250 GTO for sale?

AFTER the overall winners.

Er, how can you not understand such a smoke concept. If winning Le Mans was as easy as winning a mere GT class then Ford would not have spent millions trying to win the race overall. They wanted to WIN Le Mans properly for prestigious reasons.

Oh and ALL Motorsport is about spending money.
Pete

 

Yes but their is only one overall winner. This is all we are trying to say.

If you have won your class and not overall then you need to state that, as a GT driver is way below the top flight level drivers, in fact many are amateurs. Currently Patrick Dempsey races a Porsche. Anybody that thinks he is on the same level as Allan McNish is deluded.
Pete

 

IMO

Only ever one winner and that is the overall winner based on either the greatest distance, most laps or very rarely fastest speed. That will generally be the Prototype/ LMP category. That doesnt dimish the ability of the GT or other category winners but it is a stretch to say they won overall. One thing that used to pop up in used car ad's is the old Le Mans winner or Sebring winner quotes, when indeed they won their class. Back in the day Le Mans used to have categories down to 1100cc or Mille Miglia down to 750cc. They were a million miles away from the winners and were generally bog standard Fiats and Renaults. They didnt win Le Mans or anything else but OTOH maybe the feat of finishing a race like that in a car that barely did 50 let alone 100 is possibly greater than driving a well prepared car fast.

Overall its the winning that counts.

 

And all LMP drivers are considered to be "way below" Formula 1 drivers. So if you are trying now to draw lines between drivers who are winners at Le Mans, should not a description of a Tom Kristensen that states "He has won 8 times at Le Mans" also include "but that is not up to the same level as a winning Formula 1 driver", right?

Even more on point, Allan McNish has won Le Mans (OA, so its legit) three times but he never won a Formula 1 race. Should his career bio be "Although McNish won at Le Mans and in ALMS, he never won in Formula 1, a superior class of racing."?

It's just tedious. Isn't there anything better to argue about? What is the point of all this argy bargy? Is it really so hard to grasp the fact that there may be three or four separate and distinct sports car races taking place simultaneously on the same track?

Does anyone in the market for a used race car really think that a Porsche 911 or a Ferrari 458 or other car might have been an overall winner at Le Mans instead of a class winner? Much ado about nothing.

 

Okay. Overall winners are worth more than class winners. Even the most valuable GTO's are worth more because they finished 2nd overall or 3rd overall not because they won their class. The Ford GT40 or Jaguar D - Type is the same. So some rough comparators from the last 10 years.

Porsche 962- Le Mans '83 - Offered @ RM No Sale at 2.2 million (Average 962's were selling around the 1 mil mark)
Matra - Le Mans '72 - Sold @ Bonhams Monaco '06 at $1.8 mil. (about 50% more)
Ford Mark II - Le Mans '67 - Sold privately in '09 for reported 9.4 mil. (no comparable sales)
Ferrari 330LM - Le Mans '62 - Sold RM '07 for reported $9.3 mil (about 50% more than comparable)
Aston Martin DBR1 - Le Mans '59 - Sold privately '12 for approx. $25 mil. (about 75% more)
Ferrari 250TR - Le Mans '58 - Sold privately '12 for approx. $27 mil. (about 75 - 100% more)

From what I can see the pinnacle for price attachment

Le Mans overall win
Mille Miglia overall win
Le Mans/ Mille Miglia (3 litre or greater) class win
Sebring/ Targa/ Nurburgring/ Carrera overall win
Other overall win
Sebring/ Targa/ Nurburgring/ Carrera/ Le Mans (sub 2 litre)/ Mille Miglia (sub 2 litre) class win
Other class win

 

One race? Uh...how about no? There are 4 classes, there are 4 races. A GT car isn't competing against a LMP car. They just happen to run in the same series on the same track at the same time.

 

Everybody who says he won Le Mans means he has won his class at Le Mans. Anyone who knows anything about what goes on at Le Mans knows that. You are free to ask in what class he won. The fact that he who won in LMP also won overall, is implied. That is the nature of the game.

your remark about GT drivers being lesser than LMP drivers is way off base. Are you telling me
Gianmaria Bruni is any less than Kazuki Nakajima? Are you telling me Jan Magnussen or Oliver Gavin can't hold a candle against Allan McNish?

Mr Le Mans, Tom Kristensen does well behind the wheel of an Audi LMP, but behind the wheel of an Audi DTM-car he didn't do anything special. And he is far removed from Formula 1.

You are probably right when you talk about the GTE AM class, but those guys simply aren't pro's. Their accomplishments count just as much.

 

Somehow I doubt that many who watch LeMans see it that way.

Winning your class is a great achievement but to 99.9% of the fans there is just one overall winner.

 

and there is only one GT-winner. Still not sure what your point is.

 

Then 99,9% of the fans would be entirely correct. There is indeed just one overall winner.

My point is directed at the sentiment that the rest are 'only' or 'just' class winners and that they are less than overall winners.

In my opinion they are all class winners and there is really no comparison since they race in different classes under a different set of rules. There is no distinction between their respective victories even if the general public directs their attention to the overall winner. Those who know, know where to look and they usually look at GT. Especially these days.

Well, off to bed!

 

True enough.

There is an inherent hierarchy of classes though.

 

Today the difference between the fastest and the slowest isnt particularly great, 50 years ago they used to run all sorts of classes at the Mille Miglia, Le Mans, Sebring etc. Back then the top cars were professionals and an entire class greater than the amateurs in the unmodified private entries found at the back of most fields. Nowadays most are at least semi - pro's throughout the field, a world of difference. So todays GT3 or whatever class winners are a lot closer to the front in quality and ability.

 

First, Let's not play games . . . your request of his e-mail was clearly a 'jab' at my friend and a way of saying you had no respect for his accomplishment.

Second, he does not claim to be a LeMans winner. He won his class at Daytona. (Hence, the gift of a Rolex Daytona watch.) If you see his watch and ask him about racing, he will say, quite humbly, that 'his car' won his class at the 24 hours of Daytona.

His office has many pictures as his office is 'his' place.

Third, the reference to F-1 . . . in my post, I was making a point of the dedication, skill and teamwork necessary to compete in motor sports. I was showing how competitive it was and asking you a question to see if you had any respect for the difficulty in performing in big-time racing. The skill and expertise needed to be first in class is nothing to sneeze at. And using F-1 as an analogy, the skill needed to be a backmarker is still quite considerable.

 

Correct. F1 is the piniacle of motorsport for a reason. Ask Allan and he would agree.

I fully accept this but I do not accept that unless you win Le Mans overall you can be considered the winner of Le Mans. That implies that it takes as much skill to race a mere GT car as it does a LMP car ... bollocks. The LMP drivers ARE of course a class above the GT drivers.

True.
Pete

 

As I've said previously there is a clear hierachy in motorsport and all professional drivers are working hard to reach the top which for sportscars is LMP.

Of course LMP cars take more skill to drive thus it is a natural, and usually correct, assumption that the LMP drivers are a cut above otherwise why would the owners of the LMP cars hire them.

There are exceptions but this is the simple rule. Therefore quite clearly winning overall and the LMP class is more of an achievement than winning the GT class at Le Mans. Anybody that thinks otherwise is deluded.

Anyway I'm over this discussion ... I've got research on #06885GT to do .
Pete

 

Okay I'm up to speed on the Competizion Speciales versus the GTB/C's now.

I guess the bit I struggle with on the comparison to a 250GTO is that the GTO was designed completely for racing. Yes these speciales were built for racing but they started with the 275GTB road model, but to be fair they really started with a clean sheet but based on the GTB. One could debate that the GTO started based on the SWB ... but of course the end result looked so different where these speciales look like race versions of the GTB ... and yes I understand they do not share any panels, but they look like the difference between a F40 versus a F40LM sort of thing.

As #06885GT was the first and the only one with any real competition history it is a special car. I personally think these cars would have a bigger place in history if they all had officially raced by Ferrari but even #06885GT didn't do anything significant for Scuderia Ferrari and it's real history started once Ecurie Francorchamps took over the running of the car.

Saying that NART won Le Mans (overall, sigh ) for the last time for Ferrari and the 250/275LM is considerably more well known than these Competizion Speciales ??
Pete

 

06885 also came 1st OA (OUTRIGHT WINNER) on the 28th November, 1965 in the Nassau Tourist Trophy at the Bahamas Speed Week plus a 1st IC, 11th OA at the Governor's Trophy on 3rd December, 1965 in Nassau.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I wonder how it compares driving wise to a GTO?. The 250GTO is raved on about in regards to chassis balance and how the car works with the driver to make you feel like a hero and simply generates cornering speed.

This car should have more weight in the back and I guess more rear grip?

In Nick Mason's book "Into the Red" they discuss how the competition Daytona is just a little bit faster than the 250GTO in lap time but the way they go about it is completely different with the Daytona loosing all that finesse.

And yes, sorry, it did have one win under Scuderia Ferrari.
Pete

 

Yes, I was wondering if there are any tests or actual driving impressions published about 06885? It's such an enigmatic car. It was in N.A.R.T's ownership that it was entered in the 1965 Nassau races where it scored the win and 1st IC results.

Interestingly 275 GTB/C 09035 also came 1st IC in the GT category the following year at Le Mans 1966 in the hands of Piers Courage and Roy Pike, 8th OA. 275 GTB/C 09079 was 1st IC GT category, 11th OA at Le Mans 1967 with Dieter Spoerry and Rico Steinemann at the wheel.

Doug Nye says of 09035, that he has entered in events with its owner Paul Vestey, that it is more powerful than a 250 GTO but lacking its balance and agility. With the transaxle you'd have thought that the 275 would have the better balance???

 

Interesting. I had dinner with another 250 GTO owner who confirmed that sale...

I do love the way 06885 looks, and sounds!

 

Look at 1.25. Listen and look at 1.40. From the Mountain Legend Video of the 1965 Targa Florio. Unfortunately 06885 DNF this race.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8neOhYOnsGA]Mountain Legend - YouTube[/ame]

 

Oops, not getting the details right am I.

Yes, re balance but disappointing to hear about driving experience agility. I wonder if this is because of slightly more modern tyres and thus more grip.
Pete

 

Thread Bump . . . anybody confirm the $53 million GTO yet?

 

Yes, only a guess but it may also have been due to the well sorted live rear axle and leaf spring set up that worked so well on the 250 SWB and GTO over the superior, but less well sorted IRS on the 275 GTB which would have given more grip but may have been less controllable on the limit, or something like that???

 

The leafs in back were a homologation artifact. The lion's share of actual springing was by way of coil "helper" springs and wheel travel described by Watts linkage.

On smooth surfaces a good live axle looses little if anything to IRS.