Jump to content


Photo

CK Xu1


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#151 Rockoz

Rockoz

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,029 posts
  • Name:Rob
  • Location:Cowra NSW
  • Joined: 21-September 08

Posted 31 December 2021 - 10:38 AM

IanC, How would you interpret the gearbox rule on post 147    ?

 

The over arching rule is that 200 basically identical cars need to be sold in the 12 month period.

 

First part says that 50% of the required number needs to have the different ratios or number of gears.

The next part says that this is not a requirement for the Australian 200.

So, going by that alone, a single car could be fitted with different ratios or number of gears and still be eligible.

 

There is no 300 or 400 mentioned there, so have no idea why you even bothered to include it.

Seems you are trying to make up rules to suit some sort of agenda.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#152 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 11:18 AM

hi  s pack I agree with u  regarding  diff ratios    1st 200  cars  homoligated  with  3.36 and 3.08 centres        im still unsure why gmh built 300 71 ck xu1 toranas  does anybody actually know          ford produced 300 xy gtho falcons       chrysler produced  300 plus e 38 chargers   some one out there must know

 

 



Quote "This rule does not apply to the Australian 200 Basically Identical Units as Basically Identical Units requires 1 gearbox and 1 diff ratio to be able to drive. The 200 cars are required to be identical units. However this rule does apply to the Australian 300 & 400."

 

Ford built 402 XW GTHO but were only required to make and sell 200 cars for recognition.  So what!!!

 

 

Last time I looked Ford, Holden, Chrysler etc were car manufacturers.

 



#153 IanC

IanC

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Name:Ian
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Car:LJ XU-1
  • Joined: 06-December 21

Posted 31 December 2021 - 11:48 AM

My take on post 147 is the same as Rockoz.  50% of 200 cars 100+ cars each with the two different gearboxes.    And agree with Rob again. there is no mention of Australian 300 & 400.  So that part has nothing to do with post 147.    You can see on the GTHO post I put up.(Post 140)  Phase 1. 260 cars.  Phase 1.5  115 cars (more than 50% rule met.)  Phase 2. 287 cars .     But again no Mention of Australian 300 & 400.



#154 RallyRed

RallyRed

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,144 posts
  • Name:Col
  • Location:NSW
  • Car:LC GTR etc
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 31 December 2021 - 11:51 AM

I tend to glaze over at this stuff a bit.....but the fact that a company "made" 100, 200, 300 , 400 seems to be unconnected to anything?.
They made cars to sell...to make money.
If CAMS or whoever said they needed to make a certain number to qualify them as legitimate to race, then that is fine...but are people suggesting that the number reqd by CAMS always equals the number sold?
I may be all wrong with the above, but there seems to be a lot of effort going into proving whatever it is?
Happy New Year anyway.
I enjoy the tooing and froing .lol

#155 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 12:08 PM

What this tells me is that there was a required minimum.

If they only built the required minimum, then half of them had to have one of the ratios.

 

If the minimum was 200, then 100 would have to have the alternative ratio.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#156 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 12:22 PM

How is it possible to fit 2 gears or 2 ratios into 200 BASICALLY IDENTICAL UNITS    ?



#157 Rockoz

Rockoz

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,029 posts
  • Name:Rob
  • Location:Cowra NSW
  • Joined: 21-September 08

Posted 31 December 2021 - 12:37 PM

How is it possible to fit 2 gears or 2 ratios into 200 BASICALLY IDENTICAL UNITS    ?

 

Does it say identical units?

No.

It says basically identical.

Now that is the part you perhaps seem to not understand too much.

 

My take would be that identical apart from the areas where changes are allowed.

ie. Gearbox ratios as mentioned in post 147.

Basically identical might then be

same number of doors.

same level of luxury

drive wheels.

 

There were also clauses in the rules that said certain areas were free.

So apart from where changes are allowed for, the rest is much the same.

 

Sadly, you are looking for geese that lay golden eggs, or leprechauns, or even unicorns.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#158 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 02:46 PM

Attached File  identical (2)_LI.jpg   1.06MB   5 downloads

 

Attached File  post-8884-0-43742900-1637561385 (2).jpg   29.21K   1 downloads

 

I know what identical means Rob, DO YOU ?



#159 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 02:56 PM

My take on post 147 is the same as Rockoz.  50% of 200 cars 100+ cars each with the two different gearboxes.   

 

You can not fit  2 different gearboxes to 200 BASICALLY IDENTICAL UNITS.



#160 Rockoz

Rockoz

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,029 posts
  • Name:Rob
  • Location:Cowra NSW
  • Joined: 21-September 08

Posted 31 December 2021 - 07:11 PM

You are really clutching at straws here.

I find it hilarious that you think "identical" has the same meaning as "basically identical" and you decide for yourself which term is relative.

If the cars had to be identical, then given the way CAMS was at the time, and the scrutineers, then to be considered identical they would have to be the same down to the colour and markings.

But I guess comprehension wasnt a strong point for you.

And you would have been no good in any of the race teams either.

They excelled at reading between the lines to find ways to beat the competition.

 

Learn and accept the difference between "identical" and "basically identical"

Have a look through your precious rule book and show us what items were "free"

Then you may be able to get past your mind blockage.

 

This seems to be running the same way as whether there were more than the Bathurst 150, or the debate on whether a car was actually a V8 or not.

 

Most of what you are saying just goes around in circles, and you are trying to convince yourself maybe?

 

Maybe eat some prunes to help move the blockage along.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#161 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 08:33 PM

 

I find it hilarious that you think "identical" has the same meaning as "basically identical" and you decide for yourself which term is relative.

 

 

 

Learn and accept the difference between "identical" and "basically identical"

 

 

Cheers

 

Rob

 

Attached File  identical (2)_LI.jpg   1.06MB   2 downloads

 

There is only 1 rule in the C.A.M.S. & F.I.A. Rules. I have posted this up for you again.

"QUOTE" same mechanical components "END QUOTE"

"QUOTE" "MECHANICAL components " include all parts for the propulsion "END QUOTE"

You do understand what propulsion is ?

Your quite welcome to post "basically identical" up.



#162 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 08:42 PM

But I guess comprehension wasnt a strong point for you.

 

 

Cheers

 

Rob

 

Clearly not a strong point for you     LOL    :clap:



#163 Rockoz

Rockoz

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,029 posts
  • Name:Rob
  • Location:Cowra NSW
  • Joined: 21-September 08

Posted 31 December 2021 - 09:16 PM

I could try to explain it to you.

But I can see I would be wasting my time.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#164 IanC

IanC

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Name:Ian
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Car:LJ XU-1
  • Joined: 06-December 21

Posted 31 December 2021 - 09:18 PM

I know I suck at comprehension. But I believe identical in this instance (ie Torana)   A standard GTR torana has all the "Identical" mechanical components 6 cylinder, 4 speed manual, banjo style diff. ect.  Then GTR with XU1 option homologated for racing.  XU1 is identical to GTR plus the bits allowed for racing.  



#165 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 31 December 2021 - 10:03 PM

My take on post 147 is the same as Rockoz.  50% of 200 cars 100+ cars each with the two different gearboxes.    And agree with Rob again. there is no mention of Australian 300 & 400.  So that part has nothing to do with post 147.    You can see on the GTHO post I put up.(Post 140)  Phase 1. 260 cars.  Phase 1.5  115 cars (more than 50% rule met.)  Phase 2. 287 cars .     But again no Mention of Australian 300 & 400.

 

If 50% of 200 cars 100+ cars each with the two different gearboxes. How many cars would it take to homologate two diff ratios   ?     IanC



#166 skap

skap

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Name:Skap
  • Location:Brisbane
  • Car:Mighty VN
  • Joined: 20-January 17

Posted 31 December 2021 - 11:43 PM

If 50% of 200 cars 100+ cars each with the two different gearboxes. How many cars would it take to homologate two diff ratios ? IanC


Why is this dumb shit still allowed here ?

Ohh, happy new year everyone ;)

#167 S pack

S pack

    Scrivet Counter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,717 posts
  • Name:Dave
  • Location:Luggage Point
  • Car:73 LJ
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 01 January 2022 - 08:42 AM

The over arching rule is that 200 basically identical cars need to be sold in the 12 month period.

 

First part says that 50% of the required number needs to have the different ratios or number of gears.

The next part says that this is not a requirement for the Australian 200.

So, going by that alone, a single car could be fitted with different ratios or number of gears and still be eligible.

 

There is no 300 or 400 mentioned there, so have no idea why you even bothered to include it.

Seems you are trying to make up rules to suit some sort of agenda.

 

Cheers

 

Rob


Rob that 50% rule only pertains to gearboxes with a different number of ratios and different in their staging. ie:a 3spd and a 4spd, and as you stated it was not applicable to the Australian made 200 cars in any case.

There is no 50% rule for two gearboxes with the same number of ratios and different in their staging and there is no 50% rule for diff ratios.

Up to the end of 1971 Group E it was left totally up to the manufacturer to decide how many of the minimum production received which gearbox (if two options were offered to the purchaser) and which final drive ratio (if two options were offered to the purchaser).

 

The following addition to the 1971 FIA Group 1 Series production rules sums up the intent of the FIA Transmission regulation very nicely. A regulation that the CAMS copied virtually word for word and used in their Group E regulations up to the end of 1971.

Attached File  FIA 1971 basic series 2 ratios.jpg   45.9K   2 downloads

 

Simply replace 5000 with '200 Australian'

 

As we can see that is exactly what Ford did with the XW GTHO Phase II.  The minimum production and sale of 200 cars were recognised in accordance with the specifications of the recognition documents.

Two gearboxes with the same number of ratios but different in their staging and two final drive ratios.


Edited by S pack, 01 January 2022 - 08:50 AM.


#168 Rockoz

Rockoz

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,029 posts
  • Name:Rob
  • Location:Cowra NSW
  • Joined: 21-September 08

Posted 01 January 2022 - 12:32 PM

Sadly the same bloke is posting stuff that makes what he is trying to push wrong.

He is having lots of trouble comprehending basic wording, and due to the information repeatedly contradicts himself.

He is wrong on his take of the rules on so many levels.

 

A study revealed that there are some people who are so dumb, that they just dont realise how dumb they are.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#169 S pack

S pack

    Scrivet Counter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,717 posts
  • Name:Dave
  • Location:Luggage Point
  • Car:73 LJ
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 01 January 2022 - 12:49 PM

Sadly the same bloke is posting stuff that makes what he is trying to push wrong.

He is having lots of trouble comprehending basic wording, and due to the information repeatedly contradicts himself.

He is wrong on his take of the rules on so many levels.

 

A study revealed that there are some people who are so dumb, that they just dont realise how dumb they are.

 

Cheers

 

Rob

 

He does have an agenda and that agenda is that every LC and LJ GTR XU1 was built to satisfy a CAMS homologation.

To make the LC & LJ XU1 production numbers, as counted in the VIN disc, fit with the CAMS rules requires twisting the meaning of the rules to suit his narrative.

The narrative is full of holes so the narrative keeps changing to try to plug those holes as they keep appearing.

 

Sadly this forum is peppered with threads containing this BS as well as a well known Torana book published a few years ago.


 



#170 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 01 January 2022 - 01:22 PM



Quote "This rule does not apply to the Australian 200 Basically Identical Units as Basically Identical Units requires 1 gearbox and 1 diff ratio to be able to drive. The 200 cars are required to be identical units. However this rule does apply to the Australian 300 & 400."

 

 

Ford built 402 XW GTHO but were only required to make and sell 200 cars for recognition.  So what!!!

 

 

 

Not 300 or 400, only 200.

 

 

 

 

 

Ford built 300 GTHO Phase III, 200 cars for the 3.25:1 and 3.50:1 rear axle ratios and 100 cars for the alternative 3.91:1 ratio rear axle would be in line with the CAMS rules for 1971 Group E.

At the end of the day the GTHO Phase II homologated the 3.25:1 and 3.50:1 rear axle ratios and as the Phase III was an evolution of the Phase II those axle ratios did not need to be homologated again.

The Phase III did however homologate the 3.91:1 ratio rear axle.

 

THAT'S FUNNY.........



#171 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 01 January 2022 - 01:32 PM

A study revealed that there are some people who are so dumb, that they just dont realise how dumb they are.

 

Cheers

 

Rob

 

Brothers 



#172 S pack

S pack

    Scrivet Counter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,717 posts
  • Name:Dave
  • Location:Luggage Point
  • Car:73 LJ
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 01 January 2022 - 02:42 PM

THAT'S FUNNY.........

 

The absurd crap that you come out with is even funnier.

 

Sadly the same bloke is posting stuff that makes what he is trying to push wrong.

He is having lots of trouble comprehending basic wording, and due to the information repeatedly contradicts himself.

He is wrong on his take of the rules on so many levels.

 

A study revealed that there are some people who are so dumb, that they just dont realise how dumb they are.

 

Cheers

 

Rob

You do realise Rob is talking about YOU don't you!
 


Edited by S pack, 01 January 2022 - 02:42 PM.


#173 Rockoz

Rockoz

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,029 posts
  • Name:Rob
  • Location:Cowra NSW
  • Joined: 21-September 08

Posted 01 January 2022 - 04:34 PM

Brothers 

 

I will stack up my IQ and as part of that, my comprehension skills, against yours any day.

Actually, I have already here.

And your failings in that regard are there for most to see.

Sadly, you fall into that category where you just cant see where you are wrong.

Even though it has been pointed out to you ad nauseum.

 

Even your attempts at humour are childish at the best.

 

Will watch out for your next attempt, but dont feel like wasting my time pointing out the clear faults in your reasoning.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#174 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 01 January 2022 - 05:50 PM

A study revealed that there are some people who are so dumb, that they just "dont realise" how dumb they are.

 

Cheers

 

Rob



#175 FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

FLY_AGAIN_XU-1

    Forum Fixture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06

Posted 01 January 2022 - 06:03 PM


But I guess comprehension "wasnt" a strong point for you.

 

 

Cheers

 

Rob






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users