Airborn / crashing GT40? Real / AI / Video game ?
- Thread starter Big-Foot
- Start date
Glenn M
Supporter
Yes, but looking on the bright side, he is standing and has a head to put his hands on! Strong car!
Its hard to tell from those photos. I believe there was some changes to the early 60s tubs however P1010 had a tub replacement from JWA in 67, so it would be one of the latter tubs and may not have the details that were on the early tubs.
I don't know enough to tell Glesco tubs apart. I think they do a couple of different versions of the front chassis rail reinforcement on the lower outside of the foot box below where the lower front wishbone goes in. I think this is mainly to do with limiting water ingress into the chassis.
Superformance had some differences and changes over time in the chassis around the upper rear shock mount (as originals also did). I have also seen some photos of Superformance chassis that had the last rib under the seat in the floor omitted. This may have been at request of the person ordering the car though and may not be something that is the same to all Superformance cars.
Ryan
JimmyMac
Lifetime Supporter
One of those days that you thank FoMoCo for insisting on a steel chassis, rather than Eric Broadleys choice of aluminium....
Rob Klein
Supporter
I would say Gelscoe preformed the repairs on Adrian's car. You can't see much of the chassis, but I can see very similar fastners and build style. Gelscoe's mechanics are artisan's and the way this car was put back together is indicative of their style.
I agree Rob, it is a talented, dedicated and board depth of talent across all of Gelscoe and its suppliers / supporters that go into making the top-notch products that they do. There is a valid reason why they are referred to by many as a benchmark when discussing GT40 parts and restorations in the current marketplace.
I hope my comments above are not taken in any negative light. I was merely pointing out the microscopic differences that i have noticed between various tubs. These differences are not negatives, just differences. There were many differences between the original 133 tubs as well. Many of which have been discussed at length.
For example, Floor pressings on early cars vs latter cars, roof vents, windscreen shapes (AM light weights vs FAV), perforated sill reinforcements, battery location, internal and door ducting, MK II changes, Sill ribs, Suspension mounting locations, suspension stiffeners, crossover fuel systems, shock absorber reinforcement, body pivot positions, front clip mounting, luggage box provisions, jacking points, mirage scuttles, alloy roofs, center shift positions, LHD vs RHD for 3 of the MK IIIs, weather proofing on road cars vs the race cars, the roadsters had a different windscreen and door area as well. What else have a forgotten.
We love them all here
Ryan
I hope my comments above are not taken in any negative light. I was merely pointing out the microscopic differences that i have noticed between various tubs. These differences are not negatives, just differences. There were many differences between the original 133 tubs as well. Many of which have been discussed at length.
For example, Floor pressings on early cars vs latter cars, roof vents, windscreen shapes (AM light weights vs FAV), perforated sill reinforcements, battery location, internal and door ducting, MK II changes, Sill ribs, Suspension mounting locations, suspension stiffeners, crossover fuel systems, shock absorber reinforcement, body pivot positions, front clip mounting, luggage box provisions, jacking points, mirage scuttles, alloy roofs, center shift positions, LHD vs RHD for 3 of the MK IIIs, weather proofing on road cars vs the race cars, the roadsters had a different windscreen and door area as well. What else have a forgotten.
We love them all here
Ryan