Group 7 chassis ID help ?

Certainly not worthless trivia in fact very useful. Im sure Craig , the owner of the actual #18 tub would like to gather that up somehow and fit it to the car where it should be. Am I to take it that you were involved in the T70 conversion?.

Duncan and xj13v12; thanks for your input. I appreciate it. As Duncan alluded, I have had some connection to the car that is now for sale over here through friendship with the owner and others who have worked on it. It is always interesting--and necessary for the sake of accuracy--to find out as much info as possible. If nothing else all this goes to show that there is always more than meets the eye.

Once again we see what we were told in biology class is correct; that is, a cell divides and duplicates itself and creates new cells from the old. We are fast reaching the point at which every Can Am car ever built will have two, three, or more claimants to its identity, all carrying the original DNA to some degree or other, even if it is just the gear shift knob. A prime example is the Bill Cuddy M8F; there were three such cars at that recent Road America meet, and I understand that there is a fourth out there somewhere! Probably all eligible for HTPs, but as Supersox has pointed out that does not connote that it is the absolute original.

Tom

Now all you have to do is build a car around it and voila!! You have the car itself!

Tom

Tom ,the Australian car is the #1 Donohue tub. The NZ car is #18 the owner of which I understand you have some proir contact with. It was in Texas in storage since the early 90's and for sale on and off for the last 10 yrs or so.
My reply to David hopefully you will read , and I can assure you that what I have observed today is absolutely correct, The solution I have put forward has merit as I would like to see this resolved . Something done 25 yrs ago might not necessarily be the norm today.Theres room for negotiation here . One thing I can assure you of is that this car is being refurbished, and will appear as it was in 1969 including its original tub. I am quite happy to send you the then and now exclusive detail photographs s which are conclusive, despite what you may have already been told.

Did Dr Seigal have a photo showing chassis #18 tag on the car?

I dont know it a photo exists of the tag during his ownership but the car was advertised by him in Oct 89 Autoweek where he quoted the chassis # as T163-18

[quote name='xj13v12' date='Aug 19 2013, 08:29' post='6392187']
I think the other #8 M8FP chassis is the Bamford car in England which raced down here last March. Yes it has FIA papers.
[/quot

Shouldnt that be 3 #72-08's and 1#72-09 Cuddy cars? I dont believe 09 has any duplications....................................................................
.............yet

Wouldnt you know it I forgot theCuddy/ Danny Hopkins 09 copy car that John Collins put together. This is a good example of somebody building a car because he had the parts an drive to do so openly stating that he used only one or two  original componants from the actual car as the basis I recall John saying this to me during one of my trips. Now its being offered as "the car ".

Do I get the feeling from forum members  that this has all become somehow a little  acceptable? I seem to recall we crucified the owner of a real car a while back because he made claim on anothers history for reasons he thought valid but ultimately accepted.

I think it's "acceptable" now that the requirement is for a car to be of period spec - history doesn't come into it

However, there are still some of us - most of us? - who care about the correct histories of "proper" cars

I think it's "acceptable" now that the requirement is for a car to be of period spec - history doesn't come into it

 

However, there are still some of us - most of us? - who care about the correct histories of "proper" cars

I certainly do!

As do I most certainly .

Bryan Miller.

I certainly do!

Agreed!

I think it's "acceptable" now that the requirement is for a car to be of period spec - history doesn't come into it

 

However, there are still some of us - most of us? - who care about the correct histories of "proper" cars

I always thought that cars should have been in period spec.  I remember "Historic" Can am owners telling me of 548 cubic inch, full roller motors.  Neither, I thought, were period. 

Did that car not belong to John Foulston, as well as the M8D he raced himself?

Wondering if the M8 John Foulston, above, listed in Autosport at the time the photo was taken as an M8C/D is the same chassis as Harry Reeds #30-25 ?

Also Belmondo kindly helped me identify Charlie Agg driving a (Trojan ?) M8F(P?) a couple of years ago in this linked 1989 photo, forgot to ask if anyone knows the chassis number or even the correct designation ?

Belated thanks to every one who helped me out with the McLaren M8C blog.

Thanking you in anticipation of your responses.

Edited by arttidesco, 21 August 2013 - 17:11.

 

 

Also Belmondo kindly helped me identify Charlie Agg driving a (Trojan ?) M8F(P?) a couple of years ago in this linked 1989 photo, forgot to ask if anyone knows the chassis number or even the correct designation ?

 

The plate said M8F-10-72

 

 

Also Belmondo kindly helped me identify Charlie Agg driving a (Trojan ?) M8F(P?) a couple of years ago in this linked 1989 photo, forgot to ask if anyone knows the chassis number or even the correct designation ?

 

The plate said M8F-10-72

 

Thank you David

Edited by arttidesco, 22 August 2013 - 07:33.

Can't help with the chassis ID or M8F designation, sorry.

The Agg M8F was (I think) one of two Trojan-run cars racing at that time. The other had various guest drivers including John Whitmore, Denny Hulme and Ray Mallock.

The other one was M8F-11-72, allegedly the last one built but not raced in period

The same team ran M8F 6/72 (with false M8D plate 80-08) for various guest drivers, this being the ex-VDS turbocharged car

The other one was M8F-11-72, allegedly the last one built but not raced in period

 

The same team ran M8F 6/72 (with false M8D plate 80-08) for various guest drivers, this being the ex-VDS turbocharged car

Ah yes, I saw Willie Green in the turbocharged car in a WSC support race at Donington. 

I have been asked by Duncan to post these pic's. Craig



Not sure who to credit for this, i have forgotten where i found it on the web.





http://www.autocours...m/Images/31.jpg

This is about as "smoking gun" as you can get.    Photos do not have selective memories.  

Edited by Aero426, 22 August 2013 - 21:07.

This is about as "smoking gun" as you can get.    Photos do not have selective memories.  

Certainly is!

Noticed #70-06 made the national news after a nasty accident in June 2010, does anyone know if John recovered to race again or what became of #70-06 ?

The date alone would make me want to stop racing!! scary

BTW meant to apologise for hijacking your thread, hope you dont mind.

Duncan

No need to apologise Duncan, the thread as opened out into something far more interesting than what I had in mind

We are again treading down the well worn path of "what constitutes provenance?"  

I have meant to post this many times but I now finally quote from the Haynes published "Supermarine Spitfire Owner's Workshop Manual." 

"Merely painting a serial number on the rebuilt aircraft is not enough." (Merely attaching an original chassis tag is not enough.)

"In Great Britain the practice concerning provenance follows that long established with classic cars." (Established in law!)

"Provided some parts established to have come from the original aircraft are built into the reconstructed machine, that gives it the required historical thread of provenance. Without the incorporation of these pieces NO SUCH THREAD EXISTS." (My italics. Oft replaced parts have reduced importance or claim to this aspect. eg McLaren used new uprights every meeting. Therefore one must conclude that uprights and suspension as such can not be categorised as carrying history unless still attached to the main frame or tub of the car. Engines clearly fall into this category.) 

"That begs the question, how much incorporated material is necessary to provide an aircraft with the required historical thread? The normally accepted answer is 'A reasonable portion of fuselage primary structure, from an original aircraft with an established provenance'. (In the case of a race car this is surely the bulk of the tub first and foremost.)

Given that the tub shown here is obviously close to 100% of an original tub which can show a continuous thread of history, plus the suspension is genuine Lola, the transaxle is original to the car with continuous thread, individual components can be shown to have existed on the same car from inception and it seems that even the entire instrument panel remains untouched one must conclude that the car shown has a serious claim to be the original car and therefore entitled to carry the history as it can prove the provenance. Why on earth was the chassis tag removed from this time capsule?

What constitutes provenance is simply an unbroken chain of ownership.  And the chain is only a chain if each owner sells the same thing that he buys.  We seem to have problems with people buying a car once and selling it twice.  I understand that this used to be a problem with Bugattis many years ago where cars were broken up with the chassis, engine, body all becoming the bases of separate "real", "original", "authentic" cars.  Now we see (a handful of) restorers selling discarded components after a rebuild and implying that part of the car's history is stuck to that component.  

Owners need to be more careful to ensure that if they commission a rebuild, all "discarded" components remain their property and aren't left with the restorer for later resale.

It is unfortunate that the restorer elected to not use certain original tub components in the restoration.   Part two is the apparent non-disclosure of the original complete tub and the failure to keep it with the current car.   Part three is the smoke and mirrors of passing off of the original tub as a "parts car".   Add it up and it smells bad.   The car in question surfaced in vintage racing alongside the orange Simoniz car 20 years ago.   Even then, having good provenance was important.   I get the "safety" piece of it and the part about profitability as well.  

The current owner of the "old" tub would seem to have cause to take action and reclaim the identity that was vandalized by the restoration shop.     The current owner of the car being raced in the USA (who bought it on good faith) also has a big reason to be upset as Revson may have never farted in the seat.   To me, that last part would be worse than losing money.  

Edited by Aero426, 23 August 2013 - 16:17.

.......Owners need to be more careful to ensure that if they commission a rebuild, all "discarded" components remain their property and aren't left with the restorer for later resale.........

Allen........There is another issue.  When the restorer (unknown to the customer)  uses components from the chassis under restoration, as models to create spares for "potential clones".  Case in point, my  curiousity upon seeing boxes of McLaren M10 suspension pick up points, on a trip to one shop.  Probaby 8-10 car sets.  Not to mention a tub under construction..............that's another story.

The current owner of the "old" tub would seem to have cause to take action and reclaim the identity that was vandalized by the restoration shop.

In the scenario I described, the current owner of an "old" tub is more likely to keep his head down in case the owner of the restored car comes asking for his tub back.  At worst, he's handling stolen goods.

Allen

Agreed, This is unfortunately a very common M.O.

Our Lola example has taken a new twist of late.

The timeline we developed  has an overlap and we suspected that the duplicate car had in fact already been built before the T70 bodied car entered the scene. We have made contact with Dick Raymond, the owner after Dave Causey and had a very informative chat with him. Firstly and most importantly he identified all the switch decals on the dash area of his old warhorse explaining the functions of each one, including his brake light on off switch (old Skid Solo trick)

Secondly he went on to say that he was contacted by Rick McLean on several occasions in the early nineties asking questions regarding the identity of a T70 that he had repatriated out of Japan  suspecting it was the Revson T163. He went on to say that he was aware the car was being or had been duplicated by another party.  Unfortunately McLean has been on the run from authorities (FBI) for a long time now and we don’t hold much hope of getting him to substantiate this.  Several other people we have spoken to have confirmed they also had similar conversations with McLean. We still have our timeline overlap suggesting that this is in fact what happened. It could certainly explain why the T70 remained completely intact other than its tag going walkabout.

It looks as though there will be a swarm of fake McLaren M10s appearing soon. Or is that a gaggle or maybe a herd, what do you call them?

In the scenario I described, the current owner of an "old" tub is more likely to keep his head down in case the owner of the restored car comes asking for his tub back.  At worst, he's handling stolen goods.

No longer airworthy.

Its air worthiness certificate  remained intact Johan. It moved to Texas on vacation and then down to New Zealand

When  posting previously I was thinking to myself  this Lola thing is out of control but at least the McLarens don’t seem to be caught up in this duplication for profit mess

WRONG……..once again we are seeing people offering race cars known to have  been built around parts only as the “real deal”.

In post 60 I mentioned an M8F that John Collins built, Both during and after the construction John always represented this car as only as a replica based on some tub parts he had acquired that had been separated  from the original. He always acknowledged that the actual car with a legally proven ownership trail resided in Boise Idaho . I can think of a dozen people that also had this same conversation with John . During my conversation I suggested that there was a very good chance that after he was gone it would be passed off as real , and that’s exactly what appears  to be happening complete with threats of legal action towards those like myself who are asked by prospective purchasers for an opinion on provenance.

I am astonished that this blatant misrepresentation  prospers in the U.S. the land of litigation. I now  understand that the same organisation in California that is offering the car above has sold a real McLaren M6 stripped of its history as a parts car and  has built a replacement M6 with no real parts and attached the history to it.

 Buy one sell two ………………..Sound familiar?

No matter how creative these  people get you cannot manipulate history this way. It may be seen to be acceptable in the U.S and possibly legal, but elsewhere it’s flat-out fraudulent. A real car occupies a cubiod of space along with an unbroken ownership trail and as Allen has rightly pointed out remains that way while each owner sells the same thing he buys. His Bugatti example used a donor car to create several, but now we have complete clones offered as real because an unscrupulous person decides that he can reassign history .

The reality here is that the real car (the  complete cuboid) was passed on earlier and its ownership trail continues on .Now who’s the smarter person here , the buyer or the seller?

Personally I hope its the buyer.

We need to continue to expose and discuss these duplication examples wherever we can to create a data base for those interested in real cars and histories.

I have been planning for a while to extend OldRacingCars.com into the first Can-Am so would be happy to build such a database.  However, I may need offers to underwrite my legal fund before I start!

My Chevron B19 page may offer a template.  At the top are listed all the original cars, with their histories taken forward as far as I can get them, including cars that are known to have duplicated.  Below are all the cars that exists today with their histories taken back as far as they will go.  

The objective of such a database is not to pass judgement on the cars but to lay out the facts so we all know what we are looking at.  We also need some way to show what has happened to a car if its continuous entity has taken one route and its component parts have taken another.  Here is a made-up case of where one car has spawned three.  The left-hand path shows the original tub, the right-hand path shows the continuous entity but in this case there is a third entity which can also claim to have some history.  We may find real-life cars with even more complex pictures.

Arttidesco: just FYI the Shead/Eyre/Grant McLaren discussed earlier in this thread is currently for sale in Motor Sport.

Allen: back to your excellent database proposal tangent.

I have been planning for a while to extend OldRacingCars.com into the first Can-Am so would be happy to build such a database.  However, I may need offers to underwrite my legal fund before I start!

 

My Chevron B19 page may offer a template.  At the top are listed all the original cars, with their histories taken forward as far as I can get them, including cars that are known to have duplicated.  Below are all the cars that exists today with their histories taken back as far as they will go.  

 

The objective of such a database is not to pass judgement on the cars but to lay out the facts so we all know what we are looking at.  We also need some way to show what has happened to a car if its continuous entity has taken one route and its component parts have taken another.  Here is a made-up case of where one car has spawned three.  The left-hand path shows the original tub, the right-hand path shows the continuous entity but in this case there is a third entity which can also claim to have some history.  We may find real-life cars with even more complex pictures.

 

It's a family tree!

What will it look like in 50 years

Wow ,that’s the first time I’ve  looked at your B19 page,

Once again Allen I wouldn’t have expected anything less than that from you.

The provenance path sample that you posted is very clear and concise. If the provenance and car are separated the path could show just that  and would either follow the real car or the fake , the big point here is can you really separate them?  I would think not based on the legal precedents I have read. If we applied Alan Putts theories as our  guideline you would not and the fake er replica would show as just that . It will depend on how “safe a stance” one  would take. Has Martin ever had any problems? He probably hasn’t because he just doesn’t mention them at all.

There are  several people that I work with that would get in behind this project. Certainly we would have the McLarens covered . Im sure there are Lola guys that would get in behind it also.

 If the provenance and car are separated the path could show just that  and would either follow the real car or the fake , the big point here is can you really separate them?  I would think not based on the legal precedents I have read. If we applied Alan Putts theories as our  guideline you would not and the fake er replica would show as just that .

But which car is the fake er replica?

My reading is that the first chassis (now in Jeremy Camber's car) raced until July 1974.

The second chassis (in Johan Willstedt's car)) raced from late 1974 until September 1975.

The third chassis (in Tony Milledge's car) might have raced sometime after 1976.

Each chassis has its own particular history (e.g. both the 1st & 2nd ones presumably raced in period) and you can't attribute the results from chassis 1 to chassis 3 without causing confusion.

Attributing prior history to new/replacement chassis will always cause confusion - especially when the original isn't destroyed.

An original car can only be one that has maintained its original chassis from new - the nature of racing means there won't be too many of them.

Anything else is un-original and has its own history from the day it was created.

If all cars were recorded (where known) in a similar style it would be much easier, then it is simply upto potential owners to decide if they want the car or not and how much they value it.

Ultimately what really matters is what component is considered to be the most important.

Maybe with an aluminium monocoque car the chassis was less important than the other components (certainly cost wise to the manufacturer they were) so what matters is the vehicle (e.g. 'continuous identity) that was carrying the expensive parts like uprights, wheels, brakes etc.

With older steel chassied cars, the chassis was a more significant cost so it is possibly a far more significant part of such a cars identity - and due to their nature more likely to have survived. hence of greater significance?

As for chassis numbers they are simply something to make customs officers & historians lives simpler!!

Edited by Peter Morley, 02 September 2013 - 14:15.

Hmm- well apart from us 15 navel gazers who cares?

Racing cars-especially in the case of old cars where there is little or no sponsorship- is an activity which now has to find its place in a world full of alternative entertainments. The challenges of that means that apart from us 15-well a few more- the world of race organiser/circuit owners could not care less and more significantly nor could the great unwashed-sorry the paying public- about getting into the nitty gritty. Pace the two -well one and a half- notable exceptions Monaco Historic and Classic Le Mans

The FIA position was best put to me by MM some years ago when I suggested that fakes/replicas were out of order and should be banned completely. His reply was very simple.The FIA exists to promote and encourage motor sport not to stop it. They never have had any interest in a identity of a car - to the extent that at an adminstrative level the car is only ever referred to by the number it carries on its side in the competition never, ever, the number stamped on a plate or a chassis tube

Allen I love your tree but I would have put the rebuild details on the right handside of the line which would have perhaps given a better clarity to the diagram. The car is what an owner buys to start with and what he sells. It is not possible to start with one and end up with two-which claim to be the one.

In each case the discarded chassis is scrap-or as far as the owner of the car was concerned it was scrap.I absolutely do not subscribe tto this theory that a discarded chassis, tub, brake disc spark plug etc has some ''DNA'' in it. A car is an entity, no piece makes the car and no car is a piece. A tub or chassis cannot take part in an event without all the other bits, they hang off it but so what -my body hangs off my skeleton but is my skeleton the be all and end all ? The concept that a chassis/tub has some mystery substance which gives it a persona soaking up history until it is crash damaged or wears out is plain weird.

In each case the discarded chassis is scrap-or as far as the owner of the car was concerned it was scrap.I absolutely do not subscribe tto this theory that a discarded chassis, tub, brake disc spark plug etc has some ''DNA'' in it. A car is an entity, no piece makes the car and no car is a piece. A tub or chassis cannot take part in an event without all the other bits, they hang off it but so what -my body hangs off my skeleton but is my skeleton the be all and end all ? The concept that a chassis/tub has some mystery substance which gives it a persona soaking up history until it is crash damaged or wears out is plain weird.

Yes, and that's one of the opinions that I alluded to.  It's yours; it's not everyone's.  Are you same person if you have a heart transplant or a new hip or a false eye?  Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.  

I have an opinion too but I respect the right of other people to have other opinions.  In the case of The Ship of Theseus, I concluded that I have no sensible choice but to accept that there is a genuine paradox.  

Re my post 88 I should have acknowleged that there is a huge slug of interest for and by those who make a lot of money out of misdirection.

Allen I must ask whether a paradox can be genuine ?

Edited by Supersox, 02 September 2013 - 17:19.

It appears that the FIA have changed their tune over the years.

When they first took an interest (profit?) in historic racing, the paperwork issuers insisted that cars had a chassis number & history - that wasn't obviously an FIA initiative since the paperwork did say "where known", so whether it was something the FIA asked for is not clear, but when asked for them (e.g. people were told they wouldn't get papers without them) some forms were filled in with numbers/stories that might not have been connected to the car in question!

When the cars became more valuable (hence owners possibly more inclined/capable to take legal action) the FIA seem to have distanced themselves from the issue.

Of course the FIA should never have got involved in the history of cars since their expertise is in the organising of races.

As you say there are only a handful of us who get bothered about such things and the majority don't care - event organisers are hardly going to notice if we decide to boycott events such as Goodwood.

The only people who should really care are those who own or intend buying a particular car, it is upto them to decide whether it is what it purports to be. If they are bothered about the history they should do rather more than just read an auction description - but recently the main question seems to be will it get me an entry in a particular event rather than how original is it.

I agree with you about the car being the entire entity, hence when something major is replaced it is no longer original. With current silly prices, cars are now being compared to art (personally I think houses are a better comparison but that doesn't suit auction houses) if a painting has been re-canvassed the interest in it is drastically affected, likewise if it has been repaired/retouched, even an original frame makes a difference...

It appears that the FIA have changed their tune over the years.

When they first took an interest (profit?) in historic racing, the paperwork issuers insisted that cars had a chassis number & history - that wasn't obviously an FIA initiative since the paperwork did say "where known", so whether it was something the FIA asked for is not clear, but when asked for them (e.g. people were told they wouldn't get papers without them) some forms were filled in with numbers/stories that might not have been connected to the car in question!

When the cars became more valuable (hence owners possibly more inclined/capable to take legal action) the FIA seem to have distanced themselves from the issue.

Of course the FIA should never have got involved in the history of cars since their expertise is in the organising of races.

 

As you say there are only a handful of us who get bothered about such things and the majority don't care - event organisers are hardly going to notice if we decide to boycott events such as Goodwood.

The only people who should really care are those who own or intend buying a particular car, it is upto them to decide whether it is what it purports to be. If they are bothered about the history they should do rather more than just read an auction description - but recently the main question seems to be will it get me an entry in a particular event rather than how original is it.

 

I agree with you about the car being the entire entity, hence when something major is replaced it is no longer original. With current silly prices, cars are now being compared to art (personally I think houses are a better comparison but that doesn't suit auction houses) if a painting has been re-canvassed the interest in it is drastically affected, likewise if it has been repaired/retouched, even an original frame makes a difference...

 

Peter some things.

Firstly I am unaware iof the FIA ever oganising a race. They just write the rules and others organise to those rules.

When the FIA introduced the current ''papers'' they changed the name from the old HVIF-Historic Vehicle Identity Form to HTP -Historic Technical Passport. In all fairness when the FIA introduced Appendix K into the yearbook in 1978 the trades description issues of HVIF were not what thye had become by 2004.

FIA never took a penny piece out of Historic Racing until 2010 when they started charging a fee for HTP . Boy they've made up for it since then with, allegedly, in the order of 1.5 million Euros bled out in ownership tax.

Finally in my experience after 35 years in historic racing and rallying there are more owners telling themselves untruths about their own cars than any other sort of deceiver.

Edited by Supersox, 02 September 2013 - 17:51.

 

 

Peter some things.

Firstly I am unaware iof the FIA ever oganising a race. They just write the rules and others organise to those rules.

When the FIA introduced the current ''papers'' they changed the name from the old HVIF-Historic Vehicle Identity Form to HTP -Historic Technical Passport. In all fairness when the FIA introduced Appendix K into the yearbook in 1978 the trades description issues of HVIF were not what thye had become by 2004.

FIA never took a penny piece out of Historic Racing until 2010 when they started charging a fee for HTP . Boy they've made up for it since then with, allegedly, in the order of 1.5 million Euros bled out in ownership tax.

Finally in my experience after 35 years in historic racing and rallying there are more owners telling themselves untruths about their own cars than any other sort of deceiver.

OK, the FIA facilitate the organisation of races - but my point is that their responsibility is with what cars are acceptable rather than which ones.

I bet the FIA accountants wonder why they missed out on such a cash cow for so long!

We must have started around the same time, I guess it depends where/what you were racing but my feeling is that many owners have changed from being enthusiasts interested in their cars (& particularly knowledgeable about them) to being more interested in the racing/results.

Allen's point is very true - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the only opinion that really counts is that of the owner (or owners!) and if he wants to believe/present an untruth he is only deceiving himself.

It might be an issue of wording but in the case of this Lola all 3 of them have real cars, what none of them have is the original car.

John Grant: car and driver both restored and pictured on this forum somewhere testing recently at Donington.

Don Shead, not Shed – not sure if it's the same car, but I always assumed so.

Both John Grant's cars are currently being advertised for sale.

The McLaren has been rebuilt following his huge accident.

It has an 8.8 litre engine built on a new block.

The gearbox has been strengthened.

The tub is new.

The uprights are machined from solid billets.

The bodywork is new.

The fuel tank and other bits are new (as required by the rules).

So it should be good for another 40 years (5 for the limited life safety items).