HS30-H

I have 45DCOE-9s on both my S20s. Driveability is fine. Even with 8L cams, S20 is a pussycat.

I must say it's a real privilege to have the input of veteran racecar driver Crashy McCrashface on the thread. Slightly late to the start line (comfort break?) but at least you got here before everyone else went home. However, all that 'contact with the barriers' over the years might just have degraded the old grey matter somewhat. Because this: ...doesn't quite match up with this: And this: ...doesn't seem to apply if you happen to be driving a yellow Chevron.

That's because Morton had just driven into it! The clue is the fact that it is facing the wrong way and has a big chunk of its RH rear quarter missing... None of your analysis seems to take the infield-spinning car and/or the slowing green car into account. I'll say it again, Morton is attempting an overly optimistic pass of the yellow Chevron in the middle of an unfolding incident where other cars are taking avoiding action. That's brain fade, not brake fade. I don't get your 'keep in line' comments. If everyone had to keep in line and/or stay parallel to other cars, what was the green flag for? They are in race mode, not formation lap mode, as proved by Morton passing at least four cars between the green flag and the middle of turn one whilst moving from the inside to the outside of the track.

Not for the first time are the two of us looking at the same thing but seeing differently. You're pointing at the yellow Chevron and accusing it of "changing lines going into a turn braking", but that's exactly what Morton did to the two 911s after the green flag. He simply outbrakes them going into turn one. So you're pinning the blame 100% on Johnson in the yellow Chevron? Amazing. Here's another pair of freeze frames. The first one shows cars ahead on the grass, and they are on the grass because they are taking avoiding action. Three abreast isn't going to work. The second shows the stricken green car on the left side of the track with the Cobra Daytona passing it. Morton has driven into the Chevron between the first car half-spinning off to the left infield and this stricken, slowing car ahead. If you want to talk about "best practice" I suggest attempting a pass into a rapidly reducing gap - with two cars ahead on the grass and a dangerously slowing car on the inside - might not be 'best practice', to put it mildly. 100% Morton's fault.

Yesterday you were talking about "lanes" (?!) and now you're talking about "lines". The yellow Chevron moved from the left side of the track to the right side of the track - clearly to avoid an incident unfolding on the left - but he was also taking The Racing Line. You've mentioned "under braking". Why was everyone braking there? Turn two is not a normal braking point, it is little more than a kink between turns 1 and 3. The reason they were braking there was - as I have pointed out - the incident still unfolding on their left with a dramatically slowing car emitting steam/smoke. Key point in all this is - of course - that the Chevron was well ahead of the Z at all times. Morton simply drove into a reducing gap and hit the Chevron on its rear quarter.

Following an incident when a 240Z tried to use a B8 as a launch pad, Chevron have MODified one for Brian Johnson's next race:

This concept of "lanes" on a race track is a new one on me. The concept of requiring "situational awareness" doesn't apply to Morton, apparently. He also doesn't seem to have eyes in the back of his head. Might have been useful in this particular corner. I think Morton's view out of his front screen might be more relevant. I don't know about you, but I think if I was driving the Chevron my attention at that point might have been on the cause of the smoke/steam ahead, the stricken car on the left and the cars that were taking avoiding action by moving right. 'Mustang on Grass' is a dish I think many of us would tend to give a wide berth if at all possible.

I think if the cars and drivers were switched, John and Randy would be saying that the Chevron drove straight into the Z. In fact, that's what they do seem to be saying anyway, isn't it? I have the utmost respect for Morton and I am - of course - a Z fan, but it needs saying. Looks like he certainly had a better view of the incidents unfolding on his left, which explains why he was moving to the right side of the track ahead of Morton. I know it's all too easy to Monday Morning Quarterback this, but the key point(s) here are the incidents unfolding on the left side of the track in turns one and two. Ploughing into a crippled/stationary car because the regulations state that you should "maintain a predictable line" is not the best interpretation of the rules, so the Chevron driver was doing the right thing in my opinion.

Yes, the CHALLENGE car was quite a successful roof chop, I think. There were a few chopped Zs active in Japanese drags and speed trials, but the road-legal CHALLENGE car was probably the best proportioned:

I have a fair few of those old OPTION and Car Boy magazines here at home. I recognised the car as being one of the old early 80s drag specials. Some of them had interesting ad powerful engines, but chassis setup for drag was not very well understood or developed at the time. From the same OPTION magazine issue, this is the same car as the rear view in the first post:

'Japan'. Or - as everyone else calls it - The Internet. You might want to try using the Hoover attachment which picks up the relevant information and not just the photos. It might still be in the packaging. You did keep the packaging, I hope?

I'm familiar with historic racing. Your last sentence could (should) apply to Morton just as much as anyone else, and he certainly wasn't holding back when he overtook those two Porsches during a switch from LH to RH side of the track after the green light. There was a car spinning off on the inside of the first corner, then plenty of smoke/steam ahead on the left and unsighted cars were moving right to avoid the slowing car from which it was coming. Morton was overtaking cars whilst they were slowing for the incident(s) in the inside and there should have been waved yellow flags/yellow flashing lights at that point. The yellow Chevron started moving right while Morton was still behind it, the Mustang ahead was on the grass, and yet Morton was still on the throttle through the second corner and basically drove into the Chevron. I have the utmost respect for Morton and yes the whole incident played out quickly, but this looks like it is just as much his fault as anyone else's.

Seemed to me that the yellow Chevron (Johnson) moved to the right to avoid the stricken car on the inside. Why would he have to 'hold the line'? Was it a formation lap?

"Taxi cars"? The L20 six was launched in the H130 Cedric 'Special Six' model. It was a flagship model. You would have had a hard time finding one being used as a taxi. What's the point you are trying to make here? https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/HERITAGE/cedric_special_6_1965.html "Thanks Mr K...!" I think the statement in bold is making some presumptions about the lines of communication, and who was responsible for what. The Pete Brock-penned Classic Motorsports BRE article states that BRE (maybe Sharp too?) 'reported their findings to the factory', but I would find it surprising if the lines of communication at the time allowed BRE and/or Sharp direct communication with "the factory" at all, let alone Nissan's engine design divisions. I think it would be much more likely that they were either firing missives off to Nissan departments unknown, in English, or simply reporting to NMC USA. So what was the purpose of quoting the clearly inaccurate Classic Motorsports article?

That's a 130-P model Cedric with an H20 4cyl engine running on LPG.

You're just scatter-shooting again. Where's your critique of the content? You post it as though you believe every word. Isn't this the same Classic Motorsports Magazine article that implied BRE 'discovered' the L24 crank harmonic problem and 'reported' it to Nissan Japan, hence taking some credit for the re-design of the crank and the 'cure'? We've been through all this before of course (Deja Vu all over again...) but Nissan knew about the problem - and already had the re-designed crank going into production and testing - before BRE had received their first 240Z. As for your "...early L24 crank failures and possibly why the L24 did not race in Japan until this was sorted", this doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, does it? Well before mid 1969 Nissan had already put in place their plans for racing and rallying the new S30-series Z range. That's why the 432-R existed in the first place, and why Nissan was putting together a program of International rallying for the 240Z (they were testing a PZR-bodied, L24R-engined works rally mule on the Monte Carlo Rallye route in January 1970), all of which made sense for its domestic and export marketing strategies. The article's "...the 240Z’s new American-market, six-cylinder engines had never been designed for or even expected to see competition." is ill-informed USA-centric twaddle, isn't it?

Original, intact, unbowdlerised and un-Hoovered article: https://www.automesseweb.jp/2019/04/12/132917 Machine translations from Japanese to English still leave a lot to be desired, but remember... cr*p in = cr*p out. Mistakes and uninformed opinion are available in most languages. At least the original looks better...

The 'Datsun Compe' steering wheel was not unique to the Z. It was a generic Sports Option part listed for other Nissan models too. Izumi was the OEM manufacturer of the stock wood-composite S30-series Z steering wheels and the 'Datsun Compe' steering wheels. You are thinking of the 'Mach' Nissan sports/race option steering wheel, like this:

They certainly dated from well before 1979. I have an original that was given to me by a friend who bought it new in 1973. And then there's this:

It was written by a 'fan', and translated by 'fans'/friends. In fact Katayama san was (Christian) Godfather to Brian and Miho Long's first child. And 'Edited' by Mike Taylor...? The fact that the original was written by a Japanese author doesn't necessarily mean it is completely objective, and the fact that the English translation has the strapline 'Father Of The Z' should tell you what to expect. There are plenty of Japanese people who completely subscribe to the Mr K Legend, and some who are a little more evenly balanced in their view of events. I think it is wise to listen to both sides and make your own mind up about what is being exaggerated and what is not.

"As valid" as what? Any replica/tribute/'phantom' project is fine by me. But you are - once again - missing the wider point. The Real Thing always demands a premium. Does somebody buy one of these cars when they actually would have settled for something completely different? Are there people out there who can easily afford a Michaelangelo - and actually want one - but who say 'Nah! I'll get a dot matrix printed copy instead'..? Where were your pithy comments about the so-called "Franklin Mint" car? I would have thought that if you need any of this explaining to you it's too late. It's already gone over your head.

Maybe you can start a little side business to tell art galleries that they don't need to buy those Rothkos, and that you'll knock them up something similar at a fraction of the price...?

There's a good comment about the topic from LOLA Cars boss Eric Broadley regarding 1963 (Broadley/LOLA were just about completely wiped from the story by the screenwriters for this film, and the 'Prototype' Ford GT appears at the Shelby American workshop as air freight - presumably from thin air...) when Ford hired LOLA as a consultancy to produce the GT40, originally based on Broadley's LOLA GT design: "It wasn't a very comfortable time, but then working with big companies is rarely comfortable. It was a lesson in the importance of maintaining one's own independence and keeping the company self-contained. It was our fault really, we allowed too much interference from Ford. They were too deeply involved with everything and the consequence of that in a big company is that certain individuals will take advantage. To make a project like that work it is necessary to maintain the two sides, they must work closely together but they must maintain their separate identities, because the big company has come to the specialist to do a job for it. If they get themselves too involved they must screw it, otherwise there is no point going there in the first place."