Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dat2kman

CAMS Australia and eligible parts for S30z's

Recommended Posts

Win Percy, who we know as a top pro driver, compared the handling of the S30 he drove with that of the Porsche factory 944 which itself was a superb handling car. Praise indeed. Of course it all depends on the individual S30's setup and tuning but we know that the potential is there ready to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here in NZ we can use period parts however we also have issues where others have used the rules that allow for mods to take it way to far too. example is there is FIA papers that show a 16valve head fitted to a Ford pinto block. Known as a holbay so today people are passing off a fully alloy block/head based on a YB cosworth as one of these and that is so out of spec it is not funny aka 2.5l dohc escort making 300hp......

 

Then we have the in period here in NZ - only saloons where raced and a zed is not a saloon. But said German cars had a token back seat so are OK.

 

All of this stuff has (and a new job that means I will not get my track car finished) made me sell my track car project (still keeping the flared zed) and purchase this.

 

1. They were raced in period here in NZ

2. It is a saloon

3. parts are readily available and still period correct and cheaper than zed stuff.

4. These parts where factory fitted. But not vented rotors etc. But then car is small and light so these still work OK.

5. I won't get the they did not race here in NZ in period like you do with a zed (the anti Japanese bit I feel is why this is pulled out of the hat)

 

So this is the new track car....

 

A 1970 Morris Cooper S 1275. OK a replica but using genuine 1275 cooper s engine, brakes and badges aka it is a reshell using a mini k body due to rusty cooper s body. Plus not many racing in classics here anymore as most race in a mino only class which is outside of period spec mods in some configurations.

 

So yes I have given up and jumped ship by purchasing a already completed car.

post-104-144023790743_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have got copies of the Nissan Comp catalogues, it comes down to that the items must have been fitted by the factory, or by a dealer, to any new car.

( no requirement for car to only be able to be sold to public)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes to Group S from CAMS.

 

Front Camber can now go to negative 3 degree.

 

Fuel can only be Avgas, Pump or E85.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see it making any more power especially if it's not built for sky high compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes to Group S from CAMS.

 

Front Camber can now go to negative 3 degree.

 

Fuel can only be Avgas, Pump or E85.

We've always had those fuels, camber s up by 0.25 degrees.

Not huge changes.

They really need to look at "safety in our workplace" ie the car is our workplace, and some componentry is very marginal in regard to safety.

Adding the ability to "drive" the workplace harder, further reduces the safety margins.

 

Some cars, for their power output are adequate/over engineered, others simply are not.

 

(Also, not hard at all to run E85 through Hitachis. Just need internal fuel delivery passages opened up, needles and tubes altered, and bores/butterflys enlarged in diam.

On carbied cars the manifold is free design)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motorsport is dangerous? I don't think it's fair to give zeds better brakes on that basis. Isn't the onus on the driver to drive in a safe manner and pick an appropriate car based on the rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see it making any more power especially if it's not built for sky high compression.

 

No personal experience here but using E85 is a popular choice for those who want more power. Obviously the engine has to be retuned, is there any reason why compression can't be increased on a Sc spec engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't see the gains with N/A cars that you do with Turbos was more my point I guess. I doubt it's worth all the messing around for the small increase you get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup biggest advantage for turboed cars, but then you have other problems like the extra 20-25% fuel you will burn compared to 98 or avgas. For sprint races not too much of an issue, except for maybe the extra bit of weight. For longer distance races like the 25 lapper at SMP, you may find the 60 litre tank of the Zed not enough.

 

Plus if you have an old n/a car with huge compression you would be using 120/130 avgas rather than 105 or so E85.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Plus if you have an old n/a car with huge compression you would be using 120/130 avgas rather than 105 or so E85.

 

Is there different grades of avgas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the race fuel from bp or shell commonly called avgas was rated at 110 octane and real avgas used in real planes that you bought from the local small plane airport was ratedvas a minimum of 120 and maximum of 130 octane iirc.

 

My old zg loved a drink of avgas, as did my sports 1300 3k corolla motor and my 2.2l L18 needed 110 at the minimum to not ping it's head off literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the early 80's when I was racing Avgas was sometimes hard to get so I used a mix of super fuel and Methol Benzene. Kept the engines happy. Turbo and normally aspirated.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of jungle juice was used in the 80's and 90's, Toluene was another favourite additive to boost octane as well.

 

I hate to think how dangerous and carcinogenic these homebrew fuels were, knowing how bad unleaded is when it doesn't go through a catalytic converter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motorsport is dangerous? I don't think it's fair to give zeds better brakes on that basis. Isn't the onus on the driver to drive in a safe manner and pick an appropriate car based on the rules?

I disagree strongly on that viewpoint.

Why?

The "workplace" for the driver, with its better tyre technology, along with the recently granted approval to use a 15" tyre, higher horsepower engines, drivers who are prepared to race, rather than "tour with vigour", the increased amount of safetywear to the driver, better traction surfaces being utilised at tracks, woth better track safety margins now employed,,,,

The lack of the Sporting Authourity to address a known "at their limits" issue (s30 chassis brakes), which has been raised by quite a few individual competitors, only to be dsregarded, and told " you must drive within the limits" etc etc, s clearly NOT addressing the "safety in the workplace" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obviously I don't have any vested interest in this as I wont be racing a zed in Sc for these very reasons. If you are looking at it in terms of the last viable way to get bigger brakes for zeds then, yeah i can understand that.

 

This seems like a step against what everyone already complains about in terms of Australia being a nanny state. You want a governing body (who everyone seems to say don't know what they are doing,) to take the onus away from the competitors who can decide what is safe for themselves, with a variable they have complete control over. This seems contradictory to every thing you hear about motorsport/modified cars where people want to take the onus back.

 

 

At the end of the day, it just seems like the zed doesn't fit the class as well as other cars and you have to take that for what it is (if you want to win, buy the best car for the class). If CAMs want to maintain a good variety of marques in the class, maybe it's time for them to update the rules? I mean the chances of find original dealer documentation after 40 years are pretty much nil and from what i've heard that the items that went through in recent past were probably forged anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Historic racing is to be treated seriously by the viewing public then it needs to provide actual racing which involves more than just allowing an improvement for one car on the basis of a historic anomaly eg like one dealer fitting wider wheels to cars he sold. Brakes obviously can confer a racing  advantage so any improvements should be carefully considered but perhaps allowing the use of same diameter front vented rotors to replace solids would be reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same allowances as in Group N Historic Touring cars would be the go.

Same diam rotor, but vented, and maximum f a 4 piston caliper, e what the 300hp LC/LJ Toranas have had for many years in Group N.

 

When the dd one r two Pirsche 911's have been setup as Group N ( Wayne Seabrook) they already comply to the requirements as far as rotors, standard, but fit the allowed 4 piston calioer.

Bit f parity amongst the Historics would go a long way towards fostering more Z's into Prod Sport,,,,

We'll keep trying,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a vested interest in these deliberations as, as some of you know, I am currently building an Sc car, however there are consistent mis-directions and redirection by contributors who are not fully conversant with the governing rules and ethos of this class of racing.  This is not a criticism, just an observation. I thought it would be beneficial to all participating in this thread, and particularly those not directly involved in the category or those from overseas familiar with different regulations, to go back to some first principles.  I have taken the liberty to edit out the non-pertinent waffle and also to underline some of the salient points.  Hope this helps us with our goal of identifying eligible parts for Group Sc - S30s.

 

From the Confederation of Australian Motorsport Manual:

 

“Groups S are designed to provide a forum for competitors to race production sports cars from the ’50s and ’60s (sometimes known as “Classic Sports Cars”), in a form similar to period club racing. Limited modifications as detailed in the regulations and defined in the Specification Sheet are allowed to these vehicles. Where performance-improving modifications are made, these should be of a period nature and not out of character with the vehicle or group period. To this extent, the modifications permitted are not intended to radically alter the individual vehicle’s character or appearance and will be of an improved performance road car nature, as opposed to making the vehicle totally dedicated to outright competition”.

 

Pertinent extracts from the Group S Competitors’ Club web page:

 

“While the CAMS Manual of Motor Sport details the general compliance requirements for Group S, much regarding its history and development has been lost. As a result, many misunderstandings about Group S have developed which confuse not only new entrants but also current competitors”.

 

(Historically) “Production sports car racing participants were largely owner-drivers who drove their road registered sports car to the track, removed items such as windscreens, bumper bars, and anything that could be easily unbolted, and replaced the road wheels with a set of wheels fitted with treaded racing tyres. At meet’s end, road wheels were refitted, windscreens and bumpers replaced and the cars driven home”…..  “The need to keep the cars in compliance with road registration requirements and to minimise cost ensured that modifications were limited, and largely confined to engine and suspension tuning”.

“Eligible marques for Group S have been decided by the Historic Commission on the basis of production runs and production specifications. FIA homologation is not a relevant factor and plays no part in the rules for Group S – a common misunderstanding.”

 

“There is also no nexus between Group S and Group N – another common misunderstanding. Each category is unique and has evolved in a different way to meet the needs of differing motor sport communities”.

“A further misunderstanding is that the compliance requirements of both Group S and Group N are similar. They are not because the starting points, concepts and culture of each historic motor sport group are different. Group N racing is meant to reflect the popular Appendix J racing of the period and its rules are based on the period rules. There were no equivalent Australia wide sports car rules of the period”.

 

Everyone need to re-read Mike comment again regarding eligibility parts for Group S.

 

It doesn't matter what the factory rally teams, work teams or what some dealer fitted. It's irrelevant.

 

Think about this Porsche had 3.0 RS, 3.0 RSR with huge brakes and bigger wheels 15x9 and 15x10, also there are documentation from USA dealer fitting 2.8 RSR engine in run of the mill 2.7 cars. None of this apply to group S otherwise you would see Geoff Morgan and Stan Addler running RSR engine, brakes and huge wheels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second last paragraph of what Mike quoted is just not accurate.

 

Back in the day I fitted a Triumph Spitfire with a Triumph 2000 engine and gearbox and aftermarket six inch wide wheels then got it registered the usual way things were done then ie fill in a form and pay some money. There were no vehicle inspections, nothing. Six inch wheels were relatively big too, much wider than the originals.

 

Someone with a vivid imagination has come up with a view of how things were, that's all it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were they the ones with the interesting swing back axles?

Hit the brakes going into a corner, and rear end lifts, and wheels go to around 20 degrees positive camber?

 

What was the fix for that?

I know VW Beetles ( four cylinder Porshes) you could fit a "camber compensator" bar, bit like a single leaf transverse spring, that stopped them from flipping over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×