512 replies to this topic

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Not according to the parts book (back on page 14) What book vin ?....... I have never seen a 8/72 or 9/72 XU-1 with a factory fitted lightened flywheel and have only ever found XH camshafts. Have you ? Would dig to see some proof if someones got any............
OK, so my 4-8-1972 08/72 ADR Plated car is,nt a Bathurst because it was built before 10-8-1972, next you guys will be trying to tell me the 160 odd 73 Bathurst,s from engine number JP386598 were sent to Dandenong for assembly also and Peter Brock road tested every car.........

Edited by FLY_AGAIN_XU-1, 05 March 2010 - 08:27 PM.

[S pack]

Does anyone know what an ERRATA is?
It's an error sheet, which basically means that Holden supplied CAMS with incorrect specifications and ERRATA 3/3V rectifies the matter. In this case it refers to items 2 & 3 on the original Homoligation H2-3 Dated 3rd February 1972.
Would Holden have really produced 200 cars to satisfy an error?

Cheers
Dave.

G/Day Dave
I have thought many times about this myself. According to the vin disc Holden produced the 200 cars required. A more accurate description is that Homologation 3/3V rectifies the matter. Homologation 3/3V being an entity by itself. If Holden could get away without building 200 cars because the homologation simply had the word errata on it would,nt all of the homologations had errata on them. OOps sorry those 200 1/72 & 2/72 XU-1,s we built should of had detroit lockers in them and should have been fitted with sprintmasters also. Plus we gave you the wrong cam specs and the flywheel should be a 19lb lightened one etc etc etc.......... C.A.M.S. were,nt fools, they made the rules and had to be followed to a T or risk disquailification. Holden tended to follow the rules to a T while Crysler and Ford appeared to do everything in there powers to flaunt them.
In reguards to any 8/72 or 9/72 LJ XU-1 being sent to Dandenong to get parts fitted is just pure rubbish and would suggest to you to take very little notice of what is written in the Fiv Antoniou book as its pure rubbish........... Can you honestly see Holden sending 200 cars from their Brisbane and Adelaide plants to Melbourne to get fitted with bits ? Plus the fact that under the C.A.M.S. Rules these parts were not required to be fitted in production only that 200 basically identical units be built.
It appears to me Dave you have done some research yourself and have a good understanding of the changes and requirements. Lets not let the Fiv Antoniou book get in the way of the truth though ok.............

[S pack]

Does anyone know what an ERRATA is?
It's an error sheet, which basically means that Holden supplied CAMS with incorrect specifications and ERRATA 3/3V rectifies the matter. In this case it refers to items 2 & 3 on the original Homoligation H2-3 Dated 3rd February 1972.
Would Holden have really produced 200 cars to satisfy an error?

Cheers
Dave.

G/Day Dave
I have thought many times about this myself. According to the vin disc Holden produced the 200 cars required. A more accurate description is that Homologation 3/3V rectifies the matter. Homologation 3/3V being an entity by itself. If Holden could get away without building 200 cars because the homologation simply had the word errata on it would,nt all of the homologations had errata on them. OOps sorry those 200 1/72 & 2/72 XU-1,s we built should of had detroit lockers in them and should have been fitted with sprintmasters also. Plus we gave you the wrong cam specs and the flywheel should be a 19lb lightened one etc etc etc.......... C.A.M.S. were,nt fools, they made the rules and had to be followed to a T or risk disquailification. Holden tended to follow the rules to a T while Crysler and Ford appeared to do everything in there powers to flaunt them.
In reguards to any 8/72 or 9/72 LJ XU-1 being sent to Dandenong to get parts fitted is just pure rubbish and would suggest to you to take very little notice of what is written in the Fiv Antoniou book as its pure rubbish........... Can you honestly see Holden sending 200 cars from their Brisbane and Adelaide plants to Melbourne to get fitted with bits ? Plus the fact that under the C.A.M.S. Rules these parts were not required to be fitted in production only that 200 basically identical units be built.
It appears to me Dave you have done some research yourself and have a good understanding of the changes and requirements. Lets not let the Fiv Antoniou book get in the way of the truth though ok.............

Hi Fly
Sorry, but will agree to disagree, an ERRATA is an ERRATA not a Homologation. It is rectification of a reporting error to an existing homologation specification. Not saying that Holden didn't produce another 200 XU1's after the initial batch, the VIN disc proves they did, I just don't believe it was because of 3/3V. Note that ERRATA 3/3V is dated 3rd February 1972, the same day that Holden finished production of the first batch of 200 LJ XU1's. Correct me if I'm wrong but the consequences could have been disqualification if the cars specifications were incorrectly reported to CAMS. Surely CAMS would have wanted to scrutinize at least one car from each homologation to ensure the submitted specs were correct?
If CAMS did scrutinize one of the Jan '72 XU1's maybe they picked up on the error and subsequently Holden submitted ERRATA
3/3V or sanction would not have been granted for the LJ XU1.
Maybe three spacers were fitted to each front wheel on all Jan & Feb built XU1's.

I'll now draw your attention to the ERRATA dated 1/07/1973, this ERRATA relates to item 277 gear ratio third gear, 1.25:1 for alternative gearbox ratios set out in ammendment 6/6V and item 100 Disc Brakes outside diameter. They way I see it is Holden realised or were told they had listed the tooth count incorrectly and had to rectify the error.

As for the Disc Brake outer diameter, I have measured my pair of spare used genuine rotors from a wrecked '72 XU1 and also my NOS genuine rotors and they all measure 256mm (not withstanding the .3mm, my measurements weren't quite that accurate) from dead centre of the circumference of the disc, not the braking surface. As we all know the LC & LJ XU1 used the same disc rotor Pt No.2817116, no alternative XU1 disc rotor was ever listed in the parts catalogue.
This would suggest that LC & LJ disc rotors were always 256/256.3mm in dia. The abovementioned ERRATA simply rectifies a longstanding error or maybe CAMS changed the way Disc Rotors had to be measured.
So my point is that an ERRATA is simply to correct an existing error, it is not the homologation of a new part or a production specification change.

I know the Dandenong thing is probably a bit of fantasyland, only mentioned it because someone else in this thread raised the possibility. I had forgotten it had first come from the FIV book. I try to keep an open mind on any possibility cause as we all know there is lots of fact and fiction to be disseminated.

Yeah research, lots of info to get the head around. The more we read the more we understand. HOPEFULLY.
Anyway I've said my peace for the moment.

Cheers
Dave.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

[quote name='S pack' date='06 March 2010 - 12:09 AM' timestamp='1267798141' post='487613']
[/quote]

Hi Fly
Sorry, but will agree to disagree, an ERRATA is an ERRATA not a Homologation. It is rectification of a reporting error to an existing homologation specification. Not saying that Holden didn't produce another 200 XU1's after the initial batch, the VIN disc proves they did, I just don't believe it was because of 3/3V. Note that ERRATA 3/3V is dated 3rd February 1972, the same day that Holden finished production of the first batch of 200 LJ XU1's. Correct me if I'm wrong but the consequences could have been disqualification if the cars specifications were incorrectly reported to CAMS. Surely CAMS would have wanted to scrutinize at least one car from each homologation to ensure the submitted specs were correct?
If CAMS did scrutinize one of the Jan '72 XU1's maybe they picked up on the error and subsequently Holden submitted ERRATA
3/3V or sanction would not have been granted for the LJ XU1.
Maybe three spacers were fitted to each front wheel on all Jan & Feb built XU1's.

I'll now draw your attention to the ERRATA dated 1/07/1973, this ERRATA relates to item 277 gear ratio third gear, 1.25:1 for alternative gearbox ratios set out in ammendment 6/6V and item 100 Disc Brakes outside diameter. They way I see it is Holden realised or were told they had listed the tooth count incorrectly and had to rectify the error.

As for the Disc Brake outer diameter, I have measured my pair of spare used genuine rotors from a wrecked '72 XU1 and also my NOS genuine rotors and they all measure 256mm (not withstanding the .3mm, my measurements weren't quite that accurate) from dead centre of the circumference of the disc, not the braking surface. As we all know the LC & LJ XU1 used the same disc rotor Pt No.2817116, no alternative XU1 disc rotor was ever listed in the parts catalogue.
This would suggest that LC & LJ disc rotors were always 256/256.3mm in dia. The abovementioned ERRATA simply rectifies a longstanding error or maybe CAMS changed the way Disc Rotors had to be measured.
So my point is that an ERRATA is simply to correct an existing error, it is not the homologation of a new part or a production specification change.

I know the Dandenong thing is probably a bit of fantasyland, only mentioned it because someone else in this thread raised the possibility. I had forgotten it had first come from the FIV book. I try to keep an open mind on any possibility cause as we all know there is lots of fact and fiction to be disseminated.

Yeah research, lots of info to get the head around. The more we read the more we understand. HOPEFULLY.
Anyway I've said my peace for the moment.

Cheers
Dave.
[/quote]


G/Day Dave
Which ever way you look at it Amendment No 3/3V is just that an Amendment.......Can you come up with another reason why Holden produced 200 XU-1,s after the initial batch of 200 XU-1,s (1/72, 2/72) ? Of note is that the first round of the racing season was to take place at Surfers Paradise on the 6-2-1973 and under the C.A.M.S Rules Holden were only required to have 50% or 100 cars sold for C.A.M.S. to allow any new amendments (Homologations). Sold does,nt nessaserly mean built..........The vin disc proves that not all of the initial batch of the 200 were completed before the 3-2-1972 though due to the first race taking place on the 6-2-1972 things appear to have been rushed through.
In reguards to amendment 6/6V Errata (Brakes) This amendment allowed the race teams the use of ventilated discs according to many race mechanics i have spoken to over the years under the 1973 Group C rules.
An amendment is an amendment which required the original form of description to be changed, requiring holden to have at least 50% or 100 cars sold to allow the amendment. By holden completing the 200 cars required completed the transaction.
I would be interested to hear some other opinions and thoughts on this as i certainly have put alot of thought into these erratas.

Would erratas still require 200 cars be built ?????????????????????

[S pack]

Have sent an email to CAMS to see if they can shed any light on these matters but not holding my breath.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

I think section 2 Authority tells us the story in reguards to erratas.............. After all rules are rules...........Sorry about the pink bits.

[robj]

Hi,
I'm tend to agree with Dave on this in regard to the errata amendments. There must be a way to correct mistakes in the specs listed in the recognition for a particular car.

For 3/3V, as Dave says, this has the same date as the recognition for the LJ, 3rd feb 72. The only way to know if this this was an errata would be to check some of the first 200 LJ's to see if they have the spacers.

For the 4/4V one correcting 2/2V, this would seem to be easier to believe that the same 200 cars would contain the sprintmasters and the spacers. They also have the same date on the amendments, 10 aug 72. Although as i am typing this, i'm thinking that once you build 200 cars with the 3 spacers front and 1 back, then you don't need to build them again.

Fly, do you know at what point does the date of the ammendment signify? Have the appropriate numbers been all/some built?

my 2 bobs worth.

Rob

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

^^^^^^ This is a photo of Bondy at Surfers Paradise,s opening round of the South Pacific touring car series on Sunday the 6th of February 1972. Im all most certain this was the reason Holden fudged there production numbers and to fast track homologation 3/3V (Wheel Spacers & Track). Both Bazza & myself have verified that Holden only produced 200 cars in the months of January & February 1972.



Cheeky devils !!!!!!!!!!!

Was this fudged production sheet because Holden had misplaced 4 XU-1,s as GTR,s or proving to CAMS they all ready had 10 of the required 50% or 100 cars all ready built ??? One thing is for sure GMH often stuffed up............

[S pack]

^^^^^^ This is a photo of Bondy at Surfers Paradise,s opening round of the South Pacific touring car series on Sunday the 6th of February 1972. Im all most certain this was the reason Holden fudged there production numbers and to fast track homologation 3/3V (Wheel Spacers & Track). Both Bazza & myself have verified that Holden only produced 200 cars in the months of January & February 1972.



Cheeky devils !!!!!!!!!!!

Was this fudged production sheet because Holden had misplaced 4 XU-1,s as GTR,s or proving to CAMS they all ready had 10 of the required 50% or 100 cars all ready built ??? One thing is for sure GMH often stuffed up............

I do get what your saying there Fly, wouldn't put it past any of the manufacturers to fudge their figures to suit their own end.

However I'm trying to understand this production figures required thing (thought I had it figured out). If GMH had to produce a further 50% of the original minimum production of 200 (stated on H2-3 to have been completed on 3rd Feb 1972) to qualify an ammendment would they not have had to build another one hundred cars sometime between 3rd Feb '72 and the race on 6th Feb 1972 (or fudge the figures and say they had) to satisy 3/3V, not merely a further ten cars.

My Oxford Pocket Dictionary (circa 1970) tells us 'quote' errat'um n.(pl. - ta), error in printing &c.

You will notice that on Form of Recognition H2-2 LC XU1, under items 2 & 3 GMH declared that the front wheels had one spacer each and the rear wheels had none. Ammendement 1/1E was submitted on 15th August 1971 stating that additional spacers were now fitted to each wheel ie: 2 front and 1 rear.

If you look at Form of Recognition H2-3 you will notice that under items 2 & 3 GMH did'nt mention any spacers. Forgot to??????
This error (oversight?) had to be rectified so GMH submitted ERRATA 3/3V to advise CAMS about the spacers and the correct wheel track specs.
Therefore 3/3V is not a Homologation it is only the correction of an error to an existing Homologation.

As you have said, CAMS were very strict and GMH made sure they crossed their T's and dotted their I's.

Cheers
Dave.

Edited by S pack, 07 March 2010 - 02:57 AM.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

[/quote]

I'm trying to understand this production figures required thing (thought I had it figured out). If GMH had to produce a further 50% of the original minimum production of 200 (stated on H2-3 to have been completed on 3rd Feb 1972) to qualify an ammendment would they not have had to build another one hundred cars sometime between 3rd Feb '72 and the race on 6th Feb 1972 (or fudge the figures and say they had) to satisy 3/3V, not merely a further ten cars.

Cheers
Dave.
[/quote]






In order for CAMS to accept an amendment or homologation Holden were required to have (50% or 100 cars) of the required 200 cars SOLD. My interpretation of this rule is this : As long as Holden had a 100 orders placed by their dealers they could apply for an homologation. Sold does,nt nessaserily mean built. The next batch of XU-1,s which had ADR,s of 3/72 totalled 100 and were completed in March of 1972. By Holden fudging there production sheet made sure amendment 3/3V was passed in a hurry to allow them to compete in the opening round of the South Pacific touring car series on Sunday the 6th of February 1972.



I think section 2 Authority is pretty clear once you read it about 100 times !!! Once the original Certificate of Description or Eligibility is changed its guuna cost ya 200 cars, no ifs no buts...............





Rob, to my knowledge the dates on the bottoms of the amendends or homologation sheets are only the dates CAMS rubber stamped them..............

[xu2308]

Hi Fly

As the 1972 Bathurst Specials were fitted with the Factory Fitted Self Locating Sprintmasters and the first date of there ok was the 10/8/1972 by C.A.M.S
Well it would make sense thats when they came out,as we all know the 200 cars were fitted with the Factory Fitted Sprintys,as Holden would of had to follow C.A.M.S Rules,so it seems straight forward to me,thats when the starting point is,The 10/8/1972
But if a date cant be worked out Fly,i think to make it easier, is to Call every Aug-Sept 1972 LJ XU-1 a Bathurst Special, Problem solved if Starting point can never be worked out.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

My amendment 3/3V paper work is,nt that clear though i think it says :

2 Front track 52.7/53.2" 1338/1351mm (Cant tell if its 1351mm or 1331mm it looks like 1351mm to me ???)
3 Rear Track 51.38 1305mm

( 3 spacers fitted to each front wheel,
1 spacer fitted to each rear wheel)




says in the first instance.............










Allan, There was 500 8/72 & 9/72 XU-1,s built by Holden. Why ? Then can you explain to me why Holden built 600 XU-1,s up to August ? Even though its an errata would Holden still have been required to build 200 cars ?



Dave, All i can do is go off the CAMS Rules and Homologations plus the vin disc. The vin disc tells us Holden did build 200 cars around this time frame with the only explanation being amendment 3/3V............

[xu2308]

Hi Fly
Thats alot of LJ XU-1's they made in Aug-Sept 1972, considering they only need to make 200 to enter the Bathurst Race of 1972.
As they had a few homo's to do on the 1972 LJ XU-1,thats why there 600 to do the homo's. I Guess they used the 200 with the Sprintys as that happened on the 10/8/1972 and getting close to the Bathurst Race,and GMH singled out the 200 with the Sprintys,to be the 200 Bathurst Specials ?????

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Thats alot of LJ XU-1's they made in Aug-Sept 1972, considering they only need to make 200 to enter the Bathurst Race of 1972.

Heres some research for you to do Allan :

Under the C.A.M.S. Rules how many cars were required to complete the following homologations

2/2V Sprintmasters (10-8-1972)
4/4V Track "Sprintmasters" (10-8-1972)
5/5V Cam "XJ", Lightened Flywheel "19lb", Springs, 3.55 diff ratio (29-8-1972)

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

You will notice that on Form of Recognition H2-2 LC XU1, under items 2 & 3 GMH declared that the front wheels had one spacer each and the rear wheels had none. Ammendement 1/1E was submitted on 15th August 1971 stating that additional spacers were now fitted to each wheel ie: 2 front and 1 rear.

If you look at Form of Recognition H2-3 you will notice that under items 2 & 3 GMH did'nt mention any spacers. Forgot to??????
This error (oversight?) had to be rectified so GMH submitted ERRATA 3/3V to advise CAMS about the spacers and the correct wheel track specs.
Therefore 3/3V is not a Homologation it is only the correction of an error to an existing Homologation.

As you have said, CAMS were very strict and GMH made sure they crossed their T's and dotted their I's.

Cheers
Dave.

[S pack]

My amendment 3/3V paper work is,nt that clear though i think it says :

2 Front track 52.7/53.2" 1338/1351mm (Cant tell if its 1351mm or 1331mm it looks like 1351mm to me ???)
3 Rear Track 51.38 1305mm

( 3 spacers fitted to each front wheel,
1 spacer fitted to each rear wheel)




says in the first instance.............

Allan, There was 500 8/72 & 9/72 XU-1,s built by Holden. Why ? Then can you explain to me why Holden built 600 XU-1,s up to August ? Even though its an errata would Holden still have been required to build 200 cars ?



Dave, All i can do is go off the CAMS Rules and Homologations plus the vin disc. The vin disc tells us Holden did build 200 cars around this time frame with the only explanation being amendment 3/3V............

Hey Fly
I don't have the VIN disc (tried to download it but didn't work, don't know how to read it anyway) so you're at least 1 step ahead of me. Great work yourself and others have done in sorting out the info that you have.
In the first instance would mean recognition form H2-3, correct?

3/3V definitely states front track 52.7/53.2" or 1338mm/1351mm. Something screwy about that figure even as that's an increase of 13mm and two spacers are not 13mm thick. Ammendment 1/1E 16/08/1971 states with 2 spacers on each front wheel, track is now 52.6".

From what I can see there are so many inconsistencies with the paper work regarding these cars it is going to be an extremely difficult task to decipher what is really the correct information.

As I stated on my last post, the dictionary defines ERRATA as a printing error. Based on that definition if you substitute the word ERRATA for PRINTING ERROR when you read forms 3/3V, 4/4V and 6/6V then maybe it will all be clearer.
In fact ERRATA 4/4V states and I quote 'Amendement 2/2V in error disregard "Note............" .
So, GMH made an error on amendement 2/2V for the sprintmasters and rectified it with ERRATA 4/4V.
Can't fathom why 100 or 200 cars would have to be made because of a simple clerical error that is easily and cheaply fixed.
Maybe GMH built another 200 XU1's to satisfy customer demand. New model out and so lots of people want to get their hands on one.

The truth is out there, somewhere.
Cheers
Dave.

Edited by S pack, 09 March 2010 - 12:18 AM.

[xu2308]

Thats alot of LJ XU-1's they made in Aug-Sept 1972, considering they only need to make 200 to enter the Bathurst Race of 1972.

Heres some research for you to do Allan :

Under the C.A.M.S. Rules how many cars were required to complete the following homologations

2/2V Sprintmasters (10-8-1972)
4/4V Track "Sprintmasters" (10-8-1972)
5/5V Cam "XJ", Lightened Flywheel "19lb", Springs, 3.55 diff ratio (29-8-1972)

Well 2/2V and 4/4V are done on the 10/8/1972 that would be 200 Cars for both them as they are on same Date or they only had to Build 50% to get Homo,then its 100 cars.
And 5/5V on the 29/8/1972 would be 200 cars or Just 50% makes it 100 Cars.
So its 400 cars for them Homo's you would think,or if they only had to Build 50% of the Cars to get Homo ok then its 200 cars.
Well on the Brightside 200 - 1972 LJ XU-1's got Factory Fitted Self Locating Sprintmasters for free.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

In the first instance would mean recognition form H2-3, correct?

3/3V definitely states front track 52.7/53.2" or 1338mm/1351mm. Something screwy about that figure even as that's an increase of 13mm and two spacers are not 13mm thick. Ammendment 1/1E 16/08/1971 states with 2 spacers on each front wheel, track is now 52.6".

Cheers
Dave.

G/Day Dave
In the first instance would mean recognition form H2-3 (Eligibility) Correct. Now technically speaking did amendment 3/3V change H2-3 in any way, shape or form ? To my way of thinking amendment 3/3V was the second instance. Once we can wrap our brain around section 2 Authority and section 5 Compliance of the C.A.M.S. Rules, i feel its pretty clear. In plain english what section 2 & 5 are saying is that if there is any change in the original form of description, that change needs to be homologated and a minimum of 200 cars are required to do so, though this is only my interpretation of the rules..............
Did amendment 3/3V change H2-3 in any way, shape or form ?

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Thats alot of LJ XU-1's they made in Aug-Sept 1972, considering they only need to make 200 to enter the Bathurst Race of 1972.

Heres some research for you to do Allan :

Under the C.A.M.S. Rules how many cars were required to complete the following homologations

2/2V Sprintmasters (10-8-1972)
4/4V Track "Sprintmasters" (10-8-1972)
5/5V Cam "XJ", Lightened Flywheel "19lb", Springs, 3.55 diff ratio (29-8-1972)

Well 2/2V and 4/4V are done on the 10/8/1972 that would be 200 Cars for both them as they are on same Date or they only had to Build 50% to get Homo,then its 100 cars.
And 5/5V on the 29/8/1972 would be 200 cars or Just 50% makes it 100 Cars.
So its 400 cars for them Homo's you would think,or if they only had to Build 50% of the Cars to get Homo ok then its 200 cars.
Well on the Brightside 200 - 1972 LJ XU-1's got Factory Fitted Self Locating Sprintmasters for free.

The answer to the question lays here Allan

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Anyone ???

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

Allan, According to the vin disc Holden completed around 200 XU-1,s in August 72 and around 300 in September 72.
Im guessing that around 50% or 100 of the 200 built in August had the sprintmasters fitted.
Im guessing that around 100 of the 300 built in September had the sprintmasters fitted. Pretty sure around 100 recieved the 3.55 diff ratios also. Pretty sure the 300 cars not fitted with the sprintmasters had only nibless rims fitted.
This may be of some assistance to you..........

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

The second batch of self locating sprintmasters are dated 11/72.

[xu2308]

Allan, According to the vin disc Holden completed around 200 XU-1,s in August 72 and around 300 in September 72.
Im guessing that around 50% or 100 of the 200 built in August had the sprintmasters fitted.
Im guessing that around 100 of the 300 built in September had the sprintmasters fitted. Pretty sure around 100 recieved the 3.55 diff ratios also. Pretty sure the 300 cars not fitted with the sprintmasters had only nibless rims fitted.
This may be of some assistance to you..........

Yes thanks for that,and i agree with you with above info

[Bazza]

Sorry to thread steal
Hey Bruce or Bazza could you tell me how many Brisbane xu1s were built in 72 only.
cheers Dane

Hi Dane

728 completed between 20/1/72 and 7/12/72

Cheers

Bazza