Jump to content
Geoff C

Triumph TR4S 1960

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff I did contact Mike some time ago......substantial is the answer. I would suggest contacting the vendors if you are interested.

 

Iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondered what it is going for, well out of my price bracket

 

Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need to ask, then..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Alec Pringle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by iain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TRS Vs TR4S confusion also explains how all those TR4's managed to qualify for Classic LeMans :ph34r::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought they had twin Siamese S.U.s :unsure: . Not that I fault the switch ^_^ !

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

Yep DU6 Twin Choke SUs like these

 

post-6602-0-28860500-1519256468_thumb.jpg

 

post-6602-0-54947400-1519256496_thumb.jpg

 

post-6602-0-92640600-1519256346_thumb.jpg

 

 

Mick Richards

 

 

Edited by Motorsport Mickey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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.