23 replies to this topic

[minisi35]

Your very right Graham
I had a similar discussion with one when I ran a HIF44
If they question anything then i tend to sort whatever they query for the next time so there’s no questioning needed


Each seems to have their own little thing they look for .....

[GraemeC]

At the end of the day they are there for our safety as much as anything else and I have utmost respect for that, I recognise they can't be walking encyclopaedias of the BB rules (even if they don't always recognise this themselves!).

 

If they pick something up on my car I will go away and research what they have said and make adjustments accordingly.  If it is something where I think their years of experience may be clouding the actual rule I will ask them (very politely) if they could drop me a line with the section of the BB I need to look at, so I can ensure I get it right.  On more than one occasion I've had the scrutineer come and find me later to apologise as he can't find the specific paragraph that states what he believes is the rule.

 

Where things get difficult is where a scrutineer that is used to doing one discipline is brought in to do another - a stage rally scrutineer being drafted in for a road/historic rally often advises on lots of things that aren't the case for the event in question.  All well meaning, but particularly off putting for relative newcomers who then get a bit concerned their car isn't right. 

On one of my first events I had one scrutineer pick up all sorts of things that were apparently wrong, I was genuinely worries I wasn't going to be allowed to run.  Anyway I was, and then at various venues along the rally he would reappear with further advice.  No-one was more shocked than me to then be awarded 'best prepared car', as judged by the scrutineer!!

[Minigman]

I can see where the ‘can of worms’ statement comes from now Graeme. Does all sound quite confusing and seems to be down to an individuals own interpretation of the rules. My biggest concern was paying out for an event and then failing scrutineering before hand. I didn’t realise I could even use a HIF44, I read it was twin SUs or possibly HS6. Maybe I’m not looking at the correct homologation paper?

[minisi35]

[quote On one of my first events I had one scrutineer pick up all sorts of things that were apparently wrong, I was genuinely worries I wasn't going to be allowed to run.  Anyway I was, and then at various venues along the rally he would reappear with further advice.  No-one was more shocked than me to then be awarded 'best prepared car', as judged by the scrutineer!![/quote]

I had a similar situation with being told what was “not to spec” worried the hell out of me . We had a word with the clerk of the course asking if we should pull the entry , he advised us it would only be a problem if another competitor put in a complaint/query about the eligibility of our car which was very rare

But I agree with everything else you said , they are there to keep us safe so we can have fun

Just check the blue book every year to check no changes have been made to the regulations. I was caught out by them changing the rules on composite panels on historic cars . I was running a fibre glass bonnet which a scrutineer advised me was no longer allowed
Lesson learned ! So I now study the book at the beginning of each year

[minisi35]

I can see where the ‘can of worms’ statement comes from now Graeme. Does all sound quite confusing and seems to be down to an individuals own interpretation of the rules. My biggest concern was paying out for an event and then failing scrutineering before hand. I didn’t realise I could even use a HIF44, I read it was twin SUs or possibly HS6. Maybe I’m not looking at the correct homologation paper?

The HIF is a later carb which I believe was only fitted to a-plus engines ??? I used to run one but changed to twins to keep within historic specs

Cooperman will know for sure

[GraemeC]

HIF44s were never fitted to a Mini from the factory, and certainly not historic compliant.  When mine was 'questioned' it was on my autotester, not my rally car.

There is a thought that 1.5" HIF4 carbs (not 44) were available on the some MGBs and therefore could've been used in period on Cat2 onwards cars, however there is no recorded proof that I am aware of.

 

Of course to add to the confusion - A+ blocks are now allowed, just not necessarily all the ancillaries that go with them!

[Minigman]

I think the HIF 44 maybe made it on to the Cooper RSP in 1990. Prior to that it was always HIF38, HS4,HS2 and twin HS2s. I have twin HS4s fitted but do see the attraction of a single larger HS6 to reduce induction noise and easier tuning.

One reg I did notice was the use of electronic ignition within the 5405 paper (cat3). It states that only lumenition could be used. I’ve got a Swiftune CSI so I’m guessing that’s got to come out? Or are other makes of electronic distributors now ok?

[Cooperman]

As far as I know, the HIF range was never fitted within the 'historic' period for any category.

An HS6 is fine, however, and even twin HS6's would be legal. The inlet manifold needs to be the original BMC/BLMC one, although it may be modified internally to improve the flow.

As I understand it, a carb is legal if it was available during the 'period; and will fit to the original manifold. My son had a 3'litre Capri carb on his 1978 Escort RS200, but now has a different Weber (can't remember the part number).

The old Group 2 rules used to say that carburettors were 'free' so long as they could be fitted to the original standard manifold without the use of any 'intermediary' device. That was how BMC managed to fit twin split-Webers. They made a BMC drawing with the actual carbs with a new flange welded on and gave it a BMC part number. Thus it fitted the original manifold and was legal.

One of the problems is that some scrutineers have insufficient experience with 'historics' and one has to 'negotiate' with them.

I had one scrutineer tell me that my 1964 'S' needed rear seats, which is incorrect and I showed him the blue-book paragraph. Then he told me that the timber which supported the rear of my Cobra seats, bolted right through the floor, was unsafe as it could split. I pointed out that it was solid mahogany, 12" x 3" x 3/4" thick and the seat mounting bar was 11" x 1.2". The compressive stress was. therefore, very low, even at a 9G download was only around 150 lb/sq.in compressive load. He gave in and said he hadn't considered it like that (how else would one consider it?). 

[Minigman]

Thanks for the HS6 confirmation Cooperman. I hadn’t appreciated this would need to be on a standard inlet. So I guess I’d need to cut it off the exhaust manifold part and bore it out to suit?