Why did Alpines fade

[Eleven]

From competitivness? The GCR and PCS show weight to be in line with other cars, the cc's of Alpines is not out of line, so why, when I was racing (1971-4), they were no where near the front. At the time I was in it, the Alpines were F Prod and should have been G or H? Was it the lack of RPM's??? In the early '60's, they were on top, what happened?

 

[alpine_64]

I thin it comes down to development. Rootes supported the UAS SCCA guys for a while.. but when they shifted focus from sportes cars the support dried up. The consider the Alpine went out of production.

Other cars such as MGB, sprite etc were still being made.. they were more popular anyway and they continued to be developed.. the alpines probably peaked in about '63 in terms of engine development. Add to this cars like the fairlady, 240z etc and the alpine dies a quiet competition death.

 

[sunbeam74]

Tracy,

I believe there were a combination of factors

1) Competition development ended about the time
a. Chrysler took over
b. Rootes became strapped for cash
c. The Tiger ate what development dollars were there.

Given that the Alpine should have remained competitive during the 66-71, however...

2) All support dollars including money given to competitors for finishers in the top three ceased. So there was little incentive for more organized racers at the national level to continue to run the Alpine.

Even with that the Alpine should have stayed competitive in divisional events BUT

3) The in 67' SCCA rules started to change enough allowing for suspension and engine changes that the other FP cars had a distinct advantage over the Alpine. By 71, the rules had really opened up - from what I have read - and the Alpine was at a real disadvantage. (of course, you only had a couple of people running Alpines by the 70's so development was fairly sparse.... even today it is limited.)

Few people realize that if you were to pit the Alpine against MGAs, TRs, and even 356's built to early 1960's SCCA rules the Alpine was on par. Typically beating the others on handling and braking.


Steve

 

[Armand4]

On Saturday at the Monterey Historics I was talking to an older friend who did some racing in the '50s and is a master mechanic and racing car preparer. He claims that the Alpine was never much of a handler in stock form (I disagree! ), but that careful development could put it on a par with an MGA or 356. He had a Hillman Minx and a Commer camper with iron-head three-bearing motors-- he says "I beat the hell out of that thing, and it never complained"-- and he considers the cast-iron crank in the 1725 a serious liability.

The big factor, however, is that Rootes stopped paying for competition development and racers in search of the Next Big Thing abandoned the Alpine while continuing to develop other cars. That's why today you can build an 8500 RPM, 175-horsepower motor for a 356 or MG with off-the-shelf parts. In the vintage racing circles I move in (I watch, but don't race... yet) everybody pretty much assumes that a 356 or B-series powered MG is, for lack of a nicer term, a "cheater car" putting out way more power than the old ones did.

Having said that, there's no reason we can't make the Alpine perform honorably at the racetrack. It will just take a lot of time, effort and (sadly) cash.

 

[sunbeam74]

In the day, according to Sesslar and Carmichael, the Alpine was better handling than both the MGA and 356... in production race car form. At least that's what they said at Mid-Ohio in 2004.

Typical mods were simply de-arching the rear springs, Koni shocks, and a 7/8" sway bar. That was about all that was allowed in the early 60's. According to Don, he opted for the stock front springs when they were running the LSD rear end.

I agree that most vintage cars these days are putting out a solid 20-30% more HP than they did in the day - but then - in the day you were very constrained as to modifications. Heck, they wouldn't hardly let you bore out your block... it wasn't until 64' you could bore out to .040".


Steve

 

[Eleven]

Good insights

I started in an Alpine but switched to a Spitfire. When I switched, I was amazed at the rev's I could pull in the Spit (8g) on 3 main bearings. I admit I knew little about the Alpine (it wasn't mine) but have always felt since then that it was because the Alpine would not (or should not) rev. MG's and TR's turn about 7500 in SCCA form, our local Alpines do not I suspect. Maybe the guys who have stayed with them in historic racing would know...but the package seems good but in the later 60's it faded badly. Well, of course, it could be the driver of the Alpine here was not as fast as remembered...!

 

[Armand4]

If you feel like spending a whole lot of money on custom pistons and rods (and a billet crank to replace the cast-iron piece in the 1725) 8000 RPM shouldn't be a problem at all-- and the end result will be MUCH better looking than any 356, TR or MG! The Alpine's aluminum head could give it an advantage over the cast-iron, siamesed-port piece of junk that sits atop those BMC motors-- the problem, from what I know, isn't getting the motor to flow, but getting it to rev.

I could say something stirring now, like "it's up to us to pick up the torch of Sunbeam racing and return the Alpine to glory" but I'm pretty sure I'd run out of money before being able to turn a wheel in anger.

 

[alpine_64]

As for revving them,

Have posted about this car before.. but there used to be a production class SII that raced there.. It was a 1592 that put 136KW to the wheels apparently. Car was trick, roller rockers, domed pistons.. it revved to 8300 and owner used to change at 7500 normally.. now this was on Zeniths too.. However that car had cubic meters of $ thrown at it but would see off all local MGA's, almost any B and a few other cars.. sadly for the money required to make it go like that you could build a front running elva or porsche

 

[sunbeam74]

Pretty sure the 1592cc engine would pull 7500 regularly in race form back in the day. At least that is what most drivers have told me.

I noticed in the preperation notes on the Sports Car Forum Alpine Carmichael noted that 6000 was the limit for the 1725. (I usually stop at 6k with the 1725) However, it is all Rootes parts on the inside.

I honeslty don't know if you could get an Alpine consistantly competitive with the fastest of the vintage group it is in. Reality says the 356 owner is going to take the same liberties and upgrade carbs, etc. and be that much faster.

Steve

 

[Eleven]

Cast iron crank

My Spitfire had one so I am not sure that, unless Rootes was abnormaly poor at it, that a cast iron crank is the issue. From what I understand, the rods are poor. This is what is confusing to me. The Rootes engine has a tough rep, yet... Maybe it does boil down to Leyland supporting racing and Rootes not. Kas Kastner, for us TR guys is the Man, I guess Rootes never had an equivalant. Well, onward.

 

[Rodewaryer]

A friend in the UK that runs a balancing firm built a highly modified Alpine (so trick he wouldn't tell his friends some of the stuff he did) but he ran very well against big machinery and I'm told he had at least 150 Bhp (don't recall if that was Brake or wheel, prob brake) and the car impressed many at track days. Things can be done, but his advantage was being in the trade and having few limitations to what he did to that Holbay.

I agree, the Alpine engine has many advantages in design over the morris garages machines. I know a well balanced one runs pretty well compared to a shade tree mechanic'd basic runner.

I have to disagree with the handling comment. I thought the car was 51/49 and through a lot of years of being around motorheads have quite a lot of experiences as well as related events from trusted sources that all speak highly of the cars balance. A buddy in the UK years ago ran across a well driven Lotus Europa and they played hard for quite a while on some twisties and my Series V friend was able to keep up. I won two seasons in Solo II EP in my Series V (against much more modern machinery) and a bad handler isn't likely to do that.