Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 6312
Location: Derby
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks, Lowdrag. I know next to nothing about historic car racing so your correction is welcome. The main thing for spectators must be whether or not it is worth watching but I imagine there must be a fair bit of anger in the paddock? Perhaps that particular D type should be give the nickname "Pinocchio"?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rich5ltr
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 678
Location: Hampshire, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikeC wrote: | | lowdrag wrote: | | ...It is interesting seeing some of the attitudes here. This forum is more die-hard than others, with people more Luddite than elsewhere. I don't mean this rudely, but there aren't many here Under 40 I guess from the posts... |
Perhaps my earlier post gave the impression that I am against replicas; I am not. If I could afford one, I would have a decent C-Type replica tomorrow. I am not enamoured of the many AC Cobra replicas, but then I am not enthusiastic about the originals, either!
As for the SS100, it's a very attractive car, and I can see the appeal of a replica at perhaps 20% of the price of an original. But my point was that at £75,000 for a replica, I would sooner spend the money on some other genuine 1930s sporting car - an Offord-bodied Talbot 90, for instance, is presently available for £70,000 and is in my opinion a better car than even a genuine SS100!
As I pointed out, Excaliburs should now qualify for full classic status on age alone; perhaps if we consider age a significant factor then a brand new replica may not qualify, but I would certainly consider it an enthusiast's car to be welcomed at any 'old car' show. |
It seems MikeC and I are mostly in agreement on this topic. And I agree Tony/Lowdrag our hobby should be fun, it’s hard enough running old cars so it blooming well needs to be!
My comments on page 2 were purely mine on the subject having been through the lengthy thought process of “Shall I buy a Suffolk SS100 or perhaps I should buy an (Andrew Soar) AMS DBR1 replica”. In the event I decided I'd rather spend the money on a real old car than a replica of one that’s out of my league and now enjoy the DB MkIII and the Lagonda. The fact that a replica would go faster, handle better and keep you drier is paradoxically the very reason I didn’t buy one.
p.s. my use of the term "Fake Snake" (not intentionally derogatory) was used because I always have an image of plastic Cobra look alikes with Cortina running gear and a Rover V8 up front. Not my cup of tea but to someone else it’s good fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lowdrag
Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Posts: 1585
Location: Le Mans
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No worries Mike. Never even saw you had used it, and I know you wouldn't have used it in a derogatory sense anyway. Most of us here, unlike some other sites I could mention, respect each others views. We rub a!omg, each of our own persuasion but we are all headed in the same direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JC T ONE
Joined: 30 Oct 2008
Posts: 1139
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can relate to all that has been written on this thread, and agree aswell.
The thing that stops me from buying (apart fom money) one of these "recreations" is the lack of heritage - as they dont have any history.
If you go to a car show with one of these, the conversation stops, after you tell people "ohh its the new light weight E type Jaag" nothing more to add, as the car itself dont have any heritage/history.
It will still be a nice car, but just the same as any new Ferrari or Lambo.
This is only my personal opinion, as I like & prefer cars that have a history.
Any car with a good history/past will always be SOO much more, than a simelar car, without history - again my personal opinion.
_________________
http://www.eurods.eu/wp/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 6312
Location: Derby
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You sum it up rather well, JC. I would like the build aspect and probably enjoy driving the finished article but would never buy a kit built by someone else. I would feel like a fraud taking a replica to a classic car show but might consider showing it at a kit car convention - if I felt it was good enough.
Part of the trouble is that, in my opinion, there are so many dreadful creations out there. I am sure the owners are proud of them, none the less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
llllmikellll
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Heatherton, SE of Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:20 am Post subject: Not confusing if you consider fundamental principals. |
|
|
| Keith D wrote: | I am in the 'genuine' camp only. I have absolutely no interest in replica vehicles using 2016 mechanicals.
But then there are the 'in-betweens' - a car that is totally original mechanically, but for whatever reason has had a replica body built and fitted. Or even a different original body from another car of the same make. For example, a tourer body fitted instead of the original sedan body. I believe there are so many vintage Bentley sedans running about with Vanden Plas tourer style bodies fitted that the sedans are becoming an endangered species!
I tend to regard these vehicles as 'kosher' because many 1920's vehicles were built without bodies.
My friend has a 1926 Chrysler, mechanically identical to mine. They are both tourers, but the bodies are very different. His body was built in 1926 by Holden (Melbourne), mine was built in 1926 by Richards (Adelaide). They were both sold new as the same car. Which one is genuine?
The whole subject gets very confusing!
Keith |
There seems a lot of confusion in the motoring world about this point.
A vehicle is not defined by the body shell. That is why the primary identifier is stamped onto the chassis or space frame.
It is that component which brings all the other major components together to form a vehicle. The body is just one of them, and not even essential in some cases.
There are many examples where a vehicle is supplied without a body so as to have an owners choice of coachbuilder to put a top on it.
In the case above, both are genuine.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
llllmikellll
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Heatherton, SE of Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:29 am Post subject: Like anything else, consider fundamental principals. |
|
|
A classic is a classic because it is old.
Replicas will be classic in their turn.
They are not classics now.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 6312
Location: Derby
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:01 pm Post subject: Re: Like anything else, consider fundamental principals. |
|
|
| llllmikellll wrote: | A classic is a classic because it is old.
Replicas will be classic in their turn.
They are not classics now.
Mike |
Not necessarily. The replicas that interest me most are those which are already mostly old. An example is where a bog standard vintage car has been modified to replicate a famous racing model. Take the M type MG midget, for example. The body on the standard car was very cheaply built and over 80 years on a complete rebuild may have been necessary. I have seen a couple that have been re designed as "Double Twelve" racers. There was surprisingly little difference between these racers and the standard car in their day and the replicas have all period correct MG parts. They look terrific. Definitely a Classic car in my opinion.
"Replica" is something of a misnomer when attributed to many modern confections, as a car which may look old but have modern mechanicals is more a "pastiche" than a replica. If your definition of a classic car is just another word for "old" then these creations may well become regarded as classics given the passage of time. If the term classic (which means different things to different people) involves some kind of pedigree then I doubt they will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
Posts: 1953
Location: East Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the very early 1970's, with full permissions, [and agreements] from powers-that-were.....2 replicas of the Mk2 Dellow were made.
These are just as viable in terms of being Dellows as any original Dellow..but are always acknowledged as 'Dellow Reps'....
In my eyes, the Dellows are not 'classic cars' in the modernist accepted sense....they are simply, quite old, but very viable, proper, real ''Sports cars''....capable, in a variety of motor sporting competitions, even today.
[But not a car to go touring in, or to be 'seen' in...even though I have 'toured' in mine.....driving it really is like taking a full week's yoga classes.....yet, a soft bag or two, maybe a tent, can be lashed on somewhere behind.
Plus, non-tarmac surfaces [cross country, or off-road] can be tackled with impunity.
A trait much missed in later motor cars?] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colwyn500
Joined: 21 Oct 2012
Posts: 1745
Location: Nairn, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was tipped off to watch a series of "restoration"/modification videos made about a 1980 Mini; in my mind that's just about viable as a classic car. The catch is that by the time the car is finished, despite it being likely to look fairly original it will actually be a completely different, hand-crafted, one-off special.
But I still think that it will be a classic car because the craftmanship and attention to detail possibly surpasses that which is applied in the case of many "as-original" restorations.
So quality, style and the intent to make something that will outlast the everyday car, are factors that have equal importance to me as does an arbitrary cut-off date of manufacture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hCPODjJO7s&list=PLGSOZAHg1yQHU1tc_3Y5MTQg1qjtxA_nq |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UK Roy
Joined: 16 May 2017
Posts: 9
Location: Wakefield
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:18 pm Post subject: Are replicas classic cars? |
|
|
| I think along the same lines as Ray and one or two others that replicas are just that! There are some excellent reproductions about. But to me a classic is a car that was built in the years of factory production, and can be proven to be so. Let's face it there are a lot of classic cars that would not be around were it not for repro-parts that are available for them produced by genuine enthusiasts! Certainly I would class replicas ( good ones ) as of special interest and classed as such at shows. UK Roy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lowdrag
Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Posts: 1585
Location: Le Mans
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:11 am Post subject: Re: Like anything else, consider fundamental principals. |
|
|
| Ray White wrote: | | llllmikellll wrote: | A classic is a classic because it is old.
Replicas will be classic in their turn.
They are not classics now.
Mike |
Not necessarily. The replicas that interest me most are those which are already mostly old. An example is where a bog standard vintage car has been modified to replicate a famous racing model. Take the M type MG midget, for example. The body on the standard car was very cheaply built and over 80 years on a complete rebuild may have been necessary. I have seen a couple that have been re designed as "Double Twelve" racers. There was surprisingly little difference between these racers and the standard car in their day and the replicas have all period correct MG parts. They look terrific. Definitely a Classic car in my opinion.
"Replica" is something of a misnomer when attributed to many modern confections, as a car which may look old but have modern mechanicals is more a "pastiche" than a replica. If your definition of a classic car is just another word for "old" then these creations may well become regarded as classics given the passage of time. If the term classic (which means different things to different people) involves some kind of pedigree then I doubt they will. |
A real conundrum ain't it. My love of the Lynx marque came about because I could never, in my wildest dreams, have owned a "real" racing Jaguar. But I became enamoured and intrigued by the purity and attention to detail of these replicas. Take a rotten E-type, use the front frames and mechanicals, build an alloy body on a wooden buck and properly rivet it, use the IRS at the back (but a live axle if you wanted one) and you have a rather nice alloy car, one that actually handles better than original but gives all the right sensations. I've done nearly 30,000 miles in mine around Europe and it has been great fun. And they have become very collectable, the first having been built over forty years ago now and only around sixty were made in total. That, in the age of the car, isn't a long time, but in recent correspondence with an ex-director I was shocked to learn that these cars cost over £100,000 new in 1990 but people still bought them, since even then a real D-type was five times dearer.
The question as to whether they are classics will run for ever, but where would you place the four DB4 cars that were built by Aston Martin twenty years back? Or the new run of six lightweight E-types and now the nine XKSS cars? As I wrote recently, you can have a 100% correct XKSS built for around £450,00 yet Jaguar are charging £1.3 million. Ergo, the chassis number alone is costing £850,000. A lot of money for a small brass plaque. Yet they are new cars, only able to be built because of a gap in chassis numbers in the day.
I have owned three Lynx cars, and have loved them all. I have had the privilege to drive a real D-type too, but I would be very frightened to use it daily, whereas yesterday I spent my day at the wheel of the XKSS. Cars are only collectable because someone likes them really, or else they'd all have gone to that great road in the sky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul fairall
Joined: 17 Nov 2016
Posts: 429
Location: North west Kent
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The new light weight jags are not classics.....yet. I understand they are not welcome at goodwood.
_________________
1957 ford popular |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim.Walker
Joined: 27 Dec 2008
Posts: 1229
Location: Chesterfield
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not (for personal life reasons) visited this forum for a long time. In fact I was surprised to find my user name and log in details still work.
This thread I found very interesting.
For a start "Classic" can mean so many things and in much of life often means "ultimate"
I am unsure myself what the word means to most people.
Of course "Classic" cars by DVLA regulations and licensing originally meant vehicles over 10 years old for licencing purposes and seemingly 50 uears old fot MOTs.
I have a Gentry which for many passes as an MG even withpeople who owned an original. I like the more modern handling and performance compared to the MG TF it resembles. But having said that it is still basically a 1959 Triumph Vitesse with performance well matching modern requirements
Almost 50 years old It may or may not be a classic - except to me!!!
Jim.
_________________
Quote from my late Dad:- You only need a woman and a car and you have all the problems you
are ever likely to want". Computers had not been invented then! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lowdrag
Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Posts: 1585
Location: Le Mans
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul fairall wrote: | | The new light weight jags are not classics.....yet. I understand they are not welcome at goodwood. |
Lord March has changed his opinion on that. If one asks Jaguar to provide heritage certificates for all the C & D-types currently about Jaguar would refuse a great number of them the privilege. My replica was invited to Goodwood twice, purely because the original didn't exist any more, as were the shark nose Ferrari and the Lancia Ferraris, all at the same meeting. The future of racing is replicas, like it or not. With the 1956 Le Mans winning D-type fetching £20 million not long back, who would risk racing a car that is about the most original D-type around? Never had an accident, continuous history, - in other words a totally correct car. I know someone who has an original C-type, and he is building a clone to race, because the real car is his pension. There are so many clones out there and you wouldn't know it; you sit alongside the track, see the right car, hear the right noises, and you have no idea if it is real or a clone. As regards suspension and other matters, yes, engine technology has come a long way and cars are more powerful, but the must conform to the original plans if they are to have their FIA papers and race. That doesn't mean that the springs are the same, just that they look the same although more stiff perhaps than of old. But then when we change an oil filter is it made of the same material as when it was made? I don't think so, and nor are the tyres we use anything like the old ones.
So replica racing is with us and will stay with us if we want to see motor racing. Me, I'm off to watch the Festival of Speed I recorded the other day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
php BB powered © php BB Grp.
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
