escort mk1

Shooting the bull on historic motor racing and motorsport history.
User avatar
Steve Holmes
World Champion
Posts: 12255
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:25 am

Re: escort mk1

Post by Steve Holmes »

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.
4dnut
Weekend Warrior
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:07 am
Location: Waitakere

Re: escort mk1

Post by 4dnut »

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.
Racer Rog
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:05 am
Location: Christchurch

Re: escort mk1

Post by Racer Rog »

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.
Habu
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: escort mk1

Post by Habu »

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?
Oldfart
World Champion
Posts: 2345
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:35 am

Re: escort mk1

Post by Oldfart »

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?
Carlo
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: escort mk1

Post by Carlo »

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.
Racer Rog
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:05 am
Location: Christchurch

Re: escort mk1

Post by Racer Rog »

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
John McKechnie
World Champion
Posts: 2672
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:24 am

Re: escort mk1

Post by John McKechnie »

Rog- seriously.......Cod could be withdrawn when vehicle changes hands?
RogerH
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:22 pm

Re: escort mk1

Post by RogerH »

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.
User avatar
nzeder
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 3:29 am
Location: Auckland
Contact:

Re: escort mk1

Post by nzeder »

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.
George Sheweiry
Semi-Pro Racer
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:29 am
Location: Auckland

Re: escort mk1

Post by George Sheweiry »

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