FIA homologation : 1st gen Camaro in Trans-Am and International racing 1968-72

[eb911]

I have recently purchased an ex. A-Sedan Camaro (1967) that raced continuously from 1972. I will enter it this season iin a new championship in Europe against the mighty BMW CSL, Ford Capri Cologne, Escort Zakspeed ...

As to get the FIA homologation on the car, I need to prove that the elements fitted on the car today were used in period. That's where I need some help from you guys especially for the following items :

- Would someone have a picture of a dry sump system used in the 12 hours of Sebring or 24 hours of Daytona on a 1st gen Camaro between 1968 and 1972 (I known dry sump systems were allowed by the SCCA from 1971 I think)


Many thanks for your help.

Eric

[Steve Holmes]

Hi Eric, hey that is very cool! Can you tell us some of the history of your Camaro? Do you have some photos?

As you know, dry sump systems weren't allowed in the Trans-Am until 1971. By this stage, all the manufacturers had left, except American Motors, and it was Penske who were pushing the SCCA to allow dry sumps. The Javelins suffered fluctuating oil pressure when Penske began racing them in 1970, and they destroyed several engines as a result, so they were very keen to get this accepted. If they had continued racing the Camaro in 1970, with the well developed baffled sumps that had been made, maybe they wouldn't have been so motivated. But other than AMC, all the other teams were independents, so its unlikely any fitted a dry sump system on a 1st generation Camaro.

Out of interest, why don't you present your Camaro as a Group 2 car, rather than Trans-Am? Group 2 rules of the period, as used in the UK and Europe, were far more liberal than Trans-Am, and allowed bigger engines, multiple carbs, wider wheels etc. And there were several 1st gen Camaros which raced in Group 2. I have read the FIA Appendix K rules about three times (all 90 pages!) and my understanding is that you can go up to the maximum allowed under the rules, but you can't go beyond. So, for example, if the maximum wheel width in Group 2 is 12", you can fit wheels up to 12", but not more than 12". So you could still race your Camaro to Trans-Am spec, such as fitting 8" wheels and 5 litre motor if you wish, but then you could also use some of the extra freedoms allowed with Group 2.

I could be wrong, but I thought the Adrian Chambers SCA Freight Camaro driven by Frank Gardner was fitted with dry sump. This is the old Bill Brown Trans-Am car that raced in TA in 1967 before going to the UK in 1968. It continued to be developed under different owners, eventually ending up with Chambers. Frank Gardner took this car to New Zealand to race in late 1972, then to Australia next, and it was sold to Bob Jane, who eventually sold it to John Pollard. One of our Roaring Season members, Rowan Harman, owned this car for several years before selling it back to the UK, where it has since been restored. Do you have a contact for the current owner?

Out of interest, what is the new championship you will be racing the Camaro in?

[fullnoise68]

Steve, Chad in the US may be able to help Eric with some photos or info.

[eb911]

Thank you. My car is currently being refreshed and engine is out. I will post pictures as soon as it looks better. Basically it was a new car bought on the showroom floor in 1967 to compete in A-Sedan. Unfortunately the owner could not finish the race preparation and the car saw first action on the track only in 1972. It then raced continuously in A-Sedan then in GT1, and then in historic racing (SVRA, VARA) until 2006. It is still in Trans-Am specs, with 8 inches wheels and 5 liter motor.
The new championship is held by Peter Auto, the organizer of Le Mans Classic and french Tour Auto. Please find more info here : http://peterauto.peter.fr/en/plateau...7/nom/HERITAGE Touring cup

Back to the FIA homologation, I intend to homologate my car in group 2. But so as to homologate any car you have to stick to the FIA homologation sheet which provides the basic homologated elements. Then for instance in group 2 regulation, you can add any appendix K compliant element, AS LONG AS YOU CAN PROVE it has been used in period. It is not because the appendix K tells you can fit 12 inches wheels that you can fit them on your car straight. You have to prove they have been used on the same car as yours in period.

So for my dry sump system, I need to find any evidence that the system was used in period (1970-1971 is my homologation period).
Any picture or documents even from the european group 2 Camaro would be much appreciated.

[Steve Holmes]

Wow, that new championship looks like a lot of fun! Lots of interesting cars, and plenty of American muscle cars too. I assume you are Eric Broutin? I have been in contact lately with Christophe Schwartz with the Hemi Plymouth Cuda and he has been helping me to understand the Appendix K rules.

So the K period you are going to be in is G2?

What if you can prove that there was a 1969 Camaro that raced in period with a dry sump system? Would this be accepted, or does it have to be a '67? The '69 is basically the same car as the 67/68, but with some sheet metal changes. Bob Jane raced a 1969 ZL1 Camaro in the Australian Touring Car Championship in 1971 and 1972, winning the championship both years. He had a 427ci alloy big block in 1971, and 350ci small block in 1972. His car was fitted with dry sump, and it was a very high profile car with lots of photos taken of it. There have even been some 1:18 scale model cars made of it.

Here is a thread we have here on The Roaring Season of the restoration of this car, which was done by one of our members, Myles Johnson: http://www.theroaringseason.com/show...neath-The-Skin

[Steve Holmes]

Here is a photo I took of the engine bay of the Bob Jane Camaro back in about 2007.

[eb911]

Thank you Steve.
I think proving a 1969 Camaro had a dry sump is fine, but it has to be in the same specs as mine (5 liter motor) and during international racing (ETCC is also fine). Not easy !

The Cuda you mentioned is very famous. A superb car. I used to race against it last year in Spa. I was driving a BMW CSL.

[Steve Holmes]

Damn, thats a shame.

Eric, was your car already fitted with a dry sump system when you bought it? Almost all the cars that race in the Historic Trans-Am group are fitted with wet sump and use very good baffled sumps, as they must be presented as they raced in period. About the only cars that race in Historic Trans-Am with dry sump systems are the 1971 and '72 Javelins. The Rusty Jowett '68 Camaro was fitted with a dry sump when restored on the East Coast of the US. But this car never raced with a dry sump in 1968, and when it was sold to a new owner on the West Coast, where Historic Trans-Am is much stronger, the car was required to revert back to wet sump. There are some very good baffled sumps available if you have to take this route, and lots of good advice for doing this.

This is not really the solution you want, but at least its good to know you can still make the car reliable. But I will keep looking to see if there are any other Camaros that raced in period with a dry sump.

Out of interest, what sort of gearbox is your Camaro fitted with?

[eb911]

Steve, my car was fitted with the dry sump when I bought it. And as it started to race in 1972, my guess is that it might have been fitted with a dry sump back in the days. Now that the car is nearly completed I don't want to spend an extra money reverting back to wet sump. What's more I know that dry sump was allowed by SCCA in 1971. So yes, I would like to find an evidence about the dry sump, if not, then I will have no choice.

My gearbox is an M22 rock crusher.

[Steve Holmes]

Yep, I'd feel exactly the same as you if it were my car Eric. The dry sump set-up will give you greater reliability, so if you can avoid having to switch to wet sump, this is preferable.

Within the FIA Appendix K rules it is written:

“Cars without an international competition history but which have a competition history in national championship competitions or other significant national competitions of equivalent status may also be accepted. If a model has not taken part in period international races, HTPs of corresponding cars must be submitted to the HMSC supported by evidence from the relevant ASN that the model has a history in period of competition in competitions of national significance”.

That first sentence really refers to make and model of cars that didn't have an international race history, but did race in a national championship of importance. I have been reading the rules because I am trying to find out if its possible to get an Australian car called a Holden Monaro GTS350 accepted under Appendix K rules. The Monaro didn't race internationally, but it did race in national Australian events of significance.

However, I would also read that the wording could be used to prove the Bob Jane Camaro competed in a national championship of significance.

[John McKechnie]

Steve- there is an interesting slant here- check the program or race write up in an acredited magazine.
My Monaro ran at Baypark International meeting when Terry Allen raced his Camaro here in 1970.
Also when Geogeghan and Moffat ran here it was Pukekohe Dunlop International on the program for the big bangers only.The same at Baypark Dec 1970 with Joe Chamberlains Trans Am Camaro- International Race-what was Joe running, no mention in my mags.?
One International race meeting is all it takes?

[Steve Holmes]

Thanks John. Unfortunately the FIA are a bit more specific than that. They have a set of regulations drawn up for each individual make and model of car to have competed in international touring car competition. The regulations are based on the original FIA homologation sheet for that make/model. So, for example, a 1965 Mustang has its own homologation sheet, a 1967 Camaro has its own homologation sheet, etc. That homologation sheet tells a car builder exactly the modifications can be carried out on that car.

But the homologation sheets are based on more widely used regulations of the period, such as Group 2 as used in the UK and Europe in the 1970s, or SCCA Trans-Am from the late 1960s etc. These were classed as international touring car formulas. And each car that competed in these various championships were given a homologation sheet, which now in FIA Historic Appendix K, car builders must use.

They provide some different options, for different cars. For example, Chrysler in the US entered the Trans-Am championship in 1970, with the Plymouth Cuda factory team run by Dan Gurneys All American Racers, and driven by Gurney and Swede Savage. Trans-Am rules required the engines be no bigger than 5 litres, and the wheel sizes be no bigger than 15" x 8". But following the 1970 Trans-Am, one of these Cudas was sold to Chrysler France, and it was raced in the Europe Touring Car Championship and the French Touring Car Championship. But it raced under Group 2 rules which were more relaxed, and allowed for more modifications. So the Cuda was fitted with wider wheels, and a big block Hemi.

So now, if you want to build and race a 1970 Plymouth Cuda in the UK or Europe to Appendix K rules, there is a homologation sheet which allows you to build the car either to SCCA Trans-Am rules, or FIA Group 2 rules. But less common cars that competed in only national championships don't always have a homologation sheet. The Holden Monaro is one of these. There were Monaros that raced at events in which there was an international championship taking place, such as Formula 5000, but the Monaros themselves weren't competing in an FIA recognised international touring car championship.

There is a homologation sheet for the Holden Commodore, because this model competed in the ETCC in 1986 and 1987. But most other Australian makes don't have one.

But the Appendix K rules do say that if a car not recognised as having an international competition history, can be accepted for Appendix K if proof can be given that it competed in a national championship of importance. So, for example, Bob Jane raced an HQ Monaro in the 1972 ATCC. But then evidence must be provided as to the specifications of that model. Fortunately, there were at least two period magazine articles written on the Bob Jane Monaro, which state many of its modifications, and show pictures which help with evidence.

So you have to prove your case to the FIA before you are accepted. But even then its not so easy. With Eric and his Camaro, even though the SCCA allowed dry sump systems in the Trans-Am from 1971, its not OK to actually fit a dry sump system into a Camaro under Appendix K rules unless proof is given that someone in 1971 actually did this.

There are lots of hoops to jump through!

[John McKechnie]

Steve- I now understand these specifics.
Lots of great, important, easy to read info.
Thanks for this post.

[Jac Mac]

The ex Kennet/Dunlop/Haig ... Mustang had a second pump section that piggybacked off the end of the original and operated as a scavenge pump section to supply oil to an 'in sump' section for the pressure pump to source oil from.... so essentially still a 'wet' sump with partial dry sump advantage, have an 1965 article by Bruce Crower and others of similar setups for chevy/olds etc so that might be an option for you, puts a bit more load on the pump drive gear though which makes it a high risk option with steel roller cams. Bud Moore had a 'better' idea with a multi section pump mounted on the two front main caps and driven by a chain sandwiched between original timing chain & front main journal.... at end of day this would get around the wet sump only rule since sump is still wet and all pumps are internal..

[John McKechnie]

JacMac- is this like an accumulator?

[Jac Mac]

JacMac- is this like an accumulator?

No , nothing like an accumulator, they are like a $50.00 radar detector, give you just enough time to get your wallet out!
This is essentially a dry sump with an extra single large scavenge contained within the engine/pan and in the case's mentioned driven by the same oil pump drive. Aussies used a version of this in mid 70's with coupes[XB/XC] but using bilge type pumps to scavenge oil from pan thru cooler then back to pan rather than piggyback, don't think they lasted the distance at Bathurst etc.

[eb911]

Interesting, thanks. This would indeed be an option if I had to get rid of my dry sump system. For now I am trying to prove that a dry sump system has been used in period. If I fail to, then I will have to revert to wet sump and the system you describe seems very promising.

[Jac Mac]

Interesting, thanks. This would indeed be an option if I had to get rid of my dry sump system. For now I am trying to prove that a dry sump system has been used in period. If I fail to, then I will have to revert to wet sump and the system you describe seems very promising.

Article in question was in USA Hot Rod Magazine, December 1965 issue, sorry, don't have a scanner here to post.

[Jac Mac]

Interesting, thanks. This would indeed be an option if I had to get rid of my dry sump system. For now I am trying to prove that a dry sump system has been used in period. If I fail to, then I will have to revert to wet sump and the system you describe seems very promising.

Article in question was in USA Hot Rod Magazine, December 1965 issue, sorry, don't have a scanner here to post.