MK1 S 1275 homologation 5028 G1

[mini2fast4u]

I´m in the middle of a restoration of a Mk1 1275 S. My question is.

Can i use 5028 homologation for G1 and G2 on a mk1? The class im supposed to enter in is 66-71.

What add on´s can i use?

Arches?
Adjustable lower arms and tie rods?
Hi Lows?
Weber? Can i cut out for a box in bulkhead?
12 or 13" wheels? Slick tyres?
LCB?
8 port?
What track?

Please help me out here..

[LMM76C]

Those are the relative papers for 1.1.66. onwards. They are in the archive section of this Mk1 site (although some of the terminology over "submitted" rather than approved may not yet have been corrected to what I offered some time ago).

As always, homologation papers are only part of it. The FIA Appendix J "freedoms" also cover a lot of the mods allowed.
Most of the items you mention will be in the papers and are thus OK. What most certainly is not is modification of the bulkhead.

[Vegard]

In Norway, G2 is one of the biggest classes. Lot's of Minis here are to your spec. I'm running a 1275GT so slightly different homo-papers, but here goes.


Arches?
-Yes, as per period, maximum 2"

Adjustable lower arms and tie rods?
-Yes

Hi Lows?
-Yes

Weber?
-Yes

Can i cut out for a box in bulkhead?
-NO

12 or 13" wheels? Slick tyres?
-Only 12". No slicks.

LCB?
-Yes

8 port?
-Yes

What track?
-As per period. Free, but needs to be covered by arches.





Here's me in my F car (Pre65) Mixing it with the 71 cars.

[mini2fast4u]

In Norway, G2 is one of the biggest classes. Lot's of Minis here are to your spec. I'm running a 1275GT so slightly different homo-papers, but here goes.


Arches?
-Yes, as per period, maximum 2"

Adjustable lower arms and tie rods?
-Yes

Hi Lows?
-Yes

Weber?
-Yes

Can i cut out for a box in bulkhead?
-NO

12 or 13" wheels? Slick tyres?
-Only 12". No slicks.

LCB?
-Yes

8 port?
-Yes

What track?
-As per period. Free, but needs to be covered by arches.





Here's me in my F car (Pre65) Mixing it with the 71 cars.

OK. So these mods is also applicable for a mk1 for G1 period in same class? Where can I find prove for this?

Thanks alot.

[rich@minispares.com]

so slightly different homo-papers

good to know that you are all legal verg................

[KennethDK]

Weber?
-Yes

If you go for a Weber setup - then it has to be split Weber. A single Weber is not homologated as periode states that the car has to run the same number of carbs as factory provided. (= 2 carbs).

Regards

Kenneth

[Vegard]

I don't believe that applies as it's easy to prove that a single was run in period. The Ardens use four Amals. That's legal as well.

[LMM76C]

OK. So these mods is also applicable for a mk1 for G1 period in same class? Where can I find prove for this?
Thanks alot.

When you mention "G1" and "G2" in the context of homologation, the assumption has to be you mean Appendix J Group 1 and 2.
The Group 2 mods most certainly are not permitted if running to Group 1. If G1 and G2 refers to some period defined "modern historic" categories somewhere you need to be more specific to get definitive help from us.

[mini2fast4u]

OK. So these mods is also applicable for a mk1 for G1 period in same class? Where can I find prove for this?
Thanks alot.

When you mention "G1" and "G2" in the context of homologation, the assumption has to be you mean Appendix J Group 1 and 2.


The Group 2 mods most certainly are not permitted if running to Group 1. If G1 and G2 refers to some period defined "modern historic" categories somewhere you need to be more specific to get definitive help from us.

Ohh. I thought g1 was 66-69 and g2 70-71. But I may be wrong

[Vegard]

OK. So these mods is also applicable for a mk1 for G1 period in same class? Where can I find prove for this?
Thanks alot.

When you mention "G1" and "G2" in the context of homologation, the assumption has to be you mean Appendix J Group 1 and 2.


The Group 2 mods most certainly are not permitted if running to Group 1. If G1 and G2 refers to some period defined "modern historic" categories somewhere you need to be more specific to get definitive help from us.

Ohh. I thought g1 was 66-69 and g2 70-71. But I may be wrong

You're right.

[LMM76C]

You may be "right" - about some modern championship I have never heard of - but the point remains that it is meaningless to some of us and G1/2 to those of us there at the time is shorthand for Appendix J Groups 1 and 2.
I say again, such questions posted on here need to be much more specific to get help.

OT but what crass stupidity of championship organisers to use nomenclature for a "historic" series that meant something else in period. Not the first time either.

[Vegard]

You may be "right" - about some modern championship I have never heard of - but the point remains that it is meaningless to some of us and G1/2 to those of us there at the time is shorthand for Appendix J Groups 1 and 2.
I say again, such questions posted on here need to be much more specific to get help.

OT but what crass stupidity of championship organisers to use nomenclature for a "historic" series that meant something else in period. Not the first time either.

You're misunderstood. We're talking G1/G2 NOT group1 and group2. Two different things, and definitely not a modern championship.

I run my 1275GT as per 1971 regulations. G2. Which coincidently also as gp2

[LMM76C]

You've misunderstood, not I. It is totally obvious I understand that there are two different things being talked about. There was no such thing as "G1/2" historically other than as an abbreviation for Appendix J - I was there. It is a later creation and any intelligent organiser of a series should have been aware of the potential for confusion.
The point again: if asking for help be absolutely specific when using jargon or peoples' time is wasted.

OT, we have also seen too many threads on this forum where people answer a question that has already been answered, without acknowledging the earlier answer. Etiquette elsewhere is that an earlier resolution should be acknowledged eg, "as x has posted above...."

Instead of being fixated by anyone who seeks to clarify the facts on recreations/replicas and threatening those that do, this forum needs to address a few more basic points or it has lost the plot entirely.

[FF70]

Could someone show the paper (official), which says that the rubber suspension may be used for classification 5028 (period 66-69) G1 ???

Here in Finland allowed to drive only with hydros

[timmy201]

Have you seen the ones here?
http://mk1-performance-conversions.co.u ... ation.html

[FF70]

Have you seen the ones here?
http://mk1-performance-conversions.co.u ... ation.html

Edit my question

[mini2fast4u]

Hi all, i have now recieved the all latest 5028 homologation papers from fia. But im a little bit confused about the three sections in the homologation. I´m building a mk1 S but his homologation papers also concists of the mk2 and mk3 cooper s allowed extras.
My question is if its allowed to run all the add ons in the 5028 on a MK1? Otherwise theer is not allowed to run dry suspension thats allowed from 1970? Little bit confusin? Is there someone else around here that can help me out who runs a mk1 with 5028 homologation? Or someone else with knowledge in this matter. Thanks again

[LMM76C]

The later marks are added under "Evolution" rules ie. production has ceased of the previous body. In period, a model that had existed on the same papers through the various "evolutions" could use any of the homologated extras right up to the end of the model's homologation. The Cooper S complies with that - but I am not up to date with modern historic regs that may be interpreted differently.

The problem comes when a model was first introduced as a Mk2 etc. and never built as a Mk1.

[mini2fast4u]

Okay, someone on here maybe had knowledge about today's regs and how they are looking at it. I mean if I build the mk1 to what all the evolution up to 71 as in 5028 papers allows and are coming out on a event and they are saying it's wrong, it would be bad.

[mk1coopers]

I know nothing about all the rules and regs, but surely if the MK1 1070 and 1275 both had dry suspension from the factory, which they did, they must have originally been homologated with dry as an option ?