Definately not better looking... No but seriously Greg, they are what they are, and if enthusiasts wish to bear witness to the obvious, thats OK too...as Tony said, its pretty obvious that ther are 3 groups of LP400S Countach. Lets say nobody is saying or cares which is better or more desireable, BUT, we still have to be objective in our observations and we cant 'create' new groups for the sake of our opinions. If only the cars themselves knew what the fuss was all about... Joe
By the way, who has the specific measurements/data for what i see as the 3rd series of 'taller' LP400S cars? I hear there was a comparison done between a Countach LP400S Series One (I suppose a 1978 or 1979 car) and...if memory serves me, a QV (one would hope a let LP400S)? Bobileff has a client with a VERY late tall-suspensin LP400s and we will do some calibrations with a early 1979 car. Joe
Joe, this why we need you to write your Countach book...... Just the can of worms you could put the cap on lol. hey NSXer, just curious how you came across the copper car for sale? - I've learned a lot from this thread and have to Thank all contributors- Ken
OK then, if we go back to the 78,79 cars being the original S1, what makes the S1 an S1 is the wheels, thats the only big or little change with the split. If the old timers came up with the S1 as 78,79, did they come up with what to call the later series that had as big or bigger changes? Or did they just drop it there? Physical dispoition seems to make more sense than a wheel style change. I still say get rid of the S1 term. Joe, I got to the registry site today. I read all the things going on with you. Nice job on all of them! Keep up the good work. Greg
The Miura book is already being produced, but it would be prudent to hold off on the Countach book yet. I think NXSer became aware of the copper car being available by the best way possible - word of mouth. Joe
Thanks Greg on the stuff going on. Ive seen cars of other marques that have a totally different variant designation showing much less than a wheel change! With Lamborghini, its significant indeed. As far as I understand it, the S2 and S3 cars (as we shall call them for now) were produced as a production extension during dire financial times. Sort of an 'interim' car between the S1 and the new 5-litre LP5000S. Interim cars can be very important too in a manufacturer's history. Physical disposition of some of the S2 cars also being lowbody cars was simply a carryover that was left alone. Also you cant say a suspension adjsutment makes more sense as signaling a dividing line than an actuall major component change (wheels)... Greg, Im afraid it would be improper to simply "get rid of the S1 term" as you put it. That would be a blatant case of trying to re-write history when whats apparent doesnt suit you or is not fully beleived or understood. Thats a dangerous act we should shy from at all costs. It wont happen either as all the guys who own cars with original Bravo wheels are starting to say: "Hold on a minute, our cars are physically different. Its not just a matter of a lowered suspension". Lets be fair to them as they have a VERY valid point, and when backed up by the men behind the machines (Dallara, Wolf & Hahne), its becoming clear to most what we have here... I think there are 3 variants (especially after my conversation with Hubert Hahne today). Now we have to establish WHICH was the last Bravo wheeled-car. Can we do that definitively? Time will tell... Joe PS - Still, who has the measurements that were supposedly taken that showed a roofline increase in height? Now I recall some more, wasnt it between a 1980 car and a QV? What we need are calibrations between a 78/79 and a 81/82.
Yes, word of mouth is correct. The wait for delivery is killing me though....and all the snow on the ground right now too. It would not be so bad if I could pull one of my other cars out of the garage and go for a run but we just got MORE SNOW today. I am itching for a good drive and all I can do is jump in my 4x4 everyday. Looks like I am going to have to pull out my old slot car track......
Joe, When my 80 (S1?) is finally here I will put all the outer dimensions in CAD, doors, hood....every body part and then with them all together. I will also put it in a JPEG and people and then print it out and measure their own car (the drawing will have the dimensions shown). I think it would be very cool! What do you think?
EXCELLENT idea!! I have access to a genuine '78 and a '79 we could also measure. Then the same with a '81 and an '82. Ive always been curious about this supposed roofline increase thing because, when Marchesi (the chassis builder in Orbassano who suppied all circa 2,000 chassis for the Countach) was asked when the Countach chassis was changed he remarked:"Changed? They are all the same from LP400 to Annivesario!" BUT, maybe there are minor diferences. I also know for a fact that over the years Ive heard Valentino contradict and give both a "Yes" and "No" answer on this topic (sorry Valentino..). Claudio Zampolli and other factory people have said it was simply a lowering of the floor and seat-mounting base. Me? I DONT know. But we can find out soon... Joe
I think that there is a difference as well. These two pics are not the best to judge off of because the white car is a little high in the front BUT I think that there is a difference in the length or height of the bottom to the lower section of the door (the white car appears much thicker). Also, the roof line on S2/S3 cars seams to rise slightly from back to front where the S1 cars tend to drop a little. I know that this is also do to lower suspension but there is a difference. Maybe this August we will find out...we will have a measuring party Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Joe were all Countachs with bravos exactly the same? or were there changes made along the way? The wheel style change was as you put it to me on another site was due to better cooling of the brakes, so if a wheel makes a series, the old timers should have given the Countach with the new wheel a title rather than calling them a "interim". I'm glad you are writting the book Joe, this would give me a headache sorting it all out. Good luck!!!!!!!!!! And for the record I hope the real facts are used, I know you will do a fantastic job. In the mean time I'll be enjoying my Countach as it was meant to be enjoyed. Greg BTW Toni took the measurements, and it seems a guy named Dave compiled a list of all who took part in measuring their cars. Hope this helps.
Hmmm.... My 1980 LP400S (#1240) has all the features of the 78-79 cars, the lower roof, 45mm Webers, the early interior, etc. But just not the Bravos. A Series 1.5? Seems that there was some overlap here. 1980 must have been an interesting year at the factory. Anyone have a car with smooth wheels on the left and Bravos on the right?
i have been in a 1981 S 11213xx last month and i can tell i fit well in the car, i can't say the same for mine, so yes, to me the roof thing is very true
get rid of the SERIE UNO term? does it make really sense, Greg? i have personally seen a 1981 few days ago and i can say it is a VERY different machine from my 78 (i won't say better or lesser but different IT IS ) i have seen books and magazines over 15 years old now that had the S countach split by series, a lot of passionates and people who actually worcks or worcked on these cars will tell you the same: there are 2 kinds of S cars (or at least 2..) Stefano Pasini's Lamborghini Rivista(1990-91): in the number where he talks about the Lamborghini Day has the list of the cars at the meeting, already the older S are described as S1. Pasini was a pretty good knower of brand history,he was strictly in contact with the factory those years and probably had access to the "may be for ever lost may be not", factory S registries or files. getting rid of the term is unappropriate to me as it would be getting rid of the interim for the GT (it doesn't matter if the badge doesn't show it imo, it is a matter of what cars and history shows and the same goes for other cars beside countach)
Ok, dropping the S1 maybe a bad idea but it would clear up all the grey areas. PS Sorry Tony with a Y
I have the Miura book in publication now. The Countach book......well, nothings been decided yet. Joe
Yes, very bad idea this re-writing of history. A can of worms in fact. NO it would not clear up the grey areas. Sorry to be firm on this Greg, but Ive seen the problems with Ferrari history (for example) that have occured in similar instances. Let it be, the facts are coming out slowly as they are. Per your earlier post, the old timers DID give a name to the smooth wheel cars: Series two. As you can see from the sentiments of an owner of a genuine 1978 car (Emilio), the owners of the Bravo wheeled cars are now starting to ask me: "WHO instigated the change of the number of Series One cars on the registry?? Its BS. OUR cars with the Bravo wheels are the ONLY Series One cars. Put it back to what is right" Who can blame them for wanting their originally Bravo wheeled cars recognized as a Series unto themselves ESPECIALLY when the old masters have told us exactly the same thing? So you see the dilemma here? Fact is, soon I must confer with Glen on the Registry and and review what we know so far, and its quite possible it will be amended in the near future to reflect S1 cars as the 1978 & 79 cars. Glen concurrs he was a bit hasty in making the change. Owners of 78 & 79 cars will be happy, and others might not. Cest La Vie. We are trying to establish which was the last Bravo wheeled car. Someone informed me it was Ron Rice's Cannonball car, but he switched the rims to smoothies back in the day. Im awaiting his comment. Do you see one of the reasons why Im loving the LP400 so much? (apart from the obvious styling and historical significance). Its heritage and provenance are absolutely FREE from controversy and dispute. Might mean nothing to some, but to some of us, that means a lot! Also, I dont see a Countach book being appropriate for a long while, until we know whats what with the LP400S cars. Or maybe it will never be definitively resolved...time will tell. Joe www.lamborghiniregistry.com
i like it too..... but c'mon Joe: your comments about later cars on L power are a little over the top LOL p.s. i know i know he wasn't real Joe, just kiddin
I think the argument is the body itself changing should be considered the breakpoint for S1 vs S2. New wheels (or ride height) is very minor and does not indicated a new "generation" for a vehicle. The only people I can see who would disagree with this are the owners of S1s with bravo wheels who wish thier car to be viewed as being even more rare. The lowbody is the signifigant difference here.
Can we agree that besides the wheels and ride height something is different with the body? If so, where exactly did the body change?
So then the OZ wheels were a S3, if the OT's kept true to their ways. And if this is all true, than its a good thing they changed the series by the wheels only, if it had been all the other SMALL changes we would have the "S" series in double digits. LOL! There has been alot of wrong information put out on the 400S and it bugs the hell out of me. So Joe, hope you get it right. This all came about for me while reading the old descritpion of the S1 on the registy(You may have wrote it). It told of the S1 as being the lightest lowest best handling and I believe it was written about the 45 DCOE Webber 375 hp engine. It was put out there that the S1 had all these thing over the S2, Not Correct!!! Now its down to a wheel, crazy!! Or are they physically different as the Bravo Countach owners say? I don't think so. Still your friend, Greg
A few points: 1. Note what the registry says today.... 2. Its not MY duty to clear this up, its that of all interested parties. All things considered, Im in a pretty good position to be very objective as I dont own an LP400S of ANY kind. Alternatively, I could sit back and allow others to clear it up. LOL. Thats OK too. 3. Does the assertion of the men behind the machine mean NOTHING to you? Or anyone else? It sure does to me!!! I have quite a degree of respect for them, and what they accomplished for our benefit. Maybe the works only planned a series of cars for 78 & 79, whatever their reasoning....could that be possible??? We have seen completely different variants in other works with much less than special sand-cast magnesium wheels. 4. Bravo-wheeled owners ane NOT saying their cars are physically different Greg (please dont misrepresent). They are only saying their cars are a series unto themselves just as the men behind the machines told them and their cars LOOK different with completely different wheels. Nobody is sure WHY the factory made this series and anyone trying to make logic out of this is just speculating. I should remind that if you object to what the men behind the machines are saying, the burden of proof is upon YOU to disprove them. So youd better get cracking and show us why there is no Series One!! LOL. The proof had better be very definitive with documentation, THEN we can say messers Wolf, Dallara & Hahne were either all lying, or all three have faulty memories! I would then be happy to respectfully concurr (reminding once again that I dont even own an LP400S so Ive no axe to grind). Its OK in some cases to be a Doubting Thomas, but come up with the proof why the old timers are wrong/lying. I am gong by: A. What the old masters have independently told me time after time. B. The cars different look with their rather special wheels. So to me, I choose to beleive the 78/79 S1 theory until someone (like you) PROVES it wrong. Then we will finally adjust the records, no harm done. Note again we have given you advance lease by adjusting them in advance (LOL, you cant complain about THAT can you?), but at a certain point, without proof of why the list should have been changed, we will go back to giving the old masters their respect. Its the only fair thing to do. A famous saying comes to mind in all of this: "Methinks Thou doth protest too much" and it applies to those that dispute the 78 & 79 S1 cars, but havent shown that the factory establishment misrepresented. Joe
