Printable View
The Karmann T bodies were built lighter, and that is why the T/Rs were built with T VINs I think. Another reason may be that the Ts were homologated with the lightest weight prior to 1970, and to use an S would have required items to be removed to fit homologation rules, and that may have made it difficult to get past FIA inspectors. Were all the T/Rs built by the factory?Quote:
Originally Posted by varunan123
Gib
Raj:Quote:
Originally Posted by varunan123
When cars were inspected prior to a race, features would be noted and either allowed or not. Engines could be pulled apart after a race for the winner if there was a question of displacement or specs. The R cars were sometimes raced depending on the race rules, but they would be lighter, or have features that would not pass inspection which would have been the main reason for not seeing them so much I suspect. Besides, there were only 20 built....and all were not in the hands of someone who wanted to go race it in the 70s most likely.
Gib
Raj:Quote:
Originally Posted by varunan123
The Rs would have been lighter, so they would have to add weight, plus they would not have been competitive with the 2.3L or 2.5L cars at the same weight because their engines were 210 hp vs 250 hp or 270 hp for the STs. There are 2 cars (one in Europe and one in America) now claiming to be the Green 72 Kremer ST, and both have the same T VIN. It seems unlikely that both would claim that VIN if in fact Kremer had used an S as the basis of that particular ST.
Gib
Tom and all collaborators,
I owe my boss 3 hours pay. I spent most of last Tuesday reading and rereading this thread. I've never had as much fun or felt that I've learned as much from a single thread.
I think I've learned a lot about our cars from this board. I've also learned to be careful about what I think I know. I've been guilty too many times of parroting something I'd heard to someone who had actually done the research to really know, or at least make a good guess, about what was actually done in the day. This post is the real deal. I'll try to keep my mouth shut more often, but I'm really grateful for what I've learned from you all. It's a great gift to benefit from the huge number of hours spent by Tom and others who have written this post.
Thanks guys.
Alan
The two leading manufacturers of sport seats in Germany provided the Race Department with a broad range of Race and Rallye oriented seats for the ST: Recaro and Scheel.
Recaro seats were manufactured by the famous coach builder of Porsche bodies, Reutter Carrosserie. Located in Stuttgart just across the street from the Porsche Werks, the Reutter family later sold the business to Porsche.
Scheel Schalensitze was founded by Rolf Scheel and manufactured a line of seats with perhaps an even stronger performance image than the line of comparable models from Recaro.
Along the way, Scheel developed a set of seat runners that became a favorite of many drivers during the 1970 and 1971 seasons. It is generally accepted that the GT runners (as we know them today) were developed for installation of Scheel race seats in the 914-6 GT race cars. The adjuster lever on the GT runners mounts on the outboard side of the seat rather than the front mounting location as on the standard runners used by Scheel, as well as for all the Recaro light weight runners.
It seems that the GT runners found their way into the Race Department for the 1970 season and became favorites during the era of the 2,3L ST.
The ST chassis prepared to Safari specifications provide good examples of their use on the 911 and not just the 914-6 GT. The period images of Safari cars show widespread use of Scheel GT runners.
The Race Department invited Drivers and Co-Drivers of factory entered cars to choose seats to suit their personal tastes. This practice accounts for the wide variety of Scheel and Recaro seats seen in the Safari cars as well as other Werks prepared ST Rallye cars. This highly practical approach to ensuring that the teams had individually optimized seating comfort also accounts for the often mis-matched pairs of seats in any given car.
Accordingly, a fixed back Recaro race bucket might have been matched with a reclining Scheel 400 Rallye seat, depending on the individual choices of Driver and Co-driver.
Given the widespread use of the Scheels in the ST cars, it is not surprising that some team members specified GT runners on their Scheel seats.
However, it is surprising to see the Scheel GT runners mounted to Recaro products! The GT runners really did become favorites during the ST era.
Images attached to this post provide interior details of a MY 1971 ST Rallye car prepared to Safari specs.
The first image shows a Scheel 400 reclining Rallye seat mounted on the Co-driver’s side; note that the seat is equipped with Scheel GT runners.
The second image shows a Recaro fixed back Rallye seat mounted for the Driver; note that this Recaro is equipped with Scheel GT runners (mounted to lightweight X bars as seen in a prior post).
The Scheel GT runners for the hot rod are pictured next. They are shown with Recaro runners for comparison. Note that the Scheel GT and Recaro lightweight runners are of identical length and that both types provide four mounting holes for height adjustment.
Preference for the GT model runner may be attributable to the ease of adjustment it provided for Driver and Co-driver once the RePa harnesses were fastened.
I looked through some old Scheel Schalensitze catalogs (English versions) and the GT runners are not listed. Perhaps Scheel listed them for sale separately in Germany but it seems that they might have been a special model developed exclusively for use by the Werks.
GT runners became favorites for the Werks prepared cars, a sentiment still shared by hot rods!
Tom
The placement of the jack would not suite many or our more spirited drivers who let the S.O. ride "shotgun". Ouch.
Thanks for the photos!
Tom
Alan B:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan B
I got a kick out of your post. I hope your boss cut you some slack on the hours! Thanks for all the kind words and encouragement.
It has been fun to have Hugh, Gib, Raj, JohnZ, OliveR, Chuck et al share images and information relating to the ST.
Just as importantly, the positive feedback from you and board members like Cam, Mark, Dave, Michael, JonW, Harvey, Jim, Ed, John, jcge and others helps in a big way to keep the thread going.
Would just like to say thanks for sharing!! So much knowledge in one single thread, impressive :) Have been following your progress for a long time now.
Best,
Radmund
I agree...Tom the knowledge and the way you relay it to us is fantactic! I learn something every time I read this thread. Please, keep it coming.
John
I agree with Raj...and maybe Tom's car can best be considered an independent customer built ST using the competition parts from the factory. And as others have hinted, the posted factory details in this thread contain some of the best documentation for the ST cars of the early 70s. Maybe we should incorporate this thread into the "Ultimate ST" thread, so that all this good documentation is never lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by varunan123