Interesting Mk V (P1133) on E-bay

Keith

Moderator
I stand by what I said. It's an opinion - shooting the breeze whatever you want to call it. I said "no offence" and meant exactly that because I know how unpredictably sensitive some people can get over "value" and do not wish to appear to be rude.

They're all toys anyway. Many years ago you couldn't give these things away. Today's stupid prices are a result of speculators dabbling - many of whom don't give a crap for the history except for provenance sake. Take the art world. What a joke! Over 50% of so-called 'masterpieces' are forgeries and the owners know it but daren't admit it because the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. (For all the sensitive types that use baby oil to shave with, I am not making THAT particular comparison with GT40 collection/ownership before you fill your nappies, but the classic/collector car market does exhibit some unfortunate similarities)

I have always felt personally uncomfortable with the SPF 'continuation' thing. It was totally unecessary in my view because the car is what it is and the people that know and care about these things know it too - a damn fine replica.

This strategy, (to me) has 'skewed' the entire 'replica' market and from my own observations over the past 10 years, not necessarily for the better. If they were serious about this 'continuation' then they should have sued the ass off everybody else who were thus misrepresenting 'their' brand.

Wouldn't you have done that if you bought the rights to a unique 'widget?'

The car that is represented at the beginning of this thread - I cannot explain - is extremely desirable to me over and above any contemporary replica, whatever you want to call it.

Now, what's wrong with that opinion, (which I own, is original and not a replica)?
 

Kelly

Lifetime Supporter
I would love to own it and wouldn't give a ojbojdb who says what about the wherefores
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o:p></o:p>
I’m not even completely sure what that means but with respect to being willing to possess/own it, who wouldn’t? But at what price? If this was in the original cars section I wouldn’t have even commented. It was in the world market section so I raised the issue of market value. Opinions vary. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
They're all toys anyway. Many years ago you couldn't give these things away. Today's stupid prices are a result of speculators dabbling - many of whom don't give a crap for the history except for provenance sake. Take the art world. What a joke! Over 50% of so-called 'masterpieces' are forgeries and the owners know it but daren't admit it because the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. (For all the sensitive types that use baby oil to shave with, I am not making THAT particular comparison with GT40 collection/ownership before you fill your nappies, but the classic/collector car market does exhibit some unfortunate similarities)
<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
I raised the comparison to art collecting earlier and I think it is more apt than many would care to acknowledge. See my closing remarks below.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In addition to my other comments earlier in this thread about market value, another contributing factor can be cost to duplicate, or perhaps more precisely stated for this thread, replicate. This can be another peg for market price but expenditure is not always great indicator of market value. There are a number of sponsors (some offering light cars) and certainly builders on this site that could produce a reasonable facsimile of that MkV car assuming they valued it’s collection of features at $150k but I think there are very few that would pay that to do so, thus my previous statement suggesting today’s market of $120k.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I realize this is heresy to some, particularly on a website entitled gt40s.com. I didn’t expect it to be a popular view but I don’t find the MkV story to be a compelling part of the history; perhaps the legacy. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. There’s lot’s of people reproducing MkIs and MkIIs. Anyone (re)producing MkVs? My intent is not to deride this particular car. The collection of features are not those I would choose, but given it’s origins I accept it is very nicely done, and if it is a rigid 1900 lb car, I certainly would value that, the features it took to achieve such, and likely craftsmanship of build.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It doesn’t offend me if someone thinks I’m naïve to suggest the value I have. If someone thinks this car is worth 4x an SPF car whip out the dough and make it happen. If the experts here are correct it may even sell for that. Even so, is it offensive if I say that means they value the car at $1x and the story at $3x, and if the story is worth $3x the cost to replicate a reasonable facsimile of the car to them (or whatever the story-premium ends up to be), hey all the power to them. I don’t value the two in that proportion, would rather drive for $1x than reminisce for $3x, and find I have more in common with like minded folks than the art collectors.
<o:p></o:p>
Kelly-out<o:p></o:p>
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
....that means they value the car at $1x and the story at $3x, and if the story is worth $3x the cost to replicate a reasonable facsimile of the car to them (or whatever the story-premium ends up to be), hey all the power to them. I don’t value the two in that proportion, would rather drive for $1x than reminisce for $3x, and find I have more in common with like minded folks than the art collectors.

Now, that hits the troublesome dichotomy right on the head, and is a great way to name the phenomena. It's the f----g story premium that keeps these works of art sitting in private garages collecting dust. And here's a toast to the replica manufacturers, especially Superformance, for giving us "realists" access to the hardware.
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
I have always felt personally uncomfortable with the SPF 'continuation' thing. It was totally unecessary in my view because the car is what it is and the people that know and care about these things know it too - a damn fine replica....

Yes, Keith, we know you are "uncomfortable" with the "SPF continuation thing", since you bring it up at length whenever the word "Superformance" appears. The problem is that here and elsewhere you take a swipe at the Superformance owners every single time.

We owners didn't create the continuation idea, Superformance and Safir did. Just because we bought the car doesn't mean we bought the idea. So why don't you take up your "lack of comfort" with Safir & Superformance and stop attacking the customers as being passionless and interested only in "investment?"
 

Keith

Moderator
Not attacking any SPF owners or the product - that is silly. Just commenting on a commercial strategy which, call me thick, I do not get, but I'm pretty sure some customers bought into the product for the wrong reasons as a result.

That's it. There's no vitriol, no slanging match, no conspiracy, nowt - just a comment on a marketing strategy by a commercial manufacturer. Would you have been as upset if I had been talking about General Motors even though you owned a Chevy Suburban? I think not.

You are displaying a high degree of sensitivity about this non issue, which I regret, as I have no desire to offend anyone.

My mistake I guess for commenting but I thought that is what discussion forums are for.

I will finally repeat the substance of my previous posts. If I had the money now (I did last year), I would rather pay a much higher premium for the MKV over any other replica including the Superformance version however good it is, because to me that MKV is 'pukka' in ways that contemporary replicas are not.

Good day.
 
Just for some clarification (based upon my understanding of things):

There is a reason why the Safir MkVs command a price premium (and, to note, if one were to replicate a MkV, you are basically replicating a MkIB/Gulf car with some minor changes). The MkVs made by Safir in the 80's are "true" continuation cars. John Willment of JW Automotive Engineering teamed up with Peter Thorpe of Safir to get the rights from Ford to build these vehicles. Since Willment still had unfinished pieces to make up 1087, 1088 and 1089, the two teamed up to complete those tubs, and then continue the sequence starting with 1090 and ending with 1119.

When 1119 was completed, they sold the excess parts, tooling, design, and trademark to a small Ohio company called Safir GT40 Spares. Safir GT40 spares has since licensed the GT40 name and continuation numbering to Superformance.

The following is my opinion:

So, in reality, the Safir MkVs built in the 1980's are continuations of the racing GT40s of the 1960's as there was a direct link back to Ford, FAV and JWAE, and the Superformance GT40s are continuations of the Safir continuations, as there is no direct link back to Ford, FAV and JWAE any more - the link is once removed. This is why Safir MkVs will command a price premium over Superformance GT40s.

Ian
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Ian,

I seem to remember, that I read some where that the MKV tubs were somewhat "simplified" for ease of construction. Can anyone shed any light in that?
 
Ian,

I seem to remember, that I read some where that the MKV tubs were somewhat "simplified" for ease of construction. Can anyone shed any light in that?

This is all I have:

"'MkV' was chosen to designate the mildly up-dated model, the monocoque chassis of which was re-designed to enable fabricated construction (the originals had used pressed panels). Modern technology in the form of zinc chromate corrosion proofing ensured a longer life than the original design had enjoyed and a superior and less leak-prone fuel tank was adopted."

And, if SPF is using those plans and tooling, they would be similar.

Ian
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
And, if SPF is using those plans and tooling, they would be similar.

They're not. Although that's not to say they aren't doing some "simplifying" of their own (we know of at least one case where they do, without good results). Although various people assert SPFs are made according to "original drawings" I've never seen a credible reference to which drawings, at what revision level, drawn by whom, and signed by whom. Love to see a copy of those drawings.... Think what it would do for sales and credibility if each owner were issued a reduced and watermarked binder of drawings..... or even just a few key ones.....

And of course I can make you an "original drawing" any time you want. I'll even sign it.
 
Last edited:

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
I have looked at all these cars, as well as original monocoques, Tennant chassis, and my own. Also Ronnie Spain has looked at all of them. So, some opinions (and, as always, just opinions):

-Safir GT40 Mark V tubs were built on a simplified plan to make them easier to build without the involvement of a metal-stamping factory. Also, by then, the dies used to stamp the panels which were assembled into Abbey and Tennant GT40 chassis were gone, so the choice was to either reconstruct all the press tools necessary, or redesign the chassis to make it simpler to build. The person asked to redesign the chassis was Len Bailey, who had designed the original GT40 tub, I think, and who also designed the LeMans front end which is the look of the car that is best known- and best loved. So arguably they went to the best source for the redesign of the chassis

-not many Safir cars were built. They were not built past the 1990s, with the exception of my car, which does not have a Mark V tub- it has a Mark I tub built by David Brown on (as far as we can determine) original dimensions and does not incorporate the Alan Mann suspension improvements. We know this because Mark V suspension pieces do not fit it. It has Mark I suspension pickup point dimensions. I think Jay is correct that Safir cars being older, rarer, and having a direct connection in contemporary time to GT40 principals (JW) they may be considered more closely related to original sixties cars- and hence worth more. You'd have to find me on a very bad day indeed to buy my car for $120K. For twice that, we'd be talking. But only talking.

-SPF chassis are probably more similar, visually at least, to an Abbey or Tennant or David Brown chassis. How close the dimensions are I have no idea. There are several companies that advertise GT40 chassis built on original drawings- Brown, Gox, Mirage. These cars typically sell for 250K sterling. Do the math. This is not $120,000.

It's worth mentioning that SPF are the only outfit that bothered to approach the Safir principals and ask them to authenticate and license the cars. Everyone else has simply knocked off the original design and look. SPF ought to get credit for this, IMO, even if they did it to raise the value and make the cars more salable. At least they went to the trouble to do it.

-finally, Ronnie's opinions are worth something significant, since he's spent more time than anyone else studying these cars and researching their history. He's deferred to by everyone as the authority. He felt that the DB chassis was the closest to an Abbey Panels chassis he'd seen. Primitive suspension pickup points and all.
 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o:p></o:p>
I’m not even completely sure what that means but with respect to being willing to possess/own it, who wouldn’t? But at what price? If this was in the original cars section I wouldn’t have even commented. It was in the world market section so I raised the issue of market value. Opinions vary. <o:p></o:p>
]I raised the comparison to art collecting earlier and I think it is more apt than many would care to acknowledge. See my closing remarks below.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
[In addition to my other comments earlier in this thread about market value, another contributing factor can be cost to duplicate, or perhaps more precisely stated for this thread, replicate. This can be another peg for market price but expenditure is not always great indicator of market value. There are a number of sponsors (some offering light cars) and certainly builders on this site that could produce a reasonable facsimile of that MkV car assuming they valued it’s collection of features at $150k but I think there are very few that would pay that to do so, thus my previous statement suggesting today’s market of $120k.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I realize this is heresy to some, particularly on a website entitled gt40s.com. I didn’t expect it to be a popular view but I don’t find the MkV story to be a compelling part of the history; perhaps the legacy. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. There’s lot’s of people reproducing MkIs and MkIIs. Anyone (re)producing MkVs? My intent is not to deride this particular car. The collection of features are not those I would choose, but given it’s origins I accept it is very nicely done, and if it is a rigid 1900 lb car, I certainly would value that, the features it took to achieve such, and likely craftsmanship of build.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It doesn’t offend me if someone thinks I’m naïve to suggest the value I have. If someone thinks this car is worth 4x an SPF car whip out the dough and make it happen. If the experts here are correct it may even sell for that. Even so, is it offensive if I say that means they value the car at $1x and the story at $3x, and if the story is worth $3x the cost to replicate a reasonable facsimile of the car to them (or whatever the story-premium ends up to be), hey all the power to them. I don’t value the two in that proportion, would rather drive for $1x than reminisce for $3x, and find I have more in common with like minded folks than the art collectors.
<o:p></o:p>
Kelly-out<o:p></o:p>


Well than why do 427 Cobras sell for 1m+ and I can build you an exact clone for 150k? Why do Daytona Coupes sell for 6M and can be built for 200k and you can not tell the difference? Why is 1075 worth 15m and other Gulf cars are worth 2-3m? Seems like sosmething other than duplication costs come into play here.
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Well than why do 427 Cobras sell for 1m+ and I can build you an exact clone for 150k? Why do Daytona Coupes sell for 6M and can be built for 200k and you can not tell the difference? Why is 1075 worth 15m and other Gulf cars are worth 2-3m? Seems like sosmething other than duplication costs come into play here.

Jay -- It appears as if you quoted Kelly's last paragraph but did not read it. The brief answer is the "story premium".
 

Kelly

Lifetime Supporter
Well than why do 427 Cobras sell for 1m+ and I can build you an exact clone for 150k? Why do Daytona Coupes sell for 6M and can be built for 200k and you can not tell the difference? Why is 1075 worth 15m and other Gulf cars are worth 2-3m? Seems like sosmething other than duplication costs come into play here.
It’s getting to be a paddock thread with a bit of drift here but what the heck. The answer is fairly clear. It’s the same reason that people pay $50k for a lock of Elvis’ hair or Michael Jackson’s glove. They have more money than sense, the same passion for their objects of desire as you have for yours, and I suspect while some may sympathize, others may look upon your passion to be as irrational as you view theirs. It’s also a matter of a difference in value systems that doesn’t allow some to value an old race car at 8-figures compared to the good that wealth could do elsewhere. You shouldn’t confuse the objectivity of that thought with the means to pursue either path. I’m impressed with the accomplishment that it was when it was. Today I’m more impressed by the guys that are trying to innovate a new way to get around the track faster for 1%-2% of that figure instead of imitating what was done forty-some years ago. It’s natural for those vested in the story to defend these valuations of it. I’m comfortable with my position on that; are you? If so, great. You should feel vindicated, not offended.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
K
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
...They have more money than sense...


They certainly have more money. But I don't think we more "rational" ones need to criticise them. I argue that it makes no more sense to pour $70K and hundreds of hours in an SLC or $120K for a GT40 with rain leaks and plastic windows than it does to put $8M into a GTO with Surtees' alleged butt print. Years down the road the GTO owner sells his for $12M while we have a strange, dangerous car nobody wants that's worth a fraction of what we paid. Who's the one with more sense? I went to a great deal of effort and expense to put an FE in my GT40 when I could have more easily, quickly and cheaply installed a Windsor with the same torque curve. That's motivated by some kind of "story." I think we're all a little short of "sense" or we wouldn't be here in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
Allen, I don't know the exact dimensions. I know that Alan Mann, or someone on his race team, worked out changes to the mounting points for the suspension control arms in order to improve anti-dive and anti-squat characteristics of the GT40 chassis on the track. The mounting points were moved- probably not a great deal, but evidently it didn't take much to improve things. As I understand it, the changes were very effective and subsequently applied by a lot of race teams, I think including the Wyer team cars.

When the Mark V chassis was designed, Bailey included those dimensional changes. My chassis was partly built in NZ and completed by the shop that built the Mark V monos for Safir (Henry Atherton and another fellow who owns the shop, I am blanking on the name, which is idiotic since I talked to him not more than a few dozen times- he houses and maintains Jody Scheckter's race car collection, he's in Sussex- dammit, I can't think what his name is) Anyway- he made up a set of suspension arms for us according to Mark V drawings that he had, and they didn't fit the chassis. They all had to be done over on Mark I drawings in order to fit, which was difficult because Mark I suspension uses Schaefer bearings etc, and my car uses Heim joints. So there was a lot of redesign involved. We ended up with Mark I chassis dimensions and suspension arms, but Heim joints instead of Schaefer bearings etc.

Kerry Adams, that's who it is. I am having a senior moment here.
 

Kelly

Lifetime Supporter
They certainly have more money. But I don't think we more "rational" ones need to criticise them………..I think we're all a little short of "sense" or we wouldn't be here in the first place.
Granted. Whether it’s 4x for a MkV or $15m for 1075 (what’s that $125x? or maybe 37.5x for comparison to a more “faithful” $400k replica) it’s all just a matter of degree. And as you infer, majority of people in the world couldn’t begin to understand nor justify $120k in any case.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
P><P><FONT color=black><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=3>[quote="awatkins, post: 367882"] I argue that it makes no more sense to pour $70K and hundreds of hours in an SLC or $120K for a GT40 with rain leaks and plastic windows than it does to put $8M into a GTO with Surtees' alleged butt print. Years down the road the GTO owner sells his for $12M while we have a strange, dangerous car nobody wants that's worth a fraction of what we paid. Who's the one with more sense
<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>
SOLD AS IS, WHERE IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED <o:p></o:p>
ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL BEFORE BIDDING 707-747-1289<o:p></o:p>
WILLING TO SHIP / BUYER PAYS ALL SHIPPING<o:p></o:p>
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS PAY 7.375% SALES TAX
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Kelly -- I don't think this is an unusual amount of thread drift by GT40s.com standards, but anyway I'm done on the "story premium" subject. Thanks for inventing the term.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top