Real GT40s End Where?

[josvdp]

Question to get this (much-needed) section going : the title suggests real cars stop at 1083 - how does this square with Ronnie Spain describing 1085 as "the last GT40 to be numbered by the works" - equally it would appear to exclude the Mk 3's let alone 1108-1114 - is this the intention ?

Sorry just read Don's earlier comments in the suggestion area which also list different (& probably more appropriate) criteria to the title

[DON S.]

My suggestion for "original" (rather than "real;" I think we've been through that debate before) GT40s is the cars that were initially constructed using Abbey Panel tubs and numbered:

101 to 112
P1000 to P1086
1101 to 1114 (the seven Mk III street cars plus the seven left over tubs that eventually were built into cars)
AM1 and AM2 (Alan Mann lightweight Mk Is)
XGT-1, XGT-2 and XGT-3 (Alan Mann lightweights initially built as Mk IIs)
M10001 thru M10003 (Mirages)

After spending over a week with Ronnie Spain in November during which we hashed through the details of exactly how many Abbey Panel tubs were built, I believe that total is 123. Note that this is not simply a count of chassis numbers, as the total of 123 accounts for instances of a single Abbey tub having two chassis numbers (1004/1084, XGT-2/1009) and situations where one original Abbey tub was used as a replacement for a pranged earlier one and picked up that earlier chassis number. In some cases the crashed tub was later rebuilt (or at least saved), giving us two cars on original Abbey tubs with the same chassis number (e.g., 1073).

In addition to the Abbey Panel tubs, "original GT40s" should include the 12 Kar Kraft aluminum honeycomb tubs J1 thru J12.

I am not sure what to do about 1087-1089, the three cars apparently built up from original Abbey sections and pieces many years after production at FAV/JWA ended. For the moment I have not included them as original GT40s but welcome discussion. I am also not including the Safir Mk Vs as original GT40s. This is not meant in any way to slight these fine cars. I know there could be different opinions about this and would be interested to hear them. I had to start somewhere and felt this was a defensible position.

[Mark Clapp]

For what it's worth, I agree with Don. I would include P1087-P1089 since they were built up from saved original parts by who I would consider as trusted GT40 stewards. I also agree about the Mark Vs in that the chassis were redesigned, probably better in some ways, but thus not original.

[Gary Kadrmas]

I think Don said in an earlier thread that the "Original" cars were the ones built and completed in the 60's. I agree with this thought, and say that if the car was built after the original car constructors did their job in the sixties, it should be excluded from this section. I do not agree that 1087-1089 should be included in this section. They were not constructed and finished in the 60's. Plain and simple.....and for the same reason, I do not think the Safir cars should be in this section either.

I think if we follow these basic and simple ideas, our term that we use will again rise to the occasion.....Is it an original, and the answer would be yes!

Don, I support your ideas 100%.

[Russ Noble]

I tend to agree with Don and Gary.

GT40's in their heyday were first and foremost race cars built to comply with the formula of the day. When the rules changed or they became uncompetitive that's the end of the road.

Did 1087 or either of the two sister cars race in any FIA sanctioned series at the time they were built? If not then to my mind they are just 100% accurate replications of a very successful and desirable car from days gone by.

Cheers

[Ron Earp]

Originally Posted by Gary Kadrmas

I think Don said in an earlier thread that the "Original" cars were the ones built and completed in the 60's. I agree with this thought, and say that if the car was built after the original car constructors did their job in the sixties, it should be excluded from this section.

I'd agree with this assessment. Were P1084, P1085, and P1086 completed in the 60s? For some reason I was thinking P0185 and P1086 was completed in the 80s? I'll have to get my books out, or better yet rely on you folks here to decide what's what.

Ron

[David Morton]

If a car was made/assembled on the trading estate in Slough - would that be a suitable qualification ? or were the Le Man 1-2-3 cars built somewhere else ?

[FRPGUY]

Does anyone know about Lee Holman's chassis? Are they Abbey panels tubs, when were they made and how many did he originaly get? Are they given chassis numbers?

[Tod]

I believe the Holman Moody cars begin with HM. One example would be HM201...

[Brian Magee]

Why not call it Original GT40's and offshoots 1964-72. I think that says it all.

Brian.

[josvdp]

Thank you for your suggestions and clarifications

Surely if the late chassis are acceptable ie up to 1114 even though some (eg 1112 as of 2003) are apparently barely completed even now, 1087/88/89 should also be acceptable as Mark says since they are according to their adverts built using original parts including some "original Abbey sections" (Don) ?

Another reason to include is simplicity ! This way the number sequence is complete for the purposes of this section

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Originally Posted by FRPGUY

Does anyone know about Lee Holman's chassis? Are they Abbey panels tubs, when were they made and how many did he originaly get? Are they given chassis numbers?

Lee's cars are not Abbey tubs, Tennant perhaps? I asked some tiome ago about the timeframe for the Tennant tubs and never got a real answer. Perhaps no one really knows.

[Keith Hardy]

Originally Posted by David Morton

If a car was made/assembled on the trading estate in Slough - would that be a suitable qualification ? or were the Le Man 1-2-3 cars built somewhere else ?

[Gary Kadrmas]

This section is for the "originals". Originals were built in the 60's. The tubs for P1085-P1089 were probably built in the 60's. But the finished cars were done way after that time period. Therefore, they should be in some other section. Period.

If someone can produce evidence that the cars were completed in the 60's, they should be in this section......but I do not think that is going to happen.

The HM cars are cars built way after the 60's. Lee may have had the idea back in the 60's (questionable), but he did not complete the cars in the 60's. Kind if think what age Lee would have been in the 60's. Clue that into the equation, and I do not see how the HM cars can be included here either.

The MkIII "road cars" should be in this group, because they were built and completed in the 60's, except for the ones in Spains book that list the chassis number as a tub only. These "tub only" cars are in the same boat as the HM and 1085-1089 cars.

Cheers,......and may the slinging begin.........

[Malcolm]

Would not a simple solution be to use Ronnie Spains book as the bible for a list of original cars? If it is listed in there it counts? Personally I don't have a hang up on 1087 - 1089 being called original if all the parts were factory parts. If they were modified or developed when the cars were assembled then that would count against them though.

[Gary Kadrmas]

Malcom,

You have a good point about using Ronnie Spain's book as a reference guide. Lets see what Don has to say about it.

[Dave Peterman]

Hi Guys:

I toured Lee's shop a back some months ago. I counted 16 tubs in various stages. He accuired all the stuff in the U.K. All the stamping dies and build fixtures. According to what he told me. He was very nice and showed me and my daughter and here boyfriend around his place. I would buy one from him if I had that kind of money around but replica is my budget.
To me if it is original dies and original casting patterns it is still and original
Historically this is type of stuff never happens most manufacturers destroy the dies. I have seen them in the scrap yards in Michigan. How he found it was someone claimed to have 1047 he said it was in Japan and knew that the car was not 1047 because he has his dad's records. Dave

[allanfeldman]

I am confused as to the word 'real'. If the GT40 did not command a price tag would there be this problem? One point to get out of the way is that the MKIV is a seperate car and is not a version of the GT40. Its not a Forty!!! its a J car!!!! and I would not count them in the chassis numbers! John Horsman in his book "Racing in the Race" makes a point that he considers GT40's built at Slough as true GT40's this ends at chassis number P1084. My contention is this if a fully completed, partly or a box of bits that could be made up into a Forty existed prior to 1970 (main racing history) in my book its a true forty but only in its form at that time. But its value is going to be lower than an original car that completed or that was built at the time i.e. used as a spare but not raced. If it got no history at the time of the forties career it cannot be anything but a spare. Therefore real (original) only as a spare part. As for Tennant, Sbarro and any other chassis they are real Forties only if they fulfill my aforementioned criterior. And I some how doubt Sbarro's would count as anything other than a copy.
Regards Allan

[Doc Watson]

I believe that Lee Holman asked Tennants to produce a run of monocoques for his Mk II's, after they completed the order they said they were finished with the chassis business (maybe it had something to do with over 300 seperate parts used to form the chassis) and sent all the dies and jigs to Lee. My opinion is that if it isnt listed by Ronnie Spain then it isnt original. After all who is it you call if your unsure about the originality of a GT40?