Jump to content

HS30-H

Members
  • Content Count

    737
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    28

HS30-H last won the day on June 18

HS30-H had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About HS30-H

  • Rank
    Senior Member

member details

  • Location
    London, England, UK.

Recent Profile Visitors

483 profile views
  1. Apparently it is NOT for sale, and the ad was either a mistake or a bit of over-zealous marketing by a third party. The blurb in the ad was lifted - along with the photos - from the Bonham's auction back in 2010, and is a mixture of fact and fiction. The current bodyshell of the car(s) known as 'Big Sam' has never been anywhere near Africa or Australia.
  2. Yes, have had a copy for a good few years now. It was made by several departments in the development team and shown internally at Nissan to 'encourage the troops'. A couple of us have been trying to decode the department codes seen in the title sequence. Got some of them, but Bletchley Park and a Colossus machine might help. When I was given my copy I was asked expressly NOT to 'share' in public...
  3. Don't overthink this kind of thing. They don't mention days of the month, so it could easily mean 31st July 1976, and 31st August 1977 respectively. It's not a whole month's worth of production in either case, and production wasn't necessarily linear or 'On/Off' switch with either maximum capacity or nothing. The car in question WILL have left the factory with a full production number engraved (they were not stamped) in the usual place - on the firewall, above the master cylinders. No exceptions for standard production road cars in the S30/S31 series to be sold to the general public, so something has happened to the car and it has lost its original firewall-engraved number. I can't imagine what kind of situation would require the replacement of the firewall or a large number-bearing section of it, but - having seen all sorts of beastliness in the past - I'd be suspicious and want to investigate further. The stamped V number on the strut tower must relate to something that you can look into (via NSW Police?) and I guess it must have been checked out, but I'd want to get to the bottom of it. First thing I'd do would be to take off the cowl panel and look at the inside of the firewall above the master cylinders. I'd be curious to see what it reveals...
  4. Japanese market factory workshop manual(s). They are very useful references.
  5. Have you got the San-Ei Mook 'Rally Cars' Issue No.08 covering the Violet?
  6. Well, don't hold your breath is all I can say. I've been collaborating with Motor Magazine in Japan for a very small section in an upcoming Z 50th anniversary 'Mook' (half magazine, half book) and the section covers the works 240Z rally cars, with some pretty rare - mostly I think never seen before - behind-the-scenes type period photos from my collection. I have no real editorial control, but it's in good hands and their production values are very high so it will at the very least look good. I'll give you the heads-up when it comes out.
  7. I don't see you bringing any great insight to the table here. You're just playing the man, not the ball.
  8. Jeff, There were Dymo labels all over the cars. The Kanri Bango was - primarily - a paperwork thing, but Nissan marked the cars in several different ways. I've seen the KB on keyrings, Dymo labels, engraved two-colour plastic plaques, hand-drawn/painted on parts and - classically - on a reflective transfer applied to the rear valance on the car:
  9. I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. Why would a 'new' car be sent from Japan with the (expired!) 4080 carnet plates from the original 4080 on it? Not only that, but why would this 'new' car be using the 4080 plate in Australia, when it could have been given an Australian registration and license plates as a permanent - non-carnet - import? I think the answers follow via Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is that sticking the plate and paperwork from a previous car on the 'new' car solved a set of problems like legalisation/Rego, logbook and event eligibility, just like it did for other situations where plates were swapped from one car to another. And I reckon its far more likely that the '4080' plates/identity - however ephemeral - stayed in Australia, were used in Australia and that Dunkerton and/or the people around him had something to do with it. It makes no logical sense for Nissan Japan to have done it. Like I say, these Japanese license plates are useful up to a point - but they were only pieces of bureaucracy pinned on a chassis. What I have always tried to follow, and its a far harder task, are actual chassis numbers and (this being the BIG one) Nissan's internal processing code number for each individual works competition car, known as the 'Kanri Bango' (roughly: 'Maintenance Number'). That's what makes up the Rosetta Stone for these cars.
  10. The original 'TKS 33 SU 4080' (I know the original chassis and engine numbers, but I'm not posting them here) was part of a small batch of cars originally built to take part in the 1973 RAC Rally. However, it was 'diverted' to take part in the '73 Southern Cross. It was originally built with an ECGI-injected LY24 engine, so quite a complicated beast. It was not 'Safari spec'. Whatever car Sasamoto arranged to be sent from Japan for Dunkerton in 1975, it doesn't make any sense for it to have been registered in Japan on a 'Carnet' plate identical to the one used by Fall on the '73 Southern Cross. How would that even be possible? Why would it even be necessary? The Japanese temporary-export plates and docs lasted just one calendar year - with an extra-cost extension if force majeure came into play - but were firmly linked to a unique chassis number by the Japanese vehicle licensing authority and were strictly NOT transferable. I'd put any money you like on that '4080' plate being kept in Australia as a souvenir/trophy from its original '73 Southern Cross use (as indeed so many were elsewhere...) and then pinned on another car for convenience and/or rule compliance. Same thing happened at Le Mans in '75 with '6466': A car wearing a plate and supporting documents from another car, just to smooth its passage across borders and into another event. Fraud, basically. As you say, it's quite reasonable to imagine that the '75 Dunkerton car came into Australia as a permanent import (having left Japan as a permanent export) but clearly nothing to do with the original '4080' (as we've always thought) and - I say - acquiring the '4080' plate in Australia. I'd want to see any supporting evidence that Nissan Japan (or, possibly more likely, Nissan Australia) did this. So I'm all ears. I still say that Nissan had no reason to do it on the Japanese side, and I have never seen any evidence that they themselves did it on any Works rally 240Z in period.
  11. TWO aspects to the 'Carnet' situation: One in Japan - the issuing of the Japanese temporary-export 'carnet' [that's a nickname] license plate - essentially a 'translation' plate and supporting documents - and one in whatever country the car and its chattels was temporarily imported to. So two different - but linked - situations, both needing to be satisfied. So, in the case of 'TKS 33 SU 3444' as mentioned in the previous post, the car was built in Japan and then registered in Tokyo's Shinagawa licensing district ('TKS' in the plate is the 'translation' of Tokyo Shinagawa, the borough where Nissan's head office was). It was registered with a temporary-export license plate and supporting documents. The car would have used that plate and documents to leave Japan (NB: Export Tariffs may apply) and enter Australia. Before entering Australia it would need a set of Carnet documents to be filled in, inspected and stamped by Australian customs in order to suspend import duties and taxes. When the car - and anything else on the same Carnet - left Australia it would have been inspected again by Australian customs (they sometimes marked them on entry to ensure it was the same car leaving) and the Carnet was nullified. If the terms of the Carnet were not satisfied in Australia then the person/company named in the Carnet would have to pay customs duties and also - in some cases - a hefty fine. And if the car did not go back to Japan before the end of its temporary-export registration then it would lose its status and be classed as an Import (a lot of fuss and trouble for Nissan). TWO 'Carnet' situations. 'TKS 33 SU 3444' was shipped from Australia to UK (via Belgium, actually) and a new temporary import 'Carnet' situation started. However, the car was still on the same Japanese temporary export license plates and supporting documentation. European import Carnet started from a zero countdown, but the Japanese export Carnet was still running on the same clock as when it left Japan. TWO Carnet situations again. What part of that is "contrary" to what you state above? I have copies of the full temporary import Carnet papers for the Works 240Zs entered in the RAC Rally, and - as I have said - it included a comprehensive inventory of spares and support equipment. I can't comment on the situation for - later - 'Datsun Rally Team' Australia and/or cars other than Works 240Zs and 260Zs, and I try to make that as clear as possible whenever I talk about them. I do know that there was an unbelievable amount of faff and trouble surrounding the different Carnet situations for the Works 240Z rally cars which was - presumably - learned from and the logistics refined thereon. So I'm talking pretty much 1974 and before. 'Your Mileage May Vary', as they say...
  12. Again, with all due respect: After the '73 Southern Cross, 'TKS 33 SU 3444' was subsequently shipped from Australia to the UK - still on the same plate - and Tony Fall/Mike Wood used it on the 1973 RAC Rally in November.
  13. It's frustrating though, as so much half-truth and misapprehension gets repeated and - eventually - gets deposited like sedimentary rock. Set in stone. I don't know about "noble". More like Sisyphus trying to roll shit uphill for eternity.
  14. Jeff, Your post is a very good example of why I try to be scrupulous in restricting my assertions to relate ONLY to the Works 240Z & 260Z rally cars. I've been studying them for many years and I think I have a pretty good handle on them by now. I know a few examples of what we might call 'skullduggery' in period, but any number-swapping wasn't actually Nissan's direct doing. All bets are off for me when it comes to the PA10s and later stuff. My impression - looking in from the outside - is that it all starts to get a bit more laissez faire when the locally-built cars started coming into the mix and Nissan were providing parts and comprehensive data on how to build G2 and G4 cars. There were also far more Works cars going into the mix (by contrast, the Works 240Zs and 260Zs were far, far fewer in number and spread out evenly over a good five years). So I don't bring what I call 'later' activities into the mix when I'm researching the Zs. As far as I'm concerned, post '76, Here Be Dragons. When the likes of Ford and BMC were swapping identities on cars it was usually done for reasons of convenience. 'Log Book', identity papers, insurance, road tax, MOT test certificate and any scrutineering history etc could be switched from one car to another along with the license plate and chassis plate, with obvious logistical advantages. In the case of the Works 240Zs and (few) 260Zs, this was much harder to do. First of all, outside Japan there simply wasn't an available 'stock' of 240Z & 260Z rally cars to switch identities between, and in the case of two Works cars, each would have its own identity (engraved in the firewall sheetmetal for a start...) with which it crossed borders, so there were no Works-spec cars being built-up outside Japan from fresh 'shells. It's also easy to tell the difference between a proper Works car and a privateer-built example. But the bigger question is motive. Why would they do it? Obviously when a car was crashed or otherwise put out of action it could theoretically be useful to pin its identity on another car but, in the case of the Works 240Zs and 260Zs, the car you were pinning that identity on would already have had its own identity and carnet. Why not use that? The exception was when cars were sent out of country, and ostensibly back to Japan, with the identities of Works cars attached to them (in order to satisfy the Carnet), but that takes particular Works car identities OUT of the mix rather than keeping them in it. It also caused all sorts of trouble back in Japan. Heads rolled. These things are for me - generally speaking - only clues in what is in fact the much bigger task of following the careers of genuine Works cars, and what happened to them afterwards.
  15. With all due respect, I think the above is a fundamental misapprehension of what the Japanese temporary-export 'Carnet' license plates represented. The cars were exported for temporary use, so the import duty in the country of use (in this case, Australia) was suspended. The complete 'Carnet' was a complicated and thorough list of the chattels involved in running one or more of these cars outside Japan, usually several pages long and listing parts by piece-by-piece. As long as the car - and theoretically every single piece listed in the full carnet - left the country in question within the time limit of the carnet (usually one year from date of entry) then there was no penalty to pay. There was no reason or advantage for the Nissan works team to swap one carnet license plate between two cars when they were going in and out of foreign countries. None. Why would you switch a time-limited plate and supporting paperwork (which listed the chassis number, and that chassis number was often 'tagged' with a unique identifier by the customs authority which stamped the carnet, in order to avoid fraudulent use) from one car to another? Once a car had gone back to Japan - usually shagged or at the very least creaking at the seams - there was simply NO reason to use that same number plate again. It simply wouldn't make any logical sense. They could start again with a fresh car and a fresh carnet plate issued by their local licensing authority (Shinagawa, in this case) giving them a clear year of use. Plate swapping - along with chassis plates and supporting paperwork - were switched by works teams (especially Ford UK and BMC, who did it with gay abandon) in that period, but I have seen no evidence that Nissan's works rally team did it with their HS30, HLS30, RS30 and RLS30 240Z & 260z rally cars. Some of the plates themselves (just the plate) got 'retained' as souvenirs, or when cars DID stay on past their carnet and - all duties paid - they had to be put onto a local registration. These plates sometimes turned up attached to a car, but it was not the Nissan works team who were doing it. They had no reason to.
×
×
  • Create New...