Jump to content


Photo

Ford GT40


  • Please log in to reply
221 replies to this topic

#101 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 March 2000 - 06:37

"I would have called him a sadistic, sodomistic, necrophiliac, but that would have been beating a dead horse.--Woody Allen from "What's Up Tiger Lilly".

Joe is bad for the blood pressure, guys, but he does force us to do our homework. The problem is, the doing is all in vain. C'mon, Joe, get off the clay model bullshit, and please admit that the Ford GT is a Lola derivative before half this BB suffers stokes from frustration at your intransigence. It won't hurt, I promise, and you will stand taller in all our eyes. We never said you were wrong; the book was.

Advertisement

#102 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 81,913 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 11 March 2000 - 06:48

"Intransigence?"
Why not tell him to compromise, then his level of necrophilia will be substantially reduced?
Got to agree, Joe, you read the wrong books!

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

#103 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 11 March 2000 - 08:16

Nobody has been able to answer my question posted above nor has admitted that they haven't seen the 3/8th scale clay model (that was the original GT40 design study) nor has anyone identified what the first GT40 that raced in 1964 looked like by identifying the number that the car raced with. So no dice guys. I photocopied a picture of the Mustang I prototype then used white-out to add a roof and A-pillar. Guess what? It looks exactly like the 3/8ths scale model that was the original design study and even though some of the features weren't included from this model on the first GT40 (ie. the doors were to open upward instead of how conventional doors open--this was outlawed by rules and the nose was reshaped to include built in lights instead of pop-up headlights that were thought to be impractical) the design of the body and shape of the car still look extremely close to the original clay model design study and the Mustang I prototype. If the Lola GT were a rebadged Lola then it should have at least something in common with it other than the rear suspension that it had which was pretty standard on endurance sportscars at that time.

Aerodynamics and body designs are a more unique and identifiable to a specific car anyway so the 1962 Mustang I prototype still stands as the car that spawned and served as the lead in for the Ford GT40 if you see and have all the information that is available and have an objective mind. The Lola GT was a bigger, more advanced car than the Mustang I prototype and Ford used it to test different components out for the GT40 program because 1) it used a Ford V8 engine, 2) it had actually raced and 3) had similar characteristics to what they wanted the GT40 to be (ie a wider wheelbase). The bottom line here is that Ford expedited their GT40 program by tapping Eric Broadley's knowledge not by copying his Lola GTs. Because I cannot find anything that was carried over from his cars that was unique.

Fast One, in this research I found that NASCAR driver Dick Hutcherson placed third co-driving with Ronnie Bucknam in a Holman and Moody prepared Ford GT40 Mk II at the 1966 Le Mans 24 Hours--the first time he had ever seen this track. I thought you said those NASCAR boys couldn't turn right? Not bad for a midwest dirt track stock car driver, huh?



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-11-2000).]

#104 buddyt

buddyt
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 March 2000 - 08:52

There was another driver in a GT 40 that was prety fair at turning left A J Foyt. This is off the top of my head, but I remember a story that he and Gurney were not to interested in the lemans 24 hour race and had decided to go out run a hard pace, blow it up, and catch the next flight home but old pushrod motor never broke.

------------------
"Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"

#105 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 March 2000 - 09:22

Joe, you are beyond help. Did you read any of the posts I and others made. There weren't ant Ford employees that even worked in any significant capacity at FAV. Or are you going to tell us next that the GT-40 was really developed in Detroit and that FAV was there just to throw everyone off the scent. Well, you're good for a laugh, anyway...

As for NASCAR guys turning right, I never said they couldn't do it, I just said they can't do it well. Endurance racing , at least in those days, was done at a fairly languid pace. The idea was to be consistent, not fast. Put Jeff Gordon in an F1 car and you will get an unforgettable demonstration of just how low in the food chain NASCAR driver's are.

#106 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 March 2000 - 09:22

Hey Joe,
The horse won't die!!!!
Ford didn't copy the Lola GT.
Ford took a Lola GT and put a Ford engine in the back, then put on some horrible body work and tried to go racing. They failed.
Enter Eric Broadly, Carroll Shelby and others, who knew how to make a racing car work and just like magic - GT40.
Ford had a thousand sports car drawings, models, treatments, theories, guesses, et al.
starting in 1960. But never and I repeat never was the Mustang 1 ever considered to be anything but a concept car for the auto shows and the cover of "Popular Science".
As far as numbers and pictures and white out.
The GT40 concept predates the Mustang 1, so how could the Mustang be the inspiration??
THE HORSE IS BEGGING FOR MERCY!!!!!

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

#107 f li

f li
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 March 2000 - 11:17

Joe Fan,

I've spent three hours with G. Bush (you remember him - former Directory of CIA). Your take on the GT-40 is correct! Its roots are far deeper into Ford than that Mustang I. Unfortunately, the rest is classified and I'm not allowed to comment further. If I do otherwise, they'll shoot me.



[This message has been edited by f li (edited 03-11-2000).]

#108 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 11 March 2000 - 19:24

Fast One, Roy Lunn designed the Mustang I prototype and served as a manager at FAV for the GT40 program. The GT40 body styling was still done in the U.S. by Ford's sytling department, not at FAV in Slough, England. It states in the book about the first GT40, "The body was designed in the USA and a clay master shipped to England, where few changes were made before moulds were taken for the glassfibre panels."


BANG! BANG! I just killed the horse and a bitch named Lola who was riding him.

#109 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 March 2000 - 21:14

I'm glad I didn't pay $50 for that book, because it is dead wrong. And Joe, Roy Lunn was British...

Who wrote this book anyway? I want to make sure I never get anything by them. Joe. I have a pretty enomous library, and I'm here to tell you, not everything you read is true. It all depends on the quality of the research, and the story your book is adhering to, was recognised to have been created by Ford's PR department AFTER the Fords finally won at Le Mans. So you were hosed.

The horse is back up, and Lola is laughing her ass off at you...


#110 karlcars

karlcars
  • Member

  • 665 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 March 2000 - 21:47

A quick look at my book "Inside the Fastest Fords" reminds me that I said that the Mustang I (the V-4-powered car) was "rightly placed at the root of the Ford GT family tree." This was the work of ex-Jowett man Roy Lunn who was the main architect of the GT40. The latter did in fact evolve in design from the "Mustang" prototype, which was built in California for Ford by Troutman and Barnes. The Lola GT served only as the link that led to a business relationship between Broadley and Ford; the GT40 was a completely new and different design. Broadley's role was to provide his engineering and production facilities to Ford during the GT40 project. Almost certainly to his frustration he was not active in all aspects of the car's design, although he and Len Bailey are credited with the design of the chassis tub. Some details of his coupe were adopted such as the door that extended up into the roof. Existing Lola GTs were indeed used to try out some features such as the radiator ducting and the completely new Ford-designed suspension.

------------------
Karl Ludvigsen


#111 SteveB2

SteveB2
  • Member

  • 228 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 15 March 2000 - 02:12

Keir,

When you said that Ford never edesigned a race car of their own, I started wondering about the Probe GT's that raced in the IMSA GT class in the mid-80's. The front engined one was awful, but I liked the second more conventional design. I thought Ford SVO developed them in-house, but I could be wrong. I don't recall another firm being involved.

S.

#112 karlcars

karlcars
  • Member

  • 665 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 March 2000 - 02:42

The front-engined Probe GT was built for Ford by Zakspeed in Germany. It was a design that we at Ford had rejected for use in Europe at the time and that Mike Kranefuss grabbed for IMSA racing. Only now has Panoz demonstrated that some aspects of the idea might not have been too bad!

I believe -- but I'm not certain -- that Zakspeed may also have been involved in the later Probe.

#113 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 March 2000 - 03:35

SteveB2,
Karl beat me to the punch, but again I must
re-visit everyone to the American way of doing things.

If we didn't invent it , then we claim to re-invent it.

If we can't build it, then we pay someone to build it for us.

There is nothing wrong with doing things this way, it is the "Amerian Way".

The problems arise when individuals, who have been so bombarded with adman spin, don't, or won't admit the truth.
This whole thread is a perfect example.
The real beginings of the GT40 are so clouded in the omnipresent Ford family ego, that a clear picture may never be known.
My sources claim that the Mustang 1 can not be at the begining of the GT40 family tree,
simply because it was never intended to be a race car and that so many other real race car renderings preceded it. So, I guess this one will go on 4-ever.


------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

#114 f li

f li
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 15 March 2000 - 04:08

Keir,

Thank you for reopening this part of the thread! Karl, being the recognized expert that he is, inadvertedly stiffled the GT-40 thread.

But Aristotle was wrong! And Newton was wrong! (Note that I am not saying Karl is wrong, only that authority frequently prevents others from doing further research!)
So, if Karl will not take this as an insult, I would like to continue the discussion of findings.

Karl, I for one await your okay!

#115 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 March 2000 - 07:28

This isn't about being right and wrong.
Karl isn't wrong, I'm sure from his perspective that the Mustang 1 belongs
at the head of the GT40 family tree.
But the people responsible for putting the GT40 on the race track disagree. Karl, for his part, was more closely connected with the public relations part of the GT40, so
the facts he received were not always "The Facts". Hence, the conflict.
Ford has always played the public relations game very well, as have Honda, Ferrai, et al.
Back in the 60's, Ford wouldn't know a spaceframe from a spaceheater, so they went to those who did. Ford then cobbled up a number of concept car treatments(my source says, "hundreds")and Voila, the GT40 was
born. From a Lola, not from a clay model.
Ford's stuff just didn't work, chassis flexing, high-speed bodywork lifting, unstable at any speed. Most of this solved by the Lola chassis combined with Bruce McLaren and countless other drivers who knew what a racecar should look and feel like.
Ford for their part supplied the money.

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

#116 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 81,913 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 March 2000 - 14:09

Anyone got a photo of Mustang II so we can see where the lines of Mustang I went to?
Saw a model at the weekend, it was a prototype of the production Mustang, but many styling features carried over from Mustang I.
That's a bit closer to the truth, folks!

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

#117 Falcadore

Falcadore
  • Member

  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 15 March 2000 - 15:03

This whole subject brings to mind to similar versions of the same quote which I quite like, even if they do sound a little pompous. The modified one I heard first and later tracked down the original,

"Knowledge merely allows one to be wrong with historical precedent"

The Original quote -

"Logic, my dear, merely allows one to be wrong with authority"
spoken by Patrick Troughton in 1967 when playing the role of The Doctor in TV series Doctor Who from the story "The Wheel In Space" written by Gerry Davis and David Whitaker.

#118 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 31,816 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 15 March 2000 - 17:36



Debuted at USGP Watkin's Glen 1962 driven "at speed" by Dan Gurney. As far as I can ascertain, the Mustang II proto was a front engine study for the Falcon based road car.

[This message has been edited by desmo (edited 03-15-2000).]

#119 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 81,913 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 March 2000 - 08:40

Sorry, Desmo, that's Mustang I again, and it had already done the rounds of the shows by then, I think you'll find.
Mustang II from the same angle was just like a production 64 Mustang notchback, the front was somewhat like Mustang I.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

Advertisement

#120 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 31,816 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 16 March 2000 - 03:47

I guess I should have captioned the photo. At this point I figured everone would know that it was the Mustang I proto. I could of posted a shot of the M II proto, but it looks pretty much like the production car and seemed outside the scope of this topic. Thank you for correcting me about the debut, I may be guilty of spouting Ford PR "info". You'd think I'd know better at this point in the thread!

#121 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 16 March 2000 - 10:32

I'm with Kier and f li. The preponderence of strong evidence still suggests the Lola was the direct precedent, and the link to th Mustang I was a PR man's afterthought. I'll bet if the Fords had failed miserably at Le Mans, that story would have never been concocted.

#122 f li

f li
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 16 March 2000 - 11:02

Maybe the Ford GT-40 was an orphan prior to its success?

#123 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 16 March 2000 - 11:11

In heroic legend, the story of the heroes youth was usually added as an afterthought, AFTER the hero became such. Later writers or bards would add the lineage and great feats performed before the hero reached adulthood. From Herakles on, it was always done that way. The Ford GT was apparently the hero of 60s, as its "enfance" was added after its adulthood as well. Did you know that as the Mustang I The GT-40 slew dragons and sacked Troy?

#124 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 16 March 2000 - 12:16

Face are facts guys, an expert has spoken and the final score was: Joe Fan 1, Critics and Non Believers 1.

The GT40 was not a rebadged Lola as some suggested here, it was a completely different car that took a few things from both the Lola and the Mustang I prototype through its evolution.

The bottom line here is nothing stings harder than the truth. The truth has been presented with facts and with an experts testimonial, end of story, game over, finito, the fat lady has sung and case closed. Time to move on to something unless you like living in your "alternate reality."

Just in case I still have four more bullets left to shoot that bitch named Lola.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-16-2000).]

#125 f li

f li
  • Member

  • 299 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 16 March 2000 - 15:35

Joe,

As most F1 cars today look alike they must be descended from each other! As said earlier, Broadley was given parameters to be met. He used the phrase "a backward stab" to describe the car that resulted. Even Allen - "The GT-40" describes it as descended from the Lola.

#126 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 81,913 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 March 2000 - 18:08

Desmo -
if you have a picture of the front of Mustang II it would be good to post it so everyone can see where the lines were passed on.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

#127 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 81,913 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 March 2000 - 18:11

Desmo -
if you have a picture of the front of Mustang II it would be good to post it so everyone can see where the lines were passed on.
Joe Fan -
Don't you ever give up? Joe Fan 0, more knowledgable ones 50 would be more like it!
Carrying on the side scoops is hardly making the most of the Mustang I DNA!
And, as I mentioned before, Lola made big use of the Ford computers to get the geometry organise (or so the stories went at the time - hey! that might have been Ford hype too!)
Please note, all posters:
it is would HAVE - not would OF!
A little correct grammar doesn't go astray, and the sub-editors only pick you up if you're wrong.


------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

#128 Joe Fan

Joe Fan
  • Member

  • 5,591 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 17 March 2000 - 06:33

Ray and F Li, I have presented factual information to back up my claim if you go back and read my posts. Then Karl Ludvigsen who was once Vice President of Ford of Europe who also happens to be an established author of many motorsports books, wrote a book on fast Fords in 1970, posted his information back on the last page that supports much of what I was saying.

And then what does everyone do here? They still want to cling to their subjective opinions/spins/Ford PR conspiracies that they got that are from less informed authors/posters/homepage wannabe writers and then have the audacity to question a knowledgable one like Karl. Then Ray wants to ask if I ever give up?

Seriously, we are blessed to have someone of Karl Ludvigsen's caliber posting here on our forum. Don't be stupid and run him off.

#129 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 31,816 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 17 March 2000 - 07:12



Ray,
Here's the Mustang II proto. Sorry about the file size. You can see why I thought it didn't belong on a GT-40 thread.

#130 Keir

Keir
  • Member

  • 5,241 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 March 2000 - 07:16

Joe fan,
Spend some time in the army. On a very good day maybe 10% of the people are on the same page. The good old "need to know" principle.
Now, as I said, Karl more than likely got his information, from the PR end, that's where Karl worked. My sources are Chris Amon, Bruce McLaren, Mike Spence, Peter Revson, Dan Gurney, Phil Hill, Roy Lunn, should I go on????
Now I know you recognize the names. These were the guys who actually developed the GT40
and even though a few of the boys are no longer with us, there isn't one of the remaining people who were directly involved with the project who will say that the Mustang 1 was anything other than a project car, that at best, is very distantly related to the GT40 and was never intended to race.
Speaking of evidence, show me the spaceframe of the Mustang. You can't, it didn't have one!! But the GT40 did, because it got it from the Lola.

------------------
"I Was Born Ready"

#131 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 17 March 2000 - 10:43

Add John Surtees to the list. He joked in his autobiography about having to race a car he'd help develop (at the Lola end) while he was at Ferrari. Add the other writers I quoted before. Joe, it looks like we'd have a Mexican standoff, but we have most of the guns.

#132 notoriousdad

notoriousdad
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 18 March 2000 - 09:14

Quote

Originally posted by Joe Fan:
What a great sports car this was in the 1960's. A descendent of a Ford Mustang experimental car. Does anyone have any recommendations on good books about this car? I seen one today at Barnes and Noble bookstore titled "FORD GT40" but it cost $50 and it was a rather small book.

If anyone has any other comments to add about the Ford GT40 I would love to here them. I seen in the book above that the author felt the Mk IV version wasn't used as much as it should have and was in his opinion the better version. Does anyone know why the Mk IV version wasn't used that much in comparison to the other versions?




#133 notoriousdad

notoriousdad
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 18 March 2000 - 09:20

First of all, the little 4-cylinder Mustang had only one thing in commom with the GT-40 and that was they were both FORDS! It was developed from the LOLA design; however, it took on a very different nature. It was an American car, BUT, it had a lot of British 'talent' working on it's evolution. Somebody asked if Ken Miles was killed in a GT-40 Mk II? He died in a FORD J-car prototype.

#134 notoriousdad

notoriousdad
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 18 March 2000 - 09:42

Quote

Originally posted by Joe Fan:
For all non-believers (ie. GM fans, anti-Ford fans and non-Americans), if you haven't seen a picture of the original 3/8th scale clay model design study for the Ford GT40 or if you haven't seen a picture of the first GT40 to race in 1964 (if so then what number was it?) then end of discussion. No sense aruging or responding to fools or the jealous types.

Art, that Dodge Viper sure put a whipping on all those cars you mentioned at the Daytona 24 Hours race this year, eh? It is one thing to be fast but another to be fast and reliable.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-10-2000).]


The Rolex 24 at Daytona this year was terrible! Yeah, the VIPER's won, but what does that tell you, when a GT2 car wins this race overall? In the American LeMans series, this would never ever happen; however, mix in the France family (who eventually killed stock car racing) then look what you get? That series is going NOWHERE! Put your money on the ALMS and Don Panoz. Competitiveness BREEDS better racing; however, having one car faster, another team crying, the 'slower car' given then a 'competitive edge' and the once faster car now not competitive, and 'WHALAH' - you have NASCAR and the GRAND-AM series. No Thank You! I'll stick with the cars that run at Sebring, LeMans, etc.

#135 buddyt

buddyt
  • Member

  • 161 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 28 March 2000 - 09:17

Taken from the book titled "The Book of Ford-Powered Performance Cars" by Lyle Kenton Engel. Printed in May 1967. I quote "The Lola GT is of particular interest because it is not simply the grandfather or the kissing cousin of the now famous Ford GT40 but directly its father". The thread that wouldn't die.:)

------------------
"Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"

#136 Fast One

Fast One
  • Member

  • 600 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 28 March 2000 - 09:51

Let's hope Joe doesn't see this or we'll all have blood pressure problems again.

#137 Dennis David

Dennis David
  • Member

  • 2,483 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 28 March 2000 - 10:26

What will happen is his hair will grow back only to lose it all again! ;-)

------------------
Regards,

Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david

Life is racing, the rest is waiting

Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/



#138 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 28 March 2000 - 13:25

In the interest of keeping my sanity and keeping our collective blood pressures at reasonable levels, I am putting this thread out of its misery. All things must come to an end...

Nothing personal, but since I am on the road so much, I don't have an opportunity to check in as often as I would wish. Next...

------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,

Don Capps

Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…

#139 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,489 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 01 March 2006 - 23:45

Lets bump this one (I will blame it on Ray) to get input a few years later on the Lola, GT40, Mustang Concept connection.

Discussion is good, especially between the Colonies and the Motherland.

Henry

Advertisement

#140 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 81,913 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 02 March 2006 - 00:00

Oh, you shouldna done that!

#141 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,489 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 02 March 2006 - 00:45

Quote

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Oh, you shouldna done that!


If we believe this medium in which we communicate, then indeed the Mustang Concept began the GT 40 program.

From "Ford GT Racing Heritage". :cool:

Henry

GT40 Beginnings

Ford had a backup plan. While the Ferrari negotiations were underway, Dearborn brass took steps to create their own racing program, ultimately forming the Britain-based Ford Advanced Vehicles division. Through the 1962 Mustang concept, Ford had already developed a relationship with Roy Lunn, an Englishman who started his career at Ford of Britain but came to the United States in 1958.

Because Lunn and his team would ultimately develop the GT40, one can think of Mustang I, a mid-engined sportscar that spawned the classic production vehicle, as a precursor to GT40 in a philosophical rather than technical sense. Aluminum-bodied and lightweight, the two-seater was equipped with a 1.7-liter V-4 and some running gear from period Ford Cortinas. Aside from the mid-engined layout, it bore little resemblance to the Le Mans racers that would soon make Ford proud, but Mustang I was still essential to the GT40 program; it proved to Ford management that an international collection of engineers could form a successful product development team.

After working on the Mustang I, Roy Lunn, along with Ray Geddes and Donald Frey, turned toward the racing effort. They found that the "Grand Touring" car Ford conceived to win at Le Mans had much in common with the new Lola GT, a low-slung coupe developed by Eric Broadley in Slough, England, not the least of which was the American V-8 mounted amidships – a rarity for European cars of the time.

Displayed in January 1963, at the London Racing Car Show, the Lola GT was hardly complete, but it formed an excellent foundation for the development of the Ford GT40. Essential elements like the monocoque center section, the broad side sills (they doubled as fuel tanks) and the aerodynamic profile, made their way to the GT40, and Broadley, short on funds, was eager to join the Ford team.

#142 HistoricMustang

HistoricMustang
  • Member

  • 4,489 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:10

Well, no one took the bait. :drunk:

Just kidding as I wanted to bump this thread for some of the new members or non-members. The information in the thread was very rewarding for me.

Henry

#143 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,883 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 02 March 2006 - 15:53

sorry, to get it straight- those 4 pages are devoted to convincing Joe Fan that this car is more closely related to this car than this car...

#144 Bill Wagenblatt

Bill Wagenblatt
  • Member

  • 176 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 March 2006 - 16:15

Pete Lyons has been working on a history of the GT40 program for a number of years. As the book is to be published by SAE, I am assuming it will be very detailed on the technical issues associated with the GT40. I last talked with Pete at last years Monterey Historics and he still had a way to go on the book. Hopefully it will answer all (or most) of the questions on the GT40 program.

Bill

#145 ggnagy

ggnagy
  • Member

  • 261 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 03 March 2006 - 11:43

Quote

Originally posted by Wolf
sorry, to get it straight- those 4 pages are devoted to convincing Joe Fan that this car is more closely related to this car than this car...


The new Ford GT uses a pancake motor? :rotfl:

#146 KidOfPonyMaker

KidOfPonyMaker
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 04 August 2006 - 17:08

YES!!!!!!!!! YOU FOUND THE MISSING LINK! :clap: According to all the undercovering we have done..you are right.... also check out Witzenburg.... Dad.. Phil Clark... was involved with The Mustang ONE Prototype ... which I will be with ... in Birmingham... so you guys come see for yourself where this all got started..and there is a STORY BEHIND THAT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! May the TRUTH BE TOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Phil CLARK... he is NOT just the MAN behind the PONY... and you aren't the first one to realize this without even knowing the man.. My dad was awesome.. he died in 1968.... just think... just think if he had lived....................
Holly Clark

#147 KidOfPonyMaker

KidOfPonyMaker
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 04 August 2006 - 17:12

P.S.... I have the original drawings................. enough said.. oh..and Mark stuff too..........hmmmmmm yeap.. found all dad's notes in my grandmother's attic when I was 19... and all the notes and journals from his friends and fellow workers around the world........ so...where have you guys been all my life???? :love:

#148 PonysiteEd

PonysiteEd
  • Member

  • 117 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 04 August 2006 - 17:55

Hey, before you jump on us.
I hope Joe Fan is still around, if not we'd like to take over his role (and then maybe not), but Joe was on the right track and a good fellow fighting for his case.
Holly can add a missing link in this case. In fast Joe was not totally correct that Roy Lunn designed the Mustang I. According to what Holly found in her fathers notes and diarys and in the attic (which is a long story described in her book no. 1) Phil Clark indeed designed "his" Mustang long before Ford times (which is another story covered in book 1 and oncoming book 2) plus the pony emblem. Phil Clark was friend of Roy Lunn as well during his teamwork with Roy.
Acc. to the Nevada Shelby club site and proofs the first GT40 body was shown in the Ford studios on 23. Oct. 1963, a time when Phil travelled often between UK and the US according to a first studying of the notes.
We are just setting up a special section on this at the Phil Clark site, that I kindly edit for Holly (Phil Clarks daughter9, so you are invited to follow the research and contribute wherever possible.

Have a first look at http://www.ponysite....hclark_gt40.htm
Holly overtook me in my posting, since she was so excited to finally find all the controversy out there and having an opportunity to point to her Dad as the missing link.
Now allow us to let unroll some facts, however the proofs might end up in Hollys book II. More later and thanks Joe for taking the "shower" already. Be patient with us.
Wolfgang
Sorry for not introducing earlier, there was no more time :)
http://www.ponysite.de

#149 KidOfPonyMaker

KidOfPonyMaker
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 04 August 2006 - 20:37

Thanks FRIENDS!!! Yep.. I get a bit excited don't I!!! Ok..Ok... don't kill the messenger... I hope I can help...???? Thanks!

Holly Clark

The Kid of the Pony Maker!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#150 Tmeranda

Tmeranda
  • Member

  • 605 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 04 August 2006 - 21:36

Its amazing how much mis information there is in this thread. Some Facts:

Ford purchased the design from Lola after visiting both Lola and Lotus. Ford was already working with Lotus on their Indy project and felt that Colin was streached a little thin and wasn't the easiest guy in the world to control. Ford thought that Eric was much easier to work with.

The first Lola GT did have a chevy motor and was raced in Nassau by drivers like Penske, Foyt and others. It was owned by John Mecom.

Ford took the Lola design and redid it but grafted on a nose that looked like the Mustang prototype for PR. The nose didn't last long as it hindered handling.

The Gurney hump appeared on a Mark IV which was derived from the J car.

The J car as developed by Kar Kraft was a pig. It wasn't until the development was turned over to Shelby that it came right due to the test driving skills of Miles.

Miles should have won LeMans in a GT40 Mark II but Ford wanted all the running Mark II's to finish together in a 1-2-3 photo finish. They forgat the McLaren had started much further down the grid and therefore had actually traveled a greater distance than Miles due to the staged finish.

The winning 1967 car (Gurney Foyt) was actually titled a Holman Moody and not a Ford. Ford did this to avoid potential liabilty.

John Wier always thought that the GT40 was a better car than the Mark II's and Mark IV's as its smaller motor (5 liter) made it much more lighter then the 7 liters cars. But when Ford failed to win LeMans in their first two tries, John's opinion didn't matter anymore. It wasn't until Ford took their marbles home after winning in '66 and '67 that John floated to the top. He won '68 and '69 with the older design. Actually the same car won both races!