Jump to content


Photo

Is the Shadow DN8-2A/R a full replica or a rebuild?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 31 August 2002 - 16:24

Hi there


During my latest research regarding the Shadow Grand Prix team, I discovered that the Shadow DN8, which Tom Claridge owns is listed as the Shadow DN-8-2A. But that was the car I which Tom Pryce was killed at Kyalami back in 1977.

I decided to check it out on Allen Brown’s page oldracingcars.com. And here the real DN8-2A is listed as written off. And according to the sad photo I have seen of the car after the tragic accident, it very much looks to be the case. But according to Allen’s pace there should also be a DN8-2A/R. My question is now. Is the DN8-2A/R a full replica or is it build up around the original 2A.
:confused:

If there should be someone who happens to know Tom Claridge address I would be very pleased if he or she would share it.

I’m also very interested in the whereabouts of the rest of the Shadow DN8. I know that on is racing in the US in 1976 colours (Probably Phil Gumbert - Shadow DN-8-1A) and one more is racing in Ambrosio Tabatip white layout plus the Tom Claridge car also in the Ambrosio Tabatip white Layout


Can anybody help me out here – Allen?


Best Regards

Advertisement

#2 WGD706

WGD706
  • Member

  • 956 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 31 August 2002 - 17:05

http://www.historicg...om Claridge.htm
Here is Tom Claridge's page from the Historic Grand prix web-site; oerhaps you can e-mail him in care of their site and they'll forward your inquiry to him. (historicgrandprix@teamyellow.net)
I believe he lives in Fremont, California.

#3 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 02 September 2002 - 18:37

I've never talked to him directly about his car, but I do believe he took this car to the Monaco Historiques this year. If so it would have had to have full FIA paperwork and I can assure you they are a totally pain in the
ass and do everything to the process as difficult as possible particularly if you are an American. Pardon my attitude, but I currently know 8-10 American who have attempted to go through this process and they all have said the same.

I will send you a private message on how you can reach him. I believe he
is very successful auto dealer, Mercs, etc.

Phil Gumpert's car is on its way to Watkins Glen for the Zippo GP as we
speak. Charlie Warner's DN-9 is on board also.

#4 WGD706

WGD706
  • Member

  • 956 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 02 September 2002 - 18:49

Here's a link to some photos from the Monaco Historiques this year.
http://www.alexking.com/monimag.html

#5 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 2,806 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 02 September 2002 - 21:49

Thanks! :up:

#6 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 03 September 2002 - 01:08

I don't see any photos of Tom Claridge's car at Alex's website, but I do
remember that when we had our first race at Tunderhill in April it was announced that he was one of seven from the group of Americans who had entries at Monaco. I will try and get a clarification on his car's history.

#7 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 03 September 2002 - 06:35

Hi again

And thanks for the information. -- Regarding Tom Claridge and the Monaco Historic race, I think that somethinge must have come in the way. Because I haven't seen any photo and I haven't seen him or the car listed anywhere. So I don't think he wet. I have followed the Shadow cars "closely" as closely as it's possible when you live in Denmark it is.

I don't think he was present at Grand Prix Retrospective de Quebec and not surre about the Brian Redman International Challenge ether. And there have been no sign of the nice Shadow DN5

Once again thanks for the information

Best Ragards

#8 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 9,337 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 04 September 2002 - 09:54

A QUESTION To CSGPR The DN8 SHADOWS where a great car an it,s
strange that ( 8 ) dn8,s where made.


Do you know how many still exist today because
myself an other mechanics turned two DN8,S
into CAN-AM cars in 1978 at the factory in
Northhampton an took them to the states .They
then became DN-10,s cars . :wave:

#9 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 04 September 2002 - 13:33

Hi eldougo.

Very interesting I didn’t know that was the case Do you recall the Chassis No. of the two DN8 which became DN10’s


Regarding your question, I only know the whereabouts of the three car, which I mention I my first post. But I suspect that Don Nichols has a least one in his place at Salinas but frankly that’s a guess. As I recall it Allen Brown said that Nichols have at least one of each F1 car, which probably also is the reason that the Shadow DN7/1A went to his place from the Donington collection.

The three DN8s

Grant Beath Canada Shadow DN-8/5A
Tom Claridge Shadow DN-8/2A/R ("R" whatever that means)
Phil Gumbert Shadow DN-8-1A (I believe, not confirmed)

That leave 5 cars to be accounted for, and thanks to eldougo, we now know that two DN8s have become DN10 Can Am cars. That leaves us with 3 cars, where my theory is that Don Nichols holes on to one of them maybe even two. I have tried to locate Don Nichols for quit some time, but jet again from Denmark it’s not that easy. eldougo say that 8 where made, I only count 6 unlees you also count the two "R" The DN8/2A was written of in South Africa 1977 and the DN8/4A is also listed as written off after Allan Jones was put of the road by Ronnie Peterson in Canada or US. If all that are correct including the transversion of to cars to DN10s that leaves only one remaning DN8.


May I ask you eldougo for how long you where working with Shadow in England?.

best regards

#10 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 9,337 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 05 September 2002 - 09:28

Hi CSGPR in reply to your last post ,I worked for shadow for only 10
months, i went there to build the DN9,s for REGGA & HANS .This was the
time that the team had split up an gone over to start ARROWS f1.
Iam only going by memory regarding the number of DN8,s that where built
however i think it was 8in total,An DN5a became the TOWNSEND car an DN6a
became the JARIER car.
This information as i said above (BY MEMORY), 1977-78 was a long time ago
for me,An your info about DON NICHOLS having one off each car built is
correct a great collection, A feast to the eyes of an one interested in
F1 CARS. :cool:

#11 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 September 2002 - 12:39

Hi eldougo


As you said your self it's a long time ago. I was only 15 years old at the time - I have looked at the DN8 files and I can see that the latest DN8/6A was actually only used in Canada and US Grand Prixs and have not been raced again, so it may been one of the two DN8 which was transverted to an DN10. But again thats a guess.

Chassis 1A, 4A, and 5A was acordind to Autocouse the cars entred in the fris races in 1978. DN8/1A was serving as spare.


I had hoped that Allen Brown could hvae supplied some information regarding this Topic.

Do you remember anything about the DN9/3A which was practice by Danny Ongays in Long Beach.

and why was Raggazoni's DN9/2A painted Black when it was entred at Daily Express International Trophy. see the photo at this link below:

http://uk.geocities....etro78int17.htm.


Best regards

I will send you a private e-mail later this weekend.

#12 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 September 2002 - 12:41

http://uk.geocities....etro78int17.htm

#13 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 41,780 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 September 2002 - 12:46

Originally posted by CSGPR
I had hoped that Allen Brown could hvae supplied some information regarding this Topic.


I believe Allen is away at the moment, which probably explains his silence! :)

/EDIT

Make that has been away - he's just posted in the WATN? thread! :)

#14 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 September 2002 - 13:28

Hi


Thank you for the information Vitesse2, it's probably the case.

Regarding the three DN8s which raced in 1978. The british car magazin Autocar support Autocourse findings that means that 1A was spare, and A4 was raced by H. Stuck until he received his new DN9/1A at Long Beach. DN8/5A was raced by Raggazoni and colected 2 points in Brazil, the last point scored by an DN8. Reggazoni first race in the DN9 was in Monaco but like H. Stuch he also failed to qualify first time out in the new car.

Best Regards

#15 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 9,337 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 08 September 2002 - 09:11

Hi CSGPR. 15 years of age !!.To answer your questions
One chassis was whatyou call new hardely any scratch on the
underside which for a racing car is a good sign it has not
been off the black stuff.------DN8-6a i would think which
became the JARIER car.An DN8-5a the TOWESEND car was definitely
an ex A.J. car because the seat belts had his name written on them when i removed them from the tub.

Danny ONTHEGAS car at long beach ???????? can,t answer thatone

The black DN9 was that because we did not have time to do the
Villiger livery in time to get it to Silverstone.It was brand
new never turned a wheel as we would say.

:wave:

#16 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 5,538 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 08 September 2002 - 21:37

Originally posted by Vitesse2


I believe Allen is away at the moment, which probably explains his silence! :)

/EDIT

Make that has been away - he's just posted in the WATN? thread! :)

CSGPR

I am back but still catching up. I have some correspondence somewhere from Claridge about his Shadow DN8/2A-R, which I remember deciding to regard as a reconstruction. I'll try to find it.

Allen

#17 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 14 September 2002 - 00:04

Hi Once more

Thank you for all your responds. Looking forward to hear more from Allen. To eldougo, regarding the remaining DN8’s I think I have figured it out and it looks like this.

DN8/1A Phil Gumbert
DN8/2A-R Tom Claridge
DN8/3A Converted to DN10
DN8/4A Don Nichols
DN8/5A Grant Beath
DN8/6A Converted to DN10

You mention that you removed Alan Jones seatbelts from one of the DN8. That matches the DN8/3A theory. After Alan Jones was force of the road in the US East GP in the DN8/4A (by Ronnie Peterson). The Australian used the DN8/3A in Canada and Japan, so the car must have had Jones seat belts.

The 4A and 5A made it in to the 1978 season. And I now believe that Don Nichols him self have the DN8/4A because that’s was the car Alan Jones won the Austrian Grand Prix, obvious the car to hold on to.

All this are not confirm in any way, but I strongly believe that’s the way it is. :wave:

Best Regards

#18 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 5,538 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 14 September 2002 - 21:46

OK - I finally found that letter. It was in my paper files back in September 1991 (right at the back of the second lever-arch file I went though!).

Claridge claimed to have 2A but reckoned it was rebuilt at the time on a new tub and the race history he claims almost exactly matches that of DN8/3A. So maybe he has that car or maybe Nichols knocked up a new tub and used old ex-Pryce bits to "reconstruct" Pryce's 2A.

I was most interested to read the DN10 material above. I agree 6A may have been rebuilt after Patrese's crash and become a DN10 but I am also happy to believe eldougo that 5A was the other one. 5A disappears a full month before 3A (last seen 2 April), forcing Regga to use the ex-Stuck 3A at Long Beach. This makes sense if his usual 5A was being turned into a DN10 in time for Townsend to test before his debut at Road Atlanta on 14 May. Two months would be enough to create a Can-Am car. A month might be tight. Rebuilding a new but damaged tub (6A) as the second car is also plausible if 3A was still needed and 1A was so old.

It's all quite plausible. Don't be misled by what owners claim to have now.

Also note that 4A effectively ceases to exist after Patrese's Italy accident in 5A and Jones' Watkins Glen crash in 4A. Jones' "5A" in Canada was the best bits of both. So if 2A and 4A were written off, and if 5A and 6A became DN10s (and still are), you should only need to find 1A and 3A.

Of course, if Nichols decides to reconstruct 4A, that's his privilege.

The provenance of 1A is pretty solid. How sure is Grant Beath that he has 5A?

Allen

#19 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 September 2002 - 10:12

Hi again


Allen if I look in my sources (That will be Autocourse 77/78, 78/79 and the magazine Autocar 1978) they clamed that Shadow used 1A as spare and Regga og Stuck used 4A and 5A. That don't match the DN8/3A story according to the source above 3A had its last race in Japan 77 with Allan Jones. But I don’t have any information from test sesion during the winter 77/78 or pre season 78

I knows that Autocar made some mistakes from time to time, and if Autocause used the same source that year - who knows :confused: .

I would like to know what Motorsport and Autosport listed about it. And Allen can you reveal your source as this question is important to me.

And to eldougo: Do you recall providing the two DN10 with new chassis No. or does they still carry their old DN8 chassis No.

Best Regards


Christian

Advertisement

#20 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 15 September 2002 - 13:16

Tom Claridge's car is suppose to be at Indianapolis for the USGP. It will be in the HGP Display Tent. Perhaps if he has time Gary Critcher can come
over and get a clarification from Tom? Phil Gumpert will be there too with
his car. Charlie Warner will also be there with another Shadow that is painted in a way I am not familar with.

Both Phil and Charlie went with us to the Zippo GP and they are very friendly and nice guys who would love to talk to people about their Shadows.

#21 fattogatto

fattogatto
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 15 September 2002 - 20:52

Dave,

The livery on my DN-9b is that of Jan Lammers in the 1979 Brasilien race. Dark blue with a white stripe down the middle, a small (10") lion's head on the cowl and SAMSON on the upper surface of the rear wing and the side pods. The livery was not totally complete when you saw it in St. Jovite. It will be for the USGP.

#22 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 5,538 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 15 September 2002 - 21:31

Christian

4A had effectively ceased to exist after the team's accidents at the end of 1977 so they ended the year with 3A, 5A (which had used the remains of 4A in its own rebuild) and, lurking back at the factory, 1A. Over the winter they were working on the DN9s and I can't believe they'd have bothered putting new DN8s together.

At the start of 1978, the team must have had the same three DN8s but somehow they were calling them 1A, 4A and 5A. After careful study (done many years ago so don't expect me to remember it!), I concluded "4A" was the same car they had been calling 3A at the end of the previous year. So on my site I call it 3A. I would have used Motor Sport and Autosport as my main sources for this but I always prefered DSJ's chassis numbering (even if it disagreed with the team's!). Autosport tended to tell you what was on the chassis plate (i.e. what carnet the team were using) whereas Jenks dug into it more and told you the "real" identity of the car. But as Jenks rarely travelled to the South American races, you sometimes see a car start one season with a different number than it finished the last. That used to baffle me until I realised Alan Henry worked differently to Jenks.

I regard the surviving cars as 1A, 3A and 5A. I can easily believe 6A got rebuilt for the DN10 project as it was nearly new when crashed and as building a DN10 required quite a bit of work (for the engine at least), that tub may have been worth a rebuild.

Eldougo's story sounds solid to me. I can't see any reason to doubt the numbers he gives. However, eldougo, do you remember one of the cars having been rebuilt after a crash in F1?

BTW, the two DN10s were still owned by Nichols last time I asked anyone.

Allen

#23 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 17 September 2002 - 10:38

Hi


To Allen It sound solid, now we only have to find out about Grant Beath 5A?.
Thanks again :clap:

To Charlie: I'm glad to hear that you have decided to paint your Shadow in this particular colour layout; I have some pictures of the later colour Layout with the lion all over the front of the Shadow promotion DN9B taken at Donington two years ago.

I presume that you’re your colour layout look like this:
http://www.motorraci...o79/retro79.htm.


By the way Charlie: How many Shadows where present at St. Jovite. Because I haven’t been able to see any on the pictures and I don’t have an entry list for the event ether.

Best regards

Christian

#24 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 17 September 2002 - 10:39

http://www.motorraci...o79/retro79.htm

#25 fattogatto

fattogatto
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 17 September 2002 - 17:16

Yes, that is the livery of my car. Thanks so much for the link.

There were 3 Shadows at Mt Tremblant. My DN9-b1, Phil Gumpert's DN8-a1, and Howard Katz's DN5. Howard did not run his for some reason.

#26 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 17 September 2002 - 19:18

Hi Charlie

Thanks for the information, can you tell whether Howard's DN5 is in the Uop colours or in the 1976 colour layout. I have seen a DN5 in 76 layout at Watkins Glen (On photos that is) but as I recall Howard's Shadow DN5 is in 1975 trim. Is that correct?

I found yeat another photo. Please look below


http://www.ifrance.c...GP/IMGP316e.jpg

Best regards

Christian

#27 CSGPR

CSGPR
  • Member

  • 221 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 17 September 2002 - 19:21

Here is another. But this in the later colour layout, which I don't like so much.

http://www.ifrance.c...GP/IMGP325d.jpg


Best regards

#28 eldougo

eldougo
  • Member

  • 9,337 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 September 2002 - 09:46

:cool:

To CSGPR .In answer to new questions on this post.WHOW it looks like
we are getting this sorted out. I do remember changing chassis plates on the two CAN-AM cars to DN-10s.

Your remarks about testing 77/78 there was,t any from what
i can remember!

To Allen. I don,t remember any chassis rebuilt after a crash.
in the spare & parts room there where lots of smashed parts going back a few years there history unknown to me, some even
found there way back home with me!

From what i can remember Charlie,s car the orginal colour layout was --------IMGP325d.jpg photo not -----IMGP316e.jpg
photo.I loved the full LION layout as used by JAN LAMMERS
in 1979 from the start of the season in South America. Or was itta LONGBEACH in 79 with the full LION.


cheers DOUG.

#29 fattogatto

fattogatto
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 18 September 2002 - 17:38

eldougo,

Lammers started te 1979 season in South America with the basic SAMSON scheme and the full lion's scheme did not appear until later.

Not sure of Howard Katz's livery as I only got a glimpse. The car went back on the trailer for some reason.

Thanks for the links to the photos.

#30 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 04 October 2002 - 20:26

Don Capps and I had a ten minute conversation with Tom Claridge at Indy. He says he bought the car directly from Don Nichols. This was the car that
Tom Pryce was killed in at Kyalami.

#31 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 05 October 2002 - 02:10

As Tom was walking by, Dave snagged him and in his usual roundabout way asked, "Hey, Tom! What's the story on the fricking Shadow?" :rotfl:

Actually, Dave did snag him as he was walking by and we did have a nice talk about the car. Tom got it directly from Don Nichols. Don Nichols gave Tom the background of the car. Tom says he took him at his word and had no reason not to. It was a nice chat and Tom was very open about talking about it and happy as a little kid with it. He also said that he had gotten tired of people arguing with him about.

Later I went over to take a closer look and the chassis plate says: 'DN8-2A'

I barely had the presence of mind to ask Laurie Gerrish -- former Shadow mechanic -- what he thought of '2A' before we had to part ways and he thought it was really '2A' -- and he repeated what Tom said as well: Tom could give a -- er, ah, well, you get the idea -- about what people thought, it's '2A' and even if someone thinks it isn't, so what? Why would Nichols not be forthright about it? :rotfl:

By the way, Tom Claridge is a straight guy -- in my opinion -- to whom many such be grateful for keeping some really neat cars "alive" and available for old farts like some of us to have to look at and sigh and be transported to another time and place....

#32 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 05 October 2002 - 13:38

I would say to the man, the group is very, very approachable. They love talking about their cars. Every single one that I ask to talk to Don did
so with great enthusiasm. They feel they are the lucky, but brief curators
of a piece of art. That is why it is a pleasure to drive with these guys.
They drive hard...when given the opportunity like we had at Mont Tremblant
and Road America where the first four cars were seperated by a second; but
they respect the other cars and the safety of all involved.

The good news is that the group just grows and grows. At Indy we talked to a gentleman from North Carolina who has the Trojan and wants to run with us next year. I personally like to see the variety of the group grow. Maybe we
could bring out the Connew? Is it still around?

In other words, I am impressed how well people keep their egos in check and put the emphasis on the cars.

#33 fattogatto

fattogatto
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 07 October 2002 - 12:54

Don,

From your posts regarding the DN-8 of Tom Claridge I assume there are others claiming a different chassis is the real DN8-2A. It is possible all parties are correct. Being fairly new to this forum, but the owner of a DN-9 in a similar situation, the answers are easily provided, even though they cause some disconcertion among certain groups.

There were several teams (I am sure you are aware of this) - especially Shadow and March - which regularly transferred chassis tags from one chassis to another. In Shadow's case there were only 4 DN9-B cars registered - i.e. had Carnets de Passage - the forms used to show Customs at the border crossings. These were DN9-1B, DN9-2B, DN9-3B & DN9-4B. However, there were (at the best reckoning) 9 DN9B cars assembled (some from extant DN9A tubs, by the way!.) When a car was damaged at a race it was taken back to the factory. If it could be repaired in time for the next race it would be. If not, the tag was removed and installed on a car that was ready. All cars crossing the borders had to match one of the Carnets de Passge. Therefore, it is entirelöy possible that each tub could have run under any of the 4 chassis tags. Ergo, no chassis has EXCLUSIVE provenance as being one of these cars.

In the case of the DN9 there is one exception. Phil Schmidt has a DN9-3BT that was built as a qualifying and test car. The tub is sgnificantly different from all others and his provenance can not be questioned. He received his car directly from Don Nichols, as did I.

I have a DN9 tagged as DN9-1B. That was the tag Don gave me when I purchased the car from him. I know there is another DN9-1B in existence and have discussed this with Allen and others. I too am not concerned about these seeming differences as my intention is to drive the car and not make money.

When the Shadow team was taken over by others at the end of its existence there were 4 cars with the tags attached. They were presumed to be the four proper cars. Don still had other complete cars that had been run by the team. I saw at least 3 DN9 tubs when I got mine. It should also be pointed out that some of the DN9 cars were constructed on tubs made by Arrows that Don got as a result of the lawsuit. Only one of the mechanics or Don can say which is which.

In short, it is quite possible, even likely, that there are duplicate tub numbers in many marques. In my opinion it doesn't really matter. If it can be shown the car (tub) actually ran as an F1 car then its history should not be questioned. Chassis tags are just like bodywork and can be switched from tub to tub at the discretion of the team owner.

My apologies if I have resurrected an old dead thread.

#34 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 07 October 2002 - 14:10

Charlie,

Thanks for your input. Always wonderful to have someone like you chiming in and adding a persepective that often gets overlooked.

As to "Carnets de Passage" -- like a number of others here, I am all too painfully aware of how teams used to play "pin the plate on the chassis." As Barrie will surely support, the Maserati 250F was merely one of several cars for which this plate switching became an artform. I know that Ray Marquette once claimed to have the tub of the March 701 Mario Andretti bent in 1970 while a March with that same number on its chassis plate was busy elsewhere.... STP Andy had the tub dumped on Ray's lawn for reasons I have long forgotten....

And this is not restricted to the chassis world. Bob Slade and I spoke at length on the various schemes of how the DFV-family blocks got numbered and renumbered as they were recycled and redesignated on more occasions than one would realize.

The "Carnets de Passage Shuffle" was a highly entertaining challenge until well into the 1980's.....

I have always thought that the only folks with a real clue as to the "true" identities of most the chassis constructed over the many, many decades are usually the mechanics who built them. Usually they can point out those subtle and unique items which make THAT chassis right there '02' or whatever.

#35 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 5,538 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 07 October 2002 - 16:55

There are two different things here: a car getting a new tub because its old tub got bent (common) and cars having their chassis plates swapped for "carnet reasons" (it happens but you couldn't call it "common").

The March 701/3 story is well known. The car got bent, a new tub was supplied and the old tub ended up on someone's lawn. So the existing car is then 701/3-2 and somebody has an old tub on their lawn. The tub is just a component, like an engine or a gearbox or a suspension arm. It's not the car.

Carnets were reused from time-to-time if a team were behind on their paperwork. Arrows did it all the time; so did Alfa; Brabham did it on the BT49s and I'm sure I could think of other examples. But good old Denis Jenkinson was there snooping round the pits asking questions and keeping the record pretty straight. He didn't worry too much about the stuff lower down the grid, so some Shadows, ATS and Arrows have odd-looking histories. The top teams, such as McLaren, Williams and Lotus, were able to keep on top of their paperwork and had no need to swap plates. Even March could do it!

So I disagree that there were nine DN9/DN9B "cars". There may have been nine chassis built (quite possibly more) but there were not nine complete cars all neatly lined up at Northampton waiting to have a chassis plate glued to them. The three surviving cars when Shadow went bust are well known (1B, 2B and 4B). Don may have had older tubs lying around the place but these were just "used components", nothing more.

And Don isn't the only man who can tell which tub is which. On aluminium monocoque cars like these, a good rivet counter can also do a pretty good job.

Allen

#36 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 07 October 2002 - 18:18

A few thoughts from my point of view:

Originally posted by Allen Brown There are two different things here: a car getting a new tub because its old tub got bent (common) and cars having their chassis plates swapped for "carnet reasons" (it happens but you couldn't call it "common").


In the 50's and 60's the carnet shell game was pretty common and used quite often. The "new" tub and the "old" tub lead me to.....

Originally posted by Allen Brown The March 701/3 story is well known. The car got bent, a new tub was supplied and the old tub ended up on someone's lawn. So the existing car is then 701/3-2 and somebody has an old tub on their lawn. The tub is just a component, like an engine or a gearbox or a suspension arm. It's not the car.


....the tub dumped on Ray Marquette's lawn. Sorry, but I completely disagree with the statement '[t]he tub is just a component...' The tub IS NOT 'just' another component, it is THE essence of the car. An antiquated and contrarian view, yes, but one to which I have aways subscribed. Call me old-fashioned, call me narrow-minded, but to me it IS the car. What I am reading here leads me to construe that a 'car' is a bit like a dollar -- a concept which we give 'value' or 'utility.'

Originally posted by Allen Brown Carnets were reused from time-to-time if a team were behind on their paperwork. Arrows did it all the time; so did Alfa; Brabham did it on the BT49s and I'm sure I could think of other examples. But good old Denis Jenkinson was there snooping round the pits asking questions and keeping the record pretty straight. He didn't worry too much about the stuff lower down the grid, so some Shadows, ATS and Arrows have odd-looking histories. The top teams, such as McLaren, Williams and Lotus, were able to keep on top of their paperwork and had no need to swap plates. Even March could do it!


Jenks was helpful, but he almost completely missed out on the 250F's, for instance, despite turning them into almost a minor cottage industry. This plate switching seems to directly contrary to what you would have us believe earlier about the carnet-switcheroo being an exception and not what seems to be almost a rule by some....

Originally posted by Allen Brown So I disagree that there were nine DN9/DN9B "cars". There may have been nine chassis built (quite possibly more) but there were not nine complete cars all neatly lined up at Northampton waiting to have a chassis plate glued to them. The three surviving cars when Shadow went bust are well known (1B, 2B and 4B). Don may have had older tubs lying around the place but these were just "used components", nothing more.


Has anyone actually asked Don Nichols about all this? Just curious.

Originally posted by Allen Brown And Don isn't the only man who can tell which tub is which. On aluminium monocoque cars like these, a good rivet counter can also do a pretty good job.


Which brings us back almost full circle.....


I am not 'picking on' Allen. It is simply that this is an area where we have all moreorless agreed upon to accept a great deal of ambiguity and assume the attitude of 'trust nothing that is said, verify it.' And we all claim to have a direct line to the truth....

To me, I have a problem with the term "new" tub. When Mario bent 701/03, it was bye-bye '03' hello '??" bt certainly not '03.' Certainly, it is in evitable that given the usual fate of racing cars in the past -- scrapped or recycled until either scrapped or retrofitted back to the original form -- that many would become veritable rolling Geo. Washington hatchets. However, if we accept that notion that an identity is essentially what we claim or want it to be.....

#37 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 5,538 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 07 October 2002 - 20:38

Originally posted by Don Capps
To me, I have a problem with the term "new" tub. When Mario bent 701/03, it was bye-bye '03' hello '??" bt certainly not '03.'

Sorry Don, but I must respectfully disagree with you here. Let's stick with March as our example here. They frequently rebuilt F1 cars with new tubs and they also supplied new tubs to private owners of production racing cars. An owner would typically buy a complete car and a small ocean of spares to deal with parts ageing and parts getting damaged. In some cases, especially where the owner was far from the factory, he might even buy a spare bare tub to prop up against the wall. More often he'd order one in a hurry after a crash. These frames and tubs were unnumbered and do not appear in official records.

So the number 701/3 referred to the car sold to STP. It didn't refer to the tub. We have exact records of this later on in 1976 where Lawrence was able to decipher the production of ten or more tubs; for example:

Tub 761/6 was the second tub of car 761/3 - i.e. 761/3-2
Tub 761/7 was used to create car 761/6
Tub 761/8 was the third version of 761/3 - i.e. 761/3-3
Tub 761/9 was the second version of 761/4 - i.e. 761/4-2

In the same way, when 701/4 was rebuilt with a new 20 swg tub, it becomes 701/4-2 and when 701/1 got a new tub after Amon's crash at Monaco, it became 701/1-2. That original 701/1 tub was then repaired and used to rebuild Siffert's 701/5 so it became 701/5-2. Confused?

I can bore for Britain on the F1 Marchs. Want to try the 721s next? Or the 721G/731s? No? :drunk:

OK, let's try Lola instead. When Redman wrecked Haas Racing's T332 HU39 at Mosport in 1974, Lola sent out a whole new car to replace it, listed as T332 HU42. The original car was later rebuilt and sold off. But when Unser wrecked T332 HU35 at the same race in 1975, Parnelli only needed a new tub to get that going again so Lola sent an unnumbered tub and the resulting car is HU35-2.

I spent the best part of a decade wading through all these 1960s and 1970s car identities and I am convinced that the only way it makes sense is if you treat the tub as just a (very significant) part of the car. This may not hold with pre-monocoque cars such as the 250F where the "chassis" is harder to conceptually separate from the "car", but for 'my' era, where they just hung a rear end and four corners on a simple aluminium tub, it's the best way to look at it.

But I do take your point that none of us have a monopoly on "right". I just have a model that is consistent and works in nearly every case. Nearly!;)

Allen

#38 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,524 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 07 October 2002 - 20:41

Allen can certainly defend his own corner from the Colonel's contentions but I think there's an over-reaction here concerning the tub being 'just another component' point.

In the context Allen was applying he's absolutely, surely, correct - to the original constructor/user/owner in period this attitude was certainly true.

That rivetted-up collection of panels, it's of no further use to us, bin it. Put another one into the cuboid of airspace it once occupied, stick on the relevant convenience of a chassis plate and let's just hope we can make the start of practice for next weekend's race. The FACT that the discarded hunk of junk is that which driver X subjected to loads Y in finishing umpty-third in last month's classic race Z is - to the racers - irrelevant.

But spool forward until that hunk of junk's activities begin to be viewed as 'historic' and there is certainly no doubt that history up to the point of its set-aside sticks indelibly to it, even if it's been abandoned on Joe Blow's lawn - while history of whatever chassis 'identity' the original team chose to prolong after that point, using the replacement chassis, sticks indelibly to the replacement.

Therefore, if both tubs are at some point restored, resurrected, re-assembled into two separate cars they will both have claim to the one 'identity' but just to different eras of that 'identity's history...

There's an excellent example of this with rear-engined V12 Maserati Tipo 63 sports racers. One Cunningham team car was used up to and including Le Mans '61, then replaced by a longer-wheelbase chassis into which the original mechanicals were re-assembled. The 'new' LWB car was shipped back to the US on the original chassis serial and related Customs carnet, while the discarded 'old' SWB frame and body panels were consigned to Maserati's famous factory mortuary. While the LWB car wound up being rebuilt in Belgian ownership, an Italian collector eventually bought the SWB frame direct from Maserati and had it restored to running order. When Italian saw Belgian running a car with self-same chassis serial he departed through the ceiling in a column of purple fire, firing off writs in all directions. No need. The only problem is FIA Paperwork identification because both owners' cars have proper claim to the one chassis number - but the individual chassis-use histories are different - and one simply follows on chronologically from the other.

The key factors in what proved to be quite a long-running spat were ignorance, ego, lack of understanding, lack of willingness to understand, and the FIA's cruddily incompetent and inflexible and inappropriate paperwork system... Mere mention of this - as you may have noticed - always has me spitting blood...

DCN

#39 Allen Brown

Allen Brown
  • Member

  • 5,538 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 08 October 2002 - 07:47

Doug's right of course - the problem does start when an old tub is repaired and has said corners and rear hung on it and becomes, once again, a "car". The moment this happens, the later car is immediately devalued slightly as the history becomes divided between them. The BRP that Brooks sold some years ago is an excellent example of a car that appeared genuine and original one moment (if a little over-restored) and then dubious the next because the original components had been glued together many thouands of miles away and now there were two cars.

There are numerous examples of this happening in period. James Dunkel crashed his Chevron B24, bought a new unnumbered tub from Chevron for it, raced on with the new tub but then, in a spare moment, repaired the old tub and built that up with some of his ocean of spares. Both cars raced alongside each other a season or so later. So which one is B24-73-05? Both of them. I call the one with the original tub B24-73-05(A) and the later one B24-73-05(B).

Where the earlier tub is repaired and built up 20 years later, it's harder to suddenly remove part of the history of the later car because you have to ask where was that earlier "entity" for 20 years. In bits on a shelf? Then it feels more like someone has built a replica. But what if it is 10 years? Or 5 years? Or 1 year? Where's the cut-off point?

Allen

Advertisement

#40 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 08 October 2002 - 10:30

I think this is a situation where each case has to be treated on its merits.
Personally, if I have to decide between a car's chassis or any other components in determining its identity, I'll go for the chassis (like Doug). But in most cases such decisions don't have to be made. If a chassis is replaced, but all the original components bolted to it, I consider the chassis (like Allen) as just another component. The car with the nwe chassis is still the original 'entity', and has a continuous history, just as if it had a new engine or new bodywork. There are plenty of cars whose chassis have been replaced - as far as I am concerned they are legit, though of course with some dominution in value (intrinsic as well as monetary).
The problem of course is when the discarded chassis is not scrapped, and turns up later as a claimant to the same number. In those cases cars such as the Dunkel Chevron quoted by Allen, or numerous D-type Jaguars, have parallel histories. Neither is the original - both can claim the number.
In a way the problem is in trying to classify such beasts as either originals or replicas - they are neither

#41 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 08 October 2002 - 13:23

Thank you Doug! The FIA problem is two fold with my car. In its era a team
could ONLY have two chassis at a time obviously, so there was a lot of tag
swapping. The FIA rules were responsible for this. In 1974 March went through 7 tubs, so which ones are REALLY 741/1 which Deane Tank owns and which one is 741/2 which I HOPE I own...after spending $125,000 restoring a lot to maintain it to perfect condition. I know it is tacky to mention actual $$ but I am constantly in search of reality and sharing that reality with others!

Secondly, when you go to the FIA to get the car validated and they totally wear you out over the littlest BS. In fact, Burdie Martin from ACCUS has gotton to the point where he is going issue ACCUS papers on the Historic
Formula One cars if we can't get some reality injected into the situation.

Why should it be so hard to try and have some fun and to bring a little
sunshine to others?

#42 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 08 October 2002 - 13:30

This is one of those topics which veers off into the reefs just about every time since it requires a certain philosophical bent and for which there is not an univerally accepted taxomomy, nor does it seem that one is imminent. For the most part, David hits it right on the head -- there has to be a look at each case which then has to be considered on his own merit. This leaves us with a situation in some cases where the exceptions outnumber the rules, if you will.

Complicating the situation is the purpose of why the identity is being established -- not to mention how. The historian takes a bit different view of the geneology of a type and its separate members than, say, the entrepreneur does. Whereas the historian is focused on the car -- chassis -- as an object of historical interest and in an an almost detached view, others view the object -- car and components -- as something of value or worth in the sense of, well, dollars and cents.

Naturally, the two forces are truly to establish a "truth" -- but for quite different reasons. Naturally, the waters around these reefs become very murky when it is realized that in the heat of battle that records are not necessarily a priority for a constructor. Whereas this is a source of endless headaches for the historian, it is an 'opportunity' for the entrepreneur.

I have been monkeying around with sorting out the identity of racing cars ever since I got a copy of Norman Smith's Case History for my 12th birthday in early 1959. I had had this vague idea that cars had identities, but once I realized that the aviation model -- military aircraft have serial numbers and civilian aircraft have both a contructors number AND a registration number -- applied to race cars, I was off and running. Needless to say, it was a challenge back then!

On through the 60's I tried to do my best, but often had to devise my own internal taxonomy to sort them out. Jenks was a help, of course, but it was slow work and I often wandered up box canyons for miles before realizing it.

It was during this time that I came to view cars in terms which were almost anthropomorphic -- the cars became individuals with definite and distinct characteristics and a 'life.' To me, the chassis was the 'soul' of the car as a 'being.' The other components came and went, but only the engine also had a 'life.' I cannot break the habit bred of over years of thinking that the chassis is just another component. Alas, cars were merely a means and not an end, so they were tossed off to the side when no longer able to be competitive. The Carnets Shuffle was a well-known ruse even in Ancient Days and a constant source of both frustration and amusement.

I also know that often the identities of cars as we know them today were created by someone as a means of tracking that car and either adopted by the constructor or passed into general useage even though the teams never used that as the identity of that car or cars -- March being a spectacular example of that. Or, need I mention the Auto-Union cars?

Our Dauntless Doug and others such as Jenks, naturally, plus Paul Sheldon & the Formula One Register and others made life much easier in the 70's and later. Jenks was even nice enough to have a sidebar in the 70's called "Before We Forget" which gave a rundown of the information known about the chassis of a marque at that time.

Sorry to ramble on so, but I felt this was as good a time and place as any to stop and address this topic which is a constant in TNF discussions. Anyhow, these are just my thoughts on the subject.

#43 petefenelon

petefenelon
  • Member

  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 08 October 2002 - 16:54

Originally posted by David McKinney
I think this is a situation where each case has to be treated on its merits.
Personally, if I have to decide between a car's chassis or any other components in determining its identity, I'll go for the chassis (like Doug). But in most cases such decisions don't have to be made. If a chassis is replaced, but all the original components bolted to it, I consider the chassis (like Allen) as just another component. The car with the nwe chassis is still the original 'entity', and has a continuous history, just as if it had a new engine or new bodywork. There are plenty of cars whose chassis have been replaced - as far as I am concerned they are legit, though of course with some dominution in value (intrinsic as well as monetary).


I once helped someone trace the history of a March 761, and (from memory) the same tub appeared under two chassis plates, and one chassis plate appeared on three tubs, I've no idea how many "entities" were involved :confused:, but all the guy needed to know was whether "it" (for some suitable definition of "it"!) had been scrutineered for an F1 race so he could get it into TGP....

pete

#44 fattogatto

fattogatto
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 08 October 2002 - 17:48

Don,

To answer your questions regarding Don and the Shadows. I visited Don's many storage sites and spent quite some time with him. He is my source that 9 DN9 cars/tubs/whatever were made, with one being the qually car of Phil Schmidt. Allen says numbers 1,2 & 4 were taken over when Shadow went under. I know there is a DN9-3B out there (was Rick Rawlins', now I think Fred Cziska owns it.) So that is 5 counting Phil's DN9-3BT. I personally saw two complete DN9 cars (bodywork, tub, gearbox, corners & wheels) at Don's with a third tub at Marc Bahner's.

If we consider the tub as the main identifying point of the vehicle, then the spectre of chassis swapping becomes an issue. There can be no doubt that my car saw action in the 1979 F1 season. Driven by de Angelis or Lammers one can not tell. It was provided to me with the cowl from Interlagos (sticker still attached) and the side pods from the smokestack car. Nose - who knows? So, the body panels can not determine the car's geniology. (However, the cowl is the piece from which I have taken the livery.) According to Autosport, that tub should have been DN9-3B as driven by Lammers.

If we consider the tub merely as another part of a car then what becomes the identifying feature? The chassis tag? Might that be the only part that has a continuous history associated with that number?

According to Don's memory, which must be somewhat suspect due to the distance in time, he seems to remember some cars were raced as DN9-5B, 6B, and possibly 7B & 8B when raced in the UK, but not at FIA races. I have not researched the Aurora series records or other venues as it isn't that important to me. Like Dave Kane, I wanna have fun. And boy, is it ever that!

#45 Don Capps

Don Capps
  • Member

  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: May 99

Posted 08 October 2002 - 18:23

Originally posted by fattogatto
Like Dave Kane, I wanna have fun. And boy, is it ever that!


Perhaps the only sane views of this whole thing!

#46 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,524 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 08 October 2002 - 19:58

Originally posted by David M. Kane
The FIA problem is two fold with my car. In its era a team
could ONLY have two chassis at a time obviously, so there was a lot of tag
swapping. The FIA rules were responsible for this. In 1974 March went through 7 tubs, so which ones are REALLY 741/1 which Deane Tank owns and which one is 741/2 which I HOPE I own...after spending $125,000 restoring a lot to maintain it to perfect condition. ...Secondly, when you go to the FIA to get the car validated and they totally wear you out over the littlest BS. In fact, Burdie Martin from ACCUS has gotton to the point where he is going issue ACCUS papers on the Historic
Formula One cars if we can't get some reality injected into the situation.

Why should it be so hard to try and have some fun and to bring a little
sunshine to others?


Because 'we' allow blokes who enjoy wearing armbands, finding out what most enthusiasts want to do, and then trying to stop you doing it your way, to do just that.

But if I understand your second sentence properly are you under the impression that Formula 1 regulations demanded no more than two cars built per team?

This was absolutely not the case.

There was certainly no restriction upon the number of cars any constructor could build, and if the chassis serials ran from 1 to 20 they most certainly could. There was absolutely no regulatory requirement to use only chassis serials '1' and '2' and therefore no motive at all for chassis serials to be faked on that basis.

It was Customs movement duty-free that was the problem - but there a team could have carnets for chassis nos '2B' and '108' for example and as long as the identification on the hardware matched that paperwork then they could take cars into, say, Brazil or Bananaland and take them out again without paying import duties, and then fighting to recoup them.

DCN

#47 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 08 October 2002 - 21:21

I think you hit on the head...Customs. When we went to Canada to race at
Mont Tremblant the hoops we had to go through was tremendous. That would perhaps explain why March had only two "chassis" 741/1 and 741/2 even though they went through seven tubs that season.

I'm fairly certain my car is legal, and yes I do hate "armbands", truly dislike them.

I've said all I can say and I appreciate everyone's patience with my position on the FIA.

#48 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 11,524 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 08 October 2002 - 22:24

Positively the worst kind of motor sport official in my considerable experience is the kind who serves loudly as a committee member and who draws money that is paid by the entrants and competitors who actually invest in the AMATEUR game apparently just to place embuggerances in their path...

One of the finest examples I recall is the %$£"£$!! who sought to levy a £50 fine on an owner/driver who - as an extremely pressured big-business exec - reported for driver sign-on 2 minutes too late, after flying overnight from Australia to the UK, then driving himself to the circuit, and who had five cars prepared and entered for himself and two other drivers in that man's race meeting...

The owner/driver's response was memorable for its restraint, which was simply a level penetrating stare, a half-turn to the right, and an instruction to chief mechanic: "Load up our cars - we are leaving Mr X's meeting...".

I am all for officials keeping the professional game in order but when some Jobsworth like this abuses an amateur enthusiast's personal investment in time and money to support his race meeting, it's time for some serious cutting down to size...

DCN

#49 WGD706

WGD706
  • Member

  • 956 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 11 December 2002 - 21:50

Nice to have in one's garage!
http://www.carclassi...m/html/CI99.htm
Immediately available in continental Europe for 146,500 Euros, including all European Community taxes, no additional fees to pay.

#50 Rainer Nyberg

Rainer Nyberg
  • Member

  • 1,768 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 11 December 2002 - 22:20

Nice, indeed it is....always been fond of black cars, especially if they are from my favorite era (70s).

The car has been for sale at carclassic for quite some time now, so I wonder whats wrong with it...

The genealogy maybe? oldracingcars.com seems to be down at this point, so can not check it right now...