data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5b2d0/5b2d0d8c9c3222f8d2b11f9113c37e33dfa2814e" alt="Photo"
Ford GT40
#101
Posted 11 March 2000 - 06:37
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 06:48
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 08:16
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 08:52
------------------
"Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"
#105
Posted 11 March 2000 - 09:22
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 09:22
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 11:17
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 19:24
BANG! BANG! I just killed the horse and a bitch named Lola who was riding him.
#109
Posted 11 March 2000 - 21:14
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
Posted 11 March 2000 - 21:47
------------------
Karl Ludvigsen
#111
Posted 15 March 2000 - 02:12
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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 02:42
I believe -- but I'm not certain -- that Zakspeed may also have been involved in the later Probe.
#113
Posted 15 March 2000 - 03:35
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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 04:08
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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 07:28
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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 14:09
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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 15:03
"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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 17:36
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7f72/a7f722af07fff33b153f3b902ce46b8cb19d2e5a" alt="Posted Image"
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
Posted 15 March 2000 - 08:40
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
Posted 16 March 2000 - 03:47
#121
Posted 16 March 2000 - 10:32
#122
Posted 16 March 2000 - 11:02
#123
Posted 16 March 2000 - 11:11
#124
Posted 16 March 2000 - 12:16
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
Posted 16 March 2000 - 15:35
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
Posted 16 March 2000 - 18:08
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
Posted 16 March 2000 - 18:11
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
Posted 17 March 2000 - 06:33
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
Posted 17 March 2000 - 07:12
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67ea8/67ea8059f08bf4e60148091b7cfdc04ad152f445" alt="Posted Image"
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
Posted 17 March 2000 - 07:16
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
Posted 17 March 2000 - 10:43
#132
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
Posted 18 March 2000 - 09:20
#134
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
Posted 28 March 2000 - 09:17
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7d598/7d598922e7727208f06905c4673c6dad6eb25002" alt=":)"
------------------
"Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"
#136
Posted 28 March 2000 - 09:51
#137
Posted 28 March 2000 - 10:26
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
#138
Posted 28 March 2000 - 13:25
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
Posted 01 March 2006 - 23:45
Discussion is good, especially between the Colonies and the Motherland.
Henry
#141
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".
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c8077/c8077bd026c5e6cddde53c306a80c420c7a376f9" alt=":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
Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:10
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8093/e8093f53feab4b33b41604470cd899913da4e89a" alt=":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
#144
Posted 02 March 2006 - 16:15
Bill
#146
Posted 04 August 2006 - 17:08
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd55a/fd55a89ef94563e10f370e3fefdcbbde937c4f41" alt=":clap:"
Holly Clark
#147
Posted 04 August 2006 - 17:12
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9def3/9def3829712507c7c5368f6001738d9980d13f55" alt=":love:"
#148
Posted 04 August 2006 - 17:55
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
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7d598/7d598922e7727208f06905c4673c6dad6eb25002" alt=":)"
http://www.ponysite.de
#149
Posted 04 August 2006 - 20:37
Holly Clark
The Kid of the Pony Maker!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#150
Posted 04 August 2006 - 21:36
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!