The Datsun Z series at Le Mans (Daily sportscar.com 17 nov 2013)

[Albrecht]

But do we agree that the GRPIV car had steel panels ?

Which panels are you referring to? And when/where?

 

[SeanDezart]

At Le Mans. Why, do you suspect some were changed between there and SA ?

 

[tmr]

Surely they must have been GRP panels (doors, wings, bonnet and tailgate) as there is no evidence of them after the fire. Who actually ran the car in the 2 races I wonder if any of the mechanics are still with us. For such an important race there are very few actual photos of the cars in the pits and during the race. I was also wondering did Nissan actually attend either in an official or unofficial way, since my first visit in 1986 the Japanese are noticeably the most fervent supporters of their cars

 

[Albrecht]

But do we agree that the GRPIV car had steel panels ?

At Le Mans. Why, do you suspect some were changed between there and SA ?

Trying to lead the witness? You're trying to make me indirectly confirm that the Le Mans car was the South African Gr.V car rather than the South African Gr.IV car.

What I'm saying is that you need to tread carefully. Changes were clearly made to the Le Mans car for '75 in comparison to the spec in South Africa for late '73, let alone for Le Mans in '76. We can learn a lot from the '76 post-crash photos, but it needs careful thought. The RH door looks to have been torn off (at the hinge panel) but the LH door is apparently still in situ. The tailgate is off, but is clearly seen in one piece - unburnt, some metres behind the car - in other shots. The bonnet appears to have been removed/moved as part of the firefighting effort, as it is alongside the LH front of the car - unburnt, and not covered in extinguishant - in other shots. Overfenders and almost all of the Grande Nose & spoiler are all gone/burnt.

The crash was clearly a very violent one, the car having vaulted the armco and showing signs of endoing/somersaulting with severe rear end damage (poor Haller was probably fatally injured in the crash itself, let alone from any smoke/fire injuries). I would say that the doors may well have been FRP, and I suspect that the tailgate and bonnet might have been too, but that doesn't give us 100% proof of it being the SA Gr.V car rather than the SA Gr.IV car. Schuller/Nippon Speed Car had access to those FRP panels in Europe (ironically from ex-works rally cars) but Nissan brought a truck full of spare parts for both cars with them to South Africa and - by all accounts - left a fair bit of it there for the local drivers to use in the Springbok Series (I have some of it in my loft...) and Haller would have needed a 'kit' of spares for his car. Panels can be changed. The ACO's rules for the LM24 differed from those elsewhere and we already know that the car was essentially travelling on a fake passport.

I was also wondering did Nissan actually attend either in an official or unofficial way, since my first visit in 1986 the Japanese are noticeably the most fervent supporters of their cars

As mentioned, Nissan didn't build the car for Le Mans and didn't want it to run at Le Mans. There was some question of true ownership (they had not sold the car) and were not amused to see the identity of a works rally car being hung on it either (especially through an expired 'carnet' license plate). I think we can imagine that they were quite pissed off about it. If they had wanted to run a Z at Le Mans, we can be sure they would have done it with a proper plan, probably with two cars, and with full support - as they had at Kyalami. Topping the whole story off with a fatal crash in an outdated and - let's face it, outclassed - car is not exactly ideal PR-wise.

 

[tmr]

Le Mans then was always a very different international race there were of course manufacturer entrants but a good proportion were privateers, so if a particular marque did well that weekend the manufacturer could appreciate the reflected glory, if poorly could distance them selves or is this looking at it with a westerners psyche?
Speaking to a friend of mine that actually ran a car in the 76 event he confirmed that there was always a certain amount of manoeuvring to allow certain cars to run.

 

[Albrecht]

Le Mans then was always a very different international race there were of course manufacturer entrants but a good proportion were privateers, so if a particular marque did well that weekend the manufacturer could appreciate the reflected glory, if poorly could distance them selves or is this looking at it with a westerners psyche?

I don't know how to express it any more clearly, so maybe I'll turn it up to 11: As far as Nissan were concerned, this was still 'their' car, it had been traded without full authorisation to people who did not really understand it (they would not even have been able to read the Japanese set-up notes for the fuel injection system and oil replenishment system...) and with many of the race 'lifed' parts already past their use-by date in 1975 let alone 1976. It could be argued that it was an accident waiting to happen. Add the identity switch shenanigans on top and it represented something of an awkward problem for Nissan's works team staff back in Japan. They had ambitions to race at Le Mans themselves, but not with that type of car and not in that class.

I just don't get the "they should be happy"/"it's all good publicity" stuff. Truth be told, certain people back in Japan were spitting feathers about it.

 

[SeanDezart]

So, Alan, are you categically saying that the car that ran at Le Mans in 1975 was the Grp IV and with the EFi L24) known previously as the no. 16 during the 1973 SA Springbok series ?

And do you believe that in 1976, a miraculously more powerful engine (300bhp) was 'airlifted' down from Germany to help qualify....or that it simply ran again using the same mechanics ?

 

[Albrecht]

So, Alan, are you categically saying that the car that ran at Le Mans in 1975 was the Grp IV and with the EFi L24) known previously as the no. 16 during the 1973 SA Springbok series ?

No, I won't state that categorically. That's the point I've been making all along, even dating back years to the 'conversations' on the Auto Diva forum. You/we need to tread carefully...

Known facts: We are sure that the 75/76 Le Mans 24hrs car was one of the two works cars from South Africa. There is NO doubt about that. I have full data for both cars whilst they were in works hands, so that helps to identify certain details. There's a strong possibility that changes were made to the car that Schuller obtained for Haller, either through 'development' (unlikely) or Force Majeure (likely) and this makes it less clear as to which car they had.

The problem is, each scenario leaves questions unanswered. Nissan said they left only one car in South Africa for the local drivers to use in the remaining races of the '73 Springbok Series, and that they took the other one back to Japan. As you are aware, The Group 5 car was driven at Kyalami by the two Japanese works drivers and the Group 4 car was driven by the two local South African drivers. The story from the Japanese side was that the Group 4 car was left with the local drivers in order for them to continue a campaign in the remaining races of the Springbok Series, and they could take part in only two races before the series was cancelled due to the oil crisis. We know that the car which took part in those two rounds after Kyalami was the Group 4 car, so it points to that car being the one that Schuller sourced for Haller and that the Group 5 car was taken back to Japan.

A situation where the Group 5 car was left in South Africa and the Group 4 was taken back to Japan doesn't seem to fit because that would make little sense. And if both cars were left in South Africa, what happened to the other one? There is no trace.

And do you believe that in 1976, a miraculously more powerful engine (300bhp) was 'airlifted' down from Germany to help qualify....or that it simply ran again using the same mechanics ?

As I've said before, I don't recommend swallowing that story whole. In my opinion, there simply never was a "300bhp" engine. Yes, they may have swapped complete engines or part engines, but we can see very clearly some important details of the engine from the post crash '76 photos. They show a car with the E4621 head, the works ECGI system and the auxiliary oil tank for the onboard replenishment system. Both of the South African works cars had these details, but the Group 4 car was quoted in Nissan's internal documentation (ie - not a press release or pit gossip) as having an 'LR24' dynoed at 262ps and the Group 5 car as having what they called an 'LR26' dynoed at 275ps. The Group 4 car was pegged by FIA regulations to a fixed overbore limit, whereas the Group 5 car was free to use the larger capacity. The large spares package which the works team brought to Kyalami included spare engines for both cars.

Since we can see those important details (E4621, ECGI, Oil tank etc) in the '76 crash photos, the evidence suggests that the engine is one of the engines used at Kyalami. Even if it was the engine from the Group 5 car or a spare engine in the Group 5 spec, it would not have been "300bhp" or even '300ps'. Haller might have been allowed to run with a larger stated engine capacity in '76 than he did in '75, but did they lie about the true capacity in '75? Several scenarios are possible. All of them leave different questions unanswered.

I always favour the likelihood of cock-up over conspiracy. We know these people - with the best intentions - we trying to punch above their weight with equipment that was a bit beyond them. I'm not saying that they were monkeys trying to use a computer, but they had got hold of a piece of equipment that they clearly had limited spares for and limited knowledge of how to run properly (that ECGI system in particular...). The mechanical spec of the car gave them limited options for changes without initiating a domino effect of problems (for example, putting the E4621 head and ECGI system on a larger capacity block/crank combination) so I would say that its more likely they were using a combination of parts comprised from what Schuller had got hold of from South Africa and/or what he had got hold of from old works rally cars that he had dealings with. If an engine was brought "from Germany" at the last minute, I would think it very likely that the source was Schuller/Nippon Speed Car and that it was 'more of the same' ex-South African works parts. And *if* (big if) the '76 LM24 car was actually the Group 5 car, then it would (surely?) have already been fitted with the larger capacity, bigger power engine. If they had the pick of the ex-SA engines, then - again - surely they would have picked the more powerful one already?

So I think that "300" whatever engine was smoke and mirrors. They had already been accused of holding other cars up and of being a mobile chicane. The speed differential was getting out of hand. They needed to convince the organisers that they would be faster in the race than in practice/qualifying. Yes, maybe they did an engine change, but I don't think it was significantly different to what they already had.

I'm wasting my time here. The half truths and rumours are like cockroaches. They survive when cold hard facts and common sense are ignored. Until someone can show definitive proof of any chassis number on the car or engine number on the block, we are just taking pot shots. Those details are known for the works cars, and are best not broadcast until other hands are shown. In the meantime "it's an ex-works rally car....".