Phillip Island Classic 2010

[chavez]

Originally Posted by brown dog

you mean here?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf5Bg3YT48s

at 7.09, you can see four gearchanges going up the box. Trouble is, first gear on the 5 spd box is in the same place as second gear on the 6 spd, so you can't say for sure which box they were running, just by watching the video. But at 9.07, they show the BMW telemetry, which shows only five gears.

FWIW, the first BMW 6 speed (there were 3 different boxes homologated from memory) was homologated on 1 July 1988.

The six speed was ran at Bathurst, not Sandown.

[Rx7#43]

Originally Posted by David Towe

I didn't say he had no reverse gear, I said he had trouble selecting reverse which is a requirement of any car. As for the 5 speed box. Coming from Sydney, I didn't say there was not a box available from Sydney, I simply pointed out hatI was told he was offered a box from a Melbourne local which wasn't taken up. Did the box thatt was used have 6 speeds in it? Yes. Was a 6 speed ever homologated? No. Pretty black and White to me. Locking out a gear that is used once in the race is no real hinderence and it still wouldn't change the fact the there were 6 in the box with the obvious advantage of better ratios around the rest of the track. Who are you Rx7#43 any way?

Was your Motec homologated?? You say it is for closed loop tuning and engine reliability.. are you sure there is no performance gain there at all?
After all you are talking about one gear that is used once at PI..

As for the spare gearbox, it is mine. We arranged to have it rushed down from Sydney at last minute when we heard there was an issue. That gearbox is untested, not rebuilt, and 10 will get you 20 if it didn’t crap itself if it was used, but that is what we had to work with at short notice.
As it was we were told if we locked out a gear we could run.. So it seems your beef is with CAMS, not with us?? We did what we were told to do.

From where I stand it does sound like sour grapes.. I certainly hope not, because as others have said is it not great enough to see an extra car out there circulating, let alone one mixing it with the Group A cars which have the age and technological advantage? I know for a fact that is what the spectators like to see.

I am a mate of Paul’s and worked on the car over the course of the weekend and on the lead up to. The results for the car on its first outing cannot be disputed, and the car will only improve with more tuning and Paul getting more seat time in it.

And I just love the comment “The sheep stations have already been won”!

[brown dog]

Originally Posted by chavez

The six speed was ran at Bathurst, not Sandown.

yes I know, my post was a response to GROUP A's regarding Cromptons comments about getting excited about a 6 speed on the car at sandown.

[Camaroz]

This issue needs its own thread.

[jetwreck]

Sorry guy's but I am going to have to agree with David to a certain degree here.

1. The Motec " ECU's were free in the day and there is no added advantage to running the latest and greatest IF your not running any additional sensors. Can you tell me how some of the cars with the old ECU's are suppose to get tuned if the original PC/Mac's and applications cannot be run or used anymore? Or do we just park them!

2. We all know that teams cheated or took advantage of the rulings in the day. But that doesn't mean we can get away with running against the rules now regardless of how trivial or how huge they are. Let me ask you a question....would you have a problem with me running a six speed in a LH Torana and locking out 2 gears? I think so!

3. I know how hard parts are to source.....but lets be realistic.....isn't it part of the fun of running these cars. If we let the rulings evaporate the cars will lose there historic identity and we will all end up losing elements of Australian motorsport history

4. The sooner Paul get's his C of D done the better....then there is no argument about what the car can and cannot run. Pity on us all when Paul finally get's this chookcooker running....I have always thought that a well set up Group C RX7 with even a halfway decent driver would be a consistent front running car regardless of the track.

5. David sour grapes....I don't think so......I think his trying to protect our category.....and those that think that is wrong should not be in the Group A/C category. There's a class called sports sedans you can join!

6. I have no problem racing against car's that are simply making up numbers as long as they are attempting to bring the car back to day and date. In saying that I also think that cars that do not comply with the rulings should be disqualified from all results.....at least until they comply.

[David Towe]

Replies in red below.

Originally Posted by Rx7#43

Was your Motec homologated?? You say it is for closed loop tuning and engine reliability.. are you sure there is no performance gain there at all? Probably not as the morons who fitted it did the shoddiest job I've seen, it runs a batch fire not sequential as it should.And as I, and others have stated, ECUs were free in the day so I can't be outside the rules for running a Motec
After all you are talking about one gear that is used once at PI True, it probably was used once in each race, but the other 5 gears were used many times in each lap and these ratios give an advantage for every second of the race after Paul pulled second gear for the first time.As for the spare gearbox, it is mine. We arranged to have it rushed down from Sydney at last minute when we heard there was an issue. That gearbox is untested, not rebuilt, and 10 will get you 20 if it didn’t crap itself if it was used, but that is what we had to work with at short notice. There was another gearbox that was available delivered to the track with 5 speeds that was in good nick from what I'm told by the owner.As it was we were told if we locked out a gear we could run.. So it seems your beef is with CAMS, not with us?? We did what we were told to do. It's not only my beef, many drivers are trying to clean up the category and this sort of behaviour doesn't help or the weak kneed offficialdom that allows it to continue.
From where I stand it does sound like sour grapes. "Sour grapes" you're kidding aren't you? I've won things at all the sports and at various levels throughout my life and I don't give a ship about the trophies, how many of mine would you like me to give to you? I only ask that I compete on a level playing field, that's all. I certainly hope not, because as others have said is it not great enough to see an extra car out there circulating, let alone one mixing it with the Group A cars which have the age and technological advantage? I know for a fact that is what the spectators like to see. So this is the way you think is right to keep up with the more technologically advanced, (your words) Group A cars? I think you malign the spectators unfairly, they are smarter than you give them credit for being. Sure thay want to see cars on the track, but when an A9X matches or beats turbo Sierras and Skylines down the straight at the island, don't you think they know something is funny? How would it look if I suddenly put a 2.5 litre engine in my car and ran slide injection and could match the Skylines, Sierras and VL Walkies for straight line pace? Something my car was never able to do, don't you think someone would object? Then we'd possibly see 6 litre Chevvy engines in VLs, 3 litre engines in HR31 Skylines and soon we're Group A/C Sports Sedans that bear no resemblence to the real deal except for body shape and livery.

I am a mate of Paul’s and worked on the car over the course of the weekend and on the lead up to. What's your name? You know who I am. Maybe we can continue this discussion at Muscle Car Masters in Nov. this year? The results for the car on its first outing cannot be disputed, and the car will only improve with more tuning and Paul getting more seat time in it. The fact that it did the lap times and finished the races where it did cannot be disputed, but the method employed to achieve these results is a whole different kettle of fish wouldn't you agree?

And I just love the comment “The sheep stations have already been won”!

True, it's not sheep station stuff, so what's the big deal about bringing the car back to a 5 speed and making it comply with the homologated rules, I get the impression Paul can afford to buy a 5 speed box, or as a mate surely he could borrow yours?

Quote Lloyd12A, "So I say who really care's, let just be happy to see the good old bangers out there having fun and racing again"
Do you realise that if you have a pedigree Great Dane and it mates with a Labradore then it's offspring can't be "Pedigree Great Danes"? If a Group A/C car changes from the homologated specs then it ceases to be a Group A/C car, wouldn't you agree? And let's not lose sight of the main point here, the 6 speed was never homologated for this car!!

Sorry for the lengthy reply but it's a matter close to my heart and my car remains open to any scrutiny and at PI last week Frank Lowndes who did the targetted scrutiny and weighed the car, had no issues with it.

[brown dog]

Replies in red below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rx7#43
Was your Motec homologated?? You say it is for closed loop tuning and engine reliability.. are you sure there is no performance gain there at all? Probably not as the morons who fitted it did the shoddiest job I've seen, it runs a batch fire not sequential as it should.And as I, and others have stated, ECUs were free in the day so I can't be outside the rules for running a Motec

Something which I think needs a clarification here. ECU's were not "free" in the day, as has been quoted. In the first year of the Group A BMW M3 and Sierra Cosworth (1987) the Group A cars had to run the factory ECU. The Eggenberger Sierras got pinged at one of the early European rounds for running a Bosch Motronic ECU, instead of the factory Weber Marelli. The BMW M3 ran the Motronic, in "batch fire" mode (2x2) until 1990, when they switched to the BMW ECU4 system. The ruling was freed up in 1988 I think, and this allowed teams to run aftermarket ECU's in the cars, although the factory BMW's continued with the Motronic system, as it was a good system. You will notice all early BMW M3's still had the airflow meter fitted, even though no air actually flowed through it. This was part of that ruling, that all parts of the factory system must remain in place.
The only Motec ECU around at the time was the original 2D "screwdriver board" ECU, where adjustments were made by turning trim pots on the board with a screwdriver! With all of that said, there is no power gain to be offered by converting from a properly tuned Bosch Motronic to say a Motec.

Conrad

[Rx7#43]

Ok, as I cant work out your fancy quoting system!!

- Your Motec, well as Brown Dog has stated, it doesnt seem as this is 100% period correct. I for one wouldn't be bothered about this, but do I believe there would be some (albeit small) performance gain using more modern technology.

- You state the other 5 gears were used several times each lap when we were talking about 6th gear.. FIRST GEAR WAS LOCKED OUT - the car only had 5 forward gears operable as per the CAMS ruling that weekend!! So from 6th gear, Paul only had 4 other gears to use.

- Please advise who this mystery owner is. Did he speak to Paul or any of us who were working on the car? Paul doesn't know a great deal about Mazda's, if there was one offered I am surprised he didnt tell me. Plus the added issue of not knowing output shaft splines, matching them with tailshaft, potential changes in clutch operation, starter motor size etc etc etc. IT WAS EASIER TO RACE THE CAR WITH THE BOX IN IT AND LOCK OUT A GEAR!! We chose to lock first and change the diff ratio on Saturday, rather than keep the ratio that was in the car and lock out 6th. You have to understand there are NO spares for this car at this stage, really it was a no brainer.

- As I stated, I hope it wasn't sour grapes.. Glad to hear that isnt the case!

- I'm not sure about the history of your car, but this was the Mazda's first outing as you all are aware. Frank Lowndes inspected the car several times over the weekend and we have a list of 5 things that need to be resolved (ie prove conclusively that these were used, or change if required) - issues that were unclear to Frank and will require further investigation.. Hence us having Mick Webb assisting to clarify. These will be resolved, but the car needed to be presented to have these things addressed.. One of the many downsides of being in WA!!

The methods used you state - this can only refer to the gearbox.. A suitable 5sp needs to be located (I am on it, they are extremely rare and spare parts are non-existent). Once sourced, beware - the car will not be any slower!!!!!

My name is Simon, and I will be at MCM as I am every year.. Be more than happy to discuss anything with you then! Plus you quote Weller in your signature, so you cant be all bad!!!!

[chavez]

Originally Posted by Rx7#43

Hence us having Mick Webb assisting to clarify.

It the car is run as presented at Bathurst in '84 then how can Mick assist?

He had left the team by then. Of course he would have intimate knowledge of the car prior to his departure.

It is good to finally get an answer that the #43 ran fuel injection at '84 Bathurst. There was some conjecture whether they had given up on the fuel injection.

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by brown dog

Replies in red below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rx7#43
Was your Motec homologated?? You say it is for closed loop tuning and engine reliability.. are you sure there is no performance gain there at all? Probably not as the morons who fitted it did the shoddiest job I've seen, it runs a batch fire not sequential as it should.And as I, and others have stated, ECUs were free in the day so I can't be outside the rules for running a Motec

Something which I think needs a clarification here. ECU's were not "free" in the day, as has been quoted. In the first year of the Group A BMW M3 and Sierra Cosworth (1987) the Group A cars had to run the factory ECU. The Eggenberger Sierras got pinged at one of the early European rounds for running a Bosch Motronic ECU, instead of the factory Weber Marelli. The BMW M3 ran the Motronic, in "batch fire" mode (2x2) until 1990, when they switched to the BMW ECU4 system. The ruling was freed up in 1988 I think, and this allowed teams to run aftermarket ECU's in the cars, although the factory BMW's continued with the Motronic system, as it was a good system. You will notice all early BMW M3's still had the airflow meter fitted, even though no air actually flowed through it. This was part of that ruling, that all parts of the factory system must remain in place.
The only Motec ECU around at the time was the original 2D "screwdriver board" ECU, where adjustments were made by turning trim pots on the board with a screwdriver! With all of that said, there is no power gain to be offered by converting from a properly tuned Bosch Motronic to say a Motec.

Conrad

Hi Conrad, I'll check this with frank Lowndes when i see him next, but he is aware of th my Motec and is OK with it. The problem is that I couldn't find anyone who could reliably tune a Motronic so I converted to the Motec at a cost of $5,000 in cash, I know idiot me.

[David Towe]

Replies in red below.

Originally Posted by Rx7#43

Ok, as I cant work out your fancy quoting system!!

- Your Motec, well as Brown Dog has stated, it doesnt seem as this is 100% period correct. I for one wouldn't be bothered about this, but do I believe there would be some (albeit small) performance gain using more modern technology. The advantage of using a Motec is that after each sessioni can download the data and check to see if the engine is running lean etc. make adjustments and go back on track safe in the knowledge things are OK which I couldn't do with the Motoronic, it keeps costs down.

- You state the other 5 gears were used several times each lap when we were talking about 6th gear.. FIRST GEAR WAS LOCKED OUT - the car only had 5 forward gears operable as per the CAMS ruling that weekend!! So from 6th gear, Paul only had 4 other gears to use. Simon, think about it, the ratios of those other 5 gears give an advantage around the rest of the circuit. Ask any of the Torana guys if they prefer to run a 5 speed with first gear locked out if they could and see what response you get..

- Please advise who this mystery owner is. Did he speak to Paul or any of us who were working on the car? Paul doesn't know a great deal about Mazda's, if there was one offered I am surprised he didnt tell me. Plus the added issue of not knowing output shaft splines, matching them with tailshaft, potential changes in clutch operation, starter motor size etc etc etc. IT WAS EASIER TO RACE THE CAR WITH THE BOX IN IT AND LOCK OUT A GEAR!! We chose to lock first and change the diff ratio on Saturday, rather than keep the ratio that was in the car and lock out 6th. You have to understand there are NO spares for this car at this stage, really it was a no brainer.

- As I stated, I hope it wasn't sour grapes.. Glad to hear that isnt the case!

- I'm not sure about the history of your car, but this was the Mazda's first outing as you all are aware. Frank Lowndes inspected the car several times over the weekend and we have a list of 5 things that need to be resolved (ie prove conclusively that these were used, or change if required) - issues that were unclear to Frank and will require further investigation.. Hence us having Mick Webb assisting to clarify. These will be resolved, but the car needed to be presented to have these things addressed.. One of the many downsides of being in WA!!

The methods used you state - this can only refer to the gearbox.. A suitable 5sp needs to be located (I am on it, they are extremely rare and spare parts are non-existent). Once sourced, beware - the car will not be any slower!!!!!
How do the ratios of the gearbox detailed in the homologation papers differ from the ratios of a road car production box?

My name is Simon, and I will be at MCM as I am every year.. Be more than happy to discuss anything with you then! Plus you quote Weller in your signature, so you cant be all bad!!!!

I look forward to continuing this face to face over a quiet bevvie at the end of a day sometime. Paul Weller has always been a favourite of mine

[blinkybm]

The comment I'll make about ECU's relates to the requirement to restore using period technology. I agree with retro fitting Motecs etc, but let's use the early ones, and certainly without sequential injection, as that is definitely where a performance gain can be made.
Mine is a very early M4 - done on Frank's advice.
Bill

[blinkybm]

The issues raised by Paul's RX7 and other Grp C/A cars with applications in the system will be discussed at length at the next Historic Commission meeting in May, so all of your views are important...
Bill

[TOOTHFAIRY]

Well said Bill, they should ALL leave it up to capable people like yourself, to sort out eligability, and homolagation matters the proper way , through the proper channels, and using personal who have the score on the board, there is no need for finger pointing at the racetrack, thats what destroy's good Catagorys real fast.

[David Towe]

Originally Posted by TOOTHFAIRY

Well said Bill, they should ALL leave it up to capable people like yourself, to sort out eligability, and homolagation matters the proper way , through the proper channels, and using personal who have the score on the board, there is no need for finger pointing at the racetrack, thats what destroy's good Catagorys real fast.

What? Are we not allowed to voice our opinions? Bill posted somewhere that he wanted peoples impressions so I've posted mine.

[TOOTHFAIRY]

All opinions are welcome, not only yours Mr Towe, you were not singled out, but there are correct ways of voiceing opinions, and avenues of correctness, these should be taken, the catagory has an eligability officer, and a CAMS Representitive, all eligability questions should be channelled through these people descreetly, otherwise theres a drama with in the competitor base, hence you'll lose entry's, and your catagory will implode, some of us have been around a lot longer than most and have the beauty of hindsight.

[Rob Bailey]

Originally Posted by TOOTHFAIRY

All opinions are welcome, not only yours Mr Towe, you were not singled out, but there are correct ways of voiceing opinions, and avenues of correctness, these should be taken, the catagory has an eligability officer, and a CAMS Representitive, all eligability questions should be channelled through these people descreetly, otherwise theres a drama with in the competitor base, hence you'll lose entry's, and your catagory will implode, some of us have been around a lot longer than most and have the beauty of hindsight.

Correct,pass the port and cigars.

[TOOTHFAIRY]

To Bad the Toothfairy doesn't drink or smoke

[Rob Bailey]

Originally Posted by TOOTHFAIRY

To Bad the Toothfairy doesn't drink or smoke

sorry ,my reference was a term used once by a well known race car builder and his comment re the various members at that time of the commision

[david5]

Peripheral Port ??

[Dazz]

Originally Posted by david5

Peripheral Port ??

[speedy27]

Right then, seeing that we're now getting to the photo stages of this topic, please feel free to revisit this sensational weekend through some of mine at this link :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterel...515219/detail/

Enjoy them!
Peter

[David Towe]

Great pics Peter, soor I didn't catch up with you on the weekend, but we had to run to Docklands Stadium to watch Sydney FC beat Melbourne Victory in the A-League final

[speedy27]

Originally Posted by David Towe

Great pics Peter, soor I didn't catch up with you on the weekend, but we had to run to Docklands Stadium to watch Sydney FC beat Melbourne Victory in the A-League final

Thanks Mr T! We'll do better next time - either at Sandown or I am also considering a trip to EC for the Tasman Revival.

All the best
Peter