Why did KiCad merge my pins into one open blob in the solder mask gerber?












3












$begingroup$


I designed a PCB with an IC that has a pitch of 0.5. The footprint solder mask looks like this:



enter image description here



However, the gerber came out with one blob that looks like this:



enter image description here



Why did it do that? Can I stop it? Should I stop it?




I don't usually answer my own questions (and really probably shouldn't on EE), but I think I have some additional details that are relevant to answering the question fully. Please provide feedback via comments or votes for the sake of the community.



PCBWay has the following requirements for the solder stop mask:



enter image description here



The TPS612332 Data Sheet recommends a pad width of 0.28mm and solder mask clearance of 0.07mm all around that pad:



enter image description here



If I have a 0.5mm pitch and .28mm of that is occupied by pads with 0.07mm of mask clearance, then I only have 0.08mm for the bridge (which is less than the 0.1mm minimum for PCBWay).



Which is why KiCad didn't put solder mask between the pads for this particular IC.



Can I stop it? Yes. Just like @Seth said in his answer, in PCBNew, I can click Setup->Pads to Mask Clearance and change the "Solder mask clearance" and "Solder mask min width" to allow the solder mask to appear.



enter image description here



Should I? Well, having the solder mask would likely help prevent shorts between pins due to solder issues. On the other hand, it seems like exceeding the minimum requirements set forth by the manufacturer may also expose risk in the manufacturing process.






surface-mount kicad solder-mask







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    KiCad is not a human being with its own mind, it does what you tell it to do. You left out what you actually did, the method you used, how you designed the footprint, which layers you generated, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I have no experience with KiCad, but maybe if you have a rule set that the minimum solder mask sliver is X, and the footprint had less than X solder mask between pads, it will remove the solder mask. (Also consider the size of the opening, so copper + margin + sliver + margin + copper)
    $endgroup$
    – Wesley Lee
    13 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @pipe heh. Of course it’s not exerting it’s own will. I’m not sure how I implied that but I definitely didn’t mean that. Eagle puts the mask between even finer pitched pins. Is there a setting that caused this? Is there a reason the default doesn’t put a mask between pins this far apart?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Patrick
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @D.Patrick probably because it's configured to have more clearance between solder mask and pad than you assume.
    $endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The MFG will ask to remove those slivers for you if they are smaller than their advertised minimum. This is a common situation, for NSMD there is little downside to simply leaving the design as it is with the large soldermask opening.
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago


















3












$begingroup$


I designed a PCB with an IC that has a pitch of 0.5. The footprint solder mask looks like this:



enter image description here



However, the gerber came out with one blob that looks like this:



enter image description here



Why did it do that? Can I stop it? Should I stop it?




I don't usually answer my own questions (and really probably shouldn't on EE), but I think I have some additional details that are relevant to answering the question fully. Please provide feedback via comments or votes for the sake of the community.



PCBWay has the following requirements for the solder stop mask:



enter image description here



The TPS612332 Data Sheet recommends a pad width of 0.28mm and solder mask clearance of 0.07mm all around that pad:



enter image description here



If I have a 0.5mm pitch and .28mm of that is occupied by pads with 0.07mm of mask clearance, then I only have 0.08mm for the bridge (which is less than the 0.1mm minimum for PCBWay).



Which is why KiCad didn't put solder mask between the pads for this particular IC.



Can I stop it? Yes. Just like @Seth said in his answer, in PCBNew, I can click Setup->Pads to Mask Clearance and change the "Solder mask clearance" and "Solder mask min width" to allow the solder mask to appear.



enter image description here



Should I? Well, having the solder mask would likely help prevent shorts between pins due to solder issues. On the other hand, it seems like exceeding the minimum requirements set forth by the manufacturer may also expose risk in the manufacturing process.






surface-mount kicad solder-mask







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    KiCad is not a human being with its own mind, it does what you tell it to do. You left out what you actually did, the method you used, how you designed the footprint, which layers you generated, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I have no experience with KiCad, but maybe if you have a rule set that the minimum solder mask sliver is X, and the footprint had less than X solder mask between pads, it will remove the solder mask. (Also consider the size of the opening, so copper + margin + sliver + margin + copper)
    $endgroup$
    – Wesley Lee
    13 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @pipe heh. Of course it’s not exerting it’s own will. I’m not sure how I implied that but I definitely didn’t mean that. Eagle puts the mask between even finer pitched pins. Is there a setting that caused this? Is there a reason the default doesn’t put a mask between pins this far apart?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Patrick
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @D.Patrick probably because it's configured to have more clearance between solder mask and pad than you assume.
    $endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The MFG will ask to remove those slivers for you if they are smaller than their advertised minimum. This is a common situation, for NSMD there is little downside to simply leaving the design as it is with the large soldermask opening.
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago
















3












3








3





$begingroup$


I designed a PCB with an IC that has a pitch of 0.5. The footprint solder mask looks like this:



enter image description here



However, the gerber came out with one blob that looks like this:



enter image description here



Why did it do that? Can I stop it? Should I stop it?




I don't usually answer my own questions (and really probably shouldn't on EE), but I think I have some additional details that are relevant to answering the question fully. Please provide feedback via comments or votes for the sake of the community.



PCBWay has the following requirements for the solder stop mask:



enter image description here



The TPS612332 Data Sheet recommends a pad width of 0.28mm and solder mask clearance of 0.07mm all around that pad:



enter image description here



If I have a 0.5mm pitch and .28mm of that is occupied by pads with 0.07mm of mask clearance, then I only have 0.08mm for the bridge (which is less than the 0.1mm minimum for PCBWay).



Which is why KiCad didn't put solder mask between the pads for this particular IC.



Can I stop it? Yes. Just like @Seth said in his answer, in PCBNew, I can click Setup->Pads to Mask Clearance and change the "Solder mask clearance" and "Solder mask min width" to allow the solder mask to appear.



enter image description here



Should I? Well, having the solder mask would likely help prevent shorts between pins due to solder issues. On the other hand, it seems like exceeding the minimum requirements set forth by the manufacturer may also expose risk in the manufacturing process.






surface-mount kicad solder-mask







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I designed a PCB with an IC that has a pitch of 0.5. The footprint solder mask looks like this:



enter image description here



However, the gerber came out with one blob that looks like this:



enter image description here



Why did it do that? Can I stop it? Should I stop it?




I don't usually answer my own questions (and really probably shouldn't on EE), but I think I have some additional details that are relevant to answering the question fully. Please provide feedback via comments or votes for the sake of the community.



PCBWay has the following requirements for the solder stop mask:



enter image description here



The TPS612332 Data Sheet recommends a pad width of 0.28mm and solder mask clearance of 0.07mm all around that pad:



enter image description here



If I have a 0.5mm pitch and .28mm of that is occupied by pads with 0.07mm of mask clearance, then I only have 0.08mm for the bridge (which is less than the 0.1mm minimum for PCBWay).



Which is why KiCad didn't put solder mask between the pads for this particular IC.



Can I stop it? Yes. Just like @Seth said in his answer, in PCBNew, I can click Setup->Pads to Mask Clearance and change the "Solder mask clearance" and "Solder mask min width" to allow the solder mask to appear.



enter image description here



Should I? Well, having the solder mask would likely help prevent shorts between pins due to solder issues. On the other hand, it seems like exceeding the minimum requirements set forth by the manufacturer may also expose risk in the manufacturing process.






surface-mount kicad solder-mask




surface-mount kicad solder-mask






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









W5VO♦

14.8k54685




14.8k54685










asked 13 hours ago









D. PatrickD. Patrick

275311




275311








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    KiCad is not a human being with its own mind, it does what you tell it to do. You left out what you actually did, the method you used, how you designed the footprint, which layers you generated, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I have no experience with KiCad, but maybe if you have a rule set that the minimum solder mask sliver is X, and the footprint had less than X solder mask between pads, it will remove the solder mask. (Also consider the size of the opening, so copper + margin + sliver + margin + copper)
    $endgroup$
    – Wesley Lee
    13 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @pipe heh. Of course it’s not exerting it’s own will. I’m not sure how I implied that but I definitely didn’t mean that. Eagle puts the mask between even finer pitched pins. Is there a setting that caused this? Is there a reason the default doesn’t put a mask between pins this far apart?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Patrick
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @D.Patrick probably because it's configured to have more clearance between solder mask and pad than you assume.
    $endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The MFG will ask to remove those slivers for you if they are smaller than their advertised minimum. This is a common situation, for NSMD there is little downside to simply leaving the design as it is with the large soldermask opening.
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    KiCad is not a human being with its own mind, it does what you tell it to do. You left out what you actually did, the method you used, how you designed the footprint, which layers you generated, etc.
    $endgroup$
    – pipe
    13 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I have no experience with KiCad, but maybe if you have a rule set that the minimum solder mask sliver is X, and the footprint had less than X solder mask between pads, it will remove the solder mask. (Also consider the size of the opening, so copper + margin + sliver + margin + copper)
    $endgroup$
    – Wesley Lee
    13 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @pipe heh. Of course it’s not exerting it’s own will. I’m not sure how I implied that but I definitely didn’t mean that. Eagle puts the mask between even finer pitched pins. Is there a setting that caused this? Is there a reason the default doesn’t put a mask between pins this far apart?
    $endgroup$
    – D. Patrick
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @D.Patrick probably because it's configured to have more clearance between solder mask and pad than you assume.
    $endgroup$
    – Marcus Müller
    13 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The MFG will ask to remove those slivers for you if they are smaller than their advertised minimum. This is a common situation, for NSMD there is little downside to simply leaving the design as it is with the large soldermask opening.
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago










4




4




$begingroup$
KiCad is not a human being with its own mind, it does what you tell it to do. You left out what you actually did, the method you used, how you designed the footprint, which layers you generated, etc.
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
KiCad is not a human being with its own mind, it does what you tell it to do. You left out what you actually did, the method you used, how you designed the footprint, which layers you generated, etc.
$endgroup$
– pipe
13 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
I have no experience with KiCad, but maybe if you have a rule set that the minimum solder mask sliver is X, and the footprint had less than X solder mask between pads, it will remove the solder mask. (Also consider the size of the opening, so copper + margin + sliver + margin + copper)
$endgroup$
– Wesley Lee
13 hours ago






$begingroup$
I have no experience with KiCad, but maybe if you have a rule set that the minimum solder mask sliver is X, and the footprint had less than X solder mask between pads, it will remove the solder mask. (Also consider the size of the opening, so copper + margin + sliver + margin + copper)
$endgroup$
– Wesley Lee
13 hours ago














$begingroup$
@pipe heh. Of course it’s not exerting it’s own will. I’m not sure how I implied that but I definitely didn’t mean that. Eagle puts the mask between even finer pitched pins. Is there a setting that caused this? Is there a reason the default doesn’t put a mask between pins this far apart?
$endgroup$
– D. Patrick
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
@pipe heh. Of course it’s not exerting it’s own will. I’m not sure how I implied that but I definitely didn’t mean that. Eagle puts the mask between even finer pitched pins. Is there a setting that caused this? Is there a reason the default doesn’t put a mask between pins this far apart?
$endgroup$
– D. Patrick
13 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@D.Patrick probably because it's configured to have more clearance between solder mask and pad than you assume.
$endgroup$
– Marcus Müller
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
@D.Patrick probably because it's configured to have more clearance between solder mask and pad than you assume.
$endgroup$
– Marcus Müller
13 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
The MFG will ask to remove those slivers for you if they are smaller than their advertised minimum. This is a common situation, for NSMD there is little downside to simply leaving the design as it is with the large soldermask opening.
$endgroup$
– crasic
6 hours ago






$begingroup$
The MFG will ask to remove those slivers for you if they are smaller than their advertised minimum. This is a common situation, for NSMD there is little downside to simply leaving the design as it is with the large soldermask opening.
$endgroup$
– crasic
6 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

You will need to look at your soldermask minimum width setting. The soldermask is not yet WYSIWYG in pcbnew (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1812096 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1784027)



In the meantime, go into pcbnew->Setup->Pads and mask clearance to set the correct values. If you want the pads to be separated, you'll need to specify a value that is less than the pitch.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f424314%2fwhy-did-kicad-merge-my-pins-into-one-open-blob-in-the-solder-mask-gerber%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

You will need to look at your soldermask minimum width setting. The soldermask is not yet WYSIWYG in pcbnew (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1812096 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1784027)



In the meantime, go into pcbnew->Setup->Pads and mask clearance to set the correct values. If you want the pads to be separated, you'll need to specify a value that is less than the pitch.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$

You will need to look at your soldermask minimum width setting. The soldermask is not yet WYSIWYG in pcbnew (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1812096 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1784027)



In the meantime, go into pcbnew->Setup->Pads and mask clearance to set the correct values. If you want the pads to be separated, you'll need to specify a value that is less than the pitch.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago
















5












5








5





$begingroup$

You will need to look at your soldermask minimum width setting. The soldermask is not yet WYSIWYG in pcbnew (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1812096 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1784027)



In the meantime, go into pcbnew->Setup->Pads and mask clearance to set the correct values. If you want the pads to be separated, you'll need to specify a value that is less than the pitch.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



You will need to look at your soldermask minimum width setting. The soldermask is not yet WYSIWYG in pcbnew (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1812096 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1784027)



In the meantime, go into pcbnew->Setup->Pads and mask clearance to set the correct values. If you want the pads to be separated, you'll need to specify a value that is less than the pitch.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 13 hours ago









SethSeth

1,677616




1,677616








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
    $endgroup$
    – crasic
    6 hours ago










1




1




$begingroup$
Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
$endgroup$
– crasic
6 hours ago






$begingroup$
Yes, this is the issue, there is an overriding option of "minimum width setting" that overrides pullback and other settings and not shown in any live preview. Note that while the minimum setting is the root cause, in most cases it is OK to have NSMD pads with no soldermask slivers and the board should still assemble and work fine (maybe harder to hand solder) , they are, after all, Non-Soldermask defined pads and the pad integrity is not compromised by removing all solder mask from the footprint
$endgroup$
– crasic
6 hours ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f424314%2fwhy-did-kicad-merge-my-pins-into-one-open-blob-in-the-solder-mask-gerber%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 total noob sorry any help greatly appreciated. I keep getting this "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'." heres my codes code one CREATE TABLE supplier ( supplierID INT PRIMARY KEY, ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), price DECIMAL (5,2), ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); code two CREATE TABLE orders ( orderID INT PRIMARY KEY, customerID INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES customer(customerID), ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), orderDate date, ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); Ive run out of stuff to try other than dumbing it down to uselessness.
Read more

Alcedinidae

Image
Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout
Read more

RAC Tourist Trophy

Image
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Tourist Trophy. Le RAC Tourist Trophy est une course automobile organisée par le Royal Automobile Club d'Angleterre. Créée en 1905, cette course a fait partie des épreuves comptant pour le championnat du monde des voitures de sport entre 1953 et 1955, en 1958 et 1959, et entre 1962 et 1965. Après une interruption de 17 ans (l'épreuve s'arrête après 1988), le RAC Tourist Trophy reprend en 2005 sous l'égide de la FIA GT. Palmarès | John Napier sur Arrol-Johnston, vainqueur du premier RAC Tourist Trophy, en 1905. L'honorable C.S. Rolls, vainqueur du RAC Tourist Trophy 1906. Ernest Curtis, sur Rover 20 hp, vainqueur du RAC Tourist Trophy 1907. William Watson, vainqueur du RAC Tourist Trophy 1908. Kenelm Lee Guinness, vainqueur du RAC Tourist Trophy 1914 sur Sunbeam. Départ du RAC Tourist Trophy 1928. Louis Gérard, vainqueur du RAC Tourist Trophy 1938 sur Delage. Année Circuit Vainqueur
Read more