Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

What is a 72 Bathurst XU-1?

Started by _ck1971_ , Jan 17 2007 06:17 PM

«
Prev

Next
»

Please log in to reply

512 replies to this topic

#426 _march17_

Guests

Posted 09 October 2010 - 10:53 PM

Under the C.A.M.S. Rules, camshafts, flywheels and springs were NOT required to be fitted in production. However Holden were required to build and sell 200 basically identical units. As long as Holden built and sold these 200 basically identical units the race teams were allowed the use of the homologated parts. In order for C.A.M.S. to acept a homologation or ammendment Holden were required to have 50% or 100 of the required 200 cars sold.

Gearbox and Diff Ratios were required to be fitted in production : 50% or 100 cars per ratio

Wheels sheeezzzz : Originally Holden thought these were required to be fitted in production, hence the 200 8th and 9th month XU-1,s with the factory fitted self locating sprintmasters. Then Ford proved otherwise by homologating there 15 X 7 globes for there GT HO Phase III,s for Bathurst and hence why the second batch of self locating sprintmasters were only offered as an option. By offering them as an option they were still well within the rules. I suppose its how you interpurate it..............

2/2V Sprintmasters 200 required
4/4V Track (Sprintmasters) 200 required

The initial 200 cars (8/72 & 9/72) had them factory fitted. the following 200 cars (10/72, 11/72) had them as an option........

Not all owners folked out the extra dollars for the second batch of 200 sets of self locating sprintmasters in 1972 hence why they were still available as an option in 1973

With only 200 cars being required in October, November and December to complete homologations 2/2V & 4/4V Holden completed 305. 105 more than was required. Was it a case of win on Sunday sell on Monday or was Holden simply covering there ass by having 700 cars sold in Australia ??? Its the only piece of the jigsaw puzzle i have,nt found the answer for yet.............

Generally Holden only built the amounts they were required to build :

1970 : 700 built 700 required
1971 : 700 built 700 required
1972 : 1405 built 1300 required
1973 : 788 built 750 required

Maybe Joe Felice Knows..............

Just wondering then what does a set of 4 NOS 6/72 sprintmasters in boxes,purchased recently,say about the 200 factory fitted sets???And no I don't have them,cheers Mark.

Back to top

#427 _Skapinad_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2010 - 08:14 AM

"allegedly" just purchased....

Back to top

#428 _march17_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2010 - 05:10 PM

Ah yeh,thanks skapinad,"allegedly purchased recently" is exactly what I ment to say.

Back to top

#429 _Skapinad_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2010 - 06:10 PM

Yeah only say that as I call bs until proven otherwise... Which I would be glad to occur !

Back to top

#430 _Mike73_

Guests

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:08 PM

Hello all,
when quoting the date that a batch of XU-1's were sold in order to qualify to CAMS regulations, has anyone else noticed that the build sheets carry a car sales date which predates the production date?
I am thinking the earlier build sheet date is the sale to a particular dealer and the second is to the public owner, any Ideas, and would this bring the sold date forward for CAMS purposes to be the date sold to the dealer?

Mike

Back to top

#431 S pack

Scrivet Counter

Members
15,631 posts

Name:Dave
Location:Luggage Point
Car:73 LJ
Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:26 PM

Hello all,
when quoting the date that a batch of XU-1's were sold in order to qualify to CAMS regulations, has anyone else noticed that the build sheets carry a car sales date which predates the production date?
I am thinking the earlier build sheet date is the sale to a particular dealer and the second is to the public owner, any Ideas, and would this bring the sold date forward for CAMS purposes to be the date sold to the dealer?

Mike

The sales date on the Production Broadcast sheet is the date the car was ordered by the Dealer. So, yes the car is sold even though it hasn't yet been built.
Cams accepted this as the official sales date.
Remember the CAMS rules clearly state 'made and or sold'

Back to top

#432 S pack

Scrivet Counter

Members
15,631 posts

Name:Dave
Location:Luggage Point
Car:73 LJ
Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:37 AM

Can anyone answer this.

In which month in 1972 did GMH achieve production of 500 basically identical units (XU1's)?

Back to top

#433 _Mike73_

Guests

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:24 PM

Can anyone answer this.

In which month in 1972 did GMH achieve production of 500 basically identical units (XU1's)?

Is that a loaded question?

From the notes I posted on the 1973 site Aug 72 would seem to be the time that general production reached 500, the first 200 were the eligability XU-1's of course.
Some of the 500 did not qualify for CAMS minimuim production requirements as some were not sold in Austalia as per the rules, it took until July 1973 before Holden was made to comply to the CAMS rules from my understanding.
For CAMS purposes it was July 1973 before the 1972 500 minimum numbers were reached.

Ford also had compliance issues also because of their rear disc brake introduction and may have been penalised, I seem to remember one driver complaining about not being able to use them.

Torana of course had rear disc brake technology available but did not use them, rear disc breaks had been fitted to the GTR X, it could be possible that the UC SLE Torana recieved rear disc brakes to use up old GTR X stock too.
Sorry getting off topic.

Mike

Back to top

#434 xu2308

Grail Hunter

Members
4,704 posts

Name:AL
Location:Belconnen ACT
Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
Joined: 09-April 09

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:31 PM

Mike
The H told me that the 1972 LJ XU-1, that got the Factory fitted self locating Sprintmasters were the 1972 Bathurst Specials, as they were the V8 XU-1 Special Wheels that went on them cars, there were 200 pairs, hence 200 Cars, now that Joe Felice has stated there no Bathurst Specials then there is 200-1972 LJ XU-1's with special wheels in essence

Back to top

#435 Dr Terry

Technical + Numbers Guru + Moderator

Moderators
3,308 posts

Location:Eastwood (Sydney) NSW
Joined: 13-November 05

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:55 PM

Ford also had compliance issues also because of their rear disc brake introduction and may have been penalised, I seem to remember one driver complaining about not being able to use them.

Ford had a lot of CAMS compliance issues in those days & I think the XA coupe with disc brakes was the most blatant.

I can't remember which round of the 1973 ATCC it was, but Fred Gibson's XA lost a wheel & to everybody's surprise it had rear discs. Nobody knew of their introduction or homologation & no XA GT had ever left the factory so equipped, but somehow Ford got away with by proving that 250 Landau coupes had been sold (they had rear discs standard) & the Landau was really just an XA GT coupe anyway, wasn't it ??

Dr Terry

Back to top

#436 Bazza

ǝɹnʇxıɟ ɯnɹoɟ

Members
4,294 posts

Location:Outer Melb West Vic
Car:ɐuɐɹoʇ
Joined: 11-November 05

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:00 PM

Mike
The H told me that the 1972 LJ XU-1, that got the Factory fitted self locating Sprintmasters were the 1972 Bathurst Specials, as they were the V8 XU-1 Special Wheels that went on them cars, there were 200 pairs, hence 200 Cars, now that Joe Felice has stated there no Bathurst Specials then there is 200-1972 LJ XU-1's with special wheels in essence

Errm - 200 pairs?

Back to top

#437 _Mike73_

Guests

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:56 PM

Ford had a lot of CAMS compliance issues in those days & I think the XA coupe with disc brakes was the most blatant.

I can't remember which round of the 1973 ATCC it was, but Fred Gibson's XA lost a wheel & to everybody's surprise it had rear discs. Nobody knew of their introduction or homologation & no XA GT had ever left the factory so equipped, but somehow Ford got away with by proving that 250 Landau coupes had been sold (they had rear discs standard) & the Landau was really just an XA GT coupe anyway, wasn't it ??

Dr Terry

It was Sandown that the whell came off and revealed the rear disc brake fudge by that team, this is all covered in AMC issue 20, Mark Oastler is a full bottle on this stuff.
As far as I remember it was some weeks later at Bathurst when the recognition paperwork should have been in order that Dick Johnson or Alan Mofit after a big spinout was complaining that they were not permitted to use the rear disc brakes.

It was definately 250 Landau's that were built, as this was the same rule, like applied the other teams, that 250 were required under the evolution of type rule.
250 final batch XU-1's were made also, however like Ford, they found way to reduce the actual number of vehicles that the componets were fitted to.

Bazza my understanding is that there was alot of secrecry around the production of August September 72 XU-1's just like the 1973 Aug and September XU-1's, the super car scare was the likely cause of this.
Have you ever notice that componets recognised by CAMS for the the 1972 Aug and Sept XU-1's do not appear in the parts books for 1972 or the later 1975 ones?

CAMS approved componets for the 1973 XU-1's like the reworked 1972 Cam and flywheel do not appear in the parts books either as far as I recall, have you noticed this?
This fits with coments that Ford were deliberately short on documentation at this time too?
The CAMS approved componets were for racing and race specials, and were not for a "Bathurst batch" which were esentially the street versions, but were simply performance options for a very small number of race specials built by Holden, and componets available to other race teams on request.

Mike

Back to top

#438 _Mike73_

Guests

Posted 10 February 2012 - 03:14 PM

Under the C.A.M.S. Rules, camshafts, flywheels and springs were NOT required to be fitted in production. However Holden were required to build and sell 200 basically identical units. As long as Holden built and sold these 200 basically identical units the race teams were allowed the use of the homologated parts. In order for C.A.M.S. to acept a homologation or ammendment Holden were required to have 50% or 100 of the required 200 cars sold.

Gearbox and Diff Ratios were required to be fitted in production : 50% or 100 cars per ratio

Wheels sheeezzzz : Originally Holden thought these were required to be fitted in production, hence the 200 8th and 9th month XU-1,s with the factory fitted self locating sprintmasters. Then Ford proved otherwise by homologating there 15 X 7 globes for there GT HO Phase III,s for Bathurst and hence why the second batch of self locating sprintmasters were only offered as an option. By offering them as an option they were still well within the rules. I suppose its how you interpurate it..............

2/2V Sprintmasters 200 required
4/4V Track (Sprintmasters) 200 required

The initial 200 cars (8/72 & 9/72) had them factory fitted. the following 200 cars (10/72, 11/72) had them as an option........

Not all owners folked out the extra dollars for the second batch of 200 sets of self locating sprintmasters in 1972 hence why they were still available as an option in 1973

With only 200 cars being required in October, November and December to complete homologations 2/2V & 4/4V Holden completed 305. 105 more than was required. Was it a case of win on Sunday sell on Monday or was Holden simply covering there ass by having 700 cars sold in Australia ??? Its the only piece of the jigsaw puzzle i have,nt found the answer for yet.............

Generally Holden only built the amounts they were required to build :

1970 : 700 built 700 required
1971 : 700 built 700 required
1972 : 1405 built 1300 required
1973 : 788 built 750 required

Maybe Joe Felice Knows..............

Hello,
Bruce, does this mean as the rules that refer to "wheels" and not tyres, that as long as the outside diameter of the tyres remain the same that 14" rims and lower profile tyes could be fitted. ( a wheel consists of a tyre and rim ) I have re-read the rules, perhaps not after all as Holden did not supply 14 " Sprintmasters.

The 14" wheels would allow for the bigger Monaro brakes I have sometimes seen referred to as being fitted to XU-1's, again some have misunderstood the braking rules and assumed that the bigger brakes could not be fitted, however the rules as I understand them, state that the brake pad area could not change, and as the Monaro and the Torana used the exact same front brake pad that it was within the rules to fit Monaro diameter discs? ( think Ford used the same pads in some models too )

Could this wheel and brake rule be the reason 14" Sprintmasters were made?
Thinking about it more perhaps this was a Sports Sedan category thing rather than a group C variation.

Mike

Edited by Mike73, 10 February 2012 - 03:19 PM.

Back to top

#439 xu2308

Grail Hunter

Members
4,704 posts

Name:AL
Location:Belconnen ACT
Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
Joined: 09-April 09

Posted 10 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

200 sets i ment sorry

Back to top

#440 Bazza

ǝɹnʇxıɟ ɯnɹoɟ

Members
4,294 posts

Location:Outer Melb West Vic
Car:ɐuɐɹoʇ
Joined: 11-November 05

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:07 PM

200 sets i ment sorry

That's better

Cheers

Bazza

Back to top

#441 S pack

Scrivet Counter

Members
15,631 posts

Name:Dave
Location:Luggage Point
Car:73 LJ
Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:10 AM

Can anyone answer this.

In which month in 1972 did GMH achieve production of 500 basically identical units (XU1's)?

Is that a loaded question?

From the notes I posted on the 1973 site Aug 72 would seem to be the time that general production reached 500, the first 200 were the eligability XU-1's of course.
Some of the 500 did not qualify for CAMS minimuim production requirements as some were not sold in Austalia as per the rules, it took until July 1973 before Holden was made to comply to the CAMS rules from my understanding.
For CAMS purposes it was July 1973 before the 1972 500 minimum numbers were reached.

Mike

No, it's not a loaded question.

It was during June 1972 that GMH produced the 500th basically identical LJ XU1 that was compliant with recognition document H2-3 dated 3rd February 1972.

Amendment 3/3V (also dated 3rd February 1972) is an ERRATA, it is not a physical change to or addition of any components used in production.
An ERRATA is used for the correction of an error in the recorded specifications. In the case of 3/3V the wheel track specs had been recorded incorrectly in Recognition Form H2-3.

GMH also took the opportunity to further qualify in 3/3V that 3 spacers were fitted to each front wheel and one to each rear wheel.

So the first 200 XU-1's, the next 200 XU-1's and the following 192 XU-1's built up to the end of June 1972 = 592 minus 37 export XU-1's leaves us with 555 basically identical LJ XU-1's produced in the first 6 months of 1972.

Therefore under the CAMS Rules the LJ XU-1 now qualified for inclusion in Group C in 1973.

Edited by S pack, 11 February 2012 - 12:11 AM.

Back to top

#442 S pack

Scrivet Counter

Members
15,631 posts

Name:Dave
Location:Luggage Point
Car:73 LJ
Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 11 February 2012 - 02:08 AM

Have you ever notice that componets recognised by CAMS for the the 1972 Aug and Sept XU-1's do not appear in the parts books for 1972 or the later 1975 ones?

CAMS approved componets for the 1973 XU-1's like the reworked 1972 Cam and flywheel do not appear in the parts books either as far as I recall, have you noticed this?

Mike

Naturally the part numbers for the XJ cam and the lightened flywheel for the August/September1972 XU-1's won't be in a parts catalogue printed in February 1972.

The lightened flywheel part number is in the 1975 edition catalogue but is only recorded as being for the later 1973 engines, however, the XJ camshaft part number is not. I suspect the XJ camshaft was NLA by the time the 1975 book was produced so it wasn't included.

Back to top

#443 xu2308

Grail Hunter

Members
4,704 posts

Name:AL
Location:Belconnen ACT
Car:SMP LJ GTR V8 Prototype-Confirmed By HHS and Ex GMH XW7 Engineers
Joined: 09-April 09

Posted 07 January 2014 - 04:34 AM

The 6/1972 Self Locating Sprintmasters were the Wheels that were going on the 200-V8 LJ's, the wheels were built on the 6th month of 1972, so as a guess and going off the CAMS Date, these wheels would not be aloud on the Cars until the 8th month of 1972 Due to CAMS Homo Rules, so one would think its the 8/1972 LJ XU-1's that got the 6/1972 Sprinty's, So the 200 Cars built on the 8/1972 should be the so called Bathurst 1972 Cars, just saying.

AL

Edited by xu2308, 07 January 2014 - 04:41 AM.

Back to top

#444 _ck1971_

Guests

Posted 12 February 2014 - 10:21 AM

The 6/1972 Self Locating Sprintmasters were the Wheels that were going on the 200-V8 LJ's, the wheels were built on the 6th month of 1972, so as a guess and going off the CAMS Date, these wheels would not be aloud on the Cars until the 8th month of 1972 Due to CAMS Homo Rules, so one would think its the 8/1972 LJ XU-1's that got the 6/1972 Sprinty's, So the 200 Cars built on the 8/1972 should be the so called Bathurst 1972 Cars, just saying.

AL

As far as being allowed to put the Sprintmasters on cars before the 8th 72 is concerned Holden could have put them on whenever they liked as long as the 200 cars with the wheels had been built in time to qualify for homologation before using the wheels in competition.

The problem with calling all the XU1s built in August 72 the Bathurst 1972 cars is that they didn't all get the Sprintmaster wheels, as I said much earlier in this thread I've seen 2 unmolested very, very original 8th 72 Brisbane XU1s that were completed 4 days apart and one had the 5 Sprintmasters wheels where the other had nib less rims. I saw these cars on numerous occasions back in the late 1980s and they were both in original condition.

ck1971.

Back to top

#445 crabba67

Forum Fixture

Members
903 posts

Name:anthony
Location:earth
Joined: 21-July 10

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:11 PM

ck1971, all xu1 built from 14.8.72 to the first week of september 72 , JP 200 to 217 and broadcast cast sheet,s issued from 27.7.72 to 25.8.72 half of them cars 100 issued with a 3.55 diff 50 at adelaide and 50 at brisbane.

cheers

Edited by crabba67, 12 February 2014 - 12:24 PM.

Back to top

#446 crabba67

Forum Fixture

Members
903 posts

Name:anthony
Location:earth
Joined: 21-July 10

Posted 12 February 2014 - 12:35 PM

or from ALJ112## to ALJ121## A and B

Back to top

#447 crabba67

Forum Fixture

Members
903 posts

Name:anthony
Location:earth
Joined: 21-July 10

Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:04 PM

sorry typed it wrong ALJ111## to ALJ122## A and B

Back to top

#448 _ck1971_

Guests

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:47 AM

ck1971, all xu1 built from 14.8.72 to the first week of september 72 , JP 200 to 217 and broadcast cast sheet,s issued from 27.7.72 to 25.8.72 half of them cars 100 issued with a 3.55 diff 50 at adelaide and 50 at brisbane.
cheers

Crabba I might be a bit slow but could you clarify what you mean I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying.

ck1971.

Back to top

#449 yel327

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Members
13,537 posts

Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:26 AM

Have you seen every one of these Anthony? Just wondering how you know all the chassis numbers for the PSN's, especially Elizabeth ones.

I've heard from people who took delivery of some of these cars new, they told me the Sprintmasters were in the boot and not the car. I wonder if in some cases someone at the dealerships didn't snaffle them?