Chassis questions...?

[Fran Hall RCR]

If Mr.Alan Mann is able to provide good reliable history that Chris's chassis is one that he had as a spare and was modified accordingly.then I would think that this proves it is a "real" Mann Racing GT40.
This point will no longer be able to be disputed...as for it being an FAV GT40 then that may be open to interpretation but as for being an Alan Mann GT40 ...UNDENIABLE and I think that is the true point being made by Mr.Melia......just my take on things and I am glad to see the aluminum body make a reappearance all the same...

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

I'm with Fran on this one. If Alan vouches for the chassis I think Chris's car can get FIA papers as can Lee's MKII's.
(esp. under the new FIA rules that go into effect 1/1/04)

 

[Jos]

It seems to me that this all started as an interesting historical question of the time frame for Tennant chassis with the implication that they were later than the Abbey - doesn't this therefore mean the Chris's Tennant tub cannot be contemporary with the AMGT project ?

 

Hi Fran
Quote from Trevor Legate book page 146.
Refers to Lee Holman.
"Lee was determined that the car he built would be a genuine MK11 (as far as safety legislation would allow) and not just a close replica. His first task was to contact the company which built the original chassis. Tennant Panels in England. He ordered fifteen chassis which would keep him building Mk11s for some time to come. The chassis ,unfortunatley, was not designed for ease of construction, each one being assembled from three hundred separate pieces. When Tennant shipped the final eight, also in the container were all the chassis bucks, tools, dies and a hugh pile of original drawings, plus a letter stating that Tennant was out of the chassis building game forever!"
End of quote.
I have only referred to my chassis as a Tennant chassis, it came with the Alan Mann alloy body that was removed from AMGT-2 by Paul Hawkins in 1966. It in no way was the chassis that was under this Allan Mann car originally.
Regards
Chris.

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

IMHO it's still way cool.

 

[Ron Earp]

H&M is just down the road a piece here in NC. I'm sure we could scare up some folks to go look at the dies locally.

R

 

[Steve Toner]

Shadow reminds me of Marco, and I think Marco was a good guy. I certainly miss his posts, as he seemed very knowledgeable and provided lots of useful information.

Rereading Shadow's posts here, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - it looks to me like he was just trying to set some things straight. I don't think he was attacking Chris.

Here's an older post I found from Marco that is similar in both style and content to Shadow's posts:

[ QUOTE ]
Not to hard to convince a not to well read official about autenthisity or orginality i guess...
There are several replicas racing as historic racers, around the globe...
There are several "air cars" out there and more or less replicas..
Several using the same "numbers"
Several people telling a lot of crap.
There are a lot of both air cars and air talkers out there...
Greed and etc....
Not to be too negative, but the world is not perfect !
But the main part is consistant of honest cars and honest people...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I didn't read anything in Chris' posts that make any claim that he owns the original AMGT-2 car, just the original body. There is no deception going on here, which I think is the main point Marco/Shadow is railing against.

 

Hi all

John Allen say's in his book "The legend Lives on"page 109 That P1086 was the last Abbey Panel Car completed in 1984 by J W Automotive Engineering.
Also John Wilment had three more official GT40s built on Tennant Panel chassis and are No P1087, P1088, P1089.
These cars are original and have Tennant Panel Chassis's from new.

Regards
Chris

 

[Jim]

I'll throw in a few thoughts - I have had the opportunity to personally inspect, photograph, dimension and measure
chassis's 1008, 1030, 1032, 1054, 1070, Tennant chassis 1126 and 2 unknown serial number Tennant
chassis. The differences in Mark I "Abbey Panels" between chassis are far greater than the differences
between a Tennant Panel Chassis and a Mark I chassis. In my opinion, the Tennant panels chassis is a real GT40
in every sense of the word. As an Automotive Engineer at Ford, I can vouch
for the fact that that the Tennant Panels chassis are indeed stamped/pressed. No doubt a certain
amount of "hand work" is/was needed while assembling. Good examples are with chasis 1008 and 1032
where the B-pillar construction near the air inlet is not symetrical. The left hand side is 6" wide, the right
hand side is 5.625". In addition, the flare for the opening is a good 10 degrees off left to right.
The Tennant panels cars varied
a bit on a few details (for example the early Abbey Panel cars had 2 holes for steering column tilt
adjustment while the Tennent panels had 4 holes for adjustment - possibly part of the improvement
process - more holes would allow more adjustment.

Lastly, my experience with spending the last 6 years measuring GT40's is that the cars are all different. I can
site numerous differences between the chassis especially in the 1005 to 1030 range where many updates,
changes, improvements, design changes, strengthening were made. Changes to accomodate the Mark II,
changes in the front wheelhouse /cowl to allow greater turn angle, changes in the tub for fuel crossover, even
changes in the rear susp pickup points over time. These are facts, not opinions - I have the
documentation/dimensions to prove it. One recent difference we discovered was the difference in shifter
gate plates between Larry Dent's 1005 and 1070. It appears they must have had a problem with shift throw travel and
between 1005 and 1070, the shifter plate increased in length from 5.565" to 6.250" with a subsequent
gate increase of .875".
GT40's are all different. I rarely had dimensions be equivalent. In some examples, the seat pan was
welded at a different X station between chassis. In others, the battery box was moved or changed
positioned. The list goes on and on. Windshield A-pillar construction details are vastly different
between chassis ....ok I will stop.

My point is this, the Tennant Panels chassis, such as Chris Melia's and Lee Holman's are Real GT40's
in my opinion and deserve equivalent respect. As for the history of how the tooling ended up at Tennant is
a mystery that needs explaining.....

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Jim,

Thanks for your post and information. I still do not have a date range for the Tennant chassis tubs production. As Holman has been working on the MK IIs for some time I assume Tennants production goes into the mid 1980's?

As an aside, I supplied some of the small parts that went into the first Holman MK II. The guy who was doing the assembly called my business and bought some obsolete Ford parts such as the brackets and looms that hold the ignition wires. It was just random chance that he called me but as I took the order I inquired as to the use of these parts. He told me he was assembling something called a "GT 40 MK II" but I had probably never heard of one......25 feet away P1116 was sitting!

Rick /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

OK - before arousing the ire of anybody in the shadows, I am new (second post) and will introduce myself as one who is looking at tooling to build a chassis or three as an FAV MkI. I have followed the thread on the chassis and its history, triggered by Mark IV, with great interest. I understand from it, the chassis I have seen (pictures of) that had the highest percentage of pressed panels are the most original from Abbey - later Tennant chassis had more fabricated pieces, perhaps as a result of tooling dumped - not supplied or damaged in a fire and/or more limited resources, or some inter-company politics, and what tools there were later sent to Holman Moody while the Safir had even more handmade bits - in fact redesigned the chassis to fit their particular culture and capability.

Seems to me even the original structure shows a lot of pressings that must have been quite difficult to assemble repeatably and this situation got worse as history went on and fabrication replaced pressing. I must say though I think the original design is a very impressive bit of engineering that shows a lot of experience and displays a really good balance between a good budget, limited press capability and low volume - resulting in a hell of a car. Perhaps a pity that it was dissipated/modified over time and politics. I think also the term "over-engineered! - let us modify it" tends to translate to "my press ain't big enough for that tool".(Please don't swap the words around)

Please correct me if wrong, but it seems that is the thread behind the story - and tools and drawings are spread all over the world.

Also Mark IV's comment on $75,000 for Superperformance's tooling being way way low for the number of tools needed seems a reasonable assumption - especially if they are using contract tool and press shops. The posted picture, I assume to be theirs, shows a balance between pressing and fabrication to suit their environment. I must say though it is a superb construction which gives a thrill to see - and is a tribute to the quality of their welders and finishing guys.

To use conventional tooling techniques to recreate all the original tub pressings would be a hellish expensive undertaking - not least because the sheer number of tools required would dictate outsourcing many simply to get them done in a reasonable time frame - six figures would be closer to the mark.

Also hearty congratulations to Indiana Melia - That!! must have been a buzz. I get goosebumps just looking at the pictures.

By the way - wonderful forum with a lot of knowledge shared. Makes me feel quite inadequate in my own knowledge, but quite at home with my unrequited love affair with this car.

Frank Williams

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Chris, I don't know what the rules are for vintage racing eligibility, but it seems to me that the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to this body-chassis combination. Clearly the chassis is a vintage item and obviously the aluminum body is not only a vintage item but a surpassingly rare one as well. Okay, they didn't come with each other; but who cares? They ARE contemporaries of each other and deserve to be united in a running car. I for one would love to see it. And Chris, when you get it running, I would be happy to share the cost of bringing it to the USA just to see it run over here. And I am not even going to ask to drive it...of course, if a turn at the helm is offered, it would be rude to refuse.

 

Hi Jim
I just may do that when she's done.
I will let you drive mine if you let me drive yours?
Regards
Chris.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Right, you've got a deal, you would be welcome in any event. Once behind the wheel, I will probably be eligible for the dubious distinction of 'least qualified driver of vintage supercar on planet Earth'. Oh, well, maybe I can improve over the months and years.

 

[Steve Toner]

Chris,

As long as you're taking reservations, I am available to drive it at Laguna Seca if you should enter it some future edition of the Monterey Historics /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Mike Dozier]

Chris

Will Lee Holman's 2006 Series MK II's sell for $ 500k each?
If so, Superformance should raise the price of theirs.

MikeDD

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

One thing that gives Lee's car value is that they are eligable for FIA papers.

 

[Jos]

You mentioned before that FIA rules are changing - the impression is they are making it less rigourous - is this correct ? Could you give a brief synopsis ? Thanks

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Regarding Lee'sm MK IIs-I have not heard how many he has sold to date. I was told secondhand that it is less than three in the 10 years he has been offering them.

I understand there would be two distinct types of buyers, those who want original panache and history, for them no reproduction or clone will do. The other buyer would most possibly be a collector or racer who does not want a "used up" car or feels there is a cost advantage to the Holman cars. I do not think the two are interchangable and thus the market is limited.

This in no way is to take away from Lee's cars, they are excellent and it would be difficult to duplicate what he has done.

And I still don't haver an answer about the time frame of the Tennant tubs!

Rick /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

My understanding is that in addition to original cars. Continuation cars MFG.ed by the original MFG's to exact original specs. will be eligible for FIA papers for vintage racing purposes. A separate set of FIA papers will deal with Historical aspects ie. an original car with history. Others?