TYPO ALERT!!!! I meant to say "the CF spider would NOT negate the need for a roll cage"
A CF spider will noy keep the car off your head in an "Uh-Oh". It will give more strength than a fiberglass unit for entry/exit and shape retention.
Superformance
- Thread starter Wreckage
- Start date
TYPO ALERT!!!! I meant to say "the CF spider would NOT negate the need for a roll cage"
A CF spider will noy keep the car off your head in an "Uh-Oh". It will give more strength than a fiberglass unit for entry/exit and shape retention.
George,I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at in your posts but am not seeing it. After reading much of what you've posted I think the guys on this forum have been pretty good about summarizing things. You can get ANYTHING YOU WANT IF YOU'VE GOT THE MONEY. Power, looks, body material,etc. ANYTHING is feasible with RCR or Southern GT or dare I say other manufacturers. YOU need to make a decison get out your wallet and pull the trigger. Nuff said. Get on with it mate. Everyone on this forum will assist in any way they can once you make a choice and we will be very supportive whether you but a low budget GT 40 or a high end Jim Glickenhaus Ferrari P 4/5. IMHO you've been given enough info to get on with things. You just need to makea call, look at whats out there and move on it. Personally, Given your location and the fact that you have an RCR dealer close and email contact with headquarters here willing to assist I'd say give them a damn hard look and spend to your hearts delight. Not trying to be rude just kinda tired of all the hoop-la. Bit of a yawn at this point. Sorry.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
George -- I think it's about time somebody wrote you a reality check. Fran starts to in his e-mail, but he's way more polite than I am.
First of all, much of the performance achieved by the "hyper cars" you list comes from their sophisticated aerodynamics, chassis, suspension, wheel/tire technology and brake technology and the millions their designers spent on integration, testing and tuning of those sub-systems into an overall system that works harmoniously, safely and reliably. When I use the word "performance" I mean overall performance along all the dimensions: acceleration, top speed, cornering, braking, ride quality, reliability and safety. Any idiot can stuff a twin-turbo mega-motor in a Yugo and make it accelerate fast and fly off the ground with the next gust of wind. But that's got nothing to do with Enzos and Zondas. There is a lot more to those cars than engines.
Just for starters, you are not going to be able to achieve that kind of aerodynamic performance because if you did, when you were done the car would no longer look like a GT40. There's a reason those other cars don't even resemble a GT40: 50 years and millions of dollars of aerodynamic development by world class manufacturers and race teams.
As Fran suggests, power goes up as the third power of velocity. After about 100 hp/liter, engine costs go up as an exponential function of power. Chassis and brakes do the same. IOW, beyond the performance level of a "vanilla" 500 hp GT40 you are going to run into a brick wall cost function where every additional mph is going to cost you several times what the previous one did. This is not a linear business.
You clearly don't have the technical knowledge to specify the suspension and chassis designs needed. Who is going to do that for you, and how is that sophisticated automotive engineer with a professional racing background going to be paid for the months of labor it will take him to do that design and development work, have it all prototyped and tested, and then provide it to you in quantity 1?
Secondly, you describe your shift from '05 Ford GT to '66 GT40 as a cost savings. A "normal" '66 GT40 genuinely capable (barely) of 200 mph with 500 hp is going to cost you at least $100k.
The '05 Ford GT is only another $50K and already has performance comparable to your "hyper cars". So you changed directions entirely for the sake of $50,000. What you are saying you want to do (start with a '66 GT40, add CF bodywork, custom interior, "modify" for overall performance of an Enzo or Zonda) cannot be done for even twice what an '05 Ford GT costs. It is an extreme example of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The GT40 was a state-of-the-art racing car in the late 60s but by the mid-70s was a technically obsolete has-been, right down to the nuts and washers. Today it would be clobbered in a race with any number of street cars.
My upshot is this: it's clear you personally don't have the technical knowledge to achieve what you want to achieve. It's also clear that the cost of "buying" that technical knowledge is way out of your league if you think the difference in price between a GT40 and a GT is significant. And to be focussed on issues like whether the body is CF or something else shows a lack of appreciation of the difficulties of such a design and development exercise. You might as well tell us you want to turn a Cessna 172 into an F18 and you already know what the seat upholstery should look like.
So, if what you want is a car that looks like a GT40, has performance in the same general vicinity as an Enzo or Zonda, and that you can customize somewhat (i.e. redo the interior and significantly raise the power of the engine) there is really only one way to do that: buy an '05 Ford GT and then spend another $100k on it. With that money you can put whatever kind of headlights on it you want. And you might be able to out-drag the Zonda.
Forget the GT40; you can't afford the engineering it would take to do what you say you want to do. I don't even think it's possible simply for aerodynamic reasons. If you could, it would make more sense to buy an Enzo or a Zonda and modify that car to look like a GT40.
So, how about we move this thread to The Ford GT Forum?
If, on the other hand, you can start with the question "I have $X to spend, what would be the best way to spend the money solving the problems A, B and C that GT40s have?" it might drag this back to being a productive discussion about GT40s.
So, what are A, B, C and X?
(PS to Jimmy Patton: thank you.)
Last edited:
GMAN
Well said Alan
All the talk about CF panels ,you make these cars to light and they will handle worse due to lack of loading on the tyres.
If you want CF so you can tell your mates I HAVE CF PANELS then go for it but It may not make it faster.
Roof and doors I see safety advantages if that worries you.
It is a known fact that some cars go faster with weight in them.
Jim
Well said Alan
All the talk about CF panels ,you make these cars to light and they will handle worse due to lack of loading on the tyres.
If you want CF so you can tell your mates I HAVE CF PANELS then go for it but It may not make it faster.
Roof and doors I see safety advantages if that worries you.
It is a known fact that some cars go faster with weight in them.
Jim
Last edited:
Colin Chapman would be rolling in his grave
Colin had wings ,you want more weight you add more wing.
jim
Mike
Lifetime Supporter
I don't think the current line of questioning would go well there either. Is this thread for real?
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
Thanks for all that.
I was just trying to work out what is somethin doible and isnt due to 'inherant' design so to peak issues.
I know the Lambo Diablo could be capable of all that if the thing was fixed up underneath cause its Aeros are extremelly well. I mean theres 1 doing 410 km/h showing its very capable.
But wasnt thinking of spending 200 000 to get 1 to then spend probbably 200 000 to make it better underneath.
The GT40, looks awesome, n its a car built my way, which is awesome.
EIther way , RCR have been in contact with me, N I think they are probbably the 'best' bet I got achieving (as much as is possible without it being unrealistic) my goals.
They seem to understand race, they have built a GT40 that came in 3rd place at Lemans, etc... so if anyone can do it, I believe it is them.
So really, ive given RCR a vision of what im 'thinking' n they can make up the ingredients neccesary to achieve it while still being realistic obviously.
I was just trying to work out what is somethin doible and isnt due to 'inherant' design so to peak issues.
I know the Lambo Diablo could be capable of all that if the thing was fixed up underneath cause its Aeros are extremelly well. I mean theres 1 doing 410 km/h showing its very capable.
But wasnt thinking of spending 200 000 to get 1 to then spend probbably 200 000 to make it better underneath.
The GT40, looks awesome, n its a car built my way, which is awesome.
EIther way , RCR have been in contact with me, N I think they are probbably the 'best' bet I got achieving (as much as is possible without it being unrealistic) my goals.
They seem to understand race, they have built a GT40 that came in 3rd place at Lemans, etc... so if anyone can do it, I believe it is them.
So really, ive given RCR a vision of what im 'thinking' n they can make up the ingredients neccesary to achieve it while still being realistic obviously.
Just to set the record straight.
A Honeycomb cored Carbon Fibre monocoque chassis is far superior to any other form of chassis construction.
Its lighter, stronger, safer and stiffer and thats fact.
Thats why cars like the Bugatti Veron, McLaren M4-12C, Koenigsegg and TSC GT40 use this material.
Thanks
Andy
A Honeycomb cored Carbon Fibre monocoque chassis is far superior to any other form of chassis construction.
Its lighter, stronger, safer and stiffer and thats fact.
Thats why cars like the Bugatti Veron, McLaren M4-12C, Koenigsegg and TSC GT40 use this material.
Thanks
Andy
I guess I missed that LeMans!
Moderator, any chance of changing the tread title? Something like "Can I get a Hypercar GT40 for $12.95?
It does not really apply to "Superformance" and we have stayed out of this "debate".......
Last edited:
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
LOL at 12.95
Superformance build awesome as close to original cars as possible but that is not what I am actually after, n this thread has gone away from Superformance so if the title can be changed, its fine by me.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
A wise decision...
Rick, Keith....classic responses lads.
George, I'm never one to stop a person from dreaming but I'm getting a visual of a young Aussie lad (say of about 13-14 years old) tapping away on his keyboard having found this forum who's seeking info from owners of GT40's and other cars for something to do. If I'm right fair enough carry on lad I think we'll all be more receptive to that then someone who's lets say is wee bit older with champaign tastes but with a flat beer wallet.
George, I'm never one to stop a person from dreaming but I'm getting a visual of a young Aussie lad (say of about 13-14 years old) tapping away on his keyboard having found this forum who's seeking info from owners of GT40's and other cars for something to do. If I'm right fair enough carry on lad I think we'll all be more receptive to that then someone who's lets say is wee bit older with champaign tastes but with a flat beer wallet.
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
I was expecting about 150 000 - 200 000 for a car like this.
Problem ive just run into is to do with garbage australian rules to do with replicas. Apparantely I cant get it done that way cause it wont comply. Its gotta be totaly original or has to pass 2012 emisions-saftey standards AND its gotta be built here, if tornado or anyone builds it i wont get engineer certificiate here n thus will only be a track car. So unless I can work something out... this sucks
Problem ive just run into is to do with garbage australian rules to do with replicas. Apparantely I cant get it done that way cause it wont comply. Its gotta be totaly original or has to pass 2012 emisions-saftey standards AND its gotta be built here, if tornado or anyone builds it i wont get engineer certificiate here n thus will only be a track car. So unless I can work something out... this sucks
Another one of those ...is the glass half full or half empty situations..
The Le Mans result you mention went like this...
the car finished 26th overall out of 28 still running @ the 24 hour point.
It finished 17 laps down on the car that won its particular class,
It finished third in that class of which only four cars finished the event.
At race end it was 70 laps down on the overall leader and third last overall, only 28 cars finished the race.
The Le Mans result you mention went like this...
the car finished 26th overall out of 28 still running @ the 24 hour point.
It finished 17 laps down on the car that won its particular class,
It finished third in that class of which only four cars finished the event.
At race end it was 70 laps down on the overall leader and third last overall, only 28 cars finished the race.
Deleted...
Last edited:
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
