--===============3271505946006269494==
boundary="_164cee18-9bc4-4a60-84b7-ad5ab347d4fb_"
--_164cee18-9bc4-4a60-84b7-ad5ab347d4fb_
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Calls for a different kind of studs
=20
Date: Thu=2C 17 Mar 2016 11:33:22 -0400
From: billdentin@aol.com
To: mlcooknj@msn.com=3B mdporter@dfn.com=3B fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR
=0A=
Yeah! I can understand that...but my hang up is I keep thinking about Sabri=
na=2C and Bridget=2C and Gina=2C and Sophia=2C and all those others from th=
at era..=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Bill Dentinger=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
-----Original Message-----
=0A=
From: michael <mlcooknj@msn.com>
=0A=
To: Michael Porter <mdporter@dfn.com>=3B billdentin <billdentin@aol.com>=3B=
fot <fot@autox.team.net>
=0A=
Sent: Thu=2C Mar 17=2C 2016 10:27 am
=0A=
Subject: RE: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Just a quick comment - the "Sabrina" engine is a complex sandwich held toge=
ther by very long studs. Lots of castings=2C twin cams to worry about and n=
ot much more horsepower than a well-prepared normal TR engine. It might hav=
e 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 wi=
th the existing engine and put the money into styling.
=0A=
=20
=0A=
Mike
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
To: billdentin@aol.com=3B fot@autox.team.net
=0A=
From: mdporter@dfn.com
=0A=
Date: Wed=2C 16 Mar 2016 16:20:04 -0600
=0A=
Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM=2C=0A=
billdentin@aol.com wrote:
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Agreed! If nothing else=2C it would be nice to have just for=0A=
its rare=2C historical significance. But down through the years=
=0A=
I have always wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it=0A=
into their production cars. They sure seemed to do their job=0A=
on the race track=2C but there must have been issues why they=0A=
never went into their normal production cars.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
I imagine they do=2C but=2C my first=0A=
guess would be the overall cost. At precisely the time that the=0A=
American market was expecting lots of changes year to year=2C=0A=
Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to control=0A=
expenses and to address manufacturing problems. It made no=0A=
sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated=0A=
back to the `30s--which Triumph did=3D=3Dexcept for reasons having=
=0A=
to do with money. =20
=0A=
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
Tooling costs=2C especially for low-volume producers=2C are horribl=
y=0A=
expensive. With talented people and enough time=2C it's possible=
=0A=
to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come=0A=
up with something that works reasonably well (this might be why=0A=
the engines had=2C IIRC=2C some persistent oil leaks during racing)=
=2C=0A=
but translating that design to production is quite another=0A=
matter. New castings means new forms=2C and any changes in the=0A=
design means changes to production equipment=2C too--most=0A=
manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang drills to=0A=
drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head=2C=0A=
etc. (by and large=2C no CNC machining centers then=2C especially=
=0A=
for small producers)=2C and all those had to be redone or adjusted=
=0A=
to new tasks. And all this would have come at the precise time=0A=
that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the=0A=
Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period=2C early `60s=2C market=0A=
conditions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars=0A=
in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car=0A=
market--and emission controls were coming and the company was=0A=
already inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of=0A=
S-T turned over to British Leyland in 1968?). =20
=0A=
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
In a way=2C it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions. I'm=0A=
sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes=2C but=0A=
they only had the money to make do.
=0A=
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
=20
=0A=
=0A=
Cheers. =20
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
-- =0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Michael Porter=0A=
Roswell=2C NM=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance=
....=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
_______________________________________________=0A=
fot@autox.team.net=0A=
=0A=
http://www.fot-racing.com=0A=
=0A=
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive=0A=
com=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=
--_164cee18-9bc4-4a60-84b7-ad5ab347d4fb_
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>Calls for a different kind of st=
uds<br> =3B<BR><div><hr id=3D"stopSpelling">Date: Thu=2C 17 Mar 2016 11=
:33:22 -0400<br>From: billdentin@aol.com<br>To: mlcooknj@msn.com=3B mdporte=
r@dfn.com=3B fot@autox.team.net<br>Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something =
I've never seen before. Sabrina motor carbs for a TR<br><br><font color=3D"=
black" face=3D"arial" size=3D"2">=0A=
<div>Yeah! I can understand that...but my hang up is I keep thinking about =
Sabrina=2C and Bridget=2C and Gina=2C and Sophia=2C and all those others fr=
om that era..</div>=0A=
=0A=
<div><br>=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
<div>Bill Dentinger</div>=0A=
=0A=
<div><br>=0A=
<br>=0A=
<br>=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
<div style=3D"color: black=3B font-family: arial=2Chelvetica=3B font-size: =
10pt=3B">-----Original Message-----<br>=0A=
From: michael <=3Bmlcooknj@msn.com>=3B<br>=0A=
To: Michael Porter <=3Bmdporter@dfn.com>=3B=3B billdentin <=3Bbillden=
tin@aol.com>=3B=3B fot <=3Bfot@autox.team.net>=3B<br>=0A=
Sent: Thu=2C Mar 17=2C 2016 10:27 am<br>=0A=
Subject: RE: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR<br>=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
<div id=3D"ecxAOLMsgPart_2_f9f55ed2-c28a-4688-9838-8deef9d244d0">=0A=
<style scoped=3D"">=0A=
.ExternalClass #ecxAOLMsgPart_2_f9f55ed2-c28a-4688-9838-8deef9d244d0 td {=
=0A=
color:black=3B=0A=
}=0A=
=0A=
.ExternalClass .ecxaolReplacedBody .ecxhmmessage P {=0A=
padding:0px=3B=0A=
}=0A=
=0A=
.ExternalClass .ecxaolReplacedBody body.ecxhmmessage {=0A=
font-size:12pt=3B=0A=
font-family:Calibri=3B=0A=
}=0A=
</style>=0A=
<div class=3D"ecxaolReplacedBody">=0A=
<div dir=3D"ltr">Just a quick comment - the "Sabrina" engine is a complex s=
andwich held together by very long studs. =3BLots of castings=2C twin c=
ams 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 =3Bexpensive to build and servi=
ce. They were right to stick with the existing engine and put the money int=
o styling.<br>=0A=
 =3B<br>=0A=
Mike<br>=0A=
 =3B<br>=0A=
=0A=
<div><hr id=3D"ecxstopSpelling">To: <a href=3D"mailto:billdentin@aol.com">b=
illdentin@aol.com</a>=3B <a href=3D"mailto:fot@autox.team.net">fot@autox.te=
am.net</a><br>=0A=
From: <a href=3D"mailto:mdporter@dfn.com">mdporter@dfn.com</a><br>=0A=
Date: Wed=2C 16 Mar 2016 16:20:04 -0600<br>=0A=
Subject: Re: [Fot] Now that's something I've never seen before. Sabrina mot=
or carbs for a TR<br>=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
<div class=3D"ecxmoz-cite-prefix">On 3/16/2016 1:10 PM=2C=0A=
<a class=3D"ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:billdentin@ao=
l.com" target=3D"_blank">billdentin@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>=0A=
=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
<blockquote cite=3D"about:blank"><font color=3D"black" face=3D"arial" s=
ize=3D"2">=0A=
=0A=
<div>Agreed! =3B If nothing else=2C it would be nice to have just for=
=0A=
its rare=2C historical significance. =3B But down through the=
years=0A=
I have always wondered why the SABRINA engine never made it=0A=
into their production cars. =3B They sure seemed to do their =
job=0A=
on the race track=2C but there must have been issues why they=0A=
never went into their normal production cars.</div>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
<div><br>=0A=
=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
<div>I wonder if Kas or Mike Cook has any take on that.</div>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
<div><br>=0A=
=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
</font><br>=0A=
=0A=
</blockquote>=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
<font size=3D"2"><font face=3D"arial">I imagine they do=2C but=2C my fi=
rst=0A=
guess would be the overall cost. =3B At precisely the time that=
the=0A=
American market was expecting lots of changes year to year=2C=0A=
Triumph was making just a few cosmetic changes to control=0A=
expenses and to address manufacturing problems. =3B It made no=
=0A=
sense to hang onto an engine the basic design of which dated=0A=
back to the `30s--which Triumph did=3D=3Dexcept for reasons having=
=0A=
to do with money. =3B <br>=0A=
=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
Tooling costs=2C especially for low-volume producers=2C are horribl=
y=0A=
expensive. =3B With talented people and enough time=2C it's pos=
sible=0A=
to make a few units in-house without production tooling and come=0A=
up with something that works reasonably well (this might be why=0A=
the engines had=2C IIRC=2C some persistent oil leaks during racing)=
=2C=0A=
but translating that design to production is quite another=0A=
matter. =3B New castings means new forms=2C and any changes in =
the=0A=
design means changes to production equipment=2C too--most=0A=
manufacturers at the time had specially-made gang drills to=0A=
drill out the bosses for head bolts in the block and the head=2C=0A=
etc. (by and large=2C no CNC machining centers then=2C especially=
=0A=
for small producers)=2C and all those had to be redone or adjusted=
=0A=
to new tasks. =3B And all this would have come at the precise t=
ime=0A=
that Triumph was just absorbing new tooling costs for the=0A=
Spitfire and the TR4. And in that period=2C early `60s=2C market=0A=
conditions were already changing--the trend toward muscle cars=0A=
in the U.S. certainly had an impact on the sports car=0A=
market--and emission controls were coming and the company was=0A=
already inching toward receivership (wasn't the first part of=0A=
S-T turned over to British Leyland in 1968?). =3B <br>=0A=
=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
In a way=2C it was a perfect storm of adverse conditions. =3B I=
'm=0A=
sure that S-T sensed a need to make some radical changes=2C but=0A=
they only had the money to make do.<br>=0A=
=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
<br>=0A=
=0A=
Cheers. =3B <br>=0A=
=0A=
</font></font>=0A=
<pre class=3D"ecxmoz-signature">-- =0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Michael Porter=0A=
Roswell=2C NM=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance=
....</pre>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
<br>=0A=
_______________________________________________=0A=
<a href=3D"mailto:fot@autox.team.net">fot@autox.team.net</a>=0A=
=0A=
<a href=3D"http://www.fot-racing.com" target=3D"_blank">http://www.fot-raci=
ng.com</a>=0A=
=0A=
//www.team.net/donate.html</a>=0A=
Archive: <a href=3D"http://www.team.net/archive" target=3D"_blank">http://w=
ww.team.net/archive</a>=0A=
Forums: <a href=3D"http://www.team.net/forums" target=3D"_blank">http://www=
.team.net/forums</a>=0A=
cooknj%40msn.com" target=3D"_blank">http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/f=
ot/mlcooknj@msn.com</a></div>=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
</div>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
</div>=0A=
</font></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_164cee18-9bc4-4a60-84b7-ad5ab347d4fb_--
--===============3271505946006269494==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net
http://www.fot-racing.com
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
--===============3271505946006269494==--
|