What has happened to the Capri GAA that Hallidays were building? On the back burner now for the Escort?
What has happened to the Capri GAA that Hallidays were building? On the back burner now for the Escort?
No the Capri is still being built and has just recently been painted.Originally Posted by Andrew Metford
The Escort is a new project.
That is great, its looking really good with quite a few more cars being built. It will be great to see a many and varied field of Appendix K cars.
Grant Sprague posted these photos and info on his exciting new FIA Appendix K Escort on the Historic Muscle Cars thread, but given the car will come under HSC I thought I should re-post here:
Collected Escort from Auck , had custom cage fitted from UK by Shores Fabrications West Auck... this complies to FAI Appendix K code .....1.2mil lite weight c/moly all tigged, photos & test pattern & forms will be sent back to UK for signing off as to FIA requirements , the car will be 100% appendix K as can be raced any where in Europe with correct code , all alloy cosworth BDG .. 4 speed , period AP brakes , atlas etc...the car will be new, most of the parts all UK & USA ...
Not great photos but showing watts linkage , & fabricated boxes for the four link , this chassis is like new , no rust or past damage..
Last month I visited a workshop in the UK run by a couple of ex Broadspeed guys. They had 2 genuine, well known and completely unmolested Mk1 Broadspeed BDA Escorts there being restored. The amount of tubbing in the rear wheel arch area was unbelievable, chassis rails were notched and the inner guard had a spacer inserted. I asked them if that was homologated, their reply that was exactly as done in period. They showed me period photos of the mods and as they were the guys who did it originally who can argue!
I guess that argument applies to a painstaking restoration of a genuine car with history, possibly less compelling with a new build which should follow the homologation sheet however if a "interpretation" of the rules was common in period, does that make it allowable today?
That is a very good point Howard. As you know when building your car these rules they are not easy to interperate and sometime the facts take a lot of research to find the answer.
The proof I suppose must be presented, with documentation and photos.
While the Falcon Sprint builds are happening we have found a huge amount of disparity in what is acceptable between different cars overseas.
Did you manage to get any photos?
Kind Regards
Bruce
The ability to manipulate a clever interpretation of the rules (or legal resources to defend it) of a few notable individuals has always been part of Motorsport.
The Falcon Sprint is a perfect example and by the time the race guys had latched onto the somewhat dubious weight homolgation, Ford had already moved on to promoting and developing the Mustang. I bet there are a heap more historic Falcon Sprint race cars than ever existed in period!
I was visiting the workshop with the Broadspeed Escorts as a guest and given I was inside the "secret project" area, I thought whipping my camera out might not have been advised, so unfortunately, no photos.
Of course some of these mods/ cheats which were done in period can be redundant in a replica historic car anyway. For example those wheel arch modifications were done to the Escorts (and the Capris too) to allow the super wide tyres in use at the time to fit inside the homologated bodywork. Current race tyres are not as wide and many historic series mandate tyre size anyway. These guys were more concerned with presenting the car exactly as raced in period. Even down to having newly CNC machined parts having a period finish complete with machining flaws!
Last edited by Howard Wood; 08-23-2017 at 04:55 AM.
Comes down to what the owner wants-
1-a Historic car.
2-a Racing car
Of course some of these mods/ cheats which were done in period can be redundant in a replica historic car anyway. For example those wheel arch modifications were done to the Escorts (and the Capris too) to allow the super wide tyres in use at the time to fit inside the homologated bodywork. Current race tyres are not as wide and many historic series mandate tyre size anyway. These guys were more concerned with presenting the car exactly as raced in period. Even down to having newly CNC machined parts having a period finish complete with machining flaws![/QUOTE]
You are totally correct Howard. The historic cars get away with these mods....but I today that tubbing is not allowed as we have it in our FIA rules covering replicas.
Well we try to...
Great discussion Howard but No I don’t believe it does…………with original race cars one needs to pick the era in which to restore it to, as the same car can have a lot of evolution during its racing career, some Escorts and Capri might not have been tubbed the year prior?. Historic Trans Am in the USA is a good example as many of their cars ended up modified to the next generation Tran Am rules and IMSA from the mid to later 70’s and onwards, HTA have said all cars must be put back to their 66 to 72 specs, the prime years of this class otherwise are not allowed in, their class directors have controlled this and done a great job and all the cars are the originals restored accordingly and they have big fields(I have learnt from them).
What the FIA Homologation papers allow for is you to build a NEW old car today to a conforming set of regulations which allows a lot of people to relive a bygone era. The Historic Trans Am example I give above won’t allow these new builds as they want original cars. But it appears at events like Goodwood(and others) they do allow these new builds but from what I’ve been told(and seen) they have strict enforcement on what one can get away with using the FIA homologation form to set the standard, it seems at other lesser race meetings they will allow some modern technology slippage(Tru-tac diffs in Falcon Sprints been one) so I guess one could build a FIA car to the homologation papers and determine the info as “they” see it but it seems the event organiser and/or class coordinator will have the final say.
Offcourse down here in NZ with less population and kiwi thriftiness we’ve had to find a medium ground. We have allowed new replacement engine components as long as they are a “like part” and the Jerico/Tex101 dog box is another example because making everyone use an old Toploader or Muncie would be too costly with the constant breakages and the supply source drying up, I have used my American racing contacts to base this info on and also what they do in SVRA, VARA and other classic USA groups that race using non-original cars. I believe we have got it pretty rite but in any dispute its up to our 4 HMC/HSC directors, 2 Tech auditors and 1 MSNZ commission member to have the final say because the moment you let the racers decide the rules you will lose the Historic and Classic theme and become just another race series. Dale M
By and large I agree with your arguments Dale but my original point was that here are two genuine and unmolested Broadspeed Escorts being restored by some of the same guys who built them in period. Absolutely not some replica or car which had a 30 year history of continuous and dodgy modifications.
These cars are having mega money thrown at them to EXACTLY restore them to original yet actually don't appear to comply with either the period rules or current Sched K regulations. Which is not to say that the restoration is not stunning nor accurate.
Great discussion Howard. I'd be interested to see if those two Broadspeed Escorts eventually get granted HTPs. I suspect they probably will, although it may not be the intent of their owners to even historic race them, at which point an HTP doesn't matter.
My understanding of the Appendix K rules is that if a car doesn't match its homologation sheet, it doesn't get a pass. However, if a car owner wants to challenge the homologation sheet, they need to provide evidence. In the case of the two Broadspeed Escorts, I'm sure they can provide evidence of period photos showing areas that may not match the homologation sheet. Thats if the FIA inspector picks it up in the first place.
A few years ago a buddy of mine who races a Trans-Am 1967 Camaro in the Peter Auto series in Europe was trying to find evidence that dry sump systems were used on these cars in period, as he'd purchased his car from the US with dry sump installed. The homologation sheet for this model doesn't allow dry sump, and dry sump systems weren't allowed in the SCCA Trans-Am series until 1971. However, even if the rules in period allowed dry sumps, Appendix K won't allow them unless they were shown evidence of a 1967 Camaro fitted with a dry sump. So what he was trying to do was find period photos of 1967-68-69 Camaros fitted with dry sump. The Appendix K rules use a date classification, so even if the car was built in 1967, if its owner chooses to run it under a later date classification, they can incorporate some of the technology used during that period. However, they have to provide proof. His Camaro runs to G2 date classification, 1970/71, by which time dry sumps were allowed in the Trans-Am. However, he has never been able to find period photos of a first gen Camaro fitted with a dry sump, so is now racing with a wet sump.
When Neil Tolich took the Ivan Segedin Mustang to Europe, he was told the car would require changes to fit the Appendix K Group 2 rules for which it would race. Interestingly, the car was actualy presented as Segedin raced it in period, under Group 2 rules, but Neil was still told the change the car.
My understanding also is that what each car gets away with probably comes down to the FIA inspectors intimate knowledge of that particular make/model, and how far they delve. Historic racing in Europe is massively competitive, and its absolutely true that people try it on. The homologation sheets are very specific, and even cover things like gearbox and diff ratios, but an FIA inspector usually won't pull down a gearbox or rear end to check this, so teams find they can get away with a Tru Trac etc, eve if the rules don't state it can be used.
The below article from Historic Motor Racing News in 2014 is really interesting, and discusses this, using the AC Cobra as an example.
page 1:
page 2:
Pre 65 Rules seemed to work ok back then [sort of lol ] , BUT a year or two after this photo it went a bit pear shaped.....only thing was we were running out of good 289 blocks & heads [when they went pop it was a $40k fix for some back then as they would rev to around 8000 rpm & want to keep going the more the revs the more these little screamers wanted go every one want to go faster [drug motor racing ] , should have allowed 302s in and the v8s would have put on a better show , later they allowed 302 now sneaky ones using 331 , etc etc , now vented discs which is fine , rear drums were ok not dangerous now 4 wheel disc .. & it goes on ... Dale & Steve , Bruce etc you are doing a great job dont get rail roaded......
Grant- yep, Rob Brown and I had no probs in pre65 in 1993/94 with non vented discs on front, drums on rear- after all, its only 6 laps.
And I used to do the 3 hour endurances also no probs drums on rear.
John to be fair , lots had issues with pad & shoe material , plus cheap discs , some not mechanically minded , BUT once they were on top of the problem they were away , I would go to the annual committee meetings & have a good answer to a lot of issues but got slammed down by the ones with the loudest head & the bigger egos , so once again I slipped out the back door & thought Mmmmm all to hard bye .... left them 3 times and went back with an other car each time as the racing was fun , just had to wear the s..t in silence ..
Lots of escort had quite different suspension. When I applied for K many years ago I was asked for the homologation of the 4 link rear suspension, I couldn't find it . This was never homologated as the rules in period didn't require it. That is why you see many period original cars with quite different set ups. Some have 5 link, 6 link, different spacings of the 4 links, short links and long links. Even satchel link used. Some leaf spring, some coil spring and some torsion bar.
I didn't start this discussion to stir things up but I am happy the way the discussion has developed. I also posted in the HSC thread rather than HMC because it is specific to FIA HTP or Sched K regulations.
My understanding of those regulations is exactly as Steve suggests, if you can categorically prove it was done in period (specifically in an internationally recognised race or series) then it is allowed. On that basis, the original tubbing of the Broadspeed cars is allowed because the current owner and/ or restorer can and will prove it. Which is not to say that the proof is widely available to other car builders or restorers!
On the other hand, the horsepower that some "historic" cars now have is a huge issue in historic racing in the UK and certainly has the potential to occur here. The suggestion of declaring the power outputs and benchmarking them to what was achieved in period has considerable merit.
Possibly the requirement of running the correct gearbox has the unintended benefit of keeping horsepower in check but not always.
Paul, I agree with what you say re rear suspensions for the Escort. What we have observed is that Ford included the Mk1 with the Mk2 updates in 1605 and by the looks of it also combind 650 as well which covers the 4 link rear.
Shows no tubbing tho.
What we have to deal with for new builds are the regulations that we are faced with today. The historic cars do have to prove modifications outside of those regulations. That does as you say Howard are not necessarily available to those building cars today.
This is a new direction for us and Howard you have been there so you were the Guinea pig for saloons.
It is great to see other wanting to go down this track and we have some great cars in build.
Last edited by Spgeti; 08-24-2017 at 09:34 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote