The FV's are a lot more visible than the old chain drive special. He used to
suddenly appear at my elbow and scare the heck out of me. I doubt that
SOVREN would get sideways about a rack. I could be wrong, but it's not
usually an area of concern. It's not like you're making some huge
performance change, it's mostly drivability, precision, and arguably a bit
of safety.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-fot@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-fot@autox.team.net] On Behalf
Of m-syork@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:24 AM
To: David Talbott; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: TR 3 Steering
Dave
I'm kind of in the same boat as you.
I chatted with the SOVREN competition/tech guys earlier in the week
regarding placement of my TR3 in the grid. They basically said that if the
car is built to SCCA PCS - 1962 the car would be place into Vintage Group1.
If the car was built to PCS - 1967 or 69 it would probably be classified as
Historic midbore with the TR4s (I think Group 3 or 4; Jeff Quick or John
James could confirm). SOVREN is really trying to go back to the "Vintage
Spirit" of authenticity and integrity in preparation and good sportsmanship
in competition.
I guess it depends on how forthright you want to be when filling out the car
information form and whether the tech guys would catch the upgrades.
The only problem I have with Group 1 is those f***ing Formula Vees. In the
March race at Pacific Raceways (in the downpour) the were almost invisable.
They sneak up on you in the corners and hold you up on the straights.
Mark
-------------- Original message --------------
> Speaking of rack and pinion options for TR3's, does anyone have any
> experience with the Revington kit? From what I've seen and read about
> them on-line, they seem to say all the right things with respect to
> minimizing bump steer and adding some Ackerman effect, and it appears
> to be a very sturdy weld-in affair. With my current bare metal frame
> now would be the time to do it, however, it is a fairly irreversible
> step, and here in the NW these kinds of modifications are typically
> frowned upon. It also seems to me that the geometry and bump steer
> issues are much a function of ride height, and the Revington folks
> appear to be very focused on rally preparation with the obvious
requirement of much more ground clearance than a road course car.
>
> I continue to question the basic need, not to mention the measurable
> benefit in terms of lap times. I'm hearing lots of positive responses
> from those who have made conversions with various components, but I'm
> having a hard time comprehending how the worm and peg could be quite
> so bad, especially if it is maintained. I'll admit that my prior TR3
> racing experience is many years past, but I don't recall a great
> revelation in steering when I moved into a TR4. Sure, they are hard
> steering and awkward around the pits, but aren't most race cars,
> especially with locked diff's? It seems to me that the steering in
> almost anything gets pretty light when you're going fast, so the
> question becomes are you steering or herding? I'm also a strong
> believer that one learns to drive around most of this kind of stuff
> anyway, realizing that may not be the fastest approach, but I try to
remember that we are talking vintage here.
>
> I think I remember Hardy having added a TR4 rack to his TR3, based on
> the same logic as Joe B., i.e. the cars are on the same page of the
> SCCA PCS book, although I'm sure that came about in a much later
> edition than the usual 1969 cutoff date for most vintage rules. If you
> are listening Hardy, maybe you could chime in on this. As Damdinger
> said however, every such change just makes it that much less of a TR3.
>
> On the fence in Oregon,
>
> Dave Talbott
|