93 replies to this topic

[arttidesco]

I'm trying to identify the chassis numbers and histories of several Group 7 vehicles I have seen going back to the late 80's.



First up is Paul Knapfield's Lola T70 seen at Goodwood above, Paul is not listed on the T70 Spyder page at Lola Heritage can any one help with the Chassis ID ?

Relevant answers maybe credited and used in a forthcoming blog.

Thanking you in anticipation of your responses.

[RA Historian]

Have you checked Franco Varani's new Lola T-70 book? Contains a complete chassis register, omitting known fakes and has language on many that one can read between the lines and know what are gearshift knob jobs and what are legit. That should have the answer to your question.
Tom

[Supersox]

http://www.lolaherit...r/t70spyder.htm

What a load of tosh.

Edited by Supersox, 08 August 2013 - 15:45.

[arttidesco]

Have you checked Franco Varani's new Lola T-70 book? Contains a complete chassis register, omitting known fakes and has language on many that one can read between the lines and know what are gearshift knob jobs and what are legit. That should have the answer to your question.
Tom

Unfortunately the quality of cloth in my library does not run that deep Tom

http://www.lolaherit...r/t70spyder.htm

What a load of tosh.

For those of us without deep pockets it's the best we have, would you like t make a few "amendments" ?

[RA Historian]

OK fellows, you shamed me into it. I went to my den, pulled out my copy, and flipped through it. This is what I found:

The car is s/n SL71/43. It was driven by John Surtees in the Laguna Seca Can Am in 1966, and by Graham Hill in the Riverside Can Am, same year. It was unused in 1967, serving as a spare. Sold to George Ralph in 1968, raced by him to no appreciable effect. Never raced again. Now owned by Paul Knapfield.

Tom

[xj13v12]

Unfortunately the quality of cloth in my library does not run that deep Tom ;)



For those of us without deep pockets it's the best we have, would you like t make a few "amendments" ?

I think the site is dead and cannot be added to.

[T54]

Just read that "Lola register".
I am not sure that it can be trusted after the following:
According to the late Skip Hudson who was there, and to Chuck Jones still with us who confirmed it personally to me less than a year ago, SL70/14, the "Lancer Lola", was totally destroyed and its remains buried in a field in Rubidoux, California. And now, it is in... FRANCE and being "restored"? Did it travel by banana boat on its way to going back to Earth from whichever planet it had been hiding???
Sometimes one has to shake his head in disbelief...

[xj13v12]

Just read that "Lola register".
I am not sure that it can be trusted after the following:
According to the late Skip Hudson who was there, and to Chuck Jones still with us who confirmed it personally to me less than a year ago, SL70/14, the "Lancer Lola", was totally destroyed and its remains buried in a field in Rubidoux, California. And now, it is in... FRANCE and being "restored"? Did it travel by banana boat on its way to going back to Earth from whichever planet it had been hiding???
Sometimes one has to shake his head in disbelief...

Yes it's disappointing but so rarely does anyone yell "fraud". I tried to get Vintage motorsport magazine interested in at least starting a discussion as to what qualifies as a restoration and what should only be called a replacement. For some a chassis tag on a tool box qualifies it as a genuine car. I maintain that the basis of a car's identity is the chassis or tub. Throwing that away or building a new one unnecessarily is at the heart of the proliferation of duplicates. When the same restorer then uses the discarded tub to build another one (for another customer) well...... They seem to be proud of it too and the customer believes the non factory tub carries a complete race history. Bollocks! It is just so easy to move a tag around and claim history. Some people make a good living off it and take no ownership of the problem that exists today because of it.

[arttidesco]

OK fellows, you shamed me into it. I went to my den, pulled out my copy, and flipped through it. This is what I found:

The car is s/n SL71/43. It was driven by John Surtees in the Laguna Seca Can Am in 1966, and by Graham Hill in the Riverside Can Am, same year. It was unused in 1967, serving as a spare. Sold to George Ralph in 1968, raced by him to no appreciable effect. Never raced again. Now owned by Paul Knapfield.

Tom

Thanks for visiting your den Tom

I hope you did not stumble across too many distractions

I maintain that the basis of a car's identity is the chassis or tub.

I think many of us on TNF are agreed on this point, as discussed many times, last time most vehemently when the Maserati Replica 2459 came up for auction last year.

[RA Historian]

Thanks for visiting your den Tom

I hope you did not stumble across too many distractions ;)

Over the years I have put more and more stuff into it to the point now that I am the only one who goes there. My wife swore off years ago when she discovered that I had removed the last vestige of anything non-racing from the room. Now it is floor to ceiling bookcases on three sides, and photos, plaques, and a big screen TV on the fourth. One recliner for watching racing on the tube, and a central desk with my computer, two backup hard drives, two scanners, and a DVD burner for my writing and photo work. Oh yes, a wet bar in the corner. But most important, it is ALL MINE!

Edited by RA Historian, 11 August 2013 - 01:30.

[beighes]

Would this be the chassis once owned by Dan Davis of Victory Lane Magazine? I remember him having an ex-Surtees Lola.

Edited by beighes, 11 August 2013 - 05:34.

[raceannouncer2003]

Would this be the chassis once owned by Dan Davis of Victory Lane Magazine? I remember him having an ex-Surtees Lola.

Apparently, Davis had Lola T160/3, ex-Surtees.

Vince H.

[arttidesco]

Over the years I have put more and more stuff into it to the point now that I am the only one who goes there. My wife swore off years ago when she discovered that I had removed the last vestige of anything non-racing from the room. Now it is floor to ceiling bookcases on three sides, and photos, plaques, and a big screen TV on the fourth. One recliner for watching racing on the tube, and a central desk with my computer, two backup hard drives, two scanners, and a DVD burner for my writing and photo work. Oh yes, a wet bar in the corner. But most important, it is ALL MINE!

Your Den sounds like a gold mine Tom

[Gerald Swan]

OK, I have counted to ten very slowly, as the curator of "the load of tosh" may I point out the text at the top of the Register Page:

We invite and encourage the submission of details of owners and cars not currently listed and whilst every care is taken to ensure this Register is correct Lola Heritage and Lola Cars International can take no responsibility for any errors that may occur.

The Register has been in existance for quite a few years and the details are provided by the chassis owners, in this time I have, with the help of the said owners, been able to sort out the history of a number of cars and the majority of them are very happy to assist.

Over this period I would put the number of queries about chassis numbers at less than 30 and with a very few exceptions that were referred to the Lola Board they were all solved amicably.

Now if anybody, and I assume from your comments Supersox you are a leading T70 expert, would like to supply me with documentary and/or photographic evidence that any of the 667 cars currentlt listed on the Register are erroneous I would be happy to approach the owners for their take.

[beighes]

Apparently, Davis had Lola T160/3, ex-Surtees.

Vince H.

My apologies, it's been 23 years since I worked for him.

[xj13v12]

OK, I have counted to ten very slowly, as the curator of "the load of tosh" may I point out the text at the top of the Register Page:

We invite and encourage the submission of details of owners and cars not currently listed and whilst every care is taken to ensure this Register is correct Lola Heritage and Lola Cars International can take no responsibility for any errors that may occur.

The Register has been in existance for quite a few years and the details are provided by the chassis owners, in this time I have, with the help of the said owners, been able to sort out the history of a number of cars and the majority of them are very happy to assist.

Over this period I would put the number of queries about chassis numbers at less than 30 and with a very few exceptions that were referred to the Lola Board they were all solved amicably.

Now if anybody, and I assume from your comments Supersox you are a leading T70 expert, would like to supply me with documentary and/or photographic evidence that any of the 667 cars currentlt listed on the Register are erroneous I would be happy to approach the owners for their take.

I tried to log on to list a car but was unable to download any info?? Can I email you with the details?

[Duncan Fox]

Yes it's disappointing but so rarely does anyone yell "fraud". I tried to get Vintage motorsport magazine interested in at least starting a discussion as to what qualifies as a restoration and what should only be called a replacement. For some a chassis tag on a tool box qualifies it as a genuine car. I maintain that the basis of a car's identity is the chassis or tub. Throwing that away or building a new one unnecessarily is at the heart of the proliferation of duplicates. When the same restorer then uses the discarded tub to build another one (for another customer) well...... They seem to be proud of it too and the customer believes the non factory tub carries a complete race history. Bollocks! It is just so easy to move a tag around and claim history. Some people make a good living off it and take no ownership of the problem that exists today because of it.

I, like you do, believe in the “one hole in the atmosphere” theory. The proliferation of duplicates is generally all about time and money. To rebuild an historic vehicle from a well used and modified entity requires many ,many more hours than to just create a “new car” and re rivet the tag on .The losers here are the customers or eventual purchasers ,many of whom never find out the true story of their expensive race car until the “original” turns up elsewhere.
Duplications happen and will continue to whether by premeditation or ignorance.

Sometimes a race car will be modified well outside its original spec and yet may still retain value even after its original id tag is removed and reattached to a new car built to replace it.
Some would say its good business sense……..Why dismantle and effectively throw away a perfectly good car, when you can build a new one, transfer the tag across and sell them both. Top dollar for the new tagged car and good money for the original now less its true identity. A win win and no parts left over. The new car has no history and certainly never had a period driver sit in it. The old car has effectively been robbed of its provenance and remains so until someone who feels strongly enough cry’s foul and takes it back, creating the duplication and the arguments that will almost certainly follow.
An excellent example of that scenario is here in New Zealand ….. a name driver Lola T 163 Can Am car that wound up on the street later in its life with T70 bodywork , eventually goes through a well known race shop and emerges as a T70 “parts car” while the “restored” car goes out the front door wearing its new tag. This was not a chassis replacement; this car only stopped rolling long enough to lose its id. How will the owner of the tag attached to the repop feel when he realises the repercussions of this?

Another good duplication example is a McLaren M8; the real car with continuous provenance resides in Australia while another in the US supposedly built around the first damaged tub has an original manufacturer’s certificate of authenticity. Who has the “real car” The one that has always taken up the hole in the atmosphere or the discarded part with the certificate?

Duplications built from real tubs I can accept, we have several examples in f5000 generally only claiming their little piece of history, but outright copies claiming history I find hard to swallow.
Because almost certainly someone has been duped or eventually will be, into thinking it’s a “real car” .
And here’s an interesting thought to finish on, older duplications that have claimed another’s history in the past are now old enough to become historic in their own right. Repulsive to some no doubt but that’s what age can do for you.

[Gerald Swan]

I tried to log on to list a car but was unable to download any info?? Can I email you with the details?

Sure, send the details to me at gerald@lolaheritage.co.uk.

[arttidesco]

Thanks to Tom for helping me out with yesterdays blog on SL71/43 linked here



SFAIK the McLaren works team never ran the Trojan built M8C's, but can anyone help identify the chassis number and or history of Harry Reeds example seen at Race Retro last year ?

Relevant answers maybe credited and used in a forthcoming blog.

Thanking you in anticipation of your responses.

[RA Historian]

Then there is the Roy Woods Racing McLaren M8E that was raced in the 1971 Can Am by Vic Elford. That car is in Australia, owned by Duncan McKellar. However, Mecum Auctions is offering what it claims to be the Roy Woods Racing M8E at its Monterey Auction this weekend.

Mecum has offered cars in the past that other auction houses declined to offer due to cloudy ancestry. Appears to be the case again. This lack of due diligence does Mecum's reputation no good.

[arttidesco]

Then there is the Roy Woods Racing McLaren M8E that was raced in the 1971 Can Am by Vic Elford. That car is in Australia, owned by Duncan McKellar. However, Mecum Auctions is offering what it claims to be the Roy Woods Racing M8E at its Monterey Auction this weekend.

Mecum has offered cars in the past that other auction houses declined to offer due to cloudy ancestry. Appears to be the case again. This lack of due diligence does Mecum's reputation no good.

Put's a nice twist on the R&T tag "a piece of history that won't stand still"

[raceannouncer2003]

can anyone help identify the chassis number and or history of Harry Reeds example seen at Race Retro last year ?

From 10-tenths:

"...Brindley drove an M8C (which did actually have the M8E type separete rear wing), later raced by Ted Williams, Geoff Farmer, Jürgen Weiler to name a few. I think this is the one driven by Harry Read in Supersports Cup races..."

According to the following, this would be M8C/D-30-25:

http://www.wsrp.ic.c...aren_canam.html

Vince H.

[Belmondo]

From 10-tenths:

"...Brindley drove an M8C (which did actually have the M8E type separete rear wing), later raced by Ted Williams, Geoff Farmer, Jürgen Weiler to name a few. I think this is the one driven by Harry Read in Supersports Cup races..."

According to the following, this would be M8C/D-30-25:

http://www.wsrp.ic.c...aren_canam.html

Vince H.

Did that car not belong to John Foulston, as well as the M8D he raced himself?

[David McKinney]

I believe so. Brindley certainly raced Foulston's cars

But Foulston had so many CanAm McLarens it was (and is) hard to keep track

[Duncan Fox]

From 10-tenths:

"...Brindley drove an M8C (which did actually have the M8E type separete rear wing), later raced by Ted Williams, Geoff Farmer, Jürgen Weiler to name a few. I think this is the one driven by Harry Read in Supersports Cup races..."

According to the following, this would be M8C/D-30-25:

http://www.wsrp.ic.c...aren_canam.html

Vince H.

Besides the strange serial number this car if it is the one I think it is , is interesting in that it has cut down rear pontoons identical to the m12 we had that was owned and raced by Toyota in Japan. Trojan I understood fitted and tested briefly a Toyota DOHC engine to an M8C, and Ive often wondered if this was the chassis they used.

[arttidesco]

Most appreciative, Vince, Belmondo, David and Duncan thanks

[BT 35-8]

Tom,

Many thanks for the alert re. Mecum auction, I have just know alerted Duncan Mackellar .

Bryan Miller.

[Duncan Fox]

Then there is the Roy Woods Racing McLaren M8E that was raced in the 1971 Can Am by Vic Elford. That car is in Australia, owned by Duncan McKellar. However, Mecum Auctions is offering what it claims to be the Roy Woods Racing M8E at its Monterey Auction this weekend.

Mecum has offered cars in the past that other auction houses declined to offer due to cloudy ancestry. Appears to be the case again. This lack of due diligence does Mecum's reputation no good.

Agreed, the wording is carefully done, but the price estimate should give this away as a copy albeit one 25yrs old. The low end estimate equates to a little more the sum of the parts . This is good buying if it goes for around that.

This is the 2nd of a 2 car team run by Benton Bryant during the 1990’s . Both of them had tenuous claims at best to histories of existing cars, both M8Es including the period Elford 80-04 .Both Bryant cars have F chassis’s certainly . The other cars new owner, although told that it had a period ownership trail (with paperwork to boot)now accepts that it has good racing history in its own right with both Bell and Elford in both historic racing and SuperSports Cup and will enjoy the car for what it is at half the price. So theres one duplication eliminated. Score one for age.
The Mecom car should also be represented as such .
, theres absolutley no way I can even remotely link it to the period 80-04.

[kingswood]

An excellent example of that scenario is here in New Zealand ….. a name driver Lola T 163 Can Am car that wound up on the street later in its life with T70 bodywork , eventually goes through a well known race shop and emerges as a T70 “parts car” while the “restored” car goes out the front door wearing its new tag. This was not a chassis replacement; this car only stopped rolling long enough to lose its id. How will the owner of the tag attached to the repop feel when he realises the repercussions of this?

Yes indeed We have this particular car in our shop at present, and when one studies the car closely, there are a number of things that
become apparent, that don't match with what we have been told by a relatively recent owner of it When one studies information readily
available on the net, it seems only one T163 was fitted with a T70 MK3 coupe body after active canam duty, so it isn't difficult to narrow down
which chassis it must be The story of that chassis reads that it had a major restoration around 1993, and the T70 coupe bodywork was
removed at this time If one is familiar with the shape of the T70 coupe, they will know that the shape of the sill below the doors is an inward
curving radius, which follows the tub sill down to the underfloor. On this car, the bodywork had no joins and looked like it had been glassed on
in place. When we removed the bodywork we had to cut the sills off just below the bottom of the door opening to allow the body to lift
upwards off the tub, once the nose and tail sections had been removed of course. When one inspects the inside of the sill area, there are no
repairs or reglassed join lines apparent, so one assumes that it had never been off since it was installed in California sometime in the late
70's
We also know that the cars next owner after the 1993 restoration, when it was said to have become a T163 again, owned the car, as a
T70 MK3, from at least 1995 through 2010 when the current owner purchased it In that 15 year period it was used once or twice on the street,
but otherwise was kept in storage

When one views the monocoques construction it detail it certainly appears very much the same as other T163 chassis pictures taken in period,
along with the expected battle scars gained in competition, some of which seem to match old race reports, and also additional stiffening is
apparent, which was said to have been done in period, to repair crash damage and to increase the structural integrity, as they were known
to be a bit flimsy in operation. Rivets utilised are the British aerospace SP85 type, and with the repairs and additions, the American MS style
rivet was used, so it appears to have been a ' built at Slough' monocoque
We also have pictures taken in period, one with a well known driver in the cockpit, where it is apparent that an added stiffening rib had been
fitted, somewhat crookedly, and with an irregular rivet pattern, that is visible on the polaroid I can walk up to car right now and it's still
there, exactly the same as in 1969, so I figure that's quite compelling.

There are also other things. One is a previous owner was contacted by the current owner. He was was told that he fitted brown carpet in
the footwell area, during his ownership in the 1980's. This was recently removed by the current owner
We also have an advert in Autoweek, October 1989, showing the car in it T70 MK3 guise, along with its T163 chassis #, when this owner
was selling it. Coincidentally his name is also stamped on the engines block, where the factory normally stamps the engine id #
which is easily visible to this day

We were told by the restorer, that after the restoration of the T163 in the early nineties, all the left over parts were reassembled and this
T70 MK3 was the result, which was then sold off as a 'Lola parts car' Something of a quandary for all involved, when faced with this sort
of evidence, surely ?

[xj13v12]

Clearly what you have was not put together as a parts car and the previous restorer of the other car has created/passed off a forgery which now bears a chassis plate.
I wonder if the people involved over time are willing to put their names to sworn statements as to originality of the other car? The current owner of the questionable car believes every word that the Lola expert tells him yet he is the one who would need to start asking questions. If he starts to think he has a fake car bought only a few years ago he is in the best position to take action. What is more likely is that he maintains the sham (not of his making) rather than devalue his investment.

Another way to help publicly resolve the true identity of such cars is for them to come up at auction and present all information to the auction house. They have an obligation to present correctly.

My Lola T163 went up at a large auction some years ago and only last year the reproduction car also went to auction. When presented with sworn statements the auctioneers quite rightly altered the description of the car.
The new owner of that car is already working on getting yet another version of the same car built using the spare tub. Which restoration shop gets to create a 3rd version of the same car?

[xj13v12]

Another suggestion would be for the restorer to state what percentage of original cars currently resides in the various cars that have been restored. I was stunned to learn today that up to 5 Lola T163/165 cars share some of the parts from other cars or each other. No wonder there is doubt over who owns what or who can claim a bullet proof history because the answer is no one.

I suppose it depends on whether you believe the tub (the bit the driver sits in ) carries the history or whether the history is in the chassis tag.

Having read some information from a fellow owner today I would say that the damage to continuous history of these cars cannot be undone as they have effectively interbred. It will take someone with a lot more inside knowledge than me to sort through the current mess.

Those people could come forward and share their information perhaps?
Have a look at the New Can-Am Book thread and follow the link to the restoration of the Gurney Lola T160/4.
Comprehensive photographic evidence of a single car being restored. Do other cars have similar photographic records?

[Duncan Fox]

Another suggestion would be for the restorer to state what percentage of original cars currently resides in the various cars that have been restored. I was stunned to learn today that up to 5 Lola T163/165 cars share some of the parts from other cars or each other. No wonder there is doubt over who owns what or who can claim a bullet proof history because the answer is no one.

I suppose it depends on whether you believe the tub (the bit the driver sits in ) carries the history or whether the history is in the chassis tag.

Having read some information from a fellow owner today I would say that the damage to continuous history of these cars cannot be undone as they have effectively interbred. It will take someone with a lot more inside knowledge than me to sort through the current mess.

Those people could come forward and share their information perhaps?
Have a look at the New Can-Am Book thread and follow the link to the restoration of the Gurney Lola T160/4.
Comprehensive photographic evidence of a single car being restored. Do other cars have similar photographic records?

I too am astonished to find that while going over the paperwork and correspondence given to me by the owner of 163-18 to read, that the builder of the “parts car” claimed that the Revson chassis had been removed from the 163/T70 and replaced with one of the original Simonize car tubs .

That one statement alone could make that car eligible for FIA paperwork, it certainly muddies the water . This trend of reusing original tubs from restorations is what is creating this proliferation of duplicate cars . If it was good enough to use in another car why was it ,or its components not used in the restoration? Simple because it takes more time which equals less profit.

He also went on to say that there were parts from 3 or 4 other cars which he named in the mix. I wonder what the current owners of those restorations out of his shop would think of all that, if it in fact it were true, Fortunately for them in this case I don’t believe it is . It would concern me greatly as the owner of an expensive Lola to know that original parts from my car were now scattered all over the world. If I had commissioned the restoration those parts would rightly belong to me. If the Revson chassis is not under the T70 and the reproduction has a new tub , then where is it? Out back waiting to be turned into another parts car? It appears to me to be either a smokescreen or the builder having worked on so many T160 series Lola’s is totally confused about what actually took place.

Xj13v12 your duplication is period in origin and you are fortunate that you have notarised documentation from the 2nd owner to substantiate your history. What shop is building the 3rd Donohue car, could I guess and say it’s the same one I am talking about?
T163-18 was for sale in Texas for at least 10 years. A broker who offered it to me in 2003 openly stated at the time that the car had had its original tag removed and attached to a copy, but was a real never been apart car with history .While it remained in the US the threat of legal action was always going to make it difficult to sell, and near impossible to reclaim its provenance. Several other prominent Lola historians have confirmed verbally that this was the case and that they had known about this from the time the tag was removed.
There is no doubt in my mind now having seen the physical evidence the owner has presented to me that this car has never been dismantled. Removing a tag from an intact and however modified genuine car and attaching it to a newly fabricated copy does not make another real car, he might have well have attached it to a refrigerator. Its Alan Putts hole in the atmosphere theory, this car remained intact, it was always “the cuboid of space”.
I understand the current owner of the American car thinks that this New Zealand claim is totally fraudulent. The NZ owner is entitled to ask questions and as the only answers of any value and substance are coming from owners prior to its “restoration” what is one to conclude from this? Again I quote Alan Putt “at best this whole duplication business borders on fraud”

The identity change may have already taken place but a tag swap does not alter the identity and history of an intact factory built tub. It would appear that we outside of the US see things quite differently. Without any photographic evidence of the restoration offered he is left to establish in whatever way he can just what the real truth is.

[Peter Morley]

That one statement alone could make that car eligible for FIA paperwork, it certainly muddies the water . This trend of reusing original tubs from restorations is what is creating this proliferation of duplicate cars . If it was good enough to use in another car why was it ,or its components not used in the restoration? Simple because it takes more time which equals less profit.

It's not just down to time/expense, a new chassis will be faster (or possibly - as the owner will justify it - safer).
Some clubs used to encourage owners to replace their space frames on safety grounds - luckily some have seen the error of their ways and now get very excited about cars with original frames, unfortunately they can't undo their previous mistakes.

In period, when cars were damaged, repairing them quickly was far more important than it is now, so if you had an undamaged tub lying around swapping them made sense since the only result that mattered was the next one.
There will be tubs/chassis that are repairable that weren't repaired in period, of course they have a history - one problem starts when people attribute a previous history to the replacement chassis and decide that the previous chassis should be erased from history.

Mass-producers like March used to take in bent tubs, exchange an already repaired one and then repair the latest arrival for stock. It could be impossible to trace the history of a particular tub that went through such a process and how would you start to explain (especially to an FIA gnome) that a particular tub carried multiple chassis numbers.

Personally I've always said that the paperwork should simply ask if certain components are original or not and what provable history is attached to them and if you don't know any history it doesn't matter - the car (& its value) will be judged by what is known about it.

As for the "identity" I think that depends on the type of car and the relative cost of the various components - if you look at March F1s, when they updated a car from one year to the next, what they carried over were the expensive bits like suspension. The tub itself cost them the price of the aluminium sheet and rivets whereas cast magnesium components, brakes, dampers etc had to be bought in and were relatively expensive.
And if you want to really get confused try to work out how many 1974 March F1s could appear in historic races and how you would describe them, since March only used 2 F1 chassis numbers in 74 but that pair of cars used 7 tubs during the season... oh and some were updated to later cars at the end of the year...

[xj13v12]

It's not just down to time/expense, a new chassis will be faster (or possibly - as the owner will justify it - safer).
Some clubs used to encourage owners to replace their space frames on safety grounds - luckily some have seen the error of their ways and now get very excited about cars with original frames, unfortunately they can't undo their previous mistakes.

In period, when cars were damaged, repairing them quickly was far more important than it is now, so if you had an undamaged tub lying around swapping them made sense since the only result that mattered was the next one.
There will be tubs/chassis that are repairable that weren't repaired in period, of course they have a history - one problem starts when people attribute a previous history to the replacement chassis and decide that the previous chassis should be erased from history.

Mass-producers like March used to take in bent tubs, exchange an already repaired one and then repair the latest arrival for stock. It could be impossible to trace the history of a particular tub that went through such a process and how would you start to explain (especially to an FIA gnome) that a particular tub carried multiple chassis numbers.

Personally I've always said that the paperwork should simply ask if certain components are original or not and what provable history is attached to them and if you don't know any history it doesn't matter - the car (& its value) will be judged by what is known about it.

As for the "identity" I think that depends on the type of car and the relative cost of the various components - if you look at March F1s, when they updated a car from one year to the next, what they carried over were the expensive bits like suspension. The tub itself cost them the price of the aluminium sheet and rivets whereas cast magnesium components, brakes, dampers etc had to be bought in and were relatively expensive.
And if you want to really get confused try to work out how many 1974 March F1s could appear in historic races and how you would describe them, since March only used 2 F1 chassis numbers in 74 but that pair of cars used 7 tubs during the season... oh and some were updated to later cars at the end of the year...

All worthy points. But March was not trying to dupe anyone, they were trying to keep a race car factory operating. Changing tubs for no good reason in more recent times, although some of this dates back more than 20 years, is arguably done for self interest rather than contribution to history. Maybe it was just good business and the world has changed?

[David McKinney]

A good example?
http://mclaren-m18-0...ren-m18-500-06/

[RA Historian]

SL-163/18 has been running around the US and Canada for the past 20 years or so, in its Robbins-Jefferies livery from 1969 as raced by Peter Revson. It is now advertised for sale in the latest issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine. How does this car tie in with the Australian claimant?
Tom

[arttidesco]

Besides the strange serial number this car if it is the one I think it is , is interesting in that it has cut down rear pontoons identical to the m12 we had that was owned and raced by Toyota in Japan. Trojan I understood fitted and tested briefly a Toyota DOHC engine to an M8C, and Ive often wondered if this was the chassis they used.

Duncan I believe the M8C you are referring to with a possible Toyota motor connection is John Grant's example the Trojan built #70-06.

Noticed #70-06 made the national news after a nasty accident in June 2010, does anyone know if John recovered to race again or what became of #70-06 ?



For future reference I am also wondering if there is any relationship between the M8C/D #70-06 and the car raced by Don Shead, seen above at Brands 22/07/89, with similar body work and reversed colour scheme ?

Edited by arttidesco, 17 August 2013 - 17:14.

[Belmondo]

Duncan I believe the M8C you are referring to with a possible Toyota motor connection is John Grant's example the Trojan built #70-06.

Noticed #70-06 made the national news after a nasty accident in June 2010, does anyone know if John recovered to race again or what became of #70-06 ?



For future reference I am also wondering if there is any relationship between the M8C/D #70-06 and the car raced by Don Shed, seen above at Brands 22/07/89, with similar body work and reversed colour scheme ?

John Grant: car and driver both restored and pictured on this forum somewhere testing recently at Donington.

Don Shead, not Shed – not sure if it's the same car, but I always assumed so.

[arttidesco]

John Grant: car and driver both restored and pictured on this forum somewhere testing recently at Donington.

Don Shead, not Shed – not sure if it's the same car, but I always assumed so.

Thanks for the correction and tentative confirmation belmondo

[David McKinney]

Richard Eyre had the car for about ten years after Shead - don't know if that helps tie it in to John Grant?

[beighes]

SL-163/18 has been running around the US and Canada for the past 20 years or so, in its Robbins-Jefferies livery from 1969 as raced by Peter Revson. It is now advertised for sale in the latest issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine. How does this car tie in with the Australian claimant?
Tom

Not that it matters, but I have the original roll hoop from the car leaning against my desk. "Ahhh, worthless trivia", he posts.

[xj13v12]

SL-163/18 has been running around the US and Canada for the past 20 years or so, in its Robbins-Jefferies livery from 1969 as raced by Peter Revson. It is now advertised for sale in the latest issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine. How does this car tie in with the Australian claimant?
Tom

Read posts #29 and #32. Supposed to be a "parts" car but has a genuine 100% complete original chassis under it. That under FIA regs is a car. Which car? Prior to entering the workshop it was the rebodied Revson car. The car is not in Australia.

[Duncan Fox]

A good example?
http://mclaren-m18-0...ren-m18-500-06/

Hi David, yours is a very good example of what I call a ‘tidy’ period duplication of the kind I mentioned we have many of in the F5000 group. The Gary Pederson car is still with Peter Benbrook and has history only with Pederson from the time of his acquisition and build in 73, no disputes there. The original Lader tub now repaired and offered by Paul has again undisputed history up until the point where Gary Pederson split the program. This car also has Trojan Certification as the original .This example is very tidy as Gary parted the cars histories.
However my example mentioned here that I was asked to look at and give an opinion on for its MSNZ COD and FIA papers, is quite different . This example was a complete intact T163 Lola that survived for 20 or so years , arriving into the 90's as a street car wearing a set of T70 bodywork. It was raced couple of times by a well known Lola restoration shop and subsequently turned up in Texas , where it was used only several times mainly remained in storage. My interest in this car also includes the the fact that I nearly purchased it in 93 but our dollar was weak and I didn’t proceed.
However the broker at the time had told me that it was a real name driver car that had had its tag removed but never been apart…..

I have inspected the car again this weekend and there is no doubt in my mind that it has firstly never been apart and secondly the period photographs shown to me absolutely match the modifications exclusive to this car only. These “fingerprints” were only evident once the T70 body had been removed and there are still many features not able to be matched at present.
So here we have an historic vehicle with traceable provenance from new that had never been apart, modified yes, tag removed in the early 90’s but otherwise not touched in a major way until 2013.

This is the Peter Revson T163 serial # 18 and its NZ COD and additional paperwork will now reflect that .


What is disturbing here though are the attempts to cloud the issue through various, and at times conflicting statements in writing from the restoration shop including using someone else’s history which I can only presume is at attempt to cover up something done 20 yrs ago which may have seemed at the time a perfectly normal thing to do.

Rather than digging himself in now, he should now come clean and accept things as they are.

This would surely be better for everyone concerned as I understand the “tagged new car” is currently for sale and its owner is naturally accusing the NZ owner of a fraudulent claim. He seems to have conveniently forgetten that he was warned by a prominent Lola historian 10 yrs ago that the “real car would surface one day”

[Duncan Fox]

Not that it matters, but I have the original roll hoop from the car leaning against my desk. "Ahhh, worthless trivia", he posts.

Certainly not worthless trivia in fact very useful. Im sure Craig , the owner of the actual #18 tub would like to gather that up somehow and fit it to the car where it should be. Am I to take it that you were involved in the T70 conversion?.

[Duncan Fox]

SL-163/18 has been running around the US and Canada for the past 20 years or so, in its Robbins-Jefferies livery from 1969 as raced by Peter Revson. It is now advertised for sale in the latest issue of Vintage Motorsport magazine. How does this car tie in with the Australian claimant?
Tom

Tom ,the Australian car is the #1 Donohue tub. The NZ car is #18 the owner of which I understand you have some proir contact with. It was in Texas in storage since the early 90's and for sale on and off for the last 10 yrs or so.
My reply to David hopefully you will read , and I can assure you that what I have observed today is absolutely correct, The solution I have put forward has merit as I would like to see this resolved . Something done 25 yrs ago might not necessarily be the norm today.Theres room for negotiation here . One thing I can assure you of is that this car is being refurbished, and will appear as it was in 1969 including its original tub. I am quite happy to send you the then and now exclusive detail photographs s which are conclusive, despite what you may have already been told.

Edited by Duncan Fox, 18 August 2013 - 08:29.

[Duncan Fox]

Duncan I believe the M8C you are referring to with a possible Toyota motor connection is John Grant's example the Trojan built #70-06.

Noticed #70-06 made the national news after a nasty accident in June 2010, does anyone know if John recovered to race again or what became of #70-06 ?



For future reference I am also wondering if there is any relationship between the M8C/D #70-06 and the car raced by Don Shead, seen above at Brands 22/07/89, with similar body work and reversed colour scheme ?

I believe you are absolutly correct I last saw the car in1996.

[Supersox]

Read posts #29 and #32. Supposed to be a "parts" car but has a genuine 100% complete original chassis under it. That under FIA regs is a car. Which car? Prior to entering the workshop it was the rebodied Revson car. The car is not in Australia.

To clarify the above it does not need to have an original chassis to qualify as a car for the FIA. The FIA rule is that the specification must be the same as a car which took part in an International event. There is no requirement that the tub/chassis /component even was around at the time.

[xj13v12]

Tom ,the Australian car is the #1 Donohue tub. The NZ car is #18 the owner of which I understand you have some proir contact with. It was in Texas in storage since the early 90's and for sale on and off for the last 10 yrs or so.
My reply to David hopefully you will read , and I can assure you that what I have observed today is absolutely correct, The solution I have put forward has merit as I would like to see this resolved . Something done 25 yrs ago might not necessarily be the norm today.Theres room for negotiation here . One thing I can assure you of is that this car is being refurbished, and will appear as it was in 1969 including its original tub. I am quite happy to send you the then and now exclusive detail photographs s which are conclusive, despite what you may have already been told.

I would like to add at this point, regardless of whether this is ultimately proven 100% or not, that the current owner has not done anything wrong. He has presented the car as he was told to be correct and accepted the history as explained to him. Even though he may have been told the original tub was still out there in a complete car he had no evidence of that. He was the buyer at the end of the line and I nearly bought the car from him. Even if I had bought the car and then found out the history was not correct I believe that it would be the restorer not the previous owner who had failed to present the car in its true form or possibly fabricated so much of the car as to render any history lost. A chassis tag is nice on a real car but proves nothing, especially when it is no longer on a factory built tub. My suggestion is for the restorer to buy the car back from the current owner.

[RA Historian]

Duncan and xj13v12; thanks for your input. I appreciate it. As Duncan alluded, I have had some connection to the car that is now for sale over here through friendship with the owner and others who have worked on it. It is always interesting--and necessary for the sake of accuracy--to find out as much info as possible. If nothing else all this goes to show that there is always more than meets the eye.

Once again we see what we were told in biology class is correct; that is, a cell divides and duplicates itself and creates new cells from the old. We are fast reaching the point at which every Can Am car ever built will have two, three, or more claimants to its identity, all carrying the original DNA to some degree or other, even if it is just the gear shift knob. A prime example is the Bill Cuddy M8F; there were three such cars at that recent Road America meet, and I understand that there is a fourth out there somewhere! Probably all eligible for HTPs, but as Supersox has pointed out that does not connote that it is the absolute original.

Tom

[RA Historian]

Not that it matters, but I have the original roll hoop from the car leaning against my desk. "Ahhh, worthless trivia", he posts.

Now all you have to do is build a car around it and voila!! You have the car itself!

Tom