-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
SCCA Solo II G Prepared
- Thread starter mike_also
- Start date
RootesRooter
Donation Time
Does G Prepared allow tube frames or just general lightening? What's the minimum weight for an Alpine?
mike_also
Diamond Level Sponsor
Hope I get this right - prepared class is basically for non-streetable production-based cars that aren't evolved from stock and street-prepared. Tube framed cars aren't allowed but lots of lightening and stiffening are. Engine, suspension, brake, body, modifications are allowed among others. The rules can be downloaded for free for nothing at www.scca.com for those who might be interested. As far as I can tell, GP was re-designed last year to allow owners of those insane LBCs a forum to race among themselves without being embarrassed by Mom's Honda Grocerygetter. So far, it looks like MG Midgets are the cars to beat. Wondering if anyone was running an Alpine anywhere.
mike_also
Diamond Level Sponsor
I'm sorry - the second question was about minimum weight. It's based on engine size; a 1592cc gets to weigh 1592lbs, a 1725cc must weigh 1725lbs. Max allowable boring for the engine is like .040 and I assume the resultant engine size increase incurs an equal weight increase. Alpines may run 14x7 wheels but any size larger incurs a (severe) weight penalty. Other cars are closely specified in as far as carburetion, however, the Alpine is not - meaning to me, allowed to run Webers, Dellortos, Mikunis, Holleys etc. without penalty. Seems to me the Alpine is a naturally heavy car and I'm not sure if 1725lbs is easily attainable. I'm curious where weight (metal) can be removed without compromising the unibody integrity.
RootesRooter
Donation Time
If I read the SCCA rules correctly on page 202 at:
http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2007SoloRules.pdf
using non-stock carbs incurs a 10% weight penalty, meaning a 1725cc-powered Alpine would have to weigh 1,897.5 lbs.
The rules have another column with a limitation, but there's no heading and I can't figure out what it refers to. The Alpine number in this column is "55.5/54". Does anyone know what this means? Other cars have numbers between 50 and 60. I thought it might be wheel track, but the Saab Sonnett, easily the narrowest car, has the largest number at 60/60.
???
http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2007SoloRules.pdf
using non-stock carbs incurs a 10% weight penalty, meaning a 1725cc-powered Alpine would have to weigh 1,897.5 lbs.
The rules have another column with a limitation, but there's no heading and I can't figure out what it refers to. The Alpine number in this column is "55.5/54". Does anyone know what this means? Other cars have numbers between 50 and 60. I thought it might be wheel track, but the Saab Sonnett, easily the narrowest car, has the largest number at 60/60.
???
64beam
Donation Time
Hi Mike,
I'm not sure what some of the other cars weight is normally, but the weight associated with the engine capacity as you said seems very unattainable for Alpines. Just wondering, are the Midgets running original body panels or fibreglass, etc? This topic was brought up on the old forum regarding trimming weight. I think the main problem was that where weight was removed the safety gear put it nearly all back on
.
Regards, Robin.
I'm not sure what some of the other cars weight is normally, but the weight associated with the engine capacity as you said seems very unattainable for Alpines. Just wondering, are the Midgets running original body panels or fibreglass, etc? This topic was brought up on the old forum regarding trimming weight. I think the main problem was that where weight was removed the safety gear put it nearly all back on
. Regards, Robin.
mike_also
Diamond Level Sponsor
The forum keeps logging me off before I can post a reply. Whether or not Webers are a "stock" carburator is debatable because they were available through dealers as "Stages" tuning many years ago. Is that not correct? It would be worth a question to the SCCA scrutineers. Spitfires, Midgets and the like have a distinct advantage, being body-on-frame cars, that fenders as well as hoods and decklids are readily available in fiberglass, an allowable modification. Because it would be hard to get an Alpine down to 1725lbs, a weight penalty for more responsive carbs might be a moot point anyway.
I mention G Prepared because its a new Solo II class (or revamped, anyway) and the only race venue where an Alpine might have a snowball's chance of being competitive against other makes (even if its limited to period sportscars). I love vintage racing but any driver racing for first is in the wrong venue and the Alpine doesn't have a chance in SCCA Production class. I don't think there's any other Solo class in autocross that even a well-driven Alpine is considered much of a threat.
I mention G Prepared because its a new Solo II class (or revamped, anyway) and the only race venue where an Alpine might have a snowball's chance of being competitive against other makes (even if its limited to period sportscars). I love vintage racing but any driver racing for first is in the wrong venue and the Alpine doesn't have a chance in SCCA Production class. I don't think there's any other Solo class in autocross that even a well-driven Alpine is considered much of a threat.
alpine_64
Donation Time
Mike,
The webers were not a factory option, they were offered through Geaorge Hartwell or Brabham, Holbay etc, they were not ever officialy listed in Factory documents which would be the issue. You could argue that the factory ran them on the S2 cars at LM in 63. And the Harrington Alpine that ran Sebring in 62 also ran them, but this is all FIA class not local USA.
As for Fibreglass, you could start with an LAT hood, they are available, maybe drill things like the doors, inner bonnet and boot structures and and other non unibody components.
The webers were not a factory option, they were offered through Geaorge Hartwell or Brabham, Holbay etc, they were not ever officialy listed in Factory documents which would be the issue. You could argue that the factory ran them on the S2 cars at LM in 63. And the Harrington Alpine that ran Sebring in 62 also ran them, but this is all FIA class not local USA.
As for Fibreglass, you could start with an LAT hood, they are available, maybe drill things like the doors, inner bonnet and boot structures and and other non unibody components.
64beam
Donation Time
Hi Forum,
The rules seem to sway against the Alpines no matter what . As you said Mike, the Sprites/Midgets are allowed to have fibreglass panels (I hope with weight penalties), but were they available back when they were produced? They should all be made to retain all original body panels and trim weight where they can.
Regards, Robin.
The rules seem to sway against the Alpines no matter what
. As you said Mike, the Sprites/Midgets are allowed to have fibreglass panels (I hope with weight penalties), but were they available back when they were produced? They should all be made to retain all original body panels and trim weight where they can.Regards, Robin.
atallamcs
Donation Time
Weight loss
I have found that removing the inner panel of the hood and trunk lid is helpful, though you need to do a little something to maintain strength. Also, removing some of the door panels plus all non usuable parts--heater core, etc. Also, a big opportunity exists with the wheels, dropping from 20+ pounds per stock wheel to maybe half that weight, depending on choice of rim.
Bill
I have found that removing the inner panel of the hood and trunk lid is helpful, though you need to do a little something to maintain strength. Also, removing some of the door panels plus all non usuable parts--heater core, etc. Also, a big opportunity exists with the wheels, dropping from 20+ pounds per stock wheel to maybe half that weight, depending on choice of rim.
Bill
64beam
Donation Time
Will the rules allow such modification to the body or don't they care? 20 pounds is a very substantial amount per wheel
. I did'nt realise stock rims weigh so much.Regards, Robin.
sunbeam74
Silver Level Sponsor
Robin,
There a bunch of different groups organizing vintage racing so some will allow removal of the inner panels and others prohibit it.... but I have rarely seen anyone turned away particularly if you are racing across clubs.
They might put you in a different group but they'll probably let you run.
Steve
There a bunch of different groups organizing vintage racing so some will allow removal of the inner panels and others prohibit it.... but I have rarely seen anyone turned away particularly if you are racing across clubs.
They might put you in a different group but they'll probably let you run.
Steve
Jay Laifman
Donation Time
Why not? Seems like one of the best possible threads on mods I've ever seen. What's the point of modifying a car if it's not for racing, and if it's for racing, what's the point if the mods don't comply with racing rules, and if all the mods still can't possibly make the Alpine competitive, then what's the point of any mods to begin with?
Heck, Alpines did have some successes "in their day." So, I would hope that some historic racing groups would have classes that would mimic the limitations that allowed the Alpines to be successful then. But, that's just hope. With three kids, one dog, and a strong threat of a horse, I simply don't have time (or access) to racing any time soon.
sunbeam74
Silver Level Sponsor
Jay,
It is an interesting dilemma that is occurring in vintage racing today. Yes, the Alpine was competitive in the day but of course the rules worked for the Alpine.
Looking back into the early to mid-60's the Alpine did have success, however, the rules were very strict and production car racing was just that "production car racing". Very limited modifications could be made. You could call it "showroom" stock. This worked as an advantage for the Alpine because the Alpine handled and braked better than its peers (MGA, TR, and Porsches). At least according to Sesslar and Carmichael... I tend to agree. However, the engine was marginal on power being near equal to its peers but then the Alpine was approximately 150lbs heavier.
So, the car would run very well at momentum tracks. Road America, Mid-Ohio, Lime Rock.
Now, after 1965 approximately, the SCCA rules started to change to allow more modifications to engine and suspension. MG and British Leyland cars continued to see performance developments - with support from the factory and dealers - the Alpine languished. You can see by 1967 VERY FEW people were racing Alpines. There was no $ for placing in races and no dealers slipping parts the racers.
(As a side note to understand the changes in performance, in 1962, Sesslar won at Lime Rock with a fast lap of 1:13.1. In the late 70's Phil Peron was able to run 1:07 second laps at Lime Rock due to slicks/engine mods now allowed - but the Spitfires were running 1:03! I don't know if Phil ran faster than 1:07, I am sure he did, but that was the fastest documented time I found -- that's a 6 second difference over a decade)
Fast forward to vintage racing today. Most British cars are capable of running 20-30% more power than their race HP in the 1960's. Everyone knows how to do this with an MG and certainly with a TR. Technology has come that far. The competitive edge the Alpine has is almost nullified by these gains.
The key thing is to remember the Alpine's advantages - braking and handling. Running with a restrictive club plays on the Alpine's advantages. 1) Handling 2) Braking. Horsepower doesn't come into play as much since radical changes aren't allowed. The narrow hard compound tires really nullify any modifications to the suspension TR's or MG's might see. This isn't to say a well developed car doesn't do well on hard compound tires but I think it evens things out.
Steve
It is an interesting dilemma that is occurring in vintage racing today. Yes, the Alpine was competitive in the day but of course the rules worked for the Alpine.
Looking back into the early to mid-60's the Alpine did have success, however, the rules were very strict and production car racing was just that "production car racing". Very limited modifications could be made. You could call it "showroom" stock. This worked as an advantage for the Alpine because the Alpine handled and braked better than its peers (MGA, TR, and Porsches). At least according to Sesslar and Carmichael... I tend to agree. However, the engine was marginal on power being near equal to its peers but then the Alpine was approximately 150lbs heavier.
So, the car would run very well at momentum tracks. Road America, Mid-Ohio, Lime Rock.
Now, after 1965 approximately, the SCCA rules started to change to allow more modifications to engine and suspension. MG and British Leyland cars continued to see performance developments - with support from the factory and dealers - the Alpine languished. You can see by 1967 VERY FEW people were racing Alpines. There was no $ for placing in races and no dealers slipping parts the racers.
(As a side note to understand the changes in performance, in 1962, Sesslar won at Lime Rock with a fast lap of 1:13.1. In the late 70's Phil Peron was able to run 1:07 second laps at Lime Rock due to slicks/engine mods now allowed - but the Spitfires were running 1:03! I don't know if Phil ran faster than 1:07, I am sure he did, but that was the fastest documented time I found -- that's a 6 second difference over a decade)
Fast forward to vintage racing today. Most British cars are capable of running 20-30% more power than their race HP in the 1960's. Everyone knows how to do this with an MG and certainly with a TR. Technology has come that far. The competitive edge the Alpine has is almost nullified by these gains.
The key thing is to remember the Alpine's advantages - braking and handling. Running with a restrictive club plays on the Alpine's advantages. 1) Handling 2) Braking. Horsepower doesn't come into play as much since radical changes aren't allowed. The narrow hard compound tires really nullify any modifications to the suspension TR's or MG's might see. This isn't to say a well developed car doesn't do well on hard compound tires but I think it evens things out.
Steve
64beam
Donation Time
Hi Steve,
Interesting post. It seems very weird how after the mid sixties as you wrote, the Alpines were no longer that competitive. Do you think the take over by Chrysler had anything to do with it? With the right people in the right places, maybe things would have been different. It is also a shame that other companies did'nt get on the Rootes band-wagon as much as MG or TR.
My suggestion for today's historic racing is to have some controls eg. control tyres (one make) so that it's the driver's ability not horsepower (more like back in the sixties.
Regards, Robin.
Interesting post. It seems very weird how after the mid sixties as you wrote, the Alpines were no longer that competitive. Do you think the take over by Chrysler had anything to do with it? With the right people in the right places, maybe things would have been different. It is also a shame that other companies did'nt get on the Rootes band-wagon as much as MG or TR.
My suggestion for today's historic racing is to have some controls eg. control tyres (one make) so that it's the driver's ability not horsepower (more like back in the sixties.
Regards, Robin.
sunbeam74
Silver Level Sponsor
I wouldn't say they became uncompetitive overnight but there were were factors that made it not ideal for competition after 1965/66. Some of those factors included:
1) Dealer and factory support stopped if I understand correctly. It wasn't that it was that much money but it helped keep the car on the track and covered some expenses. Most British companies of that period offered at least some dollars for 1st 2nd and 3rd. British Leyland (Std. Triumph) increased their $ significantly by the late 60's... I don't think Chrysler offered anything. Notice in the ad below that Rootes paid for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd place Alpine REGARDLESS of finishing overall position and double if you actually placed in your race. It meant a high posiblity for getting some money.
2) Many racers were dealers, too.... so when Sunbeam was bought by Chrysler I think most chose to run cars that benifited their dealership better. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday.
3) The Tiger took what ever resources Rootes had after 1964... It was maintain "status quo" for the Alpine which meant that nobody was developing competition parts and trying to get them approved by the SCCA.
4) Later on, when Spitfires and Midgets had capacity increases and were moved to FP it really changed the face of that class.
Steve
1) Dealer and factory support stopped if I understand correctly. It wasn't that it was that much money but it helped keep the car on the track and covered some expenses. Most British companies of that period offered at least some dollars for 1st 2nd and 3rd. British Leyland (Std. Triumph) increased their $ significantly by the late 60's... I don't think Chrysler offered anything. Notice in the ad below that Rootes paid for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd place Alpine REGARDLESS of finishing overall position and double if you actually placed in your race. It meant a high posiblity for getting some money.
2) Many racers were dealers, too.... so when Sunbeam was bought by Chrysler I think most chose to run cars that benifited their dealership better. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday.
3) The Tiger took what ever resources Rootes had after 1964... It was maintain "status quo" for the Alpine which meant that nobody was developing competition parts and trying to get them approved by the SCCA.
4) Later on, when Spitfires and Midgets had capacity increases and were moved to FP it really changed the face of that class.
Steve
RootesRooter
Donation Time
I remember Don Sessler at a SUNI event showing off the check he got from Rootes allowing the use of his name/photo in ads after he won F Class in his Series IV. He framed the check - in the amount of $1.
Besides lack of support from Chrysler, I thought I read that the change to 1725cc put the Alpine in a much tougher class. ???
Besides lack of support from Chrysler, I thought I read that the change to 1725cc put the Alpine in a much tougher class. ???
sunbeam74
Silver Level Sponsor
You did read exactly that, "the Alpine was moved to a tougher class" - I can't quote it exactly as written but it was totally incorrect. Unfortunately, it has become lore....
The Alpine ran in the following classes in the following years:
1960 - GP
1961 - FP
1962 - FP
1963 - EP
1964 and on in FP
Only in 1963 was the Alpine classified into tougher E-production class. Believe it or not, Sesslar tied for National Champion against Lake Underwood in the Porsche. In fact, Sesslar had more points but Underwood had better results... which meant Underwood really was the national champion officially.
Interestingly, had Sesslar finished 5th or better at Thompson he would have won the title outright.... he missed by 5 feet. I never had the chance to talk to Don about that race but I bet that was bitter.
Steve
The Alpine ran in the following classes in the following years:
1960 - GP
1961 - FP
1962 - FP
1963 - EP
1964 and on in FP
Only in 1963 was the Alpine classified into tougher E-production class. Believe it or not, Sesslar tied for National Champion against Lake Underwood in the Porsche. In fact, Sesslar had more points but Underwood had better results... which meant Underwood really was the national champion officially.
Interestingly, had Sesslar finished 5th or better at Thompson he would have won the title outright.... he missed by 5 feet. I never had the chance to talk to Don about that race but I bet that was bitter.
Steve