Little Red

[Coralsnake]

Maybe look at the frame rail extensions to see if an attachment plate was used on the bottom?

Since this was outside the interior panels and in front of the seat, it was probably cosmetic.

I hear there may be some more pictures coming out....the Jackson website is working.

[J_Speegle]

Jeff, the 66 TA roll bar is different then the 67/68 TA roll bar. The roll bar may have had a attachment point on the floor plated on the other side however in the case of the 67 68  the floor attachment point was next to the frame rail where it was attached also.  Beside the floor pan and frame rail attachment points the 67 68 bars also ran at a 45% angle bar that came off of the main hoop and angle to the frame rail next to the wheel house. I have changed my opinion on the holes for a roll bar because on closer inspection of my 68 TA Shelby team car I found that it has the same 4 holes in the floor pan.  With that said and with no sign of any of those extra necessary for rigidity attachment points on ether the coupe or the convert it can be surmised that the roll bar in those cases would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar.

As stated and history shows us they were good enough for Shelby to produce, charge and install them as well as owners to race with them. Maybe they were "cosmetic" to the racing organizations that certified them and required them. 

Not sure if the picture you showed is of a new 68 Trans-am or one that had been modified (like most) over time but the original list of materials for building the 67 Group II Trans Am cars shows the following bolt - in roll bar. Guessing the "brackets" are the reinforcement plates we've seen on the bottom of the cars.

Don't see a picture of them (roll bar) or a mention, in text,  in the Supplement to the Mustang Specification Catalog but since they would have been included in the first it would make sense that they would not list them again

The work list shows no list of parts, additional brackets or plates and we know Shelby would have charged if they had done all the other work to every car. A number of the 67 Trans am group II cars I've looked at didn't have additional work as you showed in your picture





For those that are wondering the document is dated for release 3/10/67 and the roll bar is the same as called out in the 66 Group II Trans Am cars though the shoulder harnesses and other parts are different as one would expect

[J_Speegle]

A little more.  Maybe we're looking at this with 2018 eyes and knowledge rather than the knowledge and practices of the mid 60's. We've learned allot but during those days things were pretty primitive in ways.  So I thought I would offer a 1966 opinion of the roll bar in their own words. Consider also that this sort of roll bar with the same attachment points were being sold most of the hot rod catalogs and in the back pages of magazines. Its likely some members here purchased and installed the same   






Sure I can find ads that suggest how much safer  the passengers will be from that same period. IMHO does support the opinion of the time - just saying  maybe we're looking at how much good these things did from a very different angle then someone in 1966

[Bob Gaines]

Jeff, the 66 TA roll bar is different then the 67/68 TA roll bar. The roll bar may have had a attachment point on the floor plated on the other side however in the case of the 67 68  the floor attachment point was next to the frame rail where it was attached also.  Beside the floor pan and frame rail attachment points the 67 68 bars also ran at a 45% angle bar that came off of the main hoop and angle to the frame rail next to the wheel house. I have changed my opinion on the holes for a roll bar because on closer inspection of my 68 TA Shelby team car I found that it has the same 4 holes in the floor pan.  With that said and with no sign of any of those extra necessary for rigidity attachment points on ether the coupe or the convert it can be surmised that the roll bar in those cases would be a purely cosmetic non functional roll bar.

As stated and history shows us they were good enough for Shelby to produce, charge and install them as well as owners to race with them. Maybe they were "cosmetic" to the racing organizations that certified them and required them. 

The picture you posted does show a plate all by itself

Don't see a picture of them or a mention, in text,  in the Supplement to the Mustang Specification Catalog but since they would have been included in the first it would make sense that they would not list them again

The work list shows no list of parts, additional brackets or plates and we know Shelby would have charged if they had done all the other work to every car. A number of the 67 Trans am group II cars I've looked at didn't have additional work as you showed in your picture





For those that are wondering the document is dated for release 3/10/67 and the roll bar is the same as called out in the 66 Group II Trans Am cars though the shoulder harnesses and other parts are different as one would expect

Jeff ,I'm a little surprised at the " Maybe they were "cosmetic" to the racing organizations that certified them and required them. " comment because if you are familiar with a 67 TA interior you would have to know that for the TA bar to be used in the coupe or convertible being discussed it would have to be modified well beyond what the scope of what " the racing organizations" would be certifying.
I thought you would be appreciative that I confirmed that the four holes were for a roll bar. Instead you seem to dismiss what the evidence indicates for good or for bad. You appear to dismiss that the evidence indicates that at least on the Coupe and Convert that if a TA roll bar had been used it would have to be modified to work in ether car and in that case as I said it would not be functional but cosmetic only.  Maybe you misunderstood my post. First off the 67/68 roll bar would not fit in a coupe or convert without modifications to the stock interior in a negative appearance way. That alone would indicate a logical reason for some kind of change.  I assumed you were aware that the interior of a 67 TA car rear seat area is highly modified from a stock appearance . Although 2 people could physically fit in the back of one "ample space" is pure magazine hype because it is very cramped and you are not sitting on a regular padded Mustang seat are backrest. The TA seat and back rest is modified in width and thickness being covered in thin vinyl to comply with regulations only with no consideration for a passenger and to fit given the changes the TA roll bar mandates . The interior 1/4 trim of a stock interior was not typically used in a TA car or would it fit given the TA roll bar brace coming off the roll bar and attaching to the frame rail. This fact would indicate a rear brace would not be able to be used on a coupe or convert with a full interior in it.   I will repeat what I said before about the functionality of a roll bar given the floor pan mount when installed in the coupe or convert in question that it was cosmetic only. Given the evidence or lack of evidence that suggests that a roll bar would NOT be of the unmodified  67/68 TA type that you list in your post. All of your evidence is fine for a TA car but no evidence of connection points indicates that the braces were eliminated if in fact a TA roll bar was ever the basis for the roll bar. 

[J_Speegle]

I thought you would be appreciative that I confirmed that the four holes were for a roll bar. Instead you seem to dismiss what the evidence indicates for good or for bad.

Bob if you noticed - comparing your quote of mine and what I type and posted before you did that I was trying to rewrite what I was trying to say and somehow (as we were both quoting and posting) crossed somewhere. Still not sure if my one post clearly explains my beliefs but we can work from here

You appear to dismiss that the evidence indicates that at least on the Coupe and Convert that if a TA roll bar had been used it would have to be modified to work in ether car and in that case as I said it would not be functional but cosmetic only.

Again will stand by my earlier opinion that it would have been. That is what I was attempting to communicate in reply #183 but we can agree to disagree  and that's ok    Not sure if its that important of an issue given the car we're discussing in the thread. The holes and their use/purpose was and it appears we have a greater understanding of the possibility at this point

Currently I can only locate the pictures I have of the 66 application showing only the metal side panels removed for the wheel well attachments taken in 66. Don't know that the 67 pictures are clear enough to make out the details in those back corners.

[Bossbill]

Even today, rollbars that bolt to the floor pan are legal and are not much different than 50 years ago.
Granted, the material (now DOM) and welding methods have improved but the pad on most of these bolt-in affairs are not very large and simply sandwich the floor pan.
On the early Mustang bolt-in bars that most vendors sell today you might be lucky if the back two bolts engage into the lip of the rear torque box plate.

The effect of this can be seen here if the car is engaged in a severe roll-over.

Those little posts sticking up are the rear hoop downtubes that have blasted through.

But, this style of rollbar was very common back in the day and is still used today.
You just won't find one in my current race car.

[the driver somehow survived]

[billups67]

Well, we have now taken a thread that about finding the one and only Little Red into an argument about a roll bar. So much negative in this hobby anymore. Can't we be excited about this and all come to an agreement that we don't know all the answers? Some of this takes the fun out of it.

[Richstang]

Hi Jason,

I am beyond thrilled to hear Little Red was not crushed. I never thought I'd see this day. It's a incredible discovery to see the pictures of it just sitting in a field getting weathered by the sun. The day when it is finished and parked next to #0100 and #0139 will be something spectacular too see. Until then there will be lots of speculation about what it might have originally been built as, or what point it will be restored to. Perhaps what your reading is not arguments among the experts, but rather just banter on their opinions. Certainly we are all excited by this discovery and hope all the attention it has received from the unveiling will help to bring new info to light.

I'm still trying to figure out when it's first public appearance took place back in early '67. Per the date conflicts, it does not appear to be the LA auto show as previously thought. Please keep us updated on whatever you can share going forward and good luck getting it all sorted out. (I say no vinyl top and all the early '67 details...Hehe.)

Rich P

[Bossbill]

I too am thrilled that yet another piece of Shelby history has been found.

But I'm a racer and I've had to go through years of rule interpretation on cage design and have designed full blown cages. My current car has a 3 tube NASCAR bar, A-piller bar, head diagonals, and many, many gussets and other reinforcements. And it's welded to larger plates at the floor/sill.

I was trying to add data and found it interesting that bolt-in roll bars haven't changed much in the last 50 years. But today a bolt-in is minimum spec whereas 50 years ago it was deemed adequate for many venues. Adequate until the disasters unfolding in F1 in that same era came to light, which caused the safety ball to start rolling in motorsports.

Back to 67 spec, I say!

[Special Ed]

I think the rollbar that was in little red was also attached to the roof by the coat hanger  hook hole area that has plugs covering the headliner holes just behind the spoon ! haha

[Coralsnake]

Ed, I hear you have a NOS spoon.

I actually know Uri Geller, so we can get this done.

[J_Speegle]

I think the rollbar that was in little red was also attached to the roof by the coat hanger  hook hole area that has plugs covering the headliner holes just behind the spoon ! haha

The plugs look to be in the pockets (cutouts in the inner roof rail liner/panel) where the shoulder belt option would have had their anchor points. Will in interested if there is a nut plate in place there when the headliner  is removed.

67 Coupe coat hanger holes are off of that location slightly (below and to the right/forward in the second picture





IF they used the S2 roll bar as a starting point upper support arms/brackets would have needed to be fashioned and installed. Distance between the roll bar and mounts would have been different when compared to the 67 Shelby roll bar for the fastback

[Coralsnake]

I think the discussion is good, but like the forum, without some guardrails, things can go astray quickly.

Im pretty sure the roll bar for Little Red would have been more of a cosmetic exercise as opposed to a functional, life saving piece of equipment.

[Bob Gaines]

I think the discussion is good, but like the forum, without some guardrails, things can go astray quickly.

Im pretty sure the roll bar for Little Red would have been more of a cosmetic exercise as opposed to a functional, life saving piece of equipment.

Exactly. No surprise there given the nature of the cars .

[67350#1242]

Would the best guess be that the roll bar was installed for the 1967 or for the 1968 iteration of this car?
(it is actually surprising how complete and restorable looking this car is after so long abandoned - less drivetrain of course)