The Roaring Season

by **George Sheweiry** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:00 am

This car would be welcome in "period specs" in Historic Sports Sedans. George.

by **nzeder** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:20 am

What is interesting is under the FIA Appendix K it states and I quote

3.3.3 Generalities on alternative components:
Alternative components” can either be period components that are not coming from the original installation of the car make (for ex. original components from period suppliers) and replica components (for ex. replica of original components from the car make installation or replica of original components from period suppliers). Alternative components to the original manufacturer’s specifications can only be used if it is proven that these components were allowed by the period Appendix J and/or Homologation Form applicable to the car concerned and, in both cases, used in that model of car in an event entered on the FIA International calendar in the period. Freedoms granted in period by Appendix J do not now confer complete freedom but rather authorise the use of modifications and/or components actually used in period on the particular make and model as a result of those period freedoms.
3.3.4 The period, alternative components, and the extensions of the Homologation Form to be considered will be specified on the HTP applicable to this specific car.
3.3.5 Unless otherwise specifically authorised by these regulations, any component of a car must have identical dimensions and material type must be the same to the original part. Evidence of this must be provided by the applicant.
3.3.6 The technology used, including that allowed with homologation extensions, must be compatible with that used in period.

So a part can be newly made but must have identical dimensions and material....aka 3.3.5 and via 3.3.6 must be compatible to the part used in period...

So if a YB head on a Pinto iron bottom end is identical in dimensions and material to the original part then it is conceivable that it could be consider a replica of the original part....however all this stuff talks about the Homologation forms from back in the day so if there is not papers that show a 16v twin cam head on a pinto bottom then ie not homologated modification then it is a moot point is it not.

And none of that is allowed under T&C anyway as it was not a series production item anyway - so it is just Schedule K and FIA Appendix K.

by **RogerH** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:54 am

The MSNZ Manual is not very helpful regarding the continuation of a COD when there is change of ownership. However, as the COD is a vehicle identity document I would think that it runs with the car and a change of owner would not impact on the COD status.

In the above example, if an applicant for a COD has correctly stated that the Escort has a YB engine and in the face of this MSNZ (perhaps incorrectly) issued a COD then they would probably have no grounds to subsequently withdraw it.

by **John McKechnie** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:52 am

Rog- seriously.......Cod could be withdrawn when vehicle changes hands?

by **Racer Rog** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:44 am

I am lead to believe, that some organisers will let them run at a meeting, but not with the real deal, as some of the owners of such vehicles are a little pissed about being blown off by a hotrod. There is more acceptance of the CoD system, in terms of grids, but it odes come back to numbers in some cases, but times are slowly changing as more cars get CoD's and HTP's , and there is more of an acceptance by said race organisers of these documents. With the YB Cosworth engines in Escorts, rest assured there will no further Cod's for these, those who may have one now are very lucky, but am unsure what happens when the vehicle changes hands, it could be withdrawn at that point maybe?
Roger

by **Carlo** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:07 pm

Racer Rog wrote:This car as it stands, could only be a schedule K car, and if a car has a YB engine, it will not now get a COD, and in fact would only get a schedule K COD if the car was raced in period with that modification, and I think, but have been known to be wrong, ( only a few times) that this might apply to certain rally cars, but am unsure, the rally guys might chip in here.
Roger

True Shellsport cars such as Allan Farr's Mk2 Escort RS2000 running in the same configuration as it was back in 1980 -82 is a Schedule K car. Other than the tyres which were a controlled item and no longer available, this car is compliant with the Shellsport regs of the period.

by **Oldfart** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:05 pm

My understanding is that a few cars slipped through the net with components that should not have been allowed under the COD system. I am also told there is no mechanism for withdrawing CODs, even with incorrect info given. Same person told me that Escorts (in particular) have been trying to use all the "best" bits on cars when there never was a car with all of them used together, and that won't get through from a while back. However, that all assumes that the owner wants a COD under whatever schedule. If they don't care, what is to stop them as long as event organisers let them run?

by **Habu** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:43 pm

4dnut wrote:For T & C, period ,works and homologated extra are prohibited unless specified for several items. Bodywork is not mentioned so 'should' be standard. Standard by T & C wording is a vehicle of 100 identical specification, engine body etc. Ford did not make 100 identical bubble guard cars, so the only real option is K. I am sure people will disagree, but every works car was different and because of the RS options catalogue every road car was different. This is how it is supposed to be interpreted , but I guess when people are running alloy YB Cosworth engines in an escort , anything goes.

Interesting point you make with your last sentence. I have always wondered how a Mk1 Escort could run at a "Historic" influenced meeting with a YB motor - even with attempts to disguise it with a Holbay inspired cam cover. The same could be said of prominent Mk2 cars with the same engine. It has been my understanding that only a twin cam version of the Pinto engine could be run if equipped with either the Warrior or original Holbay twin cam heads.

Has anyone established any of the history of the car that started this thread? As I am only a laypreson when it comes to T&C and Schedule K, what guise/form would be suit the car as advertised, if one was to settle on a specification?

by **Racer Rog** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:22 am

This car as it stands, could only be a schedule K car, and if a car has a YB engine, it will not now get a COD, and in fact would only get a schedule K COD if the car was raced in period with that modification, and I think, but have been known to be wrong, ( only a few times) that this might apply to certain rally cars, but am unsure, the rally guys might chip in here.
Roger

4dnut wrote:For T & C, period ,works and homologated extra are prohibited unless specified for several items. Bodywork is not mentioned so 'should' be standard. Standard by T & C wording is a vehicle of 100 identical specification, engine body etc. Ford did not make 100 identical bubble guard cars, so the only real option is K. I am sure people will disagree, but every works car was different and because of the RS options catalogue every road car was different. This is how it is supposed to be interpreted , but I guess when people are running alloy YB Cosworth engines in an escort , anything goes.

by **4dnut** » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:55 am

For T & C, period ,works and homologated extra are prohibited unless specified for several items. Bodywork is not mentioned so 'should' be standard. Standard by T & C wording is a vehicle of 100 identical specification, engine body etc. Ford did not make 100 identical bubble guard cars, so the only real option is K. I am sure people will disagree, but every works car was different and because of the RS options catalogue every road car was different. This is how it is supposed to be interpreted , but I guess when people are running alloy YB Cosworth engines in an escort , anything goes.

by **Steve Holmes** » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:07 pm

My understanding of T&C is that the flares would not be legal. However, you could race it as a Schedule K car, which allows for period body modifications. But under Schedule K you would also be limited to maximum 13" diameter wheels, as again, these are the maximum that were raced in period.

by **Carlo** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:19 pm

If it was restored as a fully compliant Shellsport race car then there should be no issues with it. However I do notice that it will need quite a bit of work to get into that configuration again, but if it has the history then I guess it is worth it.

by **John McKechnie** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:39 pm

Then buy it, you may not get another chance .TRS is full of stories of people who thought , didnt and regretted.
No law says you have to race it.

by **peterj** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:09 pm

hi,thanks for your info, im sure its a shell car,but well used, was looking for a project, maybe never race it,

by **Racer Rog** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:51 am

Under T & C it must have interior trim and bumpers, so it can only go under schedule K, what you have to ask yourself, is it worth the money required to get it to a level to race, double any number you think of, and will it be worth it, if it is a old Shell Sport car it will be, if its done to its original configuration, but if it has just been an old club car, its just a schedule K banger, the problem being, it cost the same amount of money to get race ready, but the end is one is worth more in terms of real value.
Roger

by **nzeder** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:42 am

escorthvn wrote:Arches were available from the factory on new cars. Pete Bryan.

Cool do we know what models? ie was it only BDA powered cars? or Kent and Pinto Powered also? or Lotus Power etc? And I assume they were Steel as that is what is listed in the FIA papers - Steel. So under T&C glass is out as not the original material - unless it was of cause.

by **escorthvn** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:31 pm

Our RS1600 featured in the 1970 AVO Brochure" Day One" having the arches fitted at AVO. Have recently had contact with one of AVOs early employees and this is what I received from him when asking about our car's time at AVO.

"The timing all fits in because that was when we set up the crib for fitting the fender flares (or wheel arch extensions) and I see you have photos of your car being worked on. The quality of the work done there was outstanding(and way in excess of the economic price for fitting.)"

Arches were available from the factory on new cars. Pete Bryan.

by **Habu** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:48 pm

"Ok you make me look. I found that on homologation paper 1605 for the RS1600 escort there is an extension #4 that shows the part numbers and images of the Steel bubble flares. Unlike other homologation papers I have seen that show what groups these parts are homologated under I had to find what the papers where grouped under and that is Group 2. So modified standard production....which might still put those out under the way T&C is written as far as body work is concerned."

Thank you for the effort, and quick reply - much appreciated. Would be interested to see if the flares do qualify for T&C...

by **nzeder** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 9:15 pm

Habu wrote:As far as Im aware bubble arches were a factory option available to variants of the production model - does this not apply?

that is cool a factory option aka added afterwards....but not standard series production. The GT had different front guards with a little flare that was factory fitted and sold to the general public in the numbers required by the fia in the day. But for the bubble flares to be considered standard series production they would have been homologated in group 1 appendix j in period which I have not found to be the case in the very little looking I have done. If others know for sure cool I am incorrect and they are standard series production bodies and therefore can fit under the current T&C rules if made from the same material as the standard series production panels...if steel they have to be steel under T&C.

I think the bubble arches were on the Group 2 Appendix J cars of the day - which allowed for more modification over the standard production cars of Group 1 (rear seats could be removed, bubble flares etc) however these were modifications permitted this does not make them a standard series production. Someone who is more knowledgeable about escorts or has access to a copy of the FIA homologation paper will know the correct answer of the bubble flares and T&C as the rules are today. But for now in my mind they were not standard production body work so don't fit under T&C - that does not mean I don't want to see them out there - just if the letter of the rules is followed there are many cars that currently are classified as T&C when they should be Schedule K.

EDIT: Ok you make me look. I found that on homologation paper 1605 for the RS1600 escort there is an extension #4 that shows the part numbers and images of the Steel bubble flares. Unlike other homologation papers I have seen that show what groups these parts are homologated under I had to find what the papers where grouped under and that is Group 2. So modified standard production....which might still put those out under the way T&C is written as far as body work is concerned.

FYI here is a list of the Homologation number for escorts models as I found on the interwebie
The -number at the end is the year homologated

-EscortMexico_1614-71
-EscortRS1600_1605-70
-EscortRS2000_5566-74
-EscortRS2000_A5035-82
-EscortRS2000AUS_A5036-82
-EscortRS2000_B214-82
-EscortRS2000_B215-82
-EscortRS_650-77
-EscortTwincam_1524-68
-Escort_Sport_5442-72
-Escort_DeLuxe_5214-68
-Escort_1600_Mk2_5586-75
-Escort_940cc_5256-69
-Escort_Super_5213-68

by **Habu** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:09 pm

"Aka it has bubble arches which as far as I know where not fitted to a standard series production car/body so will not fit under T&C as worded in manual #35"

As far as Im aware bubble arches were a factory option available to variants of the production model - does this not apply?

The Roaring Season

escort mk1

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1

Re: escort mk1