Geoff C Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Have seen the above car for sale at Movendi in Germany with interesting pics. of the famous Sabrina engine looking brand new but no price, does any one what they are asking for it ? Geoff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Smith Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 I believe 927 HP is/was Mike Otto's car, link - http://mo-vendi.de/en/cars/653-triumph-tr-4-s-works-team-car/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Geoff I did contact Mike some time ago......substantial is the answer. I would suggest contacting the vendors if you are interested. Iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Geoff C Posted February 3, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Just wondered what it is going for, well out of my price bracket Geoff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chris59 Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 If you need to ask, then..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tr graham Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 £300K Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ianc Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Although one can see the body shape as a pre-cursor to the TR4, it's actually a TRS, not a TR4S. The Ottos (father & son) brought both 927HP and 928HP to our IWE at Malvern in 2010 for "The Works Triumphs" event. Ian Cornish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Hi Ian, I'd suggest either description, TRS or TR4S might be considered correct . . . . apart from some of the contemporary press reports referring to TR4S, the clincher for me back in 1980 was checking with the ACO archivist of the time and noting the original entry and race documentation from 1960 and 1961 that clearly stated TR4S rather than just TRS. Yes I appreciate that Triumph apparently preferred to use the TRS designation . . . . . but the detail changes in the Sports 2000 category, given that the TR could only be regarded as a prototype and held no production GT homologation, must have caused concern. Using both descriptions perhaps enabled Triumph to cover their backs if the ACO got awkward at the last minute !! Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Robson Posted February 3, 2018 Report Share Posted February 3, 2018 Oh dear, we've had this discussion before. All I would like to repeat is that during my time at Triumph (in the years during and after the active life of the TRS cars), no-one in the factory ever referred to them (or wrote internal memos about them) as 'TR4S'. As to the ACO archives - well, I would rather trust the people who were close to the cars - who of course included Alick Dick and Harry Webster himself - than anyone else. [in fact when the TRS cars were active in 1960 and 1961, the real TR4 road car was still under development, and universally called the 'Zest' ....] Hon. Pres. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Geoff C Posted February 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 Thanks tr graham if thats going for £300K what will the Conrero fetch when that is finished ? pricessless ? IMHO its a great looking car Geoff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PaulAnderson Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) Here's a photo of 928HP at IWE 2010 [[ Edited February 4, 2018 by PaulAnderson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) I'm sure Graham is correct about the factory terminology, and I've never seen anything by way of factory documentation to disagree with his observations, but that still begs the question of why the ACO came up with the TR4S description . . . . . an ACO initiative, or was it simply someone at Triumph trying to cover their backs by using a couple of slightly different descriptions, taking a leaf out of the Ferrari book ?! As for value, it's whatever someone with more money than sense is willing to pay for entry to the prestige social / motoring events around the world, normal considerations of value don't come into it. The TR4S would not make a sensible road car, it is not an enjoyable thing to drive even on the track let alone on the road, and in anything resembling original format would be wildly outclassed on the track by other models of the period that have enjoyed a subsequent half century of development. All a bit of a quartet of white elephants, one way and another, attractive enough visually and the stuff of legend, but not that much cop from behind the wheel . . . . assuming that the other three are no better than 929 HP, which was in decent enough shape when I drove it 1980-82 thanks to Roger Williams' generosity.. Cheers Alec Edited February 4, 2018 by Alec Pringle Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) It does make you wonder how this nomenclature came about but these photos all taken in period and labelled by the photographers also add to the mystery. Someone must have given them the name/model? All of the these are 1961 dated http://library.revsinstitute.org/digital/search/searchterm/TR4S However these are named as TRS for 1960 http://library.revsinstitute.org/digital/search/searchterm/TRs Iain Edited February 4, 2018 by iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don H. Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 It does make you wonder how this nomenclature came about but these photos all taken in period and labelled by the photographers also add to the mystery. Someone must have given them the name/model? All of the these are 1961 dated http://library.revsinstitute.org/digital/search/searchterm/TR4S However these are named as TRS for 1960 http://library.revsinstitute.org/digital/search/searchterm/TRs Iain I'd guess the photos in the Revs digital archive used the terminology from the official entry list, Iain, confirming Alec's research that the ACO used that terminology. And it's indeed hard to imagine the ACO made up that designation. I'd guess *somebody* had to have given them that term, yes? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) Not sure Don....other photos by the same photographers are captioned. No such reference would exist for these. But dates and description are given. I guess the original photographs are indexed. For example I have some original photos for the "Light Car" magazine in the 1910-1915 era and "Autocar" in the 1930's. All are written on the back with a description/ date and event etc.Iain Edited February 5, 2018 by iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
iain Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) These sets of photos taken a ST are different again Here they are just the Triumph Le Mans Car. ( taken a bout a month before the event in 1960) http://library.revsinstitute.org/digital/search/searchterm/1960-04-04!triumph/field/date!all/mode/exact!all/conn/and!all/order/nosort/ad/asc But here http://library.revsinstitute.org/digital/search/searchterm/1961-05-18!triumph/field/date!all/mode/exact!all/conn/and!all/order/nosort/ad/asc They are referred to as TR4 Le Mans (S) ( again one month before the event) Edited February 5, 2018 by iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 Again, no mention of TR4 or TR4S in 1960, it's only in the run-up to the 1961 race that the 4 appears . . . . . Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graeme Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 A few observations from those photographs. 1. The cam cover is different from 1960 to '61, were the engines different or just developed? 2. The header tank is much larger on the later car. Solving over heating problems? 3. The tunnel mounted handbrake which wouldn't appear in production until the TR4A. 4.. Electric screen washers which would appear with the TR5/TR250. Great photos which I haven't seen before. Cheers Graeme Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Fremont Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Thought they had twin Siamese S.U.s . Not that I fault the switch ! Cheers, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
North London Mike Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 The TRS Vs TR4S confusion also explains how all those TR4's managed to qualify for Classic LeMans Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Motorsport Mickey Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) Thought they had twin Siamese S.U.s . Not that I fault the switch ! Cheers, Tom Yep DU6 Twin Choke SUs like these Mick Richards Edited February 21, 2018 by Motorsport Mickey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TR NIALL Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 Yep DU6 Twin Choke SUs like these P1010096.JPG P1010098.JPG P1010101.JPG Wouldn’t like to be feeding them,there’d have you broke in no time. Mick Richards Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Hogan Posted February 25, 2018 Report Share Posted February 25, 2018 At the last Le Mans Classic I entered a team of three TR4's on behalf of their owners as the regulations clearly stated TR4's were eligible to race even though a TR4 never raced at Le Mans in period and indeed when i raced there in 2012 there was a French TR4 competing in the race. Needless to say all three UK cars were rejected but only after the organisers sat on the 12000 euro deposit we paid for five months before returning it! I'm now told that a couple of TR4's have been entered again this year and have been accepted but guess what? Yes, they too are French entries. Vive la difference! hoges. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alec Pringle Posted February 25, 2018 Report Share Posted February 25, 2018 Absolutely typical of the ACO, at least in my experience, and why I gave up with Le Mans after 1980. OK, I did attend an odd Classic Le Mans in the early 2000s with Celia and Ian, but I wouldn't waste another weekend at La Sarthe if I could possibly avoid it . . . . . the place and the event just about sums up all that can be worst about La Belle France. Cheers Alec Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.