Racing a GT40 Replica (was BEST GT40 for Racing)

[Cliff Beer]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Welcome to the forum.

If you truly plan to race your GT40 replica in HSR you do not have a choice of what replica to chose – HSR only accepts the Superformance GT40R replica as far as I am aware. And, if you do go that route you’ll not be able to race the car in the SCCA or NASA because the cage design does not meet the cage requirements for those two sanctioning bodies. You could, of course, redesign the cage but I do not know how that would be received within the HSR.

If you were to choose one of the other replica companies and design a cage that met modern safety standards and designs, such as the SCCA or NASA, you’d not be able to race the car in HSR. HSR only allows the SPF GT40R as “replicas” are not allowed.

So your first question needs to be one of “with what sanctioning body will I race?". Once answered you’ll be able to explore options.

And, please take a look here if you plan on participating in our community on a regular basis.

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/introduce-yourself-here/27555-rules-gt40s-com.html

Thanks,
Ron

Ditto what Ron said.

To be clear, if you plan on vintage racing then it's pretty limited. The Pathfinder folks have gotten a superformance past the sanctioning bodies for certain vintage racing on the east coast (and I think also in Europe?). But, I would be surprised if there's a modern/non-original GT40 (superformance or otherwise) that's been blessed by the sanctioning bodies on the west coast for vintage racing. It's certainly not possible in the Pacific Northwest here (Seattle) - the local sanctioning body is SOVREN (www.sovren.org) and it's very simple: not built before 1970 then it ain't vintage and it ain't going vintage racing: http://www.sovren.org/Page_17.html. Might be best to check with the local vintage racing scene in California there before deciding anything definitive. If you can't get a modern GT40 blessed by the sanctioning body then you could always try a real vintage race car like an old TR3 or Alfa or Lola ($$).

You could certainly do track days with different car clubs however, and any of the manufacturers you mentioned can provide a basic car that can be built into a track day car. A stock superformance car isn't too far off of a track day car (good brakes, strong suspension pieces, adaptable suspension geometry, etc.). I believe CAV makes a track-ready car (GT40R?) and no doubt Fran could build you an awesome RCR track day car. The other manufacturers will likely do the same - just call them up and spec it out.

It'll be expensive. Plan on spending at least $150,000 for a proper track day car!

 

[F1Ash]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Yah, thats what Ive spent the majority of my xmas day doing (researching what I can run it in out here) The family has been yelling at me to get off the computer all day! :happy:

Thanks for the feedback Ron and Cliff!

 

[Ron Earp]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Yah, thats what Ive spent the majority of my xmas day doing (researching what I can run it in out here) The family has been yelling at me to get off the computer all day! :happy:

Thanks for the feedback Ron and Cliff!

Are you a racer in CA? You mentioned having a racing background and being invited to race historic cars. With more information we can possibly help you. I know a fair number of SCCA and NASA folks on the West Coast and undoubtedly some of our other members know more.

And, in case you missed it in the rules we prefer folks on the forum use their names here. I'm Ron, he's Cliff, you are?

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

It'll be expensive. Plan on spending at least $150,000 for a proper track day car!

Respectfully, that's just not true. You just have to start with a car that was designed from the ground up to be a race car. To spend $150K on an Active Power GTR, you would have to opt for an EMCO sequential, full telemetry, $7K AP brakes, carbon body, and the 700HP ERL LS7. Most folks don't need these, and it can be done for $80K.

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

A serious race car must be expendable. If you crash it you replace it. Advantages of carbon are extreme light weight combined with high strength and safety for when you do crash.
Depends on how you value your life.
The thread title asked what was the best for racing and Carbon is it.

If its non serious and just a bit of fun then a Spaceframe is fine and in the event of a crash can be repaired.

Andy

Forgive me if I seem argumentative, but frankly, every one of these statements strikes me as over the top.

Depends on how you value your life??? The vast majority of modern racecars are NOT framed in carbon. I guess there are only a select few who truly value their life? Or perhaps it's true that the use of carbon is more about weight than safety.

If a race car is not expendable, it's not really a race car??? Easily stated, not easy for the average enthusiast to live with. Whereas I understand the notion that if you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to race it, designing a car to be expendable due to a substantial impact with a tire wall doesn't make sense for the majority of grassroots racers.

Carbon is the best for racing??? What kind of racing are we talking about here? F1? LMP? In that case, agreed. Otherwise, there are a good many other factors to consider. I believe his original question was what was the best GT40 for racing. For instance, a properly designed modern suspension with modern tires can easily trump the advantage of carbon's weight savings. And if I may, a properly designed cage would do more for driver safety than a carbon chassis.

JMO

 

[Cliff Beer]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Respectfully, that's just not true. You just have to start with a car that was designed from the ground up to be a race car. To spend $150K on an Active Power GTR, you would have to opt for an EMCO sequential, full telemetry, $7K AP brakes, carbon body, and the 700HP ERL LS7. Most folks don't need these, and it can be done for $80K.

Tom, I'm speaking of a proper GT40 track car (not just any track car). All the mfg's basic finished cars (sans driveline) are in the $60-80K range. A proper track day driveline (351+/EFI/ZF/CV's) is another $25K+ and the suspension work (generally some consulting with experts necessary) is another $15-20K. Miscellaneous everything else (fire systems, harnesses, fuel systems, track tires, roll over cage, blah blah) is at least another $15-20K. Net, might be able to get away with $125K but that's rock bottom. $150K is more typical. Thems the numbers.

 

[Mark]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Hard to do it for less.

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Tom, I'm speaking of a proper GT40 track car (not just any track car). All the mfg's basic finished cars (sans driveline) are in the $60-80K range. A proper track day driveline (351+/EFI/ZF/CV's) is another $25K+ and the suspension work (generally some consulting with experts necessary) is another $15-20K. Miscellaneous everything else (fire systems, harnesses, fuel systems, track tires, roll over cage, blah blah) is at least another $15-20K. Net, might be able to get away with $125K but that's rock bottom. $150K is more typical. Thems the numbers.

Cliff

I think I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure why anyone would opt for that route. Pay $60-80K for a car that's not suitable for the track, then spend another $70K to turn it into something that it never was and still full of compromises. If you're suggesting that "proper" means it is true to the original, I submit that once you've spent the $150K, it no longer is. EFI and a 351W certainly won't get you in an HSR or SVRA event, not to mention that twenty thousand dollar suspension. If the challenge of making a silk purse from a sows ear is the game, there are certainly less expensive cars one could start with.

What exactly makes a GT40 a proper GT40?

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Cliff

I think I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure why anyone would opt for that route. Pay $60-80K for a car that's not suitable for the track, then spend another $70K to turn it into something that it never was and still full of compromises. If you're suggesting that "proper" means it is true to the original, I submit that once you've spent the $150K, it no longer is. EFI and a 351W certainly won't get you in an HSR or SVRA event, not to mention that twenty thousand dollar suspension. If the challenge of making a silk purse from a sows ear is the game, there are certainly less expensive cars one could start with.

What exactly makes a GT40 a proper GT40?

Tom --

I think you're playing a little fast and loose with what Cliff said. First of all,

"60-80K for a car that's not suitable for the track" Well, it's not suitable for anything because it has no engine or transmission. It's a roller.

So let's do the math a little more carefully.

Now add 15-20K for an engine, 13K for a transaxle, and ~10K for misc. labor and materials to put that together. Now you have a quite accurate recreation of a Ford GT40 which in the mid sixties was, by definition, a race car.

In Cliff's scenario from there everything you do is to adapt it to modern racing or track requirements. However, you could take what you have (average about $110K) and use it for track days. However, you were very clear about using it for "wheel to wheel" racing, right?

If you're going to race it, the sky's the limit, as anyone who has done so already knows.

As for "proper" I think Cliff meant "properly adapted for racing", not "true to the original" because once you've done what I describe above, it is true to the original. Anything after that is taking it away from being original. Cliff said 125K to 150K, which is 15K to 40K more, not 70K more.

Anyway, your fundamental question was whether any of these are "suitable to be commissioned as dedicated race chassis."

A pile of steel tubing could be thought of as being "suitable to be commissioned as dedicated race chassis."

But clearly you have a budget in mind, so define "suitable."

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

"60-80K for a car that's not suitable for the track" Well, it's not suitable for anything because it has no engine or transmission. It's a roller.

Exactly.

So let's do the math a little more carefully.

Now add 15-20K for an engine, 13K for a transaxle, and ~10K for misc. labor and materials to put that together. Now you have a quite accurate recreation of a Ford GT40 which in the mid sixties was, by definition, a race car.

Yes, by mid sixties definition it was a race car, and it didn't even have a roll cage. So by today's definition, it is not. Unless you have one of the originals, which I suppose would still be considered a race car.

In Cliff's scenario from there everything you do is to adapt it to modern racing or track requirements. However, you could take what you have (average about $110K) and use it for track days. However, you were very clear about using it for "wheel to wheel" racing, right?

Yes, the discussion here is about race cars, as I understood it.

If you're going to race it, the sky's the limit, as anyone who has done so already knows.

Perhaps for some, but does the wise man spend more for less?

As for "proper" I think Cliff meant "properly adapted for racing", not "true to the original" because once you've done what I describe above, it is true to the original. Anything after that is taking it away from being original. Cliff said 125K to 150K, which is 15K to 40K more, not 70K more.

Anyway, your fundamental question was whether any of these are "suitable to be commissioned as dedicated race chassis."

A pile of steel tubing could be thought of as being "suitable to be commissioned as dedicated race chassis."

But clearly you have a budget in mind, so define "suitable."

No, my fundamental question is does it make sense to spend $150K for a race car that looks like a GT40 when you can spend $80K and get the same thing? Or a far superior car (but still looks like a GT40) for the same money (if you just feel like you have to get rid of $150K and want Daytona Prototype-like performance).


This is an excellent discussion and I didn't mean to put words into anyone's mouth. My apologies if I misconstrued anyone's meaning. Sometimes the true sentiment is lost in the interest of brevity.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

No, my fundamental question is does it make sense to spend $150K for a race car that looks like a GT40 when you can spend $80K and get the same thing? Or a far superior car (but still looks like a GT40) for the same money (if you just feel like you have to get rid of $150K and want Daytona Prototype-like performance).

Tom, Sorry, I confused you with the original poster and so was putting words into your mouth....

So if I'm following you you're hypothesizing three cars:

1. $150K replica-based (Superformance, CAV, etc.) but upgraded to modern race capability as described by Cliff
2. Spend 80K and get "the same thing"
3. Far superior car for 150K.

I understand #1. But what are #2 and #3, exactly?

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

So if I'm following you you're hypothesizing three cars:

1. $150K replica-based (Superformance, CAV, etc.) but upgraded to modern race capability as described by Cliff
2. Spend 80K and get "the same thing"
3. Far superior car for 150K.

I understand #1. What are #2 and #3, exactly?

Alan

I'm already dangerously close to appearing to be hawking a product, so I will refer you to post #12 for your answer to #2 and to post #24 for #3.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Alan

I'm already dangerously close to appearing to be hawking a product, so I will refer you to post #12 for your answer to #2 and to post #24 for #3.

Ah So... I get it. I can only guess that the "insanity" of building a race car out of a GT40 replica for way too much money is sort of explalined by the original poster's comment

"This last year I was invited to race a couple vintage cars and have become "Smitten" with them! :heart: They have so much more personality & character!"

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Ah So... I get it. I can only guess that the "insanity" of building a race car out of a GT40 replica for way too much money is sort of explalined by the original poster's comment

"This last year I was invited to race a couple vintage cars and have become "Smitten" with them! :heart: They have so much more personality & character!"

Yes, I understood that he liked the vintage "personality and character". My point was that all those "improvements" remove the vintage "personality and character" from the chassis and driveline. What you're left with is a race car that looks vintage and no one to race against. Obviously, he could skip the improvements and run the odd vintage race with an unmodified continuation model, just suggesting alternatives.

 

[TimB]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

How are the cars Holman Moody was offering viewed with regards to vintage racing?

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Yes, I understood that he liked the vintage "personality and character". My point was that all those "improvements" remove the vintage "personality and character" from the chassis and driveline. What you're left with is a race car that looks vintage and no one to race against. Obviously, he could skip the improvements and run the odd vintage race with an unmodified continuation model, just suggesting alternatives.

Tom --

BTW sorry I was putting some words in your mouth back there; I had you confused with the original poster.

Now... I don't see how Cliff's racing mods "remove any personality and character" (well EFI puts a big dent in it, but personally I don't see why that's a track necessity).

He said:

"...suspension work (generally some consulting with experts necessary) is another $15-20K. Miscellaneous everything else (fire systems, harnesses, fuel systems, track tires, roll over cage, blah blah)"

OTOH, he wasn't all that specific about how he was spending all that suspension money (do you really need to spend 15-20K???). And I don't know what part numbers you use to get "blah blah" nor how it makes it a better race car. :lol:

So my question to you is, what of that "removes any personality and character"?

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

Alan

I was envisioning $20K worth of suspension mods and imagining that would pretty much change the "personality and character" of how the car handles. That would presumably be the goal.

If you're like me, and feel that most of the personality and character worth saving is in the silhouette (and someone spending $70K for mods obviously does), then why not start with a machine designed for the purpose and pocket the $70K?

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

If you're like me, and feel that most of the personality and character worth saving is in the silhouette (and someone spending $70K for mods obviously does), then why not start with a machine designed for the purpose and pocket the $70K?

There's the rub... I think of "personality and character" as the aggregate of sensations perceived when being around but especially when driving the car: sound, ride motion, vibration, steering feel, pedal response, cockpit view, etc. etc. etc. Yes, visual appearance when standing still (aka sillhouette) is in there, but for me it's only part. That, for example, is why the modern Ford GT does nothing for me, while a GT40 replicas does almost everything.

 

[Tom Leonard]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

There's the rub... I think of "personality and character" as the aggregate of sensations perceived when being around but especially when driving the car: sound, ride motion, vibration, steering feel, pedal response, cockpit view, etc. etc. etc. Yes, visual appearance when standing still (aka sillhouette) is in there, but for me it's only part. That, for example, is why the modern Ford GT does nothing for me, while a GT40 replicas does almost everything.

I'm not sure there's a rub here. In both examples (the highly modified replica and the purpose built GTR) each of the attributes you mentioned are either unchanged or changed to a like degree. One just costs $70K more than the other.

 

[Jimmy P]

Re: BEST GT40 for Racing??!!??

F1ASH, haven't seen any post's from you so maybe the recent dialogue on this thread has taken you off the boil. Everyone is doing their best to give you some damn good advise but back toward the top MIKE DREW hit the nail on the head IMHO. Your thread is titled "THE BEST GT 40 FOR RACING"? After looking and drooling over the GELSCOE website their car, again IMHO, is the best GT40 for racing and yes, you best be bringing some heavy cash but look at their product! WOW! stunning....and I own a CAV but sometimes you just have to step aside and pay hommage to the best there is. If I had the cash they would get my money in a heartbeat. Good luck.