Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grp 44 TR4

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Classic Motorsports magazine had an article on Group 44 and Bob Tulius awhile back. The magazine had been doing a restoration/tribute to the Group 44 GT+6, and apparently they got the number graphics wrong. Tulius told them all the corners on the 44s were radiuses using a quarter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Datto View Post
      Classic Motorsports magazine had an article on Group 44 and Bob Tulius awhile back. The magazine had been doing a restoration/tribute to the Group 44 GT+6, and apparently they got the number graphics wrong. Tulius told them all the corners on the 44s were radiuses using a quarter.
      Another thing was the backwards "44" in the rear was originally a mistake. They cut up numerals in sticky vinyl from a stencil. One set was flopped accidentally so they put it on the rear. It became sort of a tradition.

      Greenman62

      Comment


      • #18
        Received Airfix kit

        Guys got kit in the mail cannot really see the difference between the TR-4 kit and the posted pictures of the of the TR-250?Any how thanks again for all the help starting kit now will use PCS chassis,BWA wheels & inserts.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by racer92 View Post
          Guys got kit in the mail cannot really see the difference between the TR-4 kit and the posted pictures of the of the TR-250?Any how thanks again for all the help starting kit now will use PCS chassis,BWA wheels & inserts.
          The TR250 looks very much like the TR4A the difference is under the bonnet where the 6 resides... and the badge was placed off to the left side of the bonnet where it had been placed in the center on the 4 and 4A. The TR4 didn't have the fender mounted driving lights and the grille was a one piece stamping that incorporated the turn signals and driving lights the nose badge was the Triumph "open book" design. The TR4A's grill was a multi-piece unit with just the turn signals mounted in it. The badge was the circular Triumph globe.

          TR4


          TR4A



          TR250



          Hope it helps.

          Greenman62

          Comment


          • #20
            You'll need to add a Bob Sharp Datsun Roadster to beat the pants off the Triumph




            Actualy I'd love a dueling pair, Triumph and Datsun in 1/43

            Comment


            • #21
              Nice pictures

              The AirFix kit appears to be a TR-4A that Datsun would be cool love all the old SCCA group racers.Thanks again for all the input.

              Comment


              • #22
                To add to Greenmans comments. The TR4 was in essence a body style update of the TR3. The TR4A added independent rear suspension from the TR2000 saloon, launched in 1963. The six cylinder engine was ready before the new Michelotti bodied TR6 was ready hence the TR5/250. The TR6 followed soon after. Underneath the basic car design was little changed from the TR2 through to the TR6. The TR3 chassis was also copied by Daimler for the Dart SP250/Dart.

                The cheapskates in the Triumph organisation installed the independent suspension from the saloon with no modification to the sports car chassis. This led to the hinge point on the chassis being wrong(high or low I can't remember). When the springs became weak as the car aged the wheels tilted inwards, hence that characteristic rear view of the car with both rear wheels leaning in.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dansula View Post
                  The cheapskates in the Triumph organisation installed the independent suspension from the saloon with no modification to the sports car chassis. This led to the hinge point on the chassis being wrong(high or low I can't remember). When the springs became weak as the car aged the wheels tilted inwards, hence that characteristic rear view of the car with both rear wheels leaning in.
                  Don't call them cheapskates... you got an awful lot of bang for your sports car buck in a TR.

                  Standard Triumph was never really sure the new model would be a hit so they always had a back-up plan... for the TR4 it was the TR3B. Essentially the same body as the TR3A but it had the larger engine of the TR4 as well as the all synchromesh tranny, wider track (and I think rack and pinion steering). TR4... not catch on? Let's see... sexy Michelotti body, roll up windows, which were water tight, especially compared to the TR2-3B side curtains that seemed to open up at speed and funnel rain in. Heck rack and pinion steering, a real trunk and bigger engine etc., etc. were gravy...

                  BTW don't blame Standard Triumph for the rear suspension by the time they were doing the design it was British Leyand... Another thing about the TR4A-6 rear suspension was as the rear sagged water would collect in the low spot so many TR4As through 6s would rust out right where the hinges were for the rear semi trailing arms...

                  Greenman62

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    It is true, though, that pre BL Triumph had some pretty bone-headed and dangerous flaws in their independent rear (swing axle) suspension designs in the Herald and Spitfire. On hard cornering, the outboard wheel could tuck under the car, jacking the rear end, and causing a very hazardous situation.

                    Did the GT+6 share this? The TR250?



                    The Triumphs were not alone in this, this is one of the Corvair's problems exacerbated by the rear-engine weight distribution. The VW beetle, same thing, but it somehow escaped Nader's crusade.

                    The 'Vair was fixed about 3 years into the production run, I think

                    Anyway, not something you want to emulate in a slot car

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Datto View Post
                      It is true, though, that pre BL Triumph had some pretty bone-headed and dangerous flaws in their independent rear (swing axle) suspension designs in the Herald and Spitfire. On hard cornering, the outboard wheel could tuck under the car, jacking the rear end, and causing a very hazardous situation.
                      Again, as Greenman said, it was a cost/benefit choice, so not as "bone headed" as you state. Swing axles were much easier and less expensive to produce when compared to a multi link independant setup. Spits and Heralds were competing for market share at the bottom of the price range, so every penny saved was an advantage, as was the marketing power of being able to claim 4 wheel independant suspension. You had to push a Herald or Spit pretty hard to get it into the position shown - much harder than your typical everyday driver would ever go. It can be done, but when it occurs, the car typically goes into major oversteer (complete loss of grip at the rear) and spins out rather than flipping. Swing axle cars have raced quite successfully - Mercedes 300 SLR comes to mind. Spits won their class at leMans and have been perennial winners in SCCA to the present day, and swing axle Formula Vee cars have been popular forever. It just takes knowledge of what the parameters are that you have to work with. Would I try to build a present day swing axle Formula 1 car? No. But its been done (both Mercedes and Auto Union). And for an entry level car and the post WW2 technology of the time, it was a competitive and viable alternative.

                      Did the GT+6 share this? The TR250?
                      Mk 1 GT6 did, the GT6+ (Mk 2) went to a rather "interesting" multi link rear setup involving rubber donuts and the spring as a linkage member, then back to a modified swing axle for the late Mk 3 models. TR250/5 used a completely different semi trailing arm setup introduced with TR4A and continued in TR6.

                      Anyway, not something you want to emulate in a slot car
                      Or even possible without a great deal of effort .

                      cheers
                      Scott
                      Last edited by GT6; 02-23-2011, 01:28 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by greenman62 View Post
                        Don't call them cheapskates... you got an awful lot of bang for your sports car buck in a TR.

                        Standard Triumph was never really sure the new model would be a hit so they always had a back-up plan... for the TR4 it was the TR3B. Essentially the same body as the TR3A but it had the larger engine of the TR4 as well as the all synchromesh tranny, wider track (and I think rack and pinion steering). TR4... not catch on? Let's see... sexy Michelotti body, roll up windows, which were water tight, especially compared to the TR2-3B side curtains that seemed to open up at speed and funnel rain in. Heck rack and pinion steering, a real trunk and bigger engine etc., etc. were gravy...

                        BTW don't blame Standard Triumph for the rear suspension by the time they were doing the design it was British Leyand... Another thing about the TR4A-6 rear suspension was as the rear sagged water would collect in the low spot so many TR4As through 6s would rust out right where the hinges were for the rear semi trailing arms...

                        Greenman62
                        Understand on value and the chassis stayed the pretty much the same through the car's life. The low price may have been good for the customer but it did not create the funds in Triumph to significantly improve the car or the company. A ladder frame chassis is unacceptable by 1960. This is not looking to the future.

                        Yes Brit engineering is an oxymoron, like military intelligence.

                        To blame good old British Leyland is a touch harsh as they were not in business at the time. Now if we are talking about the TR7 i am with you completely.

                        Triumph Tr 2000 saloon with IRS 1963
                        Triumph 4A 1965
                        Triumph TR 5 1967
                        British Leyland 1968

                        daniel

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by dansula View Post
                          The low price may have been good for the customer but it did not create the funds in Triumph to significantly improve the car or the company. A ladder frame chassis is unacceptable by 1960. This is not looking to the future.
                          Horse hockey... What really sells cars is their ability to capture the buyer's imagination. Underneath the 1964 Mustang was a Falcon... still, they sold like hotcakes.

                          What helped Triumph was it's success at the track, which is legendary. I've seen the pix. When the TR2 first appeared the bottom feeder racing classes were suddenly dominated by TR2s... so much so the there almost wasn't another marque in the field. Large and small bore TRs were consistently at the sharp end of the grid for decades. In 1981, Denny Wilson in his ex Group 44, ex Paul Newmann TR6 had his class well in hand over Doc Bundy's brand new factory 924 Porsche until his tires went away in the last couple of laps.

                          Want to talk about older technology and British cars? Ever hear of Sliding pillar suspension? It's been working well for Morgan for over 100 years. The cars are still "coach built" which means the body is framed out in wood with body panels mounted to them... older tech, perhaps but Morgan is the only car company in the world still in the hands of the founding family. Want one? Be prepared to wait up to 3 years.

                          As for British Leyland... You couldn't plan failure better than they did. First BL competed against itself for market share... MG, Triumph, Austin Healey, Jaguar and etc., all produced by the same company. They never corrected their dealer support system globally. It was the worst of the old British corporate class structure extant in a modern company. It was ponderous and unable to react to change and when it did the went for expedient rather than smart. For instance, originally the TR7 was supposed to be a roadster with the Rover V8. BL was afraid that the US congress was going to forbid powerful open cars entirely. They specified the choices going into the car they made bad decisions about where the car was built and what materials went into it. By the time they got the TR7 straightened out and produced the TR8 (possibly the best, most timeless TR), it was too late to save the car. BL was toast.

                          Greenman62
                          Last edited by greenman62; 02-23-2011, 08:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            You couldn't plan failure better than they did. First BL competed against itself for market share...
                            Absolutely. That was... brilliant in it's idiocy.

                            (possibly the best, most timeless TR)
                            Best, quite possibly. Most timeless? only if you consider leisure suits and quiana® shirts timeless
                            (edit) On further thought, I think maybe timeless fits. It's horrific today as it was in 1977. There's the story of Giorgetto Giugiaro seeing a TR7 at the Geneva motor show, giving it a puzzled look, walking around it and saying: “Oh my God! They've done it to the other side as well.”

                            AS far as a ladder frame being unacceptable in 1960, dansula, I have to call horse hockey on that too. Obsolete, maybe, but as Greenman pointed out Triumph did quite well with them, as did Datsun both winning regionals and nationals in SCCA against 'acceptabe' unit-bodied cars into the 70s.

                            The days of body on ladder frame cars being competitive on the track were drawing to a close, though. seeing a TR7 at the Geneva motor show, giving it a puzzled look, walking around it and saying: “Oh my God! They've done it to the other side as well.”
                            Last edited by Datto; 02-24-2011, 08:37 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Datto View Post
                              (edit) On further thought, I think maybe timeless fits. It's horrific today as it was in 1977. There's the story of Giorgetto Giugiaro seeing a TR7 at the Geneva motor show, giving it a puzzled look, walking around it and saying: “Oh my God! They've done it to the other side as well.”
                              Giugiaro? Now there's a fellow well known for avoiding "weird" (a soupcon of sarcasm) in automotive design...

                              I wasn't referring to the Early TR7 but the later TR7 and TR8 Spyders... These cars don't look too out of place today.... You could even get an after market body for the car from Grinnall. Each conversion was an individual effort to make the car a one-off and very cool.

                              Greenman62

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi

                                I raced TR3s and 4s in SCCA and might have a different view than some of the dismissive stuff above. My personal TR4a was one of the first few hundred As that still had the live rear axle.

                                I sort of see this as being different issues. Professional sponsored teams like Group 44 are not really reflective of the equipment. The issue is more what the average guy gets. In SCCA, in local events the dominance of the TRs was even more dramatic. Essentially, they were trucks, most folk could really just drive the car all week, bolt in the roll bar put on a couple shoe polish numbers and have a good D production race car. There were racing cam options that boosted the power significantly, though not on paper, but left the car streetable, same with the changing of the street stromberg 150 carbs for the 175 SUs, and on and on. Pretty much from the actual amateur stand point, anything you did to the car made it faster, but didn't keep it from being dual purpose. This might be important if you were a poor college student doing some racing on the side!

                                It was a "plus/minus" issue with the old fashioned tech. The rear axle was controlled by pre-war designed lever shocks with very limited movement. That was the bad news. The good news is that the guys with proper shocks or tower struts had to do very expensive bits that had a high failure rate. If you bent these, it left you on the road, where the leverl shocks were "trucks" and easy to adjust and easy to rebuild. I could go on and on.

                                Fate

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X