39 replies to this topic

[HistoryBuff]

I read in a book by Jerry Heasley (RARE FINDS series) about a GT40 that was found buried in mud. He only goes so far in the story but I read another account where the chassis was replaced and a huge sum paid to the family that owned the car for I guess what you could call the rights to name the completed car 1005. I was wondering what the BB readers who know GT40s think about the completed car--is this a real GT40 now or not? I worried about replacement chassis on GT40s and then I go over to Lola T-70s and many more have had replacement chassis so maybe I should just get my head around accepting it.

Here's more about the Salt Walther GT40 In a nutshell, car racer Salt Walther's mother owned a boat business. The family had an auction company disposing of all the assets and out behind the building, a guy who worked for the auction company discovered the chassis of a GT40. This was left there after someone had tried to start the GT40 years earlier, and only ended up burning down the building with several valuable prewar cars in it. The GT40 was not included in the auction because they couldn't be bothered with some car he thought he saw buried in the dirt (only the top of the engine was visible). According to Heasley, at first the discover thought it was just an engine but dug into the dirt and found suspension arms and realized it was a chassis which was eventually connected to a Salt Walther- owned GT40. The discoverer, according to Heasley, bought the car but later on the Walther family objected that this car was not included in the auction and the discoverer who had bought it separately had to pay all over again for it.
But the story goes on. Other sources say that there wasn't that much there, after all, the car had been buried next to a river for 20 years, but anyhow a a Safir replica-- SN1127--is named as the chassis 1005's number was transferred to.
________________________________________
Here's apotted history list of the car's racing history:.

GT40 P/1005 Race results:

06/65 : Le Mans, 6, Muller/Bucknum, DNF -

01/67 : Brands Hatch, Drury, 2nd -

03/67, Snetterton, 56, Drury, DNF -

04/67 : Monza, 35, Drury/Olivier, DNF – Silverstone, 33, Drury, 6th-

05/67 : Silverstone, 46, Drury, DNF – Crystal Palace, 47, Drury, DNF-

06/67 : Brands Hatch, 7, Drury, 2nd – Brands Hatch, Drury, 7th -

07/67 : Silverstone, 45, Drury, 6th – Brands Hatch, 59, Drury/Holland, 14th -

08/67 : Croft, 32, Drury, 5th -

09/67 : Crystal Palace, 116, Drury, 6th – Oulton Park, 90, Humble, DNF – Phoenix Park, 50, Drury, 2nd -

10/67 : Oulton Park, Humble, 5th -

04/68 : Oulton Park, 91, Humble, DNF – Silverstone, Humble -

05/68 : Zandvoort, Humble – Spa, 39, Humble/Smith, DNF -

06/68 : Oulton Park, Darlington, DNS -

07/68 : Thruxton, 89, Darlington, 8th – Thruxton SGT, 89, Darlington, 8th – Oulton Park, Darlington, DNF – Snetterton, Darlington, 3rd – Silverstone, 9, Lanfranchi, DNS -

08/68 : Oulton Park, Darlington, DNS -

09/68 : Aintree, Vincent, 3rd

Salt Walther is reported to be in jail. He may have owned more than one GT40.

Any opinions on this chassis switch? Does the vintage racing world accept 1005 as the legitimate 1005 of yore?

[sblick]

I would say if you are going to race a car having a replacement chassis is a very smart move. Most people I know keep the original stored away and build another chassis for racing. I would not want to hit a wall with a 50 year old chassis, nor have the driving dynamics of a compromised chassis.
On the other big question how could you recognize the "new" 1005 if it was never 1005. In the vintage racing book though I am pretty sure they don't care. Especially here in the States.

[Emery0323]

Salt Walther is reported to be in jail. He may have owned more than one GT40.

FYI: Salt Walther died back in December. The Dayton paper reported that he died "at a residence" and not in prison.


http://espn.go.com/r...ver-dies-age-65

http://www.daytondai...ad-at-65/nThSN/

http://www.wdtn.com/...ed#.UfGqrqz7maI

[hipperson]

I owned 1005 for 4 years and sold it it Salt Walther

Plenty here

http://www.gt40s.com...-mud-story.html

[hipperson]

Mr Walther's nasty crash

[hipperson]

My other car is a Ford...1971 at the farm

http://img.photobuck...wn_Gold1971.jpg

[sterling49]

Oh Michael.....if you still owned it now ! What joy ! Fabulous car, I would have seen this race at Brands many times with Mr Drury driving.............what was the donor car for the 1st edition of the Transit Supervan? That was GT40 based IIRC?

[Giraffe]

 

....pictured the weekend before last.........

[Jager]

I had a question about GT40 P/1005 from when it was raced at Le Mans in 1965 and figured this was a good place to ask.

 

The car only last 29 laps in the race, but it appears that at sometime in the opening stages of the race it lost a door which was replaced with a white door from another GT40 :

 

http://www.lemans-hi...65/656036az.jpg

 

Did the door simply blow off on the Mulsanne, or was it damaged in an accident ? I'm guessing the door is from the #15 GT40 'Roadster' which retired after 11 laps given it doesn't have a roof. Does anyone have any more details.

Edited by Jager, 02 May 2016 - 06:33.

[AAGR]

In the past, many a 'famous' race or rally car has grown old, been given a new chassis/body-shell, and carried on its stellar career. Sales values rarely seem to be affected by this. I guess the same applies to #1005, particularly as it does not appear to have been an especially-successful example.

[D-Type]

It's a moot point.  Let's consider a hypothetical case.  Suppose a Pignatelli won the 1966 Ruritanian 24 hrs.  Now, 50 years later someone has the chassis from that Pignatelli, but over the years, the rest of the car has been "used up" and it now has a replacement engine, gearbox and even suspension components, albeit all genuine  components from other Pignatelli cars, some sports prototypes and some production cars.  Then in second place there was a Romalfa.  In it's next race the Romalfa was involved in a bad accident and severely damaged and would be too costly to repair .  The owner put the remains into store and forgot about it.  50 years later someone found the remains, built a new chassis, fitted all the original components and even had the original body straightened out.
Which car is the more "genuine"?  The Pignatelli or the Romalfa?

Dial in reproduction parts to the original drawings and specification and the waters get even murkier.

[hipperson]

As above it was my car for nearly four years

I never knew the door story !

 

Buy my book!

Plenty in there about it.

[Sebastian Tombs]

This is the Ship of Theseus paradox that has been discussed ad nauseam and will continue to be discussed until the end of recorded time!   Glad to see Wallace has been 'outed'...again   

 

ST

[werks prototype]

[Henk Vasmel]

It's a moot point.  Let's consider a hypothetical case.  Suppose a Pignatelli won the 1966 Ruritanian 24 hrs.  Now, 50 years later someone has the chassis from that Pignatelli, but over the years, the rest of the car has been "used up" and it now has a replacement engine, gearbox and even suspension components, albeit all genuine  components from other Pignatelli cars, some sports prototypes and some production cars.  Then in second place there was a Romalfa.  In it's next race the Romalfa was involved in a bad accident and severely damaged and would be too costly to repair .  The owner put the remains into store and forgot about it.  50 years later someone found the remains, built a new chassis, fitted all the original components and even had the original body straightened out.
Which car is the more "genuine"?  The Pignatelli or the Romalfa?

Dial in reproduction parts to the original drawings and specification and the waters get even murkier.

In my book, the Pig(natelli) is the more original. The chassis is the essential part of the car. So a car with the original chassis always gets preference over cars where chassis have been replaced.
The Romalfa is a different car, used to show the way the original looked like, but not the same car.
We could argue that the part the chassis plate is attached to should be the essence of the car. However a car is a means to transport a driver, so the structural part the driver sits in, should be considered the essence of a car. This one is especially important for D-types (pun intended) which are said to have several essential components.
Now what I haven't solved yet is when a chassis is disassembled and built up into several entities with new components. I would say that at this point the original unit ceases to exist.

Don't forget, this is only my opinion, so counter arguments are welcome and even asked for.

Edited by Henk Vasmel, 02 May 2016 - 17:48.

[Giraffe]

Bob Vincent in P1005 on the Railway Straight at Aintree. Bob owned a few GT40s back in the day, but this is the car he raced at Aintree in 1968.

 

[/IMG]

[Jager]

While searching for more of the racing history of this car, I stumbled across this ad :

 

Auction: May 17, 2016 to May 22, 2016 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana 46205

Description: - Exact replica of GT40 P/1005
- Built for Universal Studios for the filming of the Fast and Furious movies by Race Car Replicas in Fraser, Michigan
- Featured in the Fast and Furious movie

 

 http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/ford/gt40/1828657.html

 

So now we not only have the 'original' 1005 replica, we have a replica of the replica.

 

Maybe they can build a replica of the Fast and the Furious car, so we have the replica of the replica of the replica .

[PhantomRaspberryBlower]

All I know is I thought I'd seen the ex-Penske Sunoco Ferrari 512 at the FOS (2005ish) and was certainly disappointed to find out later that the real chassis was kept safely locked away by the owner while the car he took to events was essentially a replica...

 

I'm reminded of 'Guy Martin's Spitfire' - at one point in the show you see a lump of twisted, corroded metal and by the end the original pilot's daughters are given a flypast of a brand new aircraft - 'That's your dad's plane!' - er, no.

Edited by PhantomRaspberryBlower, 03 May 2016 - 18:11.

[hipperson]

If 1005 is now a second true replica it should have a badly repaired kink in the rear subframe where Terry Drury had a thump at Monza....LOL !

Edited by hipperson, 04 May 2016 - 13:02.

[sabrejet]

Most airworthy Spitfires and P-51s these days are replicas, but it confuses Joe Public if you tell them that. Ditto a lot of stuff that races in Historics.

 

And despite what Lord March may have said about continuation Lightweights not being welcome at Goodwood, there were many obvious replicas present at 74MM this year (including Daytona Cobras and GT40s in abundance).

 

I don't have an issue with replicas, but I do have an issue with the inference (intended or not) that this is, "dad's plane/car" etc. 

[kayemod]

All I know is I thought I'd seen the ex-Penske Sunoco Ferrari 512 at the FOS (2005ish) and was certainly disappointed to find out later that the real chassis was kept safely locked away by the owner while the car he took to events was essentially a replica...

 

I'm reminded of 'Guy Martin's Spitfire' - at one point in the show you see a lump of twisted, corroded metal and by the end the original pilot's daughters are given a flypast of a brand new aircraft - 'That's your dad's plane!' - er, no.

 

I knew a guy who'd been involved in that Spitfire recreation. He told me that the only original bits it contained were one or two small nuts & bolts and some parts of a gauge, after it had been buried in a salty environment for seventy years, what would anyone expect? If it was built from the original plans using original materials and original skills & construction methods etc, then I suppose that makes it at best a "continuation", but the " rebuilding a crashed Spitfire" theme was deliberately dishonest. A worthy effort with a worthwhile result, but they shouldn't have claimed as they did, that it was the real thing, with the  "That's your dad's plane" claim.

[Charlieman]

It's a moot point.  

 

DSJ defined "Genuine" (a car which raced and received replacement parts) and "Authentic" (a car with a sad end, with enough to see the original), versus "Resurrection" (from the grave).

[D-Type]

This seems an appropriate time to reproduce the DSJ Definitions, which first appeared in his 1987 Directory of Historic Racing Cars .  They have stood the test of time and are generally known.

 

 

Original

Almost impossible to find anything in this category. It would have to have been put in store the moment it was completed. Possibly the Trossi-Monaco special in the Biscaretti Museum comes as close to an original racing car as it is possible to get.

The “old-car” industry frequently uses degrees of originality, such as “nearly original”, “almost original”, even “completely original”, but all such descriptions are meaningless as they cannot be quantified. A racing car that has only had a new set of tyres and a change of sparking plugs since it was completed is no longer “original”. Many components have remained “original”, such as gearboxes, cylinder heads, axles and so on, and reproduction parts are made to “original drawings” and “original material specification”, but this does not make them “original” parts, nor does a complete car built from such components qualify as “original”, regardless of what the constructor or owner might think. Such a car is nothing more than a “reproduction” or “facsimile”.

 

Genuine

This is a much more practical description for an old or historic car and can be applied to most racing cars that have had active and continuous lives, with no occasions when they “disappeared into limbo” or changed their character in any way. Most E.R.A.s come into this category as they have been raced continuously, which has meant the replacing of numerous components as they wore out, but the car itself has never been lost from view, nor has its basic character and purpose been altered over the years. Even such a well-known E.R.A. as “Romulus” is not “original”, as it has been repainted, reupholstered, new tyres have been fitted and new components have been used to rebuild the engine; but it is unquestionably “Genuine”.

 

Authentic

This term is used to describe a racing car that has led a chequered career, through no fault of its own, but has never disappeared from view. The “Entity”, which is best described as the sum of the parts, has always been around in some form or other, but has now been put back to the specification that it was in, either when it was first built, or some subsequent known point in its history. An example would be an old Grand Prix car that was converted into a road-going sports car when its useful racing life was over, over the years having the racing engine replaced by a touring version, and eventually being allowed to deteriorate. It is then rescued and rebuilt as the Grand Prix car, with its racing engine replaced, but with new radiator, fuel tank and oil tank, new wheels made, new bodywork, instrument panel, seat, upholstery and so on, all of which were missing. The “Entity” that started life as the Grand Prix car never actually disappeared, so the end result of all the labours can justifiably be described as “Authentic”. There is no question of it being “Original”, and to describe it as genuine would be unfair to its sister cars that remained Grand Prix cars all their lives, even though such things as radiator, fuel tank, seat and so on had to be replaced due to the ravages of time and use.

 

Resurrection

Some racing cars, when they reached the end of their useful life, were abandoned and gradually dismantled as useful bits were taken off to use on other cars. Eventually insufficient of the car remained to form an acceptable entity, even though most of the components were still scattered about. There have been numerous cases where such components that still existed were gathered up to form the basis of a new car; a new chassis frame and new body were required and, from the bare bones of the ashes or the original, another one appears. It cannot claim to be the original car, and certainly not a genuine car, nor an authentic car. At best it is a “Resurrection” from the dead, or from the graveyard.

 

 

Re-construction

This can stem from a single original component, or a collection of components from a variety of cars, but usually there is very little left of the original racing car, except its history and its character. From these small particles a complete new car is built, its only connection with the original car being a few components and the last-known pile of rust left over when decomposition set in.

 

Facsimile

Purely and simply a racing car that now exists when there never was an original. If a factory built four examples of a particular Grand Prix model, for instance, and there are now five in existence, then the fifth can only be a facsimile, fake, clone, copy or reproduction. If the fifth car was built by the same people or factory who built the four original cars, then at best it could be a “Replica” of the four original cars, but such a situation is very unlikely. There are many reasons for building a facsimile, from sheer enthusiasm for a particular model to simple avarice, and it is remarkable how many facsimiles have been given a small piece of genuine history in order to try to authenticate the fake, and thus raise its value.

Facsimiles have been built of just about everything from Austin to Wolseley, some being so well made that it is difficult to tell them from the originals. Some owners have been known to remain strangely

 

silent about the origins of their cars when they have been mistaken for the real thing. Other facsimiles have been declared openly and honestly by the constructors, such as the facsimile that has been built of an A/B-type E.R.A., or the series of facsimiles of 250F Maseratis that have been built. The trouble usually starts when the cars are sold to less scrupulous owners, who first convince themselves they have bought a genuine car, and then try to convince the rest of the sporting world. The disease is very prevalent in the world of museums, on the assumption that the paying public are gullible.

 

Special

This name applies to one-off cars that are the product of the fertile brain of the constructor. It is probably true to say that no special has ever been finished! It may be finished sufficiently to allow it to race, but inevitably the constructor will be planning further modifications while he is still racing it. If the special builder ever says his car is finished, it will usually indicate that it is now obsolete and he is starting on a new one. The rebuilding or restoring of a special to use as an Historic racing car, by someone who is not the original constructor, can mean either that the car is rebuilt to a known point in time that appeals to the new owner, or he can continue the process of development where the originator left off.

The nice thing about specials is that they are a law unto themselves and do not need to be put into any sort of category. A special can be totally accepted as “Genuine, authentic, reconstructed or facsimile”.

 

Duplication

This is a disease which started many years ago within the ranks of the lovers of Bugatti cars. Unscrupulous people dismantled a Grand Prix Bugatti into its component parts and with the right hand sold an incomplete car as a “basket case” and with the left hand sold another incomplete car as a “box of bits”. The two buyers eventually found suitable second-hand components to replace the missing parts, or had new bits made, and we ended up with two Grand Prix Bugattis where there has only been one. Naturally each owner claims “authenticity” for his complete car. The Bugatti Owners Club – and the majority of its members – strongly disapprove of this practice.

Unfortunately the disease has spread to many other makes, especially those that were built in large numbers. At best this whole business borders on fraud.

 

Destroyed

 

A simple enough word that applies to a racing car that has been involved in an accident or fire in which no tangible components are left in recognizable shape or form.

 

Scrapped

This usually applies to a car that is taken out of service by a factory team and either deliberately destroyed so that nothing is left, or useful components are removed and put into store and the rest is thrown on the scrap heap for crushing or melting down. There have been cases of a chassis frame being rescued from the scrap heap and used to re-create a new car. In no way can the new car be described as genuine. If the factory scrapped a car and removed its number from their records, than that car has gone for ever, and a nebulous collection of old and new components can hardly justify the claiming of the scrapped number.

 

Broken up

Similarly, if a factory records that a car has been broken up, it should mean exactly that. It has gone for good.

 

Converted

There have been examples of a Type A model being converted by the factory into a Type B and then a Type C. The particular car as an entity never disappeared, though it might be difficult to recognize that the Type C was once a Type A. It is virtually impossible to re-convert such a car back to a Type A, no matter how desirable it may be. The perfect example is the E.R.A. that started life as R4B in 1936, was converted to R4C in 1937, and then into R4D in 1938 and was much modified again in 1948. The car still exists as R4D, with a well-documented continuous history, and is as genuine as they come but it can never revert back to R4B.

 

 

By these definitions, 1005 is clearly a "Re-Construction" as there's more non-original bits than original bits so it can't claim to b e a "Resurrection" and certainly not "Authentic!

 

An alternative argument is that something, some entity, has continuously occupied 10 cubic feet of air culminating in this car.  The key word being "continuously.  So it can still claim the elusive "identity" of 1005, ie a "Resurrection" and possibly even "Authentic"

I think the choice depends on whether you are buying or selling.

On re-reading these, 1005 is clearly a "Re-Construction" as there's more non-original bits than original bits.  

Edited by D-Type, 04 May 2016 - 18:06.

[Henk Vasmel]

A nice day off today, so I took time to write up a little story today which formed in my mind the last week when thinking about the subject of continuity in cars. There are a lot more variations that are not covered by this strange story, but please let me know your thoughts.

Once upon a time, yes this is not a true story, two boys were born, identical twins. They were called Jack and John. Both grew up to be athletic, handsome, intelligent and indistinguishable guys. When they played games, they played rough, so both of them collected some scars, even in the face so people in the know could tell them apart by those scars. John got bitten by a strange spider one day, and since that day he suffered sometimes from internal weakness. After a few years his kidneys failed, but Jack, being the nice brother, he donated one of his. Then Jack had a motorcycle accident one day and lost one of his lower legs. After a while he was up and running again with an artificial limb, and nobody who didn’t know it ever noticed. Both guys, who were living at a farm in a quiet area then met a splendid girl, Mary, and they both fell in love with her. She also knew that either of the brothers was Mr. Real for her. After a while she decided to marry Jack and they got a son, Peter. John did not marry alas, because Mary did not have a twin sister.

While staying at home, taking care of his young family, Jack studied a lot and got himself a university degree. Then John fell ill with heart trouble and went to hospital. The same problem he had had with his kidneys now attacked his heart, and it looked pretty serious. One evening Jack rushed to hospital on his motorbike, the only way he knew, flat out. He had an accident and was killed. Now there was a donor heart available and John was saved with the heart of his brother.

Of course this was a stressful period and John kept a low profile at the farm until he was fully recovered. This was a quiet area and they didn’t have many friends, so the fact that Jack had died wasn’t well known. Doctors gave John a newly developed antidote against the spiders poison, so that it would never again attack one of his organs. He started to live with Mary and they got a son together, Graham. He also started to call himself Jack. It is quite common for a John being called Jack in English. And Mary liked it that way.

Now we have some questions:

Mary is married to Jack. Or is she?

Are Peter and Graham brothers? Or half-brothers

Should Jack now have his leg amputated?

Does Jack now have a university degree?

What about the different scars?

What do WE call him? John, Jack, Jack II, John [Jack]?

Under what circumstances can John really become Jack?

[PhantomRaspberryBlower]

He can't. Clearly John is John, even if he's had a couple of spare parts fitted and taken on the role of Jack. His brain won't have taken on the experiences of Jack, etc.

 

Are we allowed to discuss the Bentley 'Old Number One' or is that area verboten?

[kayemod]

He can't. Clearly John is John, even if he's had a couple of spare parts fitted and taken on the role of Jack. His brain won't have taken on the experiences of Jack, etc.

 

 

I think that a brain transplant along with the heart might have swung it, otherwise it would only be impersonation.

[Terry Walker]

As I recall the essence of the "Old No 1" court case was that while almost nothing was left of the car which left Bentley Cricklewood when new, it had a very long, continuous existence both as a racing car and as a road car, having never been written off nor scrapped, just endlessly developed and modified, for more than 50 years. This would be "authentic" but obviously not "original". The buyer thought he was getting Old No 1 as it was back in the early 30s, not the car as it stood at the time of purchase. Putting it back to say 1930 condition would be what? restoration? re-creation? replica? with a handful of original parts.

 

I downloaded a copy of the judgment, and it makes fascinating reading.

[Giraffe]

A quote from DCN on this forum some years back.....

 

"The classic and historic car world is riven with self-serving deception - and also self-serving self-deception. In truth the actual history of any artefact is never within the gift of any, inevitably temporary, owner. There was an early Lotus sports-racing car, sold to the US, returned years later as a bent and battered relic, and then 'restored' basically by having its chassis frame replaced by new. The owner of the time later sold the discarded original frame into other hands, while specifying that "the history does not go with this frame". In other words he attempted to specify that "the history" of the car and its American ownership would only "go" with the recreated car, assembled around the replacement, approximately one year-old, chassis frame.

This is fundamentally indefensible nonsense. The history of the original, discarded, now-sold chassis frame is utterly indelible, and plainly remains so until the day that the last vestige of that structure is finally melted down or corrodes away. Some things are not within the gift of mere man, and this is one of them. As for chassis plates - schmassis plates - a minor consideration in the factual scheme of things."

[Duc-Man]

A friend of mine ownes and races the ex-John Cordts McLaren M8C. He brought it down to a very good point:

"If you race a car like this, you basically buy the chassis number with everything that's build around it. Through time you have to replace all kind of parts up to the chassis because that will lose its integrity at sometime."

 

Just like the famous broom...

[Michael Ferner]

I think that a brain transplant along with the heart might have swung it, otherwise it would only be impersonation.

 

A nice day off today, so I took time to write up a little story today which formed in my mind the last week when thinking about the subject of continuity in cars. There are a lot more variations that are not covered by this strange story, but please let me know your thoughts.

Once upon a time, yes this is not a true story, two boys were born, identical twins. They were called Jack and John. Both grew up to be athletic, handsome, intelligent and indistinguishable guys. When they played games, they played rough, so both of them collected some scars, even in the face so people in the know could tell them apart by those scars. John got bitten by a strange spider one day, and since that day he suffered sometimes from internal weakness. After a few years his kidneys failed, but Jack, being the nice brother, he donated one of his. Then Jack had a motorcycle accident one day and lost one of his lower legs. After a while he was up and running again with an artificial limb, and nobody who didn’t know it ever noticed. Both guys, who were living at a farm in a quiet area then met a splendid girl, Mary, and they both fell in love with her. She also knew that either of the brothers was Mr. Real for her. After a while she decided to marry Jack and they got a son, Peter. John did not marry alas, because Mary did not have a twin sister.

While staying at home, taking care of his young family, Jack studied a lot and got himself a university degree. Then John fell ill with heart trouble and went to hospital. The same problem he had had with his kidneys now attacked his heart, and it looked pretty serious. One evening Jack rushed to hospital on his motorbike, the only way he knew, flat out. He had an accident and was killed. Now there was a donor heart available and John was saved with the heart of his brother.

Of course this was a stressful period and John kept a low profile at the farm until he was fully recovered. This was a quiet area and they didn’t have many friends, so the fact that Jack had died wasn’t well known. Doctors gave John a newly developed antidote against the spiders poison, so that it would never again attack one of his organs. He started to live with Mary and they got a son together, Graham. He also started to call himself Jack. It is quite common for a John being called Jack in English. And Mary liked it that way.

Now we have some questions:

Mary is married to Jack. Or is she? ​Until she remarries, she is widowed.

Are Peter and Graham brothers? Or half-brothers ​Clearly half-brothers, a special form of brotherhood.

Should Jack now have his leg amputated? ​That's his decision to take, but I'm not sure I understand - I thought the spider problem was solved!?

Does Jack now have a university degree? ​Unless you left something out in your story, no.

What about the different scars? ​What about them?

What do WE call him? John, Jack, Jack II, John [Jack]? If I'd known the real Jack, I would certainly call him John. If he insisted on being called Jack, I don't think I would want to have much contact!​

Under what circumstances can John really become Jack? ​None whatsoever.

 

 

P.S. Now this is really getting bizarre! While typing the above, I found myself writing backwards repeatedly!!  Anyone still of the opinion this software is not complete and utter crap?  ​

[Michael Ferner]

A friend of mine ownes and races the ex-John Cordts McLaren M8C. He brought it down to a very good point:

"If you race a car like this, you basically buy the chassis number with everything that's build around it. Through time you have to replace all kind of parts up to the chassis because that will lose its integrity at sometime."

 

Just like the famous broom...

 

That's actually a sound concept. A manufacturer, let's call him "April", sells twenty of his latest Formula 2 models, including chassis '11' and '12' to a pair of brothers... why not John and Jack? 

 

John crashes his April in May, and needs a replacement chassis tutto pronto, so April decides to pick a new one off the shelf, and to rebuild '11' around it. A couple months later, Jack crashes '12', and back at the factory the April manager decides that the quickest way to repair it is to use the (meanwhile) repaired chassis of '11'. And before the year is out, John crashes a second time, and guess what, his car is rebuilt at the factory around the repaired chassis of '12'. John and Jack have never exchanged cars, they are always parked next to each other in the same garage, and the brothers know their cars from each other because John's is blue with red trim and has a three-spoke steering wheel, while Jack's is red with blue trim and has a four-spoke steering wheel. Through each tear-down and rebuild, they take great care in assembling the cars as they were before. Who has '11', and who has '12'?

[bradbury west]

I recall that the excellent Allen Brown put up a line graphic trail describing something similar to Michael's example above, following the progress of a chassis through various iterations.
Roger Lund

[xispas]

I think the story of this car begins with the "GT40 Program"

Prototype ..Chassis here to ORIGINAL: GT / 111. .I Think That is the only survivor of 6 or 7 roadster's

https://www.youtube....h?v=B2OL6INbRu4

[Henk Vasmel]

Yes Michael F., I agree with your comments. And about the leg having to be amputated, remember the original Jack had that happen to him and people knew. So to convince even the not so casual onlooker, John could have wanted to do the same to fool people into thinking he was really Jack.
The more mischievous rebuilders of old racing cars have been known to include damage repair to fool people. Same goes for the scars. Some cosmetic surgery and there we are.

[Henk Vasmel]

And about the April cars, no wonder there were so many accidents. They were delivered a month late.
That he needed a new car pronto could only be because June wanted to drive it in July.
When I make notes about cars in this situation in my database, John ends up with 012[011] and Jack with 011[012]. The numbers are original ID's of the cars, while the numbers in brackets are the obvious ID's (on the chassis plate). The square brackets mimic the rectangular shape of the common chassis plate.

[Glengavel]

Yes Michael F., I agree with your comments. And about the leg having to be amputated, remember the original Jack had that happen to him and people knew. So to convince even the not so casual onlooker, John could have wanted to do the same to fool people into thinking he was really Jack.
The more mischievous rebuilders of old racing cars have been known to include damage repair to fool people. Same goes for the scars. Some cosmetic surgery and there we are.

 

I'm starting to think about that episode of "Allo Allo" where Rene is supposed to have been killed and then turns up as his identical twin brother who also happens to be called Rene...

[Lee Nicolle]

There is also another hypothetical,, though it has happened quite a bit.

In period a chassis has been crashed and replaced with a new one as it easir quicker and cheaper than repairing the original. All the mechanicals [undamaged parts at least] are transferred to the new chassis. Some times including the original CHASSIS NO.

 

 Now later,  the factory is quiet so they get around to repairing the original, this keeps staff on the job, so what chassis no does the original take?

Or the car is sold to someone handy who puts less value on their time and rebuilds it and races it. Again what no? And bare in mind it is only the bare chassis/ tub/ frame

Or as often happens it is repaired 20-30 years down the track as an historic car. Many of these chassis have been stored in dry storage so are not corroded junk. So will suit rebuild as it was never terminally damaged. This is ofcourse yet alone the junk that a new car is built from the chassis no.

 

In these scenarios often yet another damaged car is used for all the hangon stuff and mechanicals. And sometimes the car is raced as a different category,, eg 5000 and Can Am.

 

Is everyone confused? Look at Alan Browns site and you will see this has happened for all of the above so confusion reigns and we have multiple chassis using the same no. And I have ever only looked at 5000s. And some of those cars raced as F1 [or F2] and 5000 and possibly Can Am too.

Plus ofcourse the jiggery pokey the Brit teams used in the 70s with different cars racing with same chassis no!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 07 May 2016 - 00:00.

[Charlieman]

As I recall the essence of the "Old No 1" court case...

 

I downloaded a copy of the judgment, and it makes fascinating reading.

 

I agree that it's a good read. You get the feeling that Justice Otton enjoyed the challenge of the case. Read it at:

http://www.gomog.com...1judgement.html

 

I'm not sure about this bit of his judgement:

"Mr. Guppy went on to say that it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of maintaining a racing car is to ensure that it contains the optimum components available to enable it to win races. In the course of maintaining and repairing any racing car components would be continually examined, repaired and replaced to achieve the best possible performance and reliability. On occasions time constraints might also enforce the substitution of one component for another and the original may or may not be reinstated at a later time. In such circumstances it would, therefore, be quite unrealistic to complain that in 1990 a racing car first seen in 1929 did not exclusively consist of the original parts incorporated when the car was first built. A racing car is a continual development around a theme, and dependant upon its history might retain a greater or lesser proportion of its original parts without jeopardizing its perceived authenticity -- a word to which I shall return hereafter."

 

On occasions, an owner may choose to race a sub-optimal car in order to reduce component substitution. 

[D-Type]

Next hypothetical conundrum.  A man has a racing car.  He sells it but retains the original chassis plate as a souvenir.  The new owner has a replica chassis plate, accurate in every detail, made and fixes it to the chassis in the appropriate place.  The car goes on to have a long and totally documented career.

The grandson of the original owner finds the original chassis plate,  and being fairly rich commissions a "toolroom copy" of the original car.  If the two cars are placed alongside each other it is impossible to find any difference between them.
Which car can claim to be the original?

Edited by D-Type, 07 May 2016 - 17:25.

[Charlieman]

Next hypothetical conundrum... Which car can claim to be the original?

 

That's as easy as A B C.

 

Let's take Maserati 250F 2511. Or both 2504 and 2509.