Interesting. Pretty darn cool! However I wonder what this is going to do to the value of these cars...
https://petrolicious.com/articles/ea...ar-spec-racing
John
Printable View
Interesting. Pretty darn cool! However I wonder what this is going to do to the value of these cars...
https://petrolicious.com/articles/ea...ar-spec-racing
John
You could always race them before. Over in UK they have been racing them at Goodwood-- here's a link to an old, but excellent, video. And the latest Goodwood vids are similarly illustrative of "turning right to go left." Enjoy
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C8OVIgZaTug" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
John, what rock have you been under? lol
There is a vast racing world that exists out there that has little to do with grass/shows or discussion about fasteners/details ad nauseam. This "new" series is just a spin on what has been going on for a very long time. Cool that it's getting press though.
As far as values... I suspect they will continue to do what they've always done.
Frank, I remember seeing and reading about this several years ago in the Brit magazines. It looks like now they are taking it to different tracks. Not sure if they did that back then or it was only Goodwood. And they do drive the heck out of them!
I remember selling Solex carb sets to guys over there. They were snapping them up.
I agree, as far as values... And I think this will continue to push them.
John
Klub Sport Challenge, too bad its long gone.
SWB Porsche 911s which meet FIA Appendix K Requirements have been raced throughout Europe for many years. Cars have to comply with Homologation Form 183 and Appendix J of the Period. They typically race in the GTS category of Period F.
The Peter Auto 2.0L Cup is a series of three races which is only open to 911s which have an HTP and meet the above regulations and is limited to 40 cars.
In 2019 the number of races will possibly increase to five.
I don't think many 'new' cars have been prepared but the value of 'ready to go' Racers will probably increase and difficult to find parts will almost certainly increase in value.
I am not sure there will be much impact on the value of original 1965 cars as once these cars have been modified to a Race Spec they will be too expensive to put back to their original condition.
The comments in the article with regard to spending being under control because ot is a 'one make' series needs to be judged against a background where successful cars can change hands for around $350K if not more.
The leading contenders are building engines to rev to around 9000rpm costing at least $70k.
Entry fees for the three race series is almost $8000 and I would expect that the leading cars engines are stripped and overhauled after every race.
We are just starting to prepare a shell for the 2019 Season and have just completed all of the jig work and panel fit.
We will start building the motor later in the year but don't expect to be competitive for the first couple of years and we are sure it will be really hard work to be halfway up the grid which is our initial objective.
Cool, Chris!
John
Chris,Quote:
Originally Posted by chris_seven
What is the "State of the Art" there-- I assume you must use Solex carburetors- are you allowed to use 906 cams? Presumably if you are turning 9000 RPM you have lightened the reciprocating mass significantly.
What are some of the TYPES of modifications being done by the front-runners? I am not asking you for SECRETS merely the general areas for improvement that might be interesting to those of us watching from across the pond.
I am not sure I know enough about front running engines from a 'SOTA' point of view as there is a great deal of investment in these engines and the companies building them are careful in what they reveal.
I had a 901/01 in 2005 that had Solex Carbs, 906 cams but ran more or less standard rods and valve train and exhausts but apart from this I don't have enough reliable knowledge.
We used it in a Rally Car and revved it to 8000 rpm and it was geared for 108mph in 5th by using a 6:29 Ring and Pinion.
It was reputed to have produced 190BHP at 8000rpm but I was never given any real proof.
I am not sure if engines currently rev to 9000 but they are getting closer and this is certainly the target being worked on in some quarters.
I believe 906 cams are the benchmark although I am sure that some developments have occurred but no-one is talking. I think 906 cams are quite lazy and there must be some improvements.
We are just starting to make billet cams and straight cut intermediate gears and we have been making lightweight vernier adjustable cam sprockets for around 3-4 years now and these parts are being used in some engines.
We have re-built around 20 sets of Solex Carbs and have some idea of the jetting, venturi and emulsion tube specs. Some engine guys seem to use the vacuum enrichment circuit and others prefer it to be disabled and adjust jetting accordingly.
Certainly tall intake trumpets provide a benefit and we make 85mm tall components.
There are rumours of reduced diameter con rod pin diameters on cranks and 19mm diameter wrist pins being used with con rod weights of around 450 grammes but I am not sure if this is true.
Contact breakers are an issue and we are developing a new baseplate to use some traditional Lucas Breakers that have 32oz springs that we used on Coventry Climax engines at 10 000 rpm without problems.
Most engines seem to use Nikasil cylinders and I would like to use a cross-braced slipper piston with a very short pin if possible.
We are also trying to develop beehive valve springs and we have ordered some hollow valves to try to reduce these masses and we have also designed a lightened 'Elephant's Foot' Adjuster with a Ti Lock Nut to complement the forged rockers we have produced for a few years now.
There are some stunning exhaust systems being used and they seem to be really effective.
I can't quite persuade myself that they are legal but I am sure it is my current lack of understanding that leads me to this conclusion.
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/922/WSrtgB.jpg
I hope the next 12 months will be interesting but the learning curve will be very, very steep.
The main challenge with a 65 spec engine built to strict Period F rules are the 39 / 35 mm valve sizes. These are the limiting factor. Historically scrutineers / race organisers in Europe haven't focussed on valve sizes and as a result I suspect a lot of cars are running oversize. 2.0L Cup is a great new race series and to ensure it gets some momentum I think the organisers are overlooking strict compliance with some of the regs this year. With what looks like it will be an oversubscribed event next year I think they will be looking to be much stricter. A number of engine builders I have spoken to are already engaged in R&D. Should be interesting to see what they come up with. They should be commercially available (no factory teams yet!) and as a result not everything will stay secret.
I don’t see the 39/35 valve size as a problem at all. What’s the port spec?
190hp out of a 2.0? That would qualify you in the back of the pack in U.S., everything else being equal. Are ti parts free? Compression? Fuel? How about flywheels and clutches?
As far as 9k with 906 cams... me thinks that’s a fairy tale. 906 cams simply won’t do that.
We were testing to 9500 several years ago and wearing the valve guides out every 5 hours. Now we cap at 8500. A strong 2.0 easily makes 230+hp. But just as important is getting reciprocating/rotating mass way down.
I do understand that 906 cams won't achieve 9000rpm and I believe that Port Sizes should be the stock sizes shown on the Homologation Form.
The 190 BHP engine we used was installed in a Rally Car used on Gravel and was built in around 2003. Apart from cams and pistons it was relatively standard and again I do agree that it wouldn't be competitive.
Appendix K makes it clear that reproduction parts should use 'period' technology in terms of materials and manufacturing methods and has some emphasis with regard to weight.
I think that using Ti valves or rods is questionable but tempting.
Appendix K does make it clear that Pistons and Cams are free and as I said in my earlier post I think that some engines use wrist pin diameters of 19mm and reduced diameter crank pins. I believe that rod weights for this configuration are around 450 grammes.
Flywheels are generally '906' style and I am not sure about clutches.
It is relatively easy to buy a competitive engine as there are several companies that will provide the service but understandably there isn't much detail provided.
We have the basic valve train sorted out and we will use hollow stem valves and 'Trojan' valve guides.
I am trying to learn more about suitable cam profiles and we are just about to finalise piston specifications.
We have a crank being manufactured and rods are also a difficult choice.
All very challenging.
Ok Frank how about some details? Induction, crank, pistons, ignition etc. Is that 230 HP with "Modern" components like EFI/ITB/Motec or with Solexes or 46IDA/PMO?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Beck
I suppose you could have the same size ports but different port shape if you started with Xtreme heads.
I am running a symposium over on Pelican about "state of the art" and have gotten some interesting initial responses there.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-e...omponents.html
It's rumored a certain Florida shop gets 275ish hp from a 2 ltr.
Hahaha.
2.0 “State of the Art” right now is being done primarily in vintage racing (stakes are high enough to justify spending the dough) and EFI isn’t allowed, otherwise 275hp might be a possibility.
As far as divulging “secrets” I can tell you we save an honest 30 lbs of reciprocating/rotating weight over stock, dinosaur Porsche components.
This is my bread and butter so I have no reason to spill too much. I will say I’m a big fan of Pauter rockers (they break... when they’re supposed to break) and will recommend Brian’s billet heads over Xtreme in a NY minute.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BkJ2W1lockE" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is from 2016
I know these are 1965 cars with 901/01 engines. would a racer be disqualified if he had a 901/5 ,901/6 or 901/7 aluminum engine in his 65 911?
Appendix K suggests that it is the 'specification' that is important and not the year of manufacture and as such I would imagine that it is possible to use any of the early 'sand cast' engine cases and obtain valid FIA paperwork.
The engine Type Number isn't specified on the Homologation Form, the casting numbers aren't stated and the only real description of the Casing is the material which is described as 'Leichtmetall' and was usually meant to describe Aluminium as opposed to Cast Iron.
I do believe that it would be possible to obtain an HTP using any of the early casings but this is where it starts to become tricky.
The Peter Auto 2.0L Cup regulations clearly state then engine cases must be 901 or 901/01. It also states cars must have an HTP. It is not clear which of these statements is definitive so to be 'safe' I feel that a 901/01 type casing is needed for this series.
The 2.0L Cup regulations also state that all cars must use a rear caliper with a 35mm diameter piston despite the simple fact that Homologation Form 183 clearly allows the use of a caliper with a 38mm diameter piston.
I also believe that many of the engines being used have Nikasil Cylinders which I don't think strictly comply.
All of the contacts listed in the Peter Auto documentation are Companies involved in the preparation of cars used in this Series and the FIA Scrutineers that inspect the cars to provide an HTP will not comment about these additional requirements.
I do agree that 275BHP is the benchmark for these engines - the question is how to get there.
In European historic racing at the moment there is the theoretical spec you need to comply with (i.e. the homologation forms) and then there is the actual spec that different race organisers will permit without complaint. Disappointingly this latter category can deviate significantly from the first depending on the event, the organiser, who you are and the amount of money you spend with said organiser. There are some truly blatant cheats going on in many cases with the full knowledge of the race organiser. I know this from having spoken to scrutineers who have been directed to accept cars that don't comply. I myself bought an "FIA spec" car that had run in some of the biggest events in Europe and when we took the engine apart it was 3.0L not 2.0L!! Mind you that would explain the 915 gearbox it was also running! From what I understand it's the 2.0L Cup's ambition to strictly enforce the homologation specs and this will be a definite step in the right direction. It might create a bit of an arms race but it will be very interesting to see what the various tuners can do with a 65 engine.
Ach-toong!. . . 3,0 liters and a 915 box!
Heard in the race paddock:
"Those guys are cheating."
"How do you know?"
"Because I'm cheating, and they are faster than me."
* * *
I have been browsing the old videos of the Goodwood members meetings. . . the Chris Harris ones are great, he seems (on camera, never met him) to be a solid guy.
Anyway check this one out at 1:00 in-- https://youtu.be/OB2geR45yqk that is a Bosch BLUE coil my friends, no way is that going to support full spark energy at 7000 rpm, even if you were using a Pertronix or Hot-spark electronic ignition. The primary resistance and inductance are simply too high to allow charging between ignition events.
The Bosch points can handle about four amps before they melt particularly at high RPM. Solid-state drivers can pass at least seven amps, allowing you to charge the coil fully between ignition events. But you would use a low primary resistance coil in that case.
Anyway it looks like the Appendix K rules say you must use a coil with a minimum of three ohms.
The Delta Mark Ten is out, made too late.Quote:
Cars of Period F with evidence of period use of electronic ignition may use a non-period electronic ignition system provided this system is triggered by contact breaker(s), utilises an ignition coil with a minimum resistance of 3 ohms, the spark is distributed by a rotor arm and the timing of the spark is controlled entirely by mechanical means.
I think the best solution would be an original coil with 2,1 ohms primary resistance and the 0,9 ohm ballast resistor. That would easily satisfy the rules and get you the minimum resistance possible for max spark energy while at the same time not burning the points.
I would imagine you could build a car from a SWB 912 chassis so long as it meets the spec? Has this been done in the 2.0L series?
Erich
The guys in Europe are not messing around. Given the spec of the series rules and the difference in dynos, they are building engines comparable to any where...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Beck
There are certainly issues with both Bosch 2-piece points used in the Cast Iron Dizzies and Bosch Coils and neither seem to work well.Quote:
Originally Posted by 304065
By changing the base plate and using the one-piece 'Tiger Stripe' breakers produces a better and more reliable performance but these breakers are also difficult to find now and the latest versions are not as good as the older stock.
We bought about 50 NOS sets about 6 years ago and still havea few sets in stock but as described in an earlier post we are trying to develop a base plate to use some high performance Lucas points that are being re-manufactured to a high standard. I also wonder if any of the Mallory Breaker sets may be worth trying?
It may also be possible to use a Mallory Dual Point type system which could help with heating and wear problems?
We always use BERU ZS106 coils which work well and are reliable.
What about a Judson Electronic Magneto - which I think was available from the late Fifties?
I have heard stories of concealed CDI boxes with a programmable advance curve being used but couldn't be confident that this is really happening.
Chris that is interesting information about the Tiger Stripe Bosch 009 points- the higher spring pressure is said to allow them to work to 8000 RPM. Elsewhere here you can see my tribulations with the early two-piece points although this is more of my personal Karma than a failing of the engineers at Bosch. http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...mand+attention
I think with the ZS106 you may be leaving some ignition energy on the table at high RPM when you need it most. While the Beru catalog doesn't specify, elsewhere I was able to locate the primary resistance specifications:
ZS106 blue 3.3 ohms
ZS109 red 1.5 ohms
At 3.3 ohms and a nominal 12V system voltage, that is only 3.63 amps of coil current. As such, the coil ignition energy will be less at the first time constant. I don't have one to measure but if we know the primary coil impedance it's possible to simulate the ignition energy. I think it will be very similar to that of the Bosch Blue, slightly worse than the original SWB setup (3.0 ohms). I plotted out the coils I had on hand a few years back in this thread: http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...d-NOS-SWB-Coil
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...1&d=1324678104
Now obviously you cannot run the ZS109 coil by itself without a supplemental primary resistance or the points will be destroyed. But this was originally designed for the Mercedes W114/115 chassis (the "stroke eight" series) which used a solid-state electronic ignition and ceramic resistors in various colors (Red, 1.8 ohm; Blue, 0.4 ohm; Silver, 0.6 ohm; Gold, 0.9 ohm)
So maybe using the ZS109 with the appropriate resistor can deliver more spark energy at high revolutions and not burn up the ignition.
I have no experience with magneto ignition except in airplanes, where I only touch the switches!
That's very useful - I have tired to find impedance data on this coil but without success.
Way back we used to use Lucas DLB105 Sports Coils which were 3 Ohm and they worked well with high revving Ford and other competition engines. There is also the DLB110 which is 1.5 Ohm used with a 1.6 Ohm Ballast resistor.
The current offerings of these coils seem very variable and I am not confident that they are consistent.
I wonder if a Pertronix Flame Thrower would work as I have never really tried out these coils.
The Judson Unit isn't really a Magneto as it isn't a rotating machine just an electronic coil.
I think they used to be fitted quite Commonly to Beetles and 356 Race Cars.
http://mgaguru.com/mgtech/ignition/ig210.htm
I think it does look blue and it has a sticker, but it doesn't look bosch to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by 304065
Quite right UAI, that color Blue is really BERU blue and the coil sticker isn't an original anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by uai
Chris, the Pertronix Flamethrower series of coils looks like it will suit-- the 40611 is an epoxy filled coil with a black case with a 3.0 ohm primary resistance, 80:1 turns ratio, 10.0mH inductance and a 55mm diameter, all of $41 from the usual stockists.
But as the attached data suggest the ignition energy falls off precipitously below 6000 rpm, not even 10MJ.
No wonder that er, "non-standard" ignitions have been creeping their way in! At high RPM there is very little time to charge the coil with conventional points ignition.
Yes you could easy , but that will not invite you too any of these races , like pete´s 2L cup , Spa etc , prefered are 300/ 301 cars clean with title
even heard a rumor that they scan the VIN before you enter so NO FAKES are invited... I am speaking often with Mark Bates of EB motorsport running the white car with red center stripe
I will try to make him chip in and offcause we have Phil from Tech9 in UK on the forum here also running the series , speak up Phil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErichW
Hey Marek, I'm here :)
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1739/...8831f16d_c.jpg
Congratulations Phil on your 2nd place at last weeks race!!
Looking forward to seeing some footage of the race.
Last race of the series is in Aug i believe? Good luck
Mark
thanks Mark, fantastic circuit, very little changes from the F1 heydays of the seventies - fast corners with great elevation changeQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark111
yes, last round is at Le Castellet, end of August https://peterauto.peter.fr/en/dix-mi...u-castellet-2/
Does anybody is talking about starting a similar series in USA ? Or to resurect the good old Klub Sport Challenge ?
I think it would be great to duplicate these rules with perhaps one exception, also allow Weber or PMO 40’s. The cars could be up to 68 as well. Last time there were different rules east and west which was not ideal. Steel cars, no flares or spoilers, and 5.5 wide wheels. Opps, just as I am painting my R flared 68!
Erich
Would be nice to keep it to 1965 cars to parallel the FIA Pre-1966 rules so cars can be standard on either continent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErichW
I can certainly see a class being a possibility in the U.S. but hardly doubt they would get their own race; much less a series. Not enough people willing to campaign legit, legal 64/65 cars. And when run in say... Group 8 in HSR or Group 3 in SVRA they would only be competitive in the back of the pack. And as an add-on to PCA schedule? Fuggetaboutit.
AS far as allowing PMOs or Webers... where does that end? The entire spirit of the European FIA series is to remain true to original features isn't it?
The solex carbs are certainly hard to find, it’s not like 5.5 inch wide wheels were stock in 65 either. Where does it end? It ends in 68. A true SWB class and if the car has solex’s that goes too. I think you would have a better chance of getting a group together.
Erich, I just don’t see it happening. There’s already a 2.0 911 class in U.S. vintage racing and candidly turn out these days is low. Parsing it even further is a non starter.
Now if rules were consistent enough to allow a U.S. vs European throw down, that might gain some traction; proving that Yanks would kick everyone’s asses would be a blast. But I still see it only as a class within a group; not a separate series.
BTW: Plenty of availability of Solex carbs/systems. Racers just need to be prepared to spend $18k+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Beck
I think you are probably right, they have been building cars to this spec over there for some time.
5.5" wide wheels were homologated in October 1965 on Form 183 - they had a 904 Part Number associated with this wheel size.Quote:
Originally Posted by ErichW
You should also be able to use a 1968 SWB car in Appendix K Period F which is 1/1/1962 to 31/12/1965 as the regulations clearly state that it is the Specification of the vehicle that is important and not the actual year of manufacture. Providing the car complies with Homologation Form 183 (Solexes etc) it should gain an HTP and be eligible for FIA Races.
It may be the case that some organisers (Goodwood, Peter Auto for example) may not accept later cars but this is not an FIA requirement.
I believe that the original version of 'Appendix K' was first published in 2000 and was only 26 pages long whilst the 2018 version is now 106 pages. and the requirements/regulations continue to evolve.
You can also obtain an HTP for a 1968 911 using a different Homologation Form and running the car in Period G1 which covers 1/1/1966 to 31/12/1969.
I would suggest that Form 577 would be the most appropriate and you could build a 911T/R using these forms and entering in a GTS category.
Chris what would you guess is the percentage of cars that would have originally had solex carbs versus backdated cars in these recent 2.0 cup races?
I know of a 1965 912 that was turned into a 911 race car 30+ years ago and has been sitting idle for 20. I thought maybe it would be a good candidate for a pair of solex's and a trip overseas?
Thanks.
From watching this series and looking at the rules
some of the specs on this thread are not adding up.
R/p is 7:31
Internals are regulated
Rods have to be 550 g or higher
Crank has to be 13.3 kg so basically a cw 66
No titanium of any kind, including valves and springs.
Porting of heads is minimal.
Looks like flywheel, clutch assembly is free.
Cams are free.
Pistons free but compression is limited by fuel and single plug ignition. So what 10.5:1??
With all that said I can't see 9k rpm and in videos I only see 7500-8000 rpm. I heard 220-250 hp but with these specs I can't imagine much over 200 hp mark.
Also remember you are limited as ignition is stock.
Anyone have any insight into these cars. Also suspension set ups? There is not much you can do. All spherical bush but even spring plates are stock. Not much camber adjustment on early cars (Late 65 build would be ideal for front camber adjustment) so it leaves you with sway bars (solid non adjustable) and Torsion bars?
Anyone have thoughts?
Cheers