mk1coopers wrote: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 ?
They were originally homologated as dry only. The 1275 then had hydrolastic added as "evolution in production". The 1071 never had hydrolastic in production so couldn't have it as evolution even if anyone had wanted it. From then to 31.12.65. the 1275 was therefore optional dry/wet as far as homologation was concerned. On 1.1.66. a new Appendix J was introduced and all vehicles required completely new homologations under it. The 1275 S was then homologated as wet only.
The Comps Dept at that time was concentrating entirely on getting the 1275 S homologated in the new Group 1 that now required 5000 cars rather than 1000. Whether a dry option could have been slipped in as "Group 2 only" (1000 cars still) is a moot point. I don't think they tried then. The 970 S was re-homologated as "Gp 2 only" (dry being the only production) but I'm not sure they bothered with the 1071. Since the base 1275 in both new Gp1 and Gp 2 was hydrolastic, it might have been a problem. Later on, when it was eventually added, no one scrutinised it the way they would have done for 1.1.66. - it was no longer an outright winning car...
mk1coopers wrote: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 ?
They were originally homologated as dry only. The 1275 then had hydrolastic added as "evolution in production". The 1071 never had hydrolastic in production so couldn't have it as evolution even if anyone had wanted it. From then to 31.12.65. the 1275 was therefore optional dry/wet as far as homologation was concerned. On 1.1.66. a new Appendix J was introduced and all vehicles required completely new homologations under it. The 1275 S was then homologated as wet only.
The Comps Dept at that time was concentrating entirely on getting the 1275 S homologated in the new Group 1 that now required 5000 cars rather than 1000. Whether a dry option could have been slipped in as "Group 2 only" (1000 cars still) is a moot point. I don't think they tried then. The 970 S was re-homologated as "Gp 2 only" (dry being the only production) but I'm not sure they bothered with the 1071. Since the base 1275 in both new Gp1 and Gp 2 was hydrolastic, it might have been a problem. Later on, when it was eventually added, no one scrutinised it the way they would have done for 1.1.66. - it was no longer an outright winning car...
So this means that run a mk1 66-71 with 5028 the only way is to wet suspension then....
No, because, as mentioned above, dry was eventually added - in April 1970 (see last set of 1275 S papers in the archive section of this forum).
It is added under the 10% option rule ie. options had to be available to a figure of 10% of the minimum quantity for homologation - 1000 in Gp2, so 100 sets. Quite where those 100 were made/sold/fitted is open to question but as I implied, I doubt anyone cared too much by then so it probably wasn't queried. The 100 or more could have been on Mk2 or 3 1275 Ss built in another country to be absolutely "legal" but I'm no expert on late production 1275 Ss (someone on here would surely know if some late Ss were built dry somewhere).
"Suspension for the BMC, British Leyland, Innocenti Mini
As the original Hydrolastic suspension units are no longer available, all
Mini variants originally homologated with Hydrolastic suspension may use
the earlier rubber cone and telescopic damper system."
