumb to them on others. There is some editorial somewhere of Vernaeve getting in quite a nasty bit of door banging and rough driving with Eddy Joosen (BMW 530) and Alain Semoulin (Escort RS2) at Nivelles in July 1977, so they must have all been close on lap time. However, to see how competitive they were against the Dolly, see the Belgian Touring Car Championship 1977 on Franks site, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised or pleased, or maybe I am telling you what you already know:

http://touringcarracing.net/Pages/19...gian%20TC.html

Will we see your car this year? We really need a small Ford in Gp1, so we can have class battles as well.

Great detail, many thanks.

I see there are 4 Dolomites in the historic touring car race at the Donington Historic Festival, more than any other type, I think.

[Jesper OH]

For years Poul Heickendorf was the guru among Danish group 1 Ford Escort RS2000s, mainly through driver Erik Høyer. His RS was listed with 188 hp during the 1982-1983 seasons and by the end-of-season sales adverts Flemming D. Olsen advertised his '84-car with the same number.
In the same vein Tony Dickinson claimed 196 bhp in his period Autosport sales adds for his 1982 British Saloon Car Championship RS2000 - a car build for that season only!

Jesper

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Jesper OH

For years Poul Heickendorf was the guru among Danish group 1 Ford Escort RS2000s, mainly through driver Erik Høyer. His RS was listed with 188 hp during the 1982-1983 seasons and by the end-of-season sales adverts Flemming D. Olsen advertised his '84-car with the same number.
In the same vein Tony Dickinson claimed 196 bhp in his period Autosport sales adds for his 1982 British Saloon Car Championship RS2000 - a car build for that season only!

Jesper

Thanks for that insight, Esper. I am having an engine put together to App J regulations of the time and by a Pinto specialist from the period, so it will be interesting to see what horsepower results!

[tim dodwell]

As someone that started racing in Group One when it was introduced in 1972, the car had to be completely standard (including bumpers and trim etc) - except that optional equipment was allowed if listed in the compulsory RAC homologation form (I still have the one for my 998cc Austin Cooper).
The next year it became Production Saloons, and I believe had to be more standard.

[Mike Bell]

Quite right, Tim. If an owner wants to get HTP papers for their car, the FIA still demand that it only has homologated tuning parts, and yet we know that period National championships allowed relaxations in some areas. For organisers, it's going to be extremely difficult to form a grid of comparable or equal cars, but if a race is to be run to FIA regulations then (so I am told) the cars should be to homologated specification only, even if in period they weren't!

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Quite right, Tim. If an owner wants to get HTP papers for their car, the FIA still demand that it only has homologated tuning parts, and yet we know that period National championships allowed relaxations in some areas. For organisers, it's going to be extremely difficult to form a grid of comparable or equal cars, but if a race is to be run to FIA regulations then (so I am told) the cars should be to homologated specification only, even if in period they weren't!

One of the problems is that the Homologation papers have to be read along with App J from the period , as there were some freedoms under App J that did not have to be listed on the papers .
And then there is the problem that some series organisers specify App J from from outside the period in question .
That problem exists in Historic rallying , where FIA App K lists 1981 J , for cars that were about in the 70s .So there are some cars exactly as they ran on Internationals in that time which no longer comply with current rules .
All in all , its a nightmare .

[Mike Bell]

And App J allowed naff all for Gp1!

A nightmare indeed.....

[Peter Mallett]

As stated, it depended on the ASN. Effectively, any car built to RAC MSA regs, will also comply with the European version of the period. It was done to make sure cars could compete in various championships. As I'm sure you know.

Hence Group 1.5 or 1 1/2 or 1B. All the same. I don't believe, although I stand to be corrected, any country ran to strict Group 1. There were the production saloon championships and they, possibly, were really group 1.

Nonetheless my Rover is now restored to the same condition it ran in 1981.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Nonetheless my Rover is now restored to the same condition it ran in 1981.

Which is as it should be!

Out of interest- have you applied for HTP papers?

[Peter Mallett]

I paid for them a while ago. Nobody told me I haven't got them.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I paid for them a while ago. Nobody told me I haven't got them.

Apologies Peter, I forgot your domicile abroad! Ken handling, I assume?