In a message dated 11/29/01 10:58:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mgvrmark@hotmail.com writes:
> Brian is correct about the 100-S Healey, it was 4-cylinder and had 4-wheel
> Dunlop disc brake system. However, in my mind that does NOT justify
> conversion of production 100-4's to Girling front-wheel disc brakes, for
> two
> reasons: 1) a 100-4 is not a 100-S, they are different & distinct models;
> and 2) the 4-wheel Dunlop system is not the same as the Girling front-wheel
> disc brake system found on later big Healeys.
>
Mark, et al:
I hate to belabor this issue. Certainly the 100S is a distinct model. We all
know that. The 100S is still a BN1 albiet highly modified, at the factory,
for racing, first at Sebring (S). In fact the claim at the time was that the
100S was the first PRODUCTION car to have F & R disc brakes. The 100M is
still a BN2. They all are 100/4's, a designation not used the 100/6 was
produced.
For RACING purposes they (100/4) are all the same. Parts could and now still
should be allowed to be freely exchanged. The BMC factory were savy enough to
list all of the 100S parts as options for the BN1&2 with the FIA and the
SCCA. The fact that enough regular BN1's were built was the very reason the
100S was accepted for racing as a PRODUCTION car.
Any 100/4 Healey is legitimate outfitted with the 100S parts. This even
includes the special alloy body parts. However, no reduction of the minimum
listed weight 2176# was allowed.
Collectors and widget analizers have a different outlook on this issue but
they are not RACERS!
Jack Woehrle
/// vintage-race@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or go to http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|