How did the origional cars appear lower in the rear

[Garry]

Maybe some of you can help. I can't help but notice on early MKI cars that the tires on the rear fenders appear to be more "inside" the fender wells that gives the car a lower meaner stance in profile. What is different about the current replica cars that make that wheel well appear higher? For example the Comstock GT40 and others have that low-slung look that I am after. If you look at these cars you will see what I mean.
I will look forward to hearing from the experts.
Garry
:blank:

 

[Ian K]

Maybe some of you can help. I can't help but notice on early MKI cars that the tires on the rear fenders appear to be more "inside" the fender wells that gives the car a lower meaner stance in profile. What is different about the current replica cars that make that wheel well appear higher? For example the Comstock GT40 and others have that low-slung look that I am after. If you look at these cars you will see what I mean.
I will look forward to hearing from the experts.
Garry
:blank:

Suspension set up, transaxle choice and geometry.

Better if you could provide examples of replicas that don't sit the way you desire,
you might see a commonality in their set up.

For example, ERA and Superformance seem to sit just as well. Many CAV pix are of
cars without engines/transaxles, so they appear to sit higher.

Ian

 

[40 Bud]

I think you will find that the original 40s had a different shape wheel arch that lowers the upper edge of the wheel well.

 

[Mike Drew]

Early cars typically had tires with a much higher profile than today's offerings. As a result, the overall diameter of the tire is larger, filling the wheelwell much more.

 

[Randy V]

I also believe that the racecars would be carrying a considerable amount of negative rear wheel camber which would also add to the effect of the wheel being further inside the arch. When I say considerable - for the rear that would be more than 1/2 degree negative. This also adds to the more squat look of the car.

 

[Dimi Terleckyj]

Hi all
I think that another contributing factor would be that the racecars were able to have a much lower ground clearance than we need or are required on roadgoing cars.

I know that here in Australia we have to have a minimum of 100mm to the lowest part of the car to be legal and also to clear all the speedbumps and bad roads.

Dimi

 

[Craig White]

Yeah, there is a big difference in the way the wheels sit in the wheel arches on the different kits.

It comes down to body shape and obviously suspension setup and mounting points on the chassis. And this varies significantly between a lot of the GT40 kits.

In my opinion the more authentic the body shape etc the better the wheels sit in the guards.

But others have different views, which is great.

This is how an RCR sits with 115mm clearance front and rear. This one is fitted with 680mm diameter rear tyres and 630mm front tyres. They are slicks. With the tyres up tucked up nicely in the wheel arches it certainly makes the RCR-40 appear low.

And they are 17" wheels.

Interesting it looks just as good with rears of 650mm diameter street tyres(315/35R17). Just can't find any photos of the street tyres fitted.

This is also an RCR-40 with standard guards. The +2" & +4" guards options on the RCR-40's look just as good, some would even consider the larger RCR-40 guards are more attractive.

Maybe if we can get more photos of GT40's with known ride heights and wheel diameters.

Hope this helps.

 

[Darrell]

Gary i have often wondered why this is so, when i was researching my gt40 build i found that the RF wheel arch is very different to the DRB not sure why, neither is right or wrong just different like many of the race cars of the day.

Darrell

 

[Randy V]

I think it would be nice if someone could put together a composite of the various replica mfgrs wheel arches that highlights the variations between them and the originals..
We know, of course, that the Gulf cars had extremely modified rear arches and even the fronts were expanded for larger rubber.

 

[Garry]

Thanks for the replies. It gives me a lot to think about for my build.

Craig, that is one very bad-ass GT40 that you have there. I am surprised that you can fit that large a tire under the standard arches.

Randy, that is a great idea and would be of great help for anyone doing reasearch on 'the look' for their car that they want to have and which kit provides the set-up of their choice.

By the way, the gulf fendered cars look mean as hell anyway.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this?
Garry

 

[Scott Calabro]

Randy,

Per your request, two mfg's replicas side by side. See posts 246 through 255;

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/tornado-gt40-discussion/22724-tornado-ts40-875-a-13.html#post234341

S

 

[Craig White]

Craig, that is one very bad-ass GT40 that you have there. I am surprised that you can fit that large a tire under the standard arches.

Thanks mate. I was really surprised it looked so good with standard guards and 17" wheels. By the way it is still in gelcoat with just stick on vinyl stripes and graphics.

The large diameter rears fit easily. I think with most kits you will have no problem running large diameter rear tyres. Normally the problem most people here have is finding tyres with a large enough diameter.

The front is where you have the problem. The more authentic the front guard shape, the less room there is for tyre diameter/width. There is always a trade off.

Even though there is different body shapes, they all have their advantages and disadvantages. So really there isn't a right or wrong answer. Basically repeating what Darrell said above.

 

[Simon]

Here's my RF with Gulf flares.

 

[EGLITOM]

Hi Garry

as Craig pointed out already it has to do with the wheel well shape, the riding height and the tire dimensions.

Wheel well shape could be diverted in basicly two different shapes.

The almost halfcircular shape which most of the replicas show.

The flat eliptical shaped design, a feature of most of the narrow body original cars and some replicas.

Here are both shapes side by side. THis are the pictures from Scotts link above

IMHO the wheel well design has more influence on the cars stance look than the other two components.
Craig showed an RCR car with lowprofiled 17" wheels, this is a picture of Rons RCR 40 with high profile 15" wheels. The stance look is pretty much the same, because it origins from the way the wheel well line runs around the tire.

I love that look very much too, thats the reason why i designed my widened flares the same way on my RCR 40.

TOM

 

[Garry]

Tom,
Thanks for the pictures. It clearly showed the difference in rear clip designs with regards to the wheel arches. Great looking build that you have there as well.

Simon,
That is one very good looking Gulf replica that you have there.

I seem to remember a CAV car that was on cobracountry.com that had 'the look' with 15" wheels. Does anyone have a sise to side comparison of the CAV cars with SPF cars for us to see? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
Also, Mike Drew told me somethng that I did not know and that was SPF has a narrow-tail rear clip available like the early cars. If anyone is building one of these please post pictures.
Garry

 

[Mike Drew]

Also, Mike Drew told me somethng that I did not know and that was SPF has a narrow-tail rear clip available like the early cars. If anyone is building one of these please post pictures.

This is the one rear photo that I have of P/2231, which has the optional narrow rear end, and four taillights:

Superformance Mk 1 Narrow Rear End


Looks great, doesn't it? :thumbsup:

 

[Garry]

Mike,
You came through as always. Thanks for the post. The wheel arches look half circle and not as eliptical as some of the early cars from that view, but that could be my perspective. But I really like those two tail lights.:thumbsup:

Garry

 

[Mike Drew]

Mike,
You came through as always. Thanks for the post. The wheel arches look half circle and not as eliptical as some of the early cars from that view, but that could be my perspective. But I really like those two tail lights.:thumbsup:

Me too!

Here's the original post where this car was first revealed to all of us; there is a direct side shot as well that shows the contour of the wheelwell perfectly:

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/superformance-gt40s/26201-gt-40-p-2231-finally-home.html

The early bodies were basically round, and the later Gulf cars had an elliptical shape to the wheel arch, due to the shape of the wide flare.

 

[EGLITOM]

I guess they have built whatever they want

narrow end car with two taillights but eliptical shape. make 1966

TOM

 

[Jac Mac]

I always seem to be the one to drop the Cat amongst the pigeons, so here we go again.

Refer to 'Shelby GT40's by Dave Friedman'.

Page 13. Nassau 1964 & we have one of the originals with a distinct elliptical rear wheel arch.

Pages 18/19. Testing later in 1964@ Riverside- one pic on P19 of elliptical RR wheel arch & on P18 possibly same car with 'jig sawed' circular LR wheel arch [ check pic on P21 also, you can see paint chips ]--- this was with existing wire wheels, but possibly different tire.

Pages46/47. Sebring 1965- Car #10 with RR arch that appears to be round, yet Car # 11 with elliptical arch-- both cars now on Halibrands.

The 'Round' wheel arch appears level with top of cooler scoop, 'Elliptical' slightly below.

Dont shoot me, I am as usual only the messenger.