Jim,
I am far from expert at Le Man's rules. I believe that same statement
could be applied to the F.I.A. who invented them, as well.
There were two Le Mans rules I was aware of. Each manufacturer,
including Ferrari (who lied a lot) had to show production, or pre
production, or "planned production" status of the minimum quantity (50?)
for the production class win. Unless the car was French, in which case
they looked the other way! Rules were changed annually to give the
French a win. Don't think it ever worked except for a Panahard "Index
of Performance" win, once.
I do not know whether the GT-40 was a "production car" when entered, but
certainly they made more than 25 for the production run. You could have
a point, but there WERE 500 289 Tigers made, eventually!!! Nothing ever
stopped Rootes USA from stretching the truth a bit on SCCA qualification
for LAT options, some of which weren't even made for the factory race
car. The trick would be to have the cars declared Fabrique en Francais
(with some French ownership), and all problems go away. Of course a
little "grease" (not Greece) never hurt the Olympics, did it? Except the
guy they just caught who was stupid enough not to share the spoils.
:-)
Steve
TIGEROOTES@aol.com wrote:
>Steve,
> I wonder if the choice to use a 260 VS 289 in the Tiger LeMans cars
>was simply a matter of homologation. In 1964, was the "prototype Class" the
>same as Formula Libra (open)? I highly doubt it. A 289 engine might have
>tossed
>them out of competing at LeMans. I bet the rules required the Manufacturers
>maintain the same engine displacement their current production car was built
>with and at the time the Cobra had advanced to a 289 whereas the Tiger had
>not.
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>Jim Leach Pacific Tiger Club Seattle
>
>
--
-----
Steve Laifman
Editor
http://www.TigersUnited.com
|