159 replies to this topic

[Cynic2]

Do you mean Scott Hughes?

Bob, I have to compliment you on your letter in “Vintage Racing.” It was exceptionally well written – laid out in great detail, but at the same time understandable to the casual reader. You made a case that will be extremely difficult for Mr. Hughes to refute.

David

[Red Socks]

The really interesting thing will be at Infineon for the Sonoma event in a months time where McLaren are the featured marque. Will Steve Earle stand up for all the stuff he says he defends and either ban the car, make it run the correct livery or insist that at least it carries a definitive real history on a story board by the car.
My bet is.....

[RA Historian]

I would be pleased if Earle makes Hughes post a story board that gives the real history of the car. To ban it would not be right, because it does have a genuine Can Am racing history, just not that which Hughes claims. To make him repaint it would be nice, but not realistic in that there are a number of McLarens running that are painted in McLaren orange that were not McLaren team cars. The difference, of course, is that the owners of those cars are not making false claims about the car's history. In a perfect world Hughes would repaint the car in Commander colors, but at this time I think the best that we can hope is that he comes clean, 'fesses up, and clearly labels his car as a Commander car, NOT the Revson car. Calll it a tribute to Revson perhaps, but NOT call it the Revson car.

As with Socks, my bet is...

Tom

[Aero426]

I bought the VM issue last night and saw the letters. Having some skin in the game owning a very original old race car, I am familiar with the type of slippery statements found in Mr. Hughes' letter in VM. Indeed I found it to be lame and full of anecdotal information that has no bearing on whether the car is or isn't. The family connections really mean nothing. Teddy Mayer, (now conveniently dead) never came to see the car. Lot of "we were told", blah, blah, blah. Well I'm sorry, that won't cut it. The Jennifer Revson statement was very manipulative. Instead of ignoring the evidence provided by qualified people (Lee, Devine) Mr. Hughes should man up and admit what the evidence suggests, that his car has real Can-Am history, just not in those colors. There is no shame in "we made a mistake."

Edited by Aero426, 12 May 2011 - 19:49.

[E1pix]

There is no shame in "we made a mistake."

Agreed of course, but it sure looks like that won't happen.... honesty is a conflict of interest when deception is more important.

With some people, having it all is still not enough. I'd rather be broke.

[xj13v12]

I have now read the VM letters from Mr Hughes and others. The lameness of the defence of claiming the McLaren as the Revson team car is really quite pathetic and I am not sure who he thinks he is kidding. Given the quite dramatic price differential between a Team McLaren car and a Trojan M8FP I wonder if the continuing charade is due to the potential sale price at a future date. Perhaps a question to be answered is how much was paid for the car and exactly how was it presented to the buyer at that time. There have been some high profile actions taken against people who have knowingly misled buyers but Mr Hughes does not seem to be taking that course. One suspects that he was not misled but decided to mislead. If this analysis is wrong it can be easily rectified. Repaint the car and present it as it should be - Commander Homes M8FP. It will be worth about 1/3rd of the real Revson M8F and perhaps that's the region of price paid in the first place. He simply cannot "value add" creating false history - the days of easily getting away with that game have mercifully passed.

[E1pix]

I have now read the VM letters from Mr Hughes and others. The lameness of the defence of claiming the McLaren as the Revson team car is really quite pathetic and I am not sure who he thinks he is kidding. Given the quite dramatic price differential between a Team McLaren car and a Trojan M8FP I wonder if the continuing charade is due to the potential sale price at a future date. Perhaps a question to be answered is how much was paid for the car and exactly how was it presented to the buyer at that time. There have been some high profile actions taken against people who have knowingly misled buyers but Mr Hughes does not seem to be taking that course. One suspects that he was not misled but decided to mislead. If this analysis is wrong it can be easily rectified. Repaint the car and present it as it should be - Commander Homes M8FP. It will be worth about 1/3rd of the real Revson M8F and perhaps that's the region of price paid in the first place. He simply cannot "value add" creating false history - the days of easily getting away with that game have mercifully passed.

Yep, it sure seems to be a case of finding that one sporadic guy who believes the "price."

[RA Historian]

Yep, it sure seems to be a case of finding that one sporadic guy who believes the "price."

In business we called that the "greater fool" theory.

I have been told that Hughes paid a reasonable price for the car, not a premium price that it would have commanded had it been the Revson car. Hence, one has to suspect that Hughes was aware from the start that his car was and is not the Revson car, despite his statement that when he bought the car he was told it was the Revson car. If so, the price surely would have been higher.

Hughes has been thoroughly exposed and the truth is now well and truly out there. I am very curious as to how he will present this car in the paddock at Sears Point in a couple weeks. If he has any sense of decency, he should at the very least come clean and say and/or have a sign by the car honestly stating its history. Since time will not reasonably allow him to repaint the car to Commander colors right now, he must label the car correctly. Failure to do so will say a great deal about the character of Mr. Hughes.

It will be appreciated if any TNFers who attend the Sears event monitor this situation and report back on what transpires.
Tom

[bill p]

It will be appreciated if any TNFers who attend the Sears event monitor this situation and report back on what transpires.
Tom

I will be there and Mr Hughes' car will be the first I search out!!

Edited by bill p, 23 May 2011 - 08:15.

[RA Historian]

I have been sent photos of the Hughes car at Sears Point, as well as e mails from Bob Lee and Jennifer Revson. Hughes appears to have thrown in the towel, in that he took Peter Revson's name off of the car and changed the number from 7 to 8. The car remained orange, however. But the bigger news is that I understand that he has delivered the car to Fantasy Junction (an exotic car dealer in California) on consignment for sale. He has apparently given up the struggle, realizing that he lost. The car is not yet posted on the Fantasy Junction website, but it will be interesting to see how they market it.
Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 07 June 2011 - 20:58.

[bobLee]

The car will be sold as a Commander Production car

I have been sent photos of the Hughes car at Sears Point, as well as e mails from Bob Lee and Jennifer Revson. Hughes appears to have thrown in the towel, in that he took Peter Revson's name off of the car and changed the number from 7 to 8. The car remained orange, however. But the bigger news is that I understand that he has delivered the car to Fantasy Junction (an exotic car dealer in California) on consignment for sale. He has apparently given up the struggle, realizing that he lost. The car is not yet posted on the Fantasy Junction website, but it will be interesting to see how they market it.
Tom

Scott Hughes now understands that he does not have the Revson team M8F. Craig Pence and I talked to him and and went over some of the details but Scott also showed us an email from an ex Commander Mechanic, John Bruce Robles, that only worked on the 98 car. John Robles confirmed everything John Collins told me plus he added some more details about the 98 car after the Edmonton crash. The board members would find his letter and never seen photos very interesting. The fender flares he added for Laguna in 73 plus the different wing mounts are all on the car at Mosport in 76 and some mods still remain. Fantasy Junction will only correctly represent the car as Commander Production car assembled after the Edmonton crash.

[E1pix]

I admire all the diligence you guys have put into this.

VINTAGE BUYERS & SELLERS BEWARE: Do your DD, or the BB will be onto you!

Edited by E1pix, 07 June 2011 - 22:29.

[RA Historian]

The car will be sold as a Commander Production car

Scott Hughes now understands that he does not have the Revson team M8F. Craig Pence and I talked to him and and went over some of the details but Scott also showed us an email from an ex Commander Mechanic, John Bruce Robles, that only worked on the 98 car. John Robles confirmed everything John Collins told me plus he added some more details about the 98 car after the Edmonton crash. The board members would find his letter and never seen photos very interesting. The fender flares he added for Laguna in 73 plus the different wing mounts are all on the car at Mosport in 76 and some mods still remain. Fantasy Junction will only correctly represent the car as Commander Production car assembled after the Edmonton crash.

Great news, Bob. Thanks much for all the work and effort that you put in to bring the truth to the fore. Thanks also to Jennifer Revson for her tireless work over the past year and a half on exposing the fraud, to Don Devine for his work in corroborating the true identity of the cars, and to Doug Nye for his verification of the true car in the Laumann (sp) collection and his article in Motor Sport which went a long way to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Also to the many others who came forward with their pertinent info and for their evidentiary and moral support. I am sure Jennifer truly appreciates all the effort expended by so many.
Tom

[JacnGille]

[Allen Brown]

Well done all involved

Let's just hope we don't find another car in historic racing that is being misrepresented in any way.

[David McKinney]

Highly unlikely, Allen

[xj13v12]

OK here's the next logical step. When will we start a campaign against restorers who are complicit in this sham. This type of misrepresentation is deliberate and this one example should be used as a warning to all parties involved. Event organisers have a clear mandate to expect honesty in how cars are presented to the public and the right for some decent proof upon entry to their event. The small number of people involved in blurring the lines on car histories are far outnumbered by the good guys. No one should be afraid to speak up as Jenny did. We all rallied around her and got a result and that car has its place on the track in historic racing. This should become the normal course of events.

[E1pix]

Perhaps an entirely new, in-depth means of documentation is in order. This could be done as a web service perhaps, by gathering data from, and cross-promoting with, cooperative and existing sites and documents.

Maybe this has been done.... but if a co-op of information could be built, and co-promoted by all other cooperative bodies, this could become a new standard that could only help all current sources.

Something like "RacecarResource.com," or similar (I'd be good for 100 possible names, FastPast.com comes now). It seems with the group already here, and everyone we are all networked with ourselves, it could work.

If you out there are familiar with "Carfax.com," you get the idea.

Just Sayin'.

[Frank S]

You mean on the model of Wikipedia, with interested parties supplying the facts and verification?

Welcome to the Sara Palin History Site ...

[E1pix]

No, like Carfax but cooperatively compiled for benefit of contributor's existing sites.

Sara Palin?

[RA Historian]

All good ideas, but as Peter DeLorenzo says on Autoextremist" "ain'tgonnahappen.com"

I am sure that our friends in the UK will tell us how much of a sham the various historic racing certificates are. A noble idea, but it just does not work. The best system, such as it is, is what we have. The word of mouth and evidence of the various experts of various marques and series. If someone is pulling a fast one, there will be someone who will blow the whistle. In the current example of Scott Hughes, many people sounded the alarm.

As far as putting the burden on the promoters to only allow 'legitimate' cars, no way. First of all, the vast majority of promoters do not want to be put in that position. Further, face it. The promoter is mainly interested in the entry fee, not the pedigree of the car.

[E1pix]

Re: Vintage Diligence website.... Appreciate that.... but Fact is, neither one of us can know for sure.

If assumption was standard, we'd still be on horseback. All things evolve, "best system" is never found.

Edited by E1pix, 09 June 2011 - 02:27.

[xj13v12]

All good ideas, but as Peter DeLorenzo says on Autoextremist" "ain'tgonnahappen.com"

I am sure that our friends in the UK will tell us how much of a sham the various historic racing certificates are. A noble idea, but it just does not work. The best system, such as it is, is what we have. The word of mouth and evidence of the various experts of various marques and series. If someone is pulling a fast one, there will be someone who will blow the whistle. In the current example of Scott Hughes, many people sounded the alarm.

As far as putting the burden on the promoters to only allow 'legitimate' cars, no way. First of all, the vast majority of promoters do not want to be put in that position. Further, face it. The promoter is mainly interested in the entry fee, not the pedigree of the car.

In Australia we have a "Certificate Of Description" (as well as historic logbook) which can be a lengthy and tortuous process but basically it tries to enforce correct technical representation of a car at a particular point in time. Of course this leads to some rather arcane arguments but the intent from everyone is to assist get cars onto the track for enjoyable amatuer motor sport BUT only in as much as they have correct specifications and have genuine proven history. For some this is a step too far but a simple example would be that the car must run the engine type and size as in the day. That would make most current Can-Am cars in America ineligable and the concept of "run what you brung" would be eliminated. Do those cars really need 9 litre engines today? F5000 means a 5 litre engine but apparently there is no appetite at all to enforce that type of very basic regulatory requirement in historic or Vintage racing there. Correct gearboxes, materials, instruments, wheel sizes, brake size and type, shocks etc soon follow and some countries have no chance of introducing this type of regulation retrospectively as the genie has long been out of the bottle. The show Vintage racing creates is very impressive and that success and enjoyment is a strong case to leave things alone and I understand that attitude completely.
The discussion of what represents a "legitimate" car needs to be had from 2 fronts.
1)Correct technical specification to best represent a car as near as reasonably possible for the period and
2)correct historical presentation of a car's competition record and driver/ownership in period and since.
These cars should outlive all of us and as custodians we have a duty (IMHO) to tidy up our act - one car at a time if need be.

[Red Socks]

Hmm all sorts of points are raised by some of the above posts.

Firstly Mr Hughes never applied applied for an HTP for his car either in its Revson guise or indeed any other. Had he done so it would have been refused one as the Revson car on the basis as stated above that the mechanical/tub specification was not the same as the factory car and had he applied on the basis as the Commander Homes car it would have been rejected on the basis of its current livery. So to get an ACCUS-or any other ASN-HTP it would only have been accepted as what we now all know it to be and would have been referred to by its established manufacturer and type on the front page.
DCN, towards the end of his Motor Sport piece, suggested that the situation related to the current FIA position with HTP and specification.This is untrue or at least inaccurate.The provisions of Appendix K have ab initio accepted that any car can be brought up to the specifcation of another of a similar type-hence D types running 3.8 engines, C types with Webers, Lotus 23 with twin cams and so on. So this is not new and indeed as explained above the car in question failed these tests.
The Australian Certificate of Description-what a curiously arcane use of English- is fine but in the case of so many cars trying to define a car in a point of time becomes pretty pointless when one has for example an F 1 chassis, an IMSA car, a Group C car which used a wing/gear ratio etc of a different specification at each circuit it went to and in the sporting view of the FIA-at least for the last twenty years- led to the less well endowed chassis being punished and ending up in museums rather than being raced. It is a question of balance.
As to Davids point about ''full FIA papers'' they were described thus long before the HTP came along when the only 'FIA' paper was the Historic Vehicle Identity form- to which he refers.
My case-or at least opinion -remains that the FIA solution-since abandoned- of an HTP to set down the simple agreed racing specification in conjuction with the FIA Heritage Certificate which ensured that the claimant/applicant car had a continous history from new was the best option.But I would say that wouldn't I ? FWIW I not not think any of the issued FIA HC's got it wrong.

[Allen Brown]

Perhaps an entirely new, in-depth means of documentation is in order. This could be done as a web service perhaps, by gathering data from, and cross-promoting with, cooperative and existing sites and documents.

Maybe this has been done.... but if a co-op of information could be built, and co-promoted by all other cooperative bodies, this could become a new standard that could only help all current sources.

Something like "RacecarResource.com," or similar (I'd be good for 100 possible names, FastPast.com comes now). It seems with the group already here, and everyone we are all networked with ourselves, it could work.

If you out there are familiar with "Carfax.com," you get the idea.

Just Sayin'.

Carfax,com starts from manufacturer's data and also has insurer's data, insurance being mandatory of course. Manufacturers data is typically not publicly available for racing cars and we won't have the advantage of a large insurer's database. So no, it's not been done but it has been started. I started researching racing car histories about 33 years ago and just the first 900 F1 cars took me about 20 years. Thanks to the web and the addition of a some excellent researchers, OldRacingCars.com now covers 5,130 cars and those last 4000 or so have only taken us just over a decade. Of course we don't have complete histories for every single one of them and you would need a complete provenance on each car if you're going to start telling restorers what liveries they are allowed to use.

How many cars are you planning to cover again? And remind me how long it took to resolve one single Can-Am car? How many staff will you have?

[JacnGille]

Sara Palin?

If you don't know consider yourself very, very, very lucky!

[RA Historian]

Let's keep political biases off this forum. Thank you.

[Allen Brown]

FWIW I not not think any of the issued FIA HC's got it wrong.

FWIW, I think you may well be right but I don't think the sample size is statistically significant

[E1pix]

How many cars are you planning to cover again? And remind me how long it took to resolve one single Can-Am car? How many staff will you have?

It was just an idea, and not one for me to personally pursue. I have enough ventures as it is.

My concept is that hundreds of heads always better just one. In quoting the many years it's taken for you to build your wonderful site, you've validated the concept — and it would only help your existing site.

Edited by E1pix, 09 June 2011 - 17:14.

[red stick]

Let's keep political biases off this forum. Thank you.

What's political about Sarah Palin? As best I can tell she's a performance artist.

[E1pix]

No, that's Tina Fey.

[Allen Brown]

It was just an idea, and not one for me to personally pursue. I have enough ventures as it is.

My concept is that hundreds of heads always better just one. In quoting the many years it's taken for you to build your wonderful site, you've validated the concept — and it would only help your existing site.

And I didn't wish to appear negative. Exhausted maybe, but not negative.

The Chassis Archive at "the other place" demonstrated that sometimes you can have too many heads - or too many chefs to use a different cliché. It's ok if everyone agrees - or at least where everyone agrees on a common methodology - but where there are differences of opinion, the more people you have, the more time can be consumed. This Can-Am McLaren was a piece of cake compared with most. Many cars can be debated ad nauseum without a safe conclusion being reached. The Lola T212 (or two Lola T212s) that raced in the Netherlands in 1972 is just one recent example but I also remember a Chevron B19 causing a fracas in the Chassis Archive and don't get me started on Waldo...

I'm really uncomfortable about crowd sourcing for things like this. Take the case of Paul Revere. Most Americans thought they had learnt the story of Paul Revere at school but recently new information came to light that caused his Wikipedia page to be amended over 100 times in just one day. Who in the crowd gets to decide if the new information can be relied upon? Is it the loudest voice that wins (as on the Chassis Archive) or do numbers count (as on Wikipedia)?

[Bob Riebe]

You mean on the model of Wikipedia, with interested parties supplying the facts and verification?

Welcome to the Sara Palin History Site ...

Your point is?

http://www.romesenti...20110609-142144

Edited by Bob Riebe, 09 June 2011 - 19:46.

[RA Historian]

Your point is?

http://www.romesenti...20110609-142144

Bob:

[E1pix]

....I'm really uncomfortable about crowd sourcing for things like this....

Very nice, Allen, great response and certainly no offense taken. I'd be foolish to debate this, as this is a big part of your life and expertise. Nice Job.

Bob:

Didn't you just say you wanted politics off of here? Or did that apply only to opposing viewpoints?

Edited by E1pix, 09 June 2011 - 20:09.

[RA Historian]

Bob didn't say anything political.

[xj13v12]

The Australian Certificate of Description-what a curiously arcane use of English- is fine but in the case of so many cars trying to define a car in a point of time becomes pretty pointless when one has for example an F 1 chassis, an IMSA car, a Group C car which used a wing/gear ratio etc of a different specification at each circuit it went to and in the sporting view of the FIA-at least for the last twenty years- led to the less well endowed chassis being punished and ending up in museums rather than being raced. It is a question of balance.

Yes you are right that cars ran highly variable specs from race to race but the COD does not try to negate this. There is no attempt to limit gear ratios for example, that would be idiotic. On more modern cars various wings would be included in the application so once again that's not an issue.

What becomes more an issue is that every car of a type is allowed to retro-fit improvements that may have only been on team cars, in your example a 3.8 litre injected engine on a D-Type. I think that is the wrong way to go because that car simply never ran that configuration. Post millenium upgrades have no bearing on a race car's history and should be frowned upon, along with digital instruments, modern shocks and all sorts of other go-fast bits finding their way onto cars and severely reducing their historic credentials and IMHO their value.

It is a question of balance agreed, especially when correct original parts might not be available but as a general principle surely we should be trying to present cars for track use as they ran in their day. The hotting up of cars as we have seen at Goodwood in recent times exposed what happens when upgrades are allowed to go unchecked and soon track performance (irrelevant) becomes more important than originality.

[Frank S]

Your point is?

http://www.romesenti...20110609-142144

I must have believed the wrong assertions; the point remains: anyone can jump into WikiP and rewrite. I thought the proposal was a parallel and flawed compendium.

OK?

[bill p]

I have been sent photos of the Hughes car at Sears Point, as well as e mails from Bob Lee and Jennifer Revson. Hughes appears to have thrown in the towel, in that he took Peter Revson's name off of the car and changed the number from 7 to 8. The car remained orange, however. But the bigger news is that I understand that he has delivered the car to Fantasy Junction (an exotic car dealer in California) on consignment for sale. He has apparently given up the struggle, realizing that he lost. The car is not yet posted on the Fantasy Junction website, but it will be interesting to see how they market it.
Tom

Just returned to Ireland from Sears Point/Infineon with this photo!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[E1pix]

Just returned to Ireland from Sears Point/Infineon with this photo!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Great shot, beautiful car.

Needs a black eye on it somewhere....

[jimz68]

Now listed on Fantasy Junctions website.

http://www.fantasyju.....20Alloy Block

Jim Williams

[David McKinney]

[xj13v12]

Now listed on Fantasy Junctions website.

http://www.fantasyju.....20Alloy Block

Jim Williams

$550k??? Why would this M8FP without a factory chassis number be worth as much as a team car or about $150- 250k more than other M8FPs? Looks great without doubt and a lot of money has been spent but the days of that sort of money being paid for also ran Can-am cars is long gone.

[Red Socks]

At least we have got to the point where it is correctly described if not correctly painted.

[JacnGille]

$550k??? Why would this M8FP without a factory chassis number be worth as much as a team car or about $150- 250k more than other M8FPs? Looks great without doubt and a lot of money has been spent but the days of that sort of money being paid for also ran Can-am cars is long gone.

The asking price and the purchase price aren't always the same.

[E1pix]

Someone with more green than gray will see orange and spend too much green on it.

If so, yellow wins and rumors get the green all over again....

Edited by E1pix, 16 June 2011 - 16:21.

[bobLee]

John Bruce Robles letter to the editor at Vintage Motorsport

Here is the letter to the editor written by John Bruce Robles regarding the Revson McLaren Controversy. Unfortunately VM is not publishing the letter. John included ten photos with the letter.

From: John Bruce Robles
Date: May 9, 2011 11:38:37 AM PDT
To: d.randyriggs@comcast.net
Subject: A Mclaren Controversy-Continued

After reading "A McLaren Controversey" letters in the May/June edition I decided to should contribute what I know of the 2 M8F's in question. And also give Mr. Hughes some little known information about his car that my help to get the salt from the wounds after finding out his car is not the ex-Revson team car. His car does in have a good history though.

I to was at Commander Racing during the'73 season with John Collins and am quite familiar with all the cars as to which were ex-team cars and which were Trojan cars. I and another man, Mark Ellis were not only mechanics but we were tasked with painting all the cars. (We not only ran 2 M8F's but also an ex-team Denny Hulme '72 M-20 for Mario Andretti with our own Commander Racing developed Twin Turbocharger system on it.)
The team cars had the orange color in the fiberglass gelcoat and the body parts were lighter in weight than the Trojan pieces.

Everything that John Collins related to Bob Lee in his letter on page 14 is true and correct. I have sent pictures of the cars as they were at Commander in '73. The #98 was a Trojan car and the #97 was the ex-1971 Revson car.

After the 98 was wrecked at Edmonton, when we rebuilt it we did some major modifications to the nose ala Porsche 917-10 and extended the rear wing further back to the rear of the car. We also put M-20 front uprights and A-arms on it. We did all this prior to the Laguna Seca Race where John Cannon took over the driving duties.

Mr. Hughes, you would like to know that your car with all the modifications we did to it was the fastest non-turbo car in the field at Laguna qualifying 5th. overall. Faster than several 917 turbos, faster than Mario in our Turbo M-20, faster than Jackie Oliver in the Shadow, David Hobbs in the Carling Black Label ex-Revson M-20, faster than Bobby Brown in our Commander 1971 ex-Revson M8F and every other ex-team Mclaren and Lola in the field.

A bit of information to note is that because we had Mario we were using Firestone tires all season long. John Connon however did not have a tire deal with either Firestone or Goodyear. After one or 2 practice sessions we decided to try a set of Goodyears on Cannons #98 car and the lap times came down big time. In one of the photos I am attaching some aluminum fender flares that Bill Eaton had to fabricate on the spot because the tech stewards felt that the Goodyear tires were to wide for the body work. For the Riverside race we molded the flares into the bodywork.

I can see in the pictures of Mr. Hughes' car that when it was restored to original M8F specs that when the outer vertical fin rear wing supports are not the proper profile shape. That tells me that his car is the #98 Trojan car and who ever did the work didn't get it right.

[bobLee]

This M8FP is very original other than paint.

$550k??? Why would this M8FP without a factory chassis number be worth as much as a team car or about $150- 250k more than other M8FPs? Looks great without doubt and a lot of money has been spent but the days of that sort of money being paid for also ran Can-am cars is long gone.

As to pricing: this Commander M8FP is very original compared to most M8FP's. It is the same tub as raced in 1973 and most of the running gear is the same as the period. Because the F was a successful design most F's were completely reskinned at some point and some have few original parts. Once painted up in Commander colors this is a very good historic F. Many Can-Am cars do not have their original chassis plates. There are a number of Lolas and McLarens running around with made up plates. Some of the plates are laughable. In the late eighies I could spot the fake Lola plates from twenty feet but they got better. The chassis plate for the first Commander M8FP purchased from Bill Cuddy ended up on John Bruce Robles tool box after the Edmonton crash and he told me that years later the tool box was discarded.
Not having an original plate is not as important as having the real car and documented provenance in my opinion. This is a real car with heavily documented provenance and Can-Am history. This chassis also did one Centerseat Can-Am race and raced at the last hurrah for Can-Am at Mosport in 1976 with the 3 liter prototypes. We believe the shovel nose and narrow nose box was damaged when Charles Nearburg raced it and a standard Trojan nose and airbox was used to replace the custom nose. Now that the Monterey Reunion is only accepting cars with race history and correct livery this F would be welcome when they run Can-Am. The only other real FP on the market is at $500K. As the other poster said these are asking prices.

[BritishV8]

(see below)

Edited by BritishV8, 11 July 2011 - 18:10.

[BritishV8]

Please note that the BritishRaceCar.com article has now been updated with MUCH more detailed information from former Commander mechanic Bruce Robles and from McLaren owner/racer Bob Lee. Twelve newly-added vintage photos illustrate the car's interesting and unique development!

Here's the link: http://www.britishracecar.com/ScottHughes-McLaren-M8F.htm



Now... I've got about a hundred close-up photos of the McKee "Wedge" to publish. Do you have interesting remembrances or observations about that car and its unique design? Don't hesitate to shoot me a p.m.! I'm keen to document it as well as possible.