Yank Needs Help with Developing FIA Vintage Race Car

[the watson]

Hello -

My first post to the forum. I have recently purchased a '62 FHC (RHD) that was under restoration as a street rod of sorts for several years until the owner was unable to continue. As you may know, vintage racing in the states is not typically in conformance with FIA regs. Being a RHD car, and along with the fact that I appreciate the FIA's higher standards for "period correctness", I am planning to build the car to the FIA's Appendix K regs and have obtained the homologation papers for doing so. The primary issue is that there are few (any?) USA E-Types built to FIA standards. So, in short, I am looking for good references and sounding boards for questions when they come up. Perhaps this thread can be that resource or someone can point me in the right direction. I am experienced in the mechanics of Triumphs and Porsche 911's, but this is my first Jaguar. I fell in love with the silhouette many years ago and finally jumped in.

I would any thoughts from those familiar with FIA vintage racing and look forward to your input.

Chuck Watson

[Mark Gordon]

You might check the "Racing" forum over on Jag-Lovers.

[PeterCrespin]

Try Brian Donovan of Donovan Motors in New England?

[Dawnpatrol]

Hi Chuck
There are two homologation classes for E-types, 34 & 100. The former is the nearest to standard and therefore easier to achieve (much less expensive) as well. Think 1961 spec, SU carbs wire wheels etc. not even sure you are allowed alloy external panels etc.
The latter is what the Lightweights are supposed to comply with and even here there are disagreements as to what should be allowed or not. FHC's are also more restricted in this category as Jaguar never made an alloy FHC monocoque and they don't like wider rear arches on the FHC's, as the FIA reps insist that they where not flared in period like the roadsters tended to be, they are wrong IMO on this.
With this class almost everything is different if you go full fat! The budget for this class needs to be considerably more as well, assuming you want to be reasonably competitive.
The nicest example of a FHC competition car is the one that Jaguar built for Le Mans in 1962, reg 1337 VC. It lives the U.S., and is very original.

There are lots of "competition" E types out there with every "Johnney come lately" interpretation off how it was done in period. Personally speaking, a car has to look period correct as well as being the correct spec.
Good luck with the project.
Michael

[the watson]

Thanks Guys. My current plan is to have Terry Lippincott do much of the "restoration". He is a Pennsylvania-based Jaguar specialist and a vintage racer. He does everything from concours winners to track cars, but he has not had to build to FIA specs in the past. I have been in contact with ACCUS (the US agent for FIA) who has classed it as a Homog #100 and which I would steer towards over #34 if it is an option anyway. But they don't seem too responsive to answering a lot of questions so here I am. In reality, my best plan might actually be to build to "close to" FIA Appendix K regs. That way I preserve the option to get the FIA HTP without un-doing a lot of expensive mods but without worrying about every non-conformance yet. I have no plans taking the car out of the country any time soon, so the only downside as I see it is that it would not be especially competitive under the looser US vintage regs. But that's not a major concern (yet ).

Obviously I am "thinking out loud" at this point. Your feedback is appreciated whether you agree or not.

[the watson]

Michael -

Just realized that 1337VC is the Briggs Cunningham car. Yes, I have been collecting photos and data on this car. My FHC is already painted in the same livery. I would like to somewhat replicate this car, except perhaps the fuel injection since I already have a new triple Weber set up that came with the car. I do have some specific questions if you (or anyone) don't mind assisting:

- what does FIA expect in terms of the interior? I.e. complete dash with original knobs, door trim, original gauges, etc? Or more racing utilitarian? Mine is a shell on the interior, so anything needed is something I'll have to procure.
- the Homog papers show two piston options. Are these rigid or is it "free" so long as the stated compression ratios are respected?
- FIA mentions an aluminum block made by ATS. Are these popular or even available?
- is rod selection "free"?
- do you know the limitations on rocker assemblies?
- I assume the wide angle head is permitted as two are shown on the Homog papers. Correct?

OK, I'm pretty sure I've overstayed my welcome. But any help is appreciated as always.

[PeterCrespin]

- do you know the limitations on rocker assemblies?

Yes.

They are non-existent on a DOHC inverted bucket engine.

[Dawnpatrol]

Hi Chuck,
The factory competition cars where reasonably stark and functional. I'm not aware of the FIA Reps being particularly fussy about the trim and instrument layout. I've seen all sorts with HTP papers, so as long as you respect the basics you can have what you like as long as we talking period type instruments, not fancy LCD panels with perceived trick electronics. Rev limiters are allowed but you must use points and condenser. The car should follow a theme or recognisable configuration IMO. 1337VC, is a great role model.
Pistons are free at max 40 thou oversize (88mm), which they all seem to start off with, so capacity is greater than 3781. Wide angle Pistons are different to straight port head ones, original (LWE) wide angle heads have squish bands and Pistons to match. A D w/angle head is different in more ways than appear obvious to a LWE one. There are two sources of repro wide angle heads in the uk. Both have differences dimensionally to the original, larger tappet buckets being one example.
Rods are free, I use corrilo rods and Pistons to my Dads spec slipper type with a few tweaks giving a comp ratio of about 10.4 :1. Straight port engines do seem to run at least this level.
ATS blocks are available but more limited so than C & G, they are made by Renault for ATS copied from an original block my Dad sold Robert years ago. This block is more true to the original dimensions than c and g but much better cast and machined than original. It is the only block formally approved by Jaguar, having said that C & G blocks appear to being used by Jaguar for the 6 new LWE's.
Webers or injection is acceptable, webers are very successful however most only represent the 45mm variety in that it is stamped on the top cover.
If by "rockers" you mean cams and valve gear, then the lift and timing is limited by the diameter of the tappet buckets which is why the repro heads have larger than original LWE, 1 1/2" vrs 1 3/4" iirc. Valve sizes are strictly limited to period and the head type. Max lift in period was 15/32", and these are very rare and only fitted to the works cars. Plenty of repro options around with wider durations than Jaguar who where quite conservative if you talk to some of the chaps who where in Jaguar at the time.
I think ?70K plus tax will get you a C & G Wide angle engine but you may gave to wait some time.
Then we need to get to suspension and brakes, another mine field!
If I could work out how to post some pictures I could show some aspects mentioned here, my car is full works period spec, with original bits and I had a very good reference to follow! Even in this spec the FIA. Reps will have a big moan, yet they seem to accept features that never appeared in period.
ATB,
Michael

[Dawnpatrol]

Chuck,
You might want to check this link: http://www.hscc.org.uk/resources/Jaguar ... erence.pdf

This is in broad terms, clearly you need to know what that means in technical terms and configuration. For class 100 there is very little that remains standard. I'm reliably informed that to build a compliant car to full spec you will need ?350K plus tax plus the original ID. Less the cost of a monocoque (circ ?40K) if you stay with the steel FHC one. In my experience that will not look like a period car either under the skin, more like what Jaguar are building now.

Michael

[the watson]

Very helpful Michael. I promise to digest all this and not be ignorant for too much longer I'll also try to post some pics of my starting point as soon as I can set up a photobucket account.

Chuck

[the watson]

Hopefully this is an easy question, but it serves to exemplify my difficulties in figuring out what is permitted under FIA:

FIA Homg #100 only mentions the option of a 7.5 litre "wet sump" system. Section VII of Appendix K doesn't address it. But the Cunningham car and several other FIA cars I've found in photos have dry sump tanks.

How is that permitted?

[265bhp]

Michael -

Just realized that 1337VC is the Briggs Cunningham car. Yes, I have been collecting photos and data on this car. My FHC is already painted in the same livery. I would like to somewhat replicate this car, except perhaps the fuel injection since I already have a new triple Weber set up that came with the car.
.

Hi Chuck
Would you mind posting a few pictures of this Cunningham car please..?
Many thanks
Jonathan

[Dawnpatrol]

Hi Chuck,
You need to remember that the Lightweights where the standard car. The option refers to you having wet sump if you don't want dry sump which is the basic spec. If this sounds nuts, you need to read up on how Jaguar out Ferraried Ferrari! They had to demonstrate a production run in excess of 100, so Jaguar "cheated" a little in the same way as Ferrari had done with the 250GTO. The papers refer to panels in alloy or steel, wheels spoked or cast etc. So fill your boots with dry sump gear! Note LWE, dry sump system was different to D type. The works car had a special dry sump oil system not fitted to others in period but copied widely now. They where all different, so pick a car to copy. There where two tank types (sizes) as you have probably noticed, works and "production LWE". The oil systems where different in the way oil was circulated to the cooler and the location of the cooler. I'll get my anorak.

Michael

[the watson]

Fascinating. So the regs are a bit Alice in Wonderland compared to being based on stock. LWE is the standard. I had read about the "cheating" but now see it in play :o Certainly makes it interesting!

Is there a reference that lists all the differences between a LWE and stock?

Jonathan,
Here is a link to some pics of the Cunningham car: http://revsinstitute.org/the-collection ... ar-e-type/

And here (hopefully) are some pics of my car as purchased:

[Dawnpatrol]

That would be easy then, well easier!!

I have seen a sort of "Bill of Material" that was written by Derek White in period but was more for placing orders on suppliers and quoting the new part numbers. Most things where modified from standard E-type or other models on the job, then drawn and re identified.

A lot of lightening of components took place, so you could start there armed with some period, I stress period, photos. It is a shorter list to define what remains standard. 1337VC was prepared in 1962 and modified a bit subsequently by Cunningham, so you need to pick your period. The ultimate in development was 4 WPD in 1964, not 4868WK as many would have you believe and discounting the roof. That car was never as competitive as the works car as demonstrated in some of the test reports that are reproduced in some books. 1337 ran at Le Mans with an Iron block on Webers, it subsequently benefited from the aftermath of 1963 Le Mans and acquired some full spec LWE bits, mainly the alloy block engine and Injection.

If you can find a copy, I strongly recommend a book called "Cat of of the Bag" by my good friend Peter Wilson. He is one of the few left who worked on the cars in period for Jaguar. You will find a lot of answers in there.
All the parts to build a correct spec Homologation compliant car are available here in the UK and many have done so. However, not many have managed to make their car look period correct as they are built to a budget with a modern interpretation of some aspects and some stuff is very hard to find. It is possible to hand make many details yourself as Jaguar did if you can get the pattern of an original. Check out RS Panels website, they have most of the body and suspension parts and they are meticulously accurate about their business. What is listed there will serve as a shopping list.

Your car looks good, not sure about the rear lights though. :? Your knock on spinners look interesting, all repros' I've seen are chrome plated, Works ones where mostly un-plated. Your pedal box looks slightly odd at that angle, is it 3.8?

Michael

[the watson]

A few reality-check questions if you don't mind. My goal is not to do a tribute or replica of a particular car (although I do very much like V1337). Instead I want to choose the items from various cars that fall into FIA-legal status to end up with something period correct in appearance but not identical to anything already done.

It seems the FIA Homog 100 allows for a choice of stock or LWE components for most mechanical/performance items. So rather than building a LWE replica, can I choose, within my budget, what areas to a) keep as stock, b) build per LWE, and c) use other approved options, to meet the regs? I would have a longer-term goal of increasing the "correctness" of the car, but generally can I get to initial FIA compliance with the above strategy?

Yes, the uninstalled engine is a 1962 3.8L but not original to the car. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the "D" taillights either, but I'll give it time to sink in. The former owner was a vintage race guy and metal worker (and physician). He did engineering drawings for the spinners and had them fabricated out of stainless steel. He also had hubs made. Not sure about the pedal box issue. Here is another pic that might help.

[265bhp]

Thanks Chuck
Having trouble with the link, hopefully will work later
Good luck with your project..!
Regards
Jonathan

[Dawnpatrol]

Yes that would be acceptable. Development of the works car can be traced and the many transitions of spec from 1961 to 1964 produced almost every combination.
You will need MK IX brakes or standard, the former needs special uprights and steering arms. The front geometry is very different to suit with changes to the upper wishbone mountings as well.

[PeterCrespin]

Your pedal box looks slightly odd at that angle, is it 3.8?

Looks standard 4.2?

[Dawnpatrol]

I think Peter is correct with the pedal box, late series 1 4.2. I've never seen one of these used on an FIA Spec car, although the the 4.2 single master cylinder is OK, it is normally on the 3.8 / 4.2 crossover pedal box, the weapon of choice. If your bulkhead has not been modified to fit this, you probably have a later body shell than 1962, late 65 on-wards. I noticed your car on xkedata, your chassis number is only 30 away from 1337 VC. The other alloy fixtures on your bulkhead look unusual, do you know what they do?