Real GT40s End Where?

[DON SILAWSKY]

Would not a simple solution be to use Ronnie Spains book as the bible for a list of original cars? If it is listed in there it counts? Personally I don't have a hang up on 1087 - 1089 being called original if all the parts were factory parts. If they were modified or developed when the cars were assembled then that would count against them though.

I think this is the best and most straightforward resolution to the "what is an 'original' GT40" question. With this rationale, the seven leftover Mk III Abbey tubs 1107-1114 are included as original GT40s. I am not sure how Ronnie views 1087-1089, the cars built up in the past few years from original (but I can't verify that claim) panel sections, but will check with him.

I hope we can all agree on this methdology. I will begin to move old messages that involve original GT40s to this section.

 

[Allan Feldman]

I suppose I am in the minority. But I do not understand the concept of an uncompleted tub or cars built recently from original parts being classified as an original car? If it was not built as one in the 1960 -1970 it is not an original? I would classify the MKIII tubs as original parts. But if a car was completed now using them that would be a new MKIII made from original parts. But not an original car!
'If it was not a complete car in the 1960's its not original'. This would includes P1087-P1089.
And once again I am not anti-MKIV but they are a seperate entity and should not be regarded as a Forty. The same applies in some respect to the Mirage M1.
I do not see these original parts cars as originals. ONLY GT40's FULLY BUILT AT THE TIME 1960-1970 ARE ORIGINALS!!!
I will give you an example when David Piper was allowed by Ferrari to create another 330P4 chassis 0900 this had some original parts in it. But it was not classified as original 330P4!!!!
When next is a Forty going to be discovered in a warehouse in Slough and be known as original Forty??? This is going to be like opening a can of worms!!!
Regards Allan

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

Allan,

See my thread posted 12/25/07 (#4). You and I pretty much think alike.

 

[Jos]

Allan / Gary

It seems to me there is a difference between an original GT40 out there in the real world and a vehicle which can be discussed under this specific heading on this particular website

Indeed isn't one of the reasons for this section to facilitate discussion of originality - this would then clearly cover crashed cars and later cars - which would also save us having the discussion at this stage of where J cars end !

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

josvdp,

I voiced my opinion. I have no enforcement or authority for drafting the rules for this area of the forum.

I do think the "J" cars should be a part of this group, because they were a reflection of the evolution of the original GT40 project and the original cars built in the 60's.

So far, I think this area has drawn out a good degree of discussion.....some folks just can not agree on the same issues.....and that is nothing new.....just a fact of life. At some point, a higher authority on this subject will address this issue, and we all may end up with the section being dropped completely. So I guess its about time the guidelines be drafted by Don, and the rest of us forum members follow his direction. Their is always a chance that if Don sets the guidelines, some people will disagree, but I have to give Don credit.....he has stepped up to the plate and was the driving force to start this area in the first place.

Whatever Don puts in place, I will follow and endorse his guidelines.

 

[Johan]

I think the issue is being blown out of proportion. This area is a place to discuss original GT40s, and to look at that in a broad way would be the best route to take in my opinion.
If a person feels like they have an original GT40, or someone sees a GT40 that to them appears original, or something comes available for sale, include discussion of it here. If an owner of a MK V for instance wants to talk about his car here, what is the harm in that ?
If this area will prompt pictures and news on MK IVs, what is the harm in that ? I say, let the owners of the original cars have at it with this as a collection point for easier information gathering. I would hate to miss good information because a person is put off for fear of ridicule in posting about their car. It is like art work we like : "We know it when we see it".
Next you will be into the re-chassis issue and then the repaired chassis issue etc.
Posting about a car here the way things are going would be like running for political office
regarding mud-slinging, and I was looking for nothing more than interesting info on the whereabouts and goings-on with "original cars".

 

[Mike Dozier]

Johan

Well said.....but it sure makes it interesting when the actual OEM (Lola) re-opens their doors
for sale of " real " cars 35 years after the fact !

MikeD

 

[Russ Noble]

That's a bit of clear thinking Johan.

I have to agree with you. I think the title of the thread has thrown a few people off track. A better title would have been "For the purposes of this sub-forum, real GT40's end where?"

I think this forum should be inclusive, not exclusive and if any person thinks a car could reasonably be included here, then it should be. If anyone tries posting an RF or Tornado on here then they would be laughed off. The same goes for an SPF too. Where some of the others may fit in could be a grey area but who cares? Let's hear about them.

Cheers

 

[Russ Noble]

Johan

Well said.....but it sure makes it interesting when the actual OEM (Lola) re-opens their doors
for sale of " real " cars 35 years after the fact !

MikeD

Nevertheless, I don't think the purpose of this subforum is intended to cater for 'new' real cars. I think it is for "original" real cars. Somewhere in between the dividing line is blurred, but it doesn't really matter, we should include the ones in the "grey area". As Johan said, "we'll know them when we see them"

Cheers

 

[Johan]

This thread is a logistical mess because as Russ points out, words such as "real" and "original" are being intermingled and they really mean two different things. Where does genuine fit in ?

Original:
Produced in an acceptable fashion during the proper time frame and existing as a proper entity through time to the present.
We ALL realize that there is nothing like an original GT40, and even the originals have a value pecking order based on race history, then originality, then condition, the combination of which makes them "desirable" to a certain level discerned by the marketplace when they trade hands. Anything other than an original is something else (thanks Jim for that...).

Real:
"Real" is a step below original in value,all other things being equal, and could entail a car which perhaps has had the chassis replaced or is a car which has had a serial number supplied to an original chassis but not at the proper time frame to be original. It is a car that has the right to a factory authorized serial number. Of course, there are degrees to be considered here and some cars are more "real" to more people, but not viewed as "original" by the reasonable enthusiast, sales agents excepted. Some of these cars have long stories that can either add character to the car or detract it from the storyteller.

Continuation:
"Continuation" cars are mis-understood, as well as mis-used, poor things. Some people buy them in order to gain the respect of the marque enthusiasts without having to shell out the money for an original. This is usually a situation that backfires and the proud owner goes around proclaiming himself to be in possession of an original or real or genuine
car (it actually is real and genuine, but not original) , when he would be better off saying it is a replica (which it is). Let the car do the talking. They are very nice cars and we would all like to have some to play with, wouldn't we ? I know I would. They are "Genuine" cars meaning that there is no 20 minute story that has to be told and then believed in order for the car to be described.

I could go into "turn key" cars, rollers, kits, etc, but I will just say this about them.
I am ever so envious of the efforts and abilities that go into the builds of these cars.
Eric Broadley, Phil Remmington, Jim Hall, Peter Brock, etc. would much rather have beers in the garage with someone like Fran Hall or Fred W B or any number here that build the cars than someone that went out and paid a bunch of money, too much really, for an over the hill race car that is no longer capable of doing competitive laps. Cut from the same cloth in a way, (but Fran is too slow to race).

Mike, you say Lola's remake of the T70 is interesting....
Whether or not tounge in cheek, I agree and appreciate the efforts of Lola to the point that I have ordered a Continuation T70. I did this because I can not competitively race the Gurney T70, which is an original car, unless I replace a fair amount of the running gear and certainly the suspension and brakes and uprights, etc. and then it would be less original which would be dumb.
I plan to race the continuation T70 along with and harder than my other older Lolas because it is a beautiful thing; a Lola about which there is no contention of the serial number and it is not being portrayed as original. That is the beauty of the continuation car in that it is in NEW condition, raceable condition, and does not pretend to be something it is not, ie "original", but built just like the original (exactly). It is a bargain to the racer when you look at the cost of racing an older car( money and/or pain).

Some of these guys that have some of the cars that are being excluded from the original section of the forum you would like and some you would not, but either way, I say let them in and have fun with them, of various sorts. You will know what to do when the time comes to do something. So far there has only been one car-specific post in the whole section, and he just barely got in (Jim, you need an older car LOL-too new) !

I do not have an original GT40 (but I vintage race a replica GT40 sometimes and have to pretend not to speak English) and this is all my personal opinion and as such open to ridicule. Have I been in the sun too long ? Is the inclusive position too soft ?

 

[Fran Hall RCR]

Johan ...did I ever tell you I was related to Jim?
Too slow to race indeed....you soft Southern sunbather!!!!
When you are man enough to loan me your 962 to drive you can call me what you want...:

 

[Johan]

Fran, Jimminey Cricket ?
Fran, it sounds wrong when you call me a soft sunbather. PULEEZZZE !
Perhaps you would like to drive it when it has 24hours 1 minute on the clock
and pay for repairs if it starts to smoke !

 

[Ron Earp]

Johan, good post. With respect to all you folks about the "tag line on the forum" and numbers there - I didn't intend to "start" anything with that. I just slapped the forum up, put a short description, and wanted to see how it went. I've been busy of late and haven't paid it much mind to be honest. I changed it, better now? (just kidding, we'll figure it out so it isn't "agressive"). Or maybe not.

Got to run off to the plane and airports for many hours....

 

[Johan]

Thanks Ron, he does look like Jimminey Cricket doesn't he.
I have just realized that there is a whole page 1 that I have not read to this thread. OOPS.
Don S already covered a lot of my points. Sorry to be redundant. Nevermind...!
I do feel that removing the tagline numbers will make the section more interesting
over the years though. Perhaps replace it with
"We don't like you either"

 

[Jos]

I changed it, better now?

Much better !!!!!

 

[John Allen]

I think that some of the earlier comments about Continuation cars and their owners are worthy of a reply. Many people who buy them don't do so to gain the respect of other GT40 enthusiasts, but rather because they want to own and drive something which can give them an experience which is exceptionally close, identical even, to that achievable with the "real thing", whatever that is, without their having to spend extortionate sums on the "real thing". Personally, like most of us I too would be very happy to own a Superformance GT40, for the reason I have stated, and would be quite willing to describe it as a new Continuation GT40. As for calling it a replica... well, somebody once said to me that every car after the first of its type was a replica; thus, 102 was a replica of 101, and so on - where does that end?

I suspect that many who buy a Superformance are not tightwads, wanting something on the cheap; whilst some are unlikely to be able to afford a "real" car, others probably think that "real" ones simply aren't worth the money.

When Henry Ford was being encouraged to buy seriously expensive artworks with which to decorate the walls of Fairlane, he was presented with a catalogue, a portfolio of excellent reproductions of some of the works of the Old Masters. He was so pleased with the samples that he opted to keep them, rather than spend ludicrous sums on acquiring "real" pictures. I sympathise with his view, and think that what's good enough for old Henry should be good enough for me.

Somebody who absolutely does not need to do anything to gain the respect of GT40 enthusiasts is Alan Mann, who, as we all know, played quite a part in the "real" GT40 story. He has just taken delivery of a Continuation GT40, painted up in his old team colours of red and gold. Pictures of it can be found on GT40 News page 23. I think it is very significant that somebody who was so closely involved with works GT40s in 1966 should be satisfied with owning an original Continuation car, and his purchase adds immensely to the Continuation GT40's credibility. As with Henry Ford and his artworks, if such a GT40 is good enough for Alan Mann then it sure is good enough for me.

 

[Russ Noble]

John,

Nice to have the input of a noted authority such as yourself. Your comments are very valid.

The context of this thread though is to determine which cars are eligible for this "Original GT40s" Sub Forum.

I think here, we are (I am) interested in the exploits of the original race cars that actually made the history of the marque. That history and reputation which eventually led to the demand for continuation cars and also other replicas, look a likes etc.

I would like to see on here, old articles about original cars that actually made the history, their exploits over the years, what they are doing now, anything at all.

I do not think this Sub Forum should be cluttered up with continuation cars. The only point is, where is the cutoff between original and continuation? Clearly, personally, I feel 21st century built cars don't belong in this section. Earlier ones built in the 70's? Maybe they could be eligible.

However Allan Mann was part of the history of these cars and I would like to hear anything about him and from him and that would include his continuation car. So it's a case by case judgement. "We'll know them when we see them"

Not trying to be exclusive here, just harking back to what I thought was the intention of the Sub Forum. Others may disagree.

Cheers,

 

[wpeter]

Wow, for a sight where most guys are replica owners, your sure are a bunch of snobs.This question has been hashed and rehashed to death. I don't get it. Every one of these cars has been poked, prodded, disected and judged. And what for? We all know the cars that were never touched, built up or rechassised. The fact that you can name them proves that. They are documented in numerous books.
You will never get everyone to agree on this.

My sugestion is that if the car has a chassis number from the first batch of cars, 1960's, it should be considered an original car.

BTW, Alan, you are fighting a losing battle with the MK4 thing. That's like saying a new Mustang can't be a Mustang because it looks different. The MK4 has IDENTICAL suspension, engine and drive line as the MK2 and the MK2 is pretty much the same as a MK1.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I've just spent an hour reading this thread again so I could get it all in context.

IMHO. If we want a thread that discusses "original" cars their history and the exploits of those who raced and built them, then I think Malcolm has the simple answer, use Ronnie Spain's book as the bible.
Or as David succinctly put it, if built in Slough they qualify.

I don't think it is "snobbish" not to include "genuine" continuation cars that were not built or assembled in the 60's. There are plenty of areas in the forum where those cars can be discussed along with "genuine" replica's and turn key cars and kits.
My2c.

 

[Gary Kadrmas]

This section is not intended to verify or enlarge the value of any GT40 built in the 60s or later. I get the destinct impression that if someone can fit his/her GT40 into this section, it will make it more valuable, desirable, collectable.......bullshit. This area of this forum is to talk about original cars, and exchange information about past and present facts that identify a certain chassis.

Either Don or Ron needs to step up here and set the standards that we all live by, or drop the god damn thread. Period. Its time to quite pissing and moaning.:dead: