interesting crank

[5portsrock]

http://www.swiftune.com/NewsArticle/80/ ... eries.aspx

[Mike]

OK in the Dart I guess but presumably illegal in an Appendix K engine?

I've made the point elsewhere concerning conrods, if there is no declaration of such variations to "the standards clearly set out in the Appendix K regulations concerning period defined components", allowing the organisers to judge on acceptance of these items, there will be some disquiet among competitors.

If people start to run them in the Masters or other FIA type events, apart from increasing the costs, as these are not immediately visible do you now have to protest to see if there is an illegal advantage?

[Pete]

as these are not immediately visible do you now have to protest to see if there is an illegal advantage?

You will certainly be able to hear the difference !

"The double counterbalance engine revved easily to 8400rpm and the traditional harsh harmonic vibration which saps the power at the top end is gone, it is brilliantly smooth.”

...as you can with a stroked engines which have been commonplace at Goodwood for years and indespensable in HSCC. It's to be expected for Swifty to constantly develop the A series engine, there's always something new to try out and most admire his skills but as you say Mike how that fits in with historic racing I'm not sure, it contradicts the concept somewhat and produces 'funny cars' like the Dart (as entertaining as it was to watch).

[Mike]

Personally, I have no objection to cars like the Dart nor the initiative to open up grids to more obscure and modified cars from the club racing scene of the 60's. Indeed, I have just bought a Rochdale Olympic to which we are fitting an "A" series engine (as per the prototype Morris Minor engined car) to race in Julius Thurgood's new series.

My concern is that when you develop these cars using modern standards and equipment without declaration and thus control and allow their participation in so called "regulated to period" events it somewhat contradicts the edict.

If allowed by way of turning a blind eye, this will be the must have component, push up costs and inevitably diminish grids.

I think I'll go back to Porsche racing, it'll be cheaper!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mike_youle ... 303064090/

[chris-pilling]

bit of topic but there a lovely car mike!! some pics please!!

[Vegard]

Oops, a bit big

[mk1]

Vegard,



I'm sure you can make that image bigger if you really try!

[Mike]

Yes Pete, I like the quirky cars but its funny that it was described constantly in the commentary as a 1070, yet with this crank it surely was a 1293cc. Was that a ruse to disguise its high revving scream?

The Appendix K regulations are quite clear...

"Engine 6.4.1.

The engine components and ancillaries must be of period specification, must be of the same make, model and type fitted and conform to the manufacturer's specification for which period evidence exists."

I guess we will have to seek clarification from eligibility scrutineer John Hopwood if these new cranks and rods comply, particularly with the last phrase, because to be competitive these will be the must have components, and we are building two customer cars which we want to be at the front end of the grid.

[vegar]

I feel this is just going to make racing a Mini more expencive And thiese cranks, H-rods, dog boxes and so has nothing to do in a historic racing Mini. Period!

But I know people are going to go racing with thiese items, and are already racing with them

[Fred]

Hi Mike,
The engine paragraph you mention is for Non Homologated cars.

looking in App VIII
"Modifications authorised for Cars of period E, F and G1 for Series Production Touring Cars and Standard Grand Touring Cars"
paragraph 5.8 "crankshaft"
"May be replaced by a component manufactured from a ferrous material, provided that it is identical in design and in all of its dimensions to the original component. The original main bearing caps, or reproduction caps manufactured to the same pattern and from the same material as the originals, must be retained"

this in theory gives opportunity to produce a new part with a higher material spec but to the same design.


looking at App IX
"Modifications authorised for Cars of period E, F and G1 for Competition Touring Cars and Competition Grand Touring Cars"
there is no seperate mention of crankshafts in paragraph 5. this means that a standard part must be used. and paragraph 5.4 "finishing" is clear on what is allowed to do to the part:

5.4 Finishing
Machining, polishing and balancing of the engine parts are authorised, on condition that:
5.4.1 these operations are carried out with no addition of material.
5.4.2 it is always possible to establish unquestionably the origin of these parts as being series-produced, authorised by these regulations, and/or homologated.
5.4.3 the dimensions and weights given on the car’s homologation form are respected, taking into account the tolerances specified on this form or in period Appendix J. If these tolerances are not specified on the form, a tolerance of ± 5% may be taken into account.


I don't think a lot of cars comply!

cheers
Fred

[Mike]

Hi Fred,

I'm not sure you are correct.

I think the placement within the document of clause 6 "Technical Regulations for Non Homolgated Cars" is misleading, it refers to "General" and "Chassis" items for non homolgated cars.

Subsequent clauses 6.3 onwards make reference to and concern all Appendices for all specificed Periods, so I think it reverts to the previous thread.

Putting aside the semantics, the crux is as Vegar says, they don't comply, they increase costs and simply are unfair.

Although building two customer cars, I for one will be racing something different simply because I cannot justify to myself the costs associated with Historic Mini racing.

[Vegard]

Interesting:

http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=68263

[JanWulf]

Interesting:

http://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=68263

From here

[vegar]

Nice cranks But what is the smaller for?? Fiat engiens like 1050 or 903?? I think I need one of thiese for my 1050 raceA112

[sandman]

A-series inline engine...

[Vegard]

On those crankshafts, why on earth has he drilled holes in the counterweights?

[Ronnie]

For balance!! (there are holes thru the bottom ends also)!

[vegar]

A-series inline engine...

OK, it looked smaller than the other and I kind of hoped I found a way to rev my 1050 over 10 000 rpm

[guru_1071]

and I kind of hoped I found a way to rev my 1050 over 10 000 rpm

pfffff


you need one of these then.




gordon allen - turns a 970 into an 850


rev away!

[Vegard]

Have you still got that crank Rich? Please sell it to me now then!