GT40s.com
MK-I  MK-II  MK-III  MK-IV  GULF  MIRAGE  J-CAR  LOLA
GT40s.com
Home Forum Gallery Support GT40s.com  
Register FAQ Advertisers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   GT40s.com > General GT40s Discussion > All GT40


All GT40 GT40 and Ford GT Talk - All the time!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 24th November 2012, 04:02 PM   #1 (permalink)
Safir GT40 Spares
United States
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Loved GT40s sin
GT40: Cincinnati, Ohi
Posts: 9
The truth about Safir Engineering

SAFIR GT40 Spares, owner of the GT40 Trademark, does not participate in discussions as a company on the GT40s weblog, however, we have enjoyed watching the vibrant social/technical communication directed at discovering and maintaining truthful information on this historic vehicle. At this time SAFIR GT40 Spares, Limited does wish to comment and clarify recent posts on this web site in order for GT40 enthusiasts to continue enjoying the “honest” exchange of information.

Peter Thorp

Peter Thorp, a well-respected British gentleman, has been involved with motorsport for most of his life. On March 6, 1975, Peter incorporated UK Company number 01202724, and named it SAFIR Engineering. SAFIR Engineering has had many accomplishments over the years including the formation of a race team which competed in Formula 1, as well as producing the Mk V GT40 in concert with JW Automotive Engineering.

Safir Engineering, run by Peter Thorp, was truly a distinguished Company.

Dissolution of Safir Engineering

Prior to the dissolution of company number 01202724 (Safir Engineering), all assets were removed. Body moulds, casting patterns, inventory, the GT40 trademark, etc. were all transferred to US Company Safir GT40 Spares, Limited. In order for the original company 01202724 (Safir Engineering) to have continued, this company would have to have been purchased as a share transfer sale prior to being dissolved. There was no such share sale, and therefore the UK Safir Engineering, which was so very instrumental in perpetuating the GT40 legend, was dissolved. Closing the company ends liability, and ensures that there is a final handshake with the tax man. Safir Engineering officially dissolved November 2001.

Andrew Komosa’s “New Company”

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/gt40-cars...ares-sale.html

Neither Peter Thorp nor Safir GT40 Spares, Limited has had any dealings with Andrew Komosa.

At present there are more than ten SAFIR companies registered and operating in the UK. In April of 2012, eleven years after the real Safir Engineering was dissolved, Mr. Komosa started another UK Safir company, number 8041125, and added the word “Engineering” in an effort to mislead people into believing that his new company is somehow connected to the original Peter Thorp, Safir Engineering.

It is not.

It is obvious that Andrew Komosa felt that the GT40 community would associate the good will and reputation created by Peter Thorp with his new copy-cat company. This attempt to take undue credit on the twenty five years of Peter Thorp’s accomplishments is disrespectful and dishonest. The GT40 community deserves better than this.

Andrew Komosa’s “Tennant Style Chassis”

Andrew Komosa is on record trying to sell a tenant style chassis; “the authentic style as used by Tennant Panels during the 1980s”. As most members of the GT40s site are aware, Safir GT40 Spares, Limited maintains a close relationship with Superformance and Hi Tech Automotive through our licensing agreements. As such, we at Safir are most confident in that which we have learned during our pursuit to determine the origin of this chassis. We are confident that this chassis was built by Hi Tech Automotive for Superformance.

Prior to Superformance launching their licensed GT40, two prototypes were built to resolve the details of manufacture. The first chassis was fully built into a roller and shipped to the USA. There were numerous areas in need of improvement, and in several details this chassis was not correct. Hi Tech/ Superformance had this car returned to the factory and removed from the market. The customer was then supplied with a correct replacement.

The second prototype chassis had the same deficient issues as the first, but was not used to build a car. In addition to the same issues, this second chassis had several superfluous holes that were drilled in order to fine tune the location of the air conditioning lines. This bare chassis remained in stock until Hi Tech/Superformance moved from Cape Town to the new modern production facility in Port Elizabeth. Rather than move this less desirable chassis to the new plant, it was sold with several bits for a very low price. We at Safir are confident that this is the chassis that Andrew Komosa is attempting to sell.

Buyer Beware.

Andrew Komosa’s offer to sell a GT40.

Mr. Komosa cannot use the GT40 trademark.

Andrew Komosa’s offer to sell a GT40 Mark VI.

Several years ago, Safir GT40 Spares legitimately built and registered GT40-P-1149, doing so as a Safir GT40 Mark VI. This chassis is recorded in the World GT40 Registry, and is properly registered for the upcoming publishing of GT40 records.

Ford built a wonderful car, and maintained excellent records. Professionals such as Ronnie Spain and Greg Kolasa (World Registry) have dedicated much of their lives in maintaining an honest, accurate GT40 history. There are credible associations around the world celebrating the factual history of this great automobile. We at Safir are very disheartened as we see Andrew Komosa as a self-serving pretender changing the truth for his own benefit and profit.

Safir GT40 Spares,

Bob Wood Brady Pack John Sadler
__________________
Owner of Safir GT40 Spares, Limited and GT40 trademark.
GT40-P-1136
Safir GT40 Spares is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 7th December 2012, 09:44 AM   #2 (permalink)
jazzyspies
Bronze Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Surrey-UK
Posts: 388
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

I recently stumbled across this thread and am outraged at its libellous statements which attempt to defame my character through misunderstanding and a misconceived notion that I am dishonest. Unfortunately, Mr Thorp, Mr Woods and Mr Sadler decided to publicise their thoughts on a public forum, rather then simply pick up the telephone and get the facts straight before writing.

1. My company “Safir Engineering Ltd” is legally registered at Companies House in the UK as 8041125 and have stated this on correspondence and articles I have produced. I have made it clear that I resurrected the company name, but that Mr Thorp owned the original Safir Engineering Ltd from 1975 until it ceased trading in 2000. I have openly told people that I did not acquire any manufacturing premises. I have written about the original company’s history as background to what I am attempting to start up, but there is nothing dishonest, unlawful or fraudulent about this. The company name was available and I acquired it. I did not add “Engineering”, as it was there for the taking and I took it, legally, morally and honestly. Safir Engineering Ltd will pay its taxes when they become due, assuming it’s allowed to ever sell anything!
2. I did purchase the monocoque chassis after acquisition of Safir Engineering Ltd, but had no dealings with Mr Thorp, as his original company had been dissolved 12 years previously. I was not told that it might be a “prototype Superformance” at the time, and do not believe it is. Indeed, a number of GT40 people have examined the chassis and taken photographs for me.. remember I have been totally blind since 1986, so rely on other’s opinions, and remain convinced this is no prototype, but a FIA-spec tub, built as per the original FAV drawings Caveat Emptor indeed.
4. I have stated over & over again, that I do not hold the GT40 trademark. Indeed, I have gone to great lengths to inform people that “Peter Thorpe’s original Safir Engineering Ltd” sold the trademark to Safir GT40 Spares (Ohio) Llc and that Pathfinder GTR Motorsport licence the name from them. I believe the Ford Motor Company hold the trademark in the UK however. I do not know who owns it elsewhere, but am informed that a trademark has to be registered in each country in order to protect it.


Although my profession may suggest otherwise, I am not a litigious person and can fully understand how Safir GT40 Spares might feel aggrieved, especially considering their lengthy legal battle with the Ford Motor Company over the trademark. They can rest assured that although I have always stood up to bullies, I am not wishing to upset them and have already said that my phone number is readily available should they want to discuss any aspect, openly, before it goes any further. I do hope they, as well as the rest of the GT40 community see I was only seeking to provide an economical replica GT40 bare chassis, with which the little guys can go FIA racing. I do not wish to detract from Mr Thorp’s work however, or step on anyone’s toes. Sorry, but the project, alas, seems doomed to failure before it begins!

Andrew
jazzyspies is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 7th December 2012, 03:02 PM   #3 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

(First, a point of order: forum rules require a personal name so we know with whom we are speaking.)

"Safir GT40 Spares" in the initial post makes damaging public statements about Mr. Komosa personally, and thus has a significant burden of proof in backing up statements like the following:
"Mr. Komosa started [his company] in an effort to mislead people ....It is obvious that Andrew Komosa felt ..... [he] added the word “Engineering” in an effort to mislead people..... This attempt to take undue credit .... is disrespectful and dishonest. "

These are all statements about Mr. Komosa's state of mind. Furthermore they attribute dishonest motives to Mr. Komosa with no evidence or proof supplied. Absent any such evidence, "Safir GT40 Spares" must somehow be telepathic.

If "Safir GT40 Spares" really desires that we at GT40s.com "continue enjoying the “honest” exchange of information" then we need to know what evidence they have for these charges.

It's one thing to assert negative information about Mr. Komosa's chassis. It is quite another to claim he offers the chassis knowing that negative information and hiding it with an intent to deceive.

Without that evidence "Safir GT40 Spares" are simply pursuing an ugly inter-personal feud with no apparent valid purpose.

As "Safir GT40 Spares" says, "The GT40 community deserves better than this."
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 7th December 2012, 09:19 PM   #4 (permalink)
Oneofakind's Avatar
Oneofakind
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Spicewood,Texas
GT40: MKIIA SPF P2270
Posts: 136
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Mr. Komosa, you stated:

"The company name was available and I acquired it. I did not add “Engineering”, as it was there for the taking and I took it, legally, morally and honestly. Safir Engineering Ltd will pay its taxes when they become due, assuming it’s allowed to ever sell anything!"

No one appears to be challenging the legality of your acquisition.

"It was there for the taking" may be your best response, but, that statement does not adequately inform the readers and allow them to gain an understanding of your motivations in resurrecting the brand, and your intentions for its continued use in association with the GT40. The resurrection of any brand without the providing the product directly associated with it always runs the risk of confusion and disappointment in the market. The perceived benefit to you must have far outweighed this risk.

The current information only allows the reader to come to the conclusion that your intention was to market a replica product under an originator brand to add value, much like Shelby does with its CSX Cobra continuations today. The major difference is: Shelby is the originator and the owner of the brand, while you can only lay claim to the name and not the origin of the product it represents.

From a pure business and marketing perspective: You've created a potential marketing nightmare for your company that has now, unfortunately, become a reality.

Two cents of advice: Build a premier quality product...and, change the name of your company so that the brand develops its own identity and market reputation based on that product and not someone else's prior market image that you purchased. These battles can be distracting and debilitating. It's much more fun to build cars.

Good luck with whatever decision you take.

Last edited by Oneofakind; 7th December 2012 at 09:31 PM.
Oneofakind is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 12:43 AM   #5 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneofakind View Post
...your motivations in resurrecting the brand, and your intentions for its continued use in association with the GT40.
....
The current information only allows the reader to come to the conclusion that your intention was to market a replica product under an originator brand to add value, much like Shelby does with its CSX Cobra continuations today. .
and.... the mind-reading proliferates.....

Andrew never said he was resurrecting a brand in this forum. If you can quote him saying so, please provide the text.

As one of those readers I can think of lots of things he could be intending to do that do not involve "marketing a replica under an originator brand." Thus your statement above about what "the current information" allows is utterly false.
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 02:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Oneofakind's Avatar
Oneofakind
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Spicewood,Texas
GT40: MKIIA SPF P2270
Posts: 136
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Alan,

Before piping off again, please take the time to read Mr. Komosa's posting again. The first line of point #1 he writes (I have bolded and underlined the text for your convenience):

"1. My company “Safir Engineering Ltd” is legally registered at Companies House in the UK as 8041125 and have stated this on correspondence and articles I have produced. I have made it clear that I resurrected the company name, but that Mr Thorp owned the original Safir Engineering Ltd from 1975 until it ceased trading in 2000."

And, he goes on to state: " I do hope they, as well as the rest of the GT40 community see I was only seeking to provide an economical replica GT40 bare chassis, with which the little guys can go FIA racing."

The "current information" he provided were his statements to resurrect the brand and build a replica GT 40 chassis.

Is that adequate proof for you?

Why don't you just let Mr Komosa answer for himself? My comment was directly addressed to him.

Last edited by Oneofakind; 8th December 2012 at 02:50 AM.
Oneofakind is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 06:53 AM   #7 (permalink)
Jon
jonnyb's Avatar
jonnyb
5 Tenths
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
GT40: Tornado
Posts: 581
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneofakind View Post
Alan,

Before piping off again, please take the time to read Mr. Komosa's posting again. The first line of point #1 he writes (I have bolded and underlined the text for your convenience):

"1. My company “Safir Engineering Ltd” is legally registered at Companies House in the UK as 8041125 and have stated this on correspondence and articles I have produced. I have made it clear that I resurrected the company name, but that Mr Thorp owned the original Safir Engineering Ltd from 1975 until it ceased trading in 2000."

And, he goes on to state: " I do hope they, as well as the rest of the GT40 community see I was only seeking to provide an economical replica GT40 bare chassis, with which the little guys can go FIA racing."

The "current information" he provided were his statements to resurrect the brand and build a replica GT 40 chassis.

Is that adequate proof for you?

Why don't you just let Mr Komosa answer for himself? My comment was directly addressed to him.
I don't understand why you would have a problem with that. As long as Andrew makes it clear that he is not building "GT40's" but a replica of, he is not breaking any laws.

Andrew has never claimed to own the trade mark, but does now own the company name. Weather you consider that a "brand" or not is down to your own perception. Andrew has never once stated he was resurrecting a "brand".

It no point has Andrew sought to mislead anyone, in this thread and his other about the car he is building, he has been very open and honest.

He bought a company name associated with the Ford GT40, and plans to produce an FIA spec chassis so people without millions of pounds can go racing. Everything he has done is legal, and he has been open and honest.

What, exactly, is the problem?
jonnyb is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 07:42 AM   #8 (permalink)
mickky3's Avatar
mickky3
Bronze Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
GT40: building my own
Posts: 332
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

I was invited by Andrew to see the chassis he has, to help me with the alloy mono chassis I am buliding for my scratch build GT 40.

I am not an expert on Original GT 40 chassis, but I can tell you the spider, and doors were perfect, there were no faults with them, unlike the roof of the Superperformance prototype chassis that Rick mentions in post 15 http://www.gt40s.com/forum/world-market-share-parts-sources-reviews/38821-chassis.html

In the post above it says ....The second prototype chassis had the same deficient issues as the first....

So from what I have read on this site and seen. I dont think this is a superperformance prototype chassis.
mickky3 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 12:27 PM   #9 (permalink)
jazzyspies
Bronze Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Surrey-UK
Posts: 388
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Hang on a minute... isn't this a case of double standards? Am I right in thinking Safir GT40 Spares (Ohio) Llc have produced only one chassis i.e. GT40P/1149... and wasn't this constructed by David Brown of Classic Car Developments in NZ, not by Safir in the USA itself, but simply badged as a Safir MkVI?

Please can we stop this fight and live together in our GT40-loving World. life is too short, and I think I have done nothing wrong. If I have, then I am still awaiting your phone call, so we can find a mutually beneficial resolution. Regards... Andrew
jazzyspies is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 01:55 PM   #10 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneofakind View Post

"1. ... I have made it clear that I resurrected the company name, ...."

...
Is that adequate proof for you?

Why don't you just let Mr Komosa answer for himself? My comment was directly addressed to him.
Glenn -- a "name" and a "brand" are not at all the same thing, and as a marketing expert I'm sure you understand the difference. Thus, no that's not proof of anything.

Your comment (lecture, really) didn't call for an answer, and this is a public forum.
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 02:08 PM   #11 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzyspies View Post
Hang on a minute... isn't this a case of double standards? Am I right in thinking Safir GT40 Spares (Ohio) Llc have produced only one chassis i.e. GT40P/1149... and wasn't this constructed by David Brown of Classic Car Developments in NZ, not by Safir in the USA itself, but simply badged as a Safir MkVI?
Further to double standards, no one seems to be complaining about Mike Teske and "Kar Kraft, LLC.".

Since an apology or correction is likely not forthcoming from the OP, I hope Andrew will exact the best revenge by successfully executing his new/old venture, and I wish him well in that endeavor.
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 04:53 PM   #12 (permalink)
Cliffbeer2
I Have No Life
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sand Point, WA
Posts: 2,400
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Kudos to Andrew for making a collegial and diplomatic response to the OP's first post. Not many folks could hold their tongue when attacked so sharply and publicly.

Thank you to both Andrew and the OP for setting forth the background details here so that the history becomes better understood in an open and public forum. I was unaware of these details and have a much better sense of both the legal landscape and also the business landscape with regards to the Safir name, and the history of involvement with the GT40.

My one questions is the same as Glenn's. Specificaly, while it may be legally permissible to secure a company name which is the same as a former brand name ("Safir Engineering")....as Andrew put it well "it was there for the taking and I took it, legally, morally and honestly" it may not be ethically right, and more importantly, it may be perpetrating a deception on the client. It's not a stretch of the imagination to conclude that "Engineering" was added to "Safir" by Andrew to trade off the former "Safir Engineering" name established by Thorpe. Regardless of whether that is legal or not (it probably is perfectly legal as there doesn't appear to be any trademark and Safir Engineering in its original form is no longer trading...), if the client is being deceived as to the basket of goods they are getting by engaging with that vendor (expertise, services, etc.) then a wrong is being committed.

Said another way, just because it's legal doesn't make it right. I suspect this is the heart of the matter, and what's got the OP's knickers in a twist to put it crudely.
Cliffbeer2 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 07:24 PM   #13 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2 View Post
It's not a stretch of the imagination to conclude that "Engineering" was added to "Safir" by Andrew to trade off the former "Safir Engineering" name established by Thorpe.
Cliff -- You fall into the same logical fallacy as the OP and Glenn. Or more likely you chose your words with insufficient precisions, since I know your logical and intellectualy capabilities far exceed those of the others making this mistake.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suspect this of Andrew. It is absolutely a stretch (well beyond the breaking point) of any information or logic that you or anyone else has to conclude this of Andrew.

Again, you (all three of you at least) are making an unwarranted assertion about Andrew's state of mind. And you can't possibly know what his motive was when he registered the company. Maybe he's just sentimental. Maybe he always wanted to be an engineer but his dad wouldn't let him wear a seersucker hat. Maybe he had a toy steam engine named Safir. Why not grant that other people have imaginations, and maybe the range of their imaginations exceed yours?

Or maybe we should rename this thread "Introduction to Critical Thinking and Basic Logic."

IAE, the simple establishment of a business under a previous name is not ipso facto a problem, morally or legally. For a meaningful deception to occur there has to be a transaction, and if and when there is one probably no one here will know about it. So let's move on; this fallacious point has now been made three times.
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 08:15 PM   #14 (permalink)
jimbo's Avatar
jimbo
Silver Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
GT40: Mark VI, #1149
Posts: 3,635
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzyspies View Post
Hang on a minute... isn't this a case of double standards? Am I right in thinking Safir GT40 Spares (Ohio) Llc have produced only one chassis i.e. GT40P/1149... and wasn't this constructed by David Brown of Classic Car Developments in NZ, not by Safir in the USA itself, but simply badged as a Safir MkVI?

Please can we stop this fight and live together in our GT40-loving World. life is too short, and I think I have done nothing wrong. If I have, then I am still awaiting your phone call, so we can find a mutually beneficial resolution. Regards... Andrew
1149 is my car, so I feel entitled to comment on it. 1149's chassis was partly built by David Brown, the roof and spider were built by Henry and Kelly in the UK, and the chassis was then shipped to the USA and completed by Safir GT40 Spares with their own hands. Even after it was worked on by Adams-McCall in the UK there were still significant parts which required completion or correction. These are not simple objects and all of the rest of the pieces need to fit on them.

As sent to me from Safir GT40 Spares, the chassis of 1149 was now usable and complete and more importantly, all the suspension and other bits now fit the car.

I will also point out that the manufacturing of the original 1960s GT40 chassis was outsourced (although I don't think that word existed then) to a chassis manufacturing firm- namely Abbey Panels, which built chassis and did other metalworking for vehicle manufacturing firms. Further, I will point out that the chassis of all the original Shelby Cobras were built by AC Cars- thus both the bodies AND the chassis construction were outsourced. It would be fair to regard David Brown as the equivalent of Abbey Panels in this regard, more or less, but he did not build a complete chassis- the chassis of my car was completed by Safir GT40 Spares, working on it in their own shops and with their own tools. None of the body parts would now fit and the car would not be usable but for their work on the chassis, which brought it to its final form and function.

And finally, if I am not mistaken (and I don't think I am) the manufacturing of the chassis of the Safir Mark V GT40s was outsourced- to Adams-McCall Engineering, UK, mentioned above as the (partial) completers of 1149s chassis.

No doubt everyone will use this information to grind whatever axe they prefer, but please let's not hear any more claptrap about 1149's chassis being a "rebadged" effort by David Brown. Included among the Safir principals are well-qualified engineers and metalworkers as good as anyone else I've ever seen, who worked with their own hands on my car's chassis. It would not be what it is without them. So enough of that, if you please.
__________________
Mark I monocoque, completed
Safir Mk I body
ZF-2 transaxle
302 w/Webers
jimbo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 08:47 PM   #15 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
1149 is my car, so I feel entitled to comment on it.
Finally, someone who has a horse in this race. So I get that about 1149, but didn't follow Andrew's comment about it being a Mk VI. Is it? And if so, what exactly is a Mk VI, how do they differ, and how many are there?
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 11:22 PM   #16 (permalink)
jimbo's Avatar
jimbo
Silver Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
GT40: Mark VI, #1149
Posts: 3,635
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

I think the Mark VI designation was sort of a compromise, if it is anything at all. The fact is that 1149's chassis very closely follows the dimensions of the original drawings for the Mark I GT40 chassis, a chassis that would not have been called a Mark I in its day, because it was the only GT40 model at the time. 1149's chassis does not incorporate the improved anti-dive and anti-squat geometry worked out by the late Alan Mann as part of his efforts racing GT40s. The Mark V suspension pieces that were shipped to Safir et al by A-M Engineering turned out not to fit, and had to be remade by Safir per the original GT40 drawings in order to be usable. (further evidence of their expertise in fabrication, may I add) 1149's chassis does differ in a few other ways, notably the use of Heim joints instead of the original Schaefer bearings to assemble the suspension. In terms of dimensions, 1149 is a Mark I car. I think the Safir principals felt that there were enough detail differences that it merited another label. My point is that much of the work done to get my car together was done not only by their company but by they themselves, and they deserve credit for their expertise.
__________________
Mark I monocoque, completed
Safir Mk I body
ZF-2 transaxle
302 w/Webers
jimbo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 8th December 2012, 11:22 PM   #17 (permalink)
Cliffbeer2
I Have No Life
United States
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sand Point, WA
Posts: 2,400
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by awatkins View Post
Cliff -- You fall into the same logical fallacy as the OP and Glenn. Or more likely you chose your words with insufficient precisions, since I know your logical and intellectualy capabilities far exceed those of the others making this mistake.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to suspect this of Andrew. It is absolutely a stretch (well beyond the breaking point) of any information or logic that you or anyone else has to conclude this of Andrew.

Again, you (all three of you at least) are making an unwarranted assertion about Andrew's state of mind. And you can't possibly know what his motive was when he registered the company. Maybe he's just sentimental. Maybe he always wanted to be an engineer but his dad wouldn't let him wear a seersucker hat. Maybe he had a toy steam engine named Safir. Why not grant that other people have imaginations, and maybe the range of their imaginations exceed yours?

Or maybe we should rename this thread "Introduction to Critical Thinking and Basic Logic."

IAE, the simple establishment of a business under a previous name is not ipso facto a problem, morally or legally. For a meaningful deception to occur there has to be a transaction, and if and when there is one probably no one here will know about it. So let's move on; this fallacious point has now been made three times.
Thanks Alan, I follow your logic and you're absolutely right. What I suggested is complete speculation and I don't have a shred of proof or any kind of evidence at all to support that speculative point. 100% agree.

What I do have is a fair bit of experience working with trademarks and branding. And, I can tell you without any hesitation that, in my own personal experience, there's always an economic motivation behind naming and branding changes. Always. And when one party massages a brand or name to that of a former-existing brand or name, there's always, always an intent to economically benefit (ie. trade or profit) from the similarity...that's just my own first hand experience, and it's in no way necessarily anyone else's or representative of all. In trademark speak they call it "confusingly similar" as you may know.

But, again, you're absolutely right, there's no evidence that I can see or I'm aware of to make any factual conclusion here, so I appreciate the clarification.

Last edited by Cliffbeer2; 8th December 2012 at 11:31 PM.
Cliffbeer2 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2012, 01:03 AM   #18 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Jimbo --So is 1149 the only Mk VI?
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2012, 01:16 AM   #19 (permalink)
awatkins
Lifetime Premier Supporter
United States
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Gone
GT40: N/A
Posts: 2,530
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffbeer2 View Post
... there's always an economic motivation behind naming and branding changes. Always. And when one party massages a brand or name to that of a former-existing brand or name, there's always, always an intent to economically benefit (ie. trade or profit) from the similarity...
Absolutely. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Andrew say that he had that in mind. But that's a long way from deceiptful intent. It doesn't bother me any more than Harbor Freight's branding it's Chinese stuff as "Chicago Electric."

For a kinda-related issue, see Jim Glickenhaus' experience with attempting (offerring?) to share P4/5C's glories with Ferrari in giving it a name.... This should make Ferrari very happy... To me this illustrates the "older" owner of the name pretending to be protecting their trademark, etc., when perhaps what is really going on is just an ego problem with "the new guy". Same thing I suspect is going on here.

My intuition is that there won't be any confusion when Andrew goes to market with his frames. Anyone in the market for a GT40 frame is likely to be famiiar with the whole story and isn't going to make something out of "Safir Engineering (Surrey)" beyond what it actually is. It (we?) are a pretty sophisticated market.

Last edited by awatkins; 9th December 2012 at 01:35 AM.
awatkins is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2012, 03:13 AM   #20 (permalink)
jazzyspies
Bronze Supporter
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Surrey-UK
Posts: 388
Re: The truth about Safir Engineering

My intentions were purely innocent, I simply thought it neat to own a company with such great lineage via its name back to the glory days of JWA and the Gulf cars etc. I wasn't even sure whether Mr Thorp was still around or not. If he was, I thought he might be happy that his previous company's name was back in the limelight of making GT40 replicas "WRONG".

I have also been getting more and more harrassing emails from people using pseudonims in Ohio via my EBay advert. They ask strange questions which seem unrelated to the chassis I am selling e.g. "have you any Safir V keyrings or literature", or "is this company the same as the one which built the GT40s in the 1970s?" etc. I find I am having sleepless nights and it is damaging my already less than perfect health.

finally, I had found an existing chassis manufacturere who, together with other parts suppliers, could offer a pre-66 FIA roller, with bodywork, glass, original-style parachute seats, steering, suspension and brakes for about £50k +tax This would be a replica GT40 with no VIN i.e. no GT40P serial number, so would need to go through SVA/EVA etc.

However, I am very concerned that Safir GT40 spares (Ohio) Llc might begin a groundless law suit against me. They may have money for lawyers and court fees, but I do not. Even an innocent man has to defend himself at times and often, I have experienced in my professional career, it's the one with the fattest wallets who can afford to take up the fight and win, because the accused simply cannot afford to defend himself. I am therefore minded to give up the struggle and dissolve Safir Engineering ltd. If this satisfies the bullies, then perhaps Ron might take an unprecedented step of pulling this thread, as It could have a damaging affect in my professional career as a solicitor.... Andrew
jazzyspies is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut u lonesomebob The Paddock 19 18th September 2011 03:34 PM
Truth Be Told - this site is it! ChrisMartino The Paddock 5 15th July 2010 01:37 PM
The truth about roadworks simonjrwinter The Paddock 3 29th October 2009 06:54 PM
The truth about horsepower CESLAW GT40 Tech - Engines/Induction/Exhaust 25 26th October 2009 06:10 AM
The truth comes out!! russzx6 The Paddock 2 6th September 2007 12:49 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 PM.