Ralt RT4/86 History

[Raltracer]

Have an 86,trying to track history,car was homologated by Falcon Racing in 1988.The front Techno wheels have Dean Halls name on them,any idea on how to find him.Car has no engine,but previous wanted BDD ad might resolve that.SCCA log book went back to 1991,Richard Mullins,have spoken to him but could not remember who he bought it off.Kevin Firlein ran car at a Run-offs meet.Thats about it.Thanks Pete

[Charles Warner]

Pete,

Not trying to burst your bubble, but the odds are great that those wheels have seen duty with several different cars. Not uncommon for wheels to be bought and sold (see the ads in this forum), so I would venture a guess that the name on a wheel is not a good indicator of past ownership. Tub number or A.M. number are about the only good clues, and if Marc Bahner rebuilt the tub along the way these may be gone too.

You can call Kevin at 410.997.7943. If he ran the car he probably has some recollections.

[Raltracer]

Charles,thanks for your thoughts,i can appreciate the wheels as, a last straw,but have spoken to everyone in USA re this car including Kevin Firleins dad.I have an ID # AND Arch Motors # but the problem is that the SCCA kept such lousy records that no one knows who's car it is.The dreaded log books were passed around to anyone that required one to compete.The best the SCCA can do is tell me that of Falcon Racing,not the owners,no possible way of making a contact.Will keep on this one as the car has some interesting up grades,this is not your standard 86 RT4.Worth persuing.Thanks Pete

[Charles Warner]

Pete,

Being somewhat familiar with the breed, can you be more specific about what makes this particular RT-4 unique? There is a large database extant regarding these cars, especially if one was highly successful or unique in some ways.

[Raltracer]

Charles,car has a very nice CNC'd rear bulkhead ie,the b/head to access fuel cell,and it is not Stuart Moore's as i have spoken to him.Has a strut from legs to top of fuel cell as a brace.The front top A arms are made from formed steel then seam welded also 1 inch wider track,Stuart said they are his,top A arm shear plates are hard anodised,will send you some images.Thanks pete

[Charles Warner]

Pete,

Now that you point out the bulkhead I see it. Nice and will add a bit of stiffness, as will the rearward braces. A arms "look" standard but hard to tell. Track options on all cars were to max allowable width. Best configuration was (as yours appears to have) narrow track rear with wide track front. Sounds like Stuart should be able to clue you in more than anyone else. Try contacting some of the historian gurus (Peter Hylton, etc.) to check the late 80's pro entry sheets. Tub numbers may be mentioned there.

What AM number does it have?

[Raltracer]

Charles,AM 85/106 for your info only,will send you a shot of A arms.Falcon Racing was Uve Falk,have spoken to him and can not recall car,but he said there were 2 F/R teams,but i can not find the other.Will keep looking.Thanks Pete

[Raltracer]

Where do i find Peter Hylton.

[Graham Rankin]

Charlie, Apologies for tacking on to your conversation,but you mentioned the best set up was narrow rear, wider front.I still run an original narrow track front on our '83 but often considered changing to wide.How wide is wide ?

[Charles Warner]

Graham,

From my recollection, there were three setups: narrow, standard, and wide track front, with either narrow or wide track rear. I want to say the difference between narrow and wide at the front is about 4 inches. The front track and rear track are almost the same. Marc Bahner will know, and have the facilities to make whatever is needed. Your car, with wide track front and narrow rear, is the quickest configuration of all RT-4s. Doesn't make much downforce with the flat sidepods but it's a bullet in a straight line.

[Graham Rankin]

Charlie,
I guess I need to take measurements and ask more questions.Interesting point on the sidepods.I acquired some 86 side pods and fitted them over the winter and really have not had chance to see if there are any gains.Most people I speak to say they are significantly better, but what does your experience say?? What's better and why ?

[Charles Warner]

The 86 sidepods are not that much more efficient. The coke bottle effect just forward of the rear tires should add some more downforce and possibly a bit better air extraction from the tunnel, also improving downforce. That said, the fastest RT-4 ever known was a 1983 with the standard narrow nose and flat side pods. Wide front and narrow rear. (Some of this was because of front end grip, and some, I'm sure, is due to the fact that the narrow and medium front track setups block a lot of air to the tunnels.) Driven by Jim Wright in St Louis. Absolutely blazing in a straight line and very good in the twisty bits as well.

Also, to be able to take advantage of the minimal increase in downforce (possibly offset by the attendant drag increase) an extremely high level of committment and exacting car setup have to be maintained. Remember, this was not the era of high tech design of tunnels. More like a designers guesstimate as to the best shape and not much thought given to pitch sensitivity.

Leads to the discussion of softly sprung cars using all available mechanical grip and some aero, versus stiffly sprung, aero based setups that concentrate on downforce and take whatever mechanical grip they can claw back. IMHO, when discussing these cars (1983-1988) to make the aero work to any real high degree requires the car be set so stiffly (to maintain the proper platform) that a lot of low to medium speed grip is lost. Even the factories were guessing a lot during this period. The 1987 RT-4/5 side pods are much, much deeper than the 1986/88 units. Required a lot of different hardware at the rear. They thought there would be a good increase in downforce. There was. Too much!! At the first pro race in 1987 the factory (Ralt America) found the Super Vees could not pull that much drag around Long Beach. Stuck in the corners (not sure of the balance, though) but was a pig down the straight. That's why the first mod done to a 1987 is to go back to 1986 sidepods. Other than that a 1987 is every bit as good as a 1986, and both are head and shoulders above the 1988 - until you put the rear from a 1986 onto the 1988, then you have a nice car.

[RussMcB]

Charlie, I always enjoy when you share your thoughts about the "middle age" Ralts.

Your comments may explain something I've experienced recently with my '83 (rocker arm) RT-5. I've been going stiffer in the past two years. My lap times are better. It's hard to say for sure if it is because the car is faster. I'm not the fastest or most sensitive driver, and I don't race often enough to be able to really feel improvements.

My most recent experience at VIR was that I was significantly faster than the fastest VD RF-01 Formula Continentals in the high speed esses, but not as fast in the many slow speed corners. Your comment about stiffness hurting mechanical grip turned on a little light bulb over my head. (duh)

I've been running skirts to help seal the tunnels, even though they are a pain. They wouldn't be a problem if I never left the asphalt (I'm working on that). My current spring rates are 900 lb. rear and 750 lb. front (up from 700/450 when I got the car).

Great comments. I hope this thread continues.

[Charles Warner]

Russ,

Are you using skirts to fully seal the tunnels to the ground? If so, then you need to concentrate on the stability of the platform. If you are just using extensions to within a few cm of the road the pitch stability is not as important since you will have some spillage of tunnel air anyway.

If your lap times improve then you are indeed "going faster." How much of this is due to driver improvement/familiarity with car, and how much due to car improvement, is another matter.

Another issue on these cars is the wear and tear experienced by the tub. By this I mean the security and rigidity of the rear structure: legs and rear cross beam. I have seen cars that have never had the legs off to be re-epoxied. After several hard years these legs will begin to move a bit and act somewhat like a completely unpredictable spring. Ideally they should be removed every year, inspected and then re-bolted and epoxied in place, squaring up the rear each time. A similar effect can happen on the front with the rocker mounting ears.

You just might find that after making sure the tub is as stiff as you can make it you can back off the spring rates and develop a bit more mechanical grip. Decisions have to be made at this point regarding those things that do affect the platform stability. Preloading front springs, for example. It is much harder to do on the rocker cars than the pushrod variants as it involves developing a system to droop limit the front rockers.

By the way, taking the Lola to Atlanta early June for the first time. What gears do you run in the RT-5 there? Thanks.

[Raltracer]

I am enjoying this discussion on set up,but i still need a way of contacting Peter Hylton.Thanks guys

[Charles Warner]

A simple Google search of "Peter Hylton" + "SCCA" yields:

http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp...x=080%7C070&~=

Scroll down to National ADministrators and there's a link directly to Peter.

[Charles Warner]

Russ,

Thanks for the ratios. Look a bit short for me. I'll be in the Lola CSR and am thinking about 155 down the back straight based on what I get at Memphis.

Your legs were originally riveted and epoxied on. I doubt that any car has the original legs on it as they are easily damaged and were really considered expendable. Too many people just took the old ones off and riveted new ones on without epoxy. At minimum they should be removed, cleaned and inspected (Marc Bahner can make new ones if needed.) Drill out the rivets and either install good high quality nut plates or use nuts and bolts (either 10-32 or 1/4-20) and reinstall with 3M epoxy. Care must be taken to make sure the rear beam is square when the epoxy is setting. Fairly easy to do. If you decide to do it let me know and I'll walk you though it.

I would be surprised if you were getting a 1 inch lowering of the car at speed. Just a guess with your spring rates would mean at least 1000 pounds of downforce. I'm sure the skirts get a bit closer with speed but not enough to seal effectively. This can be done quite easily and cheaply if you want to go that route but it takes a completely different driving style with very little room for error.

[RussMcB]

Originally posted by Charles Warner:
Are you using skirts to fully seal the tunnels to the ground?

At static ride height they are about 1" off the ground. Most pictures of my car at speed look like the skirts are very close to touching the track.

Another issue on these cars is the wear and tear experienced by the tub. By this I mean the security and rigidity of the rear structure: legs and rear cross beam.

My rear legs probably need attention. They are riveted at the very front, and there is a small bracket a few inches back on the top, but they're not too sturdily attached to the main tub. They're definitely not glued. I wonder if mine are missing something .. ?

By the way, taking the Lola to Atlanta early June for the first time. What gears do you run in the RT-5 there?

Great. I'm an hour away. It'd be fun to come watch. Who's running there?

The gears I run there (and Roebling, VIR) are:
14-36
17-34
19-31
22-29
21-25

I think I have a 10:31. I use 22" tires on 8" wide rear wheels. Top speed is around 141 MPH. I have a self imposed redline of 8,000 RPM. I use 2nd gear only once or twice at Rd Atl.

What kind of Lola?

[RussMcB]

155! Woo Hoo! And (as I tell people not too familiar with racing), that's not even the most exciting part! .

Here's a picture of my car on track. The rub strips on the skirts are pretty close to the track surface, but I'm sure you're right - that they really only contact the surface occasionally.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L51122E58

[Raltracer]

Had a responce from Peter Hylton re the history of my car prior to 91,the only way he can trace the history is if i can tell him the drivers name,also at a cost of $25 per driver,no way to do it from ID #'s.So i am afraid i am at a dead end,would be pleased for any bright ideas.Thanks Pete

[D.T. Benner]

Going back to RaltRacers original post. Last week i had a good laugh while looking at an ad for Big screen TV's in my Sunday paper. There on one screen of one of the TV's was a picture of Dean Hall in an Atlantic car! He had a very distinctive helmet paint job that was hard to miss!What made me smile is that of all the people who saw that ad I was probably the only one who knew or for that matter cared! Lots of ads have race cars in the TV's so i always look to see it i can figure who it is or what track it is.

[Raltracer]

Had a breakthrough thanks to Peter Harholdt,Peter owned car prior to Rich Mullins in 91,Peter got car as a part trade on a Swift by Bruce Jankowitz,spoke to him and confirmed it is the car,tub and A arms were Stuart Moores,he bought the car from Tom Kleinman(Uve Falk prepped)so now just need to find Tom.Thanks guys

[dereklola]

Pete - never give up - as you are finding out breakthroughs come eventually - often when least expected.

Few years ago I bought a Ralt RT2, from Charles Warner actually (small world), "allegedly with CanAm history". Spent two years trying to trace the history and was about to give up. One Saturday morning tried one last time through directory enquiries using name and state only (no city) and got hold of the crew chief in the backwoods of California. Two days later was talking about my Lola to someone in Florida when he said something like "Just had a customer called Bill Blackledge - used to race cars like yours". Turned out to be the son of the Bill Blacklegde who raced my RT2 in CanAm.

Two years, two days and a continent apart and I had the full story. So don't give up - the info is out there somewhere. Derek

[Bart Perlman]

I recently purchased a Ralt RT 5. Can someone clarify the tub number versus AM number for me? What is/was Arch Motors?

The number stamped on the front of the tub reads AM 83-70. Can I assume that the tub was produced in 1983, and that this was the 70th car produced since 1980? Since it has pushrod front suspension, which I have been told came out with the 84 cars, I'm thinking the car was finished in 84, or brought up to 84 specs.

Also, does anybody know of any factory drawings, showing the fuel, water, electrical & suspension systems? I was lucky enough to acquire these with my Lola FF a few years ago, and they made my assembly process a whole lot easier.

Thanks in advance for you help.

[Charles Warner]

Bart,

Arch Motors was/is a company that makes customer tubs to customer specs. Most formula cars of the era were made by Arch Motors (Ralt, Lotus, Lola, etc.) No, they did not keep decent records.

AM-83-70 would indicate the 70th tub made by Arch Motors in 1983. You are correct in the assumption that the car might have been completed in 1984. You are incorrect in assuming it is the 70th Ralt made. That is the 70th tub made in 1983 of any model.

Be aware that there are many cars purported to be a 1984 RT-5: many more than were made. Why? Because Michael Andretti drove one (suppossedly) to the pro Super Vee championship. If the car was originally black this is used to further substatiate the claim. Chassis numbers backed up by records are the only way to be sure.

Don't know of any sources for original drawings.

[Raltracer]

Further to my search for the history of RT4-596,had a discussion with Uve Falck(Falcon Racing)an absolute bloody gentleman,who told me he arranged the purchase of Ralt from Steve Horne(Trueports)which was Colin Truemans car for 87 before the Swift.But Uve thought the first owner was Chris Kneifel.So what started out as a near impossible task from the other side of the world has nearly come to an end.Just need to talk to Chris to finish it.Thanks to those how helped out,i can now be given a log book for vintage racing here in Australia.

[Bart Perlman]

Charlie,

Thanks for the information. Does this mean that tub AM 83-71 could be a Lola, while tub AM 83-72 could then be a Ralt, or Lotus? Keeping in mind that the factories probably ordered 5 or 10 tubs at one time.

No false claims were made in regard to the history of this car. It was not represented as Michael Andretti's champtionship car.

[Bart Perlman]

Charlie,

I think I just put two and two together. I purchased the car in Memphis from Marty Monier. When I went back to pick up the car, Marty wanted to introduce me to someone who had a Lola CSR. Sounds like it might have been you.
Thanks again.

[dereklola]

So what started out as a near impossible task from the other side of the world has nearly come to an end.

See - I told you not to give up!
Derek

[Charles Warner]

Bart,

Sorry for the delay - I'm out of the country at the present. Yes, Marty is a good friend of mine. He has always maintained this was indeed a Kneifel pro car. I have never seen documentation although I have absolutely no reason to doubt it. Definitely a 1984 RT-5. Strange beastie. Contact Marc Bahner for parts.

Yes, AM-84-123 could be a Ralt whereas AM-84-124 could be a Lotus F1. No rhyme or reason.