Originals v Replicas

[John Turner]

We've touched on the issues of originality, 'bitsas', replicas and the FIA's attempt to address the issue with new sets of historic vehicle papers, in various threads, but I don't think we have discussed directly an issue that Doug Nye has raised in the latest (June) issue of Octane. He asks whether owners of racing cars are going to be prepared to race their valuable originals against the 'continuation' cars now being built by Lola, Chevron and others. These 'moderns' which will be provided with HTP papers and therefore eligible for historic events run by the FIA. He suggests that for other historic events the organising bodies will probably give preference to original cars but where they don't, the owners of original cars will simply stay away, to the detriment of the sport. The point he makes is that a modern replica, however faithfully it adheres to the original in appearance and componentry will be fresher, stronger and faster, and that since their value is far less that the original, they will be raced harder and with less concern for the occasional contact.

It seems to me that a separate class, or better still, separate races, if there are enough built, for the 'continuation' cars would maybe address this problem. We've seen races for replicas (Cobras come to mind) before if I recall correctly. Mind you whether there is room for additional 'historic' classes or races, is another matter. The upshot of the FIA 'clarification, however, is that in their book, a 'modern' car built to original spec. will be allowed to race in historic series! Where that leaves those 'bitsa' cars which have a dubious provenance but contain genuinely original parts, I don't know.

Interestingly, in the same mag, and in a separate piece, Nye highlights an act of vandalism perpetrated by the Italian courts. They ordered (and made sure it happened) the total destruction and meltdown of two 'replica' Maseratis despite the fact that these were of extremely high quality, but worst of all, they contained many original and rare parts, including an engine which was one of only 3 built and raced in the 1956 Mille Miglia. Sheer madness!

[Al Weyman]

That raises some interesting points John and I agree I don't see how this is going to work especially after seeing that stunning T70 at Brands the othre day.

That was a ridiculous act perpertrated in Italy as bad as destroying rare cars making rubbish movies like Dukes of Hazzard, madness. I wonder if that was the birdcage Maserati's built by an aquantance of mine. He copied it precisely from an original car and by all accounts it was indistinguisable from the original. Apparantly he was telling me a Japanese gentleman bought it years later for over a million pounds and he did not have the heart to tell him it was bogus but someone else may have done:-(.

[simon drabble]

its an interesting issue and given the number of known fakes racing currently I dont see it making too much difference. In the BRDC Historic Sportscars series there are several "replicas" and it doesnt effect the quality of racing.

The fake snakes are totally different as they are fibre glass kit cars!!!

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by John Turner

The point he makes is that a modern replica, however faithfully it adheres to the original in appearance and componentry will be fresher, stronger and faster, and that since their value is far less that the original, they will be raced harder and with less concern for the occasional contact.

I agree that a recreation will nearly always be faster but I have never quite understood the question of worrying about damage.
If you bend a faithfull replica surely it will cost the same to repair as an original, (I'm not talking about the type of replica I own which is only a "loose copy"). After all the parts will probably have to be hand fabricated and the labour costs would be similar or is there a premium put on working on original cars? So if you bent a £2m Dtype or a £150K Lynx or Dunford the costs to repair will be similar.

It seems to me that a separate class, or better still, separate races, if there are enough built, for the 'continuation' cars would maybe address this problem. We've seen races for replicas (Cobras come to mind) before if I recall correctly. Mind you whether there is room for additional 'historic' classes or races, is another matter. The upshot of the FIA 'clarification, however, is that in their book, a 'modern' car built to original spec. will be allowed to race in historic series! Where that leaves those 'bitsa' cars which have a dubious provenance but contain genuinely original parts, I don't know.

This is a difficult area as there are still falling grids for thses types of cars.
I have recently been invited into a classic race series that at one time would only have original one marque cars, they then had to open up to all classics of the era to boost grids and have now made an invitation class for selected replicas as grids were waining once again.

There is of course the problem of snobbery which will always preclude certian replica cars from taking part

[James Murray]

The continuation cars should not be allowed to race IMHO end of story and lets hope the organisers don't permit them to do so. My fear is they will end up filtering in and potentially the floodgates will open as once one car has been allowed in, you can hardly stop the others. Should have stuck with the old system even if it wasn't perfect.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Why not let the REPLICA cars race against the Historics?

Only to make things fair put on a seperate class, or classes, within the race for the replicas. You could even handicap the replicas by starting them all at the back of the grid and 30 seconds after the genuine cars. That way the Historics are given precedence over the Replicas and it would be unlikely that a replica would win the event.

This should also apply to the Cameron Millar 250Fs and any other 'pretend' racing car.

The FIA should issue two types of license (a) a true Historic, and (b) a Replica. Anyone caught passing a replica off as an Historic should have the Replica impounded and crushed just like the Italians have done! They should also face a 10 year ban on taking part plus a hefty fine. That way not only would the public see the difference but also potential buyers would be protected from fraud.

[simon drabble]

so where does that leave cars that have original engines and the rest being of recent reconstruction (like certainly 2 D Types racing in the current BRDC Historic Championship)? One doesnt even have a chassis number (and to be fair the owner doesnt pass it off as an original) yet they both have run at Le Mans historic supprt races, Goodwood and the Championship as does a Ferrari amongst others....

[simon drabble]

Steve that is what should happen with the new papers. If you car is important enough to warrent the "gold" papers then it is clear its kosher - although at £1400 a set I would say that your car has to be worth in excess of £100 000 to justify the cost.
If a "replica" is built to FIA spec it will not have a speed advantage other a well developed original and therefore doesnt need to start at the back but maybe should run as an invitation class....

[Al Weyman]

Blimey Steve thats harsh, would not want to appear in front of you if you were a judge. :-)

[John Turner]

And thank you to the person that has rated this thread 'terrible'; obviously not one of the people who have actually posted, here! Perhaps that person might have the courage of their conviction and explain why!

[Al Weyman]

There you go John, I readdressed the balance, I think its a very good thread as it happens:-)

[Peter Nightingale]

This is a very good thread, it has bought into the open a lot of un answered questions and fears held by historic competitors of all ilck!

[kickstart]

If one owned an original Lola T70 I can see the attraction why they might buy a "new" Lola so that they can keep the original and very valuable car for the odd race (like Goodwood) and use the new car for less high profile races.

When I talked to the Chevron people at the Historic Show whilst admiring their new B16 I was told that they expect a great number of the new cars to be sold to owners of original B16's.

Personally I am in favour of new models getting FIA papers as with old racing cars originality is often rather limited. I remember talking to an owner of an original B19, which had very few parts that were original - probably only parts of the chassis. The rest of the car, bodywork, engine, gearbox etc was correct but modern.

[strider]

So there are really three types of car? The originals, the replicas and the hybrids, which started life as originals, but have perforce had to maintained using replica parts. Or are there actually very few originals, except for those tucked away in museums and private collections?

[Gil Abobeleira]

I don't normally post around here, but I think I should give you the insight of a "stranger".

Here in Portugal, the main attraction on the race tracks is the Historic Championship, for H76 cars and the like (the H65 are a minority around here). Cars like Ford Escorts BDA and Chevrons dominate the races (in their classes, that is).
There has been a long discussion about how legitimate and original are the Historic cars nowadays. For example, there are 3 (yes, three) Ford Escort BDA highly prepared (costs are around £100K or more ), with engines on the 280 bhp bracket and that can only run for 5 hours before a freshly rebuilt (a £8K job, I think, in England). And yes, these 3 Escorts are so much better than the original ones (even the 1975 Zakspeed examples). Yet, they are "original". And they clearly dominate the Porsche RSRs around here (something that didn't happen on the good ol' days).

What I'm trying to say is, how "original" are the current cars (not the "replicas") racing in Historics? Replicas can be better than an original car, but that's supposing that the original car has not been enhanced what-so-ever? Do you believe that? Does an original car race with the "original" parts? I'd think the answer is no. In that way, an original car has loads of "replica" parts, so, in essence, it's also a "replica".

More food for thught......

PS: I'm not trying say that historic races and their competitors because, they're so much better looking (and make better noises) than the stupid boxxy saloons that race nowadays in BTCC, WTCC and the like

[chris bailey]

This thread is one of the most thought-provoking I've read lately.

I'm generally in favour of the continuation models as it gets more cars of the type out on the circuits. Obviously, they'll be bought by some people who already have original T70's etc., because a new T70 should be quicker, even if built to the original specification, as the chassis will be less tired, along with everything else. You'd probably spend almost as much on an original car to renew those major components and along the way would lose the sense of history associated with that particular chassis. The thought of sitting in the exact same car that Derek Bennett thrashed round Oulton (B16/B19) cannot be felt in a continuation model from Vin Malkie. The originals will therefore always have a value and a sense of history that the continuation models will never gain, and so they should.

Mind you, if continuation models are acceptable, how about "what if" models? A Chevron B19 with a Mazda B10 rotary engine? Both period specific, just never used in combination. You could then run a continuation model B19 (when they get round to building them) with a cheap, reliable 280 bhp engine for a fraction of the buying/running cost of a B19 with a FVC or BDG!

[PeterMorley]

Originally Posted by chris bailey

This thread is one of the most thought-provoking I've read lately.

I'm generally in favour of the continuation models as it gets more cars of the type out on the circuits. Obviously, they'll be bought by some people who already have original T70's etc., because a new T70 should be quicker, even if built to the original specification, as the chassis will be less tired, along with everything else. You'd probably spend almost as much on an original car to renew those major components and along the way would lose the sense of history associated with that particular chassis. The thought of sitting in the exact same car that Derek Bennett thrashed round Oulton (B16/B19) cannot be felt in a continuation model from Vin Malkie. The originals will therefore always have a value and a sense of history that the continuation models will never gain, and so they should.

Mind you, if continuation models are acceptable, how about "what if" models? A Chevron B19 with a Mazda B10 rotary engine? Both period specific, just never used in combination. You could then run a continuation model B19 (when they get round to building them) with a cheap, reliable 280 bhp engine for a fraction of the buying/running cost of a B19 with a FVC or BDG!

I thought there were very few T70s with original chassis anyway (Martin Birrane made a comment about that when he wanted to buy an original car following his purchase of Lola).

Many original cars have had their chassis replaced either due to accident damage, or simply wear and tear (plus it has not escaped the attention of some restorers that a new chassis will be quicker - so they replace it on safety grounds!).

Since suspension, wheels etc are often replaced for safety reasons, and very few original race engines have survived (or were seperated from the cars), many genuine continuous history cars have a large percentage of new parts anyway.

250Fs, 8C Alfas & ERAs tend to have new engines since the original is too fragile/valuable to risk when racing (presumably the performance advantage is an unfortunate consequence).
Personally I would prefer that they used the originals and simply treated them with appropriate care - if someone is more interested in winning races rather than history they should be racing modern cars.

The FIA have said that new cars have to be built to the original specification, so performance mods. as have been fitted to original cars will not be accepted (they shouldn't be accepted on the original car either but some might pass as part of the car's history).
Something like a Lotus 16 would have to have narrow track suspension for example, twin-cam engines have cast iron bearing caps etc.
The 'what-if' cars are automatically ruled out by this idea.

A lot of the problems with identities of cars has come from the insistence that you presented a history for the car to be accepted - if you found an old car but didn't know the history some authorities wouldn't accept it unless you gave them some story (despite the FIA paperwork never insisting on this), this led to some people making wrong assumptions about the identity of their car.

The new system should avoid such problems, if you don't know the history you don't have to claim one and if you do know it then your car should be more valuable (I'm sure there are some exceptions to this rule!).
Of course in an ideal world they would also have insisted that a large percentage of the components had to be old (as the VSCC, DVLC etc do), but given that so many original cars have had so many components replaced (one of the best known Lotus restorers would never use an original chassis for example) it would be hard to justify that (since it could mean a lot of the genuine original cars were newer than the replicas!!).

The FIA's job was always just to check a car (+ circuit & driver) was safe for racing and that it met the rules, I never understood why they felt they should get involved in discussing the originality of cars.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

so where does that leave cars that have original engines and the rest being of recent reconstruction (like certainly 2 D Types racing in the current BRDC Historic Championship)? One doesnt even have a chassis number (and to be fair the owner doesnt pass it off as an original) yet they both have run at Le Mans historic supprt races, Goodwood and the Championship as does a Ferrari amongst others....

Obviously they would be REPLICAS as they are more recent recreations even with the 'original' engine. If they were allowed to be a true historic it would the door open for every spare engine/gearbox to be turned into a new racing car!

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Blimey Steve thats harsh, would not want to appear in front of you if you were a judge. :-)

I just tell it as I see it! Trouble is there are too many 'wrong uns' out there already!

PS DSJ was far stricter in his views!

[Tainan]

The thing is, racing cars weren't (and still aren't) made to last a long time, so any car that has been raced for decades is going to need a lot of parts replaced and that includes the chassis. However much you care for the car, if you're driving it, you're wearing parts out. Therefore I think the only possible way to define an 'original' car is one where the parts have been replaced bit by bit (as they've worn) rather than all in one go, although the result is of course the same, so is it worth doing? I would be surprised if many, in fact any, race cars from the various professional series finish their first season with all the original components still fitted. And many will have already had chassis repairs.
So, assuming the replicas really are made to the same spec, and that's a big assumption, the only difference between the replicas and the originals is their history, and it is nice to think you are driving or viewing the same car once driven by <insert your hero here>, even if almost every component has been replaced since he drove it!
The danger is that the replicas become so common that they dominate the grids, and you'll no longer have races for true historic cars. The top events will probably insist on originals, but that will only increase the temptation to place old chassis plates etc on the new cars, so no-one will know what's what, unless the replica parts are clearly and irreversibly marked.

[kickstart]

As I understand the test that constitutes an original historic car is a continuous history. However like the story of the old broom, which has had 3 new brushes and 2 new shafts, nothing on an old "original" historic car (except possibly the chassis plate) may have been part of the car in period.

Hence IMHO I don't think we should be too picky as given the above it seems very difficult to logically justify any insistence on original cars.

[Al Weyman]

Maybe it should be concidered original if it is fitted with the original roll cage then again not as that may have long since been deemed illegal and have been changed. The reason I say this is because on the Penske IROC car I own the rollcage in fact is basically the car as it is all built around this structure which is like an Isambard Brunel creation and woukd stand a direct nucular strike. Controversly cars like the Costin Nathan I worked on years ago and were rivals to the Chevron I would imagine the wood monoquoce (spelling sorry) would have long since rotted away and have to be replaced.

[Steve Wilkinson]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Controversly cars like the Costin Nathan I worked on years ago and were rivals to the Chevron I would imagine the wood monoquoce (spelling sorry) would have long since rotted away and have to be replaced.

Wasn't the wooden monocoque made from marine ply and as such if looked after properly would last forever!

On the subject of replacing bits of racing cars surely that was why they were designed as they were so that in the case of a shunt you could unbolt a corner and replace it! You can still get correct pattern newly manufactured bits for lots of old racing cars and I don't have a problem with that! What I see as WRONG is someone creating a brand new racing car around a period engine. Such vehicles should only ever be considered as replicas and as such they do have an intrinsic value (check out the prices of second-hand Proteus Jaguar C and D Types).

[chris bailey]

On the subject of "what if" chassis/engine combinations, what if the BDG had been introduced earlier, then you could fit one to a B19 Chevron or a Lola T210..... Oh! I've just noticed that they do. How does that work then?

[Al Weyman]

Wasn't the wooden monocoque made from marine ply and as such if looked after properly would last forever!

It was, I used to go down to a boat yard on Eel Pie Island on the Thames at Twickenham and collect them on a trailer.