Steve Holmes wrote:though eventually losing the WTCC after having been found to be fitted with illegal front flares
It wasnt only the flares, that was just the visible bit, Frank also protested the size and shape of the inner guards. Most Sierra's had difficulty on "bumpy" tracks like Bathurst when fitted with 17" wheels because the tyres came into contact with the inside of the wheelarch when bottoming out the suspension such as going over the two humps on conrod straight. The Texaco Sierras did not suffer from this. Draw your own conclusions as too why.
When Frank protested the Texaco Sierras, the scrutineers took measurements and actual "mouldings" of all four wheel inner arches (heavens knows how) and measurements of the outer flares on one of the Texaco Sierras and one of Dick Johnson's Sierras, but because there was no road going RS500 at Bathurst a direct comparison could not be made and it was agreed that they could not make an immediate decision before the race (even though blind freddy could see the flares were wrong) and it wasnt until it reached the appeals court in Europe when the mouldings were compared with a standard road going RS500 and there was no doubt the cars were not legal. Rudi and FORD Europe insisted that it was ok under the interpretations and as no European team protested so it did not matter that some upstart colonials got upset, but the court didnt see it that way and ruled them inelligible.
In this photo of the Rouse ANZ Sierra at Bathurst 1987 you can see the "scuff marks" where the 17" tyres were making contact with the inner arches
In this next photo you can see a direct side by side comparison of the Texaco car and the Johnson car that were used for measurement by the scrutineers. You can clearly see the Texaco car's arch has been raised up towards the fender crease.
(Photo by Ray Berghouse)
It seems the car in the original post has had it's wheel flares returned to legal
[quote="Steve Holmes"]though eventually losing the WTCC after having been found to be fitted with illegal front flares[/quote]
It wasnt only the flares, that was just the visible bit, Frank also protested the size and shape of the inner guards. Most Sierra's had difficulty on "bumpy" tracks like Bathurst when fitted with 17" wheels because the tyres came into contact with the inside of the wheelarch when bottoming out the suspension such as going over the two humps on conrod straight. The Texaco Sierras did not suffer from this. Draw your own conclusions as too why.
When Frank protested the Texaco Sierras, the scrutineers took measurements and actual "mouldings" of all four wheel inner arches (heavens knows how) and measurements of the outer flares on one of the Texaco Sierras and one of Dick Johnson's Sierras, but because there was no road going RS500 at Bathurst a direct comparison could not be made and it was agreed that they could not make an immediate decision before the race (even though blind freddy could see the flares were wrong) and it wasnt until it reached the appeals court in Europe when the mouldings were compared with a standard road going RS500 and there was no doubt the cars were not legal. Rudi and FORD Europe insisted that it was ok under the interpretations and as no European team protested so it did not matter that some upstart colonials got upset, but the court didnt see it that way and ruled them inelligible.
In this photo of the Rouse ANZ Sierra at Bathurst 1987 you can see the "scuff marks" where the 17" tyres were making contact with the inner arches
[img]http://imageshack.com/a/img537/3571/MJBqor.jpg[/img]
In this next photo you can see a direct side by side comparison of the Texaco car and the Johnson car that were used for measurement by the scrutineers. You can clearly see the Texaco car's arch has been raised up towards the fender crease.
[img]http://imageshack.com/a/img901/9636/gWik2P.jpg[/img]
(Photo by Ray Berghouse)
It seems the car in the original post has had it's wheel flares returned to legal