245 replies to this topic

[robj]

I think CAMS could help us all by releasing any documentation they have to the public in scanned electronic format. It's all from quite a long time ago, so I don't understand why they don't want to.

We have argued this 500 cars for 73 group c eligibility before in a previous thread and Bruce eluded to some sort of production certificate stating this that CAMS has on file.

[S pack]

I think CAMS could help us all by releasing any documentation they have to the public in scanned electronic format. It's all from quite a long time ago, so I don't understand why they don't want to.

We have argued this 500 cars for 73 group c eligibility before in a previous thread and Bruce eluded to some sort of production certificate stating this that CAMS has on file.

Yes there is reported to be a production certificate stating 500 cars were built in the 1st half of 1973.

It appears GM-H may have been covering all their bases by reporting the production figures for all 82911's built, regardless of whether it was to fulfill compliance or not.

[S pack]

Yes there is reported to be a production certificate stating 500 cars were built in the 1st half of 1973.

It appears GM-H may have been covering all their bases by reporting the production figures for all 82911's built and sold in Australia, regardless of whether it was to fulfill compliance or not.

[yel327]

 Byron , in regards to JP390021  , I,m guessing one is duel cast and the other is single cast ?  so why not xray them both , that will bring the truth out .

 

 I,ve probably missed something here as i don,t spend a lot of time on this forum like the good old days when Amigo,s weren,t around .  

 

I don't know, I'm just reading between the lines and from what I've heard outside of here.

[UCgazman]

Does anyone know who owns that JP390021? (not the one Aldo had...)

[EunUCh]

This is all very interesting,this story must go a bit further than what is being told ??

If all 6 cyl. blocks regardless of capacity were given a serial # and ran in a continuous numerical sequence it would seem that

they were all made out of the same material , the shop manual does not even state "except XU1" when engine block is mentioned but

in other areas of parts it does.However "service letters" make mention of the what has already been shown regarding "revisions" done

by GMH.

 

 SBXU1.JPG   233.29K   8 downloads

One picture over the other seems to make for a very good re-stamp (or something else) even if one picture was not that flash to start with , looks like the one with white # has had chalk rubbed over it to bring up the number ?

Block/s # 389020? Ser.#JP390021

 

 JPOL.jpg   43.64K   2 downloads

 

I think they were basically a race car was that road legal , maybe they did have to jump through hoops with CAMS to race them , still does not make those not on the list any lesser a JP blocked XU1 does it ?

 

 

 

 

[xu2308]

There is Documentation for the 200-Aug/Sept 1972 LJ XU1's (Coined by Press (Bathurst Cars) as in the CAMS 2/2V Homo paper for the Sprintmaster Wheel on that Doco Paper, Dated 10/8/1972  the Sprintmasters were the Start of said Cars, so Harry Firth told me and he said they were the Cars on the Chevron HDT DVD as well.

[S pack]

I asked The C.A.M.S what Bruce told Ian (Chaos) to ask. "How many LJ XU1's were required for amendments 8/8e and 9/2e".

In a nutshell the reply was 'no more than 200'.

 

This is the reason why only 200 required.

The LJ XU1 was Recognised on 3/02/1972 by way of C.O.D H2-3 for Group E - Series Production Touring Cars.

As all LJ XU1 amendments relate back to H2-3 the minimum production requirements of 200 cars for the original C.O.D still applied in 1973.

All vehicles eligible for Group E were also eligible for Group C in 1973.

 

As I understand it The C.A.M.S decided after the supercar scare in 1972 to move over to Group C to reduce the number and potency of high performance cars the manufacturers were required to build. Not increase the number.

Edited by S pack, 18 April 2016 - 08:25 AM.

[crabba67]

To me reading this it suggests that once 50% of the the cars had been sold (250).     The "Normal Evolution of Type" and "Variant" would be accepted by way of additional forms.  

 

So if correct, once 250 cars were sold, the "normal Evolution" of the cars was done and noted by way of forms.  So no real need to make any more than 250 cars, as their evolution only needed to be recorded on Forms ...  CW

Weaver,You've nailed it,you finally got it ..............

Edited by crabba67, 18 April 2016 - 08:49 AM.

[yel327]

So let me get this straight. I'm not agreeing with you, I just want to understand what the theory is.

 

In your opinion there were 250 identical engines counting backwards from the final XU1?

 

For the CAMS paperwork to be correct (which seems to be your bible so must be assumed to be infallible) there must have been 250 XU1's produced after 1/8/73?
 

 

So Crabba since Bruce didn't answer, you appear to support this theory, are my questions correct?
 

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

250 engines, 250 cars, produced after the 1/7/1973

 

Under the Group C ( 1973-1984 ) and the Group A ( 1985-1992 ) rules a minimum of 500 cars were required.

Under the group E ( 1970-1972 ) rules a minimum of 200 cars were required.

 

To allow any amendments or homologations to take place under the 1973 Group C rules a manufacturer was required to have 50% or 250 cars sold before CAMS would accept any amendments or homologations.

 

[yel327]

So does that mean you are telling us that there are 250 x identical cars with identical engines counting backwards from the last XU1? Excluding exports and of course excluding the odd car here or there missing from the Service/Warranty report.

 

BTW and not relevant to XU1, I think Group A was 5000 units, followed by the intention to build 500 "evolution" versions. This is why GMH built the V5H 308 and later 304, so that the VK Group A could then be raced with a minimum of 500 of those. The key being the intention to build 500., as history shows only about 300 VN Group A were built.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

302 VN SS Group A commodores, with a minimum of 50% or 250 cars being required to have been sold.

500 VL SS Group A Walkinshaw,s followed by a further batch of 250 cars 50% to allow the homologation of components, 750 cars in total.

 

etc etc etc etc

 

The 50% Rule..........

[yel327]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_A

 

Well Bruce, you've just proven to the world that you know SFA about CAMS rules. Normally I don't like WIKI as it is only as good as the idiots who modify it but in this case it essentially shows that the facts are very different from your version of them. I can't post text on this site, but above is the link for all those that wish to see that what has been stated is BS.

 

Plus you still haven't answered the primary question, just posted more BS.

[yel327]

302 VN SS Group A commodores, with a minimum of 50% or 250 cars being required to have been sold.

500 VL SS Group A Walkinshaw,s followed by a further batch of 250 cars 50% to allow the homologation of components, 750 cars in total.

 

etc etc etc etc

 

The 50% Rule..........

 

I thought I better include this just in case you change it once you realise you are wrong.
 

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

LOL

 

" QUOTE "

 

Wikipedia

 

Homologation

 

the FIA allowed " Evolution " models to be homologated with a minimum of 500 cars.

 

( CAMS ) fully homologated the vn commodore for racing.

 

" END QUOTE "

 

LOL

 

 

 

Wrong about what ??????????

[S pack]

To allow any amendments or homologations to take place under the 1973 Group C rules a manufacturer was required to have 50% or 250 cars sold before CAMS would accept any amendments or homologations, unless the vehicle was homologated under Group E rules in which case the minimum number required was still 50% of 200.

Fixed it for you.

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

That's so funny ( LOL ) all most as funny as Byron. You do understand that Group E finished in December 1972 with Group C taking over from the 1st of January 1973 don't you ?????????????    LOL

[S pack]

That's so funny ( LOL ) all most as funny as Byron. You do understand that Group E finished in December 1972 with Group C taking over from the 1st of January 1973 don't you ?????????????    LOL

 So you reckon you know more about The C.A.M.S rules and how they were applied than The C.A.M.S!

 

 

[FLY_AGAIN_XU-1]

I think you need to have another chat with the C.A.M.S. if there documentation is confusing you........

[S pack]

I think you need to have another chat with the C.A.M.S. if there documentation is confusing you........

 

 

If you have an issue with the information I have posted then I can only suggest you contact The Confederation of Australian Motor Sport and take your grievance up with them.