53 replies to this topic

[Mick Walsh]

Rumour has that a clone of the Penske Ferrari 512M is to race at Le Mans this weekend. The replica debate is well-trodden ground but this is something new with a brand new car possibly using original engine and gearbox constructed alongside the genuine machine. Story has it the very wealthy owner didn't want to risk the original car but also wanted improved cockpit safety and more comfort.
The Goodwood Revival meeting saw several replicas, one claiming to be the '55 Le Mans winner setting the pace and producing a fantastic spectacle with genuine drivers at the wheel. But cloning a surviving car for a specific event is a worrying new trend. No doubt many enthusiasts will applaud the sight of the 512M blasting down the Mulsanne on Saturday if the owner hasn’t already scared himself witless but where is all this going. Critical to the debate is how the owner represents the car at Le Mans.

[Doug Nye]

Welcome Mick ... I knew you'd succumb....

DCN

[rdrcr]

Quote

Originally posted by Mick Walsh
"...Critical to the debate is how the owner represents the car at Le Mans. "

Welcome to TNF, Mick...

This debate has been discussed several times here in TNF and the ongoing opinions are still quite mixed.

I for one, feel that if this owner portrays his car exactly what it is, (a reproduction) then I would not have a problem with its being run with the rest... It's only when an owner obfuscates the lineage of a particular car by claiming some sort of authenticity, then I've got a major bone to pick.

The ability for (absolutely acurate) reproductions to appear with original cars affords the spectators with a privlage to see those cars in action, that would not otherwise occur.

[David McKinney]

May I join in the welcome Mick (whilst carefully avoiding discussing the topic in question)

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by rdrcr




I for one, feel that if this owner portrays his car exactly what it is, (a reproduction) then I would not have a problem with its being run with the rest... It's only when an owner obfuscates the lineage of a particular car by claiming some sort of authenticity, then I've got a major bone to pick.

The ability for (absolutely acurate) reproductions to appear with original cars affords the spectators with a privlage to see those cars in action, that would not otherwise occur.

Well said rdrcr.

If a replicant is fooling your senses then its doing its job, more power to those doing it for the "right" reasons.

Historic motorcycle racing feilds have been bolstered by replica's and its great to see full feilds of classics racing as they did in the day rather than say 4 bikes being nervously ridden on display.

The thought of turning up to a race meeting and seeing half a dozen 512M's against the same amount of 917's (throw in the odd Matra and Lola), is quite exciting, albeit replica's they may be.

Racing cars are for racing, porceline dolls are for collectors.

[Vilcornell]

Racing cars are for racing, porceline dolls are for collectors.

[Doug Nye]

The biggest problem which has arisen in the past where honestly declared replicas - why "replica's"??? - have been entered for historic races is the reaction of rival serious racers who are running 'proper' cars.

In the first place their 'proper' car is likely to have its doors blown off by the 'built last Tuesday' replica, and in the second place the 'proper' car's owner probably has seven figure sums invested in his treasure, while the 'replica' car's owner is merely risking a six-figure sum...and going faster.

It's a sorry fact that the more replicas that appear, the fewer real examples of the same models are being entered to run against them... Few 'real' car owners are entirely happy when their treasures are demeaned by being humbled by a fake, remake, replica, 'homage version'.... As for the laughable 'FIA Historic Paper' system intended to permit only 'real' cars to compete, well - the phrase coach and horses springs to mind...plus a few other epithets about the bureaucrats who seem to believe in that grossly debased, much-abused and almost wholly discredited 'system'.

With the powerful egos involved amongst historic car owner/drivers at the top end, who are serious racers, the acceptance of replicas by race organisers creates INTENSE - errrrr - debate....ticking...clucking...fluttering in the hen coop...protests...counter-protests...threats of boycott...we've seen it all before, real anger and spite and fury and enmity...thus far just short of actual fisticuffs or resort to law.

I am confident both will come...

DCN

[dmj]

Welcome Mick, I am every day more and more amazed how many people whose work I admire pop up in this forum...

Also welcome Vilcornell... your concise views will probably brighten up this place, judging by your posts so far...

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by Doug Nye

1/ In the first place their 'proper' car is likely to have its doors blown off by the 'built last Tuesday' replica, and in the second place the 'proper' car's owner probably has seven figure sums invested in his treasure, while the 'replica' car's owner is merely risking a six-figure sum...and going faster.

2/ It's a sorry fact that the more replicas that appear, the fewer real examples of the same models are being entered to run against them... Few 'real' car owners are entirely happy when their treasures are demeaned by being humbled by a fake, remake, replica, 'homage version'.... As for the laughable 'FIA Historic Paper' system intended to permit only 'real' cars to compete, well - the phrase coach and horses springs to mind...plus a few other epithets about the bureaucrats who seem to believe in that grossly debased, much-abused and almost wholly discredited 'system'.

3/ With the powerful egos involved amongst historic car owner/drivers at the top end, who are serious racers, the acceptance of replicas by race organisers creates INTENSE - errrrr - debate....ticking...clucking...fluttering in the hen coop...protests...counter-protests...threats of boycott...we've seen it all before, real anger and spite and fury and enmity...thus far just short of actual fisticuffs or resort to law.

I am confident both will come...

DCN

1/ I dont see how you are going to build a 512M for instance at any small cost with the nessessity for engine castings to be done from scratch for instance. I am only for actual identicle replica's, not similar as "similar" is not "the same as". For instance I think we are all aware of the Ford GT40 copy's getting around and I was looking at one the other day that had a Cleveland 351 with an upside down Renault gearbox, this isnt acceptable besides the fact that the chassis isnt built in the same manner either. The 512M which is the topic here, is it a copy power train (original maybe) or is he using something like a BB512 power train ? Is there any links to it so we can all get a better appreciation of what we are discussing ?

2/ I would have thought that the reason to encourage proper replica's would be so there is a greater number for the purpose of racing as I wouldnt think there would be any reasonable numbers presently in some classes and are they raced "flat out" ? I somehow doubt it.

3/ Yeah this about covers it for me, a cynic. Its called a class thing. I would have to believe that some of the stink is because their exclusivity is being invaded.

[Viss1]

There are enough guys out there racing ultra-rare originals to taint my opinion of racing a replica.

Where does it end? Would we get to the point where brand-new Cobra kit cars can race alongside originals? Caterhams vs. original Lotus 7's?

Of course, those with the money (rightfully) make the rules.

[lumepo03]

Why not get a DNA sample of Mark Donahue and create a clone to drive the
Penkse Ferrari or even have a replica Jim Clark drive a real Lotus 49.
Better yet give me some serious money for a fake Rolex

No matter how hard we try we can never replicate the original. Looks are
only part of the equation. Mechanical personality is another. I do not care to see someone improve upon the Porsche 917. It can be done but it would never ever be the car, that some of us would have seen the likes of Rodriguez or Siffert make dance across the tarmac.

[Roger Clark]

I find myself disagreeing with a lot of what has been said on this thread.

A replica is no substitute for the real thing. A racing car is more than a design and materials. It is the craftsmanship of the people who made it, with all the skill and the imperfections that implies. Doug's description of the Alfa 308C demonstrates this.

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=46799


However, when cars are raced parts will break and have to be replaced. We must accept that and the consequence that if a car is raced over a long period of time there may eventually not be a lot of the original left. There is, however, a vast difference between this and creating a car purely to go "historic" racing.

A further consequence is that some cars are so historic that they should not be raced, they should be maintained as closely as possible in their original condition. I am quite happy that such cars are treated as if they were porcelein dolls. An example is the Merecedes-Benz W196. I was quite happy that it was demonstrated and not raced at Goodwood recently. The risk of damaging such a car far ourweighs the pleasure of seeing it race.

With regard to Doug's last paragraph:

Quote

With the powerful egos involved amongst historic car owner/drivers at the top end, who are serious racers, the acceptance of replicas by race organisers creates INTENSE - errrrr - debate....ticking...clucking...fluttering in the hen coop...protests...counter-protests...threats of boycott...we've seen it all before, real anger and spite and fury and enmity...thus far just short of actual fisticuffs or resort to law.

It is an an unfortunate fact of life that where money goes, lawyers will eventually follow.

[David McKinney]

Quote

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
Its called a class thing. I would have to believe that some of the stink is because their exclusivity is being invaded.

Nothing to do with class, even if you do think that class is a synonym for wealth (which it ain't).
To pick up on Doug's point, there are many owners who appreciate the historical (not monetary) value of their cars, as much as you or I would. There are also many unmoneyed enthusiasts who would prefer to see historic cars - that is, cars with a history - racing on their own, without the intrusion of relatively inexpensive replicas
About ten years ago the Silverstone Festival introduced a race for GT cars - genuine SWB 250GTs, Lightweight Es, DP Aston Martins etc. After a year or two virtual modsports Austin-Healeys and the like started being admitted. Naturally enough, the drivers of £20,000 (or whatever) Healeys had no qualms about leaning on vastly more vaulable SWBs (which they wouldn't have got close to in 1960s spec). Result: the owners of the genuine historic racers stopped entering their cars. I know which race I preferred to watch

[Doug Nye]

MICK!!!

See what you've started??? - When you get back from Le Mans, talk to us...

DCN

[rdrcr]

Quote

Originally posted by Doug Nye
The biggest problem which has arisen in the past where honestly declared replicas - why "replica's"??? - have been entered for historic races is the reaction of rival serious racers who are running 'proper' cars.

In the first place their 'proper' car is likely to have its doors blown off by the 'built last Tuesday' replica, and in the second place the 'proper' car's owner probably has seven figure sums invested in his treasure, while the 'replica' car's owner is merely risking a six-figure sum...and going faster.

It's a sorry fact that the more replicas that appear, the fewer real examples of the same models are being entered to run against them... Few 'real' car owners are entirely happy when their treasures are demeaned by being humbled by a fake, remake, replica, 'homage version'.... As for the laughable 'FIA Historic Paper' system intended to permit only 'real' cars to compete, well - the phrase coach and horses springs to mind...plus a few other epithets about the bureaucrats who seem to believe in that grossly debased, much-abused and almost wholly discredited 'system'.

With the powerful egos involved amongst historic car owner/drivers at the top end, who are serious racers, the acceptance of replicas by race organisers creates INTENSE - errrrr - debate....ticking...clucking...fluttering in the hen coop...protests...counter-protests...threats of boycott...we've seen it all before, real anger and spite and fury and enmity...thus far just short of actual fisticuffs or resort to law.

I am confident both will come...

DCN

After a bit of lip-biting, more pondering and perhaps one too many cocktails... I propose the following: First, in attempt to create some sort of uniformity in the nomenclature when referring to (in this case) "reproductions" or a "remanufactured" car which is what they are (or should be), not "replicas" which IMHO, are nothing more than a close, or as the case maybe, not so close facsimile. A reproduction or remanufacured car is an exact duplicate of an original car. The only caveat being, the various improvements which may be made in the interest of safety and driver control being the only latitudes allowed.

When some refer to these cars as "replicas" the image of something close but not quite exact always enters my mind. In an effort to correct such, I touched on these nomenclature definitions in a thread , so as to better create some sort of uniformity in the definitions around here (at least)...alas, only Don managed to voice an opinion - and in my favor I might add.

Having created a true reproduction, and having garnered many accolades for it, I take a bit of umbrage to Roger's comment about the new fabicators lack of devotion to detail, workmanship and passion that is put into making such a car. Ours was a perfect reproduction - right down to the imperfections. Perhaps some have little regard for the past, but not I, and certainly not others.

Doug, I think it's somewhat presumptuous of you to think that owners of original cars would be upset or discouraged from running their originals should an entrant bring a "...built last Tuesday..." reproduction to the event. Of course, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you may very well have 1st-hand knowledge of some dissention from some owners... and, in which case, they have their right to opinion which in turn, may have triggered yours. However, I'd like to stress that if the car is truly a reproduction, it will be accurate in every detail, leaving only improved performance characteristics of the engine and drivetrain and suspension within the guidelines of the original - thus, depending upon set-up, producing the result of a car no better or worse than an original. Moreover, the owner of an original car has every right to improve his mount to the letter of the rules, either for safety or performance - just the same.

Further... To attempt to debunk the notion that there is some sort of "threshold" of performance in the driving of the original verses a reproduction based upon the fact of investment dollars is to prejudge the mindsets of those involved. Again, if the fellow who has just spent 1.5 million recreating a Ferrari P3 to go up against an original P3 with a value of 4.5 million, do you really think that the fellow who has just invested that sum, is piloting or is having piloted, his 1.5 million dollar reproduction, has any less feeling towards his pride and joy -so as to take any unwarranted risk against his car? I think, it's just as safe to say, much as you have said about their "feeling" towards reproductions competing against them, that the owners of such cars would not be as visceral in their driving? I'm pretty sure that the fellow who cannot buy a P3 (for there are none for sale) has his reproduction up against original GT40's and other makes of the era, would also have other original cars and be just as much an enthusiast and lover of the "original" as the next guy. - who also happens to have a 30 million dollar collection of cars.

I tell you... it's all relative. and I'll agree with David - to a point - It has nothing to do with class, and everything to do with integrity. If I had the means, (and some day I very well might), but not the ability to own a P3, or Jaguar X13, or Gran Sport Corvette, or some other car built from unobtainium - If I really had to have one, I'd have one built exactly the same. I would portray it as such, and I'd hope and pray that if I tried to enter the car in the Monterey Historics, I'd be granted an entry. If for no other reason but because there wasn't an original at the event, and my car was an exact duplicate, or as I term it, a reproduction - of an original car. This business of calling "relatively inexpensive replicas" is, to me, the envious, casting down opinion upon the privileged. (Perhaps I have taken liberties with the context) Though I truly understand that owners of original 250 GT would have a problem racing in an event with replica, nee hot-rodded, Healey's. So, I'd think this should be the exception to the rule and thus, IMO, the problem really lies with the organizers and sanctioning bodies. No?

Then again, pehaps I should refrain from too much imbibing before typing...



hoo boy... 'er we go again...

[Roger Clark]

Quote

Originally posted by rdrcr



Having created a true reproduction, and having garnered many accolades for it, I take a bit of umbrage to Roger's comment about the new fabicators lack of devotion to detail, workmanship and passion that is put into making such a car. Ours was a perfect reproduction - right down to the imperfections. Perhaps some have little regard for the past, but not I, and certainly not others.

My comment was not about lack of devotion, workmanship or passion. It was that these things will always be different in a reproduction. A copy of a Maserati will never be a Maserati no matter how much devotion, workmanship or passion is put into ite building.

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by David McKinney


1/ There are also many unmoneyed enthusiasts who would prefer to see historic cars - that is, cars with a history - racing on their own, without the intrusion of relatively inexpensive replicas

2/ I know which race I preferred to watch

1/ Enthusiast's come from all backgrounds, you dont need much money to enter a racetrack.
I dont know where this relatively inexpensive part comes from, your Aus.$60,000 Austin Healeys are a unobtainium to me and theres only 1 solitary thing that makes historic anything of value and thats emotion. If they look sound and do the same thing as an original I have no problem watching them and I'm an enthusiast so your certainly not speaking for me.


2/ But how would you know if you didnt know ?

In a workshop one day a fellow mechanic said to me "what temperature do you reckon it is" ?, I glanced over at the big thermometer we had on our workshop wall and I said 23 degrees.
He said "oh thats not bad then" but as I had actually just quickly glanced at it looking again I realised it was actually 32 degrees just seeing the 2 and the 3 in a dislexic sort of a way.
I said "Sorry its 32 degrees, not 23", upon which he said "wow thats hot, I'm taking my jumper off".

Hypotheticl
Jack; Wow John, what a stunning Ferrari 512M that just drove by, the sight and sound takes me back, even puts a tear in my eye !
John: Thats a replica Jack.
Jack: WHAT !!! Shouldnt be allowed, off with his willy I say.

[Doug Nye]

rdrcr - over more years than you've probably been deeply involved we've been there, done this, had the conversations, had the arguments, seen the flak...
The situation in British and European historic racing re replicas/reproductions/facsimiles/fakes is indeed as I and Dave McK described. And so are the attitudes, prejudices, partisanships etc amongst participants. Remember that the Lancia D50 replica/facsimile operation of recent years was triggered by four enthusiasts - one of them me. I just happen to have a foot in both camps - fortunately I used to holiday in the tiny Austrian Alpine village of Doodersplitz...

DCN

[ensign14]

Can they just not set up a replica championship? I'd like to see the protests - 'that's not a replica Connew, it uses the same third rivet on the left as the original PC1 and it is therefore Genuine...'

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by Roger Clark


My comment was not about lack of devotion, workmanship or passion. It was that these things will always be different in a reproduction. A copy of a Maserati will never be a Maserati no matter how much devotion, workmanship or passion is put into ite building.

No it wouldnt be a Maserati simply because it wasnt built by Maserati and only a fool would pretend it was but in relation to being not identicle dont think for a moment that Maserati themselves built any 2 the same either and the variations between any thing built from metal by hand in small quantities is great, Ive done it I know, and a reproduction would easily be able to fit within those variations of the originals.

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by ensign14
Can they just not set up a replica championship? I'd like to see the protests - 'that's not a replica Connew, it uses the same third rivet on the left as the original PC1 and it is therefore Genuine...'

No you run the races under the VERY successful historic motorcycle lines;

Overall..

"Major components that were manufactured outside a specific period, but which are visually indistinguishable from period components shall be eligible for that period".

"Minor components may be modified or updated provided that they remain visually compatible with the period being depicted".

"Bodywork components must be based on patterns known and used from that period".

A couple of other points...

"Replica chassis are acceptable provided they conform with the original, and they meet the year cut off dates for the class in which the machine is to compete. It is not acceptable for chassis tube runs to be different to the original even if the chassis geometry is unchanged. The machine must look like the original".

"No fibreglass or plastic is permitted for mudguards, seats, and bodywork pre 1960".

These rules work and have worked for a while now, fields are large all over the world and yes many machines are replica's but many are also originals.

"There are more Norton Manx's now racing than were made" is often quoted and this is great for the racers themselves who want to race many others and great obviously for spectators in difference to 3 or 4 bikes running around "on display".

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by Doug Nye
rdrcr - over more years than you've probably been deeply involved we've been there, done this, had the conversations, had the arguments, seen the flak...

DCN

I started an historic motorcycle racing club with 6 members 8 years ago and have built it up to this day where 50/60 competitors roll up for events now.
I have spent a large amount of the time devoted to dealing with the issue of eligibility and replica's and decisions I have made have also ended up altering Motorcycling Australia's rule book so dont make the assumption that some of us are just sideline "experts".

I am particuly interested in this subject as my next racecar, the 10th I will have built, is most likely going to be a 50's historic sedan or a pre 1940 GP type from scratch.

I would like to build a 50's front engined open wheeler with the OSCA racing engine I got, but it is a class open only to "cars with previous racing history".

Fascist's. :

[Tepid shoe]

The 512/not 512 didn't show at Le Mans. Denied entrance apparently and the owner took that and all his other toys home. The meeting (which was rather better than expected) did throw up an equally important matter to this debate, XKD 505 (or not XKD 505 as the case may be).
As a lot of people know this car was bought at Coys, Rockingham, two years ago for about £350,000 a price which clearly reflects its status as a "moody" D-type. Anyone who wants to know its history should read Andrew Whyte's magnificent book, but the basic facts are that even when built it was accepted that the only part of this car which might even possibly have carried Mike Hawthorn and Ivor Bueb to Le Mans victory in 1955 was the front subframe. I say "might even possibly" because there is no proof whatsoever that this subframe actually was on the car and Jaguar did have spares. The car was subsequently, and openly, built up by Bill Lake.
Anyway, it was said that the new owner Nigel Webb, a well-known collector and Hawthron fan who turned up to the sale in a frankly superb XJ13 rep, knew exactly what he was buying, would have paid a great deal more for it and was content to own the car just as it was.
Lo and behold, at Goodwood this year and now at Le Mans, this car turns up with ex-works driver Win Percy at the wheel and Mr Webb with Norman Dewis and supposedly (I didn't actually see her) Jean Ireland (nee Howarth, ie Hawthorn's ex) in tow. From the goodness of his heart, or to lend the car credibility? It was rather unedifying either way.
Throughout the Le Mans weekend, the glorious yowl of this dominant's car engine was drowned out only by the sound of poor old Neville Hay spluttering justification and apologies as to why it should be accepted as the real thing. Unconvingingly as it happens.
Worse still a big box of flyers was put by the car (and I am told posted in the Media Centre) by the Webbs which completely rewrites the car's history to a degree which had me spitting my Rice Krispies all over the paddock. While admitting certain truths it paints a far rosier picture than the reality and refers only to a rebuild in the 1970s not the fact that this current car was actually built from scratch in the 1970s.

OK gang, so when does enthusiasm become passing off? And what should be done about it?



PS And what are these bloody irritating little yellow faces blinking at me at the top of the screen?

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by Tepid shoe
Throughout the Le Mans weekend, the glorious yowl of this dominant's car engine w

OK gang, so when does enthusiasm become passing off? And what should be done about it?



PS And what are these bloody irritating little yellow faces blinking at me at the top of the screen?

Depends on whats trying to be "passed off"

Should be encouraged, didnt you just say "the glorious yowl" yourself.

Click once on those little yellow faces and they will land where you last clicked like this

[Tepid shoe]

I agree some replicas are to be encouraged as I have posted on the D50 thread, but the point has also been made that it all depends on how the owner represents the car. I suppose that is the point here: what is to stop people building, blurring or rewriting histoiries for cars which they are not entitled to, as would appear to be happening with 505?

Should there not be races for those cars with impeccable provenance and another race for replicas/recreations/built-up facsimiles etc? I suppose not as just about everything seems to be a hot-rod anyway.


PS Thanks for the information on the gragoyles, I do not think I will be troubling them.

[Vitesse2]

If you really find the smilies annoying, you can turn them off: click on "User CP" at the top of the page, then "Edit options". Scroll down to "Use vBCode quick links on your message input screens?" and check no (default is yes) and then press "submit modifications". However, this does make some other functions like colour, bold, italic and underlining more difficult to use.

Back on topic, surely it is time that the leading sanctioning bodies, archives, museums etc worldwide got together and agreed a common standard for what is and isn't an acceptable historic racing car and wrote watertight definitions to clarify the difference between the real thing and replicas/clones/copies/reproductions, not to mention "rebuilds based on the spirit of the original". Once a common standard is agreed then a proper licensing system can be worked out , a register established and everyone will know where they stand ..... gosh it's nice here in Cloud Cuckoo Land

[Criceto]

Grr.... those flyers being handed out about the perceived history of XKD505. I spent a good while over dinner on Saturday night (Shanghai des 24 heures, naturellement) debunking what was written on those sheets while the car itself was yowling past as if in protest every six minutes or so.

The only thing I think can be said in favour of replicas is that they can give people a look at a car in competition which would not otherwise come out to play. If they are allowed to compete thus, perhaps it would stop certain other owners being quite so precious about what they would like us to believe about the history of their cars.

I would have enjoyed seeing a Ferrari 512-type taking on the Porsche 917 at Le Mans, and while the sight of a 917 coming through Arnage made me a little tearful if truth be known, I don't think I would have felt any the less about the equivalent Ferrari if I knew it to be a recent construction. After all, we seem reasonably ready nowadays to accept Cameron Millar Masers, Bamford Dinos and ERA AJM1, all contentious cars in their day.

And perhaps a faithful reproduction of a W196 should be seen on 1950s HGPCA grids. Certainly, it could get no worse reaction than David Coulthard's demonstration of the works car at Goodwood. Don't believe the Mercedes PR fluff for a second. There were catcalls at Madgwick and St Marys on both days over Coulthard being given the run of the track for a while without the risk of himself or the car being overshadowed. "Why not race the (expletive)?" was heard, as well as a contemptuous "there's at least two more gears in there somewhere".

[dretceterini]

Of course more and more parts need to be replaced the longer a car exists, but at what point is the car no longer a "historic" vehicle, and becomes a "replicar"? 50%? 75%?

In my opinion (see Multi-Union thread) it is when the majority of chassis components have been altered, removed or even replaced.

To my mind, an Alfa P3 with new frame rails plus a motor that is mostly modern components is not an Alfa at all.


Opinions please...

[Mark Beckman]

Quote

Originally posted by dretceterini

To my mind, an Alfa P3 with new frame rails plus a motor that is mostly modern components is not an Alfa at all.


Opinions please...

Metal rusts, has to be replaced.

If its faithfully reproduced I dont see the issue.

As for motors I would venture to say that many historic racers use modern components, Ive certainly helped a few of them out with such parts.

For example, only an idiot would put a 50 year old set of conrods or valves back into a motor for the purposes of historic racing.

[dbw]

gee..been there,done that..
i have had rather intimate relationships with a pair of gp bugattis over the past [more than a] few years....
the first was a t-37 that i made TOTALLY from scratch....with many cars around to measure,and much help from the BOC it can be done....now keep in mind this was an EXACT replica...the only parts not hand made were the sparkplugs,wires,inner tubes[i guess one can count 710-90 dunlops as custom made]all the ball bearings[a few had to be modified],coil,battery,and the distributor and cap....
now the rest of the car may seem trivial but imagine MAKING a complete engine..to factory drawings!! having a sump cast and machined...a crankshaft whittled from a large billet...[not to mention a REAL billet cam!]rods,pistons[forgot..used modern rings]oil pump and drive,water pump and all the hose elbows,block,flywheel.....
well you get the idea...add all the other large components,gearbox,rear end[all gears and shafts machined to spec and hardened]..frame rails beaten over a form,a complete body,a radiator and gas tank,and the fiddly bits..the instruments had to be made by hand[thanks mark]and of course mr bugatti made all his own fasteners..so guess what...
the best story was that i had to contact an english gentleman that had to lean on his contact in spain to borrow BACK the patterns for the small brake beaded edge alloy wheels,and have them cast in england[and then failed to machine them as contracted!]shipping me a load of raw castings for me to sort out...got my wheels tho...
learned to engine turn,scrape,file finish,polish..any number of arcane skills you will never[well maybe never]use again...

suffice to say,it was a huge effing job that i never envisioned getting so out of hand...as it turns out for the money and time expended i could have easily bought a "real" car..however,it did allow me to spread the cost over quite a few years..and i guess i had fun.
i represented the car as a replica and actually was quite proud i never had to resort to using a "real"part!!!the car fraternity found the car to be rather more interesting than a factory one if for no other reason than it was new and yet completly authentic.
i was able to sell the car for enough to get the pile of real pieces to restore the t-35....yet another story..but suffice to say i was able to use my engine turning skills again!!!
i guess the point here is that if i saw a ..say ferrari sharknose "replica" that EACH and every PART was hand made to perfectly replace the original real one, then i would be greatly impressed...
oh, buy the way,the "fake" t-37 not only looked right,it started,ran,sounded, drove and handled exactly as in 1927...if it were only possible,my late friend "uncle bob" sutherland could tell a few good "replica" stories as well.

and by the way,this "idiot" reinstalled a 70 year old roller crankshaft..along with the original pistons,valves and springs...i vintage race it and it runs fine.[original air for the tires was tough,but i figured it's most likely the same air out there anyway.].

[Mark Beckman]

Now thats impressive dbw !

By the way, I have personally repaired historic motors of who's owners thought that they could run old conrods and valve springs, it wasnt an opinion.

Then I am not aware of your Bugattis insides or its history either, I dont get to work on half million dollar cars, just good old Aussie and British iron.

As for old cranks, I dont have any issues with them, never mentioned them and after seeing pics of the Buggatti crank I have to think that it would be good for a few hundred years !

[dretceterini]

dwb:

Sorry, but it doesn't really matter to me how perfect a replica one builds, nor how impressive the work is, it's still a replica. Your car is a dwb and not a Bugatti, as far as I am concerned.

Were your efforts worthwhile YES
Are they to be valued? YES
Is your car an example of expert workmanship YES

But is is still not a Bugatti...

[Mark Beckman]

Thats true Dretceterini, but this is what was trying to be acheived .....

"oh, buy the way,the "fake" t-37 not only looked right,it started,ran,sounded, drove and handled exactly as in 1927.."

and if it acheived that , then job done

I am utterly impressed dbw, I've built racecars from existing cars and I am aware of the time that you must have put in for that project and it had to be a staggering amount of time.

Well I did build an offroad racing buggy from scratch, but not a lot involved and there was no restrictions on how I did it either, even that took me a good 12 months to build.

[petefenelon]

Quote

Originally posted by Criceto

I would have enjoyed seeing a Ferrari 512-type taking on the Porsche 917 at Le Mans, and while the sight of a 917 coming through Arnage made me a little tearful if truth be known, I don't think I would have felt any the less about the equivalent Ferrari if I knew it to be a recent construction. After all, we seem reasonably ready nowadays to accept Cameron Millar Masers, Bamford Dinos and ERA AJM1, all contentious cars in their day.

Trouble with the CM "250Fs" and AJM1 is that they've now got long histories in their own right and are, by at least some definition of the word, "historic" themselves. After all, look at how many race starts some of those "fakes" have made Personally I've never quite understood how the Millar 250Fs can be regarded as anything like the real thing, given that the real thing's hardly scarce....

pete

[Doug Nye]

Interesting points about Maserati 250F replicars by Cameron Miller.

The President of the FIA Historic Commission owns and sometimes races a CM car.

Several CM cars - most notably the earlier ones - actually feature MORE genuinely Maserati-made in-period components than some 'REAL' 250Fs which have been badly battered, mauled, re-chassised, re-bodied, re-engined etc during their long active lives...

So where do the philosophies take us then????

As the happy constructor of a totally fake C-Type Jaguar (thanks to Proteus for the basic kit) this real/replica/fake/facsimile/reconstruction/rebuild malarkey becomes very confusing.

The one thing of which I am absolutely NOT confused is that I have never come across any activity outside Historic car racing in which MORE ego and MORE willing self-delusion can be found...

DCN

[David McKinney]

Quote

Originally posted by Doug Nye
The President of the FIA Historic Commission owns and sometimes races a CM car.

Make that "owned" and "sometimes raced"
That particular car is now resident in Switzerland

[Flaminiasupersport]

About replicas, recreations, originals...

Many classic racers, take Hawthorn's D-type or Fangio's 250 F... were not regarded as something special in those days. When back in the factory they were often used as a spare parts bin or dismantled and modified for a next race.

It's only many years later that the hype began, and prices or value increased. And as with most things, when money is involved, things change profoundly. See what prices are paid for a steering wheel that Fangio had in his hands... no wonder a lot of other steering wheels show up which he used too, even in some obscure or inexistant races...

Same with cars... I'd love to see an original 250 F as used by Fangio, or a magnificent D50 used by Collins, Musso or Portago.. but they don't exist anymore. Maybe a nose cowl somewhere or a bent wheel... And should this be the case... I'd prefer to see it in a museum unaltered and preserved, than used and abused in some vintage races. If it is used, it must be in fine order, meaning new wheels, tyres, seats etc... and there goes the original car!

I enjoy recreations, even replicas if well made, but the silly stories about their lineage or history makes me smile most of the time. Any person who attempts to recreate a race car should be encouraged but in my opinion their work will be much more appreciated if they show it as a nut and bolt recreation, instead of a "barn find" original!

I love the "new" D50!

[willga]

Just to play devil's advocate...

Alot of these arguments about replicas vs originals seem to be based around what "we, the enthusiasts" want to see.

Nowadays, with no starting/prize money, race entry fees up to £400 in club meeting or £1000's for the international stuff, no gate money for competitors...

just how important are the enthusiast spectators and what they'd like to see?

Especially now that the big events are being taken over by corporate types who don't really care what's going round as long as the champers keeps flowing in the hospitality suites.

[Arjan de Roos]

With regard to the Ferrari 512 S and M:

Indeed some recreations and replicas are around. But some factors should be considered:
-1- This car was also so sold as a kit by the factory. Hence some cars had to be constructed outside the factory. Is this a real car then?
-2- Some of these kits were used to repare crashed cars. The 512 serie are even numbered 1002 up until 1050 (so 25 chassis). Manfredini owned 1022, 1032 and 1050. Kit 1022 was used to replace 1032 after a crash. New chassis renumbered 1032. Then they converted 1032bis to M specs. They used chassis 1050 (still unbuild kit). Is 1032 real or?
-3- A 512 S was crashed during filming 'Le Mans'. It was destroyed. Then restored in the seventies by an UK based specialist. Recreation or replica?
-4- Chassis 1040 was to become the famous Penske Sunoco car. When they received the car in the US, Penske et al where quite disappointed with the handling of the car and started to modify it... extensively. New light weight body, different uprights and also a different chassis (see the aluminium underbody, quite different to a standard 512S. When Peter Heuberger received 1040, he got crates with many parts for 1040, amongst others a chassis, was this 1040 original chassis. What happened with it?
-5- Car 1008 was unfortunately and fatally crashed by Pedro Rodriguez. Car was destroyed. However the engine and drive train used in a new car. Recreation, remake or replica?
-6- What about the 512F?

Many details, but just to illustrate that 'Genuine', 'Remake', 'Recreation' and 'Replica' are often mistaken but also very close with only a thin border line in between. A clear set of definitions would be a solution but seems a difficult task to make let alone implement.

[ray b]

grand-pa's hammer
dad replaced the handel
and I replaced the head
but thats still grand-pa's hammer


with the insane values on the cars today
repli-cars are in my oppinon a safer saner way to see the cars in action
having watched some real old cars driven too slowly in a "race"
while the repro were pushed giving a better show

not in favor of a repro sold as a real car
thats fraud
but I guess it is more about seeing a good race
or watching a old car parade


I like races

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by Arjan de Roos
With regard to the Ferrari 512 S and M:


-5- Car 1008 was unfortunately and fatally crashed by Pedro Rodriguez. Car was destroyed. However the engine and drive train used in a new car. Recreation, remake or replica?

I spoke the man who'se building up that replica and I have also seen that replica. He insists that, though the engine is an original, it is a replica since the owner of the original car kept the chassis plate of the wreck in order to prevent that the genuine car could be built up again or someone claiming that the original car has been built up again..


Henri

[Clement]

Sadly, nothings new

the fake who was accepted at le mans classic http://www.fordgt40-1012.com/fr/

the real who was rejected www.gt40-1012.com

[Yorgos]

Quote

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


I spoke the man who'se building up that replica and I have also seen that replica. He insists that, though the engine is an original, it is a replica since the owner of the original car kept the chassis plate of the wreck in order to prevent that the genuine car could be built up again or someone claiming that the original car has been built up again..


Henri

So it's a matter of who owns the original chassis plate. Therefore if a chopped original chassis plate finds its way to a replica does it turn it into an original car (or should I say a reasonably acceptable original)?

Yorgos

[Clement]

a real car is more than a chassis plate !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by Yorgos


So it's a matter of who owns the original chassis plate. Therefore if a chopped original chassis plate finds its way to a replica does it turn it into an original car (or should I say a reasonably acceptable original)?

Yorgos

If that's what you want to conclude out of my comment: go ahead believe that.

The only thing I wanted to share with the member here is that I knowe the man who builts that replica and I know that he is not telling the world on any show that `his` 512 is a genuine one.
Anything more you want to conclude on my message is on your own risk.

And if that is not clear enough:

I didn't vent or don't vent any opinion, personal or whatever about when a car is real, replica or whatever in this thread. Anybody who felt I did so herebey made a wrong conclusion because I didn't and don't do such.

Henri

[Arjan de Roos]

Henri,

Quite clear! The chassis plate was removed by Herbert Mueller (owner of the car at that time) and kept by him for some time.

I guess a lot can be said on people are quite honest about the origin of there cars (part by part I guess) and good documented history of racing cars.

[Henri Greuter]

Quote

Originally posted by Arjan de Roos
Henri,

Quite clear! The chassis plate was removed by Herbert Mueller (owner of the car at that time) and kept by him for some time.

I guess a lot can be said on people are quite honest about the origin of there cars (part by part I guess) and good documented history of racing cars.

Is this the same Herbert Mueller who crashed to his death at the Nurnburgring 1980 in a 908?


I know about one case of a "replicar" that's popular wherever it goes since the original don't exist anymore.

Barney Oldfield's `Golden Submarine (`Golden egg`) was a mighty popular contender around 1920 but not existing anymore. A replica of the car has been built up, using, among replicaparts, some original Miller pieces.
It has always been told about the car that it is a replica but ever since it appeared, its one of the most popular cars ever at Goodwood at the Festival of Speed.

Henri

[Arjan de Roos]

Quote

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

Is this the same Herbert Mueller who crashed to his death at the Nurnburgring 1980 in a 908?


I know about one case of a "replicar" that's popular wherever it goes since the original don't exist anymore.

Henri

Yes, this is the one and only. He invited Pedro to drive his then second 512M at the Norisring as Pedro did not have a F1 or major Sports Car Race.

There are several 512S/M known replicas. Have to look up (as they are often using some or many parts of a certain chassis), but they are pretty good.

[Clement]

a few 512 replica was built in england by a ferrari dealer

[T54]

Man, what a difficult subject!
Wanting to add a bit of cooler water to the mill, what of cars built from new-old-stock parts, with no race history but absolutely and entirely built of 33 years old genuine and documented parts left over on the shelves from a production run of some quite successful cars, including body, chassis with original serial numbers (cars never completed), every engine and gearbox part, bolts and nuts and even wheels? Where do they belong in this mess and do they have any more or any less credibility than of replicas built mostly from newly fabricated chassis, bodies and often engine and transmission castings as I have seen in some well known "Ferraris", "Jaguars" or "DP214 MKII" or whatever?

Don't shoot me but I am actually doing this right now...