Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2
Alan, take it easy there.
My comment on you tube said nothing about lying about Watkins Glen results, or targeting Pathfinder, or even suggesting anything along those lines. You're the one who is lying and targeting.
My comment there merely indicated that it seems strange to me that a car built sometime in the last few years can win a vintage race car series. I know when I've taken my GT40 replica to the local vintage racing folks here in the Pacific Northwest (SOVREN) they have indicated to me that the car is a replica and doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying for "vintage" status. It doesn't matter in the least how "accurate" it is, or who made it last year, including H&M. And it makes no difference whether it CAV or SPF or RCR - not to me, and not to the regulating authorities so give that a rest. I don't make many comments as to the various manufacturers but if you use your eyes you'll see I'm extremely complimentary to all. You're way off the mark.
So chill out with the nastiness. Congrats on the win. I'm merely hoping you can help me understand where you have succeeded in achieving "vintage" status for a car built in the last few years (where I have not succeeded).
Nice to meet you too.
ps. if the car was built last year then it's not an original "1966 GT40" (as you indicated) and that's that, no matter how much money Safir is paid. This is not being negative, it's about being honest and straight forward.
I’m going to weigh in here inasmuch as my brother Alan, who runs Pathfinder Motorsports, is too nice a guy to say what needs to be said.
First, Alan has invested his life savings and the past year creating Pathfinder Motorsports and developing the GT40/R with the great folks at Superformance. It has been a long and arduous journey that has included his working very hard to ensure that the factory produced a continuation GT40 racecar that is as close as feasibly possible to the original and also meeting modern safety standards. Having done that, he then waged an intense and costly campaign to demonstrate to the various sanctioning bodies that the GT40/R is worthy of inclusion in their race series – this because there has long been a clamor for an affordable GT40 for track events. The first customer cars have been painstakingly prepared to meet the sanctioning bodies’ stringent requirements, a process that has seen delays only now beginning to resolve themselves. It hasn’t been easy – or cheap.
Why have HSR and SVRA agreed to this? Two reasons: 1) the GT40/R is so demonstrably close to the original that, as prepared by Pathfinder, they do not create any advantage over the original cars; and, 2) the latter point is mooted by the fact that last year only one original car competed in HSR and this year none. Why? Because owners’ can’t risk shunting a $1.5+ million car. The desirability of the GT40 has led to its demise on the racetrack and most are sadly being relegated to museums. The GT40/R offers drivers and spectators the opportunity to keep these great cars racing.
Now, about Cliff Beer: I’m sorry that Cliff didn’t succeed in getting his CAV approved for racing with his local sanctioning body. In earlier emails he implied that his car wasn’t accepted because of a clique of rich guys trying to keep the likes of him out - some manner of 'class conspiracy' I suppose. So Cliff, if your car had been accepted would it then be okay for a recently built car to race in vintage competition? He later writes, “It doesn't matter in the least how ‘accurate’ it is, or who made it last year, including H&M. And it makes no difference whether it CAV or SPF or RCR - not to me, and not to the regulating authorities so give that a rest”
. You’re wrong, Cliff. It makes all the difference. The sanctioning bodies want a continuation model racecar to: 1) be as close to the original as possible, especially in the frame and suspension; 2) to have a continuation VIN or chassis number; and, 3) have the legal right to use the name of the car being duplicated. Safir GT40 Spares granted a license to Superformance after it had satisfied itself that their GT40 was an extremely accurate reproduction of the original car. You can rant all you want – as you have – about how worthless the latter two elements are, but the fact is that the Superformance GT40/R meets all these requirements and that has helped in achieving acceptance in vintage racing.
Cliff also makes a big deal about Alan referring to the GT40/R as a “1966 GT40 Mk. I”, even going so far as to lie about his calling it an original car. Of course that’s not true. On Pathfinder’s video description the car is clearly described as “a continuation model built by Superformance”. At no time was it called original, nor would that make sense: Pathfinder is in the business of selling continuation models of the 1966 Mk. I original – not the originals themselves. Yet here’s another curious thing about Cliff: In a previous post he boasts of having his CAV registered as a “1966 Ford Mk. I”
. Hey Cliff, your hypocrisy is showing: Your car wasn’t built in 1966 nor is it a Ford. And yet you told everyone in your recent post, “if the car was built last year then it's not an original ‘1966 GT40’ (as you indicated) and that's that, no matter how much money Safir is paid. This is not being negative, it's about being honest and straight forward.”
I guess the fact that you titled your car as a ‘1966 Ford GT’ pretty much covers how "honest and straight forward"
you are, Cliff.
My biggest beef here, however, is not Cliff’s history of provocation and prevarication – remember he was banned not so long ago for this kind of thing – but rather his transparent efforts to undermine those that threaten his fealty to CAV, folks like my brother. For reasons known only too himself, he elects to be the first to post on Pathfinder’s GT40/R video at Daytona basically calling Alan a fraud – knowing full well that Alan posts regularly on GT40s.com with his phone number displayed on every post. He then feebly explains his need to disparage Alan's YouTube video by saying, “I'm merely hoping you can help me understand where you have succeeded in achieving ‘vintage’ status for a car built in the last few years.”
Bullshit, Cliff. If that’s all you wanted to know, you would have either called Alan on the phone or sent him a personal message. But then, that wouldn’t accomplish your real intent, would it? You knew full well that Alan's video was a marketing vehicle for the GT40/R - and you knew precisely the impact your comments would have on potential customers viewing that video. Was it necessary for you to try to hurt his business with your entirely negative and fallacious comments?
I’m really proud of what Alan and Pathfinder Motorsports has done in such a short time: Create an authentic, competitive, and affordable GT40 racecar where none existed before. Alan is a supremely honest guy who has worked hard to get where he is. And while he encourages sincere and constructive questions and criticisms, he shouldn’t have to suffer intentionally malevolent fools.
Kim Kim Petersen
SPF GT40 Mk I w/ Keith Craft Aluminum 427IR
F430 F1 Berlinetta
SPF Mk III w/ Ford 460 "I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather; not screaming and terrified like his passengers."