Superformance

[George]

Hello

I got the website to superformance from here... I emailed the guys that build these GT40s.

Basicaly they build Licensed Gt40s not 'replicas' or 'kitt' cars.

They told me carbon fibre cant be used for the main body because the cars built basicaly to total orignal with that monocoque chasis (whatever that means) and carbon fibre cant be 'stuck' on.

The price of what they build is reasonable aswell, perhaps cheaper than a Replica seems like.

How will the Replica differ from this Licensed Gt40?

I know I want to redesign the Interior seats and I would like to have a carbon fibre body... I know that means it would be a Replica as u wouldnt do that to the licensed one...

Replica would be built identical to the originals no? Just not using 'original' parts...

or what?

Can someone give me direction. I did like the price of Superformance however... wanting CF body, wanting to make it that slight bit 'better' is the Licensed one pointless to 'me' as the licensed one is to be 'original' untampered with.

As u see im confused.

Hopefuly u understand from the above what im trying to understand as thats what it looks like in my head currently lol.

 

[Ian Anderson]

George

Unless you buy an original car i.e. on theat was built in the 1960's they are all replicas.

Some say they have "continuation" numbers etc - all sales ploy to extract mor $$$ from your pocket (IMHO)

An they would then also be wrong as I believe the body of 1075 and 1076 chassis numbers contained some new fangled material for extra lightness - that material ----- carbom fiber

Ian

 

[René]

a monocoque chassis is more closed and totally different then a spaceframe chassis wich is mostly panelled? or how you say that in English.

the 2 types you can see for example here>>
this one also make a carbon monocoque btw.

Tornado TS40 Chassis

 

[George]

Ok...

So what is the difference between a normal (space) frame and monocoque?

I mean the only thing im seeing different is monocoque has all this sheet metal (or carbon fibre) filling the gaps up (joining the pieces together)...

What would provide a stiffer thus better handling chasis?

And why would I go monocoque and why would I go Space frame... as in a serious enthusiast/racer, why would he/she be looking at one over the other sort?

 

[Ron Earp]

Basicaly they build Licensed Gt40s not 'replicas' or 'kitt' cars.

Supeformance, Tornado, RCR, and the rest of the companies all build GT40 replicas. Superformance pays a royalty to Safir (who owns the GT40 trademark) so that they may call theirs a GT40, but their car is still a replica of a GT40.

All of these cars, at least in the US, are titled as self-built cars - kit cars for lack of better term. How the car is actually titled will vary from state to state. My NC title says "1966 RCR T70" as to "Year, Make, and Model", although NC wouldn't have cared if I put "1966 Lola T70" in the boxes. So you will find some GT40 replicas that are titled as a 19XX Ford GT40.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

So what is the difference between a normal (space) frame and monocoque?

Strictly speaking conocoque construction is a technique for building something who's stiffness is derived from its external surface without using thick structural members. A good example is a modern passenger airplane. The original GT40 frame is constructed of sheet metal stampings spot-welded together so that there are no thick stuctural elements (tubes, bars, etc.) connecting the suspension attachment points. A well-executed monocoque design of the same stiffness and general material (eg steel) is usually lighter than it's tube-framed equivalent.

Now to the more difficult terminology: "Replica" is ambiguous in English because it can mean a copy that externally looks like the original or it can mean a copy that duplicates in every detail including internal and invisible those of the original. RCR and Tornado are replicas in the looser sense, that is, their interior structure does not closely match that of a GT40.

Superformance goes to great length and expense (which the buyer pays for) to duplicate the internal details of the GT40 and thus correspond to the stricter definition of replica, although there are some arguably minor and deliberate deviations from exact duplication.

Whether that distinction matters to you, and how much, is a debate I will not touch.

 

[Mike Pass]

Re: So what is the difference between a normal (space) frame and monocoque?

A monocoque is a construction technique that supports structural load by using an object's exterior, as opposed to using an internal frame that is then covered with a non-load-bearing skin or coachwork. The word monocoque comes from the Greek for single (mono) and French for shell (coque). The technique may also be called unit body, unibody or unitary construction.
Simple analogy: - We have a skeleton like a space frame. An insect has a monocoque. Our loads are carried through our skeleton. The insect's load is carried through it's rigid shell.

In the development of cars the spaceframe was superceded by the monocoque because it's stiffer for the same weight assuming both are well designed and is much easier to make out of stamped metal sheet. An aluminium monocoque is lighter and stiffer than a steel spaceframe. Also a spaceframe has to have the gaps filled in by some form of panelling to make it waterproof. You might say that the panelled spaceframe becomes a monocoque but not really as the loads are mainly carried by the tubes of the spaceframe. In terms of stiffness a crap monocoque will be floppier than a good space frame but all being equally well designed the mono will be lighter and stiffer. The lighter and stiffer the material the stiffer the chassis will be. However if a true original spec is wanted or you want to get race papers then everything must exactly be as original.

In the GT40 the original cars were a steel sheet spacefame. The car was based on the Lola Mk6 which had an aluminium monocoque but Ford wanted a steel one so they could use their existing tech to make a road car at the same time.

The original cars had a very complex spaceframe with a lot of the stiffness coming from the side boxes which carry the fuel tanks. This is why original cars use rubber bag tanks in the side sponsons. These chassis are very expensive and hard to make because all the sheet steel has to be formed using press tools which are very expensive to make. The roof section in particular is very large and the press tools are huge. Check out Jimmymac's build thread to get an idea of the work needed. All these bits then need to be welded together accurately which will require a large jig. Not a project to be undertaken lightly.

The original cars were built in the sixties and are now very expensive and not really suitable for the road as they are race cars and pretty hard work on the road. As Ron says everything else is a replica.

The replicas vary by a huge amount. They range from a basic look-a-like to the top line very exact copies which are accurate in every detail and for which you can get historic race papers. You can buy one from Gelscoe Motorsport for £250,000+ or have a bash at making your own.

The ERA, Mirage and the SPF are very close to the originals but would not get historic race papers without suitable and possibly difficult modifications. Also an exact replica would be a bit of a pig on the road in traffic. Collecting exact original or exactly re-manufactured parts is very hard to do as you can see from some of the super accurate GT40 build threads on this site.

The SPF is an excellent car and I would be very happy to have one. I have visited the factory in South Africa and been very impressed with the build quality and the factory. Jimmy and his son Justin are true enthusiasts and extremely knowledgeable about these cars and build a car which is a close to original style steel monocoque and therefore very close to the construction, materials and ethos of the GT40 but still affordable and roadable.

Hope this helps
Cheers
Mike

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

The SPF is an excellent car and I would be very happy to have one. I have visited the factory in South Africa and been very impressed with the build quality and the factory. Jimmy and his son Justin are true enthusiasts and extremely knowledgeable about these cars and build a car which is a close to original style steel monocoque and therefore very close to the construction, materials and ethos of the GT40 but still affordable and roadable.

Well said Mike.

There are those who want a "GT40" replica, that is a car as close to the 1960's construction as possible with some allowances for ease of use, etc. Others only want a car that "looks" like a GT40 and there are numerous choices in that catagory. Neither is wrong but only one is right for you and you the purchaser must make that choice.

 

[Pathfinder Motorsports]

Supeformance, Tornado, RCR, and the rest of the companies all build GT40 replicas. Superformance pays a royalty to Safir (who owns the GT40 trademark) so that they may call theirs a GT40, but their car is still a replica of a GT40.

All of these cars, at least in the US, are titled as self-built cars - kit cars for lack of better term. How the car is actually titled will vary from state to state. My NC title says "1966 RCR T70" as to "Year, Make, and Model", although NC wouldn't have cared if I put "1966 Lola T70" in the boxes. So you will find some GT40 replicas that are titled as a 19XX Ford GT40.

This appears to be a topic of endless interest - and some confusion. Unfortunately, Ron, what you said about Superformance and Safir is misleading.

Safir GT40 Spares Ltd., the trademark holder for the name GT40, entered into their licensing agreement predicated on Superformance building a replica that was a close as reasonably possible to the original cars. This included body panels molded from an original car and a chassis that is close enough to original that the FIA has approved it for an HTP and therefore FIA historic racing. No other GT40 manufacturer - with the exception of Holman Moody and Gelscoe - can make that claim. And their cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more than our cars.

When Pathfinder Motorsports was designing the features of the GT40R with Superformance, we had several conversations with Safir, and for them design integrity was a paramount issue. Simply paying a royalty was not sufficient absent assurances of build accuracy. [For more information on Superformance build accuracy, and in particular the design fidelity of the GT40R, you may want to look at this post: How Authentic is the Pathfinder/Superformance GT40R?]

Furthermore, due to the level of design accuracy with the Superformance GT40R, coupled with the fact that the cars have 'GT40' on their MSO and carry continuation chassis numbers, Pathfinder has successfully lobbied for their acceptance by the HSR, SVRA, and Legends of Motorsports sanctioning bodies for historic racing here in the US. So there really is more to all of this than simply "paying a royalty".

By the way, inasmuch as the Superformance GT40 arrives as an assembled vehicle with a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO), in many states it is titled like any other new car - not as a kit car.

To some folks, build accuracy vis-a-vis the original, coupled with a continuation chassis number and the right for their car to be called a GT40 is important; others believe all of that to be a "sales ploy to extract mor $$$ from your pocket". As with most such things, it all boils down to owner preference.

Alan

 

[JimmyMac]

Re:
The ERA, Mirage and the SPF are very close to the originals but would not get historic race papers without suitable and possibly difficult modifications.
Mike

Mike,

As far as Ali's and my car is concerned, that is an unqualified statement.

Cordially,

 

Original GT40 s are fully documented by there numbers which most people know, all others are replicas whether good accurate replicas or otherwise
Thats why even a good replica will not fetch the money an original will.
Just my opinion like it or not

 

[Keith]

I have never got my head around this. There are originals and replicas - to me, that's it.

I would dispute the "continuation" theory for SPF as well as why do the "continuations" have numbers starting with "2"? Does that follow on from the original production run or even the later "continuation" MKV? I believe that is done to distinguish them from "the real thing" to me, there can be no other reason.

Charging a premium for a famous original number but starting with a "2"? That's not a marketing ploy?

The SPF is a fantastic replica and I'm quite sure the Pathfinder GT40R is too but the DNA is so far removed from "originals" (in my opinion) that there are no constants or continuations in any part of it. Constant efforts to dignify "continuations" as the "real thing" and distance it from "kit cars" is marketing pure and simple.

I am not for a moment denigrating this fantastic product but this constant "not a replica but a true continuation" thing just annoys me.

I would bet every penny I have that Jimmy & Alistairs cars are more authentic than the bloody originals! (Given that many originals are not even "original" either).

But at the end, they are ALL replicas!

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

ICharging a premium for a famous original number but starting with a "2"? That's not a marketing ploy?

Yes,

It is.

However someone wanted "2046" and @075" enough to pay extra. I have "2270" sitting in my shop for sale and to me the number means little other than it it attached to a kick-ass car!

 

[René]

most are rebuild cars so also not 'original' in a way.
most good replica's are build from the ground up cars by hand, just like a original car

I also see some sort replica's being more expensive then the modern expensive Ford GT (40) and those prices start at around 147.000,-euro! thats 'strange' and funny at the same time

 

[Seymour Snerd]

I have never got my head around this. There are originals and replicas - to me, that's it.

I would dispute the "continuation" theory for SPF But at the end, they are ALL replicas!

Two points:

Yes they are all replicas, but within the space occupied by replicas there are differences in accuracy and of quality. That was one of the original poster's questions. If you don't care about that subject that's your prerogative; others do care, especially someone contemplating a purchase; hence this thread.

Secondly, the "C-word" only came up in Alan P's post and is (IMO) a side issue that for me produces more heat than light since I'm really only interested in the physical properties of the vehicle. But as he quite correctly points out, it does matter to some people and therefore has an effect on product value in the market, and thus can't be ignored entirely if you are going to have a complete discussion comparing the different candidates. Hopefully we can continue this discussion without that particular subject cluttering it up any further.

And finally, the "K" word (kit-car). It's useful to remember that ALL cars start out as kits (a collection of parts); what we think of as kit cars are simply those assembled by the retail purchaser rather than an employee of the manufacturer. "Kit car" is a concept completely independent of replica, original, continuation, etc. Any of those can be kit cars, or not.

Just to illustrate the point, many original Lotuses Elans were kit cars, sold that way by Lotus. If Lotus licensed it, Superformance could produce a "continuation" of an original kit car: the Lotus Elan. Do I have any orders? :idea:

 

[Seymour Snerd]

I also see some sort replica's being more expensive then the modern expensive Ford GT (40) and those prices start at around 147.000,-euro! thats 'strange' and funny at the same time

That is very strange, but is some kind of anomaly since in the US a Ford GT still sells for $150K or so, and it's hard to spend that much in the US on a replica GT-40 (typical SPF is $120K brand new). The prices I have seen for Superformance GT40s in Germany, for example, make no sense to me at all, especially since they all come from South Africa in the first place.

 

[Mike Pass]

Hi James,
Many apologies! I wrote the post in a bit of a rush. The Mirage is indeed a superb and very accurate piece of work and will most certainly get historic race papers. I went down to see the first cars in build a couple of years ago and was amazed not only by the originality in construction but by the sheer accuracy of the CNC work and the build table and jigs were a work of art. I would imagine that the Mirage chassis are far more dimensionally accurate than many of the well worn "originals" out there.
So apologies again and scratch the name Mirage from what I said in my initial post. At my age things keep fading away especially the brain cells.
Cheers
Mike

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Thats why even a good replica will not fetch the money an original will.

I think you would be hard-pressed to produce an example of anything where the replica is worth the same as the original.

The only one I can think of is a cat, where you can get one for "free" but the clone costs $40,000. But there are good reasons for that.

 

[George]

Hi

THanks for the feedback...

Well what is important to me?

Carbon Fibre chasis/body

Correct wheelbase
Correct Width of car
Correct Length of car
Correct height of car
Correct produced body (same lines, curves, gaps, etc)

So basicaly the 'physical' aspect is 100% correct.

The materials Id rather use better than original material, I would rather design my own dash and interior seats... along with my own carbon fiber centre console my own choice of 6 speed gearbox and my own choice of big-block EFI engine.

So basicaly to me, its a GT40 in physical dimensions but performance is Hyper car performance with Modern/race like designed interior.

This all means is im not after original material from the 60s as todays technology far surpasses it, so i want to use todays technology in the correct dimensions of a real GT40 so in a sense like Buying a real original 2+ milion dollar 'original' gt40 MK1, and then modifying it by putting my gearbox in it, my suspension in it to make it handle even better, my carbon fibre in it etc. But as u see the dimensions are identical as its a real gt40 modified to todays performance standards.

I also want a Right hand drive car as I am in australia but not like the original where its kinda centre/right hand drive with the gearstick next to the door. Gearstick/tunnel etc needs to be down the middle like any normal car.

SO what am I after?

A superformance
A Tornado
A RCR

or what the hell

 

[Seymour Snerd]

...

Carbon Fibre chasis/body

Correct wheelbase
Correct Width of car
Correct Length of car
Correct height of car
Correct produced body (same lines, curves, gaps, etc)

The materials Id rather use better than original material, I would rather design my own dash and interior seats... along with my own carbon fiber centre console my own choice of 6 speed gearbox and my own choice of big-block EFI engine.

This all means is im not after original material from the 60s as todays .

I also want a Right hand drive car..with the gearstick next to the door. Gearstick/tunnel etc needs to be down the middle like any normal car.

SO what am I after?

A superformance
A Tornado
A RCR

or what the hell

Given the requirements you just listed you shouid eliminate Superformance from your list because its raison d'etre is reproducing the sixties, at great expense. Besides, because you are insisting on CF you have to eliminate RCR as well. AFAIK there is only one CF GT40, the Tornado. A CF requirement shuts the door on anything else. So I think you just answered your own question.

Are we done now?