F40 LM Restoration

Whilst i don't agree how all this information has been brought to the public domain and i applaud and have loved the journey the Tim and his F40LM (as that is what it is now).

I think the cars early history is equally as important, and should we take away from the credit from the people who, with hard work, created the car from back in the day?

Regardless of what "it" was.... Look at it now.....

Tim.... I sir, do doff my cap

 

Clearly Barry has entered the discussion late into the thread as he only recently found it, and knew the car long before its latest journey into what is now a stunning example.

He also seems to have fond memories of how it used to be.

The pity is he was not in a position to provide the level of detail he now has, when Tim first started the journey on this thread.

Nothing he has written appears to be incorrect, just not timely that's all.

The picture is now complete, from gestation to neglect to rebirth

 

@BarryK , Clearly you worked hard to put that together. It is very interesting reading. Unfortunately, I think you have just exemplified how it is possible to be right about something, and yet also be completely in the wrong. I think you have shown @Traveller a lack of respect and I hope you will consider removing your posts.

My understanding is you refused a private discussion and instead preferred to make your postings here. Thus, denying Traveller the opportunity to make corrections. And that makes me wonder why. After all, if you have taken the time to read this thread, or getting to know Traveller, even just a little bit, you would realize he did his very best to present accurate information and I think he would have gladly made the corrections. And if he would not have made the changes, you could have then made your posts. As I see it, there was no danger to the information had you made the effort.

Now, however, at the very least, your lengthy posts transform one man's 5 year journey into to a debate on whether or not the car is an F40LM. At the most, it can be viewed as an attack on Traveller himself. In all fairness, I am probably more sensitive to this because Traveller is a friend of mine, and when you think someone is out to get one of your friends, you are naturally going to feel protective and want to come to their aid. But, the other posts in this thread show I am hardly alone in suspecting something is wrong. And I think your actions come across as showing Traveller no respect. Though you say some complimentary things in your posts, they ring as hollow as when someone says “no offense, but…” and then the offending remark is made.

You seem to know much about the car in question, and you say the truth is important to you. I don't know anyone who wouldn't say the truth is important, so to me that is simply stating the obvious. Since you are bringing all of this up- what are your qualifications? Despite you voluminous writing that shows you are well educated, your qualifications are absent. It makes me question the source. You might be an incredibly qualified individual, or you might not- but how are we to know? This is a secondary point however.

The main point remains: if your facts are correct, then I think you are using the superior position this greater information affords for more than simply educating the community or helping the current owner of this car with his journey. It's almost bullying. According to Oxford Dictionary a bully is: "A person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable." As I see it, your behavior almost qualifies. The point in question is whether or not this is habitual.

I hope this helps you see it's not just about being right. It's also about how you present things. I would hope your intention is not what it appears to be, but rather its a case of misunderstanding. If so, I think you should let us know and you should explore this with Traveller to see if there is a way to clarify the car's history but also doesn't divert the thread down this rabbit hole.

 

Moderators have a role to play in this great forum. I wish they would step in, move the last 4 pages to a new thread and link it. Lock the existing thread and be Done.

This is an epic journey and it needs to be completed at the last points of the audio discussion.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

By locking this thread though it prevents any future aspects the car may under go......

People will make up their own mind as to the validity of any information posted and as Traveller has been as clear as a clear thing on a clear day then there can be no damage at all to this thread.
Any soap opera has it's tense bits, surely it's a part of the journey?

 

Future aspects can be done in a new thread. Even this immediate discussion we are having now, is not thread worthy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A subtle point, though sometimes excitement overwhelms the occasion...

 

Rather than reply to points raised in individual posts, I will try to answer in groups.
`
Thank you for the various comments with the exception of that from @F12KID dishonouring my wife.

Firstly, some of you have referred to comments I made as as personal attack on the present owner. I would suggest you you look again in the context of the comments from @Traveller and @F12KID re my wife. If you still find any, please let me know.
To your point @Caeruleus11 I have raised questions about his car, not him.

Secondly, the themes that come up are:

1) Several people think this post should be in a separate thread.
That may well be sensible as this thread has effectively stopped at 15 July 2017 with only some photos and a link to the podcast since. If people think that it is ruining the thread, I am all for moving it to a new thread entitled for example "History of F40 84326" or similar.

2) The owner is a good guy. So, lay off
There are several posts which are testimonials to the owner's passion and good character. I do not know him, and have no reason to doubt any of what has been said about him in support. In turn, I want thank those who sent PMs supporting me for putting this on the table given the previous greyness surrounding the history, particularly with high value cars. The moderators can obviously check my inbox and delete the above line if it is untrue. However, they did not feel comfortable posting in public given the potential reprisals.

3) There are those who ask why, and why now (@montpellier, @ttforcefed, @Caeruleus11)?
Easy to answer the "why now" question first: I started reading the thread only last Christmas, a month ago. When this thread started in 2013, I hadn't even heard of this site. Bringing historical information from the 90's in no way diminishes the restoration content of this thread. Arguably, instead, it enhances it. I have not posted anything but positive remarks about the restoration itself.

Next: Why?

First, a mea culpa: When I started reading this thread on page 1, I recognised the historical photos of the car in racing form. There was also the pre-restoration photos of the car looking much like an F40LM with many changes since the last time I physically saw the car in 1997. Together with the owners comment that it had sat in a barn for 8 years, I had naturally assumed it had been converted to an F40LM soon after I last saw in it 1997, presumably for further racing. And that would have explained the 2001 Sheehan article quoted by the owner which says it was an LM/GTE conversion. I was left puzzled by the photos of the car in the 2002 Oakfields advert showing it unchanged from the mid-90s. Had been converted to an F40LM, no one in their right mind would convert it back to the one-off Hamann F40. So I began to look deeper.

Perhaps it was completely obvious to everybody else reading this thread that this was not the case, but I may have been too slow to understand it immediately. Hence the first post asking the owner to confirm whether my understanding was correct.

Next, the 2001 Sheehan statement that the car was converted to an LM/GTE no longer made sense given the car was still in the original form in 2002 and 2003.

The present owner has asked why I questioned the advertised price. The reason is simple: if it had been an LM/GTE conversion as claimed, there was no way it would been priced at a steep discount to a standard F40 regardless of condition. Micehlotto F40LM's were already well over 2.5x the value of standard road cars by 2012. Asking "I wonder why" was admittedly poor expression on my part, and it does sound like an insinuation. So, apologies.

Given that I was aware of the of the early history of the car, I decided to post the subsequent "short history" which hopefully fills in the historical gap and corrects the Sheehan statement about it being an LM/GTE conversion.

To @ttforcefed 's question, even if the car sat anonymously in a museum labelled F40LM, I would have posted what I knew. That is - I have absolutely nothing against the present owner, and have no idea who he is.

4) Why just not privately communicate with the onwer (@Caeruleus11, @ttforcefed's question)?

The owner did write me a cordial PM which did not contain information not posted before, other than saying that it was "self-evident" that the LM-style work had been done by the previous owner in the previous few years before he started the restoration.

A car's history is not private when dealing with the historically interesting and valuable, and already in the public domain.

Lastly, I did not want to bait him with questions and then post new material. That would be rude.

So I thanked him for the reply and suggested that we continue the discussion on the thread.

5) This is bullying because I am using private information to my advantage (@Caeruleus11)
I anticipated this question and have ensured that the factual information posted is fully referenced by magazine articles, photos and links from well established sites all in the public domain. I have not posted a single reference that is private to me.

I also anticipated that there would be a request to "unmask" myself (@Caeruleus11), and have avoided posting private material that would need to be verified. It is interesting that in an largely anonymous forum it would be asked.

I have filled in some context which does contain personal observations, which can all be safely ignored, and the relatively simple conclusion that the car was raced and remained as the Hamann F40 until at least 2003 is entirely independent of the context, and independent of who posted it.

If I post opinions, instead of referenced facts, then my "qualifications" as you put may be more relevant. On the forum we sometimes accept things as fact just because they have been posted repeatedly for a long time.

5) Is it an F40LM?

For those whose interest is solely on the restoration, they may want to ignore everything I posted in the thread. For the rest:

Does putting glass fibre panels on a standard 308 turn it into a more desirable 308 Vetroresina?
Does putting alloy panels on a standard steel 275 turn it into a more desirable 275 alloy car?
Does using factory parts to convert an 599F1 to 599 Manual turn it into a more desirable 599 Manual?

They can all be physically indistinguishable from the originals. All I know is that this debate is as old as cars. Does converting it 10+ years after it finished racing mean it can be called F40LM today(as referred to by its owner)? I have no idea, and am not interested.

All I have said is that it should not have never called an in-period LM/GTE conversion, because it never happened.

If the car had raced as an F40LM in some converted form, the case for saying this is an F40LM today may be stronger than if it raced, as it did, as a Hamann/Hartmann F40 that was then converted after it finished racing.

I am obviously aware that whether a car is called a F40LM, F40LM period-conversion, F40 LM-modern-conversion, F40 Hamann-LM conversion, F40LM replica etc all have a potential impact on perception. Historians, auctioneers and potential future buyers can determine the answer to that if they have the correct information. But this is not in anyway my expertise or interest. (@Caeruleus11 - hopefully this answers your last point. I have no intention of leading this discussion into a "rabbit-hole" as you put it, which is why I stopped my last post where I did).

My intention was simply to correct the record, and draw attention to the important and hopefully interesting conversion done by Hamann & Hartmann to this F40 during its racing years.

As I said before, please feel free to correct any of the factual information in the preceding several posts.

 

I tried to reply in one message but the system will not allow such a lengthy message, thus I am replying in 2 parts.

PART 1

I have looked again and I am back at the same conclusion, now bolstered by your above writing. Again, though I don't think the point subtle at all, the issue I raise is one not of facts, it is the manner in which you presented these facts and the fact you gave Traveller no opportunity to correct the information.

I would agree with this approach, but it is too bad we are even here.

My issue is actually not about Traveller, it is about the way in which you went about posting your information. If he was not a "good guy" and you posted this information in this manner, I would still have the same issue.

I would agree its best to have the information out on a particular car. However, with regards to the information you posted, you still have not given us your qualifications. I think since you are saying these are the facts, we are entitled to know who you are and how you know this information. You might have worked on this car, and perhaps you became angry at seeing this part of the car's history not included in the description. Perhaps you took it as an intentional omission. Or perhaps not at all and you were a fan in the stands, or perhaps you have read everything from magazines. How can we judge the quality of the information if you do not disclose where it comes from?

Thank you for the clarification.

 

PART 2

I think a cordial discussion in private should not involve baiting and I find it curious that you use this word. As I see it, you could have simply given him the information you possess and suggest he post corrections to the thread, and that without threatening, if he was unwilling to do so, you would do it so the community would have an accurate history on the car. I don't think anyone would take issue with wanting to have an accurate history available. I simply take issue with how you went about it. Unfortunately, your post here doesn't change that.

Unfortunately you missed the point. Bullying does not mean using private information to your advantage. As I posted before, straight out of the dictionary, it is "A person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable." In this case, you think you know something, you purportedly have better information, whether it be public or private is immaterial, and what have you decided to do with this information? You use it to deny the thread originator the opportunity to correct possible mistakes in his thread.

I don't think its interesting at all, its predictable and you even admit as much. You are the one making claims as if you are an official historian for the car. Do you anticipate our knowing who you are or how you have this information might change our opinion of these purported facts? If so, if these "facts" cannot stand scrutiny, then perhaps they are not as persuasive as you say.

I am really confused that someone who is arguing we should have the facts out there is now thinking somehow opinions would be mixed up with qualifications. An example is you posted information from a magazine. If you had just posted quotes with no reference to a magazine, then how would we know if the quotes were reliable as facts? And what's more, I think it was pointed out the obvious that journalists can sometimes be lazy or make mistakes. How does a magazine article prove these facts to be true?


I think if you are going to come on to a forum and make a big issue about wanting correct and accurate information out there, then you have to be prepared to say who you are and how you have this information.

Yes you are right, this is an age old debate. I would not wish to speak for Traveller but, it seems to me he has said over and over he strived for accuracy. However, the issue I have is it seems you are using this information to grind an axe at Traveller's expense and I would like to know why.

 

@Caeruleus11
If I may summarise the 2 posts, you suspect I am lying.

Suppose I am liar, and you ignore every word of context I wrote, and just look at the historical references: the 1994 magazine article on the car, 2002 magazine advert for the car, and the photos and text references to the car between 1994 and 2003 on the various well-known websites I used, not to mention the photos posted at the start of this very thread. They demonstrate the car as the Hamann F40 in its original form at every point.

I have posted these to support the central statement that the car was never converted in period to F40LM/GTE as claimed.

You appear to doubt these references as well, many of which have existed long before this thread even started in 2013. If you think they are in some way part of a conspiracy starting in 1994, why doesn't someone just put one piece of evidence on the table to show that the car was indeed converted in period to an F40LM/GTE as claimed?

 

@BarryK , Your summary is incorrect. I am saying two things:

1- I think you have mis-treated Traveller. Furthermore, I wonder why.

2- If you are going to be the voice of history, I think you should disclose how you know the history.

 

When I first joined Ferrarichat I found it quite an unusual place compare to other car forums.

It was all about the cars, not the past or present owners (unless they were famous!) it was the first time I had heard them called custodians, and the fevered desire to know VIN numbers for significant, on other forums such people would be told to mind their own business in that regard.

Upsetting owners was not seen as an issue when a cars history was revealed or unravelled which was seen as more important.

Look at the case of Roland Linders F40 and the outcry when he called it an LM! no different here from what I can see.

Look at the couple of recent F40s that have risen from the ashes, no regard to the present owners feelings on those reveals.

Barry has filled in some gaps and shown some past information was incorrect, if Tim had not been so well liked then many on here would be applauding Barry for coming forward.

These demands for reveals of who people are, and showing respect to owners have no relevance, its all about the car!

It seems Barry is correct, the car never ran in period in any form of LM spec, and by LM I mean using Michelloto developed parts, that has all come much later in its evolution.

I don't see Tim disputing that, if Barry is wrong shoot the message, not the messenger.

 

Fully agreed Paul.

Rather than deflecting attention with character analyses, let's focus on the car.

 

This is all very interesting, nothing negative at all, in fact you can say that this new information works brilliantly. There are 30+ lots of replica Michelotto’s out There but only one Hamann & Hartmann F40 and that works in Travellers favour.

Who wouldn’t want a one of one, I know I do!

So let’s look at this information in a bright light, we knew all along that Tim wasn’t trying to pass it as a real LM, this sheds even better light.

All in all, I appreciate and admire Tims work and dedication to this project.

 

Absolutely.

You put it better than my earlier attempts to say that the info I posted is additive.

 

I see we are now going in circles.

I agree with you both- to a point.

This thread is entitled "F40 LM Restoration" and to my mind that means it is the journey the car and its various owners took. Its current owner is Traveller and this thread is about his experience.

As I see it, @BarryK , if this were just about the car and the information then the easiest thing in the world would have been to give Traveller the information and say here is some information of which you should be aware. Indeed, it appears you were asked by Traveller for this information. But you refused. I simply would like to know why. Were you afraid he would alter it in some way? If yes, that proves- to me at least- you must think he harbors some kind of ill intent, so you are out to set the record straight. So if you think Traveller has some bad intent, I think you should tell us. If you not, then why not?

Instead you chose to present it in a way which reads to me, and apparently others, as an effort to use this information to undermine Traveller's credibility. In essence to "steal his thunder" or "rain on his parade". So, as I see it, it is the way you doled out this information which makes relevant the question of character. It just strikes me that you now seek to hide behind the claim it is only about the car. I just don't buy it.

I will grant you, it is possible we are simply looking at the same issue from different sides. Yes, by all means it should be about the car, but as these are machines built by people and it is people who own, drive, and yes, are custodians of these wonderful machines, we still have to deal with the people issues. And one of those would be to show even the slightest bit of respect to the person who created this thread, after all, he is the one who found the car in terrible shape and brought it back to life with great effort and likely cost- even if it is now in a changed version from original. It is a wonderful story.

 

On thing I noticed when MT were refurbing the front clam is that under the paint it actually looks like it was the original Hamman one that was later modified to the LM style, so a key link to the past still remains with the car, although from memory it is now running the much lighter MT constructed nose.

I too could also not work out the GTE link that Sheehan had noted, until I read about the part were it ran a sequential box for a while, I wonder where that went? maybe during the later conversion to road spec? again I wonder who carried out that work? still lots to be discovered.

 

This whole unfortunate thread derailment could have been avoided had BK simply pm'd Traveller to inform him he had come across more of the car's original history. That way Traveller could have brought this with BK to the thread as an update. We would have all found it interesting. However, no one has ever thought Traveller has misled in this thread. He couldn't have been more open with us.

 

On the scheda tecnica you find the model names: Ferrari F40 LM and Ferrari F40 Corsa

There is no LM GTE!
In the press and by writers like MS the F40 LM GTE was introduced.

Before people start making videos, blogs, write books they could do RESEARCH.
Get your buildsheets and works info before start writing nonsense.

 

First of all, I do not consider pointing out a number of errors in Sheehan's article as an assassination attempt, as you say. If what I have pointed out is incorrect, then please correct me instead.

As I have posted before, the car modified by Hamann contained many modifications in order to race. In that regard it is no different from what Michelotto did to create F40LM or F40GTEs for racing. Fitting wider front tyres and making associated modifications, for example, was needed for racing. Both Michelotto and Hamann did them, but in their own ways.

The kit Michelotto made for the conversion can be said to be "LM-spec" kit
Similarly, the kit the Hamann made (and advertised for £131k, as posted in Top Car Feb 1994) can be called "Hamman F40 spec" kit"

Your F40 raced with a Hamman-spec kit, based on available evidence posted above.

Fitting a sequential gearbox in no way made the car GTE spec. Even one of the official F40GTEs (#88779, which I now believe belongs to a member here) did not have a sequential gearbox, yet is officially an F40GTE. Secondly, you speak of having more power than an F40LM as being part of GTE spec. In fact, the GTEs had less power (around 620-650hp vs 700+ in LM) due to intake restrictors in the BPR series durig 1994-5. This is a function of the BPR organisers' definition of the GT1 racing spec under which the the modified F40LM/GTEs and your car raced.

Also, note that in Sheehan's article, another car on the list, #83405, is described as "highly modified" and not as an LM or a GTE, In fact that car was converted to GTE spec including the correct F120B engine for the LM/GTEs, and raced as a F40GTE in 1995 Prequalifying Le Mans.

See http://www.racingsportscars.com/chassis/photo/ZFFGJ34B000083405.html

Why would Sheehan choose to describe that F40GTE as just "highly modified" instead of "an LM/GTE conversion" as he did with yours? As I have posted above in post #3869, unfortunately the poor accuracy of Sheehan's article' affects not just your car, but others too.

Instead, your car, which Sheehan described as "an LM/GTE conversion", always raced as an F40.

See http://www.racingsportscars.com/chassis/archive/ZFFGJ34B000084326.html

The idea that there was some kind abstract "LM-specification" or GTE-specification" which was produced by Michelotto, which other firms could use and interpret to then make parts and modify cars to that spec simply doesn't stand up to any kind of historical scrutiny. All Michelotto would be doing is give away proprietary information. Besides, the racing specifications were wrttien by the organisers of the races such as BPR, not Michelotto. If you are saying they copied Michelotto parts, then you end up with an F40LM replica. I am afraid it appears that it is your desire to associate the LM moniker to your car that has created this idea.

If you really believe that the term "LM/GTE" was specifically created to describe your Hartmann/Hamman F40 modifications, then it becomes word-play. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is yours.

I think in order to move your "it was an LM/GTE conversion" argument forward, it would be best for you to produce some evidence regarding the car rather than attempting to redefine the terms F40LM and F40GTE to include your car.

 

This thread
https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/good-value-lm-updated-f40.390355/page-4
post 76 onward might give you an idea as the current owner talks about the original Hamann front clam. Possibly last seen at a small race prep company in York, UK referred to by @Traveller in post #81. It had the Hamann nose when it was advertised in 2002 by Oakfields in Classic and Sport Car Magazine (see my post #3846 above). It is quite unlikely it survived till 2012 in the car because the distinctive flat blade in the large central vent in the original hamann design is missing, and it looks more like a regular LM nose by the time the current owner posted his first pictures on this thread.

No idea what happened to it. As per the preceding post, a sequential gearbox doesn't necessarily mean a GTE, even for the official cars (the case of F40GTE #88779). I believe the most significant change was the increase in engine capacity to 3.5 or 3.6 litres from 2.9. In any event, Michelotto didn't make the sequential gearboxes. They were sourced from X-trac for the F40GTEs. I do not know what brands of sequential gearboxes were tested in the Hamann F40

 

F40 LM can get red book certified
F40 corsa’s (the few made by Michelotto) can get white book certified.
Maybe only 82404 could get a red book as it has an original LM chassis.

 

It is interesting that you raised this very point about it being an F40 Hamann conversion back on 5 Dec 2012 in response to @Traveller asking for photos of his car:

Reference: https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/141943866/

and in post #59 https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/141943908/

to which you replied:

before posting some very nice racing photos of the car on post #71 a little further down.


Without wishing to speak for the present owner, I think he has always been entirely transparent that the car is not an original Michelotto F40LM, So, i think we all agree.

However, the issue in the post above is regarding his claim that his Hamann race converted F40 qualifies as LM/GTE-spec under some generic description applicable to in-period F40 race conversions.

I am saying LM-spec is used to describe the package of parts and design by Michelotto used in their F40LMs. Similarly for the Michelotto F40GTE.

His car was developed independently by Hamann in Germany to a racing specification of their own design, which arguably should be called Hamann-spec.

I am saying that the two are very different for the reasons of different design, engineering, development and history.

It has been shown above it remained structurally in the Hamann-spec at least until 2003, after it retired.

Therefore, I am saying that the his car, in period, was never of an LM and/or GTE specification as represented by the Michelotto F40LM or F40GTE.

Furthermore, I am saying there was never a "generic" LM (or LM/GTE) specification, as he claims, that could be applicable to F40 race conversions regardless of origin (e.g Hamann). It appears it is a description introduced by the present owner to be able to use the F40LM label, in period, for his car.

About the only label I can think of that an F40LM or F40GTE could have shared with the Hamann F40 is GT1: the class under which these cars raced in period.