Jump to content


Photo

The "R" words


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 TerryS

TerryS
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 07 June 2019 - 07:48

In the recent threads on the McLaren M4A and the Lotus 49 R4 there is much use of words beginning with R that often seem similar.

These words are :

REBUILD, RECREATION, REPLACEMENT, REPLICA, RESTORATION, RESURRECTION

Their use must be confusing to potential buyers.

It would be great to have thoughts on these words and their differences.

For example is a resurrection different to a rebuild?

Is a recreation different to a replica?

How much of original car has to be included to qualify as a rebuild?

In a recent ad for a Stirling Moss Lotus 18 it was said it had been "scholastically restored"
What does that mean?

Advertisement

#2 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 34,186 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 June 2019 - 08:29

 

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

 

Lewis Carroll



#3 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 21,899 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 07 June 2019 - 08:47

A couple of earlier threads for inspiration:

Definitions: Original, vs the Rest...

If you replace all the parts on a car, is it still the same car?

In the latter thread D-Type reposted DSJ’s definitions:

Here are Denis Jenkinson's definitions in his book “Directory of Historic Racing Cars.” which I saved off a similar thread.

Original

Almost impossible to find anything in this category. It would have to have been put in store the moment it was completed. Possibly the Trossi-Monaco special in the Biscaretti Museum comes as close to an original racing car as it is possible to get.
The “old-car” industry frequently uses degrees of originality, such as “nearly original”, “almost original”, even “completely original”, but all such descriptions are meaningless as they cannot be quantified. A racing car that has only had a new set of tyres and a change of sparking plugs since it was completed is no longer “original”. Many components have remained “original”, such as gearboxes, cylinder heads, axles and so on, and reproduction parts are made to “original drawings” and “original material specification”, but this does not make them “original” parts, nor does a complete car built from such components qualify as “original”, regardless of what the constructor or owner might think. Such a car is nothing more than a “reproduction” or “facsimile”.

Genuine

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

Authentic

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

Resurrection

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


Re-construction

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

Facsimile

Purely and simply a racing car that now exists when there never was an original. If a factory built four examples of a particular Grand Prix model, for instance, and there are now five in existence, then the fifth can only be a facsimile, fake, clone, copy or reproduction. If the fifth car was built by the same people or factory who built the four original cars, then at best it could be a “Replica” of the four original cars, but such a situation is very unlikely. There are many reasons for building a facsimile, from sheer enthusiasm for a particular model to simple avarice, and it is remarkable how many facsimiles have been given a small piece of genuine history in order to try to authenticate the fake, and thus raise its value.
Facsimiles have been built of just about everything from Austin to Wolseley, some being so well made that it is difficult to tell them from the originals. Some owners have been known to remain strangely silent about the origins of their cars when they have been mistaken for the real thing. Other facsimiles have been declared openly and honestly by the constructors, such as the facsimile that has been built of an A/B-type E.R.A., or the series of facsimiles of 250F Maseratis that have been built. The trouble usually starts when the cars are sold to less scrupulous owners, who first convince themselves they have bought a genuine car, and then try to convince the rest of the sporting world. The disease is very prevalent in the world of museums, on the assumption that the paying public are gullible.

Special

This name applies to one-off cars that are the product of the fertile brain of the constructor. It is probably true to say that no special has ever been finished! It may be finished sufficiently to allow it to race, but inevitably the constructor will be planning further modifications while he is still racing it. If the special builder ever says his car is finished, it will usually indicate that it is now obsolete and he is starting on a new one. The rebuilding or restoring of a special to use as an Historic racing car, by someone who is not the original constructor, can mean either that the car is rebuilt to a known point in time that appeals to the new owner, or he can continue the process of development where the originator left off.
The nice thing about specials is that they are a law unto themselves and do not need to be put into any sort of category. A special can be totally accepted as “Genuine, authentic, reconstructed or facsimile”.

Duplication

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

Destroyed

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

Scrapped

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

Broken up

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

Converted

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



#4 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 June 2019 - 09:11

Some marques suffer more than others. From http://www.oldracing...php?RaceID=IT49

  1. CDL (Michael Chorlton): The CDL was built for the 1949 F1 season by Centaur Developments Ltd, a London firm led by James Boothby, designer Michael Chorlton and Charles Brookes. The car is believed to have been built using one of Chorlton's Bugatti 51 chassis and engines but the Bugatti expert Hugh Conway was unable to resolve this to his satisfaction. The Bugatti bits of the CDL were later removed by Martin Dean to build up a Bugatti which is now accepted by the Bugatti Owners Club as 51126. The rest of the CDL was sold in 1994 and rebuilt around a replica Bugatti chassis and a 2.5-litre Alta engine. It is now known as the Chorlton Special. This is why OldRacingcars.com doesn't cover Bugattis.


#5 GTMRacer

GTMRacer
  • Member

  • 80 posts
  • Joined: October 16

Posted 07 June 2019 - 10:18

I used to get quite upset about cars being represented as something they are not, but my love of old racing cars along with a desire to see them on track

means that I now believe it is better that if someone with the time and/or money to recreate or resurrect (or whatever word you want to use), a great looking and sounding

race car then I'm all for it, we have the technology to do it now. I would rather see a 917 or a 250GTO being driven than in a Museum, even if it is a replica. 

These are just words, and words and there use and meaning change. If we want to show the next generation what it was like we need something exciting to show them.



#6 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 June 2019 - 10:49

These are just words, and words and there use and meaning change. If we want to show the next generation what it was like we need something exciting to show them.

Words really do matter. If you use the word "evolve" to mean change, rather than to develop gradually, then you harm the definition of "evolution". Concise words such as "epic" and "chronic" have valuable, specific meanings.

 

I don't mind historic replica racing as long as everyone understands that it is a show and that no genuine historics are unnecessarily damaged. Whilst I am not harmed financially or physically by misrepresentation of provenance (unless my pension fund has somehow invested in a car), I'd prefer car owners to be more honest to themselves about what they have bought. DSJ's definition of a Special puts it simply:

 

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



#7 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 11,352 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 07 June 2019 - 11:04

I will ask Mr. Connew which of the R words he thinks he would apply to what we have achieved (so far) with our old heap.

Personally, I think I'd use restoration.

#8 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 4,783 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 June 2019 - 11:05

This is why "Historic Racing" is such an oxymoron. In racing, things get constantly repaired, improved, updated; it's the nature of the sport. If you want to preserve an historic artefact, you have to put it in a museum. You can't have both at the same time.



#9 GTMRacer

GTMRacer
  • Member

  • 80 posts
  • Joined: October 16

Posted 07 June 2019 - 11:09

Words really do matter. If you use the word "evolve" to mean change, rather than to develop gradually, then you harm the definition of "evolution". Concise words such as "epic" and "chronic" have valuable, specific meanings.

 

I don't mind historic replica racing as long as everyone understands that it is a show and that no genuine historics are unnecessarily damaged. Whilst I am not harmed financially or physically by misrepresentation of provenance (unless my pension fund has somehow invested in a car), I'd prefer car owners to be more honest to themselves about what they have bought. DSJ's definition of a Special puts it simply:

 

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

 

In a wider context then of course words matter, but as you say as long as everyone is being honest and not trying to hoodwink anybody then to me all is fair, and what word you use to describe it becomes less important,

The car that I am building for historic racing has only 3 original parts, 2 doors and the rear GRP shell, but if that was not the case then it would not exist.



#10 rl1856

rl1856
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 07 June 2019 - 15:19

I supposed the answer depends on the amount and type of original parts included in the current example that is in front you you.    We have seen examples of multiple cars claiming the same provenance because each contains original parts (cf DSJ: Duplication).   We have seen examples where the only original part was a steering wheel and some trimwork.  We have seen examples that use the original chassis, but everything else is new or from other examples.   And some just have a riveted ser number plate.   

 

It is all semantics.  Issues concerning originality can be discarded the moment the owner/seller begins to choose words very carefully when answering direct questions regarding the history of the car.

 

To the original post:    Rebuild would seem to imply an original car as the basis for the rebuild.   Resurrection would imply a car long neglected, disassembled, maybe wrecked and stored in a shed etc.   Recreation/Evocation are just more esoteric words to describe a replica.  But a replica can be of anything, while some feel a "recreation" would be of an example of a specific car that shined at a specific moment in time.   Such as the many Porsche 550 Spyders around that have "Lil Bastard" painted on the back as "recreations" of James Dean's last car.



#11 TerryS

TerryS
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 08 June 2019 - 22:51

Thanks for the responses

I noted in post# 1 the term "scholastically restored". Still wondering what that means.

#12 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 65,893 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 08 June 2019 - 23:07

My opinion is that DSJ was really trying to 'take the mickey' with his 'original' description...

The tyres and the spark plugs must surely have been able to be replaced and still the car would be original. As long as it was the same type of tyre and spark plug.

These are wearing components which essentially don't require dismantling to replace. To take his description to the ultimate one would say that 'original' cars with a spare wheel would not have had the tyres rotated, right?

#13 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 09 June 2019 - 10:20

My opinion is that DSJ was really trying to 'take the mickey' with his 'original' description...

The tyres and the spark plugs must surely have been able to be replaced and still the car would be original. As long as it was the same type of tyre and spark plug.

These are wearing components which essentially don't require dismantling to replace. To take his description to the ultimate one would say that 'original' cars with a spare wheel would not have had the tyres rotated, right?

I don't think so. I reckon DSJ picked some of the expressions used/abused in race programmes and sales adverts, added a few of his own, and then applied real world definitions to them.

 

As for 'Riginal, it can only be applied accurately to a car which has been stored in a time capsule with an attendant in period dress tending to it with preserved lubricants and polish... I fear that it best applies to modern supercars which many of us despise.



#14 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 11,352 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 09 June 2019 - 10:28

For what it's worth ( which is arguably not much) Mr. Connew agrees with my opinion that our car is a Restoration.

#15 TerryS

TerryS
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 23 June 2019 - 04:59

It would seem that most of the R words I included in post #1 would apply to this Ford GT.

https://racecarsdire...ford-gt40-coupe

I have never seen such long winded excuses for its state.

They even admit it has a duplicated chassis number.

#16 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 21,899 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 23 June 2019 - 05:37

This car has its own thread:

GT40 P1042 reassembly

#17 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 8,617 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 23 June 2019 - 08:49

Thanks for the responses

I noted in post# 1 the term "scholastically restored". Still wondering what that means.

 

By the book in Oxford or Cambridge?



#18 DCapps

DCapps
  • Member

  • 482 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 24 June 2019 - 00:29

 

In a recent ad for a Stirling Moss Lotus 18 it was said it had been "scholastically restored"
What does that mean?

 

As a scholar, I can suggest that it is a metaphor for the sort of bullsh*t within the "motor trade" meant to lure the unwary.



#19 2F-001

2F-001
  • Member

  • 3,687 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 24 June 2019 - 06:33

"Scholastically restored" sounds, to me, like a "stochastic" use of language...



Advertisement

#20 AJB

AJB
  • Member

  • 215 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 24 June 2019 - 12:06

Thanks for the responses

I noted in post# 1 the term "scholastically restored". Still wondering what that means.

 

The work was carried out by apprentices?  :well:



#21 retriever

retriever
  • Member

  • 545 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 24 June 2019 - 17:37

It would seem that most of the R words I included in post #1 would apply to this Ford GT.

https://racecarsdire...ford-gt40-coupe

I have never seen such long winded excuses for its state.

They even admit it has a duplicated chassis number.

 

I note it is being auctioned in July -  is this a case where the expression caveat emptor might be appropriate!



#22 AJB

AJB
  • Member

  • 215 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 26 June 2019 - 10:52

In the recent threads on the McLaren M4A and the Lotus 49 R4 there is much use of words beginning with R that often seem similar.

These words are :

REBUILD, RECREATION, REPLACEMENT, REPLICA, RESTORATION, RESURRECTION

.........................................

And in the case of a Ford GT40 in this very forum, REASSEMBLY



#23 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 26 June 2019 - 15:00

In Motor Sport this month is a 1965 Shelby Cobra "delivered in 2002" complete with air conditioning. As an Evelyn Waugh character might say: "Frightfully bogus, darling."



#24 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 5,696 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 01 August 2019 - 02:27

Bump.Catching up with this thread.
In various conversations with DSJ years ago we spoke of his various categorisations of vehicle condition, invariably when discussing a restoration or whatever condition of a car. To me his position was always very clear. He said I should always use a simple test. Ask/demand that they show you hard evidence of what they started with, then you can tell them what thy have ended up with. A restoration then becomes a very specific process. I have always used this as my watchword. All other processes fall into clear categories. Simple.
This obviously upsets many with tube frame cars with new frames, or cars such as Elans, unitary construction cars with new shells, and Elites which have had a new CBU, as was the case of one recently at auction for which Le Mans provenance was claimed.
Doug Nye's recent revelatory piece in MS about a new development in forensic testing of chassis metals puts an entirely new complexion on claims for originality. For my part the mind boggles that no one has commented about this on the MS thread as it is , or may prove to be, fundamental to our values, if we claim to have them.
Roger Lund


Edit.
That is why I have always admired Ced Seltzer's honesty with his 25, and Rodney Felton and his Alfa 2.9 and Pontoon TR resurrections .

Edited by bradbury west, 01 August 2019 - 02:33.


#25 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 1,721 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 01 August 2019 - 06:00

Museum cars , almost regardless of provenance, so often look as tragic as grounded aeroplanes . Originality can count for so little on a baggy old horror that wll never move under its own power again.True originality come at a high price in choice of use .  For a truly important car , such as a GP winner (or Le Mans , Targa Florio , etc) then at the very least , enough components should be replaced - sensitively-so the car can be driven at speed so the public can appreciate its charms. If it can't be it's like seeing a Hendrix guitar but being denied its music . 

 

Historic racing is , as they say, very much a Thing and it's something I welcome , given the ubiquity of dull spec formulae in modern racing . If original cars can race , excellent , but let's not forget that every little bit of safety equipment, engine refresh and fuel tank replacement erodes originality. Use an old car long enough for the purpose for which it was created and all that is left is the DNA of the original. And that is fine by me , as is the creation of replicas as long as no deceit is involved as to originality or provenance. 

 

I love watching old cars (including new old cars ) race , and if they go  a bit quicker than in period , and are less likely to kill or maim their drivers, that is fine too.

 

We place to much value on originality , to an extent that the creators of the machinery would spin in their graves -but with laughter - at these absurd concours d'elegance where old cars are 'judged ' by retired racing drivers and B list slebs . As if it really matters whether oligarch A's obscenely over valued sports car is 'better' than media mogul B's similar model. It's grotesque to think of cars which once were knocked out by a Modena artisan in an afternoon now being tended by white gloved flunkies and never being used again for the sole purpose they were created . If such cars could talk  I can guess what they'd be thinking ...   


Edited by john aston, 01 August 2019 - 17:49.


#26 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 01 August 2019 - 10:42

It's all highly subjective, but for me there's a big difference between:

 

(a) replacing a worn out working part with a newly made one of identical size and shape (albeit inevitably of different material) and

(b) changing the the original specification so the car laps faster.

 

The first, according to Sterzo's First Law, counts as restoration; the second counts as destroying history.



#27 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 4,783 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 01 August 2019 - 12:46

You can't destroy history by "changing the original specification so the car laps faster" (do you really think Chapman & co. were not making history, but destroying it??), you are merely not conserving it by doing so. As I have said countless times, if you want to conserve history (or, rather: historic artefacts) you have to put them into a museum, if you want to race them you should forget about the conservation aspect. You can't have coffee with and without milk at the same time!

#28 TerryS

TerryS
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 04 August 2019 - 00:45

Not an "R' word but a beautiful phrase that caught my eye in this ad:

https://racecarsdire...f804-dfv-f1-car

I love "the car has benefitted from "VARIOUS USUAL UPGRADES" in recent times and can compete....at the front"

They must be some upgrades because the Fittipaldi was NEVER competitive in FI in its day.

#29 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 1,721 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 04 August 2019 - 06:01

See also Arrows et al. But am I bothered ? Not a jot. I am not seeing Emerson drive it, nor Elio in the 91 nor Clay in the FW 07 , just some guys like us who loved that era , but have the wherewithal to buy some toys they can show off to civilians like me . Think of it as tribute act ,with some period props .



#30 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 04 August 2019 - 09:44

https://www.bild.de/...15760.bild.html

 

Maybe this fits here



#31 T54

T54
  • Member

  • 2,500 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 05 August 2019 - 00:09

Just for your pleasure and amazement, now we have this replica pretending (at least in this journalistic piece) and claiming to be a "restoration" because of the use of some discarded bones of the original car, that is still in Venezuela to this day. Now, comparing the pictures of said bones published years ago in these very pages, funny but they don't match any part of the original vehicle as acquired by Bruce. Oh never mind...
... In any case, in my opinion, journalistic fraud and a black eye to an otherwise fine magazine, at least until recently.

https://www.motorspo...7HZ85O5Qr5gbCq8



 


Edited by T54, 05 August 2019 - 00:09.


#32 nexfast

nexfast
  • Member

  • 591 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 05 August 2019 - 07:55

A correspondent wrote this in the MS site but it did not warrant any reply:

avatar92.jpg?1564757074
Philippe de Lespinay  3 days ago  edited

Scott Collins, 
Dave Morgan did not purchase the car from Roger Penske but from Bruce McLaren. Roger Penske no longer owned the car then, since he had sold it to John Mecom at the end of the 1962 season. Mecom in turn sold the car to McLaren in mid-1963. When the new McLaren Mk1 was first raced, the highly modified Cooper, that did not have much "Cooper" left on it, became surplus to requirement and was sold to Morgan. There could have been one person in-between. Morgan in turn sold the car to Leo Barbozza, who imported the car to Venezuela. It is still there today and many people tried to purchase its remains, to no avail.

Now, calling this brand new fabrication, that bears not a single part of the original car, a "restoration" is pure journalistic FRAUD. This car is a100% replica pretending to claim some form of genuineness from a bit of tubing supposedly left over from the rebuild by McLaren in 1964. It is as far as I and Cooper experts can tell, patently FALSE.

The genuine engine, that did time in the original Cooper-Zerex, has been back in the car for which it was originally built, the Cooper-Climax T54 Indy car, since 1989. It is one of two very special 2.8-liter engines built by Coventry-Climax for the 1961 "Indy 500", and the only survivor of the two.

Not very pleased with this story of misrepresentation, as it damages the high credibility of the magazine.



#33 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 21,899 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:38

Philippe de Lespinay and TNF’s T54 are one and the same person. This earlier thread may be of interest - it was begun by one of the people involved with the recreation when he was searching for info on the original car. At the time he made it quite clear that this car was going be a copy of the original, perhaps using a small section of the chassis used in one of the Zerex’s original incarnations, but otherwise a complete new car:

Building copy of the Penske Zerex Special

#34 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 05 August 2019 - 09:15

Just for your pleasure and amazement, now we have this replica pretending (at least in this journalistic piece) and claiming to be a "restoration" because of the use of some discarded bones of the original car, that is still in Venezuela to this day. Now, comparing the pictures of said bones published years ago in these very pages, funny but they don't match any part of the original vehicle as acquired by Bruce. Oh never mind...
... In any case, in my opinion, journalistic fraud and a black eye to an otherwise fine magazine, at least until recently.

https://www.motorspo...7HZ85O5Qr5gbCq8

So, a replica with the wrong engine and the wrong gearbox - sounds about par for the course at Goodwood to me.

#35 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 65,893 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 05 August 2019 - 14:24

Interesting that what is happening now was predicted by Allen Brown in that old thread...

Trying to pass it off as the original is simply wrong.

#36 T54

T54
  • Member

  • 2,500 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 August 2019 - 19:37

Today, I received an email from a good friend, and one of the persons who actually cut up the Cooper-Zerex chassis when working for Bruce in 1963-1964. I will not give his name here, but people in the know will quickly figure out who he is, and his credibility is beyond impeccable.

The gentleman confirmed that:
1/ The pictures of the "surviving chassis assembly" shown on the Nostalgia Forum many years ago by the very person building the replica and inquiring for information, are not that of the bits that were cut up (pictures of the Penske/Gane 1963 modifications do not match ANY of the bits shown, to begin with).
2/ The pieces of tubing cut from the chassis were binned and when sawed off, none were attached to any other, so no one would have ever known what they were from. The story about the provenance of the bits is also a fairy tale.
3/ He says that these people are full of the brown stuff, which is of course the same point I am making.

Now and since MotorSport and its editors appear silent about this misrepresented replica with absolutely ZERO part of the real thing, my next move will be to warn the editors of other publications, and since Roger Penske will apparently be the guest of honor at Amelia Island's Concours in March 2020, I am going to ask Bill Warner to consider refusing that this car be shown on the lawn, and also send a personal letter to Roger to make him aware of what is going on with that vehicle, to allow him to make an educated decision if a request from these people for endorsement of some kind would be forthcoming.

I also will place a call to my friend D. Randy Riggs, editor of Vintage Motorsport in the USA, as well as others, to be wary of the claims made about this replica. I was disappointed to have read in a realtively recent issue that that car had been the subject of a "pick of the liter" feature. 

As far as MotorSport and the car's owner, they look like simple honesty passed them right by, something very disappointing.

It would have been so much better to simply call what this car is, a replica, instead of a fantasy with a tall story.



#37 Charles E Taylor

Charles E Taylor
  • Member

  • 195 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 26 August 2019 - 20:19

The “R” word.

 

Maybe a little late to this party, but this is an interesting topic, especially about “Racing” cars.

 

It is perhaps worth considering that a “Racing Car” is not normally complete unless it is being driven and it is almost never in the same configuration twice. Racing Cars are by definition always being developed and modified, sometimes extensively so.

 

 

Where do you draw the line and “who” makes the distinction.

 

 

 

Interesting topic, who has the right to judge.

 

 

Have fun.

 

 

Charlie



#38 T54

T54
  • Member

  • 2,500 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 26 August 2019 - 20:29

Charlie,
when the written story about a replica, claims that parts that are still on the surviving REAL car, were used to "restore" said replica, it is quite easy for any honest person to make a clear judgement: the story is total BULLSHIT.
The issue here is so blatant, anyone with a bit of historical knowledge will raise a very tall eyebrow.

This is a forum about searching for truth about famous old racing cars. The story and evolution of the Cooper-Zerex is quite well known by historians, the documentation is clearly present to anyone wanting to search it.
Fairy tales in a magazine that forged its reputation since 1924, are not a welcome sight for the enthusiasts.



#39 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 1,499 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 26 August 2019 - 21:43

Today, I received an email from a good friend, and one of the persons who actually cut up the Cooper-Zerex chassis when working for Bruce in 1963-1964. I will not give his name here, but people in the know will quickly figure out who he is, and his credibility is beyond impeccable.

The gentleman confirmed that:
1/ The pictures of the "surviving chassis assembly" shown on the Nostalgia Forum many years ago by the very person building the replica and inquiring for information, are not that of the bits that were cut up (pictures of the Penske/Gane 1963 modifications do not match ANY of the bits shown, to begin with).
2/ The pieces of tubing cut from the chassis were binned and when sawed off, none were attached to any other, so no one would have ever known what they were from. The story about the provenance of the bits is also a fairy tale.
3/ He says that these people are full of the brown stuff, which is of course the same point I am making.

Now and since MotorSport and its editors appear silent about this misrepresented replica with absolutely ZERO part of the real thing, my next move will be to warn the editors of other publications, and since Roger Penske will apparently be the guest of honor at Amelia Island's Concours in March 2020, I am going to ask Bill Warner to consider refusing that this car be shown on the lawn, and also send a personal letter to Roger to make him aware of what is going on with that vehicle, to allow him to make an educated decision if a request from these people for endorsement of some kind would be forthcoming.

I also will place a call to my friend D. Randy Riggs, editor of Vintage Motorsport in the USA, as well as others, to be wary of the claims made about this replica. I was disappointed to have read in a realtively recent issue that that car had been the subject of a "pick of the liter" feature. 

As far as MotorSport and the car's owner, they look like simple honesty passed them right by, something very disappointing.

It would have been so much better to simply call what this car is, a replica, instead of a fantasy with a tall story.

https://forums.autos...-4#entry8661958

 

R A Historian reported in Feb 2019  # 161 of a detailed letter to Vintage Motorsport regarding this replica. So far no answer in their Letters column.


Edited by D28, 26 August 2019 - 21:45.


Advertisement

#40 DCapps

DCapps
  • Member

  • 482 posts
  • Joined: August 16

Posted 26 August 2019 - 21:47

When I finally read the story, Philippe's concerns certainly appeared to completely justified. With someone now appearing to verify what I thought was a very odd thing to do with the parts, keeping the parts rather than tossing them in the bin as we would have at the time, there certainly seems to be an abundance of bovine fecal matter associated with this car. Personally, if it were offered as what it apparently seems to be, a replica of an iconic racing machine (and one that seems to be pretty good at that), no problem. However, this is just another of a series of efforts to be deceitful and "manipulate" (to put it kindly) the truth and the facts about an artifact. Any and all periodicals dealing with such topics are bound to get taken at least once in a while, just as there are stories whose failure to square with the facts with appear from time to time. As Philippe states, the tale and disposition of this particular artifact is quite well known -- it only took a minimum of time to do enough research from my own files to cast serious askance upon the story being offered.



#41 Red Socks

Red Socks
  • Member

  • 536 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 27 August 2019 - 08:42

When I finally read the story, Philippe's concerns certainly appeared to completely justified. With someone now appearing to verify what I thought was a very odd thing to do with the parts, keeping the parts rather than tossing them in the bin as we would have at the time, there certainly seems to be an abundance of bovine fecal matter associated with this car. Personally, if it were offered as what it apparently seems to be, a replica of an iconic racing machine (and one that seems to be pretty good at that), no problem. However, this is just another of a series of efforts to be deceitful and "manipulate" (to put it kindly) the truth and the facts about an artifact. Any and all periodicals dealing with such topics are bound to get taken at least once in a while, just as there are stories whose failure to square with the facts with appear from time to time. As Philippe states, the tale and disposition of this particular artifact is quite well known -- it only took a minimum of time to do enough research from my own files to cast serious askance upon the story being offered.

A replica is as Mr Capps says is fine, but a replica which is running a 2.5 litre engine rather than the correct 2.7 and a five speed gearbox instead of the correct four speed ain't even  a replica - but of course perfect for Sussex in September.



#42 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 49,218 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 August 2019 - 10:03

In Motor Sport this month is a 1965 Shelby Cobra "delivered in 2002" complete with air conditioning.

 

Doesn't that just mean roofless?
 



#43 T54

T54
  • Member

  • 2,500 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 27 August 2019 - 14:55

 

...and a five speed gearbox instead of the correct four speed...

Actually, that's another error in their made-up faux story: the CooperT53 on which the Cooper-Zerex was based had a Cooper-Knight "C5S" gearbox, with 5 forward gears.
 



#44 AJB

AJB
  • Member

  • 215 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 31 August 2019 - 11:49

Doesn't that just mean roofless?
 

I think that would be "Climate" rather than aircon.  ;)



#45 TerryS

TerryS
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 17 September 2019 - 01:20

Which of the "R" words would best describe this Chevron?
 
It seems to be all over the place

https://racecarsdire...6805/chevron-b8

#46 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 9,884 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 September 2019 - 01:47

My opinion is that DSJ was really trying to 'take the mickey' with his 'original' description...

The tyres and the spark plugs must surely have been able to be replaced and still the car would be original. As long as it was the same type of tyre and spark plug.

These are wearing components which essentially don't require dismantling to replace. To take his description to the ultimate one would say that 'original' cars with a spare wheel would not have had the tyres rotated, right?

And there Ray the entity starts to waver.  Tyres and plugs are a consumeable and are very often not available any more. So you use what is available, Tyres especially, Old F1s, F5000, even big Sports Cars are largely serviced by Avon. Very few [any?] used them in period.

Modern plugs are far better than original and again are available.

Many cars with a true history have been rebuilt front to rear, often several times. And gained mods in every rebuild for ease of rest, better parts are available etc etc.

That is why often a top car in period cannot keep up with others not as good.
look at a Hewland DG300, umpteen versions and not many are using a 60s version when there is later, better versions available. And for the well off a new box has far less dramas than a bodged up old version. which are too often a handgrenade with the pin pulled.

With Chev, Ford etc  powered cars they have considerably more power than in period using what is readily available off the shelf. To replicate the old 'crap' would cost a good deal more for less reliability.

Watching Goodwood with Cobras with dead reliable 289s which are near certain more modern 302s. Jags that have less oil coming from them and wherever you go 5000s with all of the above and CanAm cars with a 100 more cubic inches and 300 + more hp. And similar goes through all categories.

Though I am appalled at the obvious differences used, eg sheet metal rocker covers, and often totally different configuration heads and intakes. It has no resemblance to the period look. What is inside is what is available or the owners budget. But the  modern looking externals should be banned.

 

Edit, again watching Goodwood there was a ex USA Healey with a Chev in it as often happened in the US for obvious reasons.

But where does that put the car. One hopes in a category of when fitted with the Chev, not the original Austin.

And several mentions of the Cooper Zerox which was a car modded out of sight to the original car. This happens with racecars!! Old ones are modded to keep up or beat the opposition, sometimes over 10-20 years.

 

I play classic speedway SuperModifieds and so many cars have been modded in period and more modded again as a classic.

My car one of the most original though I have modded the rear suspension so it actually works. And everything that was swinging on clevises or tie rod ends is now all heim jointed. And the original early Holden steering box which was absolutely stuffed was replaced by a Falcon one. Which is about 100% better and more efficient. Which initially was very frowned upon is now accepted as many are using modern Sprintcar power steering boxes complete with the pitman coming out the other side of the car. It makes these cars easier to drive, most of the drivers are well matured! many drove in period!

Though I can do without girly power steering!! Just!

Plus most cars are now using modern shocks as well. Which for modern rougher clay tracks are simply an essential.

And we ALL are using modern tyres as generally prehistoric ones have not been available for 40 years!

So everywhere you go things are being modded for safety, practicality and some for drivers ease. 

And ofcourse things like 327s are replaced with 350, 318 and 340  are replaced with 360 as everything is easier to get and cheaper.

And one car that is restored nicely to about 1972 has a Holden V8 instead of a Ford. Though that is what he bought the car with. Though it really should not be running at all in my opinion


Edited by Lee Nicolle, 17 September 2019 - 02:09.


#47 Tom Glowacki

Tom Glowacki
  • Member

  • 361 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 17 September 2019 - 02:29

And there Ray the entity starts to waver.  Tyres and plugs are a consumeable and are very often not available any more. So you use what is available, Tyres especially, Old F1s, F5000, even big Sports Cars are largely serviced by Avon. Very few [any?] used them in period.

Modern plugs are far better than original and again are available.

Many cars with a true history have been rebuilt front to rear, often several times. And gained mods in every rebuild for ease of rest, better parts are available etc etc.

That is why often a top car in period cannot keep up with others not as good.
look at a Hewland DG300, umpteen versions and not many are using a 60s version when there is later, better versions available. And for the well off a new box has far less dramas than a bodged up old version. which are too often a handgrenade with the pin pulled.

With Chev, Ford etc  powered cars they have considerably more power than in period using what is readily available off the shelf. To replicate the old 'crap' would cost a good deal more for less reliability.

Watching Goodwood with Cobras with dead reliable 289s which are near certain more modern 302s. Jags that have less oil coming from them and wherever you go 5000s with all of the above and CanAm cars with a 100 more cubic inches and 300 + more hp. And similar goes through all categories.

Though I am appalled at the obvious differences used, eg sheet metal rocker covers, and often totally different configuration heads and intakes. It has no resemblance to the period look. What is inside is what is available or the owners budget. But the  modern looking externals should be banned.

 

Edit, again watching Goodwood there was a ex USA Healey with a Chev in it as often happened in the US for obvious reasons.

But where does that put the car. One hopes in a category of when fitted with the Chev, not the original Austin.

And several mentions of the Cooper Zerox which was a car modded out of sight to the original car. This happens with racecars!! Old ones are modded to keep up or beat the opposition, sometimes over 10-20 years.

 

I play classic speedway SuperModifieds and so many cars have been modded in period and more modded again as a classic.

My car one of the most original though I have modded the rear suspension so it actually works. And everything that was swinging on clevises or tie rod ends is now all heim jointed. And the original early Holden steering box which was absolutely stuffed was replaced by a Falcon one. Which is about 100% better and more efficient. Which initially was very frowned upon is now accepted as many are using modern Sprintcar power steering boxes complete with the pitman coming out the other side of the car. It makes these cars easier to drive, most of the drivers are well matured! many drove in period!

Though I can do without girly power steering!! Just!

Plus most cars are now using modern shocks as well. Which for modern rougher clay tracks are simply an essential.

And we ALL are using modern tyres as generally prehistoric ones have not been available for 40 years!

So everywhere you go things are being modded for safety, practicality and some for drivers ease. 

And ofcourse things like 327s are replaced with 350, 318 and 340  are replaced with 360 as everything is easier to get and cheaper.

And one car that is restored nicely to about 1972 has a Holden V8 instead of a Ford. Though that is what he bought the car with. Though it really should not be running at all in my opinion

You just hit on the perfect name for that car:  "Cooper Zerox", with the original remaining as the "Cooper Zerex"

 



#48 sabrejet

sabrejet
  • Member

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 September 2019 - 05:47

Hehe: "Cooper Zerox" (should be 'Xerox' to be accurate) -  why didn't we spot that one before?