Ultimate ST thread

[HughH]

Eric
No I have not come across that one - but not surprising if it was Larousse's company car - would have been more likely to come across it as a press car as they were photographed and published

I am 99% certain that S Z 7940 was 911 130 0558

[Leirbag]

There is this page on the website of the Porsche RS Club of France, which pays tribute to Louis Meznarie a few months after his death.

Here is the french link : https://porscheclubrsdefrance.com/re...sa-carriere/4/


And here is the translation of the website : https://porscheclubrsdefrance-com.tr..._x_tr_pto=wapp



There is quite a bit of information that does not fit with pbase, borderline contradictory. In any case, 0612 is mentioned as the car in the 1972 4H of Le Mans with Sylvain Garant (pbase says it was 911 010 1605). And Meznarie's grey 911 is mentioned as 0642 (911 130 0642 ??)...

[HughH]

On the 1972 4 hour race I agree with Pbase but it is clear that with swapping plates, having incorrect information about vin and engine numbers on event entry forms (at least in one occasion that I am aware of) it is very hard to tie down "the facts"
I was told (second hand) from Meznarie in 2016 after I sent some questions to him about 9110300949 and the plates it was wearing which were "borrowed" from Meznarie's T that " at le mans 4 hour in 1972 (Louis Meznarie (F)) Sylvain Garant according to Meznarie this is his T chassis 911 01 01 605) that Louis had prepared for competition and that he rented it here and there."
this is it in that event


That Porsche RS club de France article is a very good source although I think that there are some inaccuracies (but possibly due to memory lapses) and I especially like the part about him building the race engine from the 914/6 block which went into 9110101605

[_gonbau]

I barely have time to post a message, JCK has made a new update with 2 other cars:


- original Bonomelli 1972 911 S car : chassis 002 0005

- Normandy 911 that race 3 times the Tour de France Automobile : 911 030 1046

Does 0005 qualify as a vehicle of a private runner in its main stage? Not as an S/T factory, correct?

[HughH]

[QUOTE=Leirbag;1178270]I barely have time to post a message, JCK has made a new update with 2 other cars:


- original Bonomelli 1972 911 S car : chassis 002 0005

it is worthwhile looking at his page and comments on RSR 9113601159: an un raced USA car but the 002 0005 car was sold as that vin in 2008 at Bonhams and has only recently been returned to its vin 002 0005 which WAS the car with the amazing race history purported to be 1159 in the sale https://pbase.com/archive_racing_porsche/n_911_360_1159

[davep]

JCK says about 002 0005 : "Specs : built by Bonomelli with new ST bodyshell from factory"

As well, on the 3.0L RSR part : "Some more original bodyshell 3.0 RSR were deliver to professional teams like Kremer, Meznarie, Almeras, Tam Auto, Wicky & Bonomelli."

In this case, all of them had special numbers, just like Meznarie : 006 0015

002 0005 & 006 0015 are body production numbers, also known as production order numbers. These numbers were stamped on the body below the radio opening on the lower part of the dash usually hidden by the knee pad; and also handwritten in lumber crayon on the cowl. Normal production bodies and production order numbers for standard cars have a leading 1. A leading 0 indicates a replacement body shell. The next digit, 0, indicates a coupe body type. The third digit is the model year of production. So, yes, a lot of race cars were built on replacement bodies to save time and cost. Replacement bodies were available from the early days when Porsche supplied Beutler with basic chassis on which cabriolets were built.

[_gonbau]

JCK says about 002 0005 : "Specs : built by Bonomelli with new ST bodyshell from factory"

As well, on the 3.0L RSR part : "Some more original bodyshell 3.0 RSR were deliver to professional teams like Kremer, Meznarie, Almeras, Tam Auto, Wicky & Bonomelli."

In this case, all of them had special numbers, just like Meznarie : 006 0015


If you want to read the chassis number, just as a standart one, I think it is " The 5th chassis repaired/furnished/restored by Porsche in 1972", or in Meznarie 3.0L RSR case : "The 15th chassis repaired/furnished/restored by Porsche in/of 1976"



On this type of numbers, can we count 911 230 0769 ? or 911 230 0869 ? Maybe more ?



Another question, why did Bonomelli used a, old VIN number on his car in 1975 ? My theory is maybe because the Belgian owner in 1975 (source : JCK) may not want to buy a non-standart VIN car...

Thank you for that response, it caught my attention. If it was factory-built, the type of electrical cut in the front part and not where the factory mounted it in '72 near the front glass.

[_gonbau]

They responded to me from Porsche regarding the document that mentions the 911S-T in previous pages. They (evidently) are aware of the existence of this document and also know of another subsequent document that indicates not to use the term S-T externally, from the factory outwards. Therefore, two questions come to mind... What was the exact reason for Porsche to decide to send another internal document indicating the "non-use of the S-T designation"? Was there a problem or did someone use that designation externally which prompted Porsche to write that document at a specific moment? Did someone start using that term, and they had to address the matter of using an unregistered designation, or was there a complaint from a buyer who couldn't register it as the model the factory announced through that circular? If a gentleman at that time received the document shown in previous pages alluding to something that says the title of that document "S-T" and went to the factory to test and buy it, as the document announces, it would be a bit strange for that buyer not to register the vehicle as such (according to my thinking). Did all the owners who received that circular and went to the factory to buy that car register the vehicle as a 911S with the M option? I understand, the "first registration" is done by Porsche with their KFZ numbering where, before the registration by the buyer, standard data of the model are already presented. So, do those KFZs of these "S-T" announced by the factory correspond to those of a 911S, or were they assigned to a "reduced" group of KFZs?The other question is, does anyone have knowledge of the circular they mentioned to me where it indicates the non-use of S-T.I hope I have been very clear in the language. I hope everything is perfectly understood...

https://www.early911sregistry.org/fo...4&d=1695993150

[HughH]

It could be as simple as a precaution that the cars were not considered "not homologated" for competition
The homologation papers for "S", "T" and "E" cars (both coupes and targas) are all separate documents. They require that a certain number of identical cars are built etc and the car is meticulously described in the documentation.
Porsche and all other manufacturers went to extreme lengths to push the boundaries of homologation. However it could be argued that IF the "S-T" was considered or argued to be another model that was not homologated, instead of being an homologated S with homologated Group 4 parts, competitors or the FIA may have disqualified it from competition.

Porsche would not have wanted to give anyone any excuse to try to go down that route - after all one of the Porsche customer teams (Bonomelli) appealed against two works RSR's in 1973 due to rear suspension "abnormalities" and had them pushed back into Group 5 as a result. I am sure Ford or others would have been happy to try to knock the "ST's" out on technical grounds such as that different and non homologated "model name" if they had a chance

[geneulm]

1971 rules required 1000 road worthy identical cars to be made for gr3 and 500 road worthy cars to be made for gr4. Porsche met the gr4 regs by making their own as well as making "kits" to convert a gr3 S into a gr4 S, known, but to my understanding, never officially designated an ST. Porsche, a very small company
that was always in financial trouble, had no way to make/homologate a new model. Even later when they made the rs/rsr series, the marketing people rebelled fearing they could never sell them. And there was plenty of evidence to support this. There were still Rs for sale. This continued later: Lancia stratos were for sale long after their production.

Ford, and other big $ makers pushed the "parts" way of homologating cars to new thresholds... 4 valve heads, relocated suspensions etc. rules revisions again in 76.