Don't want too start it all over again, but why wouldn't it.Originally Posted by RogerH
Don't want too start it all over again, but why wouldn't it.
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.
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.
Last edited by Howard Wood; 01-14-2012 at 04:10 AM.
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.
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.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote