Original papers ?

Maybe I lost something, but.... 20K for homologation papers!? Ordered mine from local FIA historic guy and I think I paid something like 40 $ /30 €.
 
These are the original Homolagation papers for the GT40 after first 50 built to qualify for homologation to Group 4 Racing under FIA rulling in 1965. Nothing to do with FIA now for historic racing. $20000 I do not think that price is worth the product. I think that he's testing the water.
Regards Allan
 
I agree, therefore I bid £500.00...That's a good price.

Hi Keith,

So I can counter bid you right up to £499 then !!!!!!



Seriously though, I have a photocopy of this document (not great quality & not in a folder) that I gave something like £20 for years ago.
Mine doesn't have the blue RAC bits stamped on the front page but all the signatures, handwritten bits & round stamps are in the same positions throughout.
It does not 'belong' to a single chassis, it represents the GT40 model. (Note that GT101 is listed as GT40/101, which may indicate that the 'Ford GT' prototypes were included in the total number of GT40 cars counted as of 31/12/1965 ?)

At the back of mine are three 1968 amendment sheets, 1) Westlake heads, 2) 302 crankshaft & damper & 3) Hewland LG600 & Ford HD lsd.

Regards Steve
 

Glenn M

Supporter
Yes but these are 'documets', not the common or garden 'documents' that you have Steve!

This must make them worth more!

Glenn
 
I think Stephen wrote it just right in this: It does not 'belong' to a single chassis, it represents the GT40 model

Car manufacturer "fills" the homologation papers and proofs the production figures to FIA when it wants to homologate car for the specific competition group.
Original papers, 2 sets, 1 set leave to FIA archives, and second set to manufacturer.
Then FIA and manufacturer can sales homologation papers as a copy for them who wants to competete with that car. Rules said You must keep homologation papers in Your car.

I have 15-20 sets of of homologation papers for diffirent versions of Fords, from 60`s to late 90`s.
In typically they are sad pile of copies of a copies, bad quality.

But I have few very good sets too, complete black`n`white text and photos + coloured clear overprintigs; texts like "Not valid in Group 2" and similar. And piled together with those fancy "stamples" too.

I compared these GT40 Gr.4 papers to my very good (RS200) papers: I can`t help the feeling they (both) are without any serious value, unless someone can get proof they are THE original manufacturer FIA-papers, from FAV/JW/Ford. Or can quarantee that excact pile was owned by Wyer or similar.

Just my 0.02 €

Ps. Sorry for my bad english

WBR
jyrki
 
Last edited:
I think the price is determined by how many person want them. Are they just photocopies? As for Homolagation the original requirement was 100. Since there were only twelve Prototypes and the papers mentioned GT/101-GT40P/1001 wheres the fifty? The name GT40 was mentioned on the official docuements for the last Prototype GT/112. It would be GT/101-GT40P/1038 for fifty for Group 4. There is a written inclusion of 1st February 1966 but these would leave the run short since it only went up to P/1036. P/1037 was despatched on 1st March 1966. Maybe they counted chassis? And the last of the run P/1038 was despatched on 1st April 1966 Perhaps they should of waited for 1969 when they only needed 25!! I have seen twenty five Ferrari 512s and of course the same amount of Porsche 917 lined up for this.
Regards Allan
 
Last edited:

Rick Muck- Mark IV

GT40s Sponsor
Supporter
I think the price is determined by how many person want them. Are they just photocopies? As for Homolagation the original requirement was 100. Since there were only twelve Prototypes and the papers mentioned GT/101-GT40P/1001 wheres the fifty? The name GT40 was mentioned on the official docuements for the last Prototype GT/112. It would be GT/101-GT40P/1038 for fifty for Group 4. There is a written inclusion of 1st February 1966 but these would leave the run short since it only went up to P/1036. P/1037 was despatched on 1st March 1966. Maybe they counted chassis? And the last of the run P/1038 was despatched on 1st April 1966 Perhaps they should of waited for 1969 when they only needed 25!! I have seen twenty five Ferrari 512s and of course the same amount of Porsche 917 lined up for this.
Regards Allan

Homologation was for "Sports 50" which required, oddly enough, fifty to be produced. The category no longer exists.
 
Yes but these are 'documets', not the common or garden 'documents' that you have Steve!

This must make them worth more!

Glenn


Sorry,

I don't think I said, & certainly didn't mean to imply that this item is equivalent to my rough unbound photocopies.
(Obviously my photocopies do not have the embossed stamp either)

The item listed does look 'right' to me & I can easily imagine a collector giving a few hundred £'s.

Regards Steve
 
I think the price is determined by how many person want them. Are they just photocopies? As for Homolagation the original requirement was 100. Since there were only twelve Prototypes and the papers mentioned GT/101-GT40P/1001 wheres the fifty? The name GT40 was mentioned on the official docuements for the last Prototype GT/112. It would be GT/101-GT40P/1038 for fifty for Group 4. There is a written inclusion of 1st February 1966 but these would leave the run short since it only went up to P/1036. P/1037 was despatched on 1st March 1966. Maybe they counted chassis? And the last of the run P/1038 was despatched on 1st April 1966 Perhaps they should of waited for 1969 when they only needed 25!! I have seen twenty five Ferrari 512s and of course the same amount of Porsche 917 lined up for this.
Regards Allan

Hello Allan,
Good points, as usual.

What I have is fairly modern photocopies of an original genuine document.
(As I said the handwriting & position of the round stamps is identical on mine to the ebay listing)
The ebay listing however has embossed stamps & I'm personally quite prepared to accept that it is from the 1960s.

Other questions could be, how did the RAC produce it/them? & how many copies did the RAC make?
Would the RAC have printed an individual copy & manually signed and filled in all the handwritten bits every time someone needed a copy?
I doubt it, I would of though they printed a batch, which would then just need to be embossed with the stamp on every page? I bet someone else on here would know.

I know the partial pictures are quite hard to see on ebay, for reference it states-
{The manufacturing of the model described in this recognition form started on 1st January 1965 and the minimum production of 50 identical cars, in accordance with the specifications of this form was reached on 31st December, 1965}

The way the form is filled in is a bit unclear,

{Recognition is valid from, GT40/101 GT40P/1000 (handwritten 1st Feb '66)}


{List, 14/2 }

So that's FROM chassis 101 onwards & chassis 1000 onwards, that's pretty clear.
As to the addition of the handwritten 1st Feb '66, does this mean they counted cars up to this date? rather than 31st Dec.
List 14/2, anyone got a copy of that ? !!

As Allan rightly says you still struggle to get 50 cars!
It is highly likely (in my opinion at least) that GT101 & its prototype siblings became 'GT40/101' to 'GT40/112' on paper to boost the number of cars available to homologate. The fact that some or most were built before 1965 would be glossed over.
As for the cars being an identical 50, no way! but the application was clearly accepted & thus homologated in to appendix J of the FIA.

This is hardly unique in the murky world of homologation, just about every manufacturer has done similar things, (at least the target of 50 GT40s was eventually surpassed!)

All the best, Steve

ps. Allan, this again proves Goodwood were a year early !!
 
Last edited:
Rick, I thought that the GT40 was racing in Group 4 in 1965 and was Homolagated into it. Obviously I do not know everything but I never heared (I think) of Sports 50. Please could you let me know your source? Group 6 was prototypes I think the 1968 P68 was in this group. And it must have been going for some time because the 1965 Guards Trophy was race with the cars in Group 7.
Perhaps Sports 50 was a way of the Accommodation? Because I thought that the categories/groups were based on engine size? Please correct me if I am wrong but Sports 50 is a very generalize type?

In no way did they require 50 GT40's all fully working and to identical specs to be lined up and inspected. In 1969 or 1970 with the Porsche 917 and Ferrari 512S they did but only for 25!!

Steve I think there was an accommodation like Ferrari got; except with the 250LM.Thats why he called the 1962/64 Ferrari GTO. The 'O' for Homlogation in italian. There were only 39 Ferrari GTO's made.
Because the Prototypes were not eligible for Homologation. Also this included the Ford GTs racing in Can Am the big block X-1 GT/110 and the 1965 Big Block Ford GT's GT/106 and GT/107. The rest including the roadster were all small block.
As for the document is this the first 'official' one that was sent to confirm the Homologation? Or there were a number sent to all FAV and other teams? i.e. Shelby, Alan Mann? What about privateers would they need documentation?
Regards Allan
 
Last edited:

Rick Muck- Mark IV

GT40s Sponsor
Supporter
For 1962 the FIA replaced the World Sports Car Championship with an International ... to the new Group 4 Sports Car category with its lower 50 unit minimum.

The FIA introduced its new Group 4 Sports Car category rules in 1966. For sports cars to compete in this category a minimum of 50 units had to be produced over the course of 12 months.
 
Last edited:
I've always thought the GT40 SAE papers were very interesting. The file size is too big to attach here, but if anyone wants them just email me.
 

Glenn M

Supporter
Sorry,

I don't think I said, & certainly didn't mean to imply that this item is equivalent to my rough unbound photocopies.
(Obviously my photocopies do not have the embossed stamp either)

The item listed does look 'right' to me & I can easily imagine a collector giving a few hundred £'s.

Regards Steve

No Steve, I apologise.

I was merely taking the p*ss out of the original sellers sloppy spelling and presentation of (what he says are) such important papers - not demeaning your post at all. It obviously didn't come over as I intended, which was humorous.

Glenn
 
Back
Top