Industry - Kits, rollers, and where is it going?

Ron Earp · 02-08-04, 10:12 AM

As some of you folks know I read a fair amount over on the Cobra forums as well since I like the cars and of course, Ford engines.

The Cobra industry, in my opinion, is definitely changing and changing rapidly. Shelby is trying to get in at all levels:

Post Dealing with Shelby American, AC, Cars

now by offering $40k painted rollers and a high end finished aluminum roller from AC. Who will build the $40k car I think is still up in the car since the CAV thing but I'm sure they'll figure something out. Basically, with Shelby offering a high quality car at a low price I feel the entire industry will have a shake out and leave only a very few players. Heck - all things being equal do you want a CSX number or a Superformance? I really don't care about a CSX number but if all is equal the resale will make a difference.

In a round-about fashion this ties into something Lynn mentioned on another thread. That with Superformance coming into the ring with a supposedly low-cost roller that apes the original chassis then something similar could happen with the GT40 industry. I think that Lynn might be partially right.

While I started my car because I like making and building, these decisions are now much harder to make with low-cost rollers. And, they could even get lower in price leading to a shakeout in values too. I remember one person mentioned he could hear the value of his GTD dropping. I could certainly see that becoming the case. I like ERA cars, but they are expensive and GT40 replicas will not command the lofty prices as they did 4 years ago - we've seen that already with ERAs moving at prices similar to finished CAVs. All th cars could be affected, but to varying degrees since they vary in initial cost.

I'm not sure what will happen in the future but I certainly hope that the manufactuers of the replica kits will be around a long time. Variety is the spice of life.

RobBeddington · 02-08-04, 11:29 AM

Ron

[ QUOTE ]
As far as Cobra prices are concerned, and whether Shelby's name sells cars or not, the Cobra market in the USA looks pretty swamped these days and they've lost that rarity appeal for those who remember the original. There seems to be a different type of Cobra buyer out there nowadays. The $40,000 aluminium Kirkham has put the cat among the pigeons and the market is demanding lower prices.

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more about the Cobra marketplace, hence what I said above on another thread, back in January.

I lost interest in buying a Cobra of any form a year or so ago, for various reasons. And to go down that route, whether you go for a $40k fibreglass car, or a new "top end" $150,000 Shelby/AC aluminium roller, you will still have sniping as to whether it's real or not. And, IMHO, sniping is the only thing the Cobra forum is very good at these days ... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img].

It's interesting that Shelby is asking buyers with deposits on the South African (ex-CAV) $40k Cobras to contact them if they want their deposit back. Although there was a view that SAI came out of the CAV deal smiling, it seems like the CAV situation has also affected Shelby in a big way. It's pure speculation but I wonder how deep the liquidator is looking into the disposal of CAV's assets to Shelby, just a short while before its liquidation? I imagine both sides are regretting the day their negotiations started.

As for the GT40 market, recent threads seem to confirm that there is a market for rollers as well as self-builds, and current prices IMHO are pitched about right. With the reported waiting lists of Tornado and ERA, at different ends of the market, that says it all for me.

And whatever the figures quoted, I can't see the finished Superformance MKII coming in at anything less than £75,000 in the UK, probably more, after shipping, tax, drivetrain, options, etc. IMHO, those sort of prices will not affect the RF, MDA, Tornado (and CAV?) offerings in any big way.

In addition, the Ford GT should swell interest in the whole GT40 thing and, although Ron will know this better than I, this forum seems to be attracting more and more members. If that is the case, that can only be a good thing for the market.

Besides, its not all about money. I bought into the GT40 for the love of the cars, like many on this forum. In a short space of time, I will have sunk in a whole load more than I expect to get out. As John Wisher said to me late last year: "It's not a car, it's a way of life... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] "

My 2 cents.

Rob

Ron Earp · 02-08-04, 02:44 PM

I hope you're right. But, things are different from country to country. For instance, CAV choose to sell kits in the UK while here in the US they only offer turnkey minus cars. Tornado indeed has a backlog but for some reason are not that well represented in the US, and maybe for that reason on the forum, I don't know.

The Ford GT will swell the ranks for sure. We're picking up around 5 new members per day with some days being well over that. I've been wondering how to make sure the new folks are truely interested and might require email authentication in the future.

Mike Dozier · 02-08-04, 04:49 PM

Let's see how SPF 's new mono turnkey affects ERA's 2-year
kit waiting list...I think I can guess.

MikeD

jimbo · 02-08-04, 10:01 PM

I feel that if Superformance turnkey-minus monocoque car is as good as an ERA- and I suspect it will be- that ERAs waiting list may shrink quite a bit. This is rough on ERA- they were the only folks building a GT40 replica for many many years- but on the other hand they have had a two-year wait for a long long time, which, along with their higher price, contributed to making a niche available for other manufacturers. If ERA had saturated the demand, very likely RF, Tornado, CAV, GTNZ wouldn't be around now. At least not in the USA, or not to the extent they are.

Had a quality monocoque car been available at the time I began my effort to acquire a GT40, I might very well have not chosen the route that I did. Certainly doing it this way- trying to create a faithful or at least very close replica of a Mark 1 car without the benefit of a kit or turnkey- has been the hardest way to do it. It will also probably prove to be the most expensive way to do it. But at the time, there were no monocoque cars, and by the time they arrived I was well into this effort.
I'm not complaining- I fully expect the car to be fabulous when it's done, because it's being built by Safir Engineering- but the whole project has sort of gotten a life of its' own.
I agree strongly with Ron- variety is the spice of life and also the spice of motor racing and competitive car building. And face it, anyone who wants a GT40 harbors a secret or not so secret desire to see other cars dwindling in the rear-view mirror. We are a competitive bunch in the GT40 world. I for one do not want an 800lb gorilla sitting wherever he wants to in the GT40 building business. It doesn't benefit purchasers like me to have one company dominate the market. Which is why, even though I think they are great cars and reasonably priced, I am not going to buy a Cobra. At least not from the chicken farmer.

Kevin M · 02-09-04, 12:26 AM

I think we came very close to having an American made, high quality, reasonable cost, tube frame GT40. The attached picture shows a Factory Five development mule, and if you look behind it in the upper left side of the picture you can see what is clearly an unpainted GT40 body.

Why they didn’t go further with the GT40 I don’t know. Perhaps the Shelby lawsuit made them decide it wasn’t worth taking a similar chance? They have never said anything about this publicly so maybe it is still on the back burner, and if their new GTM doesn’t sell well there might still be a chance they would consider it.

Kevin

Mike Dozier · 02-09-04, 01:33 PM

Kevin

I heard FFR agreed not to do a GT40 as part of the
Shelby settlement. Could be a rumor...I don't know the Smith brothers well enough to ask...
If that was the case, then it is certainly a loss for
most of us.

MikeD

Jonathan · 02-09-04, 03:35 PM

Is superformance only making a MK2, or are there plans for a MK1 as well?

Mark Clapp · 02-09-04, 03:47 PM

A FFR rep told me just after the Shelby suit that Shelby said if the new car even looked like a GT40, they would sue.

Mike Dozier · 02-09-04, 06:08 PM

Jon

Reliable source says SPF will also offer MK I at some point.

MikeD

Lee · 02-09-04, 06:09 PM

I know Shelby might be suit happy, but on what grounds can he stop FFR making 40s?

jimbo · 02-09-04, 06:35 PM

Yeah, Lee, I agree...why on Earth does Shelby have any rights to the GT40 shape, or name? There are companies that do...Safir, first and foremost, and I guess Lee Holman..but why Shelby? He didn't build the cars, he got them from FAV and campaigned them.
Similarly, it would be as if Alan Mann Racing or Scuderia Filipinetti sued to stop people from building GT40s. Ridiculous. The chicken farmer is suit-happy. It's disgraceful that a person with a transplanted heart shows so little of it.

Mike Dozier · 02-09-04, 06:36 PM

I can only assume on the grounds that SAI completed MK II's
out of FAV supplied tubs, as did Holman-Moody.
I've not seen an MK II close enough to notice whether
SAI attached their nameplate as well as the tub nameplate.

You would think Safir has a larger "claim" to GT40 title
than anyone. Still...anyone can sue...whether you win
in court isn't always important...they can cost you $$$$
in legal expenses win, lose, or draw.

MikeD

Lynn · 11-11-04, 10:12 PM

I spent some time with Lee Holman today since I had some spare time after a business meeting this morning. His new digs are very nice. Much newer, climate controlled and everything is inside now in a single area. I took some digital pics, but they didn't turn out well. He has about half of his 15 chassis still banded together like cordwood and the other half are sitting in a row. All of these have roof sections, some have some fiberglass parts with them and some are just the metal bits. He got his T44s machined and has gathered all of the parts for one. So, a T44 is laying there in bits stretched out over about 15 feet of table. He told me that he has an order for 4 racing Falcons (American Falcons of the '60s vintage, not Aussie Falcons, sorry mates) so the T44 project has taken a back seat.

He was telling me about Jim G's stainless steel house for his cars, WOW! does it sound impressive! He showed me his office/library where they keep reams of GT40 information and documentation. This included the box which contains photo copies of the registrations and scrutineering reports for every GT40 that has ever raced at Le Mans. He claimed that this was the only collection like it outside of the originals held by the Le Mans organization.

Eventually, the conversation got around to the new GT and he asked if we had ever discussed the issues swirling around the use of the GT40 name on the forum. I told him that there had been a couple versions of the story told, but the basics were that Ford had tried to get the use of the name from Safir and had been unable to do so. The versions come in the form of how Ford asked Safir and why Safir turned them down. He then showed me a copy of the Trademark registration application papers for the words "GT 40" that were filed by Safir Engineering Limited in 1982 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the document it states, "The mark was first used in the United Kingdom in 1982 and first used in foreign commerce between the United Kingdom and the United States in 1982 and is now in use in such commerce." According to Lee this is not true and the term GT 40 was used long before that by people other than Safir. But, despite presenting subsequent evidence to support the claim, the Trademark stands. Here is where the story gets interesting.

According to Lee, when Peter Thorpe obtained rights to build the Safir GT 40s, he was supposed to only build 25 cars. He apparently advertised the fact that only 25 would be built as evidence to prospective buyers that the value of the cars would be maintained, if not appreciate, since there was to be only limited production. When Peter had actually built 40 cars, he was sued by the owners of the Safir cars for this breach of contract and they won the suite. As part of the settlement of the suite, Peter Thorpe and Safir Engineering Limited was prohibited from ever building complete cars again. It was quite all right for them to build parts and repair the existing fleet of Safir GT 40s, but they could not construct any complete cars.

Jim R., were you aware of this? If not, does it answer in lingering questions about your dealings with Safir? This certainly answers the question that I have personally asked here on several occasions in discussions of the GT 40 market: "Where is Safir in all of the machinations of the various individuals and companies producing GT 40 cars of one form or another?" But, I digress.

Now, again according to Lee, based upon the weight of ownership of the GT 40 name as a registered Trademark, Safir is attempting to secure the rights to the "look" or the design of the GT 40 as well. This is being vehemently fought by Ford as one would easily imagine. It is doubtful that they will be successful, but stranger things have happened! Like, the fact that they have maintained the rights to the Trademark: despite that it was registered with an allegedly fraudulent registration application, despite the submission of documentation supporting the allegation that the application contained falsehoods and despite the fact that Safir has not protected the use of their Trademark as witnessed by the many concerns worldwide using GT 40 as part of their name without any apparent objection by Safir. (This is a requirement to maintaining a Trademark as far as I understand it.)

So, the final irony in all of this is that, if Safir should successfully gain the rights to and ownership of the GT 40 body design, the owner of the design would be the one entity in the whole world which is specifically and legally prohibited from building one!

Regards,
Lynn

Hershal Byrd · 11-11-04, 10:27 PM

Lynn,
This is really good stuff and that's one hell of a editorial... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Hersh [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

RobBeddington · 11-12-04, 04:38 AM

Lynn

That is a fascinating post.

Thanks.

Rob

Peter D · 11-12-04, 08:29 AM

I reckon that the naming issue is clearly one for the lawyers - if a manufacturer uses "GT40", then look out - some greedy bastard will have a go at you. Only the lawyers will win.

However, the "look & feel" issue is a different one. If someone has a go at a manufacturer who make something like a 60's GT40, how can they be sued ? All the componentry inside will be different from whatever is claimed to be the "original" & there will be subtle differences in outside dimensions/shapes, etc.

If the "look & feel" argument was applied to current production cars, the world would be all tied up in a legal knot. You almost have to check out the VIN plate to see what some of these really are - they all look the same !

The "dog in the manger" approach that some "would be, if I could be" manufacturers is pathetic - they've already got the designs & if they had any business acumen, they'd have a nice bit chunk of the market !

At the end of the day, I think that the "spoilers" will lose out - there is too much enthusiasm for the car world-wide. Someone will always find a way around the legal b'sh*t.

Kind Regards,

Peter D.

Lynn · 11-12-04, 11:24 AM

Peter,

I think what Safir may have in mind is collecting a royalty fee for every "GT 40" that is sold. Since, they can't build them, it would be an enviable position to be able to sit back and do nothing except cash royalty checks from everyone else's work. This would include Ford and you know good and well that they will NOT let that happen.

Regards,
Lynn