F40 LM GTE

Again prove me wrong, so so simple to get that measurement and I will happily admit such when you post up the pic showing that extra 20mm

 

Fia docs

Lunghezza fuori-tutto 4360
Larghezza fuori-tutto 1980
Passo 2450
Sbalzo anteriore 1046
Sbalzo posteriore 864

F40LM, Michelotto document

Lunghezza fuori-tutto 4458
Larghezza fuori-tutto 1980
Passo 2450
Sbalzo anteriore 1148
Sbalzo posteriore 860

discrepancy
.....

Not telling that FIA document is not correct...

 

We already have the FIA's independent measurement, best possible scenario as they know how to measure cars accurately, so nobody's interetsted in proving anything to you as the facts already exist from a credible entity, as for the 1960 mm measured by your cats, it appears to be of a replica F40 rear clam and therefore are irrelevant and cannot in any way be used to support your wholly erroneous claim that the rear of an F40 is that measurement.

The F40 and F40LM rear clams are both 1980 mm at their widest point, something that has been known for 30 years, the correct measurement of the widest point of the rear width slightly fore of the top pf the rear wheel arch so when measured correctly you get the extra 5mm each side and 1970 mm becomes 1980 mm.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

There are over 1300 F40 owners out there and you cannot find one to lift their rear clam and run a tape measure over it for you! despite having dealt with many of them. How easy would it be for you to crow then.

It is clear to everyone reading this that you have probably already done that and just like me you found that from upper wheel arch to upper wheel arch is actually 1960mm and not 1980mm

So rather than admit you are wrong to try to denigrate me for whatever reason, and apologise by confirming my actual measurement was correct all along you are hiding behind a document that Tom has already identified does not tally up to the people that actually built them.

There are many potential future F40 buyers and sellers reading this and deciding whether you are the type of person to do business with, many have already told me they would not go near you with a bargepole based on your actions of fchat over the years.

You do realise that sooner or later one or more of those F40 owners will take that measurement and post it up here.

 

Any one else want to give an impartial measurement from these two point please, as I stated from the very start whilst simply trying to help out another member,
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joseph stated "The F40 and F40LM rear clams are both 1980 mm at their widest point, something that has been known for 30 years, the correct measurement of the widest point of the rear width slightly fore of the top pf the rear wheel arch so when measured correctly you get the extra 5mm each side and 1970 mm becomes 1980 mm."

So so wrong yet again


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Paul you're wasting your time, the FIA are a regulatory Motorsports entity and in the application process they independently verify the basic dimension and other data of manufacturer's cars before they grant them Homologation for GT racing. I don't need to measure an F40 as the FIA are much more skilled at recording automotive dimensions and I take their data as the most accurate.

In order of legitimacy, I would take the FIA's data as the best source, even above that of Ferrari SpA themselves, then Michelotto, etc in that order. 1980 mm is the correct measurement for the width of the rear of an F40, again you ignore the fact that the tops of the wheel arch is not the widest point.

Your erroneous 1960 mm number is meaningless, because it's not even based on a real Ferrari F40, you know this, we all know this.

Take 88513 for example, the rear is 1980 mm, Michelotto will confirm this, and, that rear hood is the same standard F40 hood not widened in any way.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I don't intend debating this any further until you stop hiding behind a document you had no involvement in, to to try to divert attention away from the fact you refuse to provide easy attainable first hand proof of your claim as I have done.

The area is shown in the photo I have now posted up, one or more F40 owner will verify the facts soon enough. as to who is correct.

Again you try to claim the measurement I took was from a non factory rear clam, attached is the actual clam in question that proved the widest area on an F40 production clam is 1960mm
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ferrari SpA says 1980mm.

https://autocatalogarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Ferrari-F40-1987.pdf

 

FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) says 1980mm.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

DK Engineering's press release says 1980mm.

https://www.dkeng.co.uk/press/1298004986-9080f6f93ae0abf8789e4e470dbb4e92.pdf

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Michelotto besides, I can quote numerous other credible sources, all of whom record the car's width at 1980mm, and I think for objectivity's sake, it's important that these sources are independent sources and not you or I.

Are you suggesting you are a more credible source than the FIA, Ferrari SpA, Michelotto, DK Engineering et al?

Hey we could agree to disagree on the basis that the rest of the world knows it's 1980mm, and Paul & cats say it's 1960mm if that makes you happy

By the way that rear clam is looking minty compared to it's firmer depiction by yourself as a cat bench, did you clean it up for purposes of this discussion? IF so Bravo to you. Any chance we can get the body number as it sits inside the rear wing join? Rhetorical question.

Again, if you are measuring a real clam, and you measure of across the highest point of each wheel arch as you are suggesting, you will get it wrong because that is not the actual widest point of the rear clam. www.ferrarichat.com

Even with the naked eye you can see from the top view that the F40's bodywork tapers wider from it's rear source and achieves it's widest point in the vicinity of the body join of the rear clam (side view) and the leading end of the NACA duct (top view), this is clearly fore of the wheel arch, so, your call for measuring across the top of the wheel arch obviously will produce a slightly narrower result, which is why your result is in error compared to the actual widest point of the car. Makes sense?

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

However the one simple thing you will not do is actually put a tape measure across one and confirm such in the real world, why not?

We all know why not don't we, as it will show the figure I provided in order to help the poster was correct all along, from the points I clearly listed at the time, and your attempt to call me out as usual backfired.

The photo of the actual clam used was when it was first secured by the owner, the dust is from its long term storage ever since, yes the cats love clambering around on it, lets see some photos of your F40, oh you have not owned anything associated with one for years have you.

 

Because there's no need, as it's been independently verified as being 1980mm by the FIA, and signed off on by Ferrari SpA themselves, my input therefore would be redundant.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Just like Ferrari build documents for the last 35 years have stated that a Prototype LM from 1987 you even posted pics up of was actually built in 1990 from production parts made hundred of parts later, or that for 25 years you told all your Enzo customers that they were buying one of only 399 examples rather than one of over 500 examples out there.

Both documentation errors have now been debunked year later with facts and supporting evidence.

I have clearly now busted another myth, using an original F40 rear clam as shown and the measurement on the tape measure also shown.

I have also busted the myth about US spec F40s having special engines, when they are just ROW cat spec ones, proof fully suppled for all to see.

You keep hiding behind dusty old, incorrect documents rather than having the guts to actually measure one and admit you were wrong to yet again try to denigrate me for simply helping out a fellow fchat member.

 

Before he tries to jump on one single typo to hide from the facts yet again, in the first sentence the LM was applied in error, it is a standard F40 prototype.

 

They also state "6ft 6in", which then makes it 1981.2mm........

 

The pic of the F40 clam I posted above, with the arrow either side is of one currently hanging up in DK's facility, I am sure the guys there would run a tape measure over it for Joseph if he asked nicely, seeing as he mentions them at every opportunity on here.

 

I didn't realize asking such a mundane question would cause such a ruckus.

On to my next question, can anyone explain why the GTE headlight buckets are larger than the LM and use different plastic covers? Seems to me the LM headlight arrangement and measurements are perfect, I'd like to know why that was changed with the GTE.

 

Well, how sure are you that the clam is the widest point? Because when trying to settle a debate of the width of a car, don't you have to measure, let's say the whole car, instead of just a part? How do you know the measurement is not taken with the panels just above (rear wing quarter) or below (top of sideskirt) the beltline?

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Good question, if you look at the birds eye photo I posted previously with the parallel white lines you can see exactly the widest point, which is the wheel arch of the rear clam.

The start of the rear clam is the line just behind the fuel fillers, typically the rear wheel track of any car is its widest point on the road, so the arches have to fully cover such as a result to meet regulations.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Which underscores my point, 1960mm as measure by Paul is not nearly the correct total width measurement of the F40.

Exactly.

I tried to say what you're getting at here www.ferrarichat.com but I think you've stated it better.

 

498, not over 500 Enzos, please.

Marcel Massini

 

Thanks for confirming this. Looking around the forums, I now see you've posted this # before as well. Is 498 the normal production run or does it include all the prototypes/pre-production/post-production units as well?

This reminds me - back in July I posted that Bonhams had quoted Enzo production at 498 for their upcoming Quail offering of Enzo #131631. As I said in my post, I was surprised to see this, because sellers always go with 400 or even 399. Sure enough, that line would later be rewritten:

The Black Hand strikes again!

 

A client of mine and his son offered to measure the F40 I sold them, first go it came out at "exactly 78 inches" = 1981.2 mm, the same measurement DK Engineering's Press piece posted. They measured it a 2nd time with more precision and they got 77.9 inches which equals 1980 mm, same as Ferrari SpA, FIA, Michelotto et al.

Several other clients have offered to measure their F40s, and over the holidays I hope to measure 2 other F40s myself.

Image Unavailable, Please Login