41 replies to this topic

[biercemountain]

Alot is made about how well modern F1 cars are turned out when they reach the grid on race day. While this is logical for such a high profile sport it is really quite remarkable when you think about it.

To say that the cars are near flawless is an understatement. From all accounts I've heard, Ferrari puts two cars on the grid of every race that could win prizes at Pebble Beach for craftsmanship, cleanliness and fit and finish.

What is amazing is that the cars are just about to do the following:

1. Go over 200mph
2. Absorb huge G loadings
3. Rev to 17000+ rpms
4. Create an enormous amount of heat
5. Bounce over curbs with virtually no suspension
6. Possibly get run into by a competitor
7. Look almost just as good at the end of the race as it did at the beginning.

A car at Pebble Beach has far fewer responsibilities.

[Jezztor]

This is pretty much what i tell toffee-nosed critics when they say "how can you like F1? cars just go 'Round and Round' for two hours!". What you have mentioned are the essential beauties that need to be understood and embraced under a non-fanatic's arm, absorbed into the mind. These cars are engineered to 1 micron perfection, if not better! Can you handle that? That is the relative flatness of graphite/marble on a digitizing machine. Is that not a work of art in itself? With or without FIA's idiotic rules ( I wont show bias ), F1 is an art, it is a passion, it is a drug that millions of us around the world crave and probably could not remain (relatively) sane without!

[/MODE] emotional moment [MODE]


jezz

[AdamLarnachJr]

Actually the carbon bodywork on the cars are quite distorted, and by any auto body craftsman's standards... quite sub par. Just look at the black parts of the car... eg. McLaren and you will see how distorted it is. Aside from that, something of which I could give a damn about, the cars are an absolute marvel to watch and just to look at. Without the bodywork on them, its a dream!

[tac5]

that isnt true, the cars arent distorted in any way

[biercemountain]

I remember some CART drivers who attended the US GP expressing their astonishment at how well prepared the cars were. Pretty remarkable when you consider how clean your average CART car is.

One thing I forgot to mention about why it is amazing how exquisite F1 cars are:

8. They are prepared for the grid by people who haven't slept in 48 hours.

[AdamLarnachJr]

Originally posted by tac5
that isnt true, the cars arent distorted in any way

Yes... they are. It is very noticable when they are flat black, the bodywork surfaces are not "perfectly" flat and smooth, this is because the bodywork has a minimal amount of ply's of composites, and a very thin core material.


Take a look at the left side of the monocoque... not straight with very visible distortions.



Another example on the McLaren, notice how the reflections are rippled. As I said, gloss paint brings out numerous imperfections, this is why it is such a no-no in the rodding industry to paint a carb gloss black unless the body is literally flawless and straight as an arrow, something of which is of no concern, and should be of no concern, on a race car.



Again, slight distortion occurs... you can see it in the letter reflections.


This is a common occurence on most composite race cars, when viewed from certain angles, the imperfections in the layup and curing become quite apparent. You will not see this on any metal bodied race cars, such as NASCAR.. ugghh, but who cares about those things.

I have a huge picture of the McLaren's sidepod, which with its gloss black paint, clearly reveals flaws in the so called "perfect" bodywork. It does its job, and it looks good doing it, but THEY ARE DISTORTED.

[AdamLarnachJr]

Here's the smoking gun...

http://www.angelfire...ch/McLaren.html

[Jezztor]

Adam i'm going to have to disagree here, although I was talking more about component perfection such as engines & gearboxes, than bodywork...

Firstly, 'distortions' you see on the car are usually caused by subtle INTENTIONAL distortions to the bodywork, such as the parts leading towards the rearwheel flipups. they swoop down but ever so slightly.

In that McLaren closeup picture, the distortion is caused by the paint. For all of you who have worked with auto styling, auto paint, racing stickers etc would know that you can never get it perfect...as far as I know, the cars are painted by specialised airbrush & spray artists. I stand to be corrected, but I have to agree with tac5.

Jezz

[imaginesix]

All you have to do is find a few concours-quality cars with slight bodywork distortions to prove your point, Jezztor.

[Jezztor]

i dont completely understand what you're telling me to do there, imaginesix.

bodywork in F1 is made by moulds & templates. these are to precise micron-parameters, they are pretty much perfect. highly skilled specialists are trained and made active in the duty of casting the carbon fiber. slight deformations can lead to structural weaknesses, and safety in F1 is of paramount importance. autoclaves, resin, curing, are all things that are specially designed so not to deform under any temperature or ambient pressure. providing the CF was moulded without error (which is expected from these well trained, well paid professionals), the cars are as humanly perfect as possible. Enough said.

jezz

[AdamLarnachJr]

The bodywork is also laid by hand as well and subject to finger pressing, sure you can use rollers and this helps. While I will agree with you regarding that paint causes this, I would like to ask you why doesn't this show up on metal bodied race car? WC car's use no more than 3lbs of paint to cover the entire car, yet they are straight as an arrow, whereas an F1 car, most likely uses the same amount of paint, yet there is considerable distortion. When I say distortion I mean slight surface imperfections, not structural distortion. Also, what part of an Formula One's bodywork is a highly stressed area besides the monocoque? The engine cover is a rather flimsy peice of bodywork, therefore it is not load bearing, and the sidepod covers are just that, sidepod covers, nothing more, thus a minimal layers of composites will be used to sacrifice strength for weight.

And going back to the paint, I doubt there is a lot of overspray on the cars as to keep the weight down as much as possible, thus there is probably little or no overlapping of paint which would cause distortions as such.

[TazioN]

I have to agree that the bodywork has some very minor"defects". I´ve seen the 2002 McLaren and the 2001 Williams up close (have a ton of pictures of each), and I noticed the "wavy" body panels. It is actually simple and in no way detracts from the craftsmanship of the car. What happens is that you have a long piece of carbon fiber, set up for minimum weight, not for rigidity, and with little support, so it tends to flex a tiny bit. It´s a minimal flex, but with the glossy paint it is much more noticeable. The same thing would happen in the hood of your car if it was built as a single sheet, rather than having the support points and the structure that gives it rigitidy.

The CART cars that I´ve seen up close don´t seem to have such a noticeable "waviness", but it could be because either the parts are thicker and therefore more rigid, or the paint they use is not as reflective.

[TazioN]

By the way, the body panels on NASCAR cars are also quite wavy, but after all the sponsors stickers it is not noticeable.

[Ross Stonefeld]

How much of that is bodywork and how much of that is non-perfect paint application?

[AdamLarnachJr]

80% composite structure fluctuation
10% shoddy but adequate painting
10% they way you look at it:)

Either way, as I said before, these things are thoroughbred race cars, any it doesn't matter in my book.

[TazioN]

I was thinking this morning, also the helicopter tape they apply to protect the sponsors logos and the paint must make it look more distorted than it really is.

[GBarclay]

Don't forget that your typical NASCAR stocker carries around pounds of Bondo (body filler), under layers of sandable primer and usually multiple layers of paint Most F1 parts are painted straight from the mould, and as you know parts are laid up without thick gelcoat layers. I am sure the "waviness" you are seeing is print through. Also in unpainted carbon parts the weave of the fabric can cause optical illusions as to the perfectness of a part.

Having 5 axis machines shaping many of the parts and using rapid prototyping creates digitally perfect pieces that don't translate into visually perfect pieces. sometimes those pieces just "don't look right" although they are technically perfect.

Simple example, take a piece of glass (visually perfect surface) and lay a single piece of carbon skin, no surface coat, cure under vacuum and heat. Remove, you will see all sorts of surface imperfections. Two options, paint it and use it; or, sand it, spray it with sealer, spray it with sandable primer, sand, paint with surface coat, sand, paint with clear coat and then use. Guess which piece is heavier and has cost you more man hours to produce?

The CART bodywork also looks "wavy" until painted. Long term UV exposure can degrade epoxy composite materials, so the paint is a necessary if heavy addition.

[MRC]

I am sure that these F1 guys are not clods when it comes to composite laminates. However, any humidity and/or temperature changes will change the curvature of a cross-ply laminate, no matter how good. While, these things might not be detectable to the human eye (and of no real ill effect), they are there. I don't care how accurate the tooling is.

[jpf]

Hey guys. Thought you might appreciate this pic of Eddie in the Jag from the Jaguar website. Some very obvious texture in the engine cover, looks like the carbon weave.

[desmo]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum here but I seem to recollect that at one point in NASCAR it was found that a "bad" paint job applied by hand with a brush could have drag lessening benefits. It's been pretty well established that polished intake ports at best flow no better than "rough" finished ones all else being equal. I wouldn't assume that a "perfect" paint job would have any aero benefit over a "bad" one. The airflow cannot appreciate a high gloss perfectly smooth finish, only the human eye can.

[GBarclay]

In that Jaguar picture, that is definitely an example of "print through". Usually this is caused by a dense weave in the first layers of the part. In F1, a part with less mass is of more importance than a part which is visually appealing. A visually appealing surface (like a yacht hull) requires a gelcoat (or similar) followed by a layer (s) of light material (up to 1oz) before the structural weaves are introduced. Obviously this adds weight, but does produce a nice surface.

The Desmo post regarding a hand painted NASCAR stocker got me thinking. It has been years since I did classroom Aero-D so excuse my mistakes. I would think that the reason a hand painted car may exhibit better Aero-D qualities MAY have to do with boundary layer separation. Over an aircraft wing, or other surface, the layer of air that is closest to the surface is referred to as the boundary layer. Controlling this boundary layer is of paramount importance in generating lift (in an aeroplane, or downforce on a vehicle). a slightly rougher surface will re-energize the boundary layer, changing the position of the point of seperation (where the boudary layer stalls, and no longer has linear flow), changing the relative position of the center of lift (or downforce). Once the boundary layer seperates there is a large increase in drag with very little increase in lift (possibly decreased).

In an aeroplane, where lift is required through a large speed range, slow speed approaching the stall is of importance especially during take off and landing. Designers may be prepared to lose a little top speed in order to produce more manageable handling characteristics near stall speed.

In F1 downforce is more important than pure top speed, so perhaps they are similar in paying more attention to generating maximum force (lift or downforce) rather than outright speed. Almost all the CART cars I have worked on have had painted upper wing surfaces but the underside of the wings is almost always unpainted. I have yet to see any undertray that has been painted.

I know that a slightly rougher surface in an intake port is desirable because it causes turbulence in the flow of the air which aids in keeping the atomized fuel in suspension.

[DOHC]

Although I'm not an expert in this field (I work in mathematics and mathematical modelling) I support Adam's view on this. I was once peripherally involved in a surface modelling project in auto industry. Once we were done with the most advanced math modelling, the engineers, much to my surprise, checked surface smoothness by reflections, exactly as indicated by Adam. In doing so, they rejected the last 50 years of mathematical development...

[DOHC]

Originally posted by desmo
It's been pretty well established that polished intake ports at best flow no better than "rough" finished ones all else being equal. I wouldn't assume that a "perfect" paint job would have any aero benefit over a "bad" one. The airflow cannot appreciate a high gloss perfectly smooth finish, only the human eye can.

A rough surface may have a smaller air resistance. For example, this is why golf balls have dimples instead of being polished.

[AdamLarnachJr]

Personally I don't mind the small imperfections, the only reason I brought it up is because F1 cars were being brought up to "show car" standards, quite a high standard and I felt much criticism could be added to lower it a bit:)

On a more serious note, I would prefer a somewhat dimpled (not the chad! ) and deformed surface, air is blind as noted above, and its much the same as a mirrior finished intake port as it is to the same port with a rough grind.

[Schummy]

Seeing mechanics handling large pieces of bodywork one can see they are rather flexible and as it is resting in a discrete set of points on the car the bodywork flexes and vibrates, they are not perfectly shaped everytime.

In a super-slow-motion camera (as seen often in GPs in Germany) you can see how several parts of the car wobbles a bit and are not so "exactly" positioned all the time. I can't buy the micron accuracy (in bodywork or wings) but I would think in sub-tenth of mm accuracy. Nowadays I don't think more "exactness" would be really needed. Obviously, internal engine parts have a whole different requirement of tolerance.

Twenty years ago, those F1 cars looked as ultimate machines, today they looks a bit crude (well, I love them indeed!). After no many years, today Ferraris and Macs will look no so "perfect" as we sometimes think now, in comparison with cars of then.

If absolute smoothness were so critical as "micron-level" suggests, cars would be severely penalized with bugs, flies and dirtiness as race develops, doing a noticeable effect in perfomance, and actually it doesn't happen.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by GBarclay

The Desmo post regarding a hand painted NASCAR stocker got me thinking. It has been years since I did classroom Aero-D so excuse my mistakes. I would think that the reason a hand painted car may exhibit better Aero-D qualities MAY have to do with boundary layer separation. Over an aircraft wing, or other surface, the layer of air that is closest to the surface is referred to as the boundary layer. Controlling this boundary layer is of paramount importance in generating lift (in an aeroplane, or downforce on a vehicle). a slightly rougher surface will re-energize the boundary layer, changing the position of the point of seperation (where the boudary layer stalls, and no longer has linear flow), changing the relative position of the center of lift (or downforce). Once the boundary layer seperates there is a large increase in drag with very little increase in lift (possibly decreased).

In an aeroplane, where lift is required through a large speed range, slow speed approaching the stall is of importance especially during take off and landing. Designers may be prepared to lose a little top speed in order to produce more manageable handling characteristics near stall speed.

Right idea, but allow me to refresh the terms to you. There are two types of boundary layers, laminar and turbulent. The differences:

1. A turbulent boundary layer is much thicker than a laminar one, and the thickness increases more rapidly with distance from the start of the layer.
2. The turbulent velocity profile is much fuller near the wall and flatter some distance from the wall.
3. Skin friction is much larger in turbulent than in laminar flow.

Since skin friction is much higher in turbulent flow, it creates more drag. But the profile is much fuller and flatter, therefore it will 'stick' better to the surface than the laminar profile.

In the case of the golf ball dimples, the dimples intentionally roughen the surface finish to delay the separation point. This reduces the form drag or bluff body over the profile. It does not reduce the skin friction drag. But on blunt shapes (like a brick) form drag is higher than skin friction drag.

Now in the case of aircraft wings, at one time on older wings they did employ vortex generators and such. The generators increased turbulence thereby delaying separation and increasing the angle of attack ranges usable. It also increases drag.

In the case of F-1 wings, you sometimes see vertical fences in the wings. Whether they are for directing flow around the sidepods or into the radiators I'm not sure. But I would think with such low aspect ratio wings and in some cases high drag, they may employ vortex generators.

Hope I made some sort of sense. I can explain it better drawing some pictures of cylinders, velocity profiles, etc...

[DOHC]

Originally posted by ehagar
Now in the case of aircraft wings, at one time on older wings they did employ vortex generators and such.

They still do on modern designs. Check out a 737-800 for example.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by DOHC


They still do on modern designs. Check out a 737-800 for example.

Yeah, depends on the aerofoil and application really. Won't see them on gliders!

[Jezztor]

Like I said, when I said 'micron-precision' i was referring to engine & gearbox internals...not peripheral bodywork. millimeter bodywork precision sounds about right..obviously no moulds that have a 1cm deformation. btw, a source has revealed that they have a laser digitizing machine which is used somewhere after the autoclave process, which checks the body panel and relates it to the CAD design of it...they have a certain tolerance, if there is a glitch / deformation, the piece is rejected...

jezz

[Ben]

Lasers and CMMs are fairly conventional tolerance measuring devices.

Ben

[biercemountain]

All this leads me right back to my first point:

An F1 car on a raceday grid is turned out well enough compete at Pebble Beach.

[AdamLarnachJr]

And receive last place.

[Ben]

Those cars at Pebble beach can't possibly have been thrashed on the track (recently at least). It would seem a singularly pointless exercise to take a proper racing car to it.

Ben

[random]

Originally posted by Ben
Those cars at Pebble beach can't possibly have been thrashed on the track (recently at least). It would seem a singularly pointless exercise to take a proper racing car to it.

Ben

Agreed, those cars are never (or very rarely) used for their intended purpose. If they were driven hard they wouldn't win the concours events.

I recently saw Jay Leno on SpeedVision regarding concours events. He had a good amount of disdain for Pebble Beach even though he's won there. He said that many of the vintage "original" cars there are actually hand built replicas. They strip a rusted out original and put half the parts in one pile and half in another. They build up cars around each pile of junk and a year later and you have two "original" cars.

In fact, many vintage concours autos have a much better paint job and general fit and finish than was ever possible with the technology time at the cars were originally built. My feeling is that most have actually been ruined by improper restoration, as they are far too perfect to be historically accurate.

Yes, I wash and detail my car much more frequently than most people, but I also take it to the race track and drive the wheels off. IMHO, concours events are an exercise in revisionist history and a waste of otherwise beautiful automobiles.

[desmo]

I agree, very few cars ever built were, even when new, up to "Pebble Beach" standards- fabulous place by the way. Perhaps a few Bugatti or Hispano-Suiza luxury cars and the like were. Then again when I went about restoring my treasured old Bartali racing bike, I had the paint done in the best catalyzed paint, had the decals clear coated, and the rechroming puts the original chrome to shame. All "improvements" that may detract from the bike's authenticity but hell, the old finish was beyond hope and the results are surely sweet eye candy! I do understand the impulse to over-restore. As most of the bike's 'history' was made by me riding it, perhaps that buys me a little leeway. Perhaps.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by random

Agreed, those cars are never (or very rarely) used for their intended purpose. If they were driven hard they wouldn't win the concours events.

I recently saw Jay Leno on SpeedVision regarding concours events. He had a good amount of disdain for Pebble Beach even though he's won there. He said that many of the vintage "original" cars there are actually hand built replicas. They strip a rusted out original and put half the parts in one pile and half in another. They build up cars around each pile of junk and a year later and you have two "original" cars.

In fact, many vintage concours autos have a much better paint job and general fit and finish than was ever possible with the technology time at the cars were originally built. My feeling is that most have actually been ruined by improper restoration, as they are far too perfect to be historically accurate.

Yes, I wash and detail my car much more frequently than most people, but I also take it to the race track and drive the wheels off. IMHO, concours events are an exercise in revisionist history and a waste of otherwise beautiful automobiles.

random,

Some of what you say is true... some is slightly flawed. Allow me to illuminate.

If Leno remarked, (caveat, I don't know if I've seen the same show), that the recent rash of original / reproduction cars are propagating places like Pebble Beach. I think what he meant to say was, that in creating a reproduction, some of the original castings and patterns have been copied to provide the fabricator / restorer with the best possible molds for authenticity in which to work off of. The insinuation that there would be "two" original cars is a misnomer and if Leno specifically stated this then he is mistaken. What you would have is an original and a authentic reproduction. There are body numbers and chassis numbers that are recorded and must match - this, for road going cars is fairly easy. Racing cars are a bit tougher to authenticate as changing configurations, rebuilds after accidents, etc., make the task more difficult to sort out.

My little restoration company restored a one-of-a-kind 1932 904 Dietrich Convertible Roadster. Before we sold the car, during its restoration, to a client, we copied the wood, door handles, top bows etc. We then used an identical chassis from another car to reproduce an identical car. This car competed in the 1985 Pebble Beach Concour d' Elegance and won third place in the Rebodied Division for Open American Classics. Note: the word, Rebodied. As there are separate classes that denote the difference. This not only exists in the Concours shows but in vintage racing as well. If one has a reproduction, authentic in every detail, then the likelihood of it's acceptance is pretty good. If the vehicle has a chassis that is different structurally or in material, a different type engine or some other substantive sub-assembly it will be most likely ineligible. Some clubs are stricter than others so it depends on the organization and the meet. i.e. The Historics at Monterey are very strict.

On another note, some cars like Duesenberg, Packard, Pierce Arrow, Isotta-Franchini & Rolls Royce just to name a few, most defiantly had craftsmanship of fit and finish just like today's Concours cars. Cars that are "over restored" don't fair well in show competition. There are however, tricks that can please the judges eye just so. Not over restored, just perfectly original. These tricks are known by the very best metal men, restorers and fabricators. I think that the cars deserve this kind of attention, as they are a permanent piece of automotive history as well as an art form.

In saying this, I'm also a staunch believer that when a "show" car finishes the Concours d' Elegance circuit, that it should be driven and used. Vintage racers should be used right away. They all should be enjoyed physically as well as visually, for only then can the true beauty and feeling be appreciated. I'd be willing to bet that Leno feels the same way.


Here are a couple of pictures of our car, we thought that she was damn near perfect.

[desmo]

Damn that Packard looks sweet, rdrcr. I wonder if it's state of finish detail would have raised an eyebrow in a contemporary showroom? Or were the examples sold in their day new that beautifully turned out?

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by biercemountain
All this leads me right back to my first point:

An F1 car on a raceday grid is turned out well enough compete at Pebble Beach.

In essence you are correct... in 15 or 20 years or so when the cars would become eligible for the Historics at Monterey, they would also be eligible for entrance into Pebble. Their condition would have to be as good as they are today when they appear on the grid for the season opener.

However, if you were comparing them in this day and age to the quality of the cars being shown, then you'd be off the mark. Only their importance for being F1 cars way back in 2002 will make them noteworthy and admired in the Pebble Beach 2020 show.

[rdrcr]

Originally posted by desmo
Damn that Packard looks sweet, rdrcr. I wonder if it's state of finish detail would have raised an eyebrow in a contemporary showroom? Or were the examples sold in their day new that beautifully turned out?

Thank you desmo, we were damn proud of that job. You are looking at 250k+ worth of restoration and fabrication in 1984 dollars. It is the most faithful and accurate job six humans could muster, IMHO. The attention to detail in building the car was better than they did in 1932, but the imperfections were still there, they're just perfect imperfections if you know what I mean.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

The intake manifold is a cast iron that has a porcelain finish on it as it came from the factory. From the factory, there were dings and dimples that happened after the part was made, then moved to the porcelain finishing dept. Then, it was put on the shelf before being taken into the assembly line for it's route onto whatever car it was destined for. All of that movement resulted in some imperfections. After all, it was a manifold for a straight eight, the manifolds builders didn't know if it was destined for this rare car or a sedan.

We took the same part, beautifully finished the manifold by metal working the whole thing to perfection, even the moulding seam, then shot-peened it to refinish the "original factory finish" just like it popped out of the mold. We then put in a couple of dings but not where they'd show too bad. It's perfectly original in every way. Just better. So when you (or a judge) looks at the piece, it's appears absolutely perfect and original... you don't know why it's better, it just is, and that's part of the trick... Like I said a car of this importance deserves this kind of treatment. Again, I'll bet we had $3,000 alone in the refinishing of the headlamp buckets. Re-coppering and re-coppering it, hand etching the lettering back into each bucket between each copper layer so that when it came time for the final re-chroming, the detail would be absolutely perfect and with incredible uniformity.

So yes the overall job would have raised eyebrows in 1932... But in 2002 it's the way to go.

[random]

Originally posted by rdrcr
Leno remarked, (caveat, I don't know if I've seen the same show), that the recent rash of original / reproduction cars are propagating places like Pebble Beach. I think what he meant to say was, that in creating a reproduction, some of the original castings and patterns have been copied to provide the fabricator / restorer with the best possible molds for authenticity in which to work off of. The insinuation that there would be "two" original cars is a misnomer and if Leno specifically stated this then he is mistaken.

Beautiful car rdrcr!

I don't know if we saw the same show or not, however I recall Leno saying that multiple "original" cars were turning up. It was one of his main problems with the concours shows. I think his sarcastic quote was something like "Of the 5 remaining Bugatti whatever's left in the world, 10 turned up at Pebble Beach this week".

The main reason he said he even bothered to show his cars at Pebble beach was so that there would be a providence of them in that state. So that they could not be chopped into two or more "original" cars after he no longer owned them. I don't think Leno would be concerned about the providence if he didn't think there was a problem with fakes eventually turning up.

And although I agree that some of the manufacturers you mention (Duesenberg, Packard, Pierce Arrow, Isotta-Franchini & Rolls Royce) may have approached the fit of modern restoration, they couldn't have accomplished the finish. Modern technology allows processes and coatings that the original builders simply did not have access to. As Desmo pointed out, his restored chrome and paint was of a much better quality than the factory finish.

I simply can't believe 1920's paint technology is anywhere close to modern paint. I also don't believe that most restoration shops are going to try to duplicate older paint technology. Especially when I suspect it would be much harder to work with and wouldn't look as good as a modern finish.

Last year I read a detailed AutoWeek article about the restoration and duplication of the 1930's Auto Union silver arrows. The restorers said the original aluminum used in these masterpieces of their age was of such a low quality, today it would only be used in lawn furniture! As a restorer, would you actually use "lawn furniture quality" aluminum in a $100,000+ restoration? Of course not and neither did they, but at the same time you and they would create a revisionist version of the automobile.

Without the right materials and finish, it's not "restoration" in my mind.

[rdrcr]

Thanks random,

Again, you are essentially correct. But no matter if you "feel" that original paint or quality of aluminum must be adhered to in the restoration of vintage automobiles, the fact remains that the standards of restoration are in concert with the importance of the cars and what their owners are willing to spend to see that they are preserved in the best way possible. I'm not going to go into debate on the merits of doing it one way or another. If it's done right and judged to be the best - then it is.

But to touch on the "quality" aspect for just a moment... As a for instance, the quality of the chrome today is better, more luster due to purer nickel and chromium content... The paint application is better, of course you need a special permit for lacquer and I don't think you can even get one of those in California any more. Other paints offer the same depth and quality as lacquer but the techniques in application have changed to make the most of what you have to work with. Still there is no substitute for metal finishing. Smooth is smooth. Only the time educated hand and eye of a true artisan can tell when a primed finish is ready to be painted.

The "Twenty-Grand" Duesenberg got it's name from how much it cost. This car can be seen in the Merle-Norman Collection outside Los Angeles. Noted Duesenberg historian, Randy Ema has stated that this car and others like it were in fact, absolutely perfect in fit and finish. Remember, 20k in 1935 is like 400k today, maybe more... A lot of labor could be extracted for that sum.

On another note... I agree that there is a problem with pirating a chassis member and a differential off of a rare car and then recreating an "original" That is flat wrong and the practice should be arrested. Those cars are not originals. And should be labeled as such. I think that this problem that Leno expounded upon will start a clamor of purist collectors that won't abide by such methods and the proper identification and authenticity will be examined and recorded into history. At least I hope it will be.

This is one of the reasons why I absolutely don't believe in restoring a perfectly good "original" car. One that has the age of time but is still intact and as assembled by hands long since departed. These are the most important cars and should be preserved in their original state. We had an original '34 Packard 12 Close-Couple sedan that was originally owned by William Wrigley (the chewing gum magnate) and we steadfastly resisted recommendations to restore the car. We ended up selling it to a collector that assured us he would never redo the car, but what happened after that is anyone's guess.

[desmo]

I'm still working on shot peening purely for cosmetic reasons!