Front clip width with gulf flares?

Jonathan · 12-17-07, 11:54 AM

Can anyone confirm that the front clip of a gulf flared GT40 is wider than the front clip with a nonflared car?

I LOVE GT40- Paolo · 12-17-07, 05:04 PM

yes, it is.
U can see clearly also from the pictures

Look here:
The Roaring Forties

Ray III · 12-18-07, 12:54 AM

John Horsman RACING IN THE RAIN talks about body and wheel mods from 68 to 69 and makes no reference at all about a flared F clip.He should know engineered the gulf programe till 1982. I also have studied hunderdes of pics from every angle and see no dif from my RCR F clip , I tried to as well to recreate every 68 LeMans body mod.

Mike Drew · 12-18-07, 01:55 AM

The front clip is wider on the later, i.e. "Gulf" cars. I can't tell you how much exactly, but when you see two cars side-by-side the difference is quite apparent.

I LOVE GT40- Paolo · 12-18-07, 03:50 AM

maybe those pics help:

MReid · 12-18-07, 07:01 AM

Maybe I'm not seeing things clearly or missing the perspective, but I don't see any difference in the pictures posted above. I always thought only ther rear was wider in an attempt to address oversteer.

Russ Noble · 12-18-07, 07:28 AM

I think these photos of 1076 show it. Ford GT40 Restoration - Chassis 1076

Because of the curved nature of the front clip the flared arches blend in rather imperceptibly, but there is one front overhead shot that shows off the extra width and curvature. I think we would only be talking an inch or less on each side, so it's not that easy to see unless there is a standard clip next to it for reference.

I have read in several places that the Gulf cars had widened front arches.

I know I am going to have to widen mine to accomodate the 10" fronts but that's not necessarily an indication. With shorter suspension links or different wheel offsets they would fit OK.

Cheers

Cheers

DaveWharran · 12-18-07, 08:42 PM

The fronts are flared on my ERA. These are a couple of pictures taken when I picked the car up and one after body work and painting was complete. You can clearly see the red colored glass where the wider flares were added.

Dave

Fran Hall RCR · 12-18-07, 08:44 PM

Boy...thats a pretty car..

Jac Mac · 12-18-07, 10:07 PM

Im more concerned about the total lack of respect being shown to the Cobra body, must be trying to slow the resin cure rate!

MReid · 12-18-07, 10:33 PM

I live about 30 minutes from ERA and am always amazed at, well, how plain the operation is. I mean no disrespect, but I guess I expected some flashy building from an outfit that builds high quality cars. But no, there are bodys and bits of chassis all over the place and the GT40 building...well it is a junky building in town, but what is inside is very impressive!

Tom Diaz · 12-19-07, 12:47 AM

Hi Jonathan,

This is also a question that that I had. Researching this in the GT40 book by Ronnie Spain, I found the configurations of the 1969 Gulf cars on page 143, which states that front wheels were 10' by 15" and the rears were 12" by 15" for Serbring. For Le Mans they ran 10"by 15" fronts and 14"by 15" rears. I believe the front clip would need to be wider or have flares to run 10" wide rims in the front.

Best regards,

Falcon7

FRPGUY · 12-19-07, 10:34 AM

I've always wondered why they didn't put these super wide wheels, tires and "Gulf" style flares on all the MKII GT40's. I know the fenders on the nose of the MKII was changed, but why not the tail?

Russ Noble · 12-19-07, 12:54 PM

Bill,

I think the answer to that is that the Mk2s (1966,67) preceded the Gulf cars (1968,69) and the super wide wheels and tyres had not been developed at that stage. I believe they would have used the widest that were available at the time.

Cheers

FRPGUY · 12-19-07, 02:08 PM

Russ, I guess what I'm asking is, in '68 why would JW pick the MKI 289 to run with instead of the MKII 427. In '67 & '68 there was plenty of knowledge about wide wheels & tires from the CANAM cars. I know the MKII "B" model had a little wider tail, but nothing like the "Gulf" cars

Ian K · 12-19-07, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPGUY

Russ, I guess what I'm asking is, in '68 why would JW pick the MKI 289 to run with instead of the MKII 427. In '67 & '68 there was plenty of knowledge about wide wheels & tires from the CANAM cars. I know the MKII "B" model had a little wider tail, but nothing like the "Gulf" cars

I believe that the rules changed after '67 and that the 427s were no longer allowed. Max
displacement was 5 litres. I don't believe the MkIIs had any aero advantage over the
MkIs, and since there was no need for the MkII clip's extra cooling and clearance since
the 427 was out. So, JW took what was legal and available, and worked with it.

Obviously, it wasn't a bad choice

Ahh - dug up some more info. JW had the Mirages already in hand, but since they had 351s,
he had to drop in 302s. Also, the 5.0 rule stated you had to have a minimum of 50 production
models. So, JW rebuilt the Mirages to more closely resemble the MkIs (I believe only body
mods - the chassis was close enough to comply with homologation).

Ian

Mike Trusty · 12-19-07, 02:19 PM

The Mark II and Mark IV were regulated out after the '67 season. They were just old race cars then with no need for development.

DaveWharran · 12-19-07, 09:45 PM

Thanks Fran. Like most, lots of hours invested.
It is a "runner" heading for 20,000 miles now.