Discussion
Great pics, thanks for sharing.
Phil Hooper, lovely guy, owns XPG 1 now.
Ive see the APH plate on the road test car a couple of times and unfortunately don't have much more race history. At some point soon ill start putting together a proper file on it and trace its history where possible.
Haven't raced it this year so hoping to be out next year.
Phil Hooper, lovely guy, owns XPG 1 now.
Ive see the APH plate on the road test car a couple of times and unfortunately don't have much more race history. At some point soon ill start putting together a proper file on it and trace its history where possible.
Haven't raced it this year so hoping to be out next year.
About 15 years ago the late Gerry Marshall shed some light on the early to mid 1960s racing TVRs after being contacted by the author John Baggott. Chapter 8 in the book Baggott was writing at the time, ‘MGB : The Racing Story’, was to be titled ‘Sports and GT Cars With MGB Power’. The Grantura Mark III/1800S featured heavily in this chapter and ended up having over 16 pages devoted to it.
Attached are three of those pages. I believe they are relevant to this discussion referring, as they do, to both PG1 (or XPG1 as it was later known) and APH 223B.
[sorry if the image quality isn't quite what it should be]
As you can see, Gerry’s contention was that there was only ever one out-and-out racer amongst the Gaston/Wingfield/Boothby stable and that was PG1, the lightweight racing MkIII 1800 that Gaston acquired in late 1963. According to Peter Filby’s ‘Success Against The Odds’ (p.140) this car was one of three lightweights built for the 1964 season for racers with close links to the factory, the other two going to Tommy Entwistle (TE2) and Alastair McHardy (3545 AP). As an aside, my understanding is that the only true ‘works’ MkIII Granturas were the three 1622cc cars built for the ill-fated Le Mans campaign. However, the factory did provide a select few racers with some support, mainly in the shape of David Hives' time and race car preparation expertise.
Apparently, a common practice at the time was to ‘borrow’ identities so that race cars could travel abroad complete with documents that appeared to confirm they were road registered. This allowed temporary export and so presumably avoiding import duties or similar when they returned to the UK. It appears that the chaps used the identities from their two demonstrators to temporarily re-badge PG1, which was never itself road registered.
As for the current price tag attaching to an active racing TVR Grantura MkIII (which will almost certainly be built to the MkIII 1800 spec for HTP purposes) I think it is an open question as to whether the current market would place more value on originality or performance. I am not aware of any open market transactions in the UK involving active, ready-to-race cars for many, many years. Indeed, the last potential transaction I can recall was when APH 223B was up for auction by Coys in January 2011. So, it remains to be seen what a well-prepped, Appendix K compliant, and currently active racer would fetch and whether there would be a distinction in valuation between a car with its original chassis and other structural bits and one which has been the subject of a makeover.
With regard to the car that was the original subject of this thread, any potential owner who wants to race in events run to Appendix K should do his or her homework before writing a cheque. I was recently told that, after a long period of ambiguity, the FIA have finally decided that the Kamm tail is not acceptable for a pre-66 Grantura and so certain owners of existing race cars are having to go to the expense of having the rear rebuilt to the 'round' design.
Also, whilst correct for this particular car (being an 1800S) the chassis is slightly different to the homologated spec for a MkIII or MkIII 1800, as Steve Reid frequently reminded us. However, apparently, to date, the FIA inspectors have seemed content to turn a blind eye to the slightly different configuration of the chassis rails. Finally, that bonnet might not be acceptable given that the vents on period (i.e. pre-66) race cars were much simpler affairs. The ad does say it has a fresh HTP but it doesn't specify whether this was prepared in line with homologation no. 160 (April '64 - TVR Grantura MkIII 1800) or no. 237 (July '67 - TVR MkIV 1800S). Could make a huge difference to the races it would be accepted into.
Will be interesting to see if its sells and at what price.
TF
Attached are three of those pages. I believe they are relevant to this discussion referring, as they do, to both PG1 (or XPG1 as it was later known) and APH 223B.
[sorry if the image quality isn't quite what it should be]
As you can see, Gerry’s contention was that there was only ever one out-and-out racer amongst the Gaston/Wingfield/Boothby stable and that was PG1, the lightweight racing MkIII 1800 that Gaston acquired in late 1963. According to Peter Filby’s ‘Success Against The Odds’ (p.140) this car was one of three lightweights built for the 1964 season for racers with close links to the factory, the other two going to Tommy Entwistle (TE2) and Alastair McHardy (3545 AP). As an aside, my understanding is that the only true ‘works’ MkIII Granturas were the three 1622cc cars built for the ill-fated Le Mans campaign. However, the factory did provide a select few racers with some support, mainly in the shape of David Hives' time and race car preparation expertise.
Apparently, a common practice at the time was to ‘borrow’ identities so that race cars could travel abroad complete with documents that appeared to confirm they were road registered. This allowed temporary export and so presumably avoiding import duties or similar when they returned to the UK. It appears that the chaps used the identities from their two demonstrators to temporarily re-badge PG1, which was never itself road registered.
As for the current price tag attaching to an active racing TVR Grantura MkIII (which will almost certainly be built to the MkIII 1800 spec for HTP purposes) I think it is an open question as to whether the current market would place more value on originality or performance. I am not aware of any open market transactions in the UK involving active, ready-to-race cars for many, many years. Indeed, the last potential transaction I can recall was when APH 223B was up for auction by Coys in January 2011. So, it remains to be seen what a well-prepped, Appendix K compliant, and currently active racer would fetch and whether there would be a distinction in valuation between a car with its original chassis and other structural bits and one which has been the subject of a makeover.
With regard to the car that was the original subject of this thread, any potential owner who wants to race in events run to Appendix K should do his or her homework before writing a cheque. I was recently told that, after a long period of ambiguity, the FIA have finally decided that the Kamm tail is not acceptable for a pre-66 Grantura and so certain owners of existing race cars are having to go to the expense of having the rear rebuilt to the 'round' design.
Also, whilst correct for this particular car (being an 1800S) the chassis is slightly different to the homologated spec for a MkIII or MkIII 1800, as Steve Reid frequently reminded us. However, apparently, to date, the FIA inspectors have seemed content to turn a blind eye to the slightly different configuration of the chassis rails. Finally, that bonnet might not be acceptable given that the vents on period (i.e. pre-66) race cars were much simpler affairs. The ad does say it has a fresh HTP but it doesn't specify whether this was prepared in line with homologation no. 160 (April '64 - TVR Grantura MkIII 1800) or no. 237 (July '67 - TVR MkIV 1800S). Could make a huge difference to the races it would be accepted into.
Will be interesting to see if its sells and at what price.
TF
Edited by Thurner Fan on Friday 27th November 15:41
Thurner Fan said:
About 15 years ago the late Gerry Marshall shed some light on the early to mid 1960s racing TVRs after being contacted by the author John Baggott. Chapter 8 in the book Baggott was writing at the time, ‘MGB : The Racing Story’, was to be titled ‘Sports and GT Cars With MGB Power’. The Grantura Mark III/1800S featured heavily in this chapter and ended up having over 16 pages devoted to it.
Attached are three of those pages. I believe they are relevant to this discussion referring, as they do, to both PG1 (or XPG1 as it was later known) and APH 223B.
[sorry if the image quality isn't quite what it should be]
As you can see, Gerry’s contention was that there was only ever one out-and-out racer amongst the Gaston/Wingfield/Boothby stable and that was PG1, the lightweight racing MkIII 1800 that Gaston acquired in late 1963. According to Peter Filby’s ‘Success Against The Odds’ (p.140) this car was one of three lightweights built for the 1964 season for racers with close links to the factory, the other two going to Tommy Entwistle (TE2) and Alastair McHardy (3545 AP). As an aside, my understanding is that the only true ‘works’ MkIII Granturas were the three 1622cc cars built for the ill-fated Le Mans campaign. However, the factory did provide a select few racers with some support, mainly in the shape of David Hives' time and race car preparation expertise.
Apparently, a common practice at the time was to ‘borrow’ identities so that race cars could travel abroad complete with documents that appeared to confirm they were road registered. This allowed temporary export and so presumably avoiding import duties or similar when they returned to the UK. It appears that the chaps used the identities from their two demonstrators to temporarily re-badge PG1, which was never itself road registered.
As for the current price tag attaching to an active racing TVR Grantura MkIII (which will almost certainly be built to the MkIII 1800 spec for HTP purposes) I think it is an open question as to whether the current market would place more value on originality or performance. I am not aware of any open market transactions in the UK involving active, ready-to-race cars for many, many years. Indeed, the last potential transaction I can recall was when APH 223B was up for auction by Coys in January 2011. So, it remains to be seen what a well-prepped, Appendix K compliant, and currently active racer would fetch and whether there would be a distinction in valuation between a car with its original chassis and other structural bits and one which has been the subject of a makeover.
With regard to the car that was the original subject of this thread, any potential owner who wants to race in events run to Appendix K should do his or her homework before writing a cheque. I was recently told that, after a long period of ambiguity, the FIA have finally decided that the Kamm tail is not acceptable for a pre-66 Grantura and so certain owners of existing race cars are having to go to the expense of having the rear rebuilt to the 'round' design.
Also, whilst correct for this particular car (being an 1800S) the chassis is slightly different to the homologated spec for a MkII or MkIII 1800, as Steve Reid frequently reminded us. However, apparently, to date, the FIA inspectors have seemed content to turn a blind eye to the slightly different configuration of the chassis rails. Finally, that bonnet might not be acceptable given that the vents on period (i.e. pre-66) race cars were much simpler affairs. The ad does say it has a fresh HTP but it doesn't specify whether this was prepared in line with homologation no. 160 (April '64 - TVR Grantura MkIII 1800) or no. 237 (July '67 - TVR MkIV 1800S). Could make a huge difference to the races it would be accepted into.
Will be interesting to see if its sells and at what price.
TF
That looks a good book and well worth the read..Answers a good few questions…Attached are three of those pages. I believe they are relevant to this discussion referring, as they do, to both PG1 (or XPG1 as it was later known) and APH 223B.
[sorry if the image quality isn't quite what it should be]
As you can see, Gerry’s contention was that there was only ever one out-and-out racer amongst the Gaston/Wingfield/Boothby stable and that was PG1, the lightweight racing MkIII 1800 that Gaston acquired in late 1963. According to Peter Filby’s ‘Success Against The Odds’ (p.140) this car was one of three lightweights built for the 1964 season for racers with close links to the factory, the other two going to Tommy Entwistle (TE2) and Alastair McHardy (3545 AP). As an aside, my understanding is that the only true ‘works’ MkIII Granturas were the three 1622cc cars built for the ill-fated Le Mans campaign. However, the factory did provide a select few racers with some support, mainly in the shape of David Hives' time and race car preparation expertise.
Apparently, a common practice at the time was to ‘borrow’ identities so that race cars could travel abroad complete with documents that appeared to confirm they were road registered. This allowed temporary export and so presumably avoiding import duties or similar when they returned to the UK. It appears that the chaps used the identities from their two demonstrators to temporarily re-badge PG1, which was never itself road registered.
As for the current price tag attaching to an active racing TVR Grantura MkIII (which will almost certainly be built to the MkIII 1800 spec for HTP purposes) I think it is an open question as to whether the current market would place more value on originality or performance. I am not aware of any open market transactions in the UK involving active, ready-to-race cars for many, many years. Indeed, the last potential transaction I can recall was when APH 223B was up for auction by Coys in January 2011. So, it remains to be seen what a well-prepped, Appendix K compliant, and currently active racer would fetch and whether there would be a distinction in valuation between a car with its original chassis and other structural bits and one which has been the subject of a makeover.
With regard to the car that was the original subject of this thread, any potential owner who wants to race in events run to Appendix K should do his or her homework before writing a cheque. I was recently told that, after a long period of ambiguity, the FIA have finally decided that the Kamm tail is not acceptable for a pre-66 Grantura and so certain owners of existing race cars are having to go to the expense of having the rear rebuilt to the 'round' design.
Also, whilst correct for this particular car (being an 1800S) the chassis is slightly different to the homologated spec for a MkII or MkIII 1800, as Steve Reid frequently reminded us. However, apparently, to date, the FIA inspectors have seemed content to turn a blind eye to the slightly different configuration of the chassis rails. Finally, that bonnet might not be acceptable given that the vents on period (i.e. pre-66) race cars were much simpler affairs. The ad does say it has a fresh HTP but it doesn't specify whether this was prepared in line with homologation no. 160 (April '64 - TVR Grantura MkIII 1800) or no. 237 (July '67 - TVR MkIV 1800S). Could make a huge difference to the races it would be accepted into.
Will be interesting to see if its sells and at what price.
TF
Steve is a big miss…A lot of very accurate historic information was lost with his passing.. The chassis details were certainly indisputable….I have seen the original factory drawings which prove this…I dare say a few relieved TVR owners can sleep soundly knowing the eligibility scrutineers are not too bothered about historic detail… seems a bit strange that a hooky chassis is allowed but a rear body shell offering no advantage needs changing….Must be a few muppets making those decisions!!
N.
Comparison of the rear view in the 1964 Gaston ad with the Eau Rouge photo (May '64) does suggest we are looking at two different cars. There are 3 rear lights rather than two and possibly a different position for the fuel filler cap. If anyone can scan in a higher quality version of the Autosport ad that would be useful.
There is also a front end shot from the Nürburgring 1000 km in 1964 that shows the three bonnet vents that PG1 had but which aren't seen on the car in the Gaston ad.
TF
I must get a copy of the MGB book - it would be interesting to find out the race details of EFR and APH. It's often difficult to identify cars but most of the photos of Gaston / Wingfield car look like the factory lightweight X PG 1.
Interesting that Peter Simpson also owned APH - I think he also raced the Ex Research Garage Chris Summer Mk2 1886 UE and a Griffith.
Rob
Interesting that Peter Simpson also owned APH - I think he also raced the Ex Research Garage Chris Summer Mk2 1886 UE and a Griffith.
Rob
Thurner Fan said:
Comparison of the rear view in the 1964 Gaston ad with the Eau Rouge photo (May '64) does suggest we are looking at two different cars. There are 3 rear lights rather than two and possibly a different position for the fuel filler cap. If anyone can scan in a higher quality version of the Autosport ad that would be useful.
There is also a front end shot from the Nürburgring 1000 km in 1964 that shows the three bonnet vents that PG1 had but which aren't seen on the car in the Gaston ad.
TF
http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1964/Nurburg...
Obiwonkeyblokey said:
the rear view of the car in the 1964 race would suggest its the same race car as you have pictured above.
http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1964/Nurburg...
Yes, I agree. There's no doubt it is the same race car in the two pictures. The Nürburgring race took place just a fortnight after the Spa race so it is plausible that Paddy went across to do both events as part of one trip.http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1964/Nurburg...
But, based on the info given by Gerry Marshall to John Baggott it seems that the car we are looking at is almost certainly PG1 (or X PG1 as it was later known). This was Paddy's out-and-out racer but, as discussed earlier in this thread, it wore another car's number plates when raced abroad.
If you go here https://revslib.stanford.edu/catalog/vc594gd9314 and pick up the Spa photo that Rob Mk2A posted you can zoom in to get a front view of the car at the top of Eau Rouge.
TF
Edited by Thurner Fan on Friday 27th November 15:40
Edited by Thurner Fan on Friday 27th November 15:43
https://purl.stanford.edu/cz360mc8982
If you zoom in on the Silverstone Relay photo from Aug 1964 you will see Paddy Gaston's car 2A is registered PG 1.
It has the same single wiper and side exhaust as the earlier may 1964 Spa photo - the only difference appears to be some sort of vent or catch on the bonnet. In Filby's success against the odds book page 80 Guards Brand Hatch July 1964 it looks as though the catch or vent is on the car now registered APH 223B. Filby's photo shows Tommy Entwistle's Mk3 TE2 with a similar vents in the bonnet.
Unless the cars were identical it seems that the swapping of numbers plates seems very likely.
Rob
If you zoom in on the Silverstone Relay photo from Aug 1964 you will see Paddy Gaston's car 2A is registered PG 1.
It has the same single wiper and side exhaust as the earlier may 1964 Spa photo - the only difference appears to be some sort of vent or catch on the bonnet. In Filby's success against the odds book page 80 Guards Brand Hatch July 1964 it looks as though the catch or vent is on the car now registered APH 223B. Filby's photo shows Tommy Entwistle's Mk3 TE2 with a similar vents in the bonnet.
Unless the cars were identical it seems that the swapping of numbers plates seems very likely.
Rob
Edited by RobMk2a on Friday 27th November 17:38
Just another vote for John Baggott's "MGB The racing story". I was put onto it by another TVR owner, and it is worth it just for the 16 pages on TVR racing. The MGB pages are good, and it also covers Elva, Ginetta, Gilbern, and WSM which are fascinating stories too. I refer back to it quite regularly and always find something interesting, Baggott's research into the history of the cars and drivers is extremely deep.
Oliver.
Oliver.
Thurner Fan said:
the FIA have finally decided that the Kamm tail is not acceptable for a pre-66 Grantura and so certain owners of existing race cars are having to go to the expense of having the rear rebuilt to the 'round' design.
The ad does say it has a fresh HTP but it doesn't specify whether this was prepared in line with homologation no. 160 (April '64 - TVR Grantura MkIII 1800) or no. 237 (July '67 - TVR MkIV 1800S). Could make a huge difference to the races it would be accepted into.
Or not. As an owner of a kamm tailed MKIII 1800 with HTP, I have no intention of cutting the rear end off an original car to replace it with an earlier rear end just because some berk at the FIA believes that TVR were racing cars in 1965 with a body that they had not produced for over a year. To then be told to replace the perfectly good chassis as well when there is so much cheating going on which is not policed is just stupid. Maybe I should just drop a 289 SBF into it as it would then comply as a Griffith......The ad does say it has a fresh HTP but it doesn't specify whether this was prepared in line with homologation no. 160 (April '64 - TVR Grantura MkIII 1800) or no. 237 (July '67 - TVR MkIV 1800S). Could make a huge difference to the races it would be accepted into.
Edited by Thurner Fan on Friday 27th November 15:41
As I said I'd like to have a look at the papers, as if the car in question is indeed GTS11, it rather drives a coach and horses through your argument TF.
Neil I agree with your point about the FIA money grab for new papers, bringing the whole thing into disrepute. Many of us here and abroad are not bothering to get our papers renewed and race organisers are waking up to the impact the FIA's games are starting to have on their grids. There is a lot to be said for Swinging 60s and similar but I am afraid if you want to race at the big historic meetings in Europe such as Oldtimer GP, L'Age D'Or and Zandvoort Historic Grand Prix you need HTP - at the moment - and you are unlikely to go back to 15 minutes of point and squirt at a wet and windy Snetterton once you have done these
Fiscracer said:
As I said I'd like to have a look at the papers, as if the car in question is indeed GTS11, it rather drives a coach and horses through your argument TF.
Sorry if I have given the wrong impression. I wasn't intending to appear to be putting forward any argument, just reflecting what I had heard earlier this year from paddock contacts. Quite prepared to believe and would not be at all surprised if different FIA or MSA scrutineers have been saying and enforcing different things. Nothing new there.If you look back through my posts on this subject I think you will see that I am as anti- the FIA's inconsistent and ridiculously inefficient meddling as you are and I feel sorry for all those owners of proper cars that keep getting frustrating mixed messages.
It was Mark Ashworth's red Grantura that I had heard was having to have a new rear. That was back in the first half of the year so maybe there was a change of plan, but I haven't seen it out recently to check.
TF
its all a little bit silly really…It should be just about what it actually is…mostly a load of old middle age blokes having fun.
I just enjoy racing my old car in the company of other like minded people…I dare say when I collect enough signatures I will get out to Spa. Other than that I am happy racing with similar folk, with similar budgets and aspirations and having fun. If more were like me then I dare say we would have less cashing in and organisations making rules which only serve to swell the cash registers of the Fia. This whole pre-66 stuff seems a farce anyhow.. I guess some people forget that its about having fun. I like racing my car because it is actually OLD. rather than just looking old!!
To my mind all kamn tailed cars are 1800s and have the 1800s / Griff type chassis.. all MK3 Granturas have the beetle back and should have the straight tube chassis.. Like everything TVR people seem to forget that during this period the company had its doors closed more than they were open and many many oddball things went on…it was only really after Arthur and martin took over that some semblance of Normality descended!!
N.
I just enjoy racing my old car in the company of other like minded people…I dare say when I collect enough signatures I will get out to Spa. Other than that I am happy racing with similar folk, with similar budgets and aspirations and having fun. If more were like me then I dare say we would have less cashing in and organisations making rules which only serve to swell the cash registers of the Fia. This whole pre-66 stuff seems a farce anyhow.. I guess some people forget that its about having fun. I like racing my car because it is actually OLD. rather than just looking old!!
To my mind all kamn tailed cars are 1800s and have the 1800s / Griff type chassis.. all MK3 Granturas have the beetle back and should have the straight tube chassis.. Like everything TVR people seem to forget that during this period the company had its doors closed more than they were open and many many oddball things went on…it was only really after Arthur and martin took over that some semblance of Normality descended!!
N.
Edited by Dollyman1850 on Sunday 29th November 01:03
I need to go back through my notes but I believe Tommy Entwistle stating racing this 1800s shaped Mk3 from May 1965 onwards. It looks as though the previous round tailed car was crashed a Crstal Palace at the end of the 64 season.
Rob
Edited by RobMk2a on Sunday 29th November 09:15
Edited by RobMk2a on Sunday 29th November 09:16
RobMk2a said:
I need to go back through my notes but I believe Tommy Entwistle stating racing this 1800s shaped Mk3 from May 1965 onwards. It looks as though the previous round tailed car was crashed a Crstal Palace at the end of the 64 season.
Rob
Edited by RobMk2a on Sunday 29th November 09:15
Edited by RobMk2a on Sunday 29th November 09:16
te!! You would think they would just be happy for a comparatively old rare car to be racing for all to see.N.
alphaone said:
Thurner Fan - thanks for posting the scans of the book, just got my hands on a copy, its a really good read - cheers
Yes, it is a surprisingly good treasure trove on '60s TVRs and other marques, even if you aren't that interested in MGBs themselves!TF
Edited by Thurner Fan on Monday 30th November 23:59
Fiscracer said:
The Ashworth car has indeed got a new chassis and a new lightweight ... early Mk3 body.
In that case, I think most reasonable people would conclude that the car discussed in this earlier threadhttp://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
no longer exists, not even as a ship of Thesus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus).
TF
Fiscracer said:
The Ashworth car has indeed got a new chassis and a new lightweight ... early Mk3 body.
In that case, I think most reasonable people would conclude that the car discussed in this earlier threadhttp://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
no longer exists, not even as a ship of Thesus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus).
TF
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff