Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by 275GTBSaran, Oct 6, 2017.
As I stated, that's because it was one of the weakest fields at LeMans regardless of weather or other teams' strategy. There was no real competition by any factory like we've had the last two decades since. Even in qualifying, all of the F1s were out-qualified by three F40s at the 1995 LeMans...an outdated design and also a "road car."
As far as the F1 being designed as a "road car" that people like to make mention, it was always more of a race car than road car. It was designed by a top F1 car designer. It was named after Formula 1 itself! A central driving position, carbon fiber monocoque (2,500lbs), v12 engine with individual throttle bodies and no flywheel making >100hp/liter, magnesium wheels, etc, etc. It's a race car throughout...none of those are "road car" design features. Just because it has a CD player (an ultra light one at that), doesn't put it in the same category as "road car" like a Toyota Camry. I'm surprised people can't believe the F1 was able to race like it did. Even though it was never intended to race from the beginning the design was certainly pulled from the race track.
What's next...will people claim Adrian Newey's "road car" Aston Martin Valkyrie as impressive when it annihilates Silverstone in a time similar to an F1 car?
The GTO is rarer than an F1 and will always be more valuable. McLaren is a chassis-manufacturer and will never match or surprass the level of mystique Ferrari has created for itself.
I don't agree. I know who was bidding. It takes two to bid my friend. Porsche prices are a trend of better drivability, reliability and new collectors relating to cars of their youth.
I think its perfectly relevant. Its about time we see classic and vintage cars in a broader perspective.
Sure sounds like a true speculator exploring diversification of investment portfolio, but IMO, still in a wrong forum section.
Last I checked this was "Vintage Ferrari", not a "Speculations on future investment value of later model super cars. Could they do as well as 250GTOs have in the past ?" section.
And while I don't wish to support this nonsense subject further, I think the assessment on your post #53 "It takes two to bid..." may not consider the fact that sometimes there's only one interested (real) bidder against the auction company which, with the assistance of that infamous "chandelier", is only taking him/her as far as they can or dare...
And sometimes, both of these parties might even be in an advance agreement of this.
Yes, auctions are known to have shill bids so you are correct in that it doesn't take two to tango.
I think the debate of the two cars the OP started is pretty much over now...I'm not sure there is much else to add at this point. I've already put enough of my opinion on the matter out there and have nothing else more to say.
When the McLaren F1 was designed the FIA and The ACO Le Mans were still working towards the end of the Group C era and against a full race spec. Sauber or even a 3.5 litre Peugeot the McLaren would have been hopelessly un-competitive. When that category died in 1993, BPR (Jurgen Barth, Patrick Peter, and Stéphane Ratel) who had started a semi professional race category to run barely altered Supercars such as the Ferrari F40 and various 911s with each car having one pro and the team owner or another amateur driving, took over. Now it wasn't til '95 that the McLaren F1 (which had been in production for 3 years) was finally converted to race spec and then only dominated until the launch of the Porsche 911GT1 (designed to meet the GT1 category rules to the letter) in mid '96. Time and Two seats by Janos Wimpffen covers all of this in enormous detail and gives perspective on a fascinating period in GT racing, even the Porsche only dominated until the Mercedes CLK-GTR and Toyota GT-One took the rule bending to another level indeed. The McLaren was not designed to race (McLaren was racing F1 and had no need to bother with a semi pro category) and was rather unsuccessful as racing cars go, although fabulous as road cars go and a real step forward for the supercar category. FWIW where the Mercedes CLK-GTR and 911GT1 et al fail is that they were too race spec. and are too harsh, uncomfortable and expensive to maintain and whereas you frequently see F1s with enough miles to see they have been driven, most CLK-GTR and 911GT1s have very low mileage indeed. Lovely baubles that they may be.
Prices for rare air cooled 911s such as the Lightweight, GT2 or GT1 versions have risen dramatically but not to levels seen at RMs London sale although those were unique spec cars. While I would have said that they will continue to be record setting or whatever, the fact is that since RM London '16 more street 993 GT2s have come on the market than in the decade preceding it and how many buyers are there for that car at more than say 1.5 million US$. Supply and demand rules, even at this level.
02R & 5573GT
A.H. was also the owner of 12R. Are you sure that A.H. has still 02R ? 02R has now the same owner as 043.
Just a thought that this is going to go huge. Hate the colour but as new is rare in anything this elite and I guess you could always repaint it.
Chassis #60 from Japan. Gordon Murray's signature is on the right rear bumper. What a waste to not drive it...should've bought a poster and/or model car.
I don't think the poster would have appreciated and have made millions in profit. It won't have been a waste at all for the owner. Far from it.
Again, very little to do with "Vintage" Ferrari or this forum section.
Yes, it wouldn't have made millions like the McLaren, but what's the point in making more if you already had enough to buy an F1 new back then? It was a rough market to sell supercars at that price then so their buyers were already very very well off. I doubt whatever they make from the sale will make much of a difference in their life now....they already have it made.
Yes, but do very successful people give up when they have enough? Nope.
I'm not saying they should give up, but at least drive the car...what it was made for. They've gone up in value regardless of prior accidents like the 250 GTOs. Car "investments" aren't even the best way to make money (including the F1) if that was their plan from the beginning.
They may have no interest in cars and could have bought the car at a lot less than list when new and unused and saw an opportunity for investment of free cash. Also they may have bought another one that they actually did drive. Sometimes things aren't always as they may seem. Just sayin...
I totally agree with you. Honestly I see a slight buyers problem with the brand new F1 that has appeared now on the market. Who is going to buy it? If a buyer wants to keep only for financial returns he is best to leave it and not drive it. But does that even make sense? If a buyer wants to drive it - is this car really the best car to bid for? As tempting and cool this McLaren F1 sounds - I think it is tricky to find the right buyer for this car.......
Yes, the McLaren and cars in general are not great when it comes to liquidity. Plus they have negative cash flows when you own it (storage, maintenance, and insurance costs) and at the end have broker fees when it's sold as they're likely going through a broker at that price-point. It's okay if one uses the car for what it was made for and your get enjoyment out of it that way, which a stock or bond cannot provide. But when one lets it sit doing nothing (like a stock or bond), the negatives outweigh the benefits of garage queen investments imo. I rather put money into an investment that provides positive cashflow and also appreciates...
My hope is that the original owner had two F1s and drove the pants off of one of them but I doubt it...
Doubtful. All of the Japanese F1s (past and present) are pretty well accounted for and none seem to fit that use. I used to frequent an F1 forum along with several other Fchatters and we had threads keeping track of this sort of stuff. This is the most recent (now old) version for the Japanese ones: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1014672
I have a hard time believing someone ordered an F1 new and kept it in the wrapper simply for investment purposes. Maybe the person who ordered it died before delivery and the family took possession of it all this time and never wanted to part with it. The lowest price paid for an F1 was in the 1990s, but not this chassis (at least known publicly). It was at an auction and if I recall correctly was chassis #007. I think it sold for like $600k usd or something...not sure.
Asking price by Tom Hartley Jr for the delivery mileage yellow F1 is said to be £25 million GBP. See here: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/mclaren-f1-owners-watch-tag-heuer
And here: http://www.tomhartleyjnr.com/used/1997/classic/mclaren/1997-classic-mclaren-moira-swadlincote-for-sale-048060#
Anybody else find this amazing ? That’s incredible.
Lets break down what makes a car "valuable." There are five man factors: Make/model, quality, provenance, artistry, and authenticity. We can debate all day about artistry and which marque is more important so we'll ignore those two for now.
That sounds completely off-base. If Bonhams car was worth $15 mil USD there's no way this should be worth $33 mil USD. I've never seen any other delivery mileage car bring more than double an average car. That's (hypothetically) more than an LM! My guess is it sells for $20 mil - $25 mil. If it goes for over $30 mil expect to see a lot more hit the market in the next year.
I find it absolutely incredible. And speaks for both cars similarities despite being built more than 35 years apart.