P1001

[Mark R]

I would also be dissapointed if we don't get to hear the conclusion to this saga.

I know that if this project were being built here in the USA.... A clean, legit bill of sale and an original GT40 frame/tub marked with P1001, would get you a nice title showing ownership of an original P1001.

Secondly, the owner of the restored/rebodied P1001b would potentially be guilty of fraud if he tried to sell this car as an 'original'. Anyone know where the 'rebuilt' car is located?

In the world of classic Ford Mustangs (here in the USA), there is a huge stigma attached to any 'rebody' and depending on which state you are in, the criminal penaltys can be pretty stiff. This has been well discussed since Dynacorn started selling reproduction '67-'68 mustang fastback bodies for $15,000 each. There are some really nice, well optioned '67-68 mustangs and shelbys that could have been 'saved' if it was legal to just swap over all the rare parts and re-create a collectible mustang/shelby.

 

[Charlie Farley]

Mark,

I'm a little confused. Please help me.
Is the situation so 'twisted' in the US, that if I came across a 'barn find' rotted out Shelby 350, it would be frowned upon if I bought a new chassis for it ?
Do people really expect the owner of such a vehicle to put all those valuable original parts out with the trash ? For without a chassis, that's what they are.
Furthermore, if that logic is to be believed, we would now be without hundreds, yes, hundreds of valuable race cars...think about all the cars that were rebodied back in the day. Just plain stupid....That attitude is 'Kiss goodbye to a major portion of your automotive heritage' . I guess you could always sell the 'junk' to China, they are always wanting scrap metal, if that's what you think your heritage is.

 

[Dave]

I as well think it would be disappointing not see this build progress. I can't understand why Andrew has got such a bashing and why these comments have not been moderated out. This would have to be the best build thread on here. The story that goes with the build is awesome and a real enjoyable read. Like an international treasure hunt , Shame that's all I can say.

Don't get me wrong I love all the threads with peoples little tricks on how they made their replica look a little closer to an original.
Oh well hopefully Andrew see's fit to continue with this thread in some way.........

 

[Keith]

Andrew. Ignore the green eyed monsters. We want to see the car!

 

[Andrew Komosa]

Do I need to call the Police and report a felony? "Book him Dano and call the Assistant DA"! Now that's cleared the air... I can report that progress is slow, I'll post some photographs taken in March later, so I haven't necessarily been in hiding, as the information coming from New Zealand has been, at best, sporadic. I would, however, like to clarify one point again. My chassis is not GT40P/1001, although the bodywork is from that car. When I began this thread, that is all I had, hence the thread title, which I agree, is somewhat confusing and why, when I remember to do so, I change it to "P/1042 (1001)". This chassis number has not come out of thin air, or from the fact the short motor; block, crank, rods, pistons, front & rear end etc, have come from GT40P/1042, but is legitimate paperwork whose (following extensive historical research), appears to have come from Jean Blaton's involvement with the original GT40 back in the 1980s. As stated many times, for legal purposes, my car is not thee original GT40P/1042, but its VIN of "P/1042" is bonefida and, hence, has more than a tenuious link to thee original car. I cannot go into details on a public forum, but this is one of the reasons, I believe my car belongs in the original category and not just because it's a mongrel of original, mostly period, GT40 parts.

Now I personally do not agree with this following statement, but it is certainly of interest in this context- many car clubs and experts in the law of classic & vintage cars, swear by the concept of the "Continuous History Car" (CHC). This includes the AC Owners Club. What these experts say is that a car can have a new engine, gearbox, rear axle, interior, body and.... even.... wait for it.. chassis, as long as it's history of change is well documented. This however, leaves a dilema i.e. should the mangled, rusty old chassis re-emerge, then it has lost its identity and it's the brand new car which is classified as the CHC... or original. I presume this conflicts entirely with Mark's assertions with the Mustangs (see above), but that's the facts, whether you agree or not. I struggle to comprehend how an original chassis, or part there of, loses its period identity, but if so then, sobeit. I consider myself fortunate, as my GT40 "P/1042" has both concepts, to a greater or lesser extent i.e. it has a traceable history back to the 1980s, if not before and does contain at least 10% original, period, chassis components.

Finally, for now, further digging has revealed something of minor interest i.e. some time (years) ago, I was informed that GT40s had Irvin GQ seat harnesses and that my period Britax were wrong. Well, after re-reading the Racing Icons excellent website of their rebuild of one of the Gulf JWA cars.. "blow me down with a feather".. but it revealled that our powder blue & orange heros did, indeed, use Britax harnesses and if it's good enough for John Wyer, then it's good enough for me. Just goes to show, no two GT40s were ever the same. Best wishes... Andrew

 

[Randy V]

Thank you for coming back to update us Andrew!

Excited to hear of more progress!

 

[Andrew Komosa]

I see a dozen yellow ribbons around the old oak tree.. but what is this?

http://www.gdlaw.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0002/1100/LegalFiles.pdf

 

[Jim Cowden]

Andrew

Great job of collecting all the original parts together.
The pic in post 202 thats not your chassis I presume, it looks like a dave brown chassis.
I noticed you talk about your chassis is from the 80's but that chassis looks new.
Or did I miss something.
Im not stirring the shit so to speak it is a genuine question.

It will be a fantastic car when you get it all together.

Jim

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Your getting this car on the road, documenting your progress and publishing research results like the belt story are a huge contribution to the community. Thanks.

 

[Andrew Komosa]

P/1042 (1001)

Some photographs taken when a friend visited New Zealand back in March. Some of the chassis is period original, although most of it is new.

 

[Jim Cowden]

Dave makes an awsome chassis.
I wouldnt have bothered putting a period part in, it makes no diffence at the end of the day it will be painted anyway.
What part did they reuse.

Brown and Glescoe I think its called (jimmy macs chassis)and John Shands would be the most authentic I would say.
You living in Britain how come the Glescoe was not the choice due to location, transportation ect ect.
The coin dosnt seem to be an issue with the project so what was your decission breaker on that.

Fantastic.

Jim

 

[Andrew Komosa]

Sorry Jim, but this is where you just don't get what I'm trying to achieve. If I wanted it to look brand new, then everything would have been brand new. If I wanted to make it more useable, then I'd have used modern parts out of a Toyota etc and then I might as well gone all the way and bought a modern kit with far less headaches.... Andrew

 

[Jim Cowden]

Yes I do get it.
No I think its worth the headaches, it will be special.
Reminds me of Jimmy Macs project.

My question was related to the chassis manufacturer not the sum of parts that you have collected.
The chassis is clearly new minus c/member I was interested why the UK based company dipped out as they have excellent quality as well.
I did read back to see if I could see what old part was fitted, sorry I should have done that before posting ,I was rehashing old news .

Nice

Jim

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Looking good, Andrew, but get some painted valve covers. I speak from experience. I had three different sets on before I found ones that looked the part and would take the old style oil breather caps.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Oh, and FWIW no less an authority than R. Spain states that the BD Mark I chassis is the most authentic and accurate he's seen- better than the Mirage or Gelscoe. FWIW. Of course I'm not neutral here- my car has a DB chassis.

 

[Andrew Komosa]

I don't know who's is the more authentic and I wouldn't question the wisdon of Ronnie Spain, but I wouldn't have sent my 100s of period parts out to NZ, if it wasn't for the fact David gave me a great deal and had some "previous history" with the original GT40P/1042... Andrew

 

[David]

Can I ask how many GT40 s are actually missing that could be bought back from the dead with a bunch of parts?

 

[Jac Mac]

Oh, and FWIW no less an authority than R. Spain states that the BD Mark I chassis is the most authentic and accurate he's seen- better than the Mirage or Gelscoe. FWIW. Of course I'm not neutral here- my car has a DB chassis.

I assume that its a typo ((BD Mark I )), should be 'DB Mark I'?

 

[Andrew Komosa]

Re: P/1042 (1001)

More research reveals GT40P/1042 got barbequed at Monza in either 1968 or 1969. Here's an original press photograph, note the lack of fire equipment. Do we wonder why sometimes more than one Pheonix arises out of a fire and "might" explain the origins of P/1042... or not!

 

[Yves Torres]

Hello,
Pictures of P/1001 during the 24h of Le Mans 1966.