39 replies to this topic

[ghinzani]

After he won the court case did he have them broken up? I only ask because in 1979 there were an awful lot of Shadow DN9s floating about Aurora and the Shadow team themselves - theres no chance they rebadged the Arrows FA1s to DN9s is there?edit - I meant 'what' not 'wgat'... Twinny!

[fines]

I don't think Don Nichols did anything with them, he was owner of the Shadow team, not Arrows!;)

Remember, this was a case of intellectual theft, so Nichols and Shadow had no right or access to the "hardware" whatsoever. I reckon the cars got "used up" building the A1s.

[ghinzani]

Oh I was of the understanding that as Nicholls won the court case the Arrows were handed over to him? I guess they werent or else he would have rebodied them and stuck them out as DN9 Mk2's, if he had any sense. Thanks Fines for setting em straight.

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by fines
I don't think Don Nichols did anything with them, he was owner of the Shadow team, not Arrows!;)

Remember, this was a case of intellectual theft, so Nichols and Shadow had no right or access to the "hardware" whatsoever. I reckon the cars got "used up" building the A1s.

are you sure ? - i think that there was material handed over ...

i believe that during the court case i think that the arrows people found themselves having to explain to the judge such incriminating evidence as the two cars using the same engine (dfv), gearbox (hewland fga), brakes, etc etc... apparently that took some explaining - well, if you knew nothing about cosworth engined 'kit cars what would you think?!

but after that bit of ealing comedy i think the verdict did result in an 'exchange'...

peter

[beighes]

Greetings.........A long time ago, in a former life, I was down at one of Don's facilities in Salinas. Back in the "restricted area" (everything was packed so tight, one could not get through), I was able to see cars on racks & a couple of the Arrows/ Warsteiner gold noses. When asked about them, Don explained that they were the lawsuit cars. Vague memory here, I believe Don offered that some of the parts were used as required on the Shadows. The reason, "Why fab' spares when they already existed."
Cheers!
Steve

[fines]

I stand corrected!

[donharper]

IIRC the Shadow Test Truck arrived at the Northampton workshop with the Gold Chassis one day. I think it was rather late in the season , maybe July or August , when they arrived. They got unloaded into the Workshop.
Seems like a former life to me as well , 30 years ago now.

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by fines
I don't think Don Nichols did anything with them, he was owner of the Shadow team, not Arrows!;)

Remember, this was a case of intellectual theft, so Nichols and Shadow had no right or access to the "hardware" whatsoever. I reckon the cars got "used up" building the A1s.

ofcourse you are partially right michael - my above comments and those of steve and don notwistanding..

by the time you have convinced a crusty old judge that a cosworth dfv and hewland fga doesnt infringe shadow copyright, and then put all the standard 'kit' parts in one pile, and ship the rest over to northampton, you have quite a bit of the inventory for the first 'milton keynes' arrows - the A1..

i believe the exchange took place late august, early september, the a1 debuted at the 1978 austrian gp mid august , having first appeared in prequalifying for the dutch gp held between the german and austrian races earlier in the month.

when i was at arrows in the mid 80's there was one of each type in the mezzanine 'musuem', that is each type except the FA1...

interesting story this, and maybe best left at that...

peter

[Mallory Dan]

Ghinzy, you mention lots of DN9s in Aurora. Not as I recall, only 1 the car David Purley used a couple of times late in 1979, ex-De Angelis I think. There were 3 Arrows A1s however, variously for Keegan, Zunino and Betteridge late-on. These were the 'new' 1978 Arrows though, not the 'DN9 copy' FA1s.

[ghinzani]

Originally posted by Mallory Dan
Ghinzy, you mention lots of DN9s in Aurora. Not as I recall, only 1 the car David Purley used a couple of times late in 1979, ex-De Angelis I think. There were 3 Arrows A1s however, variously for Keegan, Zunino and Betteridge late-on. These were the 'new' 1978 Arrows though, not the 'DN9 copy' FA1s.

Yep I guess so, although there did seem to be a lot of rumours of them coming into the series with various teams in Autosport. Surprisingly, given their lack of speed in GP's Purley DN9 fairly flew, considering it had been very poor in 78, yet was quick in Aurora a year later - doing times at Silverstone that were a lot quicker than the previous year despite 'wooden' g54s.

[ry6]

An amusing anecdote.

One of the Shadows was being pushed into its pit at Kyalami and an oil cooler was ever so slightly 'bruised' when it bumped into something.

The mechanics removed it and threw it into a waste bin. I fished this piece of 'gold' out - being sure that I could repair it. (I never had to because I could find no damage and used it for many years without problem on my own little saloon race car.)

Don Nicholls saw me when I was 'retrieving' the cooler and said something along the lines "Be careful if you use it but it looks to be ok but we can't take a risk with it."

Then he gave me a UOP cap!

He turned the cap badge upside down winked and said "Look here - it's don."

Those WERE the days.

[ghinzani]

Originally posted by PeterElleray



when i was at arrows in the mid 80's there was one of each type in the mezzanine 'musuem', that is each type except the FA1...

interesting story this, and maybe best left at that...

peter

Go on, its a long time ago after all.

[Allen Brown]

I also saw a FA1 at Salinas in the mid-1990s. Don has sold at least one and I think he still has a second. One of the tubs was used in period to repair a DN9 IIRC.

Allen

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by ghinzani


Go on, its a long time ago after all.

well... i was refering to the court case, not the museum by the way..

i dont think theres anything that isnt in the public domain tbh - if you look in the right places.

you may recall that the case hinged on whether design copyright lay with Shadow or with Tony (Southgate), who was never an employee, rather a consultant.. Jackie O's lawyers advised the latter, the judge disagreed..

in retrospect you would have to say that the original advice looks a bit 'questionable'... remember though that earlier that summer of 1977 we had seen a copersucar that was very like the ensign that its designer had been responsible for a couple of years before, and shortly before that a penske that was obviously inspired by the current march.. and many many similar examples down the years, especially in the world of indycars.. caught in the desperate need to get their own car ready for the second race of 1978 - rio - perhaps it looked from within that whatever displeasure was incured would just blow over in the light of these precendents..

But - and this is the big but - the problem arose because some of the drawings used had originated during the shadow project... infact if you put the dn9 and fa1 next to each other they arent identical in every respect but in some they were.. anyone who works in racing will tell you that there has (had) always been a very carefree attitude to the 'transition' of information from ones former employer to ones next... it was a grey area that had gone untested - until Don Nicolls got 'mad'.

the mechanism that led to a court case from all this lies in the machinations that led to the split, and to the formation of the breakaway group that became arrows - and what happened there depends very much on who you talk to... maybe Ollie et al just thought that the shadow operation would cease operation - i believe there were only 3 employees left at shadow immediately after the split.

Tony has a very good point here though - if one day you are designing a shadow, and the next an arrows, to the same rules and with the same base hardware - well, if you do the arrows very much different to the shadow then you didnt really have much confidence in your first design did you? the problem lay in not redrawing the same bits 'slightly' differently (like the copersucar and the penske) - that would have been a much more difficult case to win. i guess there just wasnt the time to do it, especially if you thought it would 'be allright'..

peter

[Allen Brown]

If I move job and design a widget for my new company that is exactly the same as a widget I designed for my last employer, I have breached my contract. That's pretty simple. Intellectual property belongs to the person paying (unless you're very good at writing your contract!)

Car designers copy other designs all the time - look at all the cars that were rip-offs of Lotus 79 or Brabham BT15 or whatever - but that's a bit different to using the same drawings.

I'm surprised Oliver even went to court - it looked open-and-shut to me.

As Don told me years later, the fact that he could use a FA1 tub to rebuilt a crashed DN9 proved his case rather well.

Allen

[ghinzani]

Excellant stuff Peter, thanks. I still cant believe Southgate got it so right with the FA1, and yet so wrong with the A2 and 79 Chevrons, and to a certain extent the A1.
I also cant understand why Big Don didnt slap some Shadow bodywork on the A1's when he got hold of them, given their disparate rapidity compared to the DN9!

[ghinzani]

Originally posted by Allen Brown

As Don told me years later, the fact that he could use a FA1 tub to rebuilt a crashed DN9 proved his case rather well.

Allen

So Allen which DN9 became a FA1 hybrid? I guess we need to look at which ones got rooted badly enough.

[beighes]

Greetings.....................More twaddle & trivia (not quite on subject, bit close). I was always amazed that after the Exodus/Arrows/Law Suit that Don kept on good terms with Tony Southgate. During an attempt to resurrect Shadow (I was trying to do some $$ hunting), Tony offered the WSC design, wind tunnel model, and his services for a rather fair price. Don was very happy....................until a motor supplier could not be had. A unique note, the wind tunnel model resembled the Ferrari 333SP of the time. Only in black. Story goes that Southgate designed it & presented it as the next generation Ferrari. They said, "No thank-you." Whether he shopped it, or Don contacted him to pen a design, I don't know. I do remember thinking about the Arrows design issue.
cheers,
Steve

[PeterElleray]

steve, yes well, as i said, dont go there...

allen - the widget analogy is ok in theory, more intangible in practice - and i speak from personal experience as a freelance. as tony once told me, i think that during the court case he asked the prosectuting lawyer fellow, 'if i have designed what i consider to be the perfect - brake pedal (say) - and then i have to do the same job again to the same parameters the following day, do i then design one that is less than perfect? the answer came back - Yes!

wrong answer of course, at least from the persepctive of anyone employing your design services in the future..

the trick is to steer the right side of the thin line between reproduction and especially reuse of the same drawings, and redesign - and where that lies is anyone's guess and not something your average legal bod is perhaps best qualified to analyse.

in the sharrows days it was also easier to judge whether drawings had been reused - try that now with CAD..

interesting analogies here with architecture and industrial design - anyone care to comment?

reminds me of george harrisons quote after he was banged to rights for plagarising 'he's so fine' as 'my sweet lord' - you start to worry if you're stealing somebodies note...

que the lawyers, amateur and for real..

peter

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by ghinzani
Excellant stuff Peter, thanks. I still cant believe Southgate got it so right with the FA1, and yet so wrong with the A2 and 79 Chevrons, and to a certain extent the A1.
I also cant understand why Big Don didnt slap some Shadow bodywork on the A1's when he got hold of them, given their disparate rapidity compared to the DN9!

well it just goes to show how a basically decent design can be made to go around the race track some way below its potential if the support sytems are not in place.... dont for one minute think that spraying an FA 1 jet black and substituting a shadow dfv and fga for one from arrows would have put the car into its early season grid position...

as regards the chevron - dont believe tony had any thing like a fair crack at that.. the A1 wasnt bad - again circumstances conspired against it - if that car had come out at the start of 1978 instead of in a panic in the latter stages it would have shown rather better. infact in some ways it rather proves the point of the previous post - things were changed from the FA1 because they HAD to be, not because they were necesarily considered better..

the A2 belongs to that select group of cars from the time that were blindingly quick around a lap of the wind tunnel on solid tyres and without suspension..

the A3 was a pretty fair job i would have said... and, ironically in the circumstances you couldnt call it a williams or a lotus crib!

dont forget that tony also had good solid support at this time in the design office from Dave Wass - my first 'boss', who was, and is, a great detail man - very much a double act at that time.

peter

[Twin Window]

Originally posted by beighes

I was always amazed that after the Exodus/Arrows/Law Suit that Don kept on good terms with Tony Southgate.

Me too!

During the final 1994 IMSA round at Phoenix I was gobsmacked to see the two of them huddled in the corner of a paddock eatery looking for all the world like best mates!

Totally by chance I ended-up chatting with them minutes later, thanks to my companion, but managed not to air my surprise at their congress to their faces...

[Duc-Man]

I keep on reading "Don Nichols facilities in Salinas". Would somebody mind to explain what those facilities actually are?
I'm pretty sure that he can't store lots of racecars and tons of spare parts in his cellar...

Frank

[beighes]

Greetings, again................The term "Facilities" has several meanings. One shop was rather nice. From memory, it was in a small industrial park (where I questioned the Arrows A1nose), lots of glass & light, etc., etc.. Another................................. "We" ( a friend that purchased a couple of cars from Don), & myself referred to this shop as the "Bat Cave". Much older and absolutely the last place one would expect to see the, once strong, Shadow Racing Organization operate out of. Rather dark (very), with the cars squeezed onto pallet racks & covered with plastic sheet. There was so much stored, one could not get back to see much of anything...............................................at least without a large torch, food for a couple of days & breadcrumbs to find one's way back! Where things are now, I don't know.
cheers,
Steve

[ghinzani]

Well as Don wants to live to 150 or whatever it was then its going to be a few years before that lot see's the light of day!

[MCS]

Originally posted by PeterElleray
...as regards the chevron - dont believe tony had any thing like a fair crack at that..

He provided the "aero-pack" - basically the Arrows-like sidepods and chisel nose with wings to the exisiting designs (B42, B43, B45), attended a Silverstone F2 test with Riccardo Patrese doing the driving and that was about it I think.

I may of course be wrong...

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by MCS


He provided the "aero-pack" - basically the Arrows-like sidepods and chisel nose with wings to the exisiting designs (B42, B43, B45), attended a Silverstone F2 test with Riccardo Patrese doing the driving and that was about it I think.

I may of course be wrong...

no i think thats about the lot..!

[Bonde]

Peter,

Am I correct in assuming that if the DN9 the FA1 tubs were basically interchangeable then some or most of the drawings must have been the same? I can't recall how much time passed between Southgate's design work on DN9 and FA1 - did he do them at the same time? I know this is speculation, but if I were to design and draw, on the board, the same complete tub twice, even at realtively close intervals, without having the actual drawing of the first one I did handy, there would be some dimensional differences that would most likely preclude direct interchangeability, except against the DFV, of course.

In the admittedly few instances where I've had the opportunity to design the same bit or assembly twice for some reason, I've always strived to improve upon the first iteration if possible - I think there is almost always room for improvement, in spite of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' maxim - instead 'the next project will be the best one' often applies. I wouldn't be surprised if Southgate could have made improvements that would have come out as differences...had he had the time. Given the time available, I don't think Southgate could have acted any differently than he did.

(...hmmm...this 'time to design and build' theme tastes a bit like a topic for its own thread...)

Relying on my adittedly patchy memory, and in view of the Sharrows trial, it's quite interesting to observe how the Arrows A5/A6 in significant respects was a copy of a Williams FW08, and thus also must've been produced at break-neck speed (IIRC, there weren't that many months between the introduction of FW08 and A5), but I certainly assume that no bespoke components were interchangeable between the Williams and the Arrows!

BTW, how well did the Southgate-type of 1978 wing side pods work?

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by Bonde
Peter,

Am I correct in assuming that if the DN9 the FA1 tubs were basically interchangeable then some or most of the drawings must have been the same? I can't recall how much time passed between Southgate's design work on DN9 and FA1 - did he do them at the same time? I know this is speculation, but if I were to design and draw, on the board, the same complete tub twice, even at realtively close intervals, without having the actual drawing of the first one I did handy, there would be some dimensional differences that would most likely preclude direct interchangeability, except against the DFV, of course.

In the admittedly few instances where I've had the opportunity to design the same bit or assembly twice for some reason, I've always strived to improve upon the first iteration if possible - I think there is almost always room for improvement, in spite of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' maxim - instead 'the next project will be the best one' often applies. I wouldn't be surprised if Southgate could have made improvements that would have come out as differences...had he had the time. Given the time available, I don't think Southgate could have acted any differently than he did.

(...hmmm...this 'time to design and build' theme tastes a bit like a topic for its own thread...)

Relying on my adittedly patchy memory, and in view of the Sharrows trial, it's quite interesting to observe how the Arrows A5/A6 in significant respects was a copy of a Williams FW08, and thus also must've been produced at break-neck speed (IIRC, there weren't that many months between the introduction of FW08 and A5), but I certainly assume that no bespoke components were interchangeable between the Williams and the Arrows!

BTW, how well did the Southgate-type of 1978 wing side pods work?

Hi anders - i dont think there was much, if any time between the two - and so i think you've answered your own question ! in effect drawn at the same time - if you follow my drift...

as ive said in earlier posts, its that thin dividing line between reproducing and 'refining' your last job or work...



consider - one week you are designing an adapter to fit a dfv to an fga box. the next week you are working for a new client who wants the same thing doing. now, last week you made it , say , 5" long for very good reasons, to fit clutch, release mechanism etc in and to get the weight distribution where you wanted it..

this week you still want it in the same place. the dfv hasnt changed, the fga hasnt changed, the clutch hasnt changed and the release mechanism hasnt changed..

so how different is the new part going to be?! you certainly dont want to reduce wall thickness as you are working to tried and tested parameters - and you dont want to make it any thicker for the same reason.. do you alter the fillett radii from 3mm to 3.5mm as a guesture ?

of course you should redraw - but tell me this, you are an independant consultant, you therefore retain copies of all your drawings for reference if a client comes back with a query - and so you have the drawing you need to hand...

your new client needs the drawing yesterday - ok, so what's your next move ?!

an impossible situation really...

btw all of the above is totally hyperthetical, has never happened in reality and besides a friend of a friend who once knew a bloke who had a mate that said he thought (in theory) something of this nature might have once occured but infact never did, told a friend of mine. who then told me.. or something like that.

regarding the A5 - the big difference here of course is that this was a 'copy' of somebody elses car, rather than your copying your own last design (!) - and that was done in the time honoured fashion beloved of a generation of race car designers - hire a photographer to take about 1000 shots of the car you are interested in and go from there.. lot easier these days of course with digital scanners and photoshop , saves ages drawing grids on photos and calibrating them against the team manager standing in the forground with that 3' ruler he happened to be carrying around that day and had placed against the rear wing whilst he scratched his nose - and dont for one minute think it doesnt still go on!

the a5 was actually cosher - no williams drawings to hand and no interchangeable parts. it was done very quickly, but that was the thing about arrows at the time - very good fabricators and machinists and first class shop floor engineering . wassy was no slouch behind the board either..


in so many ways ollie and reecy had so many of the right bits inplace - bit like the old morecambe and wise sketch - playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order...

peter

btw - i can ask the right bloke about the arrows pods, i will be talking to him a week or two.

[Bonde]

Peter,

You were up late!

I definitely see, and fully agree with, your point about the Hewland/DFV adapter. As DN9 and FA1 were done more or less concurrently, the result as it was couldn't have given rise to any significant differences between the two. I suppose on reflection that my query was on whether for instance the front suspension pick-up points and the bodywork fixings were identical? Certainly there would probably have been neither time nor reason to make different suspension geometries for the two, so in end elevation the pick-ups may well have been identical, though they didn't necessarily need to be in side elevation (fore-aft location). But then again, it really is a case of two different customers buying the same design...

Some of the drawings I've done for customers I've been able to keep, others have been done on the customer's CAD on site, some I've not been allowed to keep for security and proprietary rights reasons, and none have been of similar products between customers, so I haven't yet been in a situation where I'd get close to having to "reuse" my own drawings for two different customers.

In my book, anyone who claims not to 'beg, borrow and steal' design features where possible and practical is either ignorantly trying to reinvent the wheel or not being fully truthful...it's called making good use of the accumulated experience of those before us. Getting the A5 designed and built as quickly as it was is a remarkable achievement any way you look at it.

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by PeterElleray
you may recall that the case hinged on whether design copyright lay with Shadow or with Tony (Southgate), who was never an employee, rather a consultant.. Jackie O's lawyers advised the latter, the judge disagreed..

I seem to remember reading (an interview with J Oliver perhaps?) that things may have been different had Tony Southgate not brought the actual drawings with him to Arrows. Some years ago Alan Rees told me "it was inevitable he would design the same car", but had Shadow remained in possession of those drawings they may have had more difficulty persuading the Judge that the FA1 was theirs.

Originally posted by PeterElleray
reminds me of george harrisons quote after he was banged to rights for plagarising 'he's so fine' as 'my sweet lord' - you start to worry if you're stealing somebodies note...

You serve me
And I'll serve you
Swing your partners,
all get screwed
Bring your lawyer
And I'll bring mine
Get together, and we could have
a bad time

We're gonna play the sue me, sue
you blues

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by Maldwyn

I seem to remember reading (an interview with J Oliver perhaps?) that things may have been different had Tony Southgate not brought the actual drawings with him to Arrows. Some years ago Alan Rees told me "it was inevitable he would design the same car", but had Shadow remained in possession of those drawings they may have had more difficulty persuading the Judge that the FA1 was theirs.

You serve me
And I'll serve you
Swing your partners,
all get screwed
Bring your lawyer
And I'll bring mine
Get together, and we could have
a bad time

We're gonna play the sue me, sue
you blues

living in the material world eh....

and so true ...

[ensign14]

At the risk of going OT, "My Sweet Lord" was practically note for note the same as "He's So Fine"...no question of a successful claim there.

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by ensign14
At the risk of going OT, "My Sweet Lord" was practically note for note the same as "He's So Fine"...no question of a successful claim there.

not so ... if you listen to them back to back there is no mistaking the similarity in the rythmn and the structure, but they are not note for note the same - and i, for one, dont believe that a GH intentionally copied the original..

[ensign14]

It was certainly held that any copying was unconscious, after all The Chiffons' biggest hit here was "Sweet Talkin' Guy". But:

The Court noted that HSF incorporated two basic musical phrases, which were called "motif A" and "motif B". Motif A consisted of four repetitions of the notes "G-E-D" or "sol-mi- re"; B was "G-A-C-A-C" or "sol-la-do-la-do", and in the second use of motif B, a grace note was inserted after the second A, making the phrase "sol-la-do-la-re-do". The experts for each party agreed that this was a highly unusual pattern.

Harrison's own expert testified that although the individual motifs were common enough to be in the public domain, the combination here was so unique that he had never come across another piece of music that used this particular sequence, and certainly not one that inserted a grace note as described above.

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by ensign14
It was certainly held that any copying was unconscious, after all The Chiffons' biggest hit here was "Sweet Talkin' Guy". But:

yes, ive seen that or something very similar to it before, hence my original comment about the structure and rythmn....

and hence georges comment about stealing somebodies note..

but if you play them back to back - as im sure you have - you cant say that the one is a note for note copy of the other.

none of which has a great deal of relevance to the FA1 although it does give us some understanding of why george's enthusiasm for making music paled after a few years..

[Maldwyn]

Originally posted by PeterElleray
none of which has a great deal of relevance to the FA1 although it does give us some understanding of why george's enthusiasm for making music paled after a few years..

Fortunately the Arrows/Shadow case took considerably less time to resolve than the time George Harrison had to spend with lawyers. Never his favourite people!! I wonder if he ever thought of having a word with The Jam over their use of notes from Taxman

[ghinzani]

Originally posted by Allen Brown


As Don told me years later, the fact that he could use a FA1 tub to rebuilt a crashed DN9 proved his case rather well.

Allen

So Allen which one of the 4 built was destroyed and which three remain?

[PeterElleray]

Originally posted by Maldwyn

Fortunately the Arrows/Shadow case took considerably less time to resolve than the time George Harrison had to spend with lawyers. Never his favourite people!! I wonder if he ever thought of having a word with The Jam over their use of notes from Taxman

too wise, well rounded and full of instant karma - or was that the other one?

[Mallory Dan]

Start!

[Phil Rainford]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mallory Dan
[B]Start!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJP8gWLc4IE

Kind regards

Phil