At Home in Good Company

Colin CJ D · 02-19-06, 01:27 PM

I was out for a drive in the neighborhood yesterday and tripped over quite the collection of Ferraris parked in the local hotel parking lot. I truly believe that my car looks quite at home with this elite group.
I happened to have my camera with me:

Colin CJ D · 02-19-06, 01:27 PM

Another

Colin CJ D · 02-19-06, 01:31 PM

Another 2

Colin CJ D · 02-19-06, 01:31 PM

Another 3

Colin CJ D · 02-19-06, 01:32 PM

Another 4

dave harris · 02-19-06, 01:37 PM

Hi Colin!!
I agree! And, even more appropriately, YOU'RE OUT IT FRONT!!

your car looks great!!

bryn jones · 02-19-06, 03:28 PM

In my eyes colin best at the show

DavidTC · 02-19-06, 03:32 PM

Guys
As a tipo owner of long standing and a new GT 40 enthusiast it is nice to see the two marques together. It is a myth that Ferrari owners are fair weather people. There is a significant fraction of the ownership who are committed to using their cars whatever the weather; at least in the UK and now apparently in the US. May the friendly rivalry continue !.
Regards
David

Pete. · 02-19-06, 11:36 PM

David, an unkind person would say that if you waited for fair weather in England to take your car out you would never
take it out. But I'm not unkind, so I won't say that. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/1poke.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Pete. · 02-19-06, 11:39 PM

Colin, nice Pics. Your car won the Concourse'. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif[/img]

JackW · 02-20-06, 12:20 AM

No Doubt about,

the GT40 looks WAY better than the Ferrari.s I love your wheels by the way.

Cheers

Jack

Tod · 02-20-06, 09:00 AM

I think there's no comparison. It's the Ferarri's that look like kit cars. Yours looks more like the real McCoy.

Tod

Ron Earp · 02-20-06, 09:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think there's no comparison. It's the Ferarri's that look like kit cars. Yours looks more like the real McCoy.

Tod

[/ QUOTE ]

Expecially that tarted up F40 or F50, whichever it is. Add on pieces abound on that thing.

DavidTC · 02-20-06, 01:31 PM

Now now girls, essentially all of the 'fussy bits on an F40 are functional. To some eyes the design is a bit busy but its design mule the 288 GTO Evolution spent a lot of time in a wind tunnel and was really fussy; despite this the 5 or so remaining examples go for really big money. The F40 is still a wonderful track car and is aerodynamically very stable at terminal velocity. Anybody checked a GT40 out a terminal celocity ?
David

Ken Mason · 02-21-06, 02:52 AM

Er...didn't they check out the GT40's terminal velocity at the end of the Mulsanne Straight on every lap???

DavidTC · 02-21-06, 04:35 AM

True BUT how far back were they braking and what speed did they carry into the corner. My point is that the F40 represents a significant step forward in aerodynamic design than the GT40 and the 2 decades in between the designs represents a large difference in aerodynamic development.
I agree the F40 looks unflattering from some angles BUT you need a profile shot for direct comparison with the elegance of the GT40 profile.
The race prepared versions of the F40(the ones with the extended front spliter), have been at Le Mans so there must be comparable terminal velocity data at the end of the Mulsanns straight (even with the kink I suspect an F40 would have been faster), and the speed carried into the corner. There must also be lap times that someone will remember. WE already know what happens at Le Mans if you don't have enough downforce at speed and you then hit a bump !.
David

roaldin · 02-21-06, 06:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
... WE already know what happens at Le Mans if you don't have enough downforce at speed and you then hit a bump !.
David

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr Webber must be thankful for the "significant step forward in aerodynamic design" in the intervening years I guess. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Tim.

DavidTC · 02-21-06, 07:30 AM

Tim
Agreed BUT its where you get your downforce from that's an issue. One complaint about more modern designs is that they generate a lot of downforce from the design of the undertray. This rapidly disappears if the ride height changes (hitting a bump would constitute a change in ride height 1). By contrast body mounted wings still generate a lot of downforce in such circumstances. The modern trend in fast exotics is to simplify the body contour and rely on the undertray venturis to provide a substantial part of the downforce at speed. This is often done with fairly flimsy surfaces and can lead to nasty incidents. A Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale whose undertray has come lose at speed is not the sort of car you would like to be in, in such circumstances. The F40 had a reasonable compromise between wing generated down force and downforce generated from a well constructed but not overly elaborate undertray.
David

ChrisL · 02-21-06, 08:03 AM

There is no argument that the F40 is a significant step forward in aerodynamic design compared to the GT40, but is that a fair comparison?

As a one-eyed GT40 fan, I would rather say that the GT40 was a significant step forward in aerodynamic design in its day, whereas the F40 just used a conventional aerodynamic design. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Jan E · 02-21-06, 04:07 PM

THE FORD THAT BEAT FERRARI...still true after 40 years ...Enzo must have rotored in his grave...Henry too....