Jump to content

Supplier of new TR2/3/3A/4/4A original size steel wheels


Recommended Posts

Further to my recent posting I have discussed with the MD of Weller Wheels, the possibility of them supplying original size steel wheels for the earlier cars.

 

To compete in the Roadsports class of the TR Register/Revington Sprint and Hillclimb Championship, original size wheels have to be fitted. I am unwilling to compete on old wheels for obvious reasons or wire wheels by choice.

 

If anybody out there is contemplating competing in the Roadsports class of the Championship, you are going to be met with the same dilemma as me - use old wheels or be moved up a class by having newer wider wheels.

 

Weller can supply suitable steel wheels but need to run a batch to get the cost down. I would estimate that if we can order about 20 wheels (only four or five sets), the cost would be about the same as their TR6 wheel - £135 plus VAT per wheel. The more they produce the cheaper they will be.

 

They would be no use to the originality guys though, as they would have TR6 centres with no locations for hub caps.

 

I would be grateful if you are interested to let me know. Drop me a PM. There is no commitment at this stage.

 

The big question though - What is the original size wheel of the early cars? Is it 4J steel (4.5J wires) for all models. There is a lot of confusion about this. Privately I have been told that 4J was the size used throughout, not 4.5J (fitted on the TR5/250). Could the administrators (calling Roger) of the Championship please state for the record what size wheel is acceptable for the Roadsports class for each model TR. Clearly, 4.5J would be more attractive for me in my TR4, allowing a wider choice of tyres to be used.

 

John Hanna

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a definitive response to this question but it is being reviewed by the Technical Committee before publication as there is a change midway through the production run on TR3s.

 

Hope not to keep you waiting for too long.

 

Roger

Link to post
Share on other sites

There would of course be an advantage in any new-production wheels being of the double-hump type, so that tubeless tyres could be used tubelessly. If those were available I would definitely be interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

as you and I have discussed previously at some length . . . . .

 

The original 'early' TR2 wheel was replaced at TS1869 (according to Bill P), the successor wheel being numbered 301672, which ran until TR3 number TS13046 - and was then in turn replaced by 302262, which remained the standard fitment part number through TR3/3A/4/4A until the end of 4A production.

 

Every factory manual of mine, from 1954 to 1977 publication, denotes the TR2-4A wheels as 4" width, only the 5 and 250 are listed with 4.5".

 

There were attempts made to pin down the steel disc wheel specs at the end of the 1970s, for the benefit of our sprint regulations. I hate to think how many rims I've checked since those days. Back then it was still possible to find wet liner cars of known unbroken history, as in we could be as near 100% confident as it gets that the wheel fitment was original.

 

Almost every wheel I've checked over the intervening 40 years has proved to be 4" width . . . . although at some stage during, I think, TR3A production the wheel construction spec changed and with it the offset - but not the rim width. The wheel looked wider, but in reality wasn't.

 

The only cars I can recall sporting apparently original pukka 4.5" rims were very late production 4As and a handful of 3As and 4s which had competition history in their youth.

 

Bearing in mind that pre-TS13046 Home Market production accounted for substantially less than one third of TR2-4A production, then one would expect that any change in rim width for normal production cars would have resulted in far more 4.5" than 4" rims surviving. That does not appear to be the case.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a standard 4" rim had been substituted by a 4.5" of differing offset for competition purposes back in the day - that might well have passed by scrutineers and everyone else ! Nor would I be surprised if some very late 4As sported 4.5" rims as per the 6-pots to follow.

 

FIA Appendix K regs require that wheels be of a dimension used in period, ie during the original competition life of the car. That is certainly the case for 'works' 3As which used 60-spoke wheels on occasion, and arguably there were still 2s and 3s being used in serious competition and sporting the wider rims. TR4s and presumably also 4As were homologated for even wider rims, and for alloy as well as steel and wire wheels.

 

If there is a proposal to remanufacture rims, then it would seem appropriate for the TR Register to agree with the organisers of the relevant Classic and Historic Championships, and with the MSA and FIA, exactly what is and is not acceptable for the TR2-4A model range.

 

A task for the Competition Secretary, if only we had one . . . . . . so presumably one for the Technical Director . . . . except that he is currently unwell.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Roger, Alec and Robbfor responding.

 

Alec - as usual a comprehensive explanation, very much along the lines we discussed. Much appreciated. I guess the change in wheel during TR3 production at TS13046 is the change Roger is referring to.

 

The imminent decision from the Technical Committee is welcome but it seems all roads will lead to a 4J steel wheel being declared standard equipment (unless homologated wheels influence the decision).

 

As there are so few of us actually competing in our cars, especially in the Roadsports class, it might be a task to get enough people wanting to order such narrow wheels, so all of this might be academic regarding a production run by Weller. The number of views and replies on this topic support that hypothesis.

 

I will keep you posted Rob H. Thanks for your feedback.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

taking into account the current limited choice of tyres, and the fact that 4.5" rims were in fact used in competition in period, then I see no reason why the MSA, FIA and race organisers alike should not accept 4.5" rims for TR2-4A . . . . . . and rims appropriate to modern tubeless tyres.

 

That would at least create a level playing field, more or less, and in addition help improve safety and contain tyre costs.

 

Original 4" rims from the 50s and 60s weren't the best of wheels in the first place, they are now seriously aged, and it is no easy task to find a set that will even balance properly. That situation is not going to improve.

 

There doesn't seem to me to be an overwhelming argument for retaining 4" rims for the Sprint and Hillclimb Championship if that doesn't sit comfortably with the generality of motor sport disciplines.

 

Competition improves the breed, as they say, and this is one instance where a competitive requirement for remanufacture of 4.5" t/l wheels could be of considerable and increasing benefit to a significant number of TR2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 4A, Dove, Swallow Doretti, Peerless GT owners.

 

Spares Development Fund to the rescue, perhaps ?

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alec,

 

Many words of wisdom from you there. I have just been out for my daily walk and gave the matter some considerable thought. The conclusions I reached, echoed your own but take it one stage further, allowing 5.5J wheels to be used. I suggest the following option should also be considered by the Technical Committee before they make a decision.

 

That 5.5J wheels, either, steel, alloy or wire should be allowed in Class 1 (Roadsports), on all models TR2 -6, on the grounds of mainly safety and to a lesser degree cost. They are probably the most widely available wheel and used on the majority of these TRs (even fitted as standard on the later TR6, I believe). That should be reason enough for classifying them as 'standard'. For those wishing to run wires, they would have the benefit of the more robust 72 spoke item.

 

I do not want to pound around circuits for many seasons (hopefully) on old 4J steel wheels or 60 spoke 4.5J wires (even new ones). That would be a recipe for disaster. As Class 1 (Roadsports) allows 60 aspect ratio tyres, that puts an enormous strain on wheels and suspension. It is incongruous to allow such modern tyres but not the wheels to fit them to.

 

Implementation of such a common sense regulation might encourage more road going TRs to compete in the entry level class.

 

Your suggestion that the SDF looks into this issue of unobtainable new 4.5J wheels is an excellent one and I hope that is considered by the decision makers, regardless of which wheel we can use in the Championship.

 

So there it is. 4.5J or 5.5J ?

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John,

 

the FIA have spent decades evolving and refining the fine detail of Appendix K, all the while endeavouring to ensure that classic and historic competition (for want of a better term) retains an authentic period flavour and degree of contemporary historical accuracy, yet incorporating a reasonable level of current safety technology.

 

Events run strictly under FIA regs do conform to that standard, and the use of appropriate (as in historically appropriate) wheels and tyres is a significant element within that standard.

 

Wheels of 5.5" rim width were not common even in the latter 1960s, and certainly not for smaller production sports cars . . . . not for road or competition use, modsports excepted. There is no reasonable argument, in my view, for suggesting that wheels of this width should be included within a production or roadsports category for TR2-4A and deriratives.

 

By the same token, I can't see any justification for using tyres of wider than 185 section or lower than 70% aspect ratio . . . . they did not exist in period, and there is no compelling reason to use them for classic and historic competition.

 

Apart from any other consideration, the fitting of current technology (relatively) low profile rubber potentially imposes loads on the chassis, suspension, steering and drivetrain that were not conceived of within the original overall design parameters of our cars.

 

As a quite separate issue, modern tyres can increase roadholding and cornering speeds, but at the expense of the classic handling characteristics which do comprise at least some of the spectator appeal of our cars.

 

You can't have the cake and the halfpenny . . . . classic racing or hot rod racing, but not both.

 

Cheers,

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

John you'd be roughly gaining 2s a run going from 2a to 1d classes.

Perhaps changing the bogey times would be easier. As they appear to be achievable by excellent drivers in fully tweaked cars with perfectly allowable but specialist tyres with the best weather and track conditions. as opposed to "reflect what should be an achievable time for a well driven run" that I aspire too.

May be the cheaper option for both of us. As it seems we are in the same boat wider wheels tipping us up a class.

And I have the non adjustable camber set up on my 3a that from pictures is slowing me up somewhat. (I'll take any excuse)

Hey I may yet have to join the road legal "sticky" tyre lads as they are cheaper than the narrower wheels.

At the end of the day the revington championship events are great fun. A great bunch of people take part and I for one being new to the car and competing am learning an awful lot.

Good luck with the wheels hunt and the events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homologation Paper 133 for the Works' TR4 Rally cars has:

4J x 15 Steel (this is as in the earlier Homologation Paper 99)

On page 7, optional equipment is listed, including:

60 spoke 4.5J

Steel bolt-on 5J

Aluminium alloy 5J

 

I cannot see any point in producing 4J steel wheels, as no one would want them.

 

Ian Cornish

Edited by ianc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Championship has no requirement to comply with FIA, Appendix K, or Homologation of whatever sort; simple compliance with our Regulations and the MSA Blue Book as applicable is all that is required.

 

Roadsport requires wheels as originally fitted and for steel wheels these were:

TR2 15 by 4

TR3 early 15 by 4

TR3 late 15 by 4.5

TR4/4A 15 by 4.5

TR5/250 15 by 4.5

TR6 15 by 5.5

TR7 13 by 5.5

 

It is the responsibility of the entrant to ensure that the car complies with the Regulations and the data submitted on the Technical Declaration. In the eighteen years that I have been involved there has never been a requirement for a car to be scrutineered to assess compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everybody for the input. It seems we have reached a conclusion which is what I wanted to achieve.

 

4.5J seems to be the wheel of choice for early cars in Roadsports, except very early cars which had 4J wheels. If a source of 4.5J wheels can be secured, surely those TR2s and early TR3s should be allowed to run on them. As Ian states, the market for 4J would be practically non-existent.

 

Roger has emailed me separately, pointing out that the rules can't be changed mid-season and there is a formal way to do it. I accept that 5.5J is not in accordance with the ethos of Roadsports so a rule change is not necessary. Also, no rule change is required to use 4.5J according to Roger's post above (except for perhaps those very early cars).

 

Let's get moving then with trying to obtain 4.5J wheels from Weller or whoever. If an item could be produced which allows the fitting of the standard hub cap, the market would be much wider than just the competition folk. Alec makes that point above. SPARES DEVELOPMENT FUND ???

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Championship has no requirement to comply with FIA, Appendix K, or Homologation of whatever sort; simple compliance with our Regulations and the MSA Blue Book as applicable is all that is required.

 

Roadsport requires wheels as originally fitted and for steel wheels these were:

TR2 15 by 4

TR3 early 15 by 4

TR3 late 15 by 4.5

TR4/4A 15 by 4.5

TR5/250 15 by 4.5

TR6 15 by 5.5

TR7 13 by 5.5

 

 

 

Only for clarification

 

1) are the above Inch sizes or J sizes

 

2) As our our Roadsport regs state "Wheels must be same diameter and width as original" there is no requirement as to style or construction so could be made of steel, wires, alloy or even wood.

 

3) I assume that "as original" includes all factory or dealer fit options.

 

4) And without wishing to drive a coach and horses through the regs, as the regs state "Wheels" not Rims or Tyres and I believe a "Wheel" is an assembly of a "Rim and a Tyre" the requirement appears to require maintenance of rolling diameter and within that Rim diameter and Tyre profile (provided not less than 60%) are free.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please allow me one small hint as a "non-competitor" - I'm just driving fast on regular roads.

 

Many TR2..TR4-drivers suffer from the remaining quality of the original steel wheels - some switch to (heavy & a pleasure to clean) wire wheels as the only available option. Going for alloy/ Minilite on a sidescreen car is no option for many, as they look to modern (allow having some really distinctive appearance).

 

So if somebody would be willing to reproduce steel wheels, I think it would be a much larger "market" for them if they could be used as the originals: So try to get the pins to mount the hubcaps. By this the manufacturer could access the whole market of TR2-TR4-drivers - not the much smaller market of the "racers".

 

Regards, Johannes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ian, 133 issued Sept 1963 was the last of 6 separate homologations for the TR4, and still shows 4J as the standard steel wheel . . . . . as do the TR4A homologations of 1965 and 66.

 

Which does rather make a nonsense of our Championship regs permitting 4.5J for some wet liner cars, but only 4J for others.

 

As you suggest, 4J wheels are unlikely to have the appeal of 4.5J . . . . . so perhaps it is time for the TRR to attempt an agreement with the 'powers that be' to the effect that 4.5J rims should be permitted for all wet liner cars. Then we could organise Weller to remanufacture such wheels, complete with the pips for the trim - hardly a difficult exercise considering the potential demand.

 

I've assembled several sets of good 4J rims in the past, testing them for trueness and balance - I don't think it's ever taken less than 10 wheels to make a good set of 4, and these days it's probably double that. The remainder are 'spare wheel' quality at best, or more likely just scrap.

 

I do appreciate that our Championship does not have to comply with FIA requirements, other than those incorporated in the Blue Book. Over some 50 years I've seen an awful lot of one-make series come and go, and the primary reason for so many of them withering on the vine has been incompatibility with mainstream multi-marque series. If a car cannot be built to be competitive in both a one-make club and a multi-marque proprietary series, then the average driver will abandon the one-make series in favour of the mainstream events. The TR Race series was a case in point.

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside . . . . . FIA Homologation commenced only in 1960. Hence there are no homologation papers for sidescreen TRs, nor for the small Standards also campaigned by the 'works' team in the 1950s.

 

Heralds were homologated in 1961, reasonable enough for a small saloon with potential . . . . TR4s not until the following year, 1962.

 

But the first Standard Triumph car to be homologated for competition, in 1960, was the Vanguard Six . . . . which begs the question of by what triumph of misplaced optimism over common sense ? A big staid saloon of obsolete underpinnings, with just 2 litres under the bonnet, it's difficult to understand what sort of competitive future it might have had . . . . other than short oval racing, some years down the line.

 

Any clues ?

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt the Vanguard do stuff like the Monte and those sort of rallies or were they just privateers?

Stuart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Vanguard in the Monte is about on a par with a carthorse in the Grand National, but with less hope of success . . . . .

 

That didn't stop Standard Triumph entering a team of half a dozen Vanguards in the 1956 Monte, big cars underpowered by the wet liner 4 in near enough production format.

 

One of the motley crew of drivers described the exercise as an Italian Campaign, the Vanguards proving in reality to be rearguards . . . . .

 

No doubt the odd benighted privateer entered a Vanguard here and there, but not with any noteworthy success - and the factory realised that once was enough to prove that carthorses don't mix with racehorses.

 

As far as I'm aware, by the time the Vanguard Six came along then not even the most diehard Standard enthusiast would have wasted brainpower assessing its potential for competition. And yet someone had it homologated. Why ?

 

Cheers

 

Alec

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps some mis-guided soul at the factory thought the fitting of the 6 cylinder would give it enough go to compete?

Stuart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way Classes were divided in European Rallies meant that manufacturers needed to keep a close eye on the Regulations and then field a team or teams which might maximise their chances of awards.

It should not be forgotten that the lowly Standard 8 and Pennant achieved considerable success.

The Vanguard, in its 4-pot, 2088cc form, probably had very similar performance to that of the big Fords of the time, so, if marketing wanted publicity, the Comps Dept would do its best to oblige.

All my reference books are in boxes at the moment, else I would have a look at Graham's most recent work on the Works' Triumphs (which includes the Standards, and I do recollect mention of Vanguards), and Reydellet's 6-volumes of "Les Triumph en Competition", in which he details both the entrants and the results (from both the Works and from privateers - again, including Standards).

Ian Cornish

Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking my copy of the various works competition cars books, looks like key results were...

 

Standard 10's managed 4th overall in the 1955 Tulip and 1st and 3rd overall in the '55 RAC (!!) plus 5th overall on the '56 RAC

Standard 8's produced 2nd, 3rd and 4th overall on the 1956 Tulip

Then the Pennants did the following: 2nd and 3rd overall on the '58 RAC,

Finally, a Vanguard III was 8th overall on the '56 Monte.

 

Alec, I see a rally car in your future........................................

 

Having said that, I don't see any Standards being rallied by the factory in the 1960's!

Edited by TorontoTim
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please familiarise yourself with our Terms and Conditions. By using this site, you agree to the following: Terms of Use.