Targeted Best GT40 Kit, Your Opinions Please

[chuck smith]

1. there are many things that I have never heard of, I am sure

2.it was insinuated that these cars were pricey, I have no idea of the actual price. I have had a SPF and I think they are expensive, so I can assume these meet my criteria
3.it sounds like you appreciate these cars
4.FIA papers sounds good

5.most of the GT40s discussed around here seem fabulous to me

6. in what way are they superior?

7.we can of course only give our own opinions

 

[Ron Earp]

I believe that GT111 was restored by Gelscoe, http://www.gt40s.com/gallery/index.php?n=610

I could swear there was discussion on another thread of GT111 being replicated and the replica being passed off as the original at some sort of motorsports event in Europe. Have I lost it?

 

[JimmyMac]

Ron,
You haven't lost it.:thumbsup:

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/all-gt40/21771-classic-sportscar-uk-page-13-gt111-found-london.html

 

[Ron Earp]

Ah ha, that was it, Thanks Jimmy. However, my question was never answered on that thread by that one fellow who seemed to know a lot about the car.

Based on your response and that thread I conclude that this company, Gelscoe, replicates GT40s and then passes them off as originals. And this is supposed to be good?????

 

[David Morton]

Ron,
Your conclusion is totally without any foundation.
Dave M

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron,
Your conclusion is totally without any foundation.
Dave M

It may be, I'm only going on what I thought I'd understood.

The 111 car, as I understood it, was replicated by a company and then passed off as an original in a European race. Was this true and was this replica done by this Gelscoe company?

I'm not accusing or anything like that, I'm just trying to understand the situation about the 111 car and what company did the replicating.

Maybe this isn't the best thread for this discussion. After all, the fellow that started it wanted to know the never ending question on GT40s.com - what is the best GT40 replica available.

 

[Victors]

Ron,

Gelscoe builds clones of the GT 40, but they never tried to pass them as originals as far as I know. They even fit them with their own chassis plate and some Gelscoe stamping in an integral part of the chassis (where the door hinges are behind the front wheels). Some of the owners of the cars Gelscoe builds managed themselves to get FIA papers (they replicate every bit of the car so they are clones), and race them in some European series. For some particular reason that I do not know those Series let those replicas race.

The cars are very very close to the real thing and have nothing to do with any of the replicas around up to now (even SPF is far away from the Gelscoe cars. Can not compare them with Goran´s and Mirage cars as I have not been able to see those in person yet) with all the right bits and they are much more pricey than any of the other replicas. The parts they fit on their cars are original reproduction parts, exactly as the ones they fit to the original cars they maintain or the parts that they sell to be fitted in some other original cars. Again those parts are very pricey but as close as you can get to an original part.

Regarding the car that appeared in the previous thread, the 111 coupe, that is a joke.
I have seen that cars many years around Europe, trying to be sold as an original (last time I saw it was at the Autodrome in Cannes a few years ago, late 90´s early 2000´s) claiming that when 111 was destroyed in the Targa, they ordered a coupe chassis and rebuilt it around it. If you were careful enough to check the car (not even in detail) you could realize that it had nothing to do with the real thing. I can only describe it as a joke.

Hope this has brought some light. I know the guys at Gelscoe, and they are very professional, have been many years in the classic motor sport business and they maintain and race many of the most exclusive (and expensive) cars racing in Europe.

 

[chuck smith]

again, a pricy replica, and a replica non the less

 

[Will Parker]

Gelscoe Motorsport

 

[JimmyMac]

Ron,
Perhaps you did lose it a bit back there - as I cannot see anywhere in my response that could assist such a conclusion.
I have tried to help here not make insinuations about anybody.

Dave & JP,
Agreed. There are no equals........:chug:

Chuck,
Wakey wakey ! .......:zzz:

 

[David Morton]

James
- Thanks. Maybe some of what was said was/is lost in translation.
IMHO - There is a gaping gap between a Gelscoe replica and the look-a-like cars that most of us can afford but I think we did this one to death a few years back - the definition of a replica seemed to differ depending on which side of longtitude 10 degrees west you live. If you weren't on the gt40s.com site at that time - don't take this as provocative. I have a look-a-like which has done 6 miles since 1992 (I like tinkering with it) and no hartwell catches or gurney rocker covers or anything else trick will ever disguise that fact. You get what you pay. QED.

Dave

 

[JimmyMac]

David,
The title of this thread includes the word "Kit" and not replica.
JP described the Gelscoe cars as clones, so now we have another parameter to measure how close we wish to copy the prototype so maybe it's a good idea to refresh this old thread you mentioned.

As to the loss of translation, my only contribution to this thus far has been to give global information to a couple of guys who are probably using Google "Flat" Earth.

 

[David Morton]

James -
I think he did mention a replica and for the moment, only the guys from Derby are anywhere near the mark. Once Roy's project emerges and maybe the Swedish guys get sorted there may be more - time will tell.

Re-opening the debate about copies: I think it got a few people a bit hot under the collar.

It may be provident to first allow the guys in the USA to define from their American Dictionary definitions of the words Replica, Silhouette, Clone, Look-a-like, Genuine, Copy, Real, and Fake. Then maybe we can discuss and compare with our Oxford English Dictionary and the various semantics and then all come to some sort of gt40s.web wide set of terms we can all use henceforth with impunity.
The GT40s Entusiast Club has gone some way in their register of cars and in doing so have listed KVA, GTD, CAV etc but some real cars are listed under Other Makes.
For the moment , my car is a GTD look-a-like that I spent hours and hours getting things totally wrong and then being corrected by some of the ace fabricators that live here in the Thames Valley (yes - the safirs were made very near here) but nevertheless I enjoyed making it. I cannot ever see it morphing into another car with a Ford continuation number. Ever.
Dave M

 

[JimmyMac]

James -
For the moment , my car is a GTD look-a-like that I spent hours and hours getting things totally wrong and then being corrected by some of the ace fabricators that live here in the Thames Valley (yes - the safirs were made very near here) but nevertheless I enjoyed making it. I cannot ever see it morphing into another car with a Ford continuation number. Ever.
Dave M

David,
If I were you, I would never understate the GTD as it has probably won more races than those doppelgangers out there.
And surely, most of these are derivatives of the KVA and GTD anyway.

Money couldn't buy friends, but you got a better class of enemy ~ Spike Milligan

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron,
Perhaps you did lose it a bit back there - as I cannot see anywhere in my response that could assist such a conclusion...

Hi Jimmy,

My statement and question was:
"I could swear there was discussion on another thread of GT111 being replicated and the replica being passed off as the original at some sort of motorsports event in Europe. Have I lost it?"

Your reply was:
"Ron,
You haven't lost it.:thumbsup:
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/all-gt40/...nd-london.html

I interpreted this reply as "No Ron you have not lost it, your memory is correct and here is the thread". This implies to me "Yes Ron, GT111 was replicated and passed off as an original at some sort of motorsports event in Europe". My apologies for jumping to conclusions here.

Thanks for the clarification Victors, much appreciated.

And, sorry to post on the thread and stir up a discussion. Anyhow, I'll make a motion to drop 111 and return the thread to the original topic - "Target Best GT40 Kit, Your Opinions Please".

 

[JimmyMac]

Ron,
No problem.
I'll also second your motion.

 

[chuck smith]

I had never even heard of the Gelscoe cars before a new member opined that they were the best kit, and the rest of us should be envious. Now we find out that they really are not kits at all, and thus have no relevance to the initial question asked. Whether you choose to put them in the replica, clone, copy ect. category is largely semantics, however, I think we can all agree that they are not original cars, and after that what is really left but replicas, some nice, some not so nice. So to answer the original question of which kit (unassembled box of parts) is best, I would probably go with RCR.

 

[Victors]

Dave,
From my point of view all of the cars, except the few 100 and something chassis built in the 60´s by FAV or JWA are replicas/copies.
Even the Safir cars, no matter if they called them MK V or what, are replicas/copies.
The philosophy behind that car is pure "replica"! Peter Thorp was looking for a GT 40 for himself, and as he could not find the right car for him, he decided to build his own. At that time he was one of the principals of Safir Eng. Although they used many original parts, out of the original moulds, the chassis is totally different from the real thing, and those chassis were not built by Ford with the original purpose in mind. So, no matter what they say, for me it is a replica/copy (even if they were allowed to use the chassis number sequence continuing the original chassis numbers)

Then in the broad replica land, you can use different words to define the different types of cars that occupy that broad span, and I guess both the Webster and the Oxford dictionaries will be very close on their definitions of each of them: Clone, look-alike, silhouette...

The terms "real" or "fake" are always used in a different scenario.
In order to use the word "fake" for one of those cars, there has to be a previous premise: someone trying to pass a replica/copy as an original. Then the semantics of fake or real are appropriate.
As far as the owner of the car realizes and is aware that he owns a replica/copy the word fake should not be used. Fake has the negative connotations of someone trying to cheat in first instance.
I guess most of us (almost all in this forum) know what we own and do not pretend passing our cars as anything except what they are.
As a matter of fact "real" could be used in any of the cars, because all of the cars are real, no matter if they are original or replicas.

Original cars, the ones built in the 60´s by FAV and JWA. Period

Replicas/copies. All the rest, Safir MK V, Sbarros,...Gelscoe, ERA, SPF, RCR, GTD, CAV...Goran´s, Mirage....
Some closer to the original than others, but nevertheless all of them are "copies"

Back to the main topic of the thread, I guess the best kit is the one that matches best what you are looking for, originality, possibility of self-build if you are a hands-on guy... and the one that matches your finances! The differences here are enormous!
Cheers!

 

[David Morton]

Victors - good post and I think a few people will come back with their ideas - I'll re read it a few times and then probably come back. :thumbsup:

Chuck-
Now we find out that they really are not kits at all, and thus have no relevance to the initial question asked - - - Wrong again !!
You keep putting your foot in it.
During the LMS race at Silverstone I talked to one of the principals
in Gelscoe who brought the gt40 (that was damaged during the LMClassic 2008 and was returning it to the owner for onward transit in another race truck to France) and who told me he could supply me with a kit rather than an assembled car. If I assembled it it would probably not achive FIA papers he went on to say. So a Gelscoe car can still be a kit if you/me/anybody else so chose.

 

[chuck smith]

so obviously, They are the best kit, I stand corrected.