If you want to do it the old fashioned way, you can't go past this book. As Mini history goes its quite definitive.
Tim
| ausmini https://www.ausmini.com/forums/ |
|
| Mini history.. https://www.ausmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77743 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Speedwell Racer [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Mini history.. |
Hey Guys, Im doing a negotiated study in my english class and chose to do the history of the mini... If anyone has some links to good sites it would be much appreciated. And any interesting stuff people may know would be good as well.. Cheers, Rhys.. |
|
| Author: | John Sneddon [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Mini History |
The early editions ie form No1 up to the year 2000, of Mini Magazine and Mini World have good articles on English history |
|
| Author: | Timbo [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you want to do it the old fashioned way, you can't go past this book. As Mini history goes its quite definitive.
Tim |
|
| Author: | Kennomini [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Minis hold a record at Bathurst. 1966 (equivalent to the Bathurst 1000), 1st too 9th outright no other car has ever come close to that, even today, let alone against cars with twice as many cylinders 
Plus we won the Monte Carlo rally three times (roughly the equivalent of the WRC). An interesting bit of history I reckon anyway. |
|
| Author: | drmini in aust [ Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kennomini wrote: Minis hold a record at Bathurst. 1966 (equivalent to the Bathurst 1000), 1st too 9th outright no other car has ever come close to that, even today, let alone against cars with twice as many cylinders
Plus we won the Monte Carlo rally three times (roughly the equivalent of the WRC). An interesting bit of history I reckon anyway. My 2c- ALL these wins for the Cooper S were on hydro suspension.  So meh to all you rubber coners.. 
|
|
| Author: | XC9000 [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hydros v Cones |
Kev Dont all of the Nb / Nc race cars run rubber cone? Are there any on hydros racing that are competitive? Maybe I am being misled. Need to know basis in the event i ever get to building a competition car. Wayne |
|
| Author: | drmini in aust [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hydros v Cones |
XC9000 wrote: Kev
Dont all of the Nb / Nc race cars run rubber cone? Are there any on hydros racing that are competitive? Maybe I am being misled. Need to know basis in the event i ever get to building a competition car. Wayne Wayne, all the Nb cars run rubber cone as they are masquerading as a UK Cooper S, circa 1964. Which were rubber cone then (before we got any Ss). It is just a formula- they tell you what you can and cannot have in Nb, 99% of them are not Cooper S bodies, they are/were a humble 850 or Deluxe. Also, none of them are stock, as the competition Cooper S was in Monte Carlo. As for Nc, sorry I've no idea of their rules, but they are not stock either. |
|
| Author: | Morris 1100 [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Monte Carlo rally was not for stock cars. It was run for different classes with a handicap that tended to favour one class. (usually Group 2 but in 1966 Group 1) Take a look at AJB44B that won the 65 Monte and tell me what stock model Cooper S came with that grille and flares. |
|
| Author: | drmini in aust [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
When they got protested at the Mini Monte in 66? didn't they then take a stock S from a showroom and it was as fast or faster? So the books say... |
|
| Author: | XC9000 [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Suspensions |
Kev Thanks for that. The CAMS specs on Nb is rubber cone only, so that figures. Surprisingly, Nc (post 1/1/65) and our Aus Mk1s & 2s are all hydro production yet CAMS says hyro or rubber cone? There are not a lot of Nc Cooper S in the competitions I've seen over the past few years - GR's of course and the Husband / wife team in Q and the odd LGT. One wonders if the Ncs, where there is choice, run hydro or rubber cone? I used to be with you thinking hydro by preference, but it seems the overwhelming majority seem to favour cones? Maybe because failure with age is not so noticeable? Am I correct in thinking that hydro is more forgiving or telling when you are at the limits, meaning more specifically that cones are less forgiving and let go more quickly? or am I dreaming it? Wayne |
|
| Author: | Morris 1100 [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
drmini in aust wrote: When they got protested at the Mini Monte in 66? didn't they then take a stock S from a showroom and it was as fast or faster?
So the books say... In 66 cars entered in Group 1 were the only cars that could win outright, the French organised it that way! They had gotten sick of Group 2 (modified) cars winning and wanted to bring the event back to stock cars. (Group 1 was for almost stock cars with some permitted modifications.) |
|
| Author: | 1071 S [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
"..My 2c- ALL these wins for the Cooper S were on hydro suspension..." Uuuumm 33EJB was dry..... Aaltonnen stated a preference for wet while Hopkirk and other preferred dry...but they drove what they were given.. Cheers, Ian |
|
| Author: | mickmini [ Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just downloaded all the FIA homologation papers last night. The hydro suspension, oil cooler and RH tank was added to the 970S homologation on 16 November 1964 as Evolution of Type amendments and the flares for Group 2 Variant Option on 1 March 1968. Originals were stamped 20 March 1964. 1071S did not get the above amendments to the homologation papers originally stamped 9 May 1963. 1275S homologation originally stamped 11 April 1964 with dry suspension and the same 16 November 1964 amendment for hydro as the 970S was applied. 1275S Group 1 Series Production homologation papers show only hydrolastic and are stamped 1 June 1966. They rehomologated dry suspension for 1275 Cooper S for Group 2 on 1 April 1970. Note that all these homologation papers are for the UK manufactured cars and not all of the details apply to CAMS recognition of the Australian manufactured cars. cheers Michael |
|
| Author: | bent65 [ Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
mickmini wrote: I just downloaded all the FIA homologation papers last night.
The hydro suspension, oil cooler and RH tank was added to the 970S homologation on 16 November 1964 as Evolution of Type amendments and the flares for Group 2 Variant Option on 1 March 1968. Originals were stamped 20 March 1964. 1071S did not get the above amendments to the homologation papers originally stamped 9 May 1963. 1275S homologation originally stamped 11 April 1964 with dry suspension and the same 16 November 1964 amendment for hydro as the 970S was applied. 1275S Group 1 Series Production homologation papers show only hydrolastic and are stamped 1 June 1966. They rehomologated dry suspension for 1275 Cooper S for Group 2 on 1 April 1970. Note that all these homologation papers are for the UK manufactured cars and not all of the details apply to CAMS recognition of the Australian manufactured cars. cheers Michael Weight, reliability and adjustability of the spring rate. Nb Minis are replicas of early, single tank, sliding window dry 1275 'S' Nc is able to be a replica of the same but with some of the homolgated bits and wider wheels and flares. An Nb car has to be a Make, Model & spec raced anywhere in the world. This is why an Nb Mustang can have disc brakes although not used in period in Aus. Nc has to be Make, Model and spec raced in Aus. Although many bits extensively used are not allowed for unknown reasons. Ie wide flares & 12's. All the mini (and Most european cars) are homologated in UK as FIA is in France. The Papers were submitted by RAC and specs provided by Manufatcurer. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|