User talk:Graham.Fountain/sandbox
More Mysteries of the TR7 Sprint By Graham Fountain
THIS FOLLOW-UP TO "THE MYSTERY OF THE TR7 SPRINT" FROM MARCH 2017,[1] ADDS A BIT MORE TO THE IDEA IN THAT ARTICLE —THAT THE TR7 SPRINTS WERE BUILT SPECIFICALLY FOR A SECOND HOMOLOGATION OF THE GROUP 4 TR7 16-VALVE HEAD, AFTER AN FIA BAN —, AND SOMETHING ON WHAT THIS IDEA WOULD SEEM TO MAKE MYSTERIOUS: THE SJW CARS BEING FOR A PRESS LAUNCH AND THE UNIQUE PARTS IN THEM. IT ALSO ADDS SOMETHING ABOUT THE TWO MAIN BATCHES BEING BUILT SO DIFFERENTLY AND THE RELATED HOMOLOGATION OF THE GROUP 4 TR8/TR7V8 RALLY CAR. THE FIA RULES, OK The previous article showed that "[e]ffective from the end of 1977 the FIA banned the use of alternative cylinder heads".[3][6] After which the homologation [cf. όμολογέω] of the16-valve TR7 head was again approved on 1 Feb. 1978.[9] The article also showed that the first homologation needing no production of 16-valve TR7s.[15] But the FIA removed the old "100-off rule" when this ban was notified (at the end of 1975). And that meant the second one needed "identical cars equipped with this option", "meant for the normal sale", i.e. 'homologation specials', and with a published "maintenance booklet".[10][11][12][13] IT'S THE NUMBERS THAT COUNT The previous article also showed that contemporary homologations of Group 4 variants needed 50 such cars,[16][17] with probably 4 cars needed for National Type Approval.[6] So there were at most 7 more TR7 Sprints than needed for this.[21] Of these, all three cars built after July 1977 were for specific car shows, as was one earlier one,[21] but it's still not clear why, or perhaps for whom,[18] the other three cars were built. EVERY PICTURE TELLS A STORY It further showed the link between the TR7 Sprints and at least some homologation through the "TR7 Sprint Homologation" pictures from 1 Nov. 1977.[5] Given the number of cars built, these can only be for the homologation of a Group 4 variant (Group 3 needed 1000 cars), and that for the head is the only one to which the car shown could possibly relate. The relation to what these photos document was also shown by the SJW cars starting to be transferred from Sales and Marketing at Longbridge to Power Train and Foundry Division — as a "Selling Dealer"[22] with no apparent role in public relations — barely a week after their date. This appears even clearer when considering that the build cards show the SJW cars left Speke in July 1977.[37] Further, James Johnson has since suggested that the export of the LHD TR7 Sprints began as soon as the day after the pictures'. THE ENGINE OF ITS OWN DESTRUCTION David Knowles explains the cancellation of the TR7 Sprint model with a quote from Mike Dale, BL VP of Sales and Marketing: "The next shoe to fall was the four valve. It died and wiped out a model option for us". He then identified that "four valve" as the cost reduced, electronic fuel injected, 16-valve, slant-4 engine being developed for SD2.[19] Bill Piggott also confirmed this, stating "at the time the [TR7] Sprint was aborted, a fuel injected version of the 16-valve engine was under development for it".[2] However, SD2 was cancelled (twice) in 1975&6, largely as a result of the 1974/5 financial collapse of BLMC and the nearly £3 billion rescue plan in the 1975 Ryder Report. And it was that plan which drove the major changes to BL's model and engine ranges to at least mid-late 1977.[2][21][19][[20][25] In which case, if the TR7 Sprints were built as part of the 16-valve TR7 model programme, that they did not have this injection system would be something of a mystery; especially, as it was fitted to an earlier TR7 and an SD2 development car.[19][28] But if the TR7 Sprints were built just for the re-homologation of the Group 4 TR7 16-valve head, then no such mystery applies. GNOMISTRY WRAPPED IN AN ENIGMA Also, if the injected 16-valve engine, and thus the 16-valve TR7 model, was cancelled in 1975/6 with SD2, that fully explains the "mystery" in why it was "never a catalogued model".[4] These few cars being built after the model was cancelled purely for the re-homologation of the head then properly explains why there were no "definitive records", and why it appears "an enigma" with "no need for it, especially as the TR8 was almost at production status in 1977",[2] and when the 1975 Ryder report "could not make any recommendation for introducing new models before the end of 1978".[25] The FIA requirement for a published "maintenance booklet" then explains the "properly printed drivers handbook" [which, from a TR7 Sprint owner's perspective, is a bit shoddy], and the additional section on the 16-valve engine in the 1978 TR7 workshop manual.[2][23][24] AN O SO DIFFERENT STORY The requirement for these homologation specials to be "meant for the normal sale" would also explain a "full coterie of sales literature" for the TR7 Sprint [if there were ever any such]. Further, it explains why "[f]ollowing the cancellation of the project, normal practice might have been to dismantle the cars or convert them to normal TR7 power, but surprisingly most were sold off to private buyers."[2] Whereas, when the O-series TR7 project was cancelled, the 25 or so cars built for it (and not known to be related to a homologation), were indeed partly scrapped or converted to TR8s And that's despite a turbo charged one being the "[f]astest ever Triumph" on the test track at MIRA.[26][27] HAVING THEIR CARDS MARKED But if the TR7 Sprints were built for a homologation, then it becomes a mystery why the BMM/BMIHT heritage certificates for most of the 30 SJW cars state they were for a press launch [which led to me repeating various assumptions and anecdotes about them going to the Press Garage]. According to the BMM, the reason for that statement is simply because all but one of their build cards have "UK PRESS VEHICLE" hand-written across them in felt-tip pen.[35] However, a direct contradiction to their being press cars comes from another quote related by David Knowles: "one way to tell a genuine press car is that the turret tops would have been 'smoothed' with filler".[19] And this, clearly, hadn't been done to the SJW car in the homologation pictures, apparently taken 3 months after leaving Speke and shortly before its disposal by Sales and Marketing.[22] However, even with the model cancelled, there may still be a reason for this note, in why the Group 4 TR7 rally car had to be kept available beyond the ban on its alternative 16-valve head. That, it seems clear, was in case the TR7V8/TR8 wasn't ready by then, which it wasn't: "John Davenport's [rally] team had not been certain it would be available to them until the very day that homologation was granted — on 1 April 1978".[15] And the worry with this contingency should have been that wherever the TR7 Sprints had gone in July 1977, while production of the FHC TR8 homologation specials continued, their homologation was at risk from secondary action to a strike at Speke — even sympathy action was then legal. In which case neither car would be available at the start of the 1978 season. But disguising even just the TR7 Sprints built at Speke should have significantly helped to guard against that double whammy. That might seem to suggest a surprisingly detailed and possibly somewhat devious contingency plan. However, published research by Liverpool University historian Dr Brian Marren suggests BL's management would have known in advance that there was to be a long strike at Speke, because they started it, by speeding up one of the production lines without the agreed consultation, and then deliberately prolonged it in negotiations. Apparently this was planned with the approval of PM Jim Callaghan to give a credible excuse to close Speke instead of one of the better connected plants in the midlands. Moreover, the plans for this included a campaign of disinformation in the local and national press to (still) give an image of poor industrial relations there, which is, it seems, contradicted for at least the previous 5 years, by the company's own records, and, according to The Times, Speke's "enviable labour relations record".[38][39] That the planning for this strike went back to whenever the notes were written on the SJW car's build cards is not clear. But it is at least possible, if the start of the strike was delayed because it couldn't be started while Speke was closed for other reasons: "In August [1977] Lucas toolmakers closed the whole industry", then the Coventry axle workers' 6-week strike caused another closure of Speke, right up to when the strike there was started.[30][31] There is also another suggestion the plans were laid sometime in advance: "the Speke plant had been under consideration for closure even prior to [Michael] Edwardes' appointment",[40] which was only made public on the day the strike began.[39] Further, that the date of the homologation pictures is the same as the start of the Speke strike seems to suggest there's at least some connection between these plans. THE ORIGIN OF PIECES Another thing that would seem like a mystery if the TR7 Sprints were built anytime much after the 16-valve TR7 model and its funding had ended is where the supposedly unique TR7 Sprint parts came from. The origin of at least two of the more significant of these parts seems to be shown in the 'P' (Oct. 1975) reg. SD2 engineering prototype in the BMM collection at Gaydon, which is fitted with an injected, 16-valve slant-4 engine that has fittings for a smog pump.[28] The exhaust manifold on this car is clearly the same fit as the TR7 Sprint's, and nothing like that from the Dolomite Sprint — there was [I've been told] a design brief to maximize parts shared with the TR7, and the Dolomite manifold won't fit in a TR7 without some significant brutality to the bodywork. And while the part number on this SD2’s very roughly cast A-model is hard to make out, it certainly could be the same as the TR7 Sprint's — RKC2788.[32] Also, according to the BMM, "the heater pipework is via the casting at the back of the head, which appears to be as in the photos [of the TR7 Sprint's]".[33] The other parts (except the brake disks) are related to the carburettors, so there's nothing like them on this SD2; however, they would have been needed for a carb'ed version. That the need for the TR7 Sprints, and thus these parts, was predictable even before the SD2 was cancelled is shown by Ford's concerns at the proposal stage of the FIA's rule changes, i.e. before Dec. 1975,[9] which also affected Group 2 cars. Ford then went on to build another 50 [possibly 58] Cosworth BDG engined RS1800s to re-homologate it as the Group 4 Escort RS, approved in April 1977.[9][7][6][34] GO FASTER STRIKES While not exactly a mystery, there is also an interesting difference in the way the two main batches of TR7 Sprints were built: The first 25 or so cars in Feb.-Mar. 1977 supposedly by converting finished TR7s at Canley; then 30 cars supposedly built as TR7 Sprints on the line at Speke during the factory shutdown for the changeover to the 78 year model around the start of July.[19][2] The gap between these two batches may be a result of the BL wide toolroom dispute in March 1977, which is reported to have caused 45,000 layoffs across BL,[36] and, presumably, a shortage of donor cars.[2][19][30] But it does seems a bit odd that as well as having been sped up, the second batch was built alongside the FHC TR8s needed for its homologation; thus, presumably, competing with them for engineering resources. However, given their status as a contingency for the TR8 being late, the previous delays, etc., should have increased the relative importance of building the much smaller number of TR7 Sprints.[14] JUST MAKING UP THE NUMBERS That then [fairly neatly] raises the related issue of the number of cars made for the homologation of the Group 4 TR8 (rallied as TR7V8), eventually granted on 1 April 1978. It seems clear that the FIA requirement was for 400 cars (reduced from 500 in 1976). Yet only about 150 FHC TR8s had been built at Speke by April 1978 (plus a few converted FHC TR7s — the DHCs wouldn't count).[15][21][11] Graham Robson explained that discrepancy with a quote from John Davenport: "In those days there was no rigorous FIA inspection system. Provided that one provided production sheets signed by an important manager, then nobody worried…." He also suggested there was "[a] lot of fast and persuasive talking [...] to show that the makings of well over 500 [sic] cars were either built, partly built, or stuck in the morass of the Speke strike" — though the FIA requirements explicitly specified "entirely finished cars".[15][14] However, there appears to be a less contentious answer in an article published in Autosport only a few weeks after the TR8 was approved. This covered the tribulations of the Group 4 Vauxhall Chevette HS, and states that "there had arisen an understanding that some leeway was allowed. For instance, if the 400 cars were built within a few months of the homologation date then the car would normally be allowed through." And while the approval for the Chevette HS was given in 1976 it seems the FIA team were only happy the 400 cars needed for that were finished in late 1977.[42] That process for gaining FIA approval early was once described [to me] as "on a promise to manufacture" by Neil Eason-Gibson — who was the RAC's representative to (what seem to have been fairly rigorous) FIA homologation inspections at the time.[42] Digressing slightly, he also insisted that the 16-valve TR7 head was only approved on 1 Feb. 1978, and entirely denied the Oct. 1975 homologation; despite [my pointing out] that the 16-valve TR7 had been rallied well before 1978.[3][15] However, if the first approval was under the old 100-off rule (removed at the end of 1975), as seems the case,[8][15][11] then it wouldn't have needed an inspection such as he'd be responsible for; just at least 100 Dolomite Sprint heads (and overdrive gearboxes), etc. available to buy. Whereas, under the 1976 rules, at least some form of inspection by the RAC/FIA should have been needed. The homologation of the TR8 being got on such a promise would then explain why, in the months after it was granted, another 250 or so FHC TR8, including some 1979 year model cars, were built at Canley, bringing up the total to at least very close to the 400 needed.[21] What's unclear in that is why the homologation wasn't granted sooner? That's assuming the number of cars available during the Speke strike (when Graham Robson sets the application to the RAC/FIA) was the same as that in mid-summer 1977, due to the effects of this and other strikes. But possibly that’s because the same problems meant a credible promise to build the rest "within a few months" couldn't be given until the move to Canley was announced, i.e. in mid-Feb. 1978. But what does seem clear, given that even John Davenport obviously also didn't know about the second batch of FHC TR8 homologation specials, is BL's levels of internal secrecy about such cars.
REFERENCES:
1. TRACTION, Issue 296, p 50-53 2. Bill Piggott, Original TR7 & TR8, 2000, MotorBooks International Company. 3. RAC, TR7 FIA Form of Recognition #3071 4. Bonhams' Goodwood Festival of Speed Sale catalogue, Lot 339 (KDU367N), 19 Sep 2008. 5. British Motor Industries Heritage Trust Film & Picture Library negatives from number T105512 to T105517 (6 negatives), "TR7 Sprint Homologation", dated 1 November 1977. 6. Graham Robson, Ford Escort RS1800: Rally Giants, Veloce Publishing Ltd, 2008. 7. FIA, The International Sporting Code, Appendix J 1975, pre-title Warning: "Present Appendix J is only valid until 31.12.75. The new Appendix J enforced as from 1.1.76 will include fundamental alterations which will be published as from the month of December 1974 in the FIA sporting bulletin." 8. Ibid., Article 260 section z-bb. 9. FIA, The International Sporting Code, Appendix J 1976, Article 267: "authorised modifications according to the prescriptions of Art 260 of former Appendix J [1975] can be used until 31.12.77 for rallies." 10. Ibid., Article 261. 11. Ibid., Article 261 section x-dd. 12. Ibid., Article 252 section a. 13. Ibid., Article 252 section g. 14. Ibid., Article 252 section d. 15. Graham Robson, The Works Triumphs: 50 Years in Motorsport, 1993, J H Haynes & Co Ltd. 16. Vauxhall Heritage 17. Roy Smith, The Porsche 924 Carrera: – evolution to excellence, Veloce Publishing Ltd, 2014. 18. David Leigh and Rob Evans, "Leyland's internal report", The Guardian, Fri 8 Jun 2007. 19. David Knowles, Triumph TR7: The Untold Story, p 173–190, Crowood Press, 2008. 20. AROnLine, Webpage "The cars : Triumph TR7/TR8 development story" 21. BMIHT production record archives. 22. DVLA Vehicle registration data (inc. V55 application form for SJW 542S) 23. Leyland Cars, Triumph TR7 Sprint Handbook, Leyland International, Publication Part No AKM 3967. 24. British Leyland, Triumph TR7 Repair Operation Manual, 1978, Leyland Cars, Publication Part No AKM 3079A. 25. Sir Don Ryder et al., British Leyland: The Next Decade, National Enterprise Board, 23 April 1975. 26. Canley Classics, Webpage "TR7 & TR8 Experimental Records". 27. Canley Classics, Webpage "The Fastest Ever Triumph". 28. AROnLine, Webpage "News: New Triumph SD2 image emerges on Motorgraphs" 29. AROnLine, Webpage "Concepts and Prototypes: Triumph-Morris TM1 (1975)". 30. Peter Dunnett, The Decline of the British Motor Industry (Routledge Revivals): The Effects of Government Policy, 1945-79, Routledge, 2013. 31. AROnLine, Webpage "History : The Rover-Triumph story – Part Nineteen : 1977" 32. BMIHT F&PA Picture of SD2 exhaust manifold, P1010560.jpg. 33. BMM Curator Stephen Laing, Email "RE: SD2 exhaust manifold pictures", 06 July 2018 10:56. 34. RAC, Escort RS FIA Form of Recognition #650. 35. BMIHT Web Information Request Log No 170496 36. Barron McCluskey, House of Lords Debate, 23 March 1977, Hansard. 37. BMIHT Web Information Request Log No 174448 38. The Times, 16 February 1978. 39. Dr Brian Marren, We shall not be moved, Oxford University Press, 2016. 40. Kevin Warrington, Triumph TR: From Beginning to End, The Crowood Press, 2016. 41. RAC, TR8 Form of Recognition #654. 42. "Chevette 2300 HS—What went wrong", Autosport Magazine, 27 April 1978.
SUGGESTED PICTURES:
Amendments 1 and 10, for the 1st and 8th variants of the TR7, from TR7 homologation papers.
Zoom of suspension top from picture T-105516 in TR7 Sprint homologation pictures used in prev. article.
BMM F&PA picture of triumph SD2 exhaust manifold, Ref. P1010562 (which will have to be paid for).
A picture of a TR7 Sprint exhaust manifold.
A picture of a TR7 Sprint cylinder head end plate with cabin heater water connection.
Front sheet of TR8's FIA Recognition Form #654. It may be worth pointing out the "Sprint TR7 V8" decal set just visible on this car.
Also, should I apologize for the egregious puns in the article headings? The pun between the occupation of a gnomists (writer of pithy sayings or aphorisms) and "no mystery" may be just too obscure; however, some of the others, not all of which I claim authorship of, are also quite appalling.
Start a discussion about improving the User:Graham.Fountain/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Graham.Fountain/sandbox" page.
