Track Preperation Part 1

Planning a get-together, or want to tell us about a track day ?
johnboy
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:52 pm

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by johnboy » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:35 pm

Rob,

Of the 3 cars which failed I am yet to hear from one owner, the other and Evosal have confirmed their engines are not with King K, and TBH I fully expect that the one remaining person will sit in the same camp (especially regarding Bens comments ), therefore I don't believe King K has any of the engines.
Ah bugger - you have given the game away.

I have been making a tidy sum for some time now buying up buzzed engines from the ricer boys and selling them to Erland as BTCC/LoT/Scuffham failures.

Of course locating blown k series from the local scrappy and selling them to Erland as DVA examples was much easier.

User avatar
Mr Pesky
Posts: 13966
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Gravy Trough

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by Mr Pesky » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:42 pm


Ah bugger - you have given the game away.

I have been making a tidy sum for some time now buying up buzzed engines from the ricer boys and selling them to Erland as BTCC/LoT/Scuffham failures.

Of course locating blown k series from the local scrappy and selling them to Erland as DVA examples was much easier.
PMSL

User avatar
EVOSAL
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by EVOSAL » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:25 am

Sorry to pee on your bonfires chaps but the engine in question is from my car
Mark must be mistaken as i have not been asked if Simon has mine.
I swapped it for a 2.3L all singing and dancing S/C k, 329.9bhp

User avatar
Mark_A
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:48 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by Mark_A » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:14 am

Chris, I asked the other 2, it was assumed from Pesky's post you were stripping your own engine so it wasn't yours.

User avatar
EVOSAL
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by EVOSAL » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:24 am

I have stripped it but then sent the remains to Simon.
Sorry for any confusion

User avatar
Mr Pesky
Posts: 13966
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Gravy Trough

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by Mr Pesky » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:21 am

I have stripped it but then sent the remains to Simon.
Sorry for any confusion
Yep - confused me (you bugger! ), but at least we now know the engine in question. Chris, did you tell Simon that 5 SC Hondas let go at Spa?

User avatar
EVOSAL
Posts: 1234
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by EVOSAL » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:31 am

No, i thought it was common knowlege that 3 expired, i didn't realise there was a news blackout

User avatar
Mr Pesky
Posts: 13966
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Gravy Trough

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by Mr Pesky » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:32 am

Aye, common knowledge, & no news blackout either as far as I am aware. Everyone's just curious why Simon quoted 5sc Hondas, when only 3 have been identified. So did you tell him 5, or was it someone else who did?

All in the interest of the truth & honesty of course.

DSE
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 8:04 pm

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by DSE » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:06 pm

I think you were all trying to catch Simon out ... out of interest can I ask why Simon wanted the engine ?

User avatar
Mr Pesky
Posts: 13966
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Gravy Trough

Re: Track Preperation Part 1

Post by Mr Pesky » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:16 pm

I think you were all trying to catch Simon out ...
Well he wasn't at Spa, but a lot of hairy arsed, beer swilling petrolheads were - & they know what happened. Given Simon's record, is it unreasonable to ask him the basis upon which he posts his "facts"?

As to why he wanted the engine, he's the one who answer that. However, I am certainly interested to hear his views upon the cause of the failure, as long as they are factually accurate (as best as they can be after the event), & are without the type of derogatory remarks expressed in the past.

Post Reply