Recent issues of some of the magazines which I buy have shown the forthcoming H&H Auctions sale to include the Cedric Selzer “Lotus 25 R5”. Mr Selzer goes in to considerable detail with the car’s history and construction; See below
http://www.classic-a...804&aucid=21198
I found it a delight when I saw it at the Coys’/Christies’ Festival in the early 90s and have done so since. Looking through my files I see Willie Green tested it in C&SC 8/88 and Cedric refers to the few bits which he salvaged from the scrapheap, and which formed the basis of the car.
I remain confused. What is the car? How is it regarded by the FIA/race organisers? Replica/ recreation/ authentic 25? ( It has a chassis plate) What are H&H claiming for it? Their ad does not stipulate that it is a replica or recreation, only in the Selzer narrative.
Does it have a FIA passport and other relevant entitlements to race internationally? How did it race at Coys, Monaco etc if it is a replica/recreation? I know Goodwood has its own rules and works on invitation only. I have no idea how these things are valued so the price guide, £300/400,000 means nothing, I just wonder how much another 25 would be worth.
Nevertheless it remains a little jewel of a racecar, very well restored by Cedric Selzer and Rick Hall as described clearly by him in the H&H narrative
Roger Lund
Lotus 25, chassis R5 advertised for sale
Started by
bradbury west
, Feb 17 2007 14:39
75 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 16:02
I want that car!
I'm curious as to what it will sell for? I reckon $350,000 to $500,000 US...maybe more?
I'm curious as to what it will sell for? I reckon $350,000 to $500,000 US...maybe more?
#3
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 16:27
I would have thought a great deal more than the guide price.
#4
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 16:33
Originally posted by RTH
I would have thought a great deal more than the guide price.
Why, what would you do with it.??
RL
#5
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 16:34
David
Roger is quoting £3/400,000 which is sterling and given that the dollar is very low you have to double your figures
JF
Roger is quoting £3/400,000 which is sterling and given that the dollar is very low you have to double your figures
JF
#6
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 16:55
Guess I'll have to double my number of lotto tickets this week!
#7
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 17:00
The owner is claiming it is R5 with continuous history since new in 1962 the car which retired in South Africa with oil pump trouble resulting in Graham Hill taking the title.
He says it has been repaired and rebuilt and indeed updated several times but that it was repaired from the remains of R5 ,the implication that no other car could claim to be R5.
It is a VERY well known car we have all seen it a great many times over the last 17 years many wins in several hands . Cedric is of course well known and his close connection with Jim Clark and Colin Chapman .
He does admit it is an' axe 'that has had new head and handle ! In the historic racing car scene there are many such cases.
When did a 25 last come up for public sale ! I suspect despite it's much rebuilt status it will still fetch a great deal of money .
What a real racing car sound that 1 1/2 litre V8 made !
He says it has been repaired and rebuilt and indeed updated several times but that it was repaired from the remains of R5 ,the implication that no other car could claim to be R5.
It is a VERY well known car we have all seen it a great many times over the last 17 years many wins in several hands . Cedric is of course well known and his close connection with Jim Clark and Colin Chapman .
He does admit it is an' axe 'that has had new head and handle ! In the historic racing car scene there are many such cases.
When did a 25 last come up for public sale ! I suspect despite it's much rebuilt status it will still fetch a great deal of money .
What a real racing car sound that 1 1/2 litre V8 made !
#8
Gary C
-
- 5,571 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 17:01
'Why, what would you do with it.??'
Er...............race it!
Er...............race it!
#9
Doug Nye
-
- 11,538 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 17:17
At Goodwood we have always extended a warm reception to Cedric and his exquisite Lotus 25 purely because whatever questions one might ask about the car, Ced at least is the absolutely genuine article.
Incidentally, I hear there's another conundrum emerging with an owner offering for sale the front half of a Lister chassis which was amputated after crash damage, then replaced by a freshly-made front half, around which 'the car' was reassembled and then already sold to a new owner...while the forepart frame was retained.
That new owner of the reassembled car is reportedly not exactly delighted to hear that the excised portion of its previous frame is now being offered complete with 'his' chassis number punched into it.
Another identity crisis?
Who would own what - and how many cuttings from the same rose bush might history be able to tolerate...?
But for the financial implications, both positive and negative dependent upon one's point of view, isn't the 'Historic' racing scene really fulfilling Jenks's old saw about 'Hysterics'...
DCN
Incidentally, I hear there's another conundrum emerging with an owner offering for sale the front half of a Lister chassis which was amputated after crash damage, then replaced by a freshly-made front half, around which 'the car' was reassembled and then already sold to a new owner...while the forepart frame was retained.
That new owner of the reassembled car is reportedly not exactly delighted to hear that the excised portion of its previous frame is now being offered complete with 'his' chassis number punched into it.
Another identity crisis?
Who would own what - and how many cuttings from the same rose bush might history be able to tolerate...?
But for the financial implications, both positive and negative dependent upon one's point of view, isn't the 'Historic' racing scene really fulfilling Jenks's old saw about 'Hysterics'...
DCN
#10
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 17:45
Originally posted by Gary C
'Why, what would you do with it.??'
Er...............race it!
I imagine that the car's sale price will also be directly related to its capability to attract race invitations, whether "Jim Clark sat here" or not, chassis plate or not.
Page 134 in my copy of DCN's History of tjhe GP car 1945-65 DCN identifies it as a replica.
In the C&SC article Cedric makes it clear he started, salvaging bits off the scrapheap at Lotus, with only the front and rear bulkheads, later described as seriously damaged, engine mountings, inner skins at the rear, radius arm pickups, uprights and sundry bits. It seems unlikely that ACBC would have left anything useable, so it is quite remarkable what a brilliant job Cedric has done to present the car thus for racing. But for H&H to describe it as the Clark 25, ch R5 concerns me.
Does it have FIA passport paperwork?
My view on replicas is already posted on TNF, qv my appreciation of Mr Orosco's efforts, but in view of the furore, adverse remarks, demand for clarification etc etc over the years about various cars, I just thought it might be worth asking about R5, especially having read Eoin Young's book on the late John Dawson-Damer's 25..
The matter of the Lister chassis and plate looks to have the makings of the le Mans D type saga. (Who said Bugattis? )One must hope the owner of the other half of the Lister is not rich and litigious.
RL
#11
Dennis Hockenbury
-
- 669 posts
- Joined: April 03
Member
Posted 17 February 2007 - 19:45
Given available funds (yes, lottery winnings would be involved for me as well Dave), I would not hesitate to purchase Cedric's 25 assuming that I could actually fit into the narrow cockpit. : Rather doubtful as one would have be the size of a jockey to fit into a Lotus 25.
#12
Macca
-
- 3,730 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:47
R6, R8 and R9 were used in the film 'G***d P**x' in various guises; and James Garner drove one of them in 'Yamura' clothing at Spa and Monza - I've always wondered how on earth he managed to get into it.................
Paul M
Paul M
#13
Alan Cox
-
- 8,397 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 15:07
Whether it can claim to be R5, or not, it's still got to be the most iconic F1 model of the 1 1/2 litre era, surely? And if it's the only way we can get to see one in track action, I'd support it.
So much more classy than those 3-litre cars behind it, don't you think?
So much more classy than those 3-litre cars behind it, don't you think?
#14
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 15:29
Does it come with FIA Historic papers, if not, you're in for the hassle of your life! Good Luck!
#15
David Shaw
-
- 1,734 posts
- Joined: August 02
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 18:30
Originally posted by Alan Cox
Whether it can claim to be R5, or not, it's still got to be the most iconic F1 model of the 1 1/2 litre era, surely? And if it's the only way we can get to see one in track action, I'd support it.
With perhaps the exception of the Sharknose. But we know there are none of those left.
#16
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 20:21
Originally posted by David M. Kane
Does it come with FIA Historic papers, if not, you're in for the hassle of your life! Good Luck!
David, Please refer to the link in post 1, where H&H give a very full account of Cedric Selzer's history of the car for sale. He says that it has FIA and HSCC papers , presumably very good news for a lot of other car owners as well, and as it has a chassis plate, it's all OK then. I remain confused about the status of the car. I fear that some people may be getting a little dewy eyed over what it represents rather than what it perhaps might be. Cedric makes the history clear.
I think the 25 as a car is the most elegant of single seaters, with its delicacy of line etc, coupled with the poise and balance on track. For a serious collector it is worth having , IMHO, for the sake of having it as an entity, whatever that may be.
However, in view of the brouhaha over, inter alia, the Orosco Scarabs, the Rosani D24s, the new D50s, cars like Neil Twyman's perfect copy TR, (Neil never claiming it to be anything else), Rodney Felton's reconstructed Alfa 2.9 and pontoon Testa Rossa, the recreation of the DP Aston in which poor Brian Hetreed died etc etc etc, I remain in a state of bewilderment about what is acceptable as what, and from what original bits of metal.
And I thought that those in authority were intending to make it all SIMPLER. I reckon that dear Jenks had it all worked out with his definitions.
RL
#17
Alan Cox
-
- 8,397 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 21:28
http://www.classic-a...car_carno=20993
A minor point, but the second illustration in the catalogue is of Clark in a Lotus 24, not 25
A minor point, but the second illustration in the catalogue is of Clark in a Lotus 24, not 25
#18
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 23:00
There is a misunderstanding here about "FIA papers". There are now two documents: the Historic Technical Passport, which states whether a car is to original specification, and a Heritage Certificate, which can only be gained if a car has a proven and uninterupted histry. Cedric's Lotus 25 would get a HTP so would be allowed to race anywhere where the organisers chose to accept it. It would not get a HC as it was not complete throughout its life.
So there's no problem racing this car as long as it's invited. However, exactly the same situation applies to a Chevron B16 built yesterday from complete new parts, which is hardly a fair comparison with the Lotus.
If one day organisers decide to accept only cars with HCs, then there would be a problem. However, I wouldn't lose sleep over that possibility.
Allen
So there's no problem racing this car as long as it's invited. However, exactly the same situation applies to a Chevron B16 built yesterday from complete new parts, which is hardly a fair comparison with the Lotus.
If one day organisers decide to accept only cars with HCs, then there would be a problem. However, I wouldn't lose sleep over that possibility.
Allen
#19
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 23:23
Mr Selzer has explained in the H&H narrative that as a separate commercial proposition a copy chassis (monocoque) was made up for the owner of R7. Copy of what, R5 from which details were presumably taken, or R7??
What if at sometime in the future the other relevant components, some possibly original perhaps, were sourced for and fitted to this copy monocoque? Would it be eligible to race, and if so under what guise, copy of R5 or R7, or as a reconstruct of one of the other destroyed 25s? Without doubt some people would get excited at the thought of having more than one 25 racing, such a pretty car, seminal design etc etc.
And what if the owner of an original Climax V8, with a number matching a genuine ex Team Lotus 25 engine saw fit to build the rest of the car to go with the motor, like the D24s and D50s??
Forgive the facetiousness, but it makes you smile, really, or it would if it was not a serious matter.
RL
What if at sometime in the future the other relevant components, some possibly original perhaps, were sourced for and fitted to this copy monocoque? Would it be eligible to race, and if so under what guise, copy of R5 or R7, or as a reconstruct of one of the other destroyed 25s? Without doubt some people would get excited at the thought of having more than one 25 racing, such a pretty car, seminal design etc etc.
And what if the owner of an original Climax V8, with a number matching a genuine ex Team Lotus 25 engine saw fit to build the rest of the car to go with the motor, like the D24s and D50s??
Forgive the facetiousness, but it makes you smile, really, or it would if it was not a serious matter.
RL
Advertisement
#20
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 23:39
Originally posted by Allen Brown
So there's no problem racing this car as long as it's invited. However, exactly the same situation applies to a Chevron B16 built yesterday from complete new parts, which is hardly a fair comparison with the Lotus.
Allen
So that must solve the problem for the forthcoming owner of the Lister front end on the other thread? Build a new car to original spec?
RL
#21
Doug Nye
-
- 11,538 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 18 February 2007 - 23:48
Hang on a minute? Isn't R7 the Donington Collection car, the ex-Parnell team front end monocoque which had 93 different rear horns fitted to accept 147 different types of engine? To the best of my recollection into the 1980s Harold Drinkwater in Ripley built a couple of monocoques a la Lotus, one of which became Robs Lamplough's 'R9'-type car and the other - earlier - one became Cedric's? I don't thiink R7 should come into this particular equation. Or is this all groundless hearsay and I am just completely muddled-up again?
DCN
DCN
#22
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 19 February 2007 - 08:25
Doug asked:
That, I seriously doubt!
and I am just completely muddled-up again?
That, I seriously doubt!
#23
MrMacca
-
- 42 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 19 February 2007 - 08:54
Never, Doug.
(but Robs' car is R10'R', not R9.......)
I'm sure R3 will reappear one day from the Mexico 1966 write-off - a visit to a Mexican customs shed for the chassis plate, and some spare bits from one of the other cars extant, and Robert's yer father's brother.....................
Paul M
(but Robs' car is R10'R', not R9.......)
I'm sure R3 will reappear one day from the Mexico 1966 write-off - a visit to a Mexican customs shed for the chassis plate, and some spare bits from one of the other cars extant, and Robert's yer father's brother.....................
Paul M
#24
David McKinney
-
- 14,156 posts
- Joined: November 00
Member
Posted 19 February 2007 - 09:15
Doug did say 'R9'-type ;)Originally posted by MrMacca
(but Robs' car is R10'R', not R9.......)
#25
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 19 February 2007 - 09:16
Cedric's penultimate paragraph in the H&H narrative only refers to "another Lotus 25-chassis 7", rather than R7 specifically, so is that another incarnation. Does "number 7" , if not R7, indicate that there were 6 others before it somewhere? Perhaps these iconic cars are not quite so rare as we had thought.....
At least we know the Lister is genuine, 'cos it has a chassis plate. What a relief.
RL
BTW, can anyone tell me which FF100 Cedric designed and raced in 1970, to which he refers, as, coincidentally, it was to see the details of the Sturgess s/c listed in their ads. which drew me to the H&H site
At least we know the Lister is genuine, 'cos it has a chassis plate. What a relief.
RL
BTW, can anyone tell me which FF100 Cedric designed and raced in 1970, to which he refers, as, coincidentally, it was to see the details of the Sturgess s/c listed in their ads. which drew me to the H&H site
#26
MrMacca
-
- 42 posts
- Joined: September 06
Member
Posted 19 February 2007 - 09:40
The Lotus 25/33 series were numbered from R1 to R14...............but R4 was re-tubbed and re-numbered as R13 by Parnell Racing but is now back as R4, and R12 is the one-off Type 39 Tasman car, originally built for the Climax flat-16.
So there were 12.................
Paul M
So there were 12.................
Paul M
#27
Doug Nye
-
- 11,538 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:03
Originally posted by bradbury west
At least we know the Lister is genuine, 'cos it has a chassis plate. What a relief.
Just pedantry - but the Listers did not actually have a chassis 'plate' - just a chain of three characters 'BHL' and one to three digits punched into the top (usually) of each chassis frame's front left upper spring abutment.
DCN
#28
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 28 February 2007 - 16:46
Originally posted by bradbury west
BTW, can anyone tell me which FF100 Cedric designed and raced in 1970, to which he refers, as, coincidentally, it was to see the details of the Sturgess s/c listed in their ads. which drew me to the H&H site
Does anyone have any ideas about which marque in FF100?
Roger Lund.
#29
Tim Murray
-
- 24,613 posts
- Joined: May 02
Moderator
Posted 28 February 2007 - 19:23
From the Autosport F100 seasonal survey 1970:
The only driver who stood a chance against [champion Ray] Allen was Nick Cole in the Cedric Selzer-designed Silhouette which, with its Nerus backing, had the right engine (1293 BMC) from the start, while the others tried to make the Escort GT unit work under the inhibiting regulations. No other Silhouettes ever appeared, which was a pity as it was certainly the prettiest of all the cars, some of which looked big enough for CanAm racing.
#31
Macca
-
- 3,730 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 28 February 2007 - 21:44
Regarding Lotus 33 'R7', here is a photo from 'Motor Racing' mag in early 1968:
Is that a modified 33 tub or not, I wonder?
This one is the Autosport photo I posted before of the Parnell F2, said to be R7..............definitely not a 33!
Paul M
Is that a modified 33 tub or not, I wonder?
This one is the Autosport photo I posted before of the Parnell F2, said to be R7..............definitely not a 33!
Paul M
#32
Doug Nye
-
- 11,538 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 28 February 2007 - 23:56
The Parnell tub was definitely Parnell formed - by Bruce McIntosh - it had a longitudinal riveted join in the centre of the floor since Parnell Racing's folding machine was too small to shape a full-width inner cockpit sides-cum-floor panel. What is not shown in the 'Motor Racing' photograph - which illustrated my report - is that the upper surface of the tub's rear legs or horns sloped down steeply towards the tail, for the intended V12 engine. This was quite unlike the Lotus chassis horns, with their effectively parallel top and bottom edges. Really, nothing to do with 'R7' whatsoever.
DCN
DCN
#34
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 11:54
So it will have cost the purchaser circa £1/2M, in comparison to other racing cars sold over the last decade for something of this importance it might have been more.
#35
Doug Nye
-
- 11,538 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 12:07
That's hardly the way to look at it Richard. I'm delighted for Cedric - but if this is what his car can achieve in the current market then how much more must a real Lotus 25 be worth? 
DCN
DCN
#36
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 12:23
Oh true, I expect Cedric will be pleased, It seems difficult to apply logic strictly to these cases, but none the less I would not have been surprised if it had been quite a bit more, as ever it is who wants it enough on the day.
#37
Peter Morley
-
- 2,263 posts
- Joined: October 02
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 13:43
Originally posted by Doug Nye
That's hardly the way to look at it Richard. I'm delighted for Cedric - but if this is what his car can achieve in the current market then how much more must a real Lotus 25 be worth?
DCN
With similar cars (BRM P25s, CM 250Fs etc) a third of full value seems to be the norm.
Thing with buying a Lotus 25 or 33 is where could you buy one, several very wealthy people have hunted them down and not been able to buy them - most owners don't need another million or two!
What is surprising is that there are several original 1.5 litre F1 cars for half this price, and they don't sell very quickly. Maybe this will help get 1.5 litre V8 cars out and racing again.
Do we know who bought the 25?
#38
hipperson
-
- 623 posts
- Joined: January 06
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 13:49
Essex based Lotus collector............................
#39
RTH
-
- 6,066 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 14:53
Personally I don't think it is fair to make a direct comparison of this car to an out and out current reproduction of any car.
This man was Jim Clark's mechanic he built the cars at the time he lived through the whole period with all the cars and all the people involved, that is a unique situation. He knows exactly what happened to them at the time.
He afterall worked at the factory used the jigs methods and materials to manufacture components.The car has been actively raced for the last 17 years at least and is very well known as not something that might have been in cold storage for 40 plus years or something that mysteriously emerged from nowhere, after nearly half a century made from modern materials and techniques by people who probably were not even born at the time these cars first raced.
If he says he started with damaged R5, who are were to say that is not the case? racing cars are crashed and crashed again and again, over a long period working cars hardly ever end up with the parts they started life with. No one else has or ever can have a claim to be R5.
The seller clearly stated the car had been comprehensively rebuilt with newly made components several times so could never claim originality, so on that basis of course it would have lesser monetary value. But I do not see this car as I would something that had been copied from a photograph a few months ago....far from it. Others may see it differently.
This man was Jim Clark's mechanic he built the cars at the time he lived through the whole period with all the cars and all the people involved, that is a unique situation. He knows exactly what happened to them at the time.
He afterall worked at the factory used the jigs methods and materials to manufacture components.The car has been actively raced for the last 17 years at least and is very well known as not something that might have been in cold storage for 40 plus years or something that mysteriously emerged from nowhere, after nearly half a century made from modern materials and techniques by people who probably were not even born at the time these cars first raced.
If he says he started with damaged R5, who are were to say that is not the case? racing cars are crashed and crashed again and again, over a long period working cars hardly ever end up with the parts they started life with. No one else has or ever can have a claim to be R5.
The seller clearly stated the car had been comprehensively rebuilt with newly made components several times so could never claim originality, so on that basis of course it would have lesser monetary value. But I do not see this car as I would something that had been copied from a photograph a few months ago....far from it. Others may see it differently.
Advertisement
#40
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 15:22
Richard
I don't disagree with what you say but there's a big 'If' in your posts, namely "If he says he started with damaged R5".
He does give that impression but my understanding was that he started with considerably less than a damaged tub. He had parts of a tub, but "damaged tub" implies a complete tub with damage and I'm confident that's not what he had.
Yes, Cedric's a great guy and I join in being delighted for him but let's not start thinking this is an original car which just needed a few repairs along the way.
Allen
I don't disagree with what you say but there's a big 'If' in your posts, namely "If he says he started with damaged R5".
He does give that impression but my understanding was that he started with considerably less than a damaged tub. He had parts of a tub, but "damaged tub" implies a complete tub with damage and I'm confident that's not what he had.
Yes, Cedric's a great guy and I join in being delighted for him but let's not start thinking this is an original car which just needed a few repairs along the way.
Allen
#41
Tom Glowacki
-
- 525 posts
- Joined: December 03
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 16:39
I agree with RTH. I think Selzer's explanation of what he did with the car is pretty clear; he started with a few salvagable components from the origianal tub and some period spares. However much in the way of original parts he started with, he says there were fewer than that left after the accident rebuild. He is perfectly forthright about what he did, what someone else wants to call is a matter of their own philosophy, rebuilt original, replica, whatever.
#42
David M. Kane
-
- 5,402 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 05 March 2007 - 18:22
I think the world is a better place for what he has done; and if one person gets pleasure from what's he's done, God bless him. As long as he's being honest, I think he's done a great thing and the right thing.
#43
RA Historian
-
- 3,833 posts
- Joined: October 06
Member
Posted 06 March 2007 - 00:06
That's the key phrase when it comes to any car that is not reasonably original. Unfortunately, we all know that not all are as honest as Cedric.....Originally posted by David M. Kane
As long as he's being honest,
#44
olav glasius
-
- 61 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 07 March 2007 - 20:59
I was at the auction at H & H. The car has the old style FIA papers.
Stating about the chassis: "Original tub but outer skins replaced"
This is of course as we know completely untrue.
He got from Lotus half of the tub,with nothing on it.
Made a new tub and found and made the parts to build a complete car.
This car was again completely distroyed at Goodwood by Rick Hall.
Again a new tub was build with again new parts.
So in all fairness this is a replica of a replica.
The famous chassisplate on the car is a very heavely scratched plate
with all four corners cut off. As we all know the Lotus chassisplates
are pop rivetted on the dash , so why is it heavely scratched and why are the
corners cut off.Even with a heavy crash it is unlikely to damage the
chassisplate.
Cedric made an honest statement in the H & H catalogue about
what the car is.
Never the less it was a great achievement of Cedric to build this car,
so we can enjoy at least one 25 on the track.
Also in all fairness,how many historic racing cars have their original
chassis,engine etc . A lot have everything new but nobody knows
and the owners dont tell.
I valued this car at 200.000 but three parties in the room
all wanted it and thats why in auction prices can rise above a
realistic value
Stating about the chassis: "Original tub but outer skins replaced"
This is of course as we know completely untrue.
He got from Lotus half of the tub,with nothing on it.
Made a new tub and found and made the parts to build a complete car.
This car was again completely distroyed at Goodwood by Rick Hall.
Again a new tub was build with again new parts.
So in all fairness this is a replica of a replica.
The famous chassisplate on the car is a very heavely scratched plate
with all four corners cut off. As we all know the Lotus chassisplates
are pop rivetted on the dash , so why is it heavely scratched and why are the
corners cut off.Even with a heavy crash it is unlikely to damage the
chassisplate.
Cedric made an honest statement in the H & H catalogue about
what the car is.
Never the less it was a great achievement of Cedric to build this car,
so we can enjoy at least one 25 on the track.
Also in all fairness,how many historic racing cars have their original
chassis,engine etc . A lot have everything new but nobody knows
and the owners dont tell.
I valued this car at 200.000 but three parties in the room
all wanted it and thats why in auction prices can rise above a
realistic value
#45
Gary C
-
- 5,571 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 07 March 2007 - 23:20
When was the car destroyed at Goodwood? I must have missed that..............
#46
bradbury west
-
- 6,098 posts
- Joined: June 02
Member
Posted 07 March 2007 - 23:51
Originally posted by Gary C
When was the car destroyed at Goodwood? I must have missed that..............
Gary, 1996 Festival of Speed, driven by Rick Hall. See Cedric's clear narrative for the car. Rebuilt by Rick Hall after that accident.
Olav, In Willie Green's C&SC Track Test in '88, in magazine and book versions, the indication is that the remains were little more than 2 twisted bulkheads and one inner rear skin, plus a few bits, but much less than half a tub. It remains an excellent rebuild, but clearly, one would think, not the ex Clark car.
Do we know Clive Chapman's view of the car?
Roger Lund
#47
D-Type
-
- 9,706 posts
- Joined: February 03
Member
Posted 08 March 2007 - 01:15
Since there is no dubious provenence in respect of this car, can I take the opportunity to ask why people place so much significance on a chassis plate. If a company can reproduce a chassis of a Lister, a F-N Le Mans Rep, a 250F ora GTZ, surely they can reproduce something as simple as a chassis plate? makers of antique furniture use tehnques such as beatingit with chains or walking on the planks with stilletto heels to create a patina, so there must be an equivalent for an (aluminium) plate. I assume a skilled metallurgist could date a sample of the metal, but ...
#48
Allen Brown
-
- 5,540 posts
- Joined: December 00
Member
Posted 08 March 2007 - 09:03
The provenance of the car is not really in doubt, it goes Team Lotus -> Cedric Selzer -> new owner. The doubt surrounds how many bits of the car survived the Clark accident and then the Hall accident. The latter accident is not really relevant as cars are often crashed and require new tubs. It effects their originality but not their authenticity. The first accident is the key issue as we don't know how much of the car remained in existance after the crash. My understanding is that it was just a few compononents, maybe a bulkhead or two and maybe one or two skins, so the car cannot really be claimed to have existed as a car from that point until the 1980s. Thus Cedric's car has to be seen as a reconstruction, not as the original car. I have always listed it as 25/R5-R.
However, I would not regard it as a replica as that implies it is a copy of something else. Nor would I see it as a mere replacement for R5 as it did use all the original metal that is known to exist. I would define a replacement as something that takes the place of another car in the historical record but has no physical link to the original car through the use of components from that car. Ownership is usually the only link in this latter case.
The chassis plate is of no real significance, it is just one more bit of metal that survived the original accident. To me, an original plate makes a car no more original or authentic than does an original top wishbone. I know several people with a drawer full of original old plates but that doesn't give them any entitlement to build a car around them and call it original.
There are other replacements about - a Brabham BT8, a Lotus 49 and an Indy 500 Brawner Brabham come immediately to mind - and other reconstructions - such as a Brabham BT7A, a BRM P261, a Cooper T53 etc. In each case, the new car has some claim on the history of the original car and these have to be seen as subtly different to the pure replicas - no, I'm not going to list any of those - that have been built from thin air.
There are also many original and authentic cars with replica chassis plates and I don't see that as doing any damage to their authenticity. A chassis number is a useful label for a car; a chassis plate is no big deal.
Allen
However, I would not regard it as a replica as that implies it is a copy of something else. Nor would I see it as a mere replacement for R5 as it did use all the original metal that is known to exist. I would define a replacement as something that takes the place of another car in the historical record but has no physical link to the original car through the use of components from that car. Ownership is usually the only link in this latter case.
The chassis plate is of no real significance, it is just one more bit of metal that survived the original accident. To me, an original plate makes a car no more original or authentic than does an original top wishbone. I know several people with a drawer full of original old plates but that doesn't give them any entitlement to build a car around them and call it original.
There are other replacements about - a Brabham BT8, a Lotus 49 and an Indy 500 Brawner Brabham come immediately to mind - and other reconstructions - such as a Brabham BT7A, a BRM P261, a Cooper T53 etc. In each case, the new car has some claim on the history of the original car and these have to be seen as subtly different to the pure replicas - no, I'm not going to list any of those - that have been built from thin air.
There are also many original and authentic cars with replica chassis plates and I don't see that as doing any damage to their authenticity. A chassis number is a useful label for a car; a chassis plate is no big deal.
Allen
#49
Sharman
-
- 5,284 posts
- Joined: September 05
Member
Posted 08 March 2007 - 14:59
Originally posted by D-Type
. I assume a skilled metallurgist could date a sample of the metal, but ... [/B]
Same metallurgist who can look at a platinum blonde and tell if it is virgin metal or a common ore?
#50
Doug Nye
-
- 11,538 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 08 March 2007 - 22:52
Originally posted by D-Type
... can I take the opportunity to ask why people place so much significance on a chassis plate. If a company can reproduce a chassis of a Lister, a F-N Le Mans Rep, a 250F ora GTZ, surely they can reproduce something as simple as a chassis plate?
I think there's confusion here between 'chassis plate' - i.e. a physically tiny identifying plaque - and 'chassis number' - a mere identifying name or title.
The former has effectively ZERO real significance, all that matters is the structure to which it is attached.
In vivid contrast, the latter is decisively critical - the truth of the car's identity and thereby its provenance and history...so, therefore, its sustainable (as opposed to momentary) historic significance and market value.
DCN
PS - ..."how many bits of the car survived the Trevor Taylor accident", Allen, not the 'Clark' accident.
