GT40/R Racetrack In-car Videos

Pathfinder Motorsports

Sponsoring Vendor
In response to those who have written us, we are in the process of compiling some videos for YouTube that depict the GT40/R - the Pathfinder Motorsports GT40 racecar built by Superformance for historic and vintage racing - at various race venues. Most exciting are the videos showing P/2090R winning in its class in both the US Vintage Grand Prix and the New York Governor's Cup, both at Watkins Glen. They should be up within a week or so!

In the meantime, by all means take a look at some of the videos already posted, including two with the GT40/R prototype, P/2192:

YouTube - Ford GT40 Lapping at Daytona International Speedway (Onboard)
YouTube - Ford GT40 Lapping at Sebring International Raceway (Onboard)
YouTube - Ford GT40 Lapping at Palm Beach International Raceway - PBIR (Onboard)

EDITORIAL NOTE: Apart from Cliff Beer, we've received some very kind feedback and we hope you like the videos, too. But, for whatever reason, Cliff has implied that we are lying about the Watkins Glen results and goes on to belittle the continuation status of the Superformance GT40/R. From what I've read from his posts, including those that he wrote before being banned from GT40s.com when he was just 'cliffbeer' and not 'cliffbeer2', he likes to take shots at Safir, Superformance, RCR, and now Pathfinder. I know he's a big CAV fan and owns one of their cars, but I don't see anyone affiliated with RCR or Superformance or Safir - or Pathfinder for that matter - slamming CAV products. We're doing our best to provide a great product for those who want to race a GT40 in vintage racing and trust we haven't done anything to antagonize Cliff or anyone else. Thanks, guys!

Alan
 
In response to those who have written us, we are in the process of compiling some videos for YouTube that depict the GT40/R - the Pathfinder Motorsports GT40 racecar built by Superformance for historic and vintage racing - at various race venues. Most exciting are the videos showing P/2090R winning in its class in both the US Vintage Grand Prix and the New York Governor's Cup, both at Watkins Glen. They should be up within a week or so!

In the meantime, by all means take a look at some of the videos already posted, including two with the GT40/R prototype, P/2192:

YouTube - Ford GT40 Lapping at Daytona International Speedway (Onboard)
YouTube - Ford GT40 Lapping at Sebring International Raceway (Onboard)
YouTube - Ford GT40 Lapping at Palm Beach International Raceway - PBIR (Onboard)

EDITORIAL NOTE: Apart from Cliff Beer, we've received some very kind feedback and we hope you like the videos, too. But, for whatever reason, Cliff has implied that we are lying about the Watkins Glen results and goes on to belittle the continuation status of the Superformance GT40/R. From what I've read from his posts, including those that he wrote before being banned from GT40s.com when he was just 'cliffbeer' and not 'cliffbeer2', he likes to take shots at Safir, Superformance, RCR, and now Pathfinder. I know he's a big CAV fan and owns one of their cars, but I don't see anyone affiliated with RCR or Superformance or Safir - or Pathfinder for that matter - slamming CAV products. We're doing our best to provide a great product for those who want to race a GT40 in vintage racing and trust we haven't done anything to antagonize Cliff or anyone else. Thanks, guys!

Alan

Alan, take it easy there.

My comment on you tube said nothing about lying about Watkins Glen results, or targeting Pathfinder, or even suggesting anything along those lines. You're the one who is lying and targeting.

My comment there merely indicated that it seems strange to me that a car built sometime in the last few years can win a vintage race car series. I know when I've taken my GT40 replica to the local vintage racing folks here in the Pacific Northwest (SOVREN) they have indicated to me that the car is a replica and doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying for "vintage" status. It doesn't matter in the least how "accurate" it is, or who made it last year, including H&M. And it makes no difference whether it CAV or SPF or RCR - not to me, and not to the regulating authorities so give that a rest. I don't make many comments as to the various manufacturers but if you use your eyes you'll see I'm extremely complimentary to all. You're way off the mark.

So chill out with the nastiness. Congrats on the win. I'm merely hoping you can help me understand where you have succeeded in achieving "vintage" status for a car built in the last few years (where I have not succeeded).

Nice to meet you too.

ps. if the car was built last year then it's not an original "1966 GT40" (as you indicated) and that's that, no matter how much money Safir is paid. This is not being negative, it's about being honest and straight forward.
 
Last edited:

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
...it seems strange to me that a car built sometime in the last few years can win a vintage race car series. I know when I've taken my GT40 replica to the local vintage racing folks here in the Pacific Northwest (SOVREN) they have indicated to me that the car is a replica and doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying for "vintage" status. .


It seems to me you should take your issue with qualifying a replica to the organizers of the race, not to the people who happened to enter (and win) under those rules.
 
It seems to me you should take your issue with qualifying a replica to the organizers of the race, not to the people who happened to enter (and win) under those rules.
.

You bet awatkins. I was completely 100% shut down by the local vintage racing group here in the Pacific Northwest (SOVREN) upon inquiry if my GT40 could race in the vintage races. SOVREN is a pretty highly respected vintage racing group - there are a bunch of wealthy guys in the NW here who have impressive vintage machinery (I'm not one of them) so it's a sophisticated and informed group. I don't mind being told no and I totally respect their criteria - basically, if it wasn't built 30 or more years ago then it's not vintage. Simple enough and that's just fine.

The folks who are racing the GT40R have had great success - both with the on track work and with the off-track aligning with the organizers - and that's all great stuff. I would love to have some insights into how they got that alignment. There must be different criteria in place I suppose - I don't know - but it would be interesting to have some background info if Alan cares to share it. I wish our vitage racing organizers were as open minded as they must be elsewhere. And you're 100% right, that's my problem (as a resident of this area and subject to the local vintage racing folks' rules), not the poster's problem. If I could get an Spf past our local folks to enter into vintage racing I'd be the first person to ditch my current GT40 and get the Spf!

The unrelated quibble is that Alan also indicated the car is an original "1966 GT40" which it clearly isn't as it was built in the last couple of years. No big deal, but why say something that isn't true in the marketing pitch on youtube?

All the best to Alan and all - they obviously have a fast and capable and well built car, just like all the superformance products.
 
Last edited:
The incar Daytona video was shot during the Sept. 2009 HSR race Group 7 practice. I was on track at the time.

I followed the GT40R through the banking and into the infield (that's me driving my orange Shelby Can Am sportsracer beginning at 4:22).

The GT40R looked and sounded magnificent!

Jack
 

Keith

Moderator
Hey guys - not pot stirring here but I find this subject fascinating and the "controversy" rumbles on in the US and the UK and possibly Europe too, with all such vehicles.

My question: If this is a vintage series - are 'genuinely' vintage cars racing alongside 'continuation' models? If so, how do the owners of the genuine vintage cars feel about racing wheel to wheel with 'continuation' cars that might be nut for nut identical but have been created with superior tooling, machinery and techniques learned since the 'orignals' were first built in a rush over 40 years ago?

If I was the owner of an original (Oh yes please) I'm not sure I would appreciate my 'apple' racing alongside your 'pear' if you get my drift.

Sorry about the reply here - this would be best moving away from the Pathfinder thread so members can enjoy watching that superb car, but it's a subject that really fascinates me as there are so many angles, Money, pride, investment, history etc. No need to get heated but debate is good... :)

Personally, I do not subscribe to the continuation theory unless it is built in the same place as the original was and by the same company (as in Lola Heritage for example) or built using a good percentage of original parts faithful to a snapshot in time - including only developments and mods to that date. Anything else is scotch mist.... but that's just my opinion but I do love them all, whatever they are!

Edit: Apologies I did not realise this was SPF forum...
 
Last edited:

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Engine state of tune

Alan P --

If memory serves, the text crawl on the Daytona video mentions HP of well over 500 for that 302. How did H&M get that kind of HP out of a 302, what's the torque curve like, and how's the driveability?

Alan W.
 
Alan, take it easy there.

My comment on you tube said nothing about lying about Watkins Glen results, or targeting Pathfinder, or even suggesting anything along those lines. You're the one who is lying and targeting.

My comment there merely indicated that it seems strange to me that a car built sometime in the last few years can win a vintage race car series. I know when I've taken my GT40 replica to the local vintage racing folks here in the Pacific Northwest (SOVREN) they have indicated to me that the car is a replica and doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying for "vintage" status. It doesn't matter in the least how "accurate" it is, or who made it last year, including H&M. And it makes no difference whether it CAV or SPF or RCR - not to me, and not to the regulating authorities so give that a rest. I don't make many comments as to the various manufacturers but if you use your eyes you'll see I'm extremely complimentary to all. You're way off the mark.

So chill out with the nastiness. Congrats on the win. I'm merely hoping you can help me understand where you have succeeded in achieving "vintage" status for a car built in the last few years (where I have not succeeded).

Nice to meet you too.

ps. if the car was built last year then it's not an original "1966 GT40" (as you indicated) and that's that, no matter how much money Safir is paid. This is not being negative, it's about being honest and straight forward.

I’m going to weigh in here inasmuch as my brother Alan, who runs Pathfinder Motorsports, is too nice a guy to say what needs to be said.

First, Alan has invested his life savings and the past year creating Pathfinder Motorsports and developing the GT40/R with the great folks at Superformance. It has been a long and arduous journey that has included his working very hard to ensure that the factory produced a continuation GT40 racecar that is as close as feasibly possible to the original and also meeting modern safety standards. Having done that, he then waged an intense and costly campaign to demonstrate to the various sanctioning bodies that the GT40/R is worthy of inclusion in their race series – this because there has long been a clamor for an affordable GT40 for track events. The first customer cars have been painstakingly prepared to meet the sanctioning bodies’ stringent requirements, a process that has seen delays only now beginning to resolve themselves. It hasn’t been easy – or cheap.

Why have HSR and SVRA agreed to this? Two reasons: 1) the GT40/R is so demonstrably close to the original that, as prepared by Pathfinder, they do not create any advantage over the original cars; and, 2) the latter point is mooted by the fact that last year only one original car competed in HSR and this year none. Why? Because owners’ can’t risk shunting a $1.5+ million car. The desirability of the GT40 has led to its demise on the racetrack and most are sadly being relegated to museums. The GT40/R offers drivers and spectators the opportunity to keep these great cars racing.

Now, about Cliff Beer: I’m sorry that Cliff didn’t succeed in getting his CAV approved for racing with his local sanctioning body. In earlier emails he implied that his car wasn’t accepted because of a clique of rich guys trying to keep the likes of him out - some manner of 'class conspiracy' I suppose. So Cliff, if your car had been accepted would it then be okay for a recently built car to race in vintage competition? He later writes, “It doesn't matter in the least how ‘accurate’ it is, or who made it last year, including H&M. And it makes no difference whether it CAV or SPF or RCR - not to me, and not to the regulating authorities so give that a rest”. You’re wrong, Cliff. It makes all the difference. The sanctioning bodies want a continuation model racecar to: 1) be as close to the original as possible, especially in the frame and suspension; 2) to have a continuation VIN or chassis number; and, 3) have the legal right to use the name of the car being duplicated. Safir GT40 Spares granted a license to Superformance after it had satisfied itself that their GT40 was an extremely accurate reproduction of the original car. You can rant all you want – as you have – about how worthless the latter two elements are, but the fact is that the Superformance GT40/R meets all these requirements and that has helped in achieving acceptance in vintage racing.

Cliff also makes a big deal about Alan referring to the GT40/R as a “1966 GT40 Mk. I”, even going so far as to lie about his calling it an original car. Of course that’s not true. On Pathfinder’s video description the car is clearly described as “a continuation model built by Superformance”. At no time was it called original, nor would that make sense: Pathfinder is in the business of selling continuation models of the 1966 Mk. I original – not the originals themselves. Yet here’s another curious thing about Cliff: In a previous post he boasts of having his CAV registered as a “1966 Ford Mk. I”. Hey Cliff, your hypocrisy is showing: Your car wasn’t built in 1966 nor is it a Ford. And yet you told everyone in your recent post, “if the car was built last year then it's not an original ‘1966 GT40’ (as you indicated) and that's that, no matter how much money Safir is paid. This is not being negative, it's about being honest and straight forward.” I guess the fact that you titled your car as a ‘1966 Ford GT’ pretty much covers how "honest and straight forward" you are, Cliff.

My biggest beef here, however, is not Cliff’s history of provocation and prevarication – remember he was banned not so long ago for this kind of thing – but rather his transparent efforts to undermine those that threaten his fealty to CAV, folks like my brother. For reasons known only too himself, he elects to be the first to post on Pathfinder’s GT40/R video at Daytona basically calling Alan a fraud – knowing full well that Alan posts regularly on GT40s.com with his phone number displayed on every post. He then feebly explains his need to disparage Alan's YouTube video by saying, “I'm merely hoping you can help me understand where you have succeeded in achieving ‘vintage’ status for a car built in the last few years.” Bullshit, Cliff. If that’s all you wanted to know, you would have either called Alan on the phone or sent him a personal message. But then, that wouldn’t accomplish your real intent, would it? You knew full well that Alan's video was a marketing vehicle for the GT40/R - and you knew precisely the impact your comments would have on potential customers viewing that video. Was it necessary for you to try to hurt his business with your entirely negative and fallacious comments?

I’m really proud of what Alan and Pathfinder Motorsports has done in such a short time: Create an authentic, competitive, and affordable GT40 racecar where none existed before. Alan is a supremely honest guy who has worked hard to get where he is. And while he encourages sincere and constructive questions and criticisms, he shouldn’t have to suffer intentionally malevolent fools.

Kim

Kim Petersen
SPF GT40 Mk I w/ Keith Craft Aluminum 427IR
F430 F1 Berlinetta
SPF Mk III w/ Ford 460


"I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather; not screaming and terrified like his passengers."
 

Pathfinder Motorsports

Sponsoring Vendor
The incar Daytona video was shot during the Sept. 2009 HSR race Group 7 practice. I was on track at the time.

I followed the GT40R through the banking and into the infield (that's me driving my orange Shelby Can Am sportsracer beginning at 4:22).

The GT40R looked and sounded magnificent!

Jack

Hey Jack, you're being too kind. Your car looked great out there and, if memory serves, you wizzed by the GT40/R at an impressive clip! Anyway, thanks for the kind remarks. Are you going to be at Sebring this weekend for the HSR races?

Alan
 

Pathfinder Motorsports

Sponsoring Vendor
Re: Engine state of tune

Alan P --

If memory serves, the text crawl on the Daytona video mentions HP of well over 500 for that 302. How did H&M get that kind of HP out of a 302, what's the torque curve like, and how's the driveability?

Alan W.

Hi Alan W.:

The Holman Moody engine in P/2090 is pretty radical, as you surmised. They achieved the power through fairly high compression and a radical cam of their own creation. It's definitely a 'full-throttle' motor, and while we've driven it on the streets, it isn't very happy at low revs.

We're working with them on a slightly detuned version that will run 93 octane gas; provide more civil behavior in a range of RPMs; and, have a longer expected life-cycle between rebuilds. I'll report back on that engine in a future post - it's very close to being finished.

Alan P.
 

Pathfinder Motorsports

Sponsoring Vendor
My question: If this is a vintage series - are 'genuinely' vintage cars racing alongside 'continuation' models? If so, how do the owners of the genuine vintage cars feel about racing wheel to wheel with 'continuation' cars that might be nut for nut identical but have been created with superior tooling, machinery and techniques learned since the 'orignals' were first built in a rush over 40 years ago?

Hi Keith:

As my brother mentioned - among other things - in his post, is that we're seeing fewer and fewer original GT40s racing here in the states. There was a fantastic GT40 reunion this summer at Road America where several originals made it onto the track - along with a Superformance GT40! Truth be told, however, that was an anomaly as owners of original cars can't afford to risk competing them. As one owner told me, "It doesn't make sense to race someone into a corner when their car costs 5% of what mine does. Who do you think is going to win those battles?" And you can see his point.

Interestingly, we've been approached by two owners of original cars asking if we could build them clones of their racecars! They want a duplicate car they can track, while safeguarding their museum piece out of harms way. We see this as a great compliment to the authenticity and competitiveness of the GT40/R. There are also several customers that are exploring the FIA HTP - Historic Technical Passport - for the GT40/R. Right now the only apparent hurdles seem to be a potential requirement for Girling brakes and a question regarding aluminum A-arms versus magnesium A-arms. And there are still some other items to sort out, but the good news is that an HTP might be achievable at some point. Time will tell.

Alan
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
There are also several customers that are exploring the FIA HTP - Historic Technical Passport - for the GT40/R. Right now the only apparent hurdles seem to be a potential requirement for Girling brakes and a question regarding aluminum A-arms versus magnesium A-arms.
Alan

Alan --

I'm particularly curious about the Girling brake issues since, certainly from an appearance point of view, and arguably from a "more modern technology" perspective, the Willwood brake systems (or AP or whatever) strike me as the most overt and visible deviation from the "spirit" of the mid-60's GT40. In the minds of the FIA decision makers, are the Girling brakes issues about whether the brakes look like period Girling brakes, or that they perform like period Girling brakes, or that they actually be made by Girling? Or some combination of all three?

To put the question more simply, if the requirement for "Girling brakes" stands, what exactly does that mean for the car, it's performance, and it's owner's and builder's wallets? Should we anticipate being able to satisfy the requirement and still have approximately modern-day braking performance?

Or to put the question really simply: how big a problem is the (possible) Girling brake requirement from a cost and technology standpoint?

Alan Watkins
 
Well, Kim and Alan, a few responsive points here. Frankly, I don't know where to start but regardless:

1. There's no debate about Alan's industriousness - he's worked hard and deserves to reap any/all rewards. I never critiqued that in any way so let's just drop that.

2. Alan indicated in the posting on Youtube that the car is a "1966 GT40" It was clearly posted and that is a direct quote of his text. The car is no such thing. I was built in the last couple of years, so it ain't a 1966. Facts are facts, plain and simple.

3. I've publicly indicated my car is registered as a 1966 (you are correct). But unlike Alan I never suggested it was anything other than a thoroughly modern made car. In fact, my mentioning it was to point out the very fact that while it's registered as such, it is in no way vintage in the least. Finally, the car came registered as a 1966 from the prior owner, I had nothing to do with it. So don't try to twist it around and distort the clear meaning expressed in the past posts of mine. Nice try, but that's deceptive to suggest and you lessen your credibility by suggesting it.

4. History of "provocation and prevarication"? Give it a rest. I'm fan of anyone who does anything interesting or challenging in the world of GT40s. I haven't targeted or critique you or Alan personally (my comments related to the car, and related sanctioning bodies) or made it personal in any way. YOU and ALAN have now made it very personal. I value the collegiality of the interaction on this forum (and others). Wrong again.

5. "his transparent efforts to undermine those that threaten his fealty to CAV" WTF? Go back and use your eyes and read - I'm very complimentary to all makes/manufacturers. They all make great products, including SPF, and I've said that numerous times. Huh?

6. My comments regarding whether it's a CAV or SPF or RCR, or how accurate a copy it is, in other words, it doesn't matter, were clearly made in the context of my discussions with the local vintage racing regulating folks here in the PNW, not in general. So, no, it's not "bullshit" That's just the way it is up here in the Pacific Northwest. I clearly wasn't suggesting that's how it is anywhere else. How could I know? I've never tried to get a modern car through vintage racing circles anywhere else, that's for sure.

7. The rest of your somewhat confused logic I don't even know how to respond to.

The bottom line is that you and Alan are just pissed that somebody (me) who knows a little something about GT40s and their history a) called your bluff on a factual inaccuracy in your Youtube marketing pitch (see 2. above), and b) I broached a topic - the topic of whether modern cars really belong in vintage racing - in response to your marketing pitch on this forum. Well, get used to it, it's a hotly debated topic and one that you/Alan will have to face repeatedly as time moves forward. Just because you won a vintage race on the east coast doesn't mean that purchasers will be able to enter their newly purchased cars in vintage racing in general - they won't. I know for a fact that SOVREN won't accept the car and it won't be on the track for vintage race days here in the Northwest. That's not to say I personally wouldn't love to see the car doing exactly that - I would love to see it on the track in it element. It's obviously an impressive machine. The point is, however, just call the darn thing what it is - it's a modern car which may, or may not, be accepted by the purchaser's local vintage racing body to run as a vintage race car. You guys know better than I where it may be accepted at a local level, I just happen to know one place where at least to-date it isn't.

I'm glad you received some "very kind feedback" from others regarding yours/Alan's successes - that's great. You should know that while I'm the only one here who has publicly asked some of the harder questions about your pitch, I've received many highly supportive comments in private (PM and tel) from respected people on this forum saying "right on" and "I don't agree with the confusing suggestion that the car is actually a vintage race car" I guess they just don't want to be publicly targeted or bullied by you two and I can understand that, cause this is no fun.

So how about we drop the nastiness and just have a forthright debate in good faith? How about we don't make it personal? Isn't that reasonable? I'm sure that if you and I and Alan were sitting in a bar chatting over a beer or two or three or four, we would have a good time together - I'm a likable guy, and I have no doubt that you and Alan are too. We all love GT40 related stuff, and probably have a lot in common in other ways. It ain't that tough to be forthright, transparent and factually precise, AND collegial all at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Pathfinder Motorsports

Sponsoring Vendor
Alan --

I'm particularly curious about the Girling brake issues since, certainly from an appearance point of view, and arguably from a "more modern technology" perspective, the Willwood brake systems (or AP or whatever) strike me as the most overt and visible deviation from the "spirit" of the mid-60's GT40. In the minds of the FIA decision makers, are the Girling brakes issues about whether the brakes look like period Girling brakes, or that they perform like period Girling brakes, or that they actually be made by Girling? Or some combination of all three?

To put the question more simply, if the requirement for "Girling brakes" stands, what exactly does that mean for the car, it's performance, and it's owner's and builder's wallets? Should we anticipate being able to satisfy the requirement and still have approximately modern-day braking performance?

Or to put the question really simply: how big a problem is the (possible) Girling brake requirement from a cost and technology standpoint?

Alan Watkins

Hi Alan:

To be honest, we're not quite sure at this point. We've been concentrating on the US race scene in our first year; next year will see a stronger move towards FIA approval.

From everything we've heard, the FIA HTP process has a modicum of inconsistency, if not subjectivity. If a component is simply no longer available, an acceptable equivalent might be permitted. In the case of the Girling brakes, Dennis Olthoff has done some research - he has been our completion partner on the GT40/Rs - and believes that there is a Girling or Girling-type brake that is both available and will meet the FIA requirement.

It's important to emphasize that the standard brakes that come with the GT40/R have been accepted for use in vintage competition here in the US - so no problems there. However, we do have a lot of European interest in the GT40/R, and FIA acceptance would obviously be of greater benefit racing on the continent.

By the way, Bobby Rahal, the former F1 and Indy racer, has test driven our car and has opined that he believes that the GT40/R could be awarded an FIA HTP with the right tweaks. He's pretty switched on to these matters so that was encouraging to hear.

Alan
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Cliff vs. Pathfinder

Cliff/Alan/Kim --

You've all made your points quite clearly and the words have all been minced down to the molecule level; anyone reading them has already decided where the truth lies and anyone not reading them doesn't care. So I, for one, think the argument's over.
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Re: FIA & Brakes

Alan P. --

Thanks for the explanation re brakes.

Even though I live in the US I'm jazzed about the idea of your getting FIA acceptance as well simply because any momentum behind bringing GT40Rs to tracks worldwide is a gift to me as a spectator and (soon hopefully) as an owner. You guys have done an incredible service to those of us who remember the original cars racing but had until now zero chance of ever seeing or driving them under race conditions.

Thanks again,

Alan W.
 
Re: Cliff vs. Pathfinder

Cliff/Alan/Kim --

You've all made your points quite clearly and the words have all been minced down to the molecule level; anyone reading them has already decided where the truth lies and anyone not reading them doesn't care. So I, for one, think the argument's over.

Amen to that brother. 100% agreed.
 
Hopefully organizers of events will get savvy to the fact that the original cars are not likely to be raced except under the most unusual of circumstances. And maybe, given an accurate enough repro that has a history of being accepted by another reg body, other organizers might bend and start to allow some of these repros to be raced elsewhere. Precedence might work for us here.

I'd much rather see 3 or 4 accurate repros really go at it on the track than watch a $8 million (or whatever the number is) original get soft pedaled around the track.
 
Hopefully organizers of events will get savvy to the fact that the original cars are not likely to be raced except under the most unusual of circumstances. And maybe, given an accurate enough repro that has a history of being accepted by another reg body, other organizers might bend and start to allow some of these repros to be raced elsewhere. Precedence might work for us here.

I'd much rather see 3 or 4 accurate repros really go at it on the track than watch a $8 million (or whatever the number is) original get soft pedaled around the track.

Go to Europe. There are a lot of genuine GT40s being actively raced all over the place there, and few of them are soft-pedalled. While there are sometimes whisperings about 'air cars' taking to the track while the genuine article lurks under a sheet in the corner of somebody's warehouse, I think it's fairly certain that most of the GT40s you see racing in anger at Le Mans, Goodwood etc. are the genuine article. It's not uncommon to see as many as 15-20 genuine GT40s at Le Mans Classic, for instance.

The reason you don't see many of them racing over here is simply because they're not over here to begin with in any meaningful numbers, or so it seems. I have seen six or eight different Mk 1 GT40s racing at Monterey, Sears Point etc. with Steve Earle's group over the years.

I admire the GT40/R, enough so that I do believe that I'll probably wind up buying one of them at some point. But I do find it extremely odd that some 'vintage' race bodies will allow replicas to race alongside, and as though they were, the genuine articles. I don't know what the SCCA Vintage people have to say about such things, but I know that the 'proper' sanctioning bodies out here on the west coast wouldn't let a GT40/R off the trailer, much less on the grid, and I think that's appropriate.

I know that if I planned to race a genuine, legal vintage car (and not even an *expensive* genuine vintage car necessarily) and some guy showed up with a replica, circa last Tuesday, then either his car, or mine, would soon be on the trailer and departing the scene.

Remember, this is in no way a slam against the Petersons and their GT40/R--I love the thing to death. Instead this is a poke in the eye to 'vintage' race sanctioning bodies that are allowing fake cars in (even those that are publicly acknowledged as such). I am all for GT40/Rs racing wheel-to-wheel in an *appropriate* venue, and you know I'd be cheering them on the whole way. I just don't believe that a 'vintage' race grid is an appropriate venue for a car whose vintage is measured in mere weeks or months instead of decades.
 
Hopefully organizers of events will get savvy to the fact that the original cars are not likely to be raced except under the most unusual of circumstances. And maybe, given an accurate enough repro that has a history of being accepted by another reg body, other organizers might bend and start to allow some of these repros to be raced elsewhere. Precedence might work for us here.

I'd much rather see 3 or 4 accurate repros really go at it on the track than watch a $8 million (or whatever the number is) original get soft pedaled around the track.

Well put. Agreed that I'd rather see a bunch of well built and well healed continuation cars run hard than one original driven for 'show.'
 
Back
Top