So what do we call this car,where does it fit in with the rules.Originally Posted by rf84
So what do we call this car,where does it fit in with the rules.
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.
Oldfart- I would agree with your opinion
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
wrong
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote