--===============6299417773979605063==
boundary="----=_Part_32534_563842393.1458228802311"
------=_Part_32534_563842393.1458228802311
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yeah! I can understand that...but my hang up is I keep thinking about Sabri=
na, and Bridget, and Gina, and Sophia, and all those others from that era..
Bill Dentinger
-----Original Message-----
From: michael <mlcooknj@msn.com>
To: Michael Porter <mdporter@dfn.com>; billdentin <billdentin@aol.com>; fot=
<fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 10:27 am
Subject: RE: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR
Just a quick comment - the "Sabrina" engine is a complex sandwich held toge=
ther by very long studs. Lots of castings, twin cams to worry about and not=
much more horsepower than a well-prepared normal TR engine. It might have =
earned the factory points for development and up-to-date thinking but it wo=
uld have been expensive to build and service. They were right to stick with=
the existing engine and put the money into styling.
=20
Mike
=20
To: billdentin@aol.com; fot@autox.team.net
From: mdporter@dfn.com
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:20:04 -0600
Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR
=20
On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM, billdentin@aol.com wrote:
=20
=20
=20
Agreed! If nothing else, it would be nice to have just for its ra=
re, historical significance. But down through the years I have al=
ways wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it into their prod=
uction cars. They sure seemed to do their job on the race track, =
but there must have been issues why they never went into their nor=
mal production cars.
=20
=20
=20
I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I imagine they do, but, my first guess would be the overall cost=
. At precisely the time that the American market was expecting lots=
of changes year to year, Triumph was making just a few cosmetic cha=
nges to control expenses and to address manufacturing problems. It =
made no sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated=
back to the `30s--which Triumph did=3D=3Dexcept for reasons having =
to do with money. =20
=20
Tooling costs, especially for low-volume producers, are horribly =
expensive. With talented people and enough time, it's possible =
to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come up=
with something that works reasonably well (this might be why the en=
gines had, IIRC, some persistent oil leaks during racing), but trans=
lating that design to production is quite another matter. New casti=
ngs means new forms, and any changes in the design means changes to =
production equipment, too--most manufacturers at the time had specia=
lly-made gang drills to drill out the bosses for head bolts in the b=
lock and the head, etc. (by and large, no CNC machining centers then=
, especially for small producers), and all those had to be redone or=
adjusted to new tasks. And all this would have come at the precise=
time that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the =
Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period, early `60s, market cond=
itions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars in the U.=
S. certainly had an impact on the sports car market--and emission co=
ntrols were coming and the company was already inching toward receiv=
ership (wasn't the first part of S-T turned over to British Leyland =
in 1968?). =20
=20
In a way, it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions. I'm =
sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes, but they =
only had the money to make do.
=20
=20
Cheers. =20
=20
--=20
Michael Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance=
....
=20
_______________________________________________fot@autox.team.nethttp://www=
.fot-racing.comDonate: http://www.team.net/donate.htmlArchive: http://www.t=
eam.net/archiveForums: http://www.team.net/forumsUnsubscribe/Manage: http:/=
/autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/mlcooknj@msn.com
=09=09 =09 =09=09 =20
------=_Part_32534_563842393.1458228802311
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<font color='black' size='2' face='arial'>
<div>Yeah! I can understand that...but my hang up is I keep thinking about
Sabrina, and Bridget, and Gina, and Sophia, and all those others from that
era..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill Dentinger</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original
Message-----<br>
From: michael <mlcooknj@msn.com><br>
To: Michael Porter <mdporter@dfn.com>; billdentin
<billdentin@aol.com>; fot <fot@autox.team.net><br>
Sent: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 10:27 am<br>
Subject: RE: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina motor
carbs for a TR<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_2_f9f55ed2-c28a-4688-9838-8deef9d244d0">
<style scoped="">#AOLMsgPart_2_f9f55ed2-c28a-4688-9838-8deef9d244d0 td{color:
black;} .aolReplacedBody .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px }
.aolReplacedBody body.hmmessage { font-size: 12pt; font-family:Calibri }
</style>
<div class="aolReplacedBody">
<div dir="ltr">Just a quick comment - the "Sabrina" engine is a complex
sandwich held together by very long studs. Lots of castings, twin cams to
worry about and not much more horsepower than a well-prepared normal TR engine.
It might have earned the factory points for development and up-to-date thinking
but it would have been expensive to build and service. They were right to
stick with the existing engine and put the money into styling.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<div><hr id="stopSpelling">To: <a
href="mailto:billdentin@aol.com";>billdentin@aol.com</a>; <a
href="mailto:fot@autox.team.net";>fot@autox.team.net</a><br>
From: <a href="mailto:mdporter@dfn.com";>mdporter@dfn.com</a><br>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:20:04 -0600<br>
Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina motor
carbs for a TR<br>
<br>
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix">On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM,
<a class="ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:billdentin@aol.com";
target="_blank">billdentin@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="about:blank"><font color="black" face="arial" size="2">
<div>Agreed! If nothing else, it would be nice to have just for
its rare, historical significance. But down through the years
I have always wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it
into their production cars. They sure seemed to do their job
on the race track, but there must have been issues why they
never went into their normal production cars.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font size="2"><font face="arial">I imagine they do, but, my first
guess would be the overall cost. At precisely the time that the
American market was expecting lots of changes year to year,
Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to control
expenses and to address manufacturing problems. It made no
sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated
back to the `30s--which Triumph did==except for reasons having
to do with money. <br>
<br>
Tooling costs, especially for low-volume producers, are horribly
expensive. With talented people and enough time, it's possible
to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come
up with something that works reasonably well (this might be why
the engines had, IIRC, some persistent oil leaks during racing),
but translating that design to production is quite another
matter. New castings means new forms, and any changes in the
design means changes to production equipment, too--most
manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang drills to
drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head,
etc. (by and large, no CNC machining centers then, especially
for small producers), and all those had to be redone or adjusted
to new tasks. And all this would have come at the precise time
that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the
Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period, early `60s, market
conditions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars
in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car
market--and emission controls were coming and the company was
already inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of
S-T turned over to British Leyland in 1968?). <br>
<br>
In a way, it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions. I'm
sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes, but
they only had the money to make do.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers. <br>
</font></font>
<pre class="ecxmoz-signature">--
Michael Porter
Roswell, NM
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking
distance....</pre>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<a href="mailto:fot@autox.team.net";>fot@autox.team.net</a>
<a href="http://www.fot-racing.com";
target="_blank">http://www.fot-racing.com</a>
Archive: <a href="http://www.team.net/archive";
target="_blank">http://www.team.net/archive</a>
Forums: <a href="http://www.team.net/forums";
target="_blank">http://www.team.net/forums</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</font>
------=_Part_32534_563842393.1458228802311--
--===============6299417773979605063==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net
http://www.fot-racing.com
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
--===============6299417773979605063==--
|