Mk. II targa that won Sebring--thoughts of survivability?

I have looked into this a little and there are very large buildings on this site now and no chance of taking your shovel out to do a little digging.
 
Oh, we could keep going...

Actually I have a serious quesiton about this car, and forgive me if this is covered in any details in the books; I don't have access right now.

Here's the question: other than material (i.e. aluminum vs. steel) how did the "tub" differ from it's steel equivalents? Was it spot-welded (can you even spot weld aluminum?), or bonded, or riveted? Any knowledge of gauge? Hard point reinforcement? Additional ribbing or strengthening? Yes of course the cowl was different for the narrower windshield, but I'm wondering more about "design rules" for fabrication out of aluminum alloy.

IF the books Ive read are correct #106 [ the 'real' one ] was made from lighter 24gauge steel rather than 22gauge [ one of four- 104/105/106/107] , the alloy tubs were 110 & 110a [ Mr Spains number system in his book ].

There is a 'Replica of the alloy 110-X1 being built, the final assembly of which is apparently being done here in NZ, but the original OP of the info on that car has not come back to us on this forum or the NZ forum [ theroaringseason ].
 
Is this the replica of chassis 110-X1

IMG_0002.jpg
 
If the duplicate chassis of 110 carrying the same number was floating around race shops a few years ago and is still existant, couldn't it be built out to be a copy of X-1 and entered in vintage racing based on the fact its chassis was built "in period" and the body style it copies was also "in period" (1966).
Also regarding the state of de-composition, I have talked to people who have pulled airplanes out of the mud in Holland shot down or crash landed in WWII and some of these planes are flying today so I would think being in the dirt in relatively balmy Calif, the chassis might not be so de-composed. And who is to say the car isn't under part of the parking lot, which could be broken through with a skip loader in 5 minutes. Unfortunately the man I know who was at the interment recently died (Steele Therkelson)
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Also regarding the state of de-composition, I have talked to people who have pulled airplanes out of the mud in Holland shot down or crash landed in WWII and some of these planes are flying today so I would think being in the dirt in relatively balmy Calif, the chassis might not be so de-composed. And who is to say the car isn't under part of the parking lot, which could be broken through with a skip loader in 5 minutes.

Well, then why not just dig up the whole parking lot? I doubt the owners will mind. Besides, when you find the car there will be Jimmy Hoffa in the driver seat and Elvis next to him.
 
I know every time I mention it , this subject has a bit of "Elvis lives" taint to it but I am doubtful now when I read a car has been "destroyed."
Think of all the cars you have heard of that were "destroyed" that you can see right now out on the racetracks of the world, among them the 1965 Targa Florio GT40 roadster, or at concours like
some of the Motorama show cars (Biscayne, Cadillac Town Car), the Chevrolet XP-819, Two Rotor, etc. Not only that there's the stolen cars like the Bertone-bodied Mustang that may be alive and well but whoever owns them doesn't want them out in the open for fear of having them claimed by an owner, has happened with the Cunningham 1960 team car that was scheduled to go to auction in Carlisle and at the last minute yanked out of the auction because of a new claim to ownership.

Someone who knows about it would be welcome to explain on the forum the perils of buying a car on the basis of a racing canard (card?)/logbook when the car might have been registered previously in its life as a road car, hence there would be a title issued (what we call in Calif. a pink slip).
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Wallace --

At the risk of debating semantics with a professional writer, I need to point out that "cut up into pieces and buried" in front of witnesses does in fact meet the definition of "destroyed." The other instances you mention are not at all analogous.

If you want to pursue this dream, go ahead, but could we resist the temptation to clutter an otherwise useful forum with repetitive redundant speculation? This question, as they say in the legal profession, has been "asked and answered." I've expressed my "thoughts on survival" and so have you (if what you have said constitutes "thought"). I doubt there are many different "thoughts" on the subject out there, so could we call this thread done?

The other question you raise is completely off topic. I suggest you raise it somewhere else, like the paddock. It's not even GT40-specific.
 
Back
Top