spoon.450 wrote:
If people have the information, why not share it, what is there to hide ???
It would be genuinely interesting, and continuing the history, if owners of Works cars ( especially those that were resurrected in the 80s/90s ) showed a photographic history starting from what they actually started with, through the whole rebuild / collection of parts process to the current state. In a lot of cases this would spread over various owners, but surely photographs have been taken. The owners of the cars may say " this is my car and has nothing to do with you ", but the history of the Works minis means such a lot to the enthusiasts and should be truthfully shared. It's common knowledge that a lot of the cars have been ' rebuilt ' many times and they are totally accepted, it is fantastic that they are there, I just think that they would be accepted better if the truth was known about them, so the enthusiasts know what they are actually looking at.
spoon.450 wrote:
If people have the information, why not share it, what is there to hide ???
It would be genuinely interesting, and continuing the history, if owners of Works cars ( especially those that were resurrected in the 80s/90s ) showed a photographic history starting from what they actually started with, through the whole rebuild / collection of parts process to the current state. In a lot of cases this would spread over various owners, but surely photographs have been taken. The owners of the cars may say " this is my car and has nothing to do with you ", but the history of the Works minis means such a lot to the enthusiasts and should be truthfully shared. It's common knowledge that a lot of the cars have been ' rebuilt ' many times and they are totally accepted, it is fantastic that they are there, I just think that they would be accepted better if the truth was known about them, so the enthusiasts know what they are actually looking at.
Simon776 wrote:Do not forget that all of this took place during the 1960's when things were rather more relaxed.
DISCLAIMER
A warning for those of you who are clearly exhibiting OCD symptoms.
I accept no responsibility should the following question and image make you feel queasy or make your head explode. You should consult a psychologist or other qualified health professional for advice on your specific problem and the best form of treatment for you.
So which car did this event? Was it AJB 33B or DJB 92B?
DJB AJB Build sheet.jpg
Thanks Simon, but that is no surprise......it's the more recent events that ....shock/ confuse us ??
spoon.450 wrote:
If people have the information, why not share it, what is there to hide ???
..... In a lot of cases this would spread over various owners, but surely photographs have been taken. The owners of the cars may say " this is my car and has nothing to do with you ", but ......at.
It does get worse than that..
An acquaintance has an old British sports car that was raced at Le Mans... Only one car was built along with a spare chassis. He worked for a subsidiary of the manufacturer and bought the car directly from the comps dep. Later, a new version appeared; presumably built from the chassis but adopting the identity -and history - of his car.
Correspondence followed, with the owner of the fake eventually threatening extremely expensive ..and highly illegal and painful .. retribution should he ever try to publicize the existence of the original car......
If the honest owner is being threatened with ' highly illegal and painful retribution ', then that is a legal issue that should be addressed appropriately.
the owner of the fake eventually threatening extremely expensive
If there's money to be made... bet though that the owner of the fake 'just do it to preserve history' and not to make a profit So sad such things happen.
(you guys and gal's have to excuse me for my bad english 'cos I'm a bluddy foreigner and might not use the gramatically correct words. But do hope you understand the meaning of what I just wrote)
Pete wrote:Quick question, what was allowed in a Gp6 spec car to lighten it etc?
Not sure if they were all built to exactly the same spec but some Abingdon Gp 6 Mini's in 1967 ran with fibreglass bonnet and boot and no rear seat, just red carpet on the rear seat/bulkhead area.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who do not possess it.
There was not much further scope for lightening the "unitary construction" of a rally Mini built for a long event. The holes in the rear bulkhead used on Gp3 cars under the old Appendix J would by then only have been legal if the tanks/fuel pumps were isolated - and that would have added more weight than was saved.
I don't recall the rear side pockets being cut away (which could have been done without compromising the structure much, so long as an Aley Bar was fitted). The cage was not braced to the B post, so replacing the roof with a glued on alloy or fibreglass panel would have introduced weakness. Some club level cars did have those things but not those built for International length events.
I recall the red carpet on the rear bulkhead and seat pan. They apparently had "lightweight" carpet even on the Gp2 cars (and Gp1 probably - the carpet weight was not on the papers?). When Gp2 allowed removal of rear seats (1973) I bulked at using carpet and I covered my rear bulkhead with the material used on the dash top. It was not realistic to have a bare metal rear compartment for a rally car that you had to store helmets, jackets etc. in over a long period.
De-seaming probably added as much extra weld as was saved. Cutting away the front panel to aid brake cooling was an option but at that time they probably were trying to keep the Gp6 cars looking as standard as possible. The last Hopkirk Circuit of Ireland car was effectively a last fling when they were beyond caring.
Think about it. Where was there any real scope for further lightening without compromise of the structure?
LMM76C wrote:There was not much further scope for lightening the "unitary construction" of a rally Mini built for a long event.
Think about it. Where was there any real scope for further lightening without compromise of the structure?
Not much at all. You would save more weight telling the driver and co-driver to make sure they had a shave and a haircut before the event started.
Didn't Porsche acid dip some of their motorsport shells? I think their view was the cage was the strength, not the shell, and this still fell within the scope of using 'a production shell' as required by the regs.
The point was made earlier that the cage was not braced to the shell in those days (until 1971 a cage was optional, then a standard FIA cage was required with no "free" bracing). By definition that means acid dipping was not an option - even if works Mini rally cars had been built from bare shells then (which they were not) (neither were 911 rally cars).
During the works Mini's rally days, the opposition works Mk1 Cortinas were built from ready painted shells strengthened on the production line. Later the Mk2 Cortinas were not (and only lasted one event, except for the first car...).
For the Escort's works rally period (almost entirely after the Mini's), shells were seam brazed, not welded, to leave a degree of flex in the shell because cage bracing of the type seen on historic cars today was not allowed. Even the last Rothman's Escort had no rear diagonal in the cage.
[/quote]
Like the heritage museum engines, steering wheels, seats, and god knows what else 
Where did those end up 
+1!
