The point is that "today's Cobra" - more on that below - is still pretty much the same car that it was in the '60's: A 90" wheelbase, aluminum bodied superleggera - style car, with an OHV pushrod V8 sending power through a manually clutched and shifted gearbox to independently suspended rear wheels. No driver aids, no electronic engine management and no traction control
Yes, there is some newer-tech stuff in the engine - alloy block and heads along with some porting and machine work that wasn't commonplace in 1965; but all of that stuff is stone age primitive compared to the super-optimized, tech-laden rocketship from Ferrari. No matter how you slice it this was still a raw accelleration contest between a Cobra - in all it's primitive, brute force glory against the latest and greatest offering from Enzo (well, Enzo's legacy anyway
). AND - THE COBRA WON HANDILY IN SPECTACULAR FASHION!
As far as the prepped track and Las Vegas altitude, etc; both cars were running in the same air, on the same track. The option of bypassing the electronic autopilot and paddle shifting at max RPM without traction control was available to Tommy but it made no difference. The Cobra was just too fast, period.
The other thing about the Kirkham not really being a Cobra - Thinking about the issue has changed my position. To me now it's just pure semantics. It may not be a Shelby Cobra, but in every bit as much as the original AC car was a Cobra, so is the Kirkham. Corporate politics and shenanigans over the years have determined how the Cobra moniker can be used officially, but little else has changed. The Kirkham car is by all practical reasoning a Cobra - not much different at all from the AC Cobra of the '60's. Just better engineered and way better built. That's the way I honestly see it.
PS: I'm still stuck in Las Vegas (gotta say I'm really enjoying this place) for a few more days with nothing but a basic laptop so posting photos is about the best I could do - sorry Bigga Brudda