On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 EISANDIEGO@aol.com wrote:
> FOTers
Howdy.
> I was under the impression that Triumphs still ran in more than one
> production class. Is that true? Is there greater options in classes other
> than EP ?
Big Triumphs run in EP. GT6's run in EP. Spitfires run in either FP
(1500's with a single carb or 1296's with the dual carbs) or GP for the
1147's.
I'm not sure about any other Triumphs, but production rules don't allow
just anything, so a Vitesse probably doesn't fall anywhere and would need
to run in a "regional class" like ITE or possibly GT (probably 3).
> Secondly, the Covair option has been discussed relative to TR4s and TR6s,
> are these modifications applicable to Spitfires, GT6s, and/or earlier TR2/3 s?
The mods suggested with the Corvair stubs is a 4A IRS, 5, 250 and TR6 (in
other words IRS big TR's) only option. It could probably be made to work
for the 250 and the Stag and possibly other IRS Triumphs...
For the "Tractor TR's" (TR2, 3, 4 and 4A non-IRS) - what some folks are
doing is modifying the Ford 8 inch rear (as suggested on the list recently).
The "Corvair mods" are not applicable to the smaller Triumphs. However,
folks make "beefier" axles for the swing/axle style rears on those cars...
one of those people is a certain Wayne Snyder from Michigan somewhere. I'm
pretty sure there are other sources for the beefier axles for Spitfires.
GT6's should fall in this category also.
> If not, what modifications are they using?
If the rules allow - the Ford 8 inch. If not, the list had an "axle fest"
a few years ago and one guy had a bunch of alloy hubs made and another
guy had a bunch of axles made... this was not an inexpensive excercise.
> Is there a role for FOT in supporting efforts like those undertaken by
> Chip Bond to get SCCA and Vintage rule changes made in the interest of Safety
> ?
Could be. The problem has been that the messengers haven't been able to
back up the safety claims as well as they could. For example, if a
metalurgist were to approach the board with real data... e.g. I've
examined xxx number of axles and x percent of them have stress cracks -
and they then followed that with cost data for axles from Strange or
another source - the board could be made to see that there is a possible
danger (with the failing axles).
However, on the board's side of the equation - they're trying to keep
Prod a Prod based class and not make it another GT-like class. I see the
balancing act that they are trying to do, but I am also saddened at the
idea that there are a lot of race cars out there that simply are not
racing because of issues like this.
On the other hand, I don't profess the knowledge to satisfy both parties
(the ideal solution), so I sit and watch.
I know I'm not the only one.
> Thanks in Advance, Cary
regards,
rml
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Lang Room N42-140Q | This space for rent.
Consultant MIT Computer Services |
Voice: (617)253-7438 FAX: (617)258-9535 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|