Classic vs. Repro

Hi,

I need some clarification (again). I have seen an article about a Lancia D50. To all intents and purposes it, like many other cars, appears to be an authentic Lancia D50, just built a few years after the production run ended by someone other than Lancia. Is this what makes it a reproduction, even though it uses the original parts etc.?

I also have a notion that this car is, in fact, more authentic than some other cars which have been rebuilt after sometimes appearing to have been completely totalled. Other older cars have been raced and to some extent developed (old bits replaced, sometimes with better ones). Are these cars still classics, or do they fall under a new desciption, something like "retromobiles" or something?

I dont think this argument has an answer frankly. I remember reading about a restored Ferrari Testarossa once which had been dug up from a farm. The before pics showed some twisted and rusty steel tubes which looked almost exactly the same as scrap metal. The after pics showed a gorgeous ferrari testarossa exact in almost every detail, but I would have to say that that car is a remanufactured car,not even a restoration. I read another article on one of the very first mini`s which had been restored, this car also came from a barn ( except it wasnt buried it was hanging ) and looked rather sad but fairly complete,had all the usual rust spots etc. During restoration however, they were at pains to use as little new metal as possible, and in fact did things like stretch the door skins to keep the original Metal, I would say then that that car would be original, but no way was the Ferrari.

And with a lot of Racing cars theyre not really original anyway..they end up just like Grandpas axe, a couple of new chassis and a 3 new engines....

Anyway, just an opinion...I think Chris Rea`s Ferrari Sharknose isnt eligible for historic racing because although it is a sharknose in almost every respect, becuase it wasnt made by the factory its considered a reproduction and not the real deal.

We have had this argument before.

Stuartbrs, are you really saying that you would rather NOT see a repro sharknose Ferrari racing, simply because the factory did not make it?

I know where I stand on that one!

Originally posted by stuartbrs


Anyway, just an opinion...I think Chris Rea`s Ferrari Sharknose isnt eligible for historic racing because although it is a sharknose in almost every respect, becuase it wasnt made by the factory its considered a reproduction and not the real deal.

If it was'nt made by Ferrari then its not a Ferrari even if it is identicle in every solitary aspect to the original. (but I agree with Barry )

The Lancia is different story though, if it was assembled from all genuine parts made by Lancia in the appropriate years, regardless of what year it was put together, then its the genuine thing albeit probably of less value than a similar car with heritage in some peoples eyes.

I happen to have a friend who built a 1974 CR250 Honda racebike recently totally from NOS parts, every single part was genuine and brand new from all corners of the world and its a real treat to see and theres no way that you would consider it anything but a brand new 1974 Honda.

Sorry, of course I would love to see a sharknose Ferrari race, even a reproduction one..I was referring to the Historic Monaco race not allowing it to run,which is of course a great shame. Everyone knows that car is a repro so its not a problem, its when repro`s are passed off as the real thing that it is wrong.

And didnt Aston Martin make a run of 60`s DB rracecars a few years back out of surplus parts? I saw pictures of them and they were stunning and of course something like that would be considered genuine.

Any pics of that bike Mark? sounds awesome...

Bad example with the sharknose.
Chris Rea's car was not a replica but a look-alike and therefore watching it race would not give the spectator the real "experience" of seeing a sharknose racing. In the Goodwood paddock I heard Phil Hill loudly and soundly condemning it. Rea's heart was obvioulsy in the right place, but the car simply isn't up to scratch.
The D50s and many of the other bitsas, on the other hand, actually use significant amounts of real parts and are as close to the real thing as you are likely to get, therefore giving a fair representation of the car they are replicating. Hence I welcome them, as I welcome Cameron Millar 250Fs, not least because they are about as "genuine" as any of the other many-times-rebuilt and hideously developed cars that they line up with on the historivc grid.

Originally posted by Tepid shoe
Bad example with the sharknose.
Chris Rea's car was not a replica but a look-alike and therefore watching it race would not give the spectator the real "experience" of seeing a sharknose racing. In the Goodwood paddock I heard Phil Hill loudly and soundly condemning it. Rea's heart was obvioulsy in the right place, but the car simply isn't up to scratch.

Really? Hill tested it for Classic cars magazine when it was built (some six years ago) and was full of praise back then...

Politics hey...

Originally posted by stuartbrs

Any pics of that bike Mark? sounds awesome...

I can grab some without much effort but the thing is it doesnt look as good as one that my be prepared for a Concourse de Elegance.

Well to me it looks better because it looks exactly like I remember them on the showroom floor and I cant stand a lot of the Concourse "over the top" presented cars and bikes and I certainly question if cars like the Auto Unions ever looked that good in terms of finish in their day.

The "replica" Shark Nose was revealed to Phill Hill at the 1995 Goodwood FOS. Up until the point when the tapaulin was pulled off the car, he had no idea that this project existed. I have a video clip of this moment and to me he looked and sounded absolutely gob-smacked - and appreciative of the effort Rea had made. Maybe he's changed his mind since then?

His comments came after driving it - and were basically that it bore no relation whatsoever to the real thing, which is surely the criteria upon which such a project should be judged?

Originally posted by Tepid shoe
His comments came after driving it - and were basically that it bore no relation whatsoever to the real thing, which is surely the criteria upon which such a project should be judged?

Thats a good point Tepid, if I ever had the chance to drive something like that, it would be nice to know you are experiencing a reasonable facsimile of what it was like for drivers in the day, be it good or bad.

I don't think you should be too hard on Chris Rea for re-creating the replica Shark Nose. After all, it was put together for his pet project movie "La Passione" and, as is often the case in the film world, was made as a "look-alike" rather than a faithful reproduction. It has never been passed off as a true re-incarnation of the original Shark Nose. Given the emotive pull of the original cars, maybe full reproductions are now overdue especially as the D-50s seem to be gaining acceptability.

If it weren't for the Grdon Gekko's of the world we probably wouldn't be having this conversation so often. For years without end, racing cars were considered merely tools and adapted to the task at hand until they were no longer deemed capable of being very useful and then were recycled by being passed on for use in another series or used for parts, salvage, or whatever. Only in a very few and rare instances were they looked upon as icons and placed in collections.

In my opinion, this whole usually sordid business was addressed quite well by DSJ as to what is a fake, genuine, or whatever so years ago. Since then, it has merely gotten worse. Then again, I have always thought that it would be pretty interesting to allow replicas of the front-engined cars of the 1956-1960 period -- engines and so forth being as with the original -- to be used for a Parallel WDC..... It would be interesting to see how the Aston Martin and Scarab would stack up against the Vanwall, 250F, Dino 246, Gordini, and so forth.

At any rate, don't expect sanity to return to this arena simply because mere mortals are suffering economic problems, since the GG's of the world always seem to be wearing platinum parachutes....

Originally posted by Eric McLoughlin
I don't think you should be too hard on Chris Rea for re-creating the replica Shark Nose. After all, it was put together for his pet project movie "La Passione" and, as is often the case in the film world, was made as a "look-alike" rather than a faithful reproduction. It has never been passed off as a true re-incarnation of the original Shark Nose. Given the emotive pull of the original cars, maybe full reproductions are now overdue especially as the D-50s seem to be gaining acceptability.

I was under impression that a lot of research was made to construct it as faithfull as possible, except in engine choice, where latter Dino engine is used as much less complicated way than recreating the original. I wouldn't call it just a lookalike. However, one thing is certain, and that is why I agree that we shoudn't be hard on Rea: no one ever claimed it to be anything but an enthusiast's replica. A matter of passion, or la passione, nothing more or less...

I have to side with Eric and dmj... the criticism of the Sharknose rep. is a bit off-beam.
(Although I can't claim impartiality, knowing the people involved in building it.)
I don't think there have ever been any claims of any sort made for it - either to it's accuracy, authenticity or its ability to dynamically replicate the real thing; and I don't think there was ever any serious idea that it might race.
It was built using next-to-nothing in the way of drawings and just a stack of photographs.

Phil Hill seemed full of admiration for the project when it was unveiled to him. I find it hard to believe that a Gentleman such as Hill would ''condemn'' the thing when, by then, he knew the background and passion - and the stated purpose - that spawned it. The workmanship and attention to detail was somewhat beyond what might be stictly necessary for a film property.

Ferrari were sufficiently interested in it to invite to take part in the big Ferrari retrospective celebration in Maranello a year or two back (the only non-Ferrari allowed such a privilege) - I would have thought that was praise enough.


Somebody (Mark, I think) mentioned their unease about over-preened and over-restored cars - a friend who is something of a Lotus historian went to Laguna Seca a few years ago when the featured marque was Lotus (he co-owned a Lotus 78 at the time - or maybe that's where he bought it, not sure) - he commented that if he had prepared a car (his example was a 26R, but he said it applied generally) to exactly the condition in which it had left the factory, then it wouldn't have met the entry standard for the concours... Discuss...;)

You pointed exactly at what confuses me. From everything I ever heard about Phil Hill as a gentleman it is almost impossible to imagine him so utterly changing his mind. I know that we can suppose his initial praise for replica to certain degree owed to politics but... It simply doesn't fit into my image of him (one of most valid nominees for title in "Most noble driver" thread).

Originally posted by 2F-001
I have to side with Eric and dmj... the criticism of the Sharknose rep. is a bit off-beam.

[...]

Somebody (Mark, I think) mentioned their unease about over-preened and over-restored cars - a friend who is something of a Lotus historian went to Laguna Seca a few years ago when the featured marque was Lotus (he co-owned a Lotus 78 at the time - or maybe that's where he bought it, not sure) - he commented that if he had prepared a car (his example was a 26R, but he said it applied generally) to exactly the condition in which it had left the factory, then it wouldn't have met the entry standard for the concours... Discuss...;)

I saw a Sharknose rep (I'm pretty sure one of Rea's) close-up in Prince Rainier's collection back in '96. As a mere youngster the "real ones" had been cut up a good few years before I was born so I was most appreciative of the chance to get a feel for what the cars would've been like "for real".

Of course, this beautiful, polished jewel of a car was difficult to square with DCN's "Mr Blobby was a Ferrari welder" photo and caption - like all replicas one takes it with a pinch of salt. But I'm glad things like that and the D50 reps exist so that those of us who weren't lucky enough to have been round at the time can get at least a first-hand impression of what the great cars of the past were about.

As long as us punters, the owners, and the historians know what's real and what's fake I don't see any harm in replicas existing - like many of the posters I'm not keen on them going up against "priceless" cars merely because they're cheaper than the real thing though.

pete

I saw a Sharknose rep (I'm pretty sure one of Rea's) close-up in Prince Rainier's collection back in '96.

One of.....? I thought Chris Rea only had one made. If so, presumably, this was the one. If not, WHAT?

I might be able to clear up some of the Phil Hill matter. He's a complete star - in fact - and far too straight and direct to sing one song to person A and the reverse to person B upon the same subject. At Goodwood there was TV interest in shooting Phil's reaction to the Sharknose replica to be unveiled before him. The notion was that he wouldn't have a clue what was about to be unveiled. The TV people really wanted to spring a total surprise upon him sine "not a single Sharknose Ferrari exists".

This bothered me because I knew that Phil has very mixed memories of the cars and the death of Trips at Monza in one of them was a traumatic affair all round, aspects of which have stayed with Phil ever since. I felt his reaction stone cold might, in fact, be horror or some flashback of an unpleasant nature and I didn't want that to happen...

So before we went into the paddock that day I spilled the beans to him, off the record, just to give him a little warning. His reaction - to my complete relief - was "Oh great, I'll be interested to see that. But I know nothing, right?" - and I said "Right!" - and we shook hands on it - then wandered into the paddock with the TV crew.

The shapless wotsit beneath the car dust sheet was unveiled and Phil played his role superbly. He genuinely thought it was a fantastic job - a replica made by eye, not to drawings - it just looked about right. He appreciated Chris's reasons for having it done and he appreciated the quality work which had gone into doing it.

After driving the car he was asked what was it like? And as always with a direct question he answered it honestly and straightforwardly: "With that Dino road engine it's absolutely nothing like the real car used to be - the torque curve's totally different, it doesn't sound the same, go the same, the gearchange is different...but the view forward is about right".

Which is - surely - precisely what one would expect him to have said?

DCN

Right you are Doug, about Phil... He's as honest and as straight forward as they come.

The subject Ferrari Sharknose, is what I would term, a "replica" not a reproduction nor a remanufactured car. It is a close, but not exact, facsimile. Thus, not eligible for running in Historic races.

Perhaps in the near future, I'll take on the endeavor to establish some sort of uniform criteria that would be adopted by most, if not all, of the sanctioning bodies and clubs in their regulations for entry.

"Good Luck " - they chorus....

The balance of my opinion I have uttered elsewhere... like in the 512 thread below...

But there was only one of these cars made - right?

The D50 bothers me in that I suppose it must have a chassis number - if so, is it a Lancia one? Also, assuming that it does, and that one day its in an accident, can the car be split up to make two or more repro/repro's, which will be two authentic ....what? I admit that the D50 project is amazing - one which appeals to me in every sense, and I really wish I could get to see it.

A little while ago I read an article about someone who made an Alfa 8C 2300 replica using (I believe) an engine from an Alfasud. This was the closest the owner felt he could get to owning the real car, but I can't help thinking that he was just as far away as he was before he started, as the car clearly wouldn't have the same character (still, I admire his love of the car).

How does this stand when compared with other Alfa chassis which have been rebodied? Are the rebodied cars replica's or classics (serious question)?

Originally posted by MarkWill
...Are the rebodied cars replica's or classics (serious question)?

They are considered a reproduction and subsequently considered classics - they have their own judging class at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance. I'd say, if they were recognized by the haute judging society there, they should have their place anywhere, amongst the other "original" cars of their era.

However, I can only speak for the U.S. contingent, the Brits and Europeans will have to illuminate how these cars are preceived in their countries.

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Which is - surely - precisely what one would expect him to have said?
DCN

Originally posted by rdrcr
Right you are Doug, about Phil... He's as honest and as straight forward as they come

How about "Oh yes, Doug told me about this yesterday".

Originally posted by MarkWill
A little while ago I read an article about someone who made an Alfa 8C 2300 replica using (I believe) an engine from an Alfasud. This was the closest the owner felt he could get to owning the real car, but I can't help thinking that he was just as far away as he was before he started, as the car clearly wouldn't have the same character (still, I admire his love of the car).

Do you maybe talk about Appenine 2.9? It was a 8C 2900B replica with a straight eight made of two Alfetta four cilindre motors? It seemed like a gorgeous replica to me but it couldn't find a buyer until eventually sold at an auction with huge loss for its maker...

Thats the one . I don;t know how much of the rest of the car was genuine/imitation, but it definitely looked ok.

What would people think of a McLaren F1 with carbon-ceramic brakes? They are closer to what Gordon Murray intended, and they are now available for the Ferrari Enzo, so I wonder how the "purist" market would respond? IHMO the McLaren F1 could/should be allowed to continue its development - surely it only takes sanctioning from the car's designer?

I agree that replicas should be given a chance to race. However, like Mr. Capps, I think there should be a parallel series for them. Originals could race with them, but the marquee events would be those which were limited to originals.

Which gets us back to "what is an original." I submit that a vehicle recreated with original/NOS parts should be considered an original car. As others have stated, many of the original cars participating in vintage events are running parts that were not originally "theirs" anyway.

The main drawback of creating a NOS replica is its decreased monetary value vs. an example with an actual racing history. Individuals who create NOS replicas have only their pocketbooks and the ire of original-parts-seekers to worry about.

A few responses as this topic seems to have moved on a fair bit.

Firstly, I am delighted that Doug Nye has verified and vindicated my reporting of Phil Hill's assessment of the 'sharknose' at Goodwood. Believe it or not, following the sceptical response my post received here, I suffered an almost sleepless night worrying that I might have defamed the great thinker (Hill, not Nye, though I am sure he is equally clever) and thrown his integrity into doubt. Many hours were spent trying to recall Hill's precise words for fear that I had misremembered or attributed them to the wrong chap. So thanks for clearing that up Doug.

Secondly, a few people have leaped to the defence of Chris Rea's 'sharknose' project so let me say that I never actually criticised the project and admire and understand why Rea would lob huge amounts of money at such a thing out of sheer enthusiasm. Just look at the paltry return he got (£30k-odd) and you know that his motivation was not greed, but love. He certainly didn't try and pass it off as anything it wasn't and I applaud him for that. And that is why I have no fears about the D50s ever being "passed off", their lives have been and will be so public, their every movement noted, that any attempt to create a more significant history would be spotted instantly.

Personally I am all for millionaires bankrupting themselves so I can enjoy the fruits of their coins, but my original reason for citing the 'sharknose' as a bad example in this debate stands ie. the project cannot be compared to the D50 project which was far more thorough and could take advantage of far more original parts. Rea did a very good and noble thing, but the result simply is not comparable to the D50 reps and therefore it was a complete red herring in this thread.

Now, as someone mentioned earlier, perhaps it is time that someone did recreate a 'sharknose' to a similarly impressive build and spec as the D50s so it could compete at Goodwood and the like. Any millionaires out there want to make next season a little bit more enjoyable for this spectator?

I keep hearing about this D50 rep, can someone please point me to it ??

I have seen a shot of it at Goodwood, but more interested in how it came to be etc.

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
I keep hearing about this D50 rep, can someone please point me to it ??

I have seen a shot of it at Goodwood, but more interested in how it came to be etc.

http://www.atlasf1.c...ight=lancia d50

Originally posted by Doug Nye

The shapless wotsit beneath the car dust sheet was unveiled and Phil played his role superbly. He genuinely thought it was a fantastic job - a replica made by eye, not to drawings - it just looked about right. He appreciated Chris's reasons for having it done and he appreciated the quality work which had gone into doing it.

DCN

I remember well watching the scene on TV...a group including Phil Hill. Chris Rea and a cricketing celeb marching toward the covered Shark Nose. I must admit to being a little disappointed to learn that the moist eyed rock star had in fact been duped by Phil's little act. I was too.

I'm a big Chris Rea fan, actually. I was surprised that he put the car up for sale, though. Where is it now?

Could you get Chris to post here, Doug? Perhaps Mark Knopfler too. When interviewed on TV last year at the Revival the first person he mentioned was Archie. Sounds a good bloke to me.

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


How about "Oh yes, Doug told me about this yesterday".

For you perhaps... I have had the pleasure of meeting the man on several occassions, including his judging one of my cars... at Pebble Beach. :

... or am I reading into this, something that isn't there?

I knew it! I said to Mrs. Boor just last Sunday, when watching a Dire Straits video on a music channel, "There's Mark Knopfler - one of the nicest guys in the music business."

Now I know why.

Originally posted by Tepid shoe
Now, as someone mentioned earlier, perhaps it is time that someone did recreate a 'sharknose' to a similarly impressive build and spec as the D50s so it could compete at Goodwood and the like. Any millionaires out there want to make next season a little bit more enjoyable for this spectator?

Quote from Ed McDonough's book on the Ferrari 156:

"British rock star and racing driver Chris Rea caused a sensation when he commissioned a copy of the 'sharknose' to star in the film he produced about his own experience of 'La Passione'. Although this car attracted a lot of attention and still does, it was not a detailed and accurate reproduction. However, a machine is now being built using the remains of an original engine block and gearbox".

I kicked this subject around a bit with some friends at work. One of the exciting truths of our day is that the manufacturing technology is a lot better than it used to be, and consequently a lot less reliant on loose tolerances. Unless you are using contemporary machines to rebuild the engine and gearbox etc., it is entirely likely that you will end up with a better machine than the original (in fact, one of the older guys seems to think that british cars were designed to lose oil at a certain rate, which was down to poor ability to control tolerances. If you read the manual it basically said not to be too suprised if the engine leaked and all was normal - I think he was talking about certain MG's). I don't suppose anyone is going to deliberately meet the slack end of the tolerance when you can do so much better these days, and I wonder if some repro cars and parts haven't come unstuck because of it, given that tighter tolerances generally average out to slightly smaller bits and pieces (could be tricky inside a gearbox, for instance)?

Also I thought that the engines and gearboxes of the original cars were scrapped entirely - where do these extra bits come from?

Originally posted by rdrcr


For you perhaps... I have had the pleasure of meeting the man on several occassions, including his judging one of my cars... at Pebble Beach. :

... or am I reading into this, something that isn't there?

I just saw the contradictions as rather amusing, please take no offence ;)

"So before we went into the paddock that day I spilled the beans to him, off the record, just to give him a little warning. His reaction - to my complete relief - was "Oh great, I'll be interested to see that. But I know nothing, right?" - and I said "Right!" - and we shook hands on it - then wandered into the paddock with the TV crew.

The shapless wotsit beneath the car dust sheet was unveiled and Phil played his role superbly".

Ok, so mentioning the Sharknose wasnt a good idea! I knew the engine wasnt original but I did think that the chassis and body were exact replica`s, I should have guessed that no drawings would still exist for those cars. It is obviously an altogether different proposition to those Lancia`s but has been a great read nonetheless!!
Just a few thoughts though. Although our manufacturing techniques are from a different planet nowadays than in the early 60`s there are a lot of skills which are fast disappearing and becoming increasingly difficult to replicate. This applies particularly to WWI and II aircraft for instance, and I imagine, old racing cars also. It is also a mistake to imply that just because something was made 50 years ago, we could easily replicate it now. As an example, it cost just as much to build a WWII Hurricane, comparitivly, as it does to manufacture an FA/18 today, and, with the cowls removed, the hurricane is an incredibly complicated piece of kit,but very few people nowadays can restore one ...Ive read also that it would be next to impossible today to reproduce a WWI LeRhone rotary engine from scratch, yet they built hundreds of them 90 years ago, by hand... I guess my point is that, even using original parts...are they using the original TOOLS and TECHNIQUES to put them together? Or do we have the latest and greatest laser cutting techniques producing something which is far TOO acurate?
Secondly, as a guitarist, I own a re-issue 1962 Fender Stratocaster ( produced by Fender from about 84 onwards ) , beautifully built and painted with modern Laquers and looking like the real thing made by the same company 30 years ago...but there is no way on earth it could be sold as a real `62 Strat...you`ve only got to place it next to an original one to see the differences...the original just looks original, different old paint, different manufactuing ( handmade not laser cut ) wear marks on the fretboard, smelling like an old instrument should, and playing like one too. That is the beauty of old racing cars, you cant emulate Fangio having sat in the seat, or chip bits of paint away and wonder how it happened, or smell 50 years worth of oil drenched into the enginebay,you can almost feel the history oozing out of an original old racing car/warplane/guitar.
But the new ones are great, a representation of what they may have looked like all those years ago,letting people who otherwise may never have had the chance to see a Lancia,Sharknose or whatever..and if they are done right, there never should be any doubt as to what they are...as I said you cannot replicate history.

Anyway, feel free to shoot me down in flames!! :-) its just a few thoughts thats all

I'm sure the real reason an aircraft such a Hurricane would cost so much to produce today is not because of its complexity (it's not a complex piece of kit by modern standards) but due to the low level of production. During WW2 a Hurricane or Spitfire cost around £40,000 to make - that's probably around the order of £800,000 today - still well short of the $20 million price tag of an F-18. But during the war around 20,000 Spitfires and 20,000 Hurricanes were built and they were rolling off the lines like Ford Fiestas.

Originally posted by stuartbrs
I own a re-issue 1962 Fender Stratocaster ( produced by Fender from about 84 onwards ) , beautifully built and painted with modern Laquers and looking like the real thing made by the same company 30 years ago...but there is no way on earth it could be sold as a real `62 Strat...you`ve only got to place it next to an original one to see the differences

I sympathise. I own a replica Longines Conquest watch. It cost a bloody fortune, but I thought it was a good buy because it would be exactly as the wonderful 1950s and 1960s watch visually but with modern reliability. In fact it is a far better replica than I could have hoped for, up to the point that it is just as unreliable as its ancient counterpart and, as we speak, is away yet again getting mended at a cost of another £100.
To veer back on to topic I should point out that the modern D50 replicas would also appear to have mimicked the frailties of their forefathers to a stunning degree and are more often being repaired than running.

Please tell me more about this sharknose mentioned in the McDonough book. Does anyone know anymore about it, has it come to fruition, who is behind the project etc etc?

Originally posted by Barry Boor
I knew it! I said to Mrs. Boor just last Sunday, when watching a Dire Straits video on a music channel, "There's Mark Knopfler - one of the nicest guys in the music business."

Now I know why.

When somebody owns and races a Maserati 300S it shows a great taste as well as personal wealth. And if that wealth is earned through writing and performing so many great songs we shouldn't have anything to add.

Well. Mark was only a poor journalist until he hit 30... A hope? No, I can't play guitar...

I am virtually tone deaf and infinitely prefer listening to the spoken word to listening to music - most of the time it just makes more sense to me.

Chris Rea contacted me about the Ferrari replica while his pal Paul Harvey was building it for him, in Bognor on the south coast, I seem to recall. I had absolutely NO idea who Chris was. I didn't know that he was a popular troubadour, that he wrote some music I'd actually heard, liked and remembered - "Fool now you think it's over" or somesuch by Elkie Brooks (cor...).

It was in conversation that his celebrity came up, with him saying he couldn't really enjoy himself at a race meeting 'cos people kept coming up and talking to him about music. "Oh, are you interested in music then?" was an honest query on my part.

Ditto with Mark Knopfler - I could no more hum something by Dire Straits than win a hang-gliding championship. All I can report is that Rea seemed an extremely pleasant proper bloke, rather screwed-up by his situation and (understandably) by his health problems, while Knopfler seemed absolutely one of us, real grass roots enthusiast - as, in fact was George Harrison, the only one of this trio I'd ever actually heard of first...though to me George seemed completely away with the fairies the four or five times I met him.

Incidentally re Sharknose cars drawings do exist, and at least one 'proper' replica has been started - I believe - possibly with the truly great veteran cutaway artist Jim Allington involved in some way, using an original 120-degree V6 engine which I believe was acquired from Automeccanica Toni in Modena. This very incomplete engine is, however, a left-over from the 1963 Bosch fuel-injected F1 series and its heads seemed to have been used for tests and experiments with multiple drillings for three spark plus and four valves per cylinder and all kinds of embuggerance... About 3-4 years ago there was a lot of activity connected with this project. It all seems to have gone quiet for some time now...

DCN

Chris Rea also has enhanced credibility in my view because of his undying passion, not just for Ferraris but also for Caterham and Lotus 7s. He says one of his favourite day-dreams is one day to have a Ferrari engine installed in a 7. He'd be the man to do it too.

Hi,

I should just clarify - when I said "better than the original" I didn't mean that it was necessarily going to work better - I really meant that it would be closer to a tolerance-free "ideal". I don't really think that it will guarantee more reliability, and my point actually is that you may end up going in the other direction.

How come Ferrari doesn't undertake the Sharknose project - it being one of their cars, after all?

Originally posted by MarkWill
How come Ferrari doesn't undertake the Sharknose project - it being one of their cars, after all?

Perhaps Bernie will, once he has bought Ferrari. Gawd help us.

Originally posted by Tepid shoe
Please tell me more about this sharknose mentioned in the McDonough book. Does anyone know anymore about it, has it come to fruition, who is behind the project etc etc?

At the time the Rea car appeared there were rumours that someone had discovered a whole lot of Sharknose bits - enough to construct several cars - in a basement in Turin. The more cynical of us wondered if this stroy was laying the groundowrk for the appearance of some "genuine" cars in a few years ;)
Whether or not the McDonough car is a reference to one of these I do not know

Originally posted by David McKinney

At the time the Rea car appeared there were rumours that someone had discovered a whole lot of Sharknose bits - enough to construct several cars - in a basement in Turin. The more cynical of us wondered if this stroy was laying the groundowrk for the appearance of some "genuine" cars in a few years ;)

Sounds similar to when Carrol Shelby "found" a bunch of "original" chassis stampings in a warehouse and decided to build his CSX4000-series Cobras.

Originally posted by Viss1

Sounds similar to when Carrol Shelby "found" a bunch of "original" chassis stampings in a warehouse and decided to build his CSX4000-series Cobras.

Why I am suddenly thinking about huge stashes of GT40 parts discovered in caravans...

Reading in another tread ( http://www.atlasf1.c...y=&pagenumber=2 ) i found myself wishing that somebody would find the drawings for the Alfa Romeo Tipo 160 and built one today ( preferable with 1950'is tools ).
What do all of you think of that, to build a Replica of something there newer have left the drawingbord.

Bjørn

If you are saying that a design that never left the drawing board is a replica, I am confused. How can you replicate something that was never made in the first place?

Sorry, ofcourse replica is not the right word, but what too call it then!. If i had one i would not think of it as a "new" car, rather like something from the fifties, there unfortunately newer was build in the period and therefore had to made ( like i wrote before, preferable with fifties tools ).
Will such a car have anything to do at historic meetings!!. I think it would have, because it shows what would have been, if circumstances was slightly different, and because all car was designed in the period ( not just as a sketsh but with proper drawings )

Bjørn