48 replies to this topic

[TerryS]

For interest

 

10 Things They Got Wrong In Ford V Ferrari (msn.com)

[brucemoxon]

There are probably 10 things wrong with that article.

Chinetti and Hill winning Le Mans in Ferraris have the dates the wrong way around.

The first GT40 was really just a Lola, hell, nearly all the GT40 chassis came from Bromley.

Shelby certainly didn't 'come up with the brilliant design for the GT40 after jury-rigging some scraps of automotive materials on an airfield.' He developed the car, sure, but the design wasn't his.

Anyone else?

By the way, one thing that annoyed the life out of me in the film (out of many) was in the beginning, when they introduce Lance Reventlow and then ignored him for evermore. Why introduce him in the first place? Ugh. Also, two of the writers should have been my brothers-in-law, had their sister accepted my proposal. Sigh.


BRM

[sabrejet]

And I assume that Carol Shelby was Carroll's wife?

[Doug Nye]

"The first GT40 was really just a Lola, hell, nearly all the GT40 chassis came from Bromley..."

Ahem - nonsense.

 

DCN

[Bloggsworth]

I used to buy Style Auto from Motor Books and Accessories just off the Charing Cross Road, in one, there was a long photographic article about the construction of the first GT40, I can't recall any mention of Shelby in the article. They were expensive, but fascinating, unfortunately, it appears that my late wife threw them out without asking me - Arrgh.

 

 

 

 

 

Oops! Typnig errors...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 19 September 2024 - 16:48.

[kayemod]

"The first GT40 was really just a Lola, hell, nearly all the GT40 chassis came from Bromley..."

Ahem - nonsense.

 

DCN

 

If Bromley is altered to Slough Trading Estate, surely that's more or less correct?

[LittleChris]

Well Eric Broadley was born in Bromley so maybe a typo 😀

[Gene]

One omission is during the scene where they were telling Miles to slow down, Carroll Smith got into the car from the passenger side and told Miles,"They can't fire you for winning the race!"

 

Years ago Carroll Smith told me this during dinner bench racing chat, so I'm very inclined to believe it!

[2F-001]

Having read much of his written output, Carroll Smith is someone I’d like to have met; though whether he would have suffered, gladly, a fool like me, I don’t know…

[Tim Murray]

From the article in the OP:

In reality, two other Americans had taken home the gold before Shelby. Drivers Phil Hill and Luigi Chinetti won the 1949 and 1958 Le Mans races, respectively. While it's a glaring omission of these drivers from history, there's a clear reason why the movie's makers didn't want to include their names: Both claimed victory behind the wheel of a Ferrari.

Bruce has already pointed out that the dates for Hill and Chinetti are the wrong way round. This thread also now conclusively shows that Chinetti was not yet a US citizen at the time of his 1949 Le Mans win.

[Alan Baker]

If Bromley is altered to Slough Trading Estate, surely that's more or less correct?

If Slough Trading Estate is altered to Abbey Panels, Coventry, it would be more correct.

[rl1856]

The writers and producers missed a large opportunity to have created a better overall story, and a story that would have been more truthful, instead movie full of Hollywood clichés.  But some would say that a flawed movie is better than no movie at all.

[Doug Nye]

"Some events have been fictionalised and inserted for dramatic effect..."

 

I always happily give movie makers some leeway as long as they don't expect applause for all they do - otherwise what may well ensue is, indeed, insertion for dramatic effect. 

 

DCN

[Nigel Beresford]

If Slough Trading Estate is altered to Abbey Panels, Coventry, it would be more correct.

The cars were built in Slough. I don’t recall my dad commuting up to Coventry daily from Stanwell!

I do however recall 6 year old me being taken to see and sit in the first one completed, in Slough.

[Doug Nye]

Indeed but Lolas they were not, nor GT40s (as opposed initially to Ford GTs), and the chassis - apart from those of Lola design - never issued from Bromley. 

 

DCN

[Alan Baker]

The cars were built in Slough. I don’t recall my dad commuting up to Coventry daily from Stanwell!

I do however recall 6 year old me being taken to see and sit in the first one completed, in Slough.

They were assembled at Slough. The tubs were built in Coventry.

[Nigel Beresford]

Yes and no.

The tubs were made in Coventry. Other parts were made elsewhere.

But the parts were assembled and became cars in Slough.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 19 September 2024 - 17:21.

[Alan Baker]

Yes and no.

The tubs were made in Coventry. Other parts were made elsewhere.

But the parts were assembled and became cars in Slough.

I think that's what I said.

[john aston]

The main legacy of the film was to prompt angry men on the internet to say that Ken Miles was robbed of victory. Despite , I suspect , most of them never having heard of him before the film. And also ignoring the fact (as the title suggests)  that the focus at Le Mans is on the manufacturer , not the driver . 

 

The 1971 Le Mans film also has a legacy , two in fact . One is the imperative some middle aged men  feel to to buy Gulf branded kit (or even drive Gulf liveried cars) in the tragic belief that attractive young women will be impressed by their new plumage    The other is the cargo cult worship of the ...errr ...'KIng of Cool '  , Steve McQueen. Cult members are so devout that one of the even paid $984k for the great man's (used ) race overalls . With Gulf branding , natch. . There's a whole doctorate just waiting to be written  

Edited by john aston, 19 September 2024 - 17:40.

[FastReader]

For many years I've found the whole Steve McQueen, King of Cool thing very boring. I've always been much more interested in Paul Newman's involvement in racing which seemed to be less about self-promotion and came from a much more deeply seated love of the sport. He also actually raced at Le Mans, and nearly won the thing.

[Jack-the-Lad]

I’ve been hoping for years that we’d  finally reached Peak McQueen, and it feels like we might have, and none too soon.  The McQueen/Newman comparison seems inevitable and I find myself considering it whenever either name comes up. Certainly, there’s no question that Newman was superior at motorsport at a high level…the record indeed speaks for itself…although probably not as much a “car enthusiast” in private life as McQueen.  As to their acting, I think it’s a wash.  They both played pretty much to type, with McQueen’s movies and   roles perhaps being more appealing to men.  Both were hugely flawed men, and I’m not sure I’d want a son to be much like either of them.  

[WINO]

Both men may have been deeply flawed, but at least Newman did not have the unsavory reputation of being a wife beater.

[brucemoxon]

Whoops. My bad. I wrote that in a rush without checking properly. I should have said 'Lola cars' or whatever they were called at the time. 

 

I understand that nearly all the chassis construction was done via Lola. The only Ford chassis were the Mk 4s. Is that right? 

 

 

 

BRM

[opplock]

The main legacy of the film was to prompt angry men on the internet to say that Ken Miles was robbed of victory.

 

Those of us living in New Zealand at the time were deceived by bogus claims that Denny Hulme also drove the second placed car. 

[Glengavel]

I’ve been hoping for years that we’d finally reached Peak McQueen, and it feels like we might have, and none too soon. The McQueen/Newman comparison seems inevitable and I find myself considering it whenever either name comes up. Certainly, there’s no question that Newman was superior at motorsport at a high level…the record indeed speaks for itself…although probably not as much a “car enthusiast” in private life as McQueen. As to their acting, I think it’s a wash. They both played pretty much to type, with McQueen’s movies and roles perhaps being more appealing to men. Both were hugely flawed men, and I’m not sure I’d want a son to be much like either of them.

I can't find much evidence of Newman's flaws. He mostly avoided the usual Hollywood excesses.

[Glengavel]

Whoops. My bad. I wrote that in a rush without checking properly. I should have said 'Lola cars' or whatever they were called at the time.

I understand that nearly all the chassis construction was done via Lola. The only Ford chassis were the Mk 4s. Is that right?



BRM

Ford Advanced Vehicle Operations. I doubt Lola would want to be involved.

[BRG]

I can't find much evidence of Newman's flaws. 

 

Have you tried his salad dressing??

[Catalina Park]

The only Ford chassis were the Mk 4s. Is that right? 

 

 

 

The 68/69 winner was allegedly a Mirage chassis. (opens fresh can of worms)

[Alan Baker]

Whoops. My bad. I wrote that in a rush without checking properly. I should have said 'Lola cars' or whatever they were called at the time. 

 

I understand that nearly all the chassis construction was done via Lola. The only Ford chassis were the Mk 4s. Is that right? 

 

 

 

BRM

For those that were not around at the time maybe a little history lesson would help. This is from memory so the effects of anno domini may be apparent. When Ford decided to build a Le Mans car they (rightly or wrongly) decided that European racing expertise would be required. As this could not be Ferrari it more or less had to be a British outfit. Ford settled on Lola, partly because it had built the Lola GT with a Ford V-8 engine which was very much the sort of car Ford had in mind. Thus Ford employed Eric Broadley on an exclusive contract and work began at the Lola works (really little more than a shed) in Bromley. The outfit that Ford set up was Ford Advanced Vehicles, headed by John Wyer who was tasked with finding more suitable premises for the programme going forward. Thus a factory on the Slough Trading Estate was secured but as FAV had no legal status in the UK it was in the name of Lola Cars Ltd and in the early days suppliers were paid via Lola's bank account. The first cars were assembled in this factory but Eric Broadley became increasingly disenchanted with his lot and decided to get out and return to making Lolas. He thus informed Wyer that he was leaving the project and taking the factory (which was in Lola's name) with him, so Ford would have to make alternative arrangements. Thus Wyer had to find a new factory which turned out to be elsewhere on the Slough Trading Estate. Incidentally, Lola chassis numbers included letters indicating where the cars were built, thus Bromley cars had BR prefixes and Slough cars SL. 

To throw another spanner in the woks, not all Ford GTs were assembled at the two Slough Factories. In 1965 Ford decided to bring Alan Mann Racing into the programme and as Mann and Wyer couldn't stand each other Mann took delivery of five tubs direct from Abbey Panels for assembly at his Byfleet works with as little input from Slough as possible. The first two of these were given completely different chassis number to Slough products, AM GT-1 and AM GT-2 and were built up to a lightweight specification with aluminium bodywork. They raced at Sebring in 1966 in the hands of G.Hill/Stewart and Gardner/Whitmore without success and then appeared at the Le Mans Test Days with the same drivers. During the weekend both Hill and Stewart tried a Shelby Mark II and told Ford they preferred it so Ford told Mann to send the other three tubs to Shelby to be built up as 7 litre Mark IIs (known as XGT-1, 2 and 3), two of these being the Mann entries at Le Mans. Subsequently Paul Hawkins acquired AM GT-2 and turned it into a not quite legal Group 4 GT40 and had great success with it.

All Ford GTs emanated from the UK but Ford increasingly took the Le Mans programme in house resulting in the all American J-car/Mark IV programme. Meanwhile FAV produced customer cars and at the end of 1966 was wound up and the Slough factory taken over by JW Automotive who continued GT40 production and support under licence from Ford.

[rl1856]

The 68/69 winner was allegedly a Mirage chassis. (opens fresh can of worms)

 

 

This is something I have wondered abt.  JW took the basic GT40/ 5L design and improved it, then designated it as "Mirage".  The Mirage was raced during 1967, and enjoyed success.   For all intents, purposes, and in appearance, the Mirage looked like an updated GT40.  However the FIA determined that it was not a GT40 variant, but a unique car.  This decision had significant implications because combining Ford victories, with Mirage success would have meant that Ford would have won the Sports Car Championship in 1967.  Instead their results were kept separate.  Why did this occur ?

 

I have read that the 67 Mirage chassis were modified back to essentially stock but updated GT40 variants for 68-69  Again, if the cars could be so easily changed to "GT40" spec, why was it considered to be unique the year before ?

[70JesperOH]

http://www.wsrp.cz/c...assis_ford.html

 

For many years, this link has provided me with basic information about the different natures of the GT40s. As I know it:

 

Mk. I: the original 1964 prototype, that eventually evolved into the 1966 50-off production sports car - The Gulf Oil car that won the 1968 and 1969 Le Mans no less.

 

Mk. II: The 1965 Shelby Hot Rodded off of the British original, with a 7 litre/427 cui NASCAR engine and still classified as a prototype. The 1966 Le Mans winner.

 

Mk. III: The 1966? road going version of the Mk. I.

 

Mk. IV: The 1967 Ford GT (no '40 notion?). The J-car of 1966?. The car that won Le Mans in 1967.

 

With best intentions

 

Jesper

Edited by 70JesperOH, 20 September 2024 - 16:01.

[Alan Baker]

http://www.wsrp.cz/c...assis_ford.html

 

For many years, this link has provided me with basic information about the different natures of the GT40s. As I know it:

 

Mk. I: the original 1964 prototype, that eventually evolved into the 1966 50-off production sports car - The Gulf Oil car that won the 1968 and 1969 Le Mans no less.

 

Mk. II: The 1965 Shelby Hot Rodded off of the British original, with a 7 litre/427 cui NASCAR engine and still classified as a prototype. The 1966 Le Mans winner.

 

Mk. III: The 1966? road going version of the Mk. I.

 

Mk. IV: The 1967 Ford GT (no '40 notion?). The J-car of 1966?. The car that won Le Mans in 1967.

 

With best intentions

 

Jesper

The Mark IV was simply the Ford Mark IV, no "GT" which Ford had dropped for 1967. The updated Mark IIs in 1967 were simply Ford Mark IIBs

[70JesperOH]

Thank you for the clarification, Alan Baker

 

Jesper

[LotusElise]

Those of us living in New Zealand at the time were deceived by bogus claims that Denny Hulme also drove the second placed car. 

 

Denny Hulme being a mostly non-speaking part meant that he avoided the indignity of being "played" by Ben Collins. He is absolutely awful as Stirling Moss in Ferrari.

[Catalina Park]

I have read that the 67 Mirage chassis were modified back to essentially stock but updated GT40 variants for 68-69  Again, if the cars could be so easily changed to "GT40" spec, why was it considered to be unique the year before ?

I think the modifications to return the chassis to stock involved painting the aluminium to look like steel.

[E1pix]

As a counterpoint from someone who actually knew him a little and over two decades, Paul Newman was an absolutely stellar guy — and extremely good for racing, too.

He co-employed Keke Rosberg, Nigel Mansell, Justin Wilson, Christian Fittipaldi, Roberto Moreno, Cristiano da Matta, Sebastien Bourdais, Alan Jones, James Hinchcliffe, Bruno Junqueira, Oriol Servia, and others, as well as a few Americans.

I was a 15 year-old reporter in early 1976, when Paul took the time to send me a wonderful, encouraging, life- and career-affirming letter. When I was introduced to him by a friend, champion driver, and track owner 43 months later, then 19 and only as “my friend and budding journalist Eric,” Paul shook my hand, looked me straight in the eye, quoted the name of my magazine from 1976, and smiled in knowing the precise impact of that to a race kid.

I spoke with “PLN” many times in the ‘92 CART season, and he remembered and treated me with honor.

I’ve also conversed with a good dozen people in racing about him over 50 years now, including drivers, mechanics, journos, floor sweepers, the lot, and have never heard a single bad word about him, ever.

People like Paul Newman have it all, but he gave it all back. His company has donated nearly two-thirds of a BILLION dollars to charity.

So to anyone who blindly equates and erases all of that to Hollywood rumors and salad dressing you don’t like, I say you have absolutely no clue who and what Paul Newman represented to a mass of people. Good actor, too.

[B Squared]

Both men may have been deeply flawed, but at least Newman did not have the unsavory reputation of being a wife beater.

Is this one of the 10 things the Ford vs Ferrari filmmakers got wrong? I never saw the movie, so I wasn't aware that they deviated that far away from the racing plot.

[Sterzo]

I like history. I like fiction. Fictionalising history spoils both of them. That gives me one thing wrong enough with the film not to watch it.

 

One TV series (Wolf Hall) did mix history and fiction successfully, but used fiction only in the parts we know nothing about, and scrupulously avoided changing any historical facts. Unfortunately that is rare.

[E1pix]

Fair point Sterzo, agree, but for me not to the point of dismissal.

It depends on the subject and its need for dead accuracy. Many films are more about enjoying the production and atmospherics, and accurate or not, Ford vs. Ferrari was *very* nostalgic and well-shot.

I love *dead accuracy* in documentaries, but filmmaking is still mostly about art and entertainment, so on that score we’ve enjoyed the film many times.

Certainly I never, ever thought I’d see a major film about Carroll and GT40s!

I’ve tried to replace average racing movies with episodes of “Crocheting and You,” but those just don’t stir my soul. :-)

[DCapps]

There was a movie?

[LotusElise]

I like history. I like fiction. Fictionalising history spoils both of them. That gives me one thing wrong enough with the film not to watch it.

 

One TV series (Wolf Hall) did mix history and fiction successfully, but used fiction only in the parts we know nothing about, and scrupulously avoided changing any historical facts. Unfortunately that is rare.

 

I feel Chernobyl did this well, too.

 

The problem with motorsport as a subject for film is that most of it involves ferreting about in garages, doing things that a lay person would not understand well and aren't interesting to watch on screen. The action also takes place over a season lasting several months, which tests the limit of a 140-page script if it is to be depicted accurately. 

 

Matt Damon did a good job of making Carroll Shelby a sympathetic character, which made the audience care about the success of the GT40. The real Shelby was far more complex and would have taken too much time to depict really well.

[JacnGille]

I’ve tried to replace average racing movies with episodes of “Crocheting and You,” but those just don’t stir my soul. :-)

How bout "Painting With Bob Ross"????? 

[E1pix]

^^^ Too much non-stop action.

[WonderWoman61]

What do people expect from film adaptations?

100% accuracy in all aspects?

[RCH]

What do people expect from film adaptations?

100% accuracy in all aspects?

Yes, when it is KNOWN to be 100% accurate 

[DCapps]

And, the 11th thing wrong with the movie is that people even bothered to watch it and are now arguing about it... 

[john aston]

Nonsense ! There was plenty to nitpick (which, let's admit, is part of the fun) but it was an enjoyable story,  well told for its audience and with some decent highlights . All racing films are essentially hokum , and  so is televised motor sport for  snobs like me,  but I've spent worse two hours .   

[E1pix]

And, the 11th thing wrong with the movie is that people even bothered to watch it and are now arguing about it...

I dunno Don, there was 10 things wrong with the movie times 10 things wrong with the article so think your theory is #101. :-)


Edit: Only the first tragedy in that horrid article, did anyone else notice him being called him “Carol?”

My impression is he wouldn’t have allowed that being said to his face. Call it a gut feeling. ;-)

Edited by E1pix, 24 September 2024 - 00:34.

[Cirrus]

On a slightly more positive note, I was actually at Le Mans 1966 as a 10 year-old. One thing that surprised and impressed me about the detailed research of the film was that the programmes being waved in one of the scenes exactly matched my memory of the pale orange items we bought. My dad bought two, one for him and one for me. The programmes were sealed with a gold sticker so that the many inserts did not fall out. We only opened one and kept the other with its seal intact. They were both still in my parent's house when I left home but sadly I could find no trace of them when we cleared the house a few years ago.