SPF GT40 Registry Eligibility

[Kim Petersen]

I'm very close to seeing my SPF Mk I delivered from the factory to Olthoff Racing, perhaps in the next couple of weeks. In anticipation of this much anticipated event, I thought that it might be a good idea to begin processing my car into the GT40 Registry. Each SPF buyer is probably well familiar with that enticing prospect, which one assumes may help to retain value over the years. (The SPF GT40 website boldly proclaims: "The GT40 Continuation also carries the GT40 "P" chassis number and is eligible for the GT40 registry.")

Now, not being an expert on such things as a GT40 Registry, I contacted McMichael Motorsports and spoke with Bill Baker who kindly referred me to the Shelby American Automobile Club (SAAC), the official keeper of said registry. Not wasting any time, I wrote the GT40 Registry Chairman, Greg Kolasa, and asked to have my car included in the upcoming SAAC Registry's GT40 Registry (it only comes out every two years or so).

Greg wrote me back, "I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have already sent the GT40 stuff into typesetting, which means that we can't make any changes for the book. We hadn't planned on including the SPF cars anyway, not because we have anything against SPF, but just because we didn't have enough owner interest to justify inclusion. I believe you are only the second person (and may be the only) to inform us of your car. That's not to say that at some point in the future we won't include them in another volume."

Okay, after my initial disappointment, I found myself wondering how it is that SPF hasn't taken a more direct role in 1) ensuring that their cars are, in fact, eligible and welcome into the GT40 Registry through direct discussion with SAAC; and, 2) creating a process for its customers to easily, if not automatically, having their cars registered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong proponent of SPF, they're a great company ... but, if they're going to hype a benefit as often and unabashedly as they have regarding our cars' "eligibility for the GT40 registry", then is it asking too much that they at least ensure that the process exists and some arrangement made?

Maybe I'm just being overly cranky, or perhaps there's another registry out there that neither I, nor McMichael Motorsports, is familiar. It's a minor issue, to be sure. But it bugs me all the same. I'd appreciate some thoughts on this and maybe some suggestions on going forward.

Kim

 

[chuck smith]

I would agree with that. I just got a SPF coupe and it apparently is registry eligible, but I do not think SPF has taken a proactive role in making sure that happens. It is getting kind of silly however. Just think how thick the book is going to be when those many thousands of new Shelby mustangs hit the registry.

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Kim & Chuck,

If I was in your shoes, I would have a similar beef with SAAC & SPF.

But, the Registry is a very complex operation. The original Registry was delayed a couple of times.....kind of the learning experience thing.

The second registry was not quite as bad. But it was not on time either.

The most recent Registry was changed somewhat to include additional sections for an expanded coverage of cars not included in previous books. So, it was an almost built in delay to get the information to the printer. On the plus side, I believe Rick Kopec will deliver a better Registry than previous books. And as we all know, perfection is an ongoing experience.

As a suggestion, you might start a thread dedicated to begin a process of gathering support of other SPF dudes with information regarding the GT40s and Cobra Coupes. When the list is strong enough, sending the information to Rick Kopec will no doubt have an impact to start the process on his end to include the information about these cars in the next Registry.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but it is a start, and you both could be in a position to be a trail blazer on this issue.

Blaze on!!!!!!! epper: epper: epper:

 

[Lynn Miner]

I checked into this several months back by going to the SAAC website. There was no place to enter the data for a SPF GT40 so I sent an email the the webmaster who replied that they weren't accepting SPF GT's. I may be confused here but I think it's up to SAAC to determine eligibility and not SPF. It would be nice if SPF look on the task of making it happen but I wouldn't count on that happening. I think all that needs to be done is to have Greg Kolasa fix the web site to accept that data into their database. Then the cars are "in" the registry, just not in the "book" until the next printing. Kim, maybe you can get Greg to do this assuming they (SAAC) have determined that SPF GT's are now acceptable.

 

[Kim Petersen]

Thanks, Gary and Lynn; sound advice, as ever. I'll try to create a process that will see SPF owners' cars included in the GT40 Registry -- if not the coming edition of the printed Shelby Registry.

First order of business will be to contact SPF and ensure their preparedness to cooperate in seeing the hype turned into reality. For obvious reasons, we'll need their fundamental support to see this done right.

Second will be to draft a letter to SAAC laying out the argument for SPF GT40s inclusion en masse. With that behind us, quite frankly, for this to work, it seems to me that SPF will need to directly upload production data to SAAC's Greg Kolasa (or whomever is acting as Registrar) with such pertinent data as: 1) model (MK I/II); 2) color scheme; 3) right or left hand drive; 4) factory options (e.g., 'Gurney' bubble, 'Gulf' flares, canard wings, FIA fuel cell, leather interior, etc.); and wheels (i.e., size, type). This should be accomplished as soon as the cars are completed and ready to ship.

Third, SPF should then prompt each car owner to provide -- perhaps by an addressed and stamped post card included with the factory's other paperwork -- the engine particulars (e.g., size, material, FI or carb, manufacturer, etc.) along with any other significant owner-provided vehicle characteristics.

Fourth, IMO the concept of a registry should be dynamic and not cyclical -- tied to a semi-annual printed report. Lynn, this seems to be your point, as well. An SPF could be part of the registry, even if the printed record of that registry may not occur for many months or years. If SAAC isn't going to have an electronic, web-accessible version of their overall registry, then perhaps after our acceptance of eligibility behind us, we can persuade SPF to effectively build a publically accessible 'mirror' page that would compile all of the data previously uploaded to SAAC.

Does this seem an acceptable approach?

Kim

 

[Lynn Miner]

Wonderfully stated Kim. I'd be happy to help in this endeavor in any way I can. I believe our biggest challenge is getting SPF (AKA Lance Stander) to get on board assuming of course SAAC believes there is a compelling reason the include these cars. I must admit my ignorance as to how SAAC determines what is eligible to be part of the registry. Their mission statement posted on their site makes it pretty clear that Mr. Shelby himself had to have a hand in the vehicle in question. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I was not aware of any Shelby involvement in the GT40's that SPF produces.

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Their was a battle going on regarding who had the right to build GT40s, and using the GT40 name. We all know the Safir connection here.

Shelby had a few cars built under SPF guidance, but full production came to a stop. I have pictures forwarded to me by Phil Henny that shows 2 GT40s on pallets in LV, and at the time, I could have bought one for a pretty good price.....but did not have the funds at the time.

It is my understanding that after all the gun slinging was over, Shelby endorsed the GT40s being built by SPF. Yes, no? Then from that point, the GT40s constructed by SPF were officially recognized by Shelby.

Hell, that is just one story. Their are no doubt many more versions out there. Someone has to have the real answer.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Gary,

The Shelby cars on the pallets were CAVs, not SPFs.

And I would not lose sleep over the SAAC registry. SAAC is a privately owned "club" that makes their own rules, I would be more concerned about the car being lsited with the SPF group. SAAC has taken a rather negative veiw of "replicas" over the years and you will never be more than a "redheaded stepchild" to them

Besides, do you really need to be in a registry that counts "Eleanor Mustangs" as "Shelbys"? Why, because CS said they are "Shelbys" (i.e he got a royalty check)

And Shelby holds NO rights to the GT40, either name, trade dress or any other IP. He has NO say in what is done regarding the trademarks. He can however, "suggest" to SAAC that they not recognize the SPF cars. I have no idea if he has taken a posistion on this.

Just my opinion....


Rick

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Rick,

Thanks for the clarification on the CAV/SPF issue. You are 100% correct.

With the SPF GT40s having a "P" number, you would think (ouch) that somewhere prior to going into production, some thought and planning was put into the recognition of the SPF cars. If Eleanor can make the list, I would be pissed to no end if I owned an SPF car and it was not considered.

Gathering information & support, and presenting that to the powers that be should produce results. Maybe I am wrong, but I think it would be a worthwhile effort.

I hope everyone with a SPF GT40 will get involved in this project and go forward with a positive attitude and energy level that will produce the results SPF owners would like to see.

Get 'r done,

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Gary,
I know Greg Kolassa the GT40 registrar and he is a good guy, but he is bound by the rules that SAAC has him operate under. I suggest he be lobbied and he can make the case to Kopec and Eber.

Just as they club tracked AC Mk Ivs to prevent them morphing into Cobras, they should account the SPF cars to avoid future trouble.

And the only registry I would be concerned about is Ronnie Spain!

JMHO,

Rick

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Rick,

You are right on!

 

[Laurent Gauthier]

To second Lynn's point, I did contact the SAAC a few months ago asking what the process was for registration but was told SPFs were not eligible. I did not pursue it further.

 

[Kim Petersen]

Well, with the encouragement of several members of this board, I attempted to convey the thoughts and concerns expressed by a number of GT40 SPF owners regarding the GT40 Registry to Lance Stander, owner of Superformance. The letter I sent is copied below:

Dear Mr. Stander:

I’m writing on behalf of a number of GT40 SPF owners regarding your advertised promise of our cars’ being eligible for the ‘GT40 registry’. Our efforts to date have been frustrated by a number of factors, not least the apparent oversight by Superformance and/or McMichael Motorsports to ensure that a pathway exists to accomplish this not insignificant and supposed benefit of ownership.

As background, I am very close to seeing my SPF Mk I delivered from the factory to Olthoff Racing, perhaps in the next couple of weeks. In anticipation of this, I thought that it might be a good idea to begin processing my car into the GT40 Registry. Each SPF buyer is well familiar with that enticing prospect, which one assumes may help to retain value over the years. (The SPF GT40 website boldly proclaims: "The GT40 Continuation also carries the GT40 "P" chassis number and is eligible for the GT40 registry" (emphasis added).

Now, not being an expert on such things as a GT40 Registry, I contacted McMichael Motorsports and spoke with Bill Baker who kindly referred me to the Shelby American Automobile Club (SAAC), the official keeper of said registry. Not wasting any time, I wrote the GT40 Registry Chairman, Greg Kolasa, and asked to have my car included in the upcoming SAAC Registry's GT40 Registry (it only comes out every two years or so). Greg wrote me back, "I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we have already sent the GT40 stuff into typesetting, which means that we can't make any changes for the book. We hadn't planned on including the SPF cars anyway, not because we have anything against SPF, but just because we didn't have enough owner interest to justify inclusion. I believe you are only the second person (and may be the only) to inform us of your car. That's not to say that at some point in the future we won't include them in another volume."

After my initial disappointment, I found myself wondering how it is that SPF hasn't taken a more direct role in 1) ensuring that their cars are, in fact, eligible and welcome into the GT40 Registry through direct discussion with SAAC; and, 2) creating a process for its customers to easily, if not automatically, having their cars registered. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong proponent of SPF, you have a great product (I also own a MK III Cobra) ... but, if you are going to hype a benefit as often and unabashedly as you have regarding our cars' "eligibility for the GT40 registry", then is it asking too much that you at least ensure that the process exists and some arrangement made?

Perhaps there's another registry out there that neither I, nor McMichael Motorsports, is familiar. But it bugs me and not a few other fellow SPF owners (we have discussed this matter by internet and phone). Following much discussion, we've agreed to try to create a process that will see SPF owners' cars included in the GT40 Registry -- if not the coming edition of the printed Shelby Registry. The first order of business is this email and seeking some assurance regarding SPF’s preparedness to cooperate in seeing the marketing hype turned into reality. For obvious reasons, we'll need your company’s fundamental support to see this done right.

The next step will be to draft a letter from SPF to SAAC laying out the argument for SPF GT40s inclusion en masse. With that behind us, quite frankly, for this to work, it seems to me that SPF will need to directly upload production data to SAAC's Greg Kolasa (or whomever is acting as Registrar) with such pertinent data as: 1) model (MK I/II); 2) color scheme; 3) right or left hand drive; 4) factory options (e.g., 'Gurney' bubble, 'Gulf' flares, canard wings, FIA fuel cell, leather interior, etc.); and wheels (i.e., size, type). This should be accomplished as soon as the cars are completed and ready to ship and perhaps should include a photograph from the factory that could later be replaced by the owner once the car is completed.

Third, SPF should then prompt each car owner to provide -- perhaps by an addressed and stamped post card included with the factory's other paperwork -- the engine particulars (e.g., size, material, FI or carb, manufacturer, etc.) along with any other significant owner-provided vehicle characteristics. A completed photo might then be emailed to the registrar.

Fourth, we believe that the concept of a registry should be dynamic and not cyclical — that is tied to a semi-annual printed report. There’s nothing that says a GT40 SPF couldn’t be part of the registry, even if the printed record of that registry may not occur for many months or years. If SAAC isn't going to have an electronic, web-accessible version of their overall registry, then perhaps with our acceptance of eligibility behind us, perhaps you could build a publicly accessible 'mirror' page that would compile all of the data previously uploaded to SAAC. This could logically reside on your new GT40 website.

I hope you agree that, whatever the process, not only should SPF take a more hands-on role in making the GT40 Registry a reality so as to give foundation to your promises, but also taking such measures will enhance your product and prove to be an exceptionally strong marketing tool. Having brought this matter to you attention, I would be happy to work with you and your team to accomplish this goal. And as a businessman myself, share with you at some later date some additional enhancements to the buying process that many of us would like to see for those that follow in our footsteps as the first GT40 SPF buyers.

Thanks and I’ll look forward to hearing from you soon!

Best regards,

Kim Petersen


After a few days I received the following response from the Manager of Marketing earlier tonight:

Hi Kim

Congratulations with your purchase we wish you many hours of happy driving. Thank you for your email which informed me of our dealers ignorance with regards to the GT40 product.

Let me put your mind at ease in informing you that the GT40 by Superformance is registry eligible, all retail sales will be recorded into the official GT40 registry which is not the SAAC registry.

The Rollers are built by Superformance LLC under license from Safir Spares LLC. Safir Spares LLC own the GT40 trademark and are responsible for the GT40 official registry in which your vehicle will be recorded. Under License agreement with them, the chassis all carry a GT40/ P???? Serial number.

Once you have taken delivery please record your information on the www.gt40spf.com web site, we prepare records for Safir at the end of each quarter and your information will be supplied to them for there registry. Please post pictures of your car on the site as well.

With regards to the SAAC registry it is something that we will look at in the future.

In advertising the GT40 we make reference to the Safir connection, there is no mention made of the SAAC registry or Shelby.

Our Coupe is the only product that currently recorded in the SAAC registry and the MKIII (Cobra) is built under license from Carroll Shelby Licensing Inc. but it is not eligible for the SAAC registry at this stage.

I apologize on behalf of Mc Michael for any inconvenience caused to you by them not supplying you with the correct facts. I have drafted a informative letter to them in the hopes that this does not happen again. I thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Kind regards,

Deborah Stander
Marketing Manager.
Superformance LLC

I'm still digesting Ms. Stander's letter and would be interested in hearing from others on the now official position of SPF. My initial reaction is mild curiosity that I've never heard that Safir is the caretaker of the GT40 Registry. I suppose an obvious question is: Where is this registry and how is someone supposed to access its records? It can't be that the registry is in the form of the GT40spf.com website, right?

What do you all think?

Kim

 

[Lynn Miner]

Sounds like a clever (read deceptive) marketing slogan to say SPF cars are in "the" GT40 registry. SAAC has the only GT40 registry that matters. It is a well known fact the Safir owns the GT40 name. To say that all SPFs are in the GT40 registry, simply means they are in Safir's registry. Which means very little to anyone who cares. This is too bad but not at all surprising.

 

[Dave Wood]

I would agree with that. I just got a SPF coupe and it apparently is registry eligible, but I do not think SPF has taken a proactive role in making sure that happens.

I would imagine that your car will be in there, under the prior owner though. Mike Stenhouse was the point man for that. He sent out several e-mails as well as form letters with each cars specs to the owner's to be verified and corrected if need be. He also gathered up photo's as well from the owner's. If your Coupe isn't included, it wasn't because of Mike not trying. He began gathering it up over a year ago and just recently finished. I think we received a final letter a few months ago stating we only had a week or so to make any corrections if neccesary. I think the timing on the GT40 was too late for any documentation, the Coupe's have been out for a few years and are a little more plentiful ( not that it is a lot, but still more than the GT40s).

 

[The Dutch(Jos Vervoorn)]

Hi,

I once planned to setup a 'on-line' register for GT40's (all categories) but could not find the support for this. I still own GT40-Register.com for this purpose.

This would still work if a register like this is supported and accepted by owners.

But now there are, like mentioned in this thread, other orgnizations providing this and therefore hard to survive !

Good luck !

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Attention SPF Owners:

This is your call to band together and form your own registry. Take the extra steps to lawfully protect your information, and when SPF contacts you about accessing or sharing your information, please return the favor in the most courtious and politically correct way. Well, maybe not.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

I would STRONGLY disagree that the "SAAC registry is the only one that matters". SAAC has never been pro-active in the registry of GT40s, they have only mirrored or "aped" the findings of Ronnie Spain and others. And yes, Safir is the one that would count as they own the trademark.

While the SAAC registry gets the publicity and they do an extremely fine job with Shelbys, GT40s ARE NOT SHELBYS! They are Fords, JWAs and SPFs!

Besides, do you REALLY need your car listed with "Eleanors" and other "Shelbys"?

SAAC will not take a position (and rightly so) on the "originality vs. re-creation" arguements (think Sabarro), the "real P110," etc. type issues as they have neither the time nor wish the legal exposure.

Don't be sad that SAAC is not interested in your cars, be glad that Safir and by extention, Ronnie Spain, et.al. are!

Could Lance and the US SPF people have done a better job of informing buyers, certainly. Are the cars "GT40 registry eligible," for sure!

JMHO,
Rick

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Rick,

Very well said.............and right on!!!!

 

[Tim Kay]

Anything change/new since 2007 in regards to 'GT40 Registry' SAAC or otherwise?