Did the 68 T/R flares become the standard 69S flares

[Original Poster]

Original post......

[Cornpanzer]

Raj,
note how the TR flare gets wider toward the rear. I think it was TR/FIA specific.

[Flieger]

To my untrained eye, the T/R flares do appear to be wider than the '69S flares in the rear where they meet the bumper, as mentioned above.

[RennTyp]

I didn't think the factory put non-standard production flares on the T/R in 68. Sure lots of teams subsequently modified them to accept wider rear wheels but I thought the factory issue was as per the Elford Monte winner?

[gilbert911]

Cornpanzer
note how the TR flare gets wider toward the rear.

Flieger To my untrained eye, the T/R flares do appear to be wider than the '69S flares in the rear where they meet the bumper, as mentioned above.

varunan123
69S competition
The other circumstantial evidence is that there is no evidence of new FIA papers i have seen for the 69S does anyone have such a thing.The factory did race the straight 69S by 1969 and back to developing the S as opposed to the T and won-eg. monte rallye.Keep in mind these are completely different than the R flares or roll where the bumper itself was flared unlike in these two pictures notice how the bumper ends are straight and dive into the flare whereas in the R they are part of the flare and flare out with the fender

Attached pic of my own project car. Can confirm points made above. Will post more detail when time allows. Alan UK is handling the work. He might have more pics to hand, including a before-after that Raj is looking for.

C

[Cornpanzer]

Raj, you bought Pastaboy's "S"?

[John Z Goriup]

Raj,

I am not sure whether my contribution to this thread is at all helpful or will merely serve to add uncertainty & obfuscation, but I remembered taking these two shots of Barry Williams's '68 FIA GT at Concorso Italiano in Monterey in '08.

Those flares look exactly like the item you're asking about. Might be worth while attampting to dig into the cars history. I don't know what happenend to Barry's car after he passed away last year,...perhaps Rolly or one of Barry's friends might be good enough to provide additonal information.

If this is useless, please let me know & I'll delete...... just trying to be of help.

JZG

[Joe901]

I think this debate will run and run and it will be very difficult to come to a definitive conclusion.

The 911T was homologated on Form 577 1st January 1968. The FIA list of previously Homologated Vehicles sates it as being Homologated in Group 3.

I have just bought a copy of these papers and the '3' has been overwritten with a '4' but I guess this is just because the FIA only have an old copy.

The photograph on the Homolgation papers is very poor quality but I am confident that as a Group 3 car it would not have had flared arches.



Many of the parts referred to in the Homologation Forms were only valid for use in Group 4, such as Twin Plug motors etc.

Looking at Appendix J for 1965 (which would have valid up to 1st Jan 1969) any vehicle that ran in Group 4 would have been allowed to fit flared arches and they would not have to meet any minimum production requirement.

The early 'For Sporting Purposes' doument does make mention of wheel arch pieces to allow fitting of wide wheels but the Part Number doesn't relate to any number on the PET.

There is a photograph of a wide arch in the Homologation Papers




These have Part Numbers 911.503.903.00 and 904.00, which is different to the number in the 'Sporting Purposes' document.

In general I don't think that the 911t?r was produced to a defined specification.

Dan Margulies' car for example had a 901/20 motor fitted but had standard SWB narrow arches front and rear and ran in Group 4.

I think that the debate starts with the 911R and there are photographs of cars with narrow front and rear arches, narrow front and flared rears and flared all round.

I think that the R arches are very, very close to the 1969 front and rear arch whcih are in turn very similar to each other.

I would not be totally confident that allowing for fitting variations any two cars would be the same.

[HughH]

Joe

I have extracts from the homologation papers for group 3 for the 1968 T. It is a 14 page document "FIA Homologation Nr.577 for Group 3 GT Cars for 911T (R), signed January 1st 1968 by FIA ". So i presume it is the same as yours

there are two pictures that are interesting, and I hope are on topic for this thread. they are shown below but in the document i have extracts from they are foto B, a wide shot from the rear and foto 3 on page 12 which shows what looks like flared guards

given i have extracts only I cannot be certain that the second photo does not belong to GP4 only (as I have other homologation papers that have the GP 3 stuff at the front and GP 4 parts at the end.

Does your complete set show these pictures?
My papers DO NOT show the photos on your page 9, ie 7, 8, 9 and 10 and shows the front shot of the car in a clearer way (also attached)

Raj

i also have pictures of what i believe are 1969 911T homologation papers for "GT" which I think is the same as Group 3. Do you have these? they are signed on 1 jan 1969 and are homologation #607. There were also papers for the 911S Form No 608 and the 911E Form No 609 but I do not have copies of either.

i cant see any significant flare in the front or rear shots.

as a final caveat this is not an area i claim any expertise in so am just sharing what i have looking for the same answers

[Joe901]

Hugh,

The version of 577 that I have is 23 pages long and has 3 crossed out on the front and 4 in its place.

I don't think Photo D should not show a flare as a Group 3 car would have to have a standard body and Porsche would have to have proven that this was standard for the 1000 vehicles needed to gain Group 3 Homologation.

Photo 3 is from the list of manufacturer's extras and does clealry show an arch which is given as Part Number 901.503.325.00 and 326.00 which are the same numbers as stated in the early 'For Sporting Purposes' Document and i hadn't looked closely enough.

I also have copies of Forms 607, 608 and 609 but as these cover B Programme cars they are not relevant as homologtions can never be mixed.

I would like to believe that 901.503.325.00 is the same arch as used on the rear of the 911R but am not 100% sure.