tvr grantura help needed
Discussion
I'M.... not sure that anyone wants to fix any one thing to any one place in any one point in time...
Fiscracer said:
Instead of looking at whether a chassis rails is tapered or straight with a bend, which gives no performance advantage, it might be rather more constructive if the FIA actually ensured cars comply with their papers and that they comply with the homologation. That means no 1950cc or larger engines, no 4 synchro gearboxes, no 1800 B engines in 8/xxx chassis cars, no overdrive gearboxes, no modified uprights or adjustable wishbones, no moved suspension pick ups, no moved anti roll bars etc etc etc
Here is part of the MkIII 1800 brochure which shows what the original chassis looks like
Of course, what the picture doesn't show is where the anti-roll bar was originally positioned or how the front upper wishbone suspension pickups were set. Both of these things, which may well have a material effect on handling, have been modified on some cars which means those cars would no longer be FIA Appendix K legal. However, both modifications are seen on some of the faster race Granturas which appear in events that are supposedly run to Appendix K rules. As Fiscracer suggests, the scrutineers would be better looking out for these kind of things rather than slightly repositioned chassis tubes.
TF
Edited by Thurner Fan on Friday 4th July 19:59
This is a slightly clearer picture of the MkIII (and MkIII 1800) chassis.
On this picture it is a bit easier to see the vertical 'teardrop' brackets forming the front upper wishbone pickups. On modified cars these brackets will be rotated upwards at an angle closer to the horizontal and the wishbones will have been shortened.
Footnote : Somewhat bizarrely this is taken from the Griffith 200 brochure and the same chassis drawing even features years later in the Vixen brochure. I guess they just didn't have the time or the money to come up with new chassis drawings.
TF
On this picture it is a bit easier to see the vertical 'teardrop' brackets forming the front upper wishbone pickups. On modified cars these brackets will be rotated upwards at an angle closer to the horizontal and the wishbones will have been shortened.
Footnote : Somewhat bizarrely this is taken from the Griffith 200 brochure and the same chassis drawing even features years later in the Vixen brochure. I guess they just didn't have the time or the money to come up with new chassis drawings.
TF
Edited by Thurner Fan on Friday 4th July 20:01
This was the brochure I was thinking about. It is for a Vixen S2 and appears to have been for the US market. I have copied it across from another thread on here.
On the second page they seem to have used the same chassis drawing as in the MkIII 1800 brochure and yet the rolling chassis photograph at the top right of the same page looks to be more like the correct 1800S/Griffith chassis (parallel top engine rails etc.) that went on to be used for the Vixens, albeit lengthened later.
And yes, my understanding is that all Granturas would have left the factory with Triumph Herald box section lower wishbones, the tubular TVR-made ones only coming in with the Vixen. However, I'm not sure what performance difference it could make, other than from a strength/safety point if view. Do you know? Somebody once told me that they thought TVR had supplied the tubular ones for race cars but I've never seen any written evidence of that. They were making their own top wishbones in 1963 so presumably they could easily have produced some lower ones as well if need be. Any additional info welcomed.
TF
On the second page they seem to have used the same chassis drawing as in the MkIII 1800 brochure and yet the rolling chassis photograph at the top right of the same page looks to be more like the correct 1800S/Griffith chassis (parallel top engine rails etc.) that went on to be used for the Vixens, albeit lengthened later.
And yes, my understanding is that all Granturas would have left the factory with Triumph Herald box section lower wishbones, the tubular TVR-made ones only coming in with the Vixen. However, I'm not sure what performance difference it could make, other than from a strength/safety point if view. Do you know? Somebody once told me that they thought TVR had supplied the tubular ones for race cars but I've never seen any written evidence of that. They were making their own top wishbones in 1963 so presumably they could easily have produced some lower ones as well if need be. Any additional info welcomed.
TF
Grantura MKI said:
041 has tubular low control arms, as per original. You will find that the picture do not match the model on several brouchures.
Best,
D.
041...means nothing to me. (sorry to be thick here, I am after all an M series man with an interest in earlier TVR's),Best,
D.
and a PR guys attention to detail for the truth is not a fact in relation to graphics used in factory blurb, it is just factory blurb. I just cannot see that TVR evolve, into and out of, tubular lower wishbones, NOT even for racing, (when you are making top wishbones already and you are looking for addition camber you are not going to change a lower wishbone) AND again when you are already rotating chassis lugs to give you castor. (IMHO Thurner chassis is not a poorly designed item for the era, with what is available in terms of running gear).
Adrian@
Edited by Adrian@ on Saturday 5th July 07:20
Adrian@ said:
TF, I got confused when you mentioned the use of the same image in a Vixen brochure (how can people reference it..does the brochure have a date?
Am I right in saying that ALL the cars should be running Herald lower wishbones.
Adrian@
My understanding Adrian is that all Grantura variants ran triumph lower wishbones as per original. The first cars which switched to a tubular TVR wishbone were the 1800s. or obviously the griffith cars…But we are talking Granturas not griffiths. It will be common I would have thought that cars in period would have had wishbones changed to the later type during crash repairs etc. I think the wishbone change generally will have happened with the chassis change.Am I right in saying that ALL the cars should be running Herald lower wishbones.
Adrian@
There are a good few however that know a good deal more than me about the earlier cars
I would think that the whole triumph / tubular wishbone issues would have more to do with credit rating and parts supply from triumph to TVR at the time than anything else !
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 07:22
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 07:27
Thurner Fan said:
By stretching the imagination and looking at the coincident timing it could be imagined, as you are doing, that 9/601, the car noted in the April 1964 MkIII 1800 homologation papers, was fitted with the newly-modified Griffith-ready chassis. But, this seems to be highly unlikely because every under-bonnet photograph or surviving example of an original unmodified/unrepaired Grantura with chassis number 9/6XX shows the tapering top engine rails and straight crossbar. If someone could produce a photo of an original round-tailed car with the later Griffith-ready chassis then that could be extremely important for owners of Appendix K prepared Kamm-tailed Granturas. Of course, if could cause problems for the owners of the round-tailed cars(!).
I have found this two pictures on the Grantura registry page.
Both chassis show the crossmember bent as used on the Griffith, the longitudinal tubes do have a smaller angel as used on the Griffith, and both cars have a chassis number starting with a 9/...
But I am not 100% sure if the chassis's are the original ones.
K.W.
Edited by Granturas on Saturday 5th July 09:30
Granturas said:
I have found this two pictures on the Grantura registry page.
Both chassis show the crossmember bent as used on the Griffith, the longitudinal tubes do have a smaller angel as used on the Griffith, and both cars have a chassis number starting with a 9/...
But I am not 100% sure if the chassis's are the original ones.
K.W.
Both look like new chassis to me..lots of detail differences to an original chassis.Both chassis show the crossmember bent as used on the Griffith, the longitudinal tubes do have a smaller angel as used on the Griffith, and both cars have a chassis number starting with a 9/...
But I am not 100% sure if the chassis's are the original ones.
K.W.
Edited by Granturas on Saturday 5th July 09:30
Granturas said:
I have found this two pictures on the Grantura registry page.
Like Heightswitch I am pretty sure that both of those race cars have been rebuilt within the past several years with new (1800S/Griffiths) chassis supplied by the single UK source. The owners may very well not have appreciated the subtle differences and many others will no doubt be in the same position.Grantura MKI said:
041 has tubular low control arms, as per original.
I am assuming here that you mean 1800S chassis 18/041? By the way, is your car a MkIII 1800S or a MkIV?Thanks for this and also to Heightswitch for his info. Both add to my understanding as I had previously thought the tubular lower wishbones were introduced with the Vixen. It is good to keep learning!
TF
Edited by Thurner Fan on Saturday 5th July 13:04
heightswitch said:
Both look like new chassis to me..lots of detail differences to an original chassis.
If you, and this is well possible are right than this means that if you find a MKIII boy and chassis with the "Griffith" chassis from new (not replaced) than it must be an original Griffith and can not be a fake if it has this chassis from new.Than the "Griffith" about which I am surching infos on my website must be an
original Griffith. It has a "Griffith" chassis and Griffith options with a MKIII body and these are no later modifications.
K.W.
Granturas said:
If you, and this is well possible are right than this means that if you find a MKIII boy and chassis with the "Griffith" chassis from new (not replaced) than it must be an original Griffith and can not be a fake if it has this chassis from new.
Than the "Griffith" about which I am surching infos on my website must be an
original Griffith. It has a "Griffith" chassis and Griffith options with a MKIII body and these are no later modifications.
K.W.
Not sure what you are trying to say?Than the "Griffith" about which I am surching infos on my website must be an
original Griffith. It has a "Griffith" chassis and Griffith options with a MKIII body and these are no later modifications.
K.W.
The first griffith had a transplanted engine and box into a chassis (which chassis that particular car had originally I don't know (probably a MK3 Grantura) The later griffiths had a re-designed chassis to allow the v8 to fit more easily.. I am assuming therefore that the very first american transplant cars will have an earlier chassis which was cut and shut.
To have a reasonable stab at what was what then you really need to examine what was happening at TVR at the time regarding transition to new owners etc etc.
The later chassis don't forget appeared in 1964 possibly a bit earlier.. Both chassis are therefor period…
The issue is whether the later chassis is period (homologated) in a Grantura rather than a Griff which has no issue with respect to the chassis type in use.
A 200 griff still had the Banjo diff at the rear and a number of other detail changes over the later 400 cars. The 400 was never homologated. The 200 was Homologated, The original Homologation papers are a confused document somewhere between a 200 and 400 but showing a 400 kamm tailed body..
The 400 was therefore accepted as a continuation of the original homologation all with the later opened out chassis. A lot of early spec grifts were converted to later spec as well. Add to all this the Fia generally not having a clue about the cars and you have the confused picture you have today.
We aren't talking about Griffiths though. we are talking about Granturas.
Griffiths are a whole lot more complex when considering the standard later chassis without even beginning to talk about body widths and chassis widths??? all of which have been buggered about with over the years..
If you have found an old MK3 body with a Griff type chassis then likely as not you have a bitsa which was created sometime after 1966 but was not original at build…Lots of TVR's would have been crashed and repaired in the mid 60's..most probably with what was lying about at the factory at the time??
My non original car is more original than most….
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 14:43
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 14:48
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 14:59
Edited by heightswitch on Sunday 6th July 08:24
heightswitch said:
Not sure what you are trying to say?
The first griffith had a transplanted engine and box into a chassis (which chassis that particular car had originally I don't know) The later griffiths had a re-designed chassis to allow the v8 to fit more easily..
To have a reasonable stab at what was what then you really need to examine what was happening at TVR at the time regarding transition to new owners etc etc.
An original 200 griff still had the Banjo diff at the rear and a number of other detail changes over the later 400 cars. The 400 was never homologated. The 200 was Homologated, The original Homologation papers are a confused document somewhere between a 200 and 400 but showing a 400 kamm tailed body..
The 400 was therefore accepted as a continuation of the original homologation all with the later opened out chassis. Add to all this the Fia generally not having a clue about the cars and you have the confused picture you have today.
We aren't talking about Griffiths though. we are talking about Granturas. Griffiths are a whole lot more complex discussing the standard later chassis without even beginning to talk about body widths and chassis widths??? all of which have been buggered about with over the years..
My non original car is more original than most….;)
N.
I am talking about this car. The first griffith had a transplanted engine and box into a chassis (which chassis that particular car had originally I don't know) The later griffiths had a re-designed chassis to allow the v8 to fit more easily..
To have a reasonable stab at what was what then you really need to examine what was happening at TVR at the time regarding transition to new owners etc etc.
An original 200 griff still had the Banjo diff at the rear and a number of other detail changes over the later 400 cars. The 400 was never homologated. The 200 was Homologated, The original Homologation papers are a confused document somewhere between a 200 and 400 but showing a 400 kamm tailed body..
The 400 was therefore accepted as a continuation of the original homologation all with the later opened out chassis. Add to all this the Fia generally not having a clue about the cars and you have the confused picture you have today.
We aren't talking about Griffiths though. we are talking about Granturas. Griffiths are a whole lot more complex discussing the standard later chassis without even beginning to talk about body widths and chassis widths??? all of which have been buggered about with over the years..
My non original car is more original than most….;)
N.
http://www.tvr-grantura.de/Meine-Grantura-Seite/Gr...
The conclusion was that if the Grantura MKIIIs do only have the standard chassis than the MKIII body with the Griffith chassis must be a Griffith.
My understanding was that we talk about TVR Grantura/Griffith chassis.
K.W.
Granturas said:
I am talking about this car.
http://www.tvr-grantura.de/Meine-Grantura-Seite/Gr...
The conclusion was that if the Grantura MKIIIs do only have the standard chassis than the MKIII body with the Griffith chassis must be a Griffith.
My understanding was that we talk about TVR Grantura/Griffith chassis.
K.W.
Its a bitza??http://www.tvr-grantura.de/Meine-Grantura-Seite/Gr...
The conclusion was that if the Grantura MKIIIs do only have the standard chassis than the MKIII body with the Griffith chassis must be a Griffith.
My understanding was that we talk about TVR Grantura/Griffith chassis.
K.W.
You have to remember that genuine registered Griffiths were finally assembled in america..TVR went bust and Martin Lilley took over with King Arthur…During this transition a few of the loyal lads kept things going. in true Blackpool style, things were robbed, pilfered and some backdoor cars built. Then Martin started building UK Griffs and Later Tuscans.
Is the car in the pics a backdoor car bult during a transitional period..Possibly..is it a genuine Griff …About as genuine as mine….Some people worry about originality…Whatever the car is..its an old TVR with its own story to tell.
The conversation isn't about whats original or not original..its about what the Fia consider to be original for a Grantura…….The 2 things aren't necessarily the same !
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 15:09
heightswitch said:
Its a bitza??
You have to remember that genuine registered Griffiths were finally assembled in america..TVR went bust and Martin Lilley took over with King Arthur…During this transition a few of the loyal lads kept things going. in true Blackpool style, things were robbed, pilfered and some backdoor cars built. Then Martin started building UK Griffs and Later Tuscans.
Is the car in the pics a backdoor car bult during a transitional period..Possibly..is it a genuine Griff …About as genuine as mine….Some people worry about originality…Whatever the car is..its an old TVR with its own story to tell.
The conversation isn't about whats original or not original..its about what the Fia consider to be original for a Grantura…….The 2 things aren't necessarily the same !
N.
I am not worried about originality, I am interested in the history of my cars.You have to remember that genuine registered Griffiths were finally assembled in america..TVR went bust and Martin Lilley took over with King Arthur…During this transition a few of the loyal lads kept things going. in true Blackpool style, things were robbed, pilfered and some backdoor cars built. Then Martin started building UK Griffs and Later Tuscans.
Is the car in the pics a backdoor car bult during a transitional period..Possibly..is it a genuine Griff …About as genuine as mine….Some people worry about originality…Whatever the car is..its an old TVR with its own story to tell.
The conversation isn't about whats original or not original..its about what the Fia consider to be original for a Grantura…….The 2 things aren't necessarily the same !
N.
Edited by heightswitch on Saturday 5th July 15:09
K.W.
in some book it says:
Griffith 200 1963-64 = 200-001 onwards
Griffith 400 1964-65 = 400-001 onwards
Griffith 400 1965 = 200/GB/5001 onwards
I guess that last one are then the home made (UK) Griffiths? named 400 but 200 number?
also some other I see:
Griffith 1966-67 = 200-001 to 200-010
Tuscan V8 1967 = 200-011 to 015 and 017 to 020 and 022 to 040
Tuscan V8 lwb 1967-68 LWB-001 to LWB-024
Tuscan V8 wide body 1968-70 MAL001-MAL021
so the first Tuscan V8 also uses the 200 chassis number.
Griffith 200 1963-64 = 200-001 onwards
Griffith 400 1964-65 = 400-001 onwards
Griffith 400 1965 = 200/GB/5001 onwards
I guess that last one are then the home made (UK) Griffiths? named 400 but 200 number?
also some other I see:
Griffith 1966-67 = 200-001 to 200-010
Tuscan V8 1967 = 200-011 to 015 and 017 to 020 and 022 to 040
Tuscan V8 lwb 1967-68 LWB-001 to LWB-024
Tuscan V8 wide body 1968-70 MAL001-MAL021
so the first Tuscan V8 also uses the 200 chassis number.
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff