Ford GT versus Enzo and Carrera GT in MT

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Layla's Keeper

Syr, I gave you my proof, now give me yours that there was "Ferrari meddling" in the rulebook. By the way, here's some interesting food for thought.....

The Mirage won at Spa which was BEFORE Le Mans. There were no MkIV's entered at Spa. Nor were there MkIV's entered at Daytona, Monza, the Targa Florio, or Nurburgring. In fact, the MkIV SAT OUT most of the season after its win at Sebring until Le Mans. After that, the races contested WERE NOT Prototype class events, but hillclimbs and short distance GP's contested by privateers.

Shot yourself in the foot.

Do you actually read the posts you reply to? Ford indeed did not contest any of the events after LeMans, and I never said that they did. They constested the rules change that wouldn't allow them to race 427ci powered cars after this. Technically, this was a 1968 rule change, but it went into affect immediately by some strange twist of fate. (yeah right, wonder how that happened) Not much point in contesting the event when you already protested long ago the rules that would not allow you to run what you originally entered .

On the contrary...your post "proved" nothing in your post, surely not your "point". It was very nice of you to copy down the finishing orders of those races, but I essentially knew the majority of them and they change nothing in regards to what has been said?.?.?.The MkIV sat out from Sebring to LeMans? Really? You know, that sounds amazingly similar to my previous remark that Ford didn't have its cars compete in every race that year as not every race mattered in the points chase. Did you mean to qoute me or something?

Since the Ferrari (or really European) bias the FIA had is apparently lost on you it is also worth mentioning that the FIA rules committee suddenly decided, out of nowhere, that the "Mirage" GT40 wasn't "100% Ford" and changed awarded points accordingly. This is truly strange because the Mirage was one of the first Ford GT's that essentially involved virtually no outside involvement! Not to mention, the FIA decided this immediately after/during the 1967 LeMans (only they know exactly when they made up their minds, but I imagine, as Ford did, it was right after Ford finished 1 and 2) a point at which Ford had already been racing the car for more than a year. Supposedly the FIA had missed it's "un-Ford-ness" all this time...roflmao. This was used to statistically eliminate Ford from the points chase.

This is made especially "ironic" as the last points race of the year was to be Brands Hatch. Each make of car does better at certain tracks and Fords tended to run very well at Brands Hatch. With the reliability issues apparently worked out of the Fords the last track Enzo wanted to contest the new Fords at was B.H....and the FIA granted him his wish.

In 1967 the FIA was determined that Ford would not win the championship and everybody who seriously follows historical international racing knows this story. Enzo had been yelling from the mountaintops that he would not be back unless changes were made, and EVERYONE knew what "changes" meant. (This was the second time Enzo had made this threat to the FIA rules committee...both were over the possibility of losing to a Ford btw) I will concede that with the "new rules" regarding the Mirage GT the issue with displacement was virtually pointless to rally behind as the championship had been made unwinnable by the stroke of a pen. This is largely the reason that Ford's effort was as laid back as it was after LeMans even with the smallblock cars.....no chance to win the championship so there was very little point in spending a lot of money making a run for Brand's Hatch. However, two wrongs do not make a right and it was really just the FIA safeguarding their little "favor" to Ferrari.

As for Neutrino...Ford's 68 effort was essentially an independent effort as well, just as the Ferrari's that were running were. So, what is your point? If it is that Ferrari would have won had their been factory support in 1968 keep dreaming. They only won 67 because of the FIA, and they knew they were going to take an ass whipping if they ran in 68 for several reasons.

First (and least important really), Porsche had developed a real interest and any further...ahem..."rules developments" were likely to hurt them which would not assist the anti "American" cause of the FIA and serve to piss off a European who was not as hard to deal with as Enzo btw. Also, the FIA had figured out that they had pretty much cut off their nose to spite their face in helping Ferrari they way they did as the Ford following (and Chaparral, etc.) was pretty large and they had helped "kill" it to a large extent. Put simply Ferrari withdrew factory support in an effort to avoid embarassment with what were uncompetitive cars. I would also say that my credibility is just fine as everything I have said is supported by history. However, your "web search" based arguments do appear to be catching up with you.

You can find sources all over that will tell the same story that I am. The FIA was not especially happy about Ford success in "their" series and they were going to bring it home to Europe one way or the other in a manner of speaking. Again, if this impresses you....good for you. But it tends to only impress domestic/Ford haters or Ferrari/import lovers in my experience.

What is truly sad is that the Ferrari crowd seems to care as little for truly "beating" somebody as Ferrari does. All that matters is the trophy. Ferrari should use that as a motto. As for Moss106GTI I listed two "strange" changes the FIA made to their rules after openly stating their dislike for the "yankee brands" that were threatening European makers. These two changes are historical fact (um, hence that they were written rules) and commonly known both then and now. My advice, stick to soccer.

Here is a Porsche sites take on the issue (which backs me completely, even if it did take a while to find a well written site on the subject)


http://www.962.com/history/917/?Scre...y_Code=apparel

And yet another large, well done site that backs me up completely...strange how that happens....lol

http://www.imca-slotracing.com/1967-PART3.htm

You know, seriously.....looking this stuff up for you guys is getting kind of old. If you want to seriously challenge what I have said...perhaps you should invest the time to research it instead of providing the typical, knee-jerk, Ferrari rules reaction?

[syr74]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

not sure on the years but i'm talking about the gulf gt40s.

well, the point i was trying to make, was that john wyer's gt40 was based on the old 'failed' car.
this smaller engined car was outperforming the shelby engined cars.

i'm not saying that they're not ford.
just making the point that the really successful car wasn't american....

First, the smallblock car was hardly "failed". It performed very well indeed and would still have been competitive, for the championship, in 1967 if Ford and their teams had kept developing the car. However, by this time the car (mostly the engine) was not exactly top priority as the 427 had replaced it and a new, 3-valve 427 was on the way for 68.

The design was solid, but a year of staganant development left a wee bit of catching up to do. Ford (mostly their teams) had done a good job of getting it ready for 68 basically using the remainder of the post LeMans 67 season to do it. By 1968 Wyer's cars were in top form due to the above, and it showed. However, it is also worth mentioning that by this time the car was without doubt in it's golden years as Ford had quit developing it altogether.

Also, in 1968 there were really no "Shelby engined" cars for Wyer's team to out-perform. As you alluded to in a prior post Wyer's effort was really the lion's share of the 68 GT40 effort and some of is cars were previously part of Shelby's team. Wyer, btw, put up one hell of a season.

I would hesitate to call these cars not American, just as I would hesitate to call them 100% American. A very large part of the engineering in these cars was done by Ford of North America and Shelby American. By the time these "standard" GT40's (MkI's) started racing there was honestly little left of the European car it was initially based on, and the European company that had developed the intial chassis was now owned by Ford. However, it isn't fair to shun the European element in the car by any means either. The best way to describe it is as some kind of colonial/British mix.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by syr74

Before you discount this as brand "propoganda" understand that Ferrari apparently believed this as they used this situation when they went whining to the rules committee that their car could not compete with the Ford arguing that rules limiting displacement should be adopted. The rules were changed, and in a move unprecedented in racing history Ford was not even allowed until the end of the season to make these changes, instead they were enforced immediately. However, Ford continued winning with their pushrod smallblock anyway.


Please, if you must cite history, cite it correctly.

Ok you said that Ferrari demanded that the displacement be limited.

Group 6 will be restricted to 3-litre prototypes and that Group 4 will be restricted to 5-litre sportscars manufactured at at least 50 units per year. A better way to kill long distance racing is hardly thinkable. With one pen stroke the Chaparral 2F, Ferrari P4, Ford MkIV, Mirage and Lola T70 are banned from the circuit. Ten days later constructors, organisers and racers learn the CSI decision from the press

Enzo Ferrari is the first to react upon the flagrant idiocy of the CSI: he announces that if this decision is maintained he will stop any further effort in endurance racing.

http://www.imca-slotracing.com/1967-PART3.htm


This is from your own link. Do I sense again a flagrant discrepancy? Enzo himself fought the decision and his car the P4 was also banned. So how did ferrari ask again for lowering the displacement?

[Crippy]

why dont yall give it up ?? who cares what happened in races over 40 years ago , the ford gt is a piss poor attempt at making a supercar from a piss poor company ... the Ferrari is a supercar known nation wide as being bad-ass , they have a mystique about them that ford cant even comprehend with ... even if the gt puts down better numbers it is out classed so greatly here its not even funny ...

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by Crippy

why dont yall give it up ?? who cares what happened in races over 40 years ago , the ford gt is a piss poor attempt at making a supercar from a piss poor company ... the Ferrari is a supercar known nation wide as being bad-ass , they have a mystique about them that ford cant even comprehend with ... even if the gt puts down better numbers it is out classed so greatly here its not even funny ...

It only took 8 pages but here it is folks.... The undisputed heavyweight champ for dumbest post in this thread!!!!

[Kurtdg19]

Everyone can I have your attention.......

Welcome to the Internet!

If your smart you won't take any of this as balanced fact; however, I did hear the word propaganda which is exactly what the majority of these 8 pages are.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by GTStang

The undisputed heavyweight champ for dumbest post in this thread!!!!

Flame another member like that and you will go the same way as this thread