The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum

As for the homologation, you can or you can't get it. You are totally free in that but when a certain part is on a FIA homologation set of papers the manufacturer did show a certain quantity of these parts were made to the FIA and the FIA did accept it as a standard production part. It can be shown in the flesh or on "paper".

On the homologation form the larger carbs were called emission kit. Everyone knows Weber's are not really a benefit for reducing emissions. BL called these emission kit and showed somehow to the FIA it was a standard production part for some export countries and convinced them to put these on a homologation paper. That is enough to use it as a standard part and legally use it on a gp1 car.

It has nothing to do with the appendix of the FIA regulations. The FIA confirmed on the homologation that it was a standard part so it could be used as a standard part on a gp1 car that was allowed only using standard production parts. End of story.

For clearing things up, there were no Sprints fitted with Weber's or HS8 exported to California. Also none to Johannesburg. But showing the FIA some documents that these were transported to overthere, all fitted with larger radiators and oilcoolers for the hot climate and they accepted it you really did a good job.

It's not only Triumph but all manufacturers had to be creative homologating parts they needed on their cars and that's the way it was done.

Jeroen.

soe8m wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:26 pm
I alway's call an SU a "delay carb". Not like a weber trottle valves open and squirt some fuel in when accelerating.

Jeroen

The SU doesn't need a pump because the oil-filled dashpot damper acts to delay the rise of the piston sightly when you open the throttle fast. That means there's a temporary excess to the the velocity of the air flowing over the step. Hence, by Bernoulli's principle, the pressure at the jet is temporarily lower and extra fuel is sucked in. Moreover, the quicker you open the throttle, the more the initial velocity is increased for a given flow and the more extra fuel is sucked through the jet.

It may look simple, but Herbert Skinner's constant depression carb is really damned clever.

Graham

soe8m wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:22 pm As for the homologation, you can or you can't get it. You are totally free in that but when a certain part is on a FIA homologation set of papers the manufacturer did show a certain quantity of these parts were made to the FIA and the FIA did accept it as a standard production part. It can be shown in the flesh or on "paper".

Jeroen.

This is nothing like what the CSI rules say in Appendix J. If this is fact, there must be documentary evidence for it. And if homologation were really like you opinion, there would be no need for any difference between Group-1 and Group-2, or between Group-3 and Group-4.

As I said, it was more or less like that for Group-2 and Group-4 before 1976 under the 100-off rule. But from 1976, even Group-2 and 4 needed manufacture to get modifications and options homologated - that's why BL had to build 59 to 61 TR7 Sprints, Vauxhall had to build (convert from HSs) 58 or so HSRs, Ford had to build another 50 to 58 (they won't say how many) RS1800s (the X-plate cars), and Porsche had to build 56 special 924 Carreras:
.

If it was like you say, why would any of them have ever bothered?

Graham

soe8m wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:03 pm

GrahamFountain wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:16 am

Some good ones come from the Jag and Daimler. Some bad ones come from the Rovers - I was told by a man who appeared to know his onions that the Rover ones are no better than HS6s because of limits on the piston lift and main jet sizes.

Graham

You probably did read it here.

viewtopic.php?t=33829

Nope, was told it back in the early 90s by Nick Dixon of MND motorsport. As I said, a man who appeared to know his onions.

Graham

GrahamFountain wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:09 pm

soe8m wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:26 pm
I alway's call an SU a "delay carb". Not like a weber trottle valves open and squirt some fuel in when accelerating.

Jeroen

The SU doesn't need a pump because the oil-filled dashpot damper acts to delay the rise of the piston sightly when you open the throttle fast. That means there's a temporary excess to the the velocity of the air flowing over the step. Hence, by Bernoulli's principle, the pressure at the jet is temporarily lower and extra fuel is sucked in. Moreover, the quicker you open the throttle, the more the initial velocity is increased for a given flow and the more extra fuel is sucked through the jet.

It may look simple, but Herbert Skinner's constant depression carb is really damned clever.

Graham

It is but its still a delay. When opening full throttle the valves go open but the carb isn't and needs the delay of the piston rising to have more air speed through the same size (smaller) venturi to be able to pick up the more fuel what's needed at that point. Then the piston rises and "opens" the carb. A Weber at full throttle is the carb directly fully open and the extra fuel needed is pumped in. That's not a delay but a direct response.

Jeroen

And to speak in your language, you do deny the FIA approved GP1 homologation papers? Even when these are on the FIA website?

Jeroen

soe8m wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:14 pm And to speak in your language, you do deny the FIA approved GP1 homologation papers? Even when these are on the FIA website?

Jeroen

No, I do not and never did deny the amendments containing Group-1 approvals of the HS8 and Weber carbs. What I said was "it's not clear to me what the status of these two amendments may have been or when and how long and under what circumstances they were valid." I also pointed out that they are not in the later copy of the Form of Recognition found on the FIA website, which includes a list of the amendments valid for FISA (previously the CSI) Group-A that does not include these amendments (7 and 17). I also questioned whether they would have been valid for international events scrutinized under CSI direction, which I understand the BSCC wasn't.

But you were originally challenged to show evidence of the 5000 cars needed for legitimate approval. At which point you came up with the clearly erroneous "[t]here were a lot of Sprints exported to California [that] all had the HS8 and fast road camshaft fitted as these were part the emission kit compulsory in some export countries. The 5000 sprints shipped to Johannesburg all had an oilcooler kit and larger radiator fitted and a sump guard for the rough territory to homologate these....".

Then, when challenged on that false claim, fell back to suggesting Steve was reading between the lines and not reading it in the correct context. I've read it several times, and it's a clear, if wrong, statement of fact that he challenges: there're no lines to read between and no context that changes the meaning.

Then you retracted to "For clearing things up, there were no Sprints fitted with Weber's or HS8 exported to California.. Also none to Johannesburg. But showing the FIA some documents that these were transported to overthere, all fitted with larger radiators and oilcoolers for the hot climate and they accepted it you really did a good job."

That then is a clear admission that these approvals were not obtained by legitimate means - there never were the 5000 production cars with HS8s or 5000 with Webers that the rules demanded (I suggest there were not any), just (you claim) some forged paperwork for them.

As to the stories about manufacture's successfully fooling the likes of Neil Eason-Gibson and Jabby Crombac on the CSI inspection teams: Those stories are exactly like the ones about the approvals of the Vauxhall Chevette and TR8 that I can show are made-up - in part because issues like approval on "intent to manufacture", as Neil described it to me, have never been widely understood. If Neil were still around, I'm sure he'd put you right on this score in no uncertain terms. But as they say, you can't slander/liable the dead.

But it does seem we are in agreement that these approvals were not obtained legitimately and, as you reluctantly admit, there never were the cars needed to homologate these modifications affecting performance that were required by the rules. And however the approvals were actually got, that lack of legitimacy would explain why they disappeared before the Sprint was transferred into FISA Group A.

And I still stand by my opinion that the sporting press clearly implied there was rule bending in calling them "group one and a half" cars, and these approvals were, even you admit, got by at least bending the rules (from what you suggest, blatant cheating). And therefore I suggest that these two things are related and these approvals relate to the so called group one and a half cars and their use in the BSCC.

Graham

You are mxing up two things.

I have just read the regulations of your BSCC in the '70s. I think the group your are reffering to is the gp1B. There was a lot more freedom apparently in this class but that has nothing to do with the FIA homologation. There were, and still are events or championships that have their own rules and the BSCC was one of them. In gp1B you could use all the FIA homologated parts and additional modifications were allowed just for this championship.

Ignition was free, exhausts were free and most of the suspension and wheel geometry were in gp1B.

Induction was free but not total. The number of throttle valves had to be the same. So two std HS6 could be changed for two HS8 without the HS8 being homologated. You could only use one Weber DOHC because of a maximum of two throttle valves as original. But twin Webers were homologated by the FIA in gp1, so you could also use twin Webers in the BSCC gp1B but the size was free. 48's were homologated in gp1 by BL but in the BSCC you could use 52's if you liked or 45's.

Some events had their own rules or mixed with FIA rules. All what was on the FIA forms you can use world wide at any FIA event. In the BSCC the gp1B cars werent't bending the rules but had another set of regulations just for that particular championship. More modifications were allowed.

Jeroen.

With outline of the Gp1B rules, I see you are now retracting the statements that the Sprints with HS8s in the BSCC were not group one and a half cars, as the sporting press referred to them. Though, I admit, it's not like the press to get a name wrong.

But as I said before, I didn't know how the nominally Group-1 cars were allowed to use HS8s in the BSCC. So I have to thank you for providing info on that mechanism. A link to or scan of those BSCC papers would be interesting - the FIA ones (Appendix Js and FoRs) are all on their website, but I can provide direct links if anyone needs.

But as to the FIA Approvals: Given the claim the homologating Sprints with HS8s were made and exported to California, and then that claim being withdrawn, if somewhat inelegantly, when challenged, why should the claim that there was forged documentation for the export of the HS8 and Weber equipped cars be just accepted without supporting evidence?

And even if the approvals were got on that forged documentation and lies, and as we now agree, the production cars with HS8 and or Webers never existed; those Group-1 amendments (7 & 17) to the Sprint's FIA Form of Recognition were not legitimately obtained according to the CSI rules given in the FIA's Appendix J. And that would clearly invalidate them. Hence their deletion from the later FIA hosted copy of the Sprint's FoR and their not making into the set for FISA Group-A.

But if there is another reason, i.e. not through forged documents, that still did not require the 5000 cars, like they applied where CSI didn't have control, i.e. there was independent scrutineering, they may still have limited validity - clearly its duration at least was limited as evidenced by their deletion from the later FoR. And it would still not be clear that had no connection to Group-1B. That may also relate to the suggestion of use of Weber equipped Group-1 (or one and a half or 1B) cars later in the BSCC series - evidence of which would also be interesting.

But it should be noted that the suggestion of approvals 7 and 17 being invalid does not apply to approvals on intent to manufacture, when there was not yet the full number of cars built. Their approvals were valid on the understanding that all the cars would be, as Autosport put it, "built within a few months of the homologation date". And the timing of the TR8 production and approval suggests that approvals were not given until the intention to build the cars was credible: In that case, at least most of the 150 FHC TR8s built before the approval of 1 April 1978 were built by July 1977: before the Lucas toolmakers closed the whole industry, then the Coventry Axle workers closed all of BL, and then Speke No 2 was closed for 17 weeks, and only reopened so plant and production could be moved to Canley. But the approval was not given until after it was announced in February 1978 that Speke No2 would shut and production would move to Canley.

And the point in that is there didn't need to be the full set of cars at the time they were approved. There might have been issues with parts before the 100-off rule was dropped in 1976. But Bill Price is on record as saying the 100-off rule only needed a certificate of production for those parts, and Appendix J only needed them to be available for anyone to buy 100 kits of. And after 1975, only finished cars counted. In which case, there would be no reason to fool or lie to the CSI inspection teams. And unattributed fairy-tales about that happening being very widely known and often repeated does not make them true or even credible: ask the Three Little Pigs.

Graham