RE: Reborn Stratos: New Pics And Details Revealed

[nav18tor]

That is the best looking car I have seen in years, and a great tribute to the original

If I had won the lottery yesterday, I would want to be first in the queue to buy one

[joz8968]

Best buy an original Clio V6 230 and start 'practicing'...

[Mini1275]

Front = No
Rear = Yes!.

Something isn't quite right at the front

[shantybeater]

love it!! i want one!

[funwithrevs]

nc107 said:

funwithrevs said:

The Stratos had to be a production car to be allowed to race. Lancia were the first to have the cheek to ask just how many cars makes a production run, and they were told 500 so that was their production target. Part way through the build they were told 400 would do, so they never got to 500.

Urban myth I'm afraid. The requirement to build XXX production cars to be eligable for Category A racing (under which Groups 1-5 appeared at the time)has been an FIA requirement from way back. In 1966 for Group 3 under which rally cars were homolgated the requirement was for 500 (cars such as the Fulvia, Alpine-Renault, Porsche were all homolgated under this requirement). Group 4 was for sportscars and the requirement was for 25. In 1970 in a re-jig of the Group system, the previous Group 3 cars were moved into a new Group 4 with an increase in required production numbers from 25 to 500.

The requirement for 500 (built in 12 consecutive months!) had been there since this rule change in 1970 and Lancia would have been well aware of that. The fact that they produced less than that was just the way pretty much everyone "complied" with the regs.

That said it is certainly the first rally homolgation special, and hence bound, on the road, by the compromises that made it such a successful weapon, although Messers Waldergard and Darniche (maybe even Franz Wurz who had a succesful rallycross career in one) could legitimately contest the view that only Munari knew how to drive one fast.

An interesting take on a common story, thanks!
I also heard the story that they weren't quite sure how many they made as their record keeping wasn't exactly great at the time. I find that hard to believe when all you have to do is count chassis numbers

[funwithrevs]

joz8968 said:

Best buy an original Clio V6 230 and start 'practicing'...

Probably a little under powered and tame

Perhaps this 250BHP Hawk:

http://www.stratossupersite.com/forum/showthread.p...


or a 290BHP Corse:

http://www.stratossupersite.com/forum/showthread.p...

[abarth130]

I recall reading a story about the production numbers years ago in Classic & Sportscar.

Allegedly, when the FIA came along to check they had made enough of them for homologation, the Lancia chaps took the FIA guys into a warehouse and showed them 200-odd chassis. They then took them for a typically Italian boozy lunch for a few hours whilst Lancia personnel moved all the cars they'd just seen into another warehouse. After lunch, they took the FIA chaps to the second warehouse and they left satisfied that enough had been built/were to be built.

True or false? I like to think its true.

[joz8968]

Must... have... that... car... here... and... now...

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 19th August 13:33

[joz8968]

abarth130 said:

I recall reading a story about the production numbers years ago in Classic & Sportscar.

Allegedly, when the FIA came along to check they had made enough of them for homologation, the Lancia chaps took the FIA guys into a warehouse and showed them 200-odd chassis. They then took them for a typically Italian boozy lunch for a few hours whilst Lancia personnel moved all the cars they'd just seen into another warehouse. After lunch, they took the FIA chaps to the second warehouse and they left satisfied that enough had been built/were to be built.

True or false? I like to think its true.

It was Austin Rover and the Metro 6R4 that, allegedly, happened to - not Lancia and the Stratos.

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 19th August 13:42

[abarth130]

joz8968 said:

abarth130 said:

I recall reading a story about the production numbers years ago in Classic & Sportscar.

Allegedly, when the FIA came along to check they had made enough of them for homologation, the Lancia chaps took the FIA guys into a warehouse and showed them 200-odd chassis. They then took them for a typically Italian boozy lunch for a few hours whilst Lancia personnel moved all the cars they'd just seen into another warehouse. After lunch, they took the FIA chaps to the second warehouse and they left satisfied that enough had been built/were to be built.

True or false? I like to think its true.

It was the Metro 6R4 that, allegedly, happened to - not the Stratos.

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 19th August 13:36

Oops. It sounded a very 'Italian' kinda approach, but wouldn't put it past BL/Austin Rover at the time too!!

[joz8968]

abarth130 said:

...Oops. It sounded a very 'Italian' kinda approach, but wouldn't put it past BL/Austin Rover at the time too!!

Agreed. And agreed. lol

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 19th August 13:43

[nc107]

I think it was common practice at the time (and even later way into Group B) to provide "imaginative" evidence of compliance; and the FIA reciprocated by excepting the "evidence" - either because they couldn't be bothered to investigate or they placed getting more cars into championships above production compliance.

As a for instance the Fulvia 1.6HF (Fanalone) was officially homologated in April 1969, at which point they were supposed to have produced 500 examples. It was winning WC rallies outright by the end of 1969. Now they did eventually produce 500 examples but not until early 1970, in fact it is doubtful that they had made more than a couple of dozen complete cars at the point of homologation. Chassis plates however.......

The Stratos' homologation was no different - custom and practice as they say!

There is the famous example of where they went after Porsche on the 917 which prompted Dr Porsche to line up the requisite 25 917's outside the factory and invite the FIA for a test drive, so some abided by the rules.

[GTRene]

I'm glad they fixed the side windows in this new Stratos...

the old car is beautiful but not with those side-windows half open...its a laugh, looks like something broke what you get sometimes in old cars, you want to wind down the window and one side drops out the rail

the new one is normal

[aeropilot]

nc107 said:

funwithrevs said:

The Stratos had to be a production car to be allowed to race. Lancia were the first to have the cheek to ask just how many cars makes a production run, and they were told 500 so that was their production target. Part way through the build they were told 400 would do, so they never got to 500.

Urban myth I'm afraid. The requirement to build XXX production cars to be eligable for Category A racing (under which Groups 1-5 appeared at the time)has been an FIA requirement from way back. In 1966 for Group 3 under which rally cars were homolgated the requirement was for 500 (cars such as the Fulvia, Alpine-Renault, Porsche were all homolgated under this requirement). Group 4 was for sportscars and the requirement was for 25. In 1970 in a re-jig of the Group system, the previous Group 3 cars were moved into a new Group 4 with an increase in required production numbers from 25 to 500.

The requirement for 500 (built in 12 consecutive months!) had been there since this rule change in 1970 and Lancia would have been well aware of that. The fact that they produced less than that was just the way pretty much everyone "complied" with the regs.

That said it is certainly the first rally homolgation special, and hence bound, on the road, by the compromises that made it such a successful weapon, although Messers Waldergard and Darniche (maybe even Franz Wurz who had a succesful rallycross career in one) could legitimately contest the view that only Munari knew how to drive one fast.

First in that Lancia persevered with it, in part because they had to as the Fulvia's were no longer competitive, whereas at the same time Ford were designing the similar GT70, but found that the GT70 didn't offer any significant advantage over the already highly competitive Escort TC/RS.

[joz8968]

nc107 said:

I think it was common practice at the time (and even later way into Group B) to provide "imaginative" evidence of compliance; and the FIA reciprocated by excepting the "evidence" - either because they couldn't be bothered to investigate or they placed getting more cars into championships above production compliance.

As a for instance the Fulvia 1.6HF (Fanalone) was officially homologated in April 1969, at which point they were supposed to have produced 500 examples. It was winning WC rallies outright by the end of 1969. Now they did eventually produce 500 examples but not until early 1970, in fact it is doubtful that they had made more than a couple of dozen complete cars at the point of homologation. Chassis plates however.......

The Stratos' homologation was no different - custom and practice as they say!

There is the famous example of where they went after Porsche on the 917 which prompted Dr Porsche to line up the requisite 25 917's outside the factory and invite the FIA for a test drive, so some abided by the rules.

Totally.

But that Austin Rover/6R4 story is a beautiful anecdote - I really dig the 'improvisation' (read 'blagging ingenuity' lol) on the part of BL/AR...

Edited by joz8968 on Thursday 19th August 14:13

[nc107]

aeropilot said:

First in that Lancia persevered with it, in part because they had to as the Fulvia's were no longer competitive, whereas at the same time Ford were designing the similar GT70, but found that the GT70 didn't offer any significant advantage over the already highly competitive Escort TC/RS.

That's a fair point. In many ways the Escort RS was a halfway house "special" as although it used a standard (loose definition) shell the engine was a purpose built top down designed competition engine, only just getting into its stride at 150hp whereas the Fulvia was using a bottom up development of what was originally a 60hp engine for a saloon car. At 150 hp the bottom end was getting distinctly wobbly!

Didn't look as good as the Stratos' though

[Twincam16]

nc107 said:

1973 Targa Florio, still racing in the Prototype class.

Came second driven by Munari / Andruet. Legend has it that it could have won but for a problem with the drivers seat becoming stuck in the back position; Andruet was a bit of a shortarse and couldn't reach the pedals so Munari ended up having to do most of the driving

He must've been a midget then. The pedal box on a Stratos is ludicrously cramped and even people of moderate height find their legs splayed around the steering wheel.

Edited by Twincam16 on Thursday 19th August 14:24

[Twincam16]

SirRalph said:

robm3 said:

SirRalph said:

I like. Even if the original had never existed, this one is a tasty car in its own right.

Shame cars like these never get built in higher numbers or for reasonable costs.

Any thoughts on other potential European retro models?

UR Quattro (as mentioned)
Maybe MK 1/2 Ford Escort?
E Type Jag?

Oddly enough, I was recently thinking about the lack of sensibly priced (by that I mean affordable to the average person) decent, rear wheel drive coupe/GT cars available, and I reckon a retro Capri would hit the spot.

Definitely. And take the same approach to creation that the original Capri took too.

This was back when Ford actually asked people what they wanted before building it (a trick that worked fine until they asked them to build the Scorpio and the Mk4 Escort), so with the Capri, you won't find a sole, credited designer, but you will find the rear 3/4 window from the Ferrari Daytona, the view down the bonnet from the Jaguar E-Type, the tail of the Aston Martin DBS and the nose of the Maserati Mexico. Inside, you'll also find a plasticky approximation of the dashboard from a BMW 3.0CS. In short, they asked ordinary people in the late '60s what their dream cars were, and built something that looked exotic, drove in a fun way, accommodated like the Escort they traded in for it, and was cheap to buy and run.

A comparable car today would have hints of Ferrari 599GTB Fiorano, Jaguar XK, Aston Martin DB9, Maserati GranTurismo and BMW M6, it'd have RWD or 4WD but it would also have four seats, a useful hatchback and the engine range from the Mondeo.

Ironically, in terms of style alone, the only thing that currently comes close is the Hyundai Coupe SIII:



Oh look - Maserati GranTurismo-style headlights, Aston Martin-style wing-vent and roof-line, Ferrari 456 swage line and Jaguar XK-style 'targets' in the rear light clusters.

If only it were RWD.

[DJC]

The colluding on homologation numbers is widespread practice. TVR were just as guilty of this in later years.

Stratos numbers are fairly accurate, 037s so so and S4, er, well ...not.

[300bhp/ton]

Twincam16 said:

SirRalph said:

robm3 said:

SirRalph said:

I like. Even if the original had never existed, this one is a tasty car in its own right.

Shame cars like these never get built in higher numbers or for reasonable costs.

Any thoughts on other potential European retro models?

UR Quattro (as mentioned)
Maybe MK 1/2 Ford Escort?
E Type Jag?

Oddly enough, I was recently thinking about the lack of sensibly priced (by that I mean affordable to the average person) decent, rear wheel drive coupe/GT cars available, and I reckon a retro Capri would hit the spot.

Definitely. And take the same approach to creation that the original Capri took too.

This was back when Ford actually asked people what they wanted before building it (a trick that worked fine until they asked them to build the Scorpio and the Mk4 Escort), so with the Capri, you won't find a sole, credited designer, but you will find the rear 3/4 window from the Ferrari Daytona, the view down the bonnet from the Jaguar E-Type, the tail of the Aston Martin DBS and the nose of the Maserati Mexico. Inside, you'll also find a plasticky approximation of the dashboard from a BMW 3.0CS. In short, they asked ordinary people in the late '60s what their dream cars were, and built something that looked exotic, drove in a fun way, accommodated like the Escort they traded in for it, and was cheap to buy and run.

A comparable car today would have hints of Ferrari 599GTB Fiorano, Jaguar XK, Aston Martin DB9, Maserati GranTurismo and BMW M6, it'd have RWD or 4WD but it would also have four seats, a useful hatchback and the engine range from the Mondeo.

Ironically, in terms of style alone, the only thing that currently comes close is the Hyundai Coupe SIII:



Oh look - Maserati GranTurismo-style headlights, Aston Martin-style wing-vent and roof-line, Ferrari 456 swage line and Jaguar XK-style 'targets' in the rear light clusters.

If only it were RWD.

300hp V6 or 2.0T and RWD