42 replies to this topic

[Tweddell]

in june 1969 i took this picture of the Kelleners-Jöst Ford GT 40, the DAZ (deutsch Auto Zeitung) sponsored car, badly burned out and obvouisly wrecked at Nurburgring outside-paddock. you can still see the DAZ decal at the rear .
i never saw this mentioned anywhere, even not in ronny spain´s Ford GT 40 book.
As some years later, the DAZ GT 40 was sold in Hamburg to a Business-man and converted with much effort to a road car, the existance of a replacement car seems to be the fact of it´s history.
at moment, i do not know, if there was any further entry of the DAZ GT 40 after this date, which then must be a second car.

[r.atlos]

Really strange - this car had finished 6th during the 1000km race on 01/06/1969 and ran already a fortnight later in Le Mans and on 12/07/69 in Watkins Glenn.

When you said "in June" my initial thought was that it might have been an accident during the 1000km race but seen the above timeline I think we could even exclude any accident in private testing.

Might any other GT40 which happened to have a DAZ sticker in the same place be a candidate ?

[r.atlos]

No mentioning when it came up for sale:



Source: DAZ - Deutsche Auto Zeitung N° 8 dated 20/04/1970

[Duc-Man]

I guess this is the car you are talking about.

The whole thing seems to be really mysterious. Kelleners/Jöst finished the race as 6th. Three laps behind the winners (Siffert/Redman - Porsch 908/2)

According to what I found out here:GT40.net
and here:classiccars.com
or here:QV 500 web-site

I get this picture:
The Ford had chassis GT40 P 1081 and appeared later that year in Le Mans (where they finished 6th as well) and in Watkind Glen (where the car finished 5th).

Sorry if I brought more questions up than I answered.

Frank

[r.atlos]

Is it not just a fake ? Where are chassis, engine or gearbox ? If your car burned during a race, the normal reaction should be to load everything into your transporter and to check quietly at home what could be salvaged for re-building your car. On the other side, had it been an on-the-verge-job of some tireless mechanics between practice and race, it would have been in the press - as tweddell rightly suggested.

Look at the door openings in the roof: You see tubes running on each side. They did not build rollcages in those days, so what were these for ? There are even more tubes in the cockpit area which I feel should not be there. And if someone removes the engine, why should he still leave what looks like the exhaust pipes so neatly in place ?

Has this been may be an empty mock-up in the colours of DAZ consisting of some sort of tubes to which GT40 panels have been attached ? The more I look at this picture, the more I feel that this might be the answer.

[SWB]

I think you are right, it is a fake.

I'm sure the records would show that 1081 was burned out, which they don't. I wonder if it was part of a special effect for a motor racing film that was cut with real race footage?

Steve

[Tweddell]

i do not think, it´s a fake, as in those days nobody could imagine a gt 40 replica car, the roof section is made of steel panel, too much efforts for a simple burning/accident movie cut (nothing mentioned in german magazines of such film project), so it is without any doubt a real gt 40 roof.
the quality of my scan is perhasp a bit weak, at original picture you can even see the rest of the koni-sticker at the left side .
the mentioned date of taking this picture is coming from my collection, as this picture is added to others from Hansa Pokal Rennen südschleife june 1969.
what i remember (after nearly 40 years now) is, that the rear exhausts were simple tin tubes, really looking like joke added items, the tubes inside were not really connected to the roof section and irritating, the front section and most of the bottom sections were missing or damaged material.

[Paul Rochdale]

Judging by the furriness of the right rear wing and the rear of the roof, the 'car' was made from GRP. Were real GT40s made from alloy or GRP? IMO it's a burned part mock up.

[Doug Nye]

Where's the steel-skinned monocoque tub?

DCN

[metalshapes]

I've seen pics once of one of the Camera Cars used to film mcQueen's LeMans Movie.

It was a GT40 with the roof cut off.

Maybe that's the roof?

[SWB]

too much efforts for a simple burning/accident movie cut

There is burnt debris around the 'car', and evidence that water has been used in the immediate area (note the rougher ground in the background of the photo). So it doesn't seem that it was a real GT40 that has been dumped in the back of the paddock. Also the crowd look interested in something that has just happened, not just passing by. Which leaves the question where did the entire interior and engine go in any genuine accident, and where did the extra tubes in the roof come from?

Steve

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by metalshapes
I've seen pics once of one of the Camera Cars used to film mcQueen's LeMans Movie.

It was a GT40 with the roof cut off.

Maybe that's the roof?

"Le Mans" was filmed in 1970. So no.

I'm of the same opinion as Lutz and Paul (and Doug?). The remains of some sort of fibreglass static exhibition car - there looks to be nothing ahead of the scuttle and it doesn't even seem to have an engine! In fact, possibly just a fibreglass body, given that it doesn't even appear to have any wheel hubs, let alone wheels!

[dbw]

there is front suspension...looks like 1967ish vw...in the rear one can see 1 [and a bit of the other] vw pan extensions to mount the transaxle-engine unit...and the shell is/was all grp..don't ask me how i know this stuff but i was a teenager in the 60's.

gotta love the flares on the rear.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Where's the steel-skinned monocoque tub?

DCN

Exactly. The GT40 roof panel is there but the rest of the steel monocoque chassis is missing -- as in it was never there. And as dbw noted, VW bits sticking out here and there. This is a mockup of some kind, purpose TBD.

[simonlewisbooks]

This was very much from the era of the Stewart-led safety crusade when experiments and demonstrations with new types fire fighting equipment were fairly frequent.

Perhaps it's a mock up that was part of such a demo' ?

Many such demos took place in front of cameras or watching crowds as PR for organising clubs ( "look how seriously we are taking this problem..") and equipment manufacturers - which may explain the crowd in the background and the location? You don't want the track surface being melted....

To me it looks like something put together from discarded/accident damaged bits, including the tail of the GT40, in the knowledge it was about to be torched.

[Tony Matthews]

Originally posted by Paul Rochdale
Judging by the furriness of the right rear wing and the rear of the roof, the 'car' was made from GRP. Were real GT40s made from alloy or GRP? IMO it's a burned part mock up.

The GT40 chassis was spot-welded steel, but body panels were glass fibre. Somewhere I have a photo of me supporting an engine cover on it's end, the light gently diffused through it - can't lay my hands on it ATM. The roof section of the chassis I would say is genuine, as that complex shape would be too much hassle to mock, but that's all, no lower chassis members, and as has been pointed out, the tubes holding it all together are the biggest give-away.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Paul Rochdale
Judging by the furriness of the right rear wing and the rear of the roof, the 'car' was made from GRP. Were real GT40s made from alloy or GRP? IMO it's a burned part mock up.

My memory is dim on this, but I think all the early GT40s had fibreglass bodies moulded using some rather treacle-like fire-resistant resin, which made them heavy. The stuff would burn eventually, but setting it alight was far from easy, and it kept extinguishing itself. The Wyer cars had 'normal' bodies which saved a lot of weight, and the later Mirages were lighter still. None of this adds much to the discussion of course, but I can remember seeing fairly convincing GT40 copies that could be mounted on a VW Beetle chassis, could this be one of those?

[Duc-Man]

A VW based kit-car. I originally thought i could have been a promotional car from the 'Deutsche Auto Zeitung'. Just one question then: where is the engine?
It should be visible through the opening at the back.
Maybe I e-mail Reinhold Jöst and ask him what he can recall from back then...

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Duc-Man
Just one question then: where is the engine?

It could be in there, but you'd hardly see it in that pic. VW based special seems the most likely explanation to me.

[metalshapes]

Originally posted by kayemod


It could be in there, but you'd hardly see it in that pic. VW based special seems the most likely explanation to me.

I doubt that.

I'm pretty sure I see the forked part of the VW Pan that the Transaxle bolts to.
( it would not be visible with the Transaxle in place, and the Engine bolts to that )

Also, the Bug based GT40 Kit Cars I've seen had extended rear bodywork to create room for the engine at the back

It looks like a mock up to me, using some real GT40 parts, and a Bug Pan.

[HistoricMustang]

Does this help? From Kit Car Magazine.

Henry



The first 1964 Ford GT prototypes were lovely but lethal. The body had no tail spoiler and the nose was bereft of a spoiler or special shaping that could have produced needed downforce. However, photos of the upcoming challenger had been flooding automotive magazines ever since the first mock-up was completed, so every car nut on the continent knew what it would look like. Fiberfab was a fledgling kit car manufacturer launching a small sports car based on VW running gear, and they figured the new Ford GT had styling that enthusiasts would crave. The Fiberfab Aztec came out in 1964 and, although not an exact replica, it mimicked the lines of the first Ford GT. The Aztec was a huge success by kit car standards, with hundreds, perhaps thousands, sold. They are seldom thought of as Ford GT replicas, since few today remember the first Ford GT prototypes before they were updated.



An original 427-powered Mk II (front) shows how much shorter it is than the "new" 2003 Ford GT.
When the Aztec began to fade in popularity, Fiberfab replaced it with an upgraded version, the Aztec II. This looked a little more Ford GT-like, with a tail spoiler and a longer nose. They followed with an all-new car called the Avenger. This wasn't a Ford GT replica, but was heavily influenced by it. The Avenger was sold in various versions based on VW or Corvair power, and there was even a V-8 model with the same body called the Valkyrie. Thousands of Avengers/Valkyries were sold in the 1970s.

Kellison built the first semi-accurate clone of the Ford GT in the mid-1960s. Called the GT40K, it wasn't exact but looked fairly close. Most were built to go on VW floorpans, but a few came with tube frames mounting V-8s bolted to Corvair transaxles. GT40Ks were built until the early 1970s. Very similar kits were sold at the same time by Sports Racing Equipment (as the Sebring Mk III) and the Scorpion Motor Company. Kellison, SRE, and SMC were all located in California.



The 2003 Ford GT kept the feel of the original, but added a modern aluminum chassis and supercharged engine.
The development of Ford GT replicas (and other mid-engine V-8 kits) was slowed by the lack of suitable transaxles. In the 1960s, the best box came from the Corvair, but it was difficult to mount and could only hold about 300 hp. Later, Porsche 911 and 930 gearboxes were modified so that they could be turned around, but the stock ratios weren't ideal for a V-8 engine. Also, having them modified for mid-engine use wasn't cheap. The Porsche 914 gearbox was already set up for mid-engine use but wasn't very strong. The other choice was the beefy ZF transaxle installed in Panteras. (The last original Ford GT Mk Is had used a different, sequential ZF gearbox.) In the 1980s, the Pantera boxes could be bought out of wrecked cars and were later put back into production. In the early 2000s, some GT kits used Audi transaxles, but there were durability problems. The Audi transaxles are seldom seen today. Many English kits used the Renault 30 transaxle, but parts for this unit were scarce in America. Today, the Porsche and ZF gearboxes are still available, as is an expensive replica of the Ford T-44 gearbox.

[HistoricMustang]

Gentlemen, I put this question to some friends and this is what came back. So perhaps?

Henry



Edit: It looks like the photograph came from this link: http://autohistory.blog.hu/

[McGuire]

The mystery car is absolutely not a Fiberfab. They were totally different bodies with only a passing resemblance to a Ford GT, with different shut line locations etc. The Fiberfab shell that most nearly resembled the Ford GT was the Valkyrie/Avenger but it had a pronounced (and awkward) kickup over the rear wheelhouse.

But the Nurburgring car uses an actual steel Ford GT roof stamping and a real Ford GT tail section -- or a very close copy of one at any rate. From what I can see the thing was never intended to run or drive at all. It's a mocked-up pushmobile of some kind. Who knows what for, though I really like Simonlewisbooks' theory that it was a fire safety demo. Seems quite plausible.

[David Birchall]

Originally posted by Tweddell
in june 1969 i took this picture of the Kelleners-Jöst Ford GT 40, the DAZ (deutsch Auto Zeitung) sponsored car, badly burned out and obvouisly wrecked at Nurburgring outside-paddock. you can still see the DAZ decal at the rear .
i never saw this mentioned anywhere, even not in ronny spain´s Ford GT 40 book.
As some years later, the DAZ GT 40 was sold in Hamburg to a Business-man and converted with much effort to a road car, the existance of a replacement car seems to be the fact of it´s history.
at moment, i do not know, if there was any further entry of the DAZ GT 40 after this date, which then must be a second car.

Worth reading this again. Either Tweddell is having us on (At Christmas!!) or there was some function served by this burned out wreck. There appears to be the remains of front drum brakes....

[Cynic2]

Originally posted by McGuire
. . .

But the Nurburgring car uses an actual steel Ford GT roof stamping and a real Ford GT tail section -- or a very close copy of one at any rate. From what I can see the thing was never intended to run or drive at all. It's a mocked-up pushmobile of some kind. Who knows what for, though I really like Simonlewisbooks' theory that it was a fire safety demo. Seems quite plausible.

The fire safety demo does make sense. The only other possibility I see is a mockup show car for sponsor use, similar to the cars NASCAR teams create. (As I recall, the Al Unser '87 Indy winner was a show car, in a mall somewhere, when it was recalled to the Speedway by Penske.)

Andy Evans' Scandia team had at least one fake Ferrari 333SP in the mid-90s for display use, using a welded-up tube frame, spare body panels, and some sort of interior. It was well done, and from a few feet away could pass for a real car. Still doesn't explain the fire, though (unless it was a VERY disgruntled sponsor?).

Will you be in Florida this year? I might be passing through, and we could reprise the steak dinner.

[Jean L]

In the same spirit,I remember a mockup show car BRM P160 or P180 Marlboro for Racing Car Shows in the mid 70s.A mix of fake and real parts.

[Tweddell]

hello ,
i did not startet this thread including this mysterious picture as some kind of chrismas joke, and i pulled out the old negatives from this, the picture was definitivly taken in 1969. the remains were pictured on the car parking place in the back of the old big grand stands at nürburgring. the people around were not spectators from some fire demonstration, as the remains, esp. the roof section, were already a bit rusty.
the DAZ sticker at the back , exactly in position of that one of the DAZ sponsored GT jöst-kelleners car makes no real sense for a simple demonstration.
the vw beetle parts seem to be some scrap parts, here collected together with others and some remains of the DAZ car.
so my opinion is, that DAZ car really had a severe fire damage, cutting off the destroyed parts and putting them to the other rests for clearing of the junk.
you definitivly can exclude a replica (as complex roof section is genuine gt 40 , tail is definitivly genuine DAZ GT 40 remains) or demonstrator car, as we are in 1969, and the career of DAZ GT 40 was just at its beginning.
so perhaps the kelleners jöst car hit a severe fire damage ( obviously engine bay ) in its early life, beeing repaired just in time for the following entries, or a second car (john wyer delivering) was beeing used by DAZ team, not uncommon in those days, to keep one running in case of any accident.

[SWB]

so my opinion is, that DAZ car really had a severe fire damage

But even if the remains had been dumped and somebody had playfully assembled them in a rough order to look like a car, it still doesn't explain the extra tubes that seem intergral with the roof, nor the other attached girders inside the wreck, nor a complete lack of documentation of a real GT40 wreck. The only GT40 bits seem to be a roof section and a tail section, which do not make a car.

There were enough repaired GT40s around for somebody to have spare roof, tail etc that were no longer usable, and rust appearing on burned steel can appear within hours, not just days or weeks, so I don't think that stands up as dating evidence.

Steve

[lanciaman]

All the bits look to have been dumped on a large sheet of cardboard or some such material. The "car" was not towed to this spot. The right tail pipe appears to have been screwed to a cross pipe; a possible brake drum at left front; no signs of any of the pieces you would expect to be left behind in a fire (e.g,. no instrument panel or wires, no sign of seats or sills).

And no sign of the monocoque.

It's either a show car caught fire or a collection of junked bits waiting for the trash truck, or both Every Big Time racing team has show cars, rolling chassis cunningly put together to look almost authentic even at arm's length. Perhaps a shop accident lit this one up...?

[r.atlos]

Erich Bitter had planned a demonstration for the new Nomex race suits that he offered through his race and rallye equipment shop for Friday evening before the 1000km race (30/05/1969). This demonstration took place despite the absence of its organiser who had suffered a bad crash during Friday morning practice in which Erich had already unvoluntarily proven the efficiency of Nomex race suits.

Chapter and verse from Sport Auto N°5 of July 1969 for those amongst you reading German:



Now, what we still ignore is whether or not this GT40 remains had anything to do with Bitter's demo. tweddell says that he thinks he has taken his picture around the Hansa-Pokal. That took place on 29/06/1969; had these remains come from the Bitter demo they would have been lying there for a month by then.

One of the reasons why German magazines did not report too much about the Kelleners / Joest GT40 is that DAZ tried to break into a market which was virtually held by two publications only in those days, namely "Auto Motor & Sport" (ams) and "rallye + racing" (r+r). Motorbuchverlag Stuttgart (ams) had only just launched a "Germanized" version of the French "Sport Auto" to counter the success that r+r had with its stronger orientation towards motor sport. No surprise that most mags passed the efforts of Kelleners / Joest under silence.

The other problem is that 1969 issues of DAZ are rarer than hen's teeth which makes it extremely difficult to look up details.

[McGuire]

For reference, this is what a Ford GT steel monocoque looks like. It does not appear that our mystery car ever had any of this structure, only the one-piece roof stamping, which in this case is braced in position by some steel tubing.




On the original Ford GT the roof panel is integral to the monocque, fastened into the structure with dozens of individual spot welds. It would be very impractical (and illogical) to separate the roof panel from the monocoque in the field. It also seems very implausbile that the chassis would simply disappear in a fire while leaving the roof stamping intact on its original panel seams. The only reasonable conclusion is that this "car" never had a Ford GT monocoque under it. It's a mockup/pushmobile/show car/demo of some kind.

Non-functional show cars were commonplace even back then, though the execution has been better. For example, when the Andretti/Bianchi Ford GT MK IV was wrecked at LeMans in '67, Holman Moody repaired the steel monoque with plywood, fiberglass, and bondo and repaired/replaced the fiberglass bodywork. It was not driveable in this condition, barely roll-able actually. Repainted in red and white livery to mimic the winning Foyt/Gurney car (in its '67 LeMans it was originally copper/white) the car was then sent out on the show-car circuit. However, this show car was based on a complete, actual Ford GT, which in my opinion our mystery car never was.

[Tony Matthews]

Originally posted by McGuire
For reference, this is what a Ford GT steel monocoque looks like. It does not appear that our mystery car ever had any of this structure, only the one-piece roof stamping, which in this case is braced in position by some steel tubing.

I was going to post this illustration myself, having drawn it many years ago - my copy is, however, too poor to be worth scanning! Could the central roof section/rear bulkhead be from a write-off? I still think the whole thing is a mock-up, the high horizonal tubes would not permit entry to the cockpit, I think they are there just to hold all the bits together. -

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Tony Matthews


I was going to post this illustration myself, having drawn it many years ago - my copy is, however, too poor to be worth scanning! Could the central roof section/rear bulkhead be from a write-off? I still think the whole thing is a mock-up, the high horizonal tubes would not permit entry to the cockpit, I think they are there just to hold all the bits together. -

Thank you for so graciously allowing the illustration to appear here. If I erred in posting it I sincerely apologize. You do beautiful work.

I totally agree that the mystery car is a mockup for some purpose. I could only guess as to the origin of the Ford GT roof panel -- could have been from an accident, partial or total, or one replaced due to cosmetic damage in shop or shipping, or it could be a new replacement pressing via Ford-FAV or Abbey Panels.

The important thing to note, I think, is that there are only two visible components which are actual Ford GT pieces: the roof panel and (possibly/probably) the tail section. The rest of the assemblage is decidedly not Ford GT.

[Tony Matthews]

Originally posted by McGuire


Thank you for so graciously allowing the illustration to appear here. If I erred in posting it I sincerely apologize.

No problemo, Mr McGuire, the drawings were done for Ford to illustrate the Owner's Manual, back in the mists of time, not my copyright.

I think we agree about the wreck in the photo, so we must be right! Best regards TM

[Tony Matthews]

Here is the photo of the early type GT40 fibreglass nose moulding, my memory of the sunlight filtering through it is sadly wrong, it was just Jim Allington's flashgun creating a sparkly, somewhat artistic effect!

Edited to add:- Taken at Ford Advanced Vehicles, Slough.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Tony Matthews


Here is the photo of the early type GT40 fibreglass nose moulding, my memory of the sunlight filtering through it is sadly wrong, it was just Jim Allington's flashgun creating a sparkly, somewhat artistic effect!

Edited to add:- Taken at Ford Advanced Vehicles, Slough.

I'd heard about those early GT40 body mouldings, made in Detroit or somewhere nearby, but I'd never seen one, it must have weighed a ton, no sunlight could ever filter through it. It's another example of the way that Ford corporate thinking almost crippled the programme before it got started, much like the spot welded steel monocoques they insisted on. Eric Broadley wanted aluminium of course, but was overruled, his later T70 was pretty much what he'd wanted the Ford to be, but he couldn't convince the 'suits', though he wasn't really complaining as he got a nice new factory out of the deal. I'm guessing a little, but I'd say that moulding pictured was made from pre-preg dough material in matched male/female moulds, probably metal and heated, just like contemporary GM Corvette bodies in most respects, and totally unsuitable for racing car use, I doubt if anything like that ever got much beyond early track tests. The earliest UK made bodies I saw were still very heavy 'conventional' fibreglass made by hand in the usual female moulds. Ford corporate thinking struck again in that they insisted on meeting US passenger car regulations as regards flammability, or at least that's the story that went around. This meant that these mouldings were roughly double the weight and thickness of what everyone else was using. Eventually of course, they saw the light and copied the opposition, but what did GT40s weigh in racing trim? they must have shed an awful lot of weight during early development.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by kayemod

It's another example of the way that Ford corporate thinking almost crippled the programme before it got started, much like the spot welded steel monocoques they insisted on. Eric Broadley wanted aluminium of course, but was overruled, his later T70 was pretty much what he'd wanted the Ford to be, but he couldn't convince the 'suits', though he wasn't really complaining as he got a nice new factory out of the deal.

The suits were right as I see it. The choice of steel for the Ford GT monocoque was entirely appropriate. Go With What You Know. At that time Ford was the largest builder of steel bodies of unit construction in the world, having originated a highly sophisticated mainframe program for their design and development. The Ford GT represents the earliest application of such advanced tools in racing, a historic first. When Ford ultimately determined that aluminum was required for the Mk IV GT monocoque, it innovated with honeycomb panels, not copying Broadley's direction but taking an entirely new path.

Also, the Ford GT was designed with one purpose: winning the 24 Hours of LeMans. It was an endurance racer, where consistent performance and dependability trump ultimate light weight. The Lola T70 was a sprint racer. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the Ford GT was one of the greatest endurance racers in history, winning LeMans four times in a row. The Lola T70? Meh. Another face in the crowd.

[McGuire]

Here is a website that manages to show much of the detail of the Ford GT steel monocoque:

http://www.racingico.../gt/process.htm

[Tony Matthews]

Originally posted by McGuire
Here is a website that manages to show much of the detail of the Ford GT steel monocoque:

What a fascinating set of pictures! GT40 - my all-time favourite big sports-racer. Here is my one small addition, left-rear corner detail, my delicate hands holding upper and lower wish-bones in place for Jim. the spot-welding is very visible. I have no more contemporary GT40 photos, as an enthusiastic 20-odd year-old I was happy to have a couple of shots that included bits of me!

[HistoricMustang]

Originally posted by McGuire
Here is a website that manages to show much of the detail of the Ford GT steel monocoque:

http://www.racingico.../gt/process.htm

What a wonderful web site. Has there ever been a more iconic "American" race car?

Henry

http://www.racingico...m/gt/finish.htm

[David Birchall]

Originally posted by HistoricMustang


What a wonderful web site. Has there ever been a more iconic "American" race car?

Henry

http://www.racingico...m/gt/finish.htm

Are you trying to stir things up Henry?

[Martin Roessler]

Originally posted by McGuire
Here is a website that manages to show much of the detail of the Ford GT steel monocoque:

http://www.racingico.../gt/process.htm

..what happens to the original parts that have been replaced? do they end up in the bin?

[Tony Matthews]

Originally posted by David Birchall


Are you trying to stir things up Henry?

I decided not to rise to the bait!