REPLICAS-REBUILD--REBUILT--BUILT--RULES.

[CUSTAXIE50]

WHAT ARE THE RULES BEFORE WE START

[jim short]

DAve Silcock has what should BE the rules the original group 5 rules that was in force when all these cars ran,and what every tom dick and harry are trying to complecate ,,there by so many folk stay home!!!

[Oldfart]

That is the whole issue really, there are no RULES.
What he have is a world wide debate with different opinions, like A-holes, everyone has one.
PERSONALLY, they should be as close as possible to the original. If there are no components PROVEN to be from the original, they are tributes, copies or fakes.
If they have 3 of the major components from engine, chassis, body, driveline or wheels (ie 3 out of 5) they are a rebuild/restore. This does NOT mean copies of the original bits, it is the genuine items.
Any less than 3/5 then they can not be considered as anything better than tributes as someone else is able to make another with at least the same number.
This is not my original thinking, it is just what Jenks said, and I just happen to agree.

[CUSTAXIE50]

OK THANKS.

[Oldfart]

OK THANKS.

Please remember, this is just my opinion above.
The issue, as I see it, with C2 was that the owners did not take the next step of having the COD (certificate of Description) put in place. This is paperwork (with a cost) of saying what your car has in the way of components. It was not done, so race organisers, amongst others, have a problem allowing it to run. Not their fault.
Whether you like it or not, bureaucracy dictates that COD is mandatory, so the organisers are now between a rock and a hard place.
None of us like to spend unnecessary money, but if I build a car to run as a historic I build this cost into the budget, just like I buy new wheel bearings, crack test or whatever, then I am not going to be fighting the BS every time I want to run. I don't like it but I need to do it.

[RogerH]

Irrespective of the bureaucratic nature of the COD, it is not that expensive in that the MSNZ charge is around $100 - which would be small compared to the cost of rebuilding or restoring a car.
There is some time involved in filling out the form but having completed a number over the years, if you know your car it would take less than half an hour to complete.
I suspect with C2 the problem may not have been the cost or time of completing the COD form but the fact that the owner knew that the answers on the COD form would have meant that the C2 would never have gained COD approval.

[Rod Grimwood]

Irrespective of the bureaucratic nature of the COD, it is not that expensive in that the MSNZ charge is around $100 - which would be small compared to the cost of rebuilding or restoring a car.
There is some time involved in filling out the form but having completed a number over the years, if you know your car it would take less than half an hour to complete.
I suspect with C2 the problem may not have been the cost or time of completing the COD form but the fact that the owner knew that the answers on the COD form would have meant that the C2 would never have gained COD approval.

Don't want too start it all over again, but why wouldn't it.

[AMCO72]

Indeed Mr Grimwood, why wouldn't it. The COD is a description of the car as presented. Nowhere in the COD form is the question asked....'IS THIS THE ORIGINAL'......brakes, body, suspension, engine etc et. The question asked is....'IS THIS COMPONENT TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION'.....quite different. You could say that C2's specification was 'TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION'. If there was a variation to the original specification the reason for departure was asked.

[RogerH]

Indeed Mr Grimwood, why wouldn't it. The COD is a description of the car as presented. Nowhere in the COD form is the question asked....'IS THIS THE ORIGINAL'......brakes, body, suspension, engine etc et. The question asked is....'IS THIS COMPONENT TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION'.....quite different. You could say that C2's specification was 'TO THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION'. If there was a variation to the original specification the reason for departure was asked.

I think the problems with the COD form would occur with such questions as "Year of Model Introduction", "Year of Manufacture" and "Year Vehicle now Represents". If you had a car with a year of model introduction as say, 1966 but the year of "manufacture" being say 2010, then MSNZ would be on alert that it could be a replica.
There is also a declaration on the COD form in which the applicant has to state why his vehicle complies with MSNZ Schedule K or T&C. These MSNZ Schedules state that they are for genuine period cars - replicas and recreations are covered under a separate section (Schedule CR).
And finally, at the end of the COD form there are two sections - "Previous Competition History" and "Subsequent Owners with Period of Ownership".
I would think that these types of questions would expose a car that was recent replica or recreation.

[TonyG]

That is the whole issue really, there are no RULES.
What he have is a world wide debate with different opinions, like A-holes, everyone has one.
PERSONALLY, they should be as close as possible to the original. If there are no components PROVEN to be from the original, they are tributes, copies or fakes.
If they have 3 of the major components from engine, chassis, body, driveline or wheels (ie 3 out of 5) they are a rebuild/restore. This does NOT mean copies of the original bits, it is the genuine items.
Any less than 3/5 then they can not be considered as anything better than tributes as someone else is able to make another with at least the same number.
This is not my original thinking, it is just what Jenks said, and I just happen to agree.

Seems logical and a sensible approach to stop this sort of senseless trackside bickering that is going on over the likes of the C2. There was only 1 "original", term loosely used here, the "Replica" has been rebuilt by the original people that ran it and again it is the only one in existence. Should it not be capped there ? It exists and should not be copied as there was never a 2nd in the first place.

Should in the case of the C2 it not simply be classified a REPLICA and be done with it. It is well known the exact car that raced is dead and gone, so no matter how many parts you say are from the original it is still going to be a replica and that will never change.

Replicas are running here in Aus with the Gp A and Gp C originals and without seeing the word Replica on the windscreen , you would never know and the public would not care. The Bob Jane A9X Torana is a classic example. A sensible approach is used however in that there are not multiple replicas of the 1 car. If the original is dead there is only 1 replica allowed from what I understand. Seems a sensible approach especially for events like at HD where sheep stations are not at stake like many drivers seem to think are now in an actual championship situation.

You could not compare the C2 rebuild with say the Cossack Victor which has resurfaced as it is obvious from pictures it is the original Victor and still exists so its rebuild can be fully documented.
People want to see cars like the C2 and Morrari which can only be recreated and called a replica on the track with other cars that the original competed with.
Seems simple but obviously not. The trackside bickering will just kill it as has always happened with the great classes in NZ Motorsport.

[AMCO72]

Actually TonyG, most of us on here are not bickering. We are having 'vigorous discussion', which is encouraged. Not a bad thing. When I think back over the years, from about the beginning of the 60's, most of the problems with NZ motorsport have come about from dodgy decisions from officialdom, not from competitors just wanting to get out and race....the OSCA split for one...and yes, ONE replica from an original, which is dead,....seems obvious, but apparently not.......C2..pretty close.....no C3!!!! This thrashing around of ideas/opinions on this thread, and this thread is about replicas, is great, lets folk get things off their chest, and if we all keep our cool/humour, we will all be better off...........I'm not sure what your reference to sheep stations at HD is all about.....are you saying someone has mortgaged their station to pay for their hobby?

[TonyG]

Sorry AMCO. Edited my post to clarify what I meant by the bickering. Not meaning the discussion on here but the complaints about wether this or that car should be allowed to go on track if presented at a meeting like Hampton Downs.
The reference to sheep stations was more tongue in cheek as no one is getting paid what they should be for putting their mobile history on track and I would be very surprised if anyone was preparing a car to go out and "Win at all costs " if that is a better way of putting it. Its not like a championship with points on offer is it. It is meant to be more "gentlemanly" fun.
I honestly did not mean to offend anyone. My reply was just poorly worded and I hope i have suitably edited it.
Regards
Tony

[AMCO72]

Apologies accepted Tony......I am not easily offended!!!!! I wish your reference to 'gentlemanly fun' was correct. I have competed against guys who 'sole ambition' was to go out and win.....believe you me. Yes the cars are the stars, as we are repeatedly told BUT, it is the very nature of our hobby that....as Stirling Moss has often said.....'I want to go out and RACE'. We all know what it is like sitting on the starting grid promising ourselves that we are going to be 'gentlemen'.......yeh right!! Now, where did I put those knitting needles.

[TonyG]

The dreaded Red Mist syndrome. lol
I will have to come home one day when the real cars like yours are on track and relive it all for myself. Been too long.

[CUSTAXIE50]

shit-i fell out of bed today,and all that i had last night was six cups of tea.turned the radio on, they were playing--we will rock you--thats ,what allan dick played before coming on the radio, all good.we are getting the speedway sidecar out to race in palmerston north tonight,its going to be a big night for my boy, he will be overdriving the chair tonight to get a place.I was thinking how could this day get BETTER,-- SHIT-YOU -BOYS you have MADE MY DAY, thats all i wanted to know from the start about- the thing that is now -called C2-you could name a drink after it. right back to what has been put up,this time around we are getting there,just tell me in some words that we can all understand, what did they put on C2- that was not on -C1,THAT HAS UPSET SOME out there.all the best to you all, time to get this chair, and some race gas out of the shed and get to the track- all the best-CUSTAXIE50..

[Howard Wood]

I think the problems with the COD form would occur with such questions as "Year of Model Introduction", "Year of Manufacture" and "Year Vehicle now Represents". If you had a car with a year of model introduction as say, 1966 but the year of "manufacture" being say 2010, then MSNZ would be on alert that it could be a replica
And finally, at the end of the COD form there are two sections - "Previous Competition History" and "Subsequent Owners with Period of Ownership".
I would think that these types of questions would expose a car that was recent replica or recreation.

Roger,

Slightly more complicated with the C2 I agree as there is no Homologation specs to follow on a car like that but there is nothing in the Sched K compliance system that prevents a replica. As discussed previously, my Alpina Group 2 replica built from a road going BMW 2002Tii was issued with a Sched K cert. In the section "previous competition history" I simply wrote "nil" and in the preamble to the application stated it was newly built as a replica.

C2 was, we assume, built from the bones of a 1956 Customline body and chassis exactly as the original, that would certainly not preclude it getting at least a COD. And as the car was built by or in association with the original people involved the verification of the "period correctness" would on the face of it seem to be pretty straight forward.

The conclusion therefore as to why the build was not completed by applying for and getting the correct paperwork can only come down to two options;
1. The people involved didn't want to for whatever reason
2. The car contained non period parts or technology that meant it did not comply.

I certainly have no idea (nor an opinion) on which of those options is correct.

I do however have an opinion on whether it is a replica or not.

[RogerH]

Roger,

Slightly more complicated with the C2 I agree as there is no Homologation specs to follow on a car like that but there is nothing in the Sched K compliance system that prevents a replica. As discussed previously, my Alpina Group 2 replica built from a road going BMW 2002Tii was issued with a Sched K cert. In the section "previous competition history" I simply wrote "nil" and in the preamble to the application stated it was newly built as a replica.



C2 was, we assume, built from the bones of a 1956 Customline body and chassis exactly as the original, that would certainly not preclude it getting at least a COD. And as the car was built by or in association with the original people involved the verification of the "period correctness" would on the face of it seem to be pretty straight forward.

The conclusion therefore as to why the build was not completed by applying for and getting the correct paperwork can only come down to two options;
1. The people involved didn't want to for whatever reason
2. The car contained non period parts or technology that meant it did not comply.

I certainly have no idea (nor an opinion) on which of those options is correct.

I do however have an opinion on whether it is a replica or not.


My COD comments in post #9 where not specifically directed at C2 but at replicas more like a recently built from scratch car like a Cobra type car.

I agree that MSNZ Schedule K and T&C regulations permit such things as a BMW 2002 built into a Alpina Group 2, or an Escort 1100 into an Alan Mann Twin Cam or a Mini 850 into a Cooper S. These cars would then be "tested" through the COD process to see how closely they replicate the Alpina, Twin Cam or Cooper S.

From what I have heard (therefore hearsay), C2 possibly had problems in that it physically didn't replicate C1 in some areas and therefore would have probably had trouble qualifying as a Schedule K car - however it could have had a shot at Schedule CR (Retrospective Special) but it would be unlikely that it could be called C2.

The process is far from ideal and was probably drawn up with the intention of dealing with someone constructing the likes of a modern built Lotus 20 and trying to claim it was a real period car. On that basis the process has merit in protecting the owners of real cars against non-real cars.

[CUSTAXIE50]

so all someone has to do is say get any old brake set up, if it is to the original specification first time around, put any old big block together to the original specification as the first one and away you go is that what you are saying.

[CUSTAXIE50]

this is what i was told on friday,after i asked about the custaxie. I was told it would be here this weekend but was told later on there was some thing up with it,i went on saturday and was told that the driver did not want to go by the rules set down for racing the car.He wanted to race by his rules,i understand he wanted to remove the rollcage that is in it and put what was in it in 1967 and was told if you do that you can not race.So it looks like the car will not race again if he wants to go by his rules we all know how the car was built. but the one thing that is on my mind is-is there a loop over the drive shaft just in case the shaft lets go ,if you take a hard look at the old car that raced in 1967 and allmost all that raced allso in 1967 you would by todays standard say how unsafe they were,because when i had a look on the old car there was not one there and could not see where one had been ,so if this was the way it was and still is just think about it,new driveshaft tunnel made out of light aluminium and screwed to the new floor, say the car was been raced and the driveshaft lets go at 140mph what would the driver look like when the car came to a stop,i think the new owner should have a look see at that before he wants to take the rollcrage out

[Steve Holmes]

Thats a good point you raise there Custaxie, if the information given to you is correct about the rollcage. Where do you draw the line between historical accuracy and safety?

[RogerH]

The MSNZ regulations for Schedule K cars means that in a closed car it is mandatory to have a roll bar and optional to have a roll cage. However, they need to be built to the design and specifications contained in Schedule A which probably means they are more robust than in period. The only cars that don't need "modern" roll bars are the genuine pre 1960 single seaters that can have roll bars that equal or exceed the period specifications - if you look at some pre 1960 single seaters, their roll bars were only really decorative.

[CUSTAXIE50]

There are cars out there that some have worked on for years to being back to life, and there is know way you can make them any better than they were,some have there gas tanks sitting over most of your body-the roll bar,just a small loop.but with tin tops you can if you run off-say the back of pukekohe if you put todays safety in the car that was not there in the first case ,there would i think a 80% chance that you will walk away from it. The one thing that should be stopped is letting low sports cars race with tin tops before someone is killed.

[CUSTAXIE50]

So-ROGERH-are you saying that the new owner can race the custaxie with just a roll bar.

[RogerH]

So-ROGERH-are you saying that the new owner can race the custaxie with just a roll bar.

My understanding is that it can run with a half cage to the design of Drawing No 253-3A (page 49 of the link below) and built to the specifications in Schedule A Section 4.4 (page 14 of the link below).
You can find these sections at http://www.motorsport.org.nz/sites/default/files/motorsport/manual/App-2.02-Sch-A-2010.pdf

[stirlingmac]

If the car has lightened doors then a half cage won't be enough to comply..

[RogerH]

If the car has lightened doors then a half cage won't be enough to comply..

That's right - the regulations say :

Lightened doors: In all vehicles fitted with lightened doors the door adjacent to the driver and passenger shall have side intrusion bar/s fitted to the roll protection.
A lightened door is defined as a door that has been modified in any way that affects its overall weight, including; removal of panelling, substitution of panelling, alteration or deletion of window regulators.

I would think from the photos I've seen of the real car that the doors were substantially altered - so that would mean at least side intrusion bars. You may get away without a full cage but as the design would not be one of those in the MSNZ diagrams it would need special approval.

[CUSTAXIE50]

The doors have not been lightened looking at what i can see in some photos to start with, the new custaxie had a half cage,but when i talked to a driver at manfeild who had a drive in the car he said it now has a full cage--so if you look at what stirlingmac had to say the new owner can race with just a half cage ,but before he wants his way with the car and he still wants to race in-IRC put some better brakes on it for the days racing and a better race seat in the car allso .if he drives the car hard he will run out of brakes that are on the car now,just look at what some are running on there cars.

[CUSTAXIE50]

if you look rogerh-at a photo of the inside of the old custaxie you will see that they had put some new panelling on the doors ,to replace the old cards that were there to start with so would that not make the doors more robust.

[Oldfart]

if you look rogerh-at a photo of the inside of the old custaxie you will see that they had put some new panelling on the doors ,to replace the old cards that were there to start with so would that not make the doors more robust.

It may have made them more robust, but we will never really know and the regs state "A lightened door is defined as a door that has been modified in any way that affects its overall weight, including; removal of panelling, substitution of panelling, alteration or deletion of window regulators."
Clearly the doors had panelling substituted, alloy for whatever was on the inside, therefore the rule is clear. Side intrusion required. The owner may want to run how he feels, but like the rest he has no option, comply or don't run.

[CUSTAXIE50]

I do understand-what you are saying oldfart so all he has to do is put the window regulators back in if they are not there and the inside cards back on and bobs your uncle,no side intrusion required is that what you are saying.

[Oldfart]

My gut feeling, and trying to remember the ORIGINAL car is that the frames were well messed around with and they had been made quite a bit less in height from top to sill, so they were certainly modified. The new car may not be the same. But then he does not have to convince me, it's the issuer of the COD who has to be certain!

[CUSTAXIE50]

my way of thinking they only replaced the inside cards,but if you look at the inside of the new car you can see all the door is still there-would there not be 5inchs of the door below the new floor which makes it look less in height and if that is the case ,if a car hits the drivers side it would be stronger because the door and sill would hit the chassis and stop there and not come inside the car .so if you think about it the driver would be better off 10 times over if that part of the car did not get to him so there you go ,maybe someone out there can put some more light on this part of the car--all the best oldfart.

[tonttu]

From the Manawatu Motorsport website.

....... Now the car resides in Wanganui with Robert Bartley. The car has ventured to Manfeild previously,
but safety and regulatory changes were required for the car to be able to run in modern
competition.
“We have made some changes, and really want to come and give the car a hit out before we start
racing in earnest and the Motorsport Manawatu United Travel series gives us the time we need to
run the car” stated Mr Bartley.

And yes he was out running it yesterday in the last round of the winter series and it looked and sounded very nice

[Racer Rog]

At this point in time, you are unable to get a CoD for a repilica saloon, The H & C Commission are working on this, how ever you can get a HTP for a repilica, but these are hard to get as the vehicle must be same as same as, no if's no buts, I am lead to beleive that the past and present owners are aware of what is wrong with the custaxi copy, it is not the same as the original and as has been pointed out in this forum, by a past owner, is quite different in several areas. My advice to any one going to build a repilica, is put it down on paper first, check the rules, read the damm book ( Motor Sport manual 35, and its admendments) this will drop the level of stress that can occur, but dothe homework before opening the tool box!
Roger

[CUSTAXIE50]

At this point in time, you are unable to get a CoD for a repilica saloon, The H & C Commission are working on this, how ever you can get a HTP for a repilica, but these are hard to get as the vehicle must be same as same as, no if's no buts, I am lead to beleive that the past and present owners are aware of what is wrong with the custaxi copy, it is not the same as the original and as has been pointed out in this forum, by a past owner, is quite different in several areas. My advice to any one going to build a repilica, is put it down on paper first, check the rules, read the damm book ( Motor Sport manual 35, and its admendments) this will drop the level of stress that can occur, but dothe homework before opening the tool box!
Roger

The Bruce Mclaren Trusts Canam car where does this car fit in.

[Racer Rog]

The Bruce Mclaren Trusts Canam car where does this car fit in.

As I am only a humble man, what do you mean, don't piss arse around, write it, I don't read minds and try to deal only in facts, as I have said before, the longer in tooth that some drivers and race car builders get, the more they THINK they did, unless spec's can be backed by written facts or a letter from God, some just don't stack up.
Roger

[CUSTAXIE50]

As I am only a humble man, what do you mean, don't piss arse around, write it, I don't read minds and try to deal only in facts, as I have said before, the longer in tooth that some drivers and race car builders get, the more they THINK they did, unless spec's can be backed by written facts or a letter from God, some just don't stack up.
Roger My view is this car is a replica of a race car,some may say this car has been Rebuilt using some parts from the old car,so what is it what parts did they use from the old car on this new one.You may like to have your say on how this car fits into the rules that are out there that we all have to go by.

[John B]

There is an article in the latest NZ Classic Car magazine (Issue 270, June 2013) that chronicles the complete history and rebuild of the M8A-2. It goes into detail about Lothar Motschenbacher rebuilding the tub after his big crash in 1970, then Denny Hulme shipping the car back to NZ, and eventually it being presented to MOTAT in 1978.

Admittedly at that time the tub was fitted with an M8D body, but the McLaren Trust and Duncan Fox did a methodical 10 year restoration of the car, restoring it back to M8A-2 specs. The article talks about the original parts used, and the parts that needed to be recreated. I can't see how this can be classed as "...a replica of a race car."

[rf84]

I doubt if there are any totally original race cars in existence. As soon as you replace any component, no matter how small, or repaint a car it is strictly speaking no longer original. There are DEGREES of originality (in other words, some cars are more original than others).

[John McKechnie]

There are two interesting words with these historic cars which indicate so much- authentic and original.
Authentic means the real deal with work done.
This does away with my grandfathers knife where three blades and two handles have been changed.

[CUSTAXIE50]

I doubt if there are any totally original race cars in existence. As soon as you replace any component, no matter how small, or repaint a car it is strictly speaking no longer original. There are DEGREES of originality (in other words, some cars are more original than others). So what do we call this car,where does it fit in with the rules.

[Oldfart]

Firstly as has been said there are no RULES, just opinions and like butt holes, everyone has one.
My opinion, the McLaren is an authentic restored car. The Custaxie is a tribute car.

[John McKechnie]

Oldfart- I would agree with your opinion

[Allan]

There is one question that has not been covered as yet. If two (or more) people want to build a "replica" of the same car who decides which one gets the nod or can we all set out to build a half dozen "replicas" of the same historic car?

[Oldfart]

Allan, this has been discussed , perhaps not on this thread, but several times. General agreement is the first one to hit the track, HOWEVER, where I believe that this could fall down is that someone could rush one through to be first, whereas someone else doing a much more thorough job of research, being correct with the fabrication, and therefore likely to be a "better" replica/tribute or whatever you want to call it would be behind the 8 ball. Motorsport have quite clearly stated (via the historic commission) that only one would be accepted, now they are much more careful than they were, and require that the builder would provide a lot of documentation from the time that what they have done is correct before they issue any documentation. It would also appear that they now have the mechanism to withdraw documentation if they have been supplied with erroneous information.
Thay is the way it was explained to me by a member of that commission, so is second hand, but I think pretty close to the truth.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Firstly as has been said there are no RULES, just opinions and like butt holes, everyone has one.
My opinion, the McLaren is an authentic restored car. The Custaxie is a tribute car.

For a start i dont recall saying anything on here about the Custaxie oldfart,picked up Classic Car Mag today and will have a look at this story on this car.But before i do,you may like to tell me what old parts did they use in this car,can you do that oldfart.

[Spgeti]

A record of the cars history, ie liniage, is important when the owners are going through this process. History and proof with documentation of that history is only one of necessities in proving the cars authenticness. Existing parts are not the only critera. Cars like this along with those cars with alloy tubs have most likely had them replaced due to corrosion and damage. This is all documented in a restoration of a car of this significance.
There are many old race cars that go thru this process, ask John McKechnie and Bruce302 what the have been through and are going through with the proof they must submit. Parts are not the only critrea, after all how many race cars have their original engines.
I have not viewed C2 and to be truthfull I cannot comment on it.

[ERC]

Agree with Oldfart, just opinions.

There are plenty of replica Lotus Cortinas, Mini Cooper S's around, even "works" MGBs but because most are not based on one specific car, there are seemingly, no real issues getting acceptance and even a CoD or even schedule K paperwork. Others are building Capri "Peranas" by simply bunging a Ford V8 into a Capri and calling it a Perana. Although most are not the genuine article, they'll be accepted without question in some grids and banned in others - which is probably as it should be.

Many are in fact, tribute cars and are not true period replicas at all. When it comes to replicating a specific car such as the Custaxie or Zephyr Corvette, they are probably no more than a special built out of hopefully, period parts, so should fall into the same category as any other special built out of period parts, even in a configuration that did NOT race in period. To my mind, there is no difference at all. However, there is generally no formal acceptance for a period special saloon, only a period style single-seater.

I am not sure what would happen if we had 5 Custaxie tribute/copies on a grid, so it comes down to promoters (again) as to what they will accept and a gamble for builders that they may or may not be allowed to race at specific events or in specific series. The alternative is to (p)reserve the name for the genuine article or if destroyed and genuinely recreated, maybe even using some of the original minor bits, it still needs to be noted as a recreation and there can only be one. I do not agree with holding on to the chassis plate and recreating the car around it and passing it off as the original - unless the original chassis is totally destroyed, not just parked in a corner and deemed too difficult to restore. (The Lindner E Type Jag for example or Lord Brocket's very sad story.)

My opinion only.

[CobraV8]

So... My Cobra 'replica' was built in 1989. When does an Almac Cobra become accepted as a nz built car of its own right? This is a 24 yo race car now, and has its own history. Because it looks like a Shelby cobra, which has its own copies even by Carol Shelby, does that mean none of these will ever be eligible for classic events?

[Oldfart]

For a start i dont recall saying anything on here about the Custaxie oldfart,picked up Classic Car Mag today and will have a look at this story on this car.But before i do,you may like to tell me what old parts did they use in this car,can you do that oldfart.

I just used that as a comparison. If you want real info, why don't you contact the builders and ask. That way you get first hand info, and then you have no reason to throw bricks at anyone.

[Oldfart]

So... My Cobra 'replica' was built in 1989. When does an Almac Cobra become accepted as a nz built car of its own right? This is a 24 yo race car now, and has its own history. Because it looks like a Shelby cobra, which has its own copies even by Carol Shelby, does that mean none of these will ever be eligible for classic events?

Again an opinion! You are right, your car has it's own history as an Almac Cobra. Yes it looks like a Shelby, but you don't claim it to be a Shelby. Subtle difference. ERC has already told you on this site that his series would be happy to have you.
And again you are right in that Shelby continued making Cobras, are they copies, or are they Shelbys?? I know that if you were to do a good version, and paid a receipted donation to your Heart Foundation, that Shelby himself might then issue a dash plaque. His gratitude for the heart people prolonging his life. Does that mean a Shelby authorised car is better than one he has not authorised, or is it then a Shelby? I don't know, the value is in the eye of the buyer/seller relationship and nobody else.

[ERC]

Spot on oldfart. After 24 years, a car can be deemed classic anyway under most criteria, whether it is an original or a copy. We have always allowed the Ohlsen Cobra to run, as in my opinion, it was a well constructed car regardless of it's age and in the same way, we'd allow a Lotus 11 copy - provided it was powered by a suitable period engine - a D or C type Jaguar with Jaguar power, for the simple reason that as long as they were well presented, not passed off as anything other than what they are, they add variety and colour to a grid. Others choose to not allow them to run - which is of course their right.

When it comes to a Fraser/Lynx/Chevron etc., or any other Lotus 7 type copy, they generally belong in a clubman's class - which is what the original Lotus 6/7 was built for. We did allow a Caterham in - once - but the driver totally failed to grasp what we were about, so his invitation was cancelled after just one meeting! It was the driver, not the car that got it excluded.

[CUSTAXIE50]

I just used that as a comparison. If you want real info, why don't you contact the builders and ask. That way you get first hand info, and then you have no reason to throw bricks at anyone.
wrong

[CUSTAXIE50]

There is one question that has not been covered as yet. If two (or more) people want to build a "replica" of the same car who decides which one gets the nod or can we all set out to build a half dozen "replicas" of the same historic car? You can build what you like.

[Oldfart]

wrong

?

[Oldfart]

You can build what you like.

Yes you can build what you like, whether you will get to use it in a motorsport environment may have a different answer. Allan asked "which one gets the nod?" That is what I answered.

[Allan]

Building is not the issue. Gaining acceptance for what one has built is. That acceptance must come from one's fellow competitors as much as from the regulatory authorities. This is a discussion that will go on forever if we let it.
Are these vehicles reincarnations, replicas, rebuilds, rebuilts or what? The problem as, I see it, that what one individual sees as a reincarnation for example, another sees as a replica. What parts of, or percentage of the original vehicle is required for it to be a rebuild and not a replica.
My personal opinion is that to build an honest reproduction of an original vehicle that no longer exists is virtually impossible. Leaving aside the question of safety issues such as rollcages we have to look at the technology and material that is available today as compared say to the 1960s when many of these were built. In those days if we needed an adaptor plate for something we cut it out with the gas torch and smoothed it of with a grinder. Today we can get the same part made using laser or waterjet cutters, to the point were the part is spot on perfect first time every time.
Added to which we have the question of the evolution of the original. To which specification or time in it's life do we construct our car. As we all know some started as tame road cars with an extra carburettor and no hubcaps and evolved into fire breathing monsters. There is also the vexed question of those that were "reshelled" during their racing careers. I am quite sure that during the "reshelling" process modifications and adjustments were made that were different to the original.
It is my opinion that this issue is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction but at the same time it is so interesting to read what others think.
Allan

[nzeder]

Having read the fia appendix k regs one thing that is very clear be it a rebuild/restoration of the original or a replica/recreation if items like a safety cage, seats etc need approval (due to laps/damage or new build) the current rules at build/restoration at approval date/application must apply.

So if original car was fitted with an alloy cage which are now outlawed then a new cage must be fitted and it must fit the current ruling under which the car is classified. So even the original 100% genuine car is not if these safety systems are changed/altered. I understand the reasons for this and does a change like that make the car different to how it was....maybe....different rubbers around these days, different brake pad material, as stated different manufacturing process when replicating/rebuilding an original part...does this make the car different? Does it make it any less special? Sure you could leave the original car as it was and limit its life to displays and demo laps....but if changes are required to keep it on the track racing so be it I say.

So with that said why can't the same apply to a replica/reproduction saloon or sport/gt car? Surely seeing these cars on the track competing is what it is about. Not everyone has the resources to buy and run the original so why can't we have replicas and more than one as in period there where more than one (OK not all cases) competing in the same spec in the day?

[CUSTAXIE50]

Building is not the issue. Gaining acceptance for what one has built is. That acceptance must come from one's fellow competitors as much as from the regulatory authorities. This is a discussion that will go on forever if we let it.
Are these vehicles reincarnations, replicas, rebuilds, rebuilts or what? The problem as, I see it, that what one individual sees as a reincarnation for example, another sees as a replica. What parts of, or percentage of the original vehicle is required for it to be a rebuild and not a replica.
My personal opinion is that to build an honest reproduction of an original vehicle that no longer exists is virtually impossible. Leaving aside the question of safety issues such as rollcages we have to look at the technology and material that is available today as compared say to the 1960s when many of these were built. In those days if we needed an adaptor plate for something we cut it out with the gas torch and smoothed it of with a grinder. Today we can get the same part made using laser or waterjet cutters, to the point were the part is spot on perfect first time every time.
Added to which we have the question of the evolution of the original. To which specification or time in it's life do we construct our car. As we all know some started as tame road cars with an extra carburettor and no hubcaps and evolved into fire breathing monsters. There is also the vexed question of those that were "reshelled" during their racing careers. I am quite sure that during the "reshelling" process modifications and adjustments were made that were different to the original.
It is my opinion that this issue is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction but at the same time it is so interesting to read what others think.
Allan If one takes the time and knows what was used in the way a car was built in the first place, and goes down the right road in putting this car together,and the right paper work goes to the right authorities,and they come back to you and say yes the paper work with photos are all in place ,and say this car is as good as one can get to the original that was out there,you should have the right to put the original name to it.

[Allan]

Thank you nzeder and CUSTAXIE50 for your replys. I do not have any issues with anyone who for example finds an appropriate body shell and builds a copy/replica of something like a Lotus Cortina/Escort Twincam/Mini-Cooper S/Brabham Viva etc to race because if we look honestly at the cars raced in that era many were just that, gutted base model shells with good gear fitted. What I do find unusual is those that would want to scratch build a copy of something that has long since gone to the scrap yard and then claim it to be the original car reincarnate or a perfect copy of the original. As I said in my previous post one would have to state that they were building this car to the exact specification as it existed on a certain date and then recreate it warts and all to that spec, making allowances for modern safety requirements only.

[John McKechnie]

Original - first stage of existence of a thing . [Standard Dictionary definition]

[CUSTAXIE50]

Original - first stage of existence of a thing . [Standard Dictionary definition] Thing from which another is copied,at first, in the beginning.

[nzeder]

Original - first stage of existence of a thing . [Standard Dictionary definition]Simple then no single race car is "Original" then.

For it to be historic/classic it must be at least....checking MSNZ rules....15 years old (for T&C - don't ask me a car that is 15 years old is not classic in my mind and never will be - just an opinion and we all have them but pre 78 for me = classic) and some part would have been replaced in that time.

So using the dictionary definition there is not a single "Original" Classic race car around on the track (sure there might be in a museum/collection somewhere but would you want to trust it on the track with all the "original" gear, pads, plug leads, tyres etc)

[Racer Rog]

Utter Rubbish
Roger


If one takes the time and knows what was used in the way a car was built in the first place, and goes down the right road in putting this car together,and the right paper work goes to the right authorities,and they come back to you and say yes the paper work with photos are all in place ,and say this car is as good as one can get to the original that was out there,you should have the right to put the original name to it.

[ERC]

....checking MSNZ rules....15 years old (for T&C - don't ask me a car that is 15 years old is not classic in my mind and never will be
What about the "T"? The area that everyone has shied away from...

[nzeder]

What about the "T"? The area that everyone has shied away from...
Fair call - and like the C it can mean different things to different people. I would think a Thoroughbred car is one designed and used for one purpose - racing. So that rules out most vehicles including any car sold as a road car. It must be a pure race car to be true Thoroughbred so that is formula type cars aka wings and slicks. Or have I got that wrong?

So under this topic there is Schedule CR here in NZ for those type of replica's which someone said is all about single seaters having not read those rules in great depth I can't say if that is the case but CR also covers retrospective special - it could have been build in period so you can build it today using all those parts available in period etc - again a single seater focus? So is there no such ruling for saloon/sport and gt's?

So asking the original poster - what is the main focus of this thread? All replica's or ones that can't fit under Schedule CR but fall under T&C - again T&C is very clear - based on standard series production cars so why is the T in there if a Thoroughbred is, as I have stated above aka, not/never a series production car. It does get a bit confusing and I can understand why people build cars outside of the rules.

If you are replicating a period car that raced then for it to be a replica (back to the dictionary) it must be"An exact copy or model of something". If "the car" you are replicating does not exist to use an a base for the exact copy then it surely must be based on known proof of the spec - if no such proof exists then it can never be a replica as it can't be proven what it is an exact copy of. If any one part is different = not a replica.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Thank you nzeder and CUSTAXIE50 for your replys. I do not have any issues with anyone who for example finds an appropriate body shell and builds a copy/replica of something like a Lotus Cortina/Escort Twincam/Mini-Cooper S/Brabham Viva etc to race because if we look honestly at the cars raced in that era many were just that, gutted base model shells with good gear fitted. What I do find unusual is those that would want to scratch build a copy of something that has long since gone to the scrap yard and then claim it to be the original car reincarnate or a perfect copy of the original. As I said in my previous post one would have to state that they were building this car to the exact specification as it existed on a certain date and then recreate it warts and all to that spec, making allowances for modern safety requirements only. See thats the point they go and build something and claim it to be the original car.

[nzeder]

It is really simple...if building a car today it can never be a replica...the rules are such it can't happen. I say this using the dictionary terms.

1. We know to be called a replica it must be an exact copy.
2. Rules are such that for a cage to be approved it must be built to the rules of the date when approval is sort.

These 2 points prove you can't build a replica. A tribute hell yeah, true replica...hell no.

Any tribute or replica can never be called the original...as there can only be one to have the title original. All this based on dictionary definitions of the words "replica" and "original"

Please prove me wrong.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Utter Rubbish
Roger So if you know it all how does one go about it,say building a car like the custaxie where does one start with a build like this.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Fair call - and like the C it can mean different things to different people. I would think a Thoroughbred car is one designed and used for one purpose - racing. So that rules out most vehicles including any car sold as a road car. It must be a pure race car to be true Thoroughbred so that is formula type cars aka wings and slicks. Or have I got that wrong?

So under this topic there is Schedule CR here in NZ for those type of replica's which someone said is all about single seaters having not read those rules in great depth I can't say if that is the case but CR also covers retrospective special - it could have been build in period so you can build it today using all those parts available in period etc - again a single seater focus? So is there no such ruling for saloon/sport and gt's?

So asking the original poster - what is the main focus of this thread? All replica's or ones that can't fit under Schedule CR but fall under T&C - again T&C is very clear - based on standard series production cars so why is the T in there if a Thoroughbred is, as I have stated above aka, not/never a series production car. It does get a bit confusing and I can understand why people build cars outside of the rules.

If you are replicating a period car that raced then for it to be a replica (back to the dictionary) it must be"An exact copy or model of something". If "the car" you are replicating does not exist to use an a base for the exact copy then it surely must be based on known proof of the spec - if no such proof exists then it can never be a replica as it can't be proven what it is an exact copy of. If any one part is different = not a replica.

So one has to use the same 40year old wheels & wheel nuts.

[CUSTAXIE50]

It is really simple...if building a car today it can never be a replica...the rules are such it can't happen. I say this using the dictionary terms.

1. We know to be called a replica it must be an exact copy.
2. Rules are such that for a cage to be approved it must be built to the rules of the date when approval is sort.

These 2 points prove you can't build a replica. A tribute hell yeah, true replica...hell no.

Any tribute or replica can never be called the original...as there can only be one to have the title original. All this based on dictionary definitions of the words "replica" and "original"

Please prove me wrong. So if you build a new tub,it has to have the same rivets they used 40years ago,and the same number in the same place on the tub.

[nzeder]

So if you build a new tub,it has to have the same rivets they used 40years ago,and the same number in the same place on the tub.

For it to be a replica by the dictionary definition it can be build using new parts but they must be an exact copy of the part being replicated.

However as stated the cage must meet current rules so that point alone means the car will not be an exact copy so it is not a replica (again dictionary definition) so you might as well build a tribute as that is what it will be. However is there rules for how to build a tribute?

[Howard Wood]

This has been thrashed over already ad infinitum on a thread called The Race Replica Debate., or at least until about page 5 when the thread was hijacked by some clown. There is ample provision for the creation of replicas and recreations, tribute cars for the most part, frankly are a crock of s@#t.

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

[Carlo]

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

+1

[CUSTAXIE50]

This has been thrashed over already ad infinitum on a thread called The Race Replica Debate., or at least until about page 5 when the thread was hijacked by some clown. There is ample provision for the creation of replicas and recreations, tribute cars for the most part, frankly are a crock of s@#t.

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly. Now be nice now Howard,i dont think you can call them lazy or unskilled to do the job properly. some have this view that no one will know how it was built in the first place would that be the case Howard.

[John McKechnie]

Appears to me Howard is just calling the one man earth shifting device that has a handle to hold it by with a wedge enabling the ground to be parted and moved , a spade.
Being called a Rivet Counter just shows you are concienciously paying attention to detail.

[Carlo]

. some have this view that no one will know how it was built in the first place would that be the case Howard.

Sorry but I am with Howard on this one for it only because they are too lazy to find out how it was built.

[nzeder]

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.I also agree and if a replica in the context of a race car allows for the changes in the area of safety equipment ie cage and all are on the same page with this regard then it can be called a replica other details are correct.

I was just saying if the dictionary term is applied then they can't be called a replica. If a replica race car allows for changes in the area of drive protection cool that is what needs to happen to see it on the track call it a replica.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Sorry but I am with Howard on this one for it only because they are too lazy to find out how it was built. Who built custaxie-1&2

[Carlo]

Who built custaxie-1&2

Gary Orton and associates and it was never built as a 100% replica

[bry3500]

If anyone has a spare half an hour, this is worthy of a perusal.
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/ferrari-discussion-not-model-specific/409243-replicas-why-bother.html
The last time I saw the Custaxie was under spotlights at the Car Show in the Addington showgrounds. She was parked down the back . near the Ed Roth T- shirt stand. It must have been late 1967, I can remember seeing the Patterson bigfoot footage on TV when we got home and thinking it was somehow apt. We kids were mesmerised and I can't remember a single other car that was there that night - says it all. Purely from a spectators perspective, I would love to see Robbies 002 on track again with the fastback Anglias ,the new Morrari recreation, Ron Sylvesters Chevy etc etc . Just make it happen somehow please.

[Racer Rog]

You have nailed it, Howard, short and sweet.I was going to say the same thing, but you have shortened down my version, with out loss of meaning!!! 10 points.

This has been thrashed over already ad infinitum on a thread called The Race Replica Debate., or at least until about page 5 when the thread was hijacked by some clown. There is ample provision for the creation of replicas and recreations, tribute cars for the most part, frankly are a crock of s@#t.

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Gary Orton and associates and it was never built as a 100% replica who.

[dekon]

who.

I thought John Millar (a real "good guy" and the man behind the Dauphine-Corvette 1 and 2), from Motueka built C2 with "help" from Robbie
C1 was masterminded by Tony Kriletich and others I'm sure, apparently Tony "couldn't be found" when C2 was created....

Does anyone get the feeling that Mr CUSTAXIE50 either helped build/owned/still has the remains of C1 ???????

By the way, I am one of only three people that has raced C2, and I can tell you it was pretty "period" to drive, still had e type jag brakes, cr65 tyres, pressed steel rims, bus steering wheel etc and at Teretonga was doing the same lap times as in '67 or whenever it was there..... C1 that is :rolleyes:

[CUSTAXIE50]

I thought John Millar (a real "good guy" and the man behind the Dauphine-Corvette 1 and 2), from Motueka built C2 with "help" from Robbie
C1 was masterminded by Tony Kriletich and others I'm sure, apparently Tony "couldn't be found" when C2 was created....

Does anyone get the feeling that Mr CUSTAXIE50 either helped build/owned/still has the remains of C1 ???????

By the way, I am one of only three people that has raced C2, and I can tell you it was pretty "period" to drive, still had e type jag brakes, cr65 tyres, pressed steel rims, bus steering wheel etc and at Teretonga was doing the same lap times as in '67 or whenever it was there..... C1 that is :rolleyes: Its all been said before on here about the time i had with the custaxie that was built in 1966, you may like to have a look back at what has been put up here on this car.Now you say you are one of only three who have raced the new car,you use this word-period-yes that word allso has been used on here on how this new car was built,no need to go down that road again i think.We all know how it was built and we all know how the old car was built dont we.I have said before that i have a number of parts from the old car,and have said what they are on here also.

[shellsport]

Autorama " 67 "

[bry3500]

Autorama " 67 "

Autorama 67 - that was it , thanks shellsport. I think Thunder427 had something to do with running it

[duncan fox]

Miles was the then president of Kustoms car Club who ran the show, I had just joined the club .Promoted a second show in 68 if I recall and bought over several top Aussie cars .

[thunder427]

....What was the Question ???.......................Autorama 1967, Autorama 1968, Autorama 1969/70,three Cars imported for show from Australia, I'll find time to tell this story one day, how to run a Autoshow when the Whahine has sank, there is a three month shipping strike, but the show went on ,great times ,a great challenge, wouldn't change a Day !!!......................Myles/thunder427


NB; Hello!!, to Duncan, that name rang an immediate Bell!!!,they where Fun times !!:D:);)

[CUSTAXIE50]

Gary Orton and associates and it was never built as a 100% replica

Did you read the Nelson Mail Story on the Custaxie at all.

[Frosty5]

Did you read the Nelson Mail Story on the Custaxie at all.

Francevic revives the Custaxie 17/07/2009


BEAST IS BACK: Robbie Francevic's rebuilt Custaxie.Colour me ... gone. For motorsport fans of a certain era, that phrase still brings back fond memories of a race car so dominant, the rules were changed so it could not be raced.

For drivers who took part in the 1967 Allcomers series, it probably brings back nightmares.

The phrase was written on the back of Robbie Francevic's Custaxie, a hybrid of a 1955 Ford Customline body and a Ford Galaxie 427ci V8 engine (which spent its previous life in a race boat), which he built in a garage with the help of his friend Tony Kriletich in Auckland.

After a shaky start, Francevic and his car went on to dominate the series, winning 23 races in a row. However the class was deemed too dangerous, and that season was the only one the Custaxie competed in.

Francevic went on to forge a successful career, including winning the Australian Touring Car Championship in 1986, but the car was put out to pasture, with many but not all of its parts sold or left to deteriorate.

While it was no longer tearing up the track, the car remained in the minds of many a race fan.

"People used to ring me up and say, `You tell us how to build it and we'll build a replica'," Francevic said from his home in Auckland.

"And I'd say to those people, 'No I'm sorry, you're welcome to build a replica but it will not be that original car because I'm the only one who knows how to build it."

However, egged on by Peter Talley and fellow Motueka resident John Miller, who had recently completed a rebuild on a Renault Dauphine, Francevic decided to rebuild the Custaxie.

"Because he [Miller] built the Dauphine and he was raving about that, I said, My Custaxie can beat that'.

"So you get a little bit of competitiveness coming in and away we went," he chuckled.

Using what original parts remained (part of the chassis and steering, and rear axel), Francevic and Miller spent over a year building it in Motueka.

Now back in its original form it is temporarily being housed at the World of WearableArt and Classic Cars Museum.

Temporarily, because next month Francevic intends to test it at Ruapuna, and race it at Hampton Downs when it hosts the Bruce McLaren Memorial event.

Now 67, Francevic said he had no hesitation getting back behind the wheel. "None what so ever, no problem, I'm looking forward to it.

"I probably won't enjoy it as much as modern race cars which have beautiful brakes and gorgeous responsive engines and power steering, but it's going to take me back a long way."

WOW general manager Peter Van Humm said he was delighted to look after the Custaxie.

He had fond memories of it from when he was a timekeeper at Wigram as a youngster, saying it was so powerful it would set the grass on which it was standing on fire when it was started.

"It was so successful at the time, it became folklore."

Francevic's friend Garry Orton said the Custaxie, barring some safety measures, was almost exactly the same as the original. "Back in the day they would have had two toothpicks and a piece of straw," for safety equipment

Doesn't actually say who the builders were but I guess at least there is a Replica- Tribute car about.