Discussion
shoestring7 said:
It is.
If the engine in Piper's car was in track worthy condition, then it would take more than 9,000rpm for damage to the valve train, and I would expect to be reading that the over-rev indicted by the tell-tale was "at least 9,XXX rpm'.
If the engine really wasn't safe at more than 7,000 and a bit, then it seems clear it either had a pre-existing problem or was overdue a rebuild.
SS7
Who said it wasnt safe at more than 7,000 and a bit?If the engine in Piper's car was in track worthy condition, then it would take more than 9,000rpm for damage to the valve train, and I would expect to be reading that the over-rev indicted by the tell-tale was "at least 9,XXX rpm'.
If the engine really wasn't safe at more than 7,000 and a bit, then it seems clear it either had a pre-existing problem or was overdue a rebuild.
SS7
There was a limit put on it by the owner, makes no difference whether it was 3,000 or 8,000
As it was Hales over revved it sufficiently to break it. And seeing as he went to court to avoid p[aying the rebuid costs I imagine he may have attemopted to use any poor preperation or thoughts the engine was on its last legs as part of his defence, but he didnt
There has been no suggestion, apart from a few ill informed posts on here that the car was poorly prepared or that the engine was about to go bang anyway
shoestring7 said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
my memory might be letting me down
It is. If the engine in Piper's car was in track worthy condition, then it would take more than 9,000rpm for damage to the valve train, and I would expect to be reading that the over-rev indicted by the tell-tale was "at least 9,XXX rpm'.
If the engine really wasn't safe at more than 7,000 and a bit, then it seems clear it either had a pre-existing problem or was overdue a rebuild.
SS7
if the factory couldn't do it in period with all their funding at the sharp end of competition i fail to see why you expect it to be so 40 years down the line & by some blokes in a lock-up.
i reiterate my point that you seem to have taken exception to, no period 917 went past 8400 revs without bending at least its valves.
peak power was produced just below this-the faster they wanted the cars to go didn't involve increasing revs or power but simply meant altering the final drive & getting as close to the danger zone as possible (until they discovered the benefits of turbos & easy extra power of course)
freedman said:
Who said it wasnt safe at more than 7,000 and a bit?
There was a limit put on it by the owner, makes no difference whether it was 3,000 or 8,000
again, while people keep spouting bullsThere was a limit put on it by the owner, makes no difference whether it was 3,000 or 8,000
t i'll keep making the point, as freedman has, that this is all that matters.shoestring7 said:
If the engine really wasn't safe at more than 7,000 and a bit, then it seems clear it either had a pre-existing problem or was overdue a rebuild.
Mechanically forcing an engine to hit 8200 rpm by mis-shifting puts substantially different forces on the internals than running it up to 8200rpm by its normal combustion process - it doesn't mean it had a problem or was due a rebuild.Ahonen said:
But I would bet reasonable money that the car did no mileage in that time. I've had an involvement in classic racing for a few years and a 917 appearance remains fairly rare - only Juan Barazi used his with any regularity.
As I posted earlier, Piper raced the car at Val de Vienne in June last year.LaurasOtherHalf said:
There was a limit put on it by the owner, makes no difference whether it was 3,000 or 8,000
again, while people keep spouting bullst i'll keep making the point, as freedman has, that this is all that matters.Of course the owner is free to choose any limit he likes, but exceeding an arbitrary limit doesn't make the engine go bang. It's going beyond a known limit that does that.
I'm not defending anyone here (as you both seem so very sensitive), indeed I like to think myself as both pro Hales and Piper as both are something of a legend (Piper especially so imo).
heebeegeetee said:
The more likely explanation is that the engine was revved substantially beyond that, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
There doesn't have to be. The court judgement said at least 8200 rpm, it could have been much more but the exact engine speed was (and is) irrelevant, provided it was in excess of the agreed limit.heebeegeetee said:
Which I don't particularly buy.
The more likely explanation is that the engine was revved substantially beyond that, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
The more likely explanation is that the engine was revved substantially beyond that, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
you don't have to buy anything, the judge in the case had to & he went with his decision
i can see how some of my posts might sound a bit sharp on this subject but the amount of utter bulls
t that has been posted is beyond a joke! 
i'd suggest to read up on what a 917 was like in period but i guess it doesn't make any difference.
the arguments regarding the rev limit of DP's car are mute, not relevent & completely beside the point. people arguing that it should have been able to rev to a certain limit make about as much sense as saying "well my honda motorbike revs to 12k & so should this 917", it really is that much of an irrelevant statement.
DP set the rev limit on his car, MH broke that limit in error, MH refused to pay to repair his damage after he found he had insuficiant insurance cover & DP took exception to that & went after him in court.
if the rev limit set by DP was so unreasonable then why on earth did MH hire the bloody car off him?
as much as i respect MH as a writer he only has himself to blame for all of this & as far as i can see DP has done absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever.
all of the above facts are undisputed, i've no idea why people try & claim otherwise
LaurasOtherHalf said:
you don't have to buy anything, the judge in the case had to & he went with his decision
i can see how some of my posts might sound a bit sharp on this subject but the amount of utter bulls
t that has been posted is beyond a joke! i'd suggest to read up on what a 917 was like in period but i guess it doesn't make any difference.
the arguments regarding the rev limit of DP's car are mute, not relevent & completely beside the point. people arguing that it should have been able to rev to a certain limit make about as much sense as saying "well my honda motorbike revs to 12k & so should this 917", it really is that much of an irrelevant statement.
DP set the rev limit on his car, MH broke that limit in error, MH refused to pay to repair his damage after he found he had insuficiant insurance cover & DP took exception to that & went after him in court.
if the rev limit set by DP was so unreasonable then why on earth did MH hire the bloody car off him?
as much as i respect MH as a writer he only has himself to blame for all of this & as far as i can see DP has done absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever.
all of the above facts are undisputed, i've no idea why people try & claim otherwise
I don't know why people are taking such polarised views about others they don't know but I guess that's life. If I've said anything that dents your worship of an old racer then I'm sorry but I'm entitled to express my thoughts.
It's also nice that people have such absolute faith in the British judicial system, bit it beggars belief how anyone who has eyes and ears can do so, but again I guess that's life.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
shoestring7 said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
my memory might be letting me down
It is. If the engine in Piper's car was in track worthy condition, then it would take more than 9,000rpm for damage to the valve train, and I would expect to be reading that the over-rev indicated by the tell-tale was "at least 9,XXX rpm'.
If the engine really wasn't safe at more than 7,000 and a bit, then it seems clear it either had a pre-existing problem or was overdue a rebuild.
SS7
if the factory couldn't do it in period with all their funding at the sharp end of competition i fail to see why you expect it to be so 40 years down the line & by some blokes in a lock-up.
i reiterate my point that you seem to have taken exception to, no period 917 went past 8400 revs without bending at least its valves.
peak power was produced just below this-the faster they wanted the cars to go didn't involve increasing revs or power but simply meant altering the final drive & getting as close to the danger zone as possible (until they discovered the benefits of turbos & easy extra power of course)
freedman said:
Who said it wasnt safe at more than 7,000 and a bit?
There was a limit put on it by the owner, makes no difference whether it was 3,000 or 8,000
again, while people keep spouting bullsThere was a limit put on it by the owner, makes no difference whether it was 3,000 or 8,000
t i'll keep making the point, as freedman has, that this is all that matters.Page 221 "Ready for Monza.....was the 4.9l version of the engine...which lifted power from 580bhp to 600bhp at 8,400rpm".
Page 244 " The peak power of the engine was developed at 8,400rpm and in racing we regularly used 8,700/8,800. The rev-limiters were usually set at this speed but were not completely reliable and if the driver missed a gear did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200 rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broke camshaft... We lost several engines as a result".
As I said, you are wrong; a healthy 917 engine should be quite comfortable at 8,200rpm.
SS7
- Do you want me to remind you who he was?
10 Pence Short said:
Mark Hales could have used expert evidence to contradict the assertion that his actions caused the damage.
That would have been tricky after his statement to the insurance company.The *biggest* puzzle of all is why he allowed it to go to court, but remind me how he described his mistakes... do I recall his use of the word 'catastrophic', or have I got that wrong? (Genuinely can't remember).
shoestring7 said:
From John Wyer's* "The Certain Sound":
Page 221 "Ready for Monza.....was the 4.9l version of the engine...which lifted power from 580bhp to 600bhp at 8,400rpm".
Page 244 " The peak power of the engine was developed at 8,400rpm and in racing we regularly used 8,700/8,800. The rev-limiters were usually set at this speed but were not completely reliable and if the driver missed a gear did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200 rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broke camshaft... We lost several engines as a result".
As I said, you are wrong; a healthy 917 engine should be quite comfortable at 8,200rpm.
SS7
You have no idea what the engine in this case was revved to, do youPage 221 "Ready for Monza.....was the 4.9l version of the engine...which lifted power from 580bhp to 600bhp at 8,400rpm".
Page 244 " The peak power of the engine was developed at 8,400rpm and in racing we regularly used 8,700/8,800. The rev-limiters were usually set at this speed but were not completely reliable and if the driver missed a gear did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200 rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broke camshaft... We lost several engines as a result".
As I said, you are wrong; a healthy 917 engine should be quite comfortable at 8,200rpm.
SS7
- Do you want me to remind you who he was?
And yet againare making veiled insinuations about the state of the engine without any foundation whatsoever.
Hales has never made any such assertion, so no idea why you are
Also worth remembering that racing engines, when new have a very short shelf life. Rebuild every few hours ( every few minutes for a turbo'd 80s f1 engine)
Fast forward 40 years and the owner would want h engine to last the whole season. Hence the deliberately low rev limit. It seems obvious me
Strip everything away, he was asked to keep to an agreement and he didn't. This is the result. I wouldn't lend anyone my car if they brought it back saying "yeah mate, I know you asked me to keep the limit down, but for years ago the semi-Works team used more, so I ignored you and went with them.
If a quikfit mechanic did this, we'd all be on the side of the owner and saying sue them, ged office etc etc
Fast forward 40 years and the owner would want h engine to last the whole season. Hence the deliberately low rev limit. It seems obvious me
Strip everything away, he was asked to keep to an agreement and he didn't. This is the result. I wouldn't lend anyone my car if they brought it back saying "yeah mate, I know you asked me to keep the limit down, but for years ago the semi-Works team used more, so I ignored you and went with them.
If a quikfit mechanic did this, we'd all be on the side of the owner and saying sue them, ged office etc etc
williamp said:
Strip everything away, he was asked to keep to an agreement and he didn't. This is the result. I wouldn't lend anyone my car if they brought it back saying "yeah mate, I know you asked me to keep the limit down, but for years ago the semi-Works team used more, so I ignored you and went with them.
That isn't what happened and you know it, so why waste your time? What happened on the day was that one of the very most experienced and skilled members of the historic racing community made a mistake when at the wheel of a car that is known to be tricky to handle. shoestring7 said:
From John Wyer's* "The Certain Sound":
Page 221 "Ready for Monza.....was the 4.9l version of the engine...which lifted power from 580bhp to 600bhp at 8,400rpm".
Page 244 " The peak power of the engine was developed at 8,400rpm and in racing we regularly used 8,700/8,800. The rev-limiters were usually set at this speed but were not completely reliable and if the driver missed a gear did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200 rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broke camshaft... We lost several engines as a result".
As I said, you are wrong; a healthy 917 engine should be quite comfortable at 8,200rpm.
SS7
No need, I think I've heard of him Page 221 "Ready for Monza.....was the 4.9l version of the engine...which lifted power from 580bhp to 600bhp at 8,400rpm".
Page 244 " The peak power of the engine was developed at 8,400rpm and in racing we regularly used 8,700/8,800. The rev-limiters were usually set at this speed but were not completely reliable and if the driver missed a gear did not act quickly enough to prevent damage. The trouble was that at 9,200 rpm the valves touched the pistons which almost invariably resulted in a broke camshaft... We lost several engines as a result".
As I said, you are wrong; a healthy 917 engine should be quite comfortable at 8,200rpm.
SS7
- Do you want me to remind you who he was?
in fact I've got his timing sheets for the 71 cars in front of me. Peek power at 8400, shift up at 8500 (for both Spa & Le Mans) Where I was mistaken as you say was at what revs they would push through but no where can I find (including your quote) that at any time did drivers use up to 9k revs?! Dickie Attwood has said on more than a few occasions they were allowed to push through the 8500 change up point in top to eek out the last few mph but I can't find the quote at the moment, but this wasn't revving the thing up through the gears.But, & I make this point again, this has no bearing on DP's car in the test.
heebeegeetee said:
freedman said:
I refer you to GreigM's post above
Which I don't particularly buy. The more likely explanation is that the engine was revved substantially beyond that, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.
To some extent the revs reached are irrelevant - you can easily break an engine dumping the clutch from a standstill while keeping everything substantially under the rev "limit".
Here is how I see this.
Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
Mark drove the car as part of an article for magazine he was working for. THEY held the insurance - not Mark.
Mark complained that the car had gear linkage issues where it was likely to jump out of one of them. The mechanic said it was OK and normal, but be careful with it. (It wasn't normal in my opinion - it was piss poor prep)
The car did jump out of gear/missed a downchange, and "over-revved" (to 8200 which was well under the 8700 that they ran to in 'real' race trim).
The engine failed.
The Insurance refused to cough up for the failure as reported - so they "adjusted" what happened from a plain "it blew up" to a "driver error" ,hoping the insurance company would cough up, nope, they walked, leaving Mark Hales to bear the brunt of any claim on his Jack Jones.
The rest is a bitter and twisted court case instigated by David Piper, who was able to use the "change of story" to his advantage as it painted Mark Hales as an unreliable witness.
And here we have some other matters - the car is a REPLICA of what it's supposed to be.
Since the "incident" the engine has been rebuilt and the car sold for over £1.3M when in reality it was probably only worth £900K due to the engine being *shagged*. So it made £400K more than it would have done before the incident. And the rebuild allegedly cost £40K.
Mark Hales is expected to pay £120K for "blowing up" something that was waiting to die, which cost 1/3rd of that cost to rebuild.
It stinks.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff