The Lightweight E-types

[p261brm]

An article in our local paper The Bridgnorth Journal, , promts me to add the following to the debate. It concerns the Lindner lightweight E [one of the twelve] in which Peter Lindner lost his life, along with Franco Patria and three officials at Montlhery in 1964. It had the Sayer low drag treatment as did 49 FXN the Lumsden/Sargent car, & the original Protheroe CUT 7, . The 'Original' Lindner car now owned by Peter Neumark once deemed beyond repair, is nearing the end of a lengthy restoration by Classic Motor Cars in Bridgnorth. Lynx built a replica of this car as have others, and now the 'original' has been restored, how much of the 'original' went into the restoration is open to question, given the severely damaged remains of the car after the accident in 1964, I suspect very little, given a nearly five year restoration/rebuild, to make statement and imply this is 'The Lindner Lightweight E' will be stretching the truth some what.
lindE2.jpg (185.8 KB) So now we are twelve again!

[p261brm]

[QUOTE=jellison;2675011]There must be a reasonable amount of that, that could be used in conjunction with new parts for a good tub QUOTE]

Sorry have not made myself over clear, Lynx supposedly used parts of the original wrecked car for their re-creation, and now CMC have 'restored' what was left and as the photograph shows neither Lynx or CMC had a lot to start with. My reasoning put forward is just at what point does the claim of a rebuilt car become a new re-creation, replica or continuation?

This subject has received much twoing and froing in the Chevron B19 thread in the chassis archive, and the above leads to why we have two XKD 505's. I am of the opinion a chassis is scrapped, end of car. The gentleman who set the subject for this thread wants to re-create his dream car get forrard I say and it can join the rest on the grid at Goodwood.

[terence]

Looking at the Photo of the Jag,I would have thought that the roof could have been used,Oh,and I doubt that the chassis plate would have been destroyed.

[jellison]

I thought that on the roof and also, once the tub was un sticked along the rivets - I'm sure there would have been big chunkc you could have reused once straightened and attached to new bits, (once all straightened as best that could be done), especially if it was to retain as many bits as possible.

Personally I think when something is this far gone - it should not be "allowed" back - fine have replicas but don't try to claim you have the original because you have a few bits that came from a huge crash.

Terry did you get my PH PM?

[terence]

Originally Posted by jellison

I thought that on the roof and also, once the tub was un sticked along the rivets - I'm sure there would have been big chunkc you could have reused once straightened and attached to new bits, (once all straightened as best that could be done), especially if it was to retain as many bits as possible.

Personally I think when something is this far gone - it should not be "allowed" back - fine have replicas but don't try to claim you have the original because you have a few bits that came from a huge crash.

Terry did you get my PH PM?

No,sorry,I havn't been on there for a while Jelli.
I know someone who own's the front bulkhead of the cut up E-Type,only problem is,he cannot afford to have the rest,"Barn Found"!Chassis number is still attached.
I agree with you Jelli,they simply should not be given any kind of status whatsoever,hence,no resale value!!!!

[zefarelly]

I suppose the car that was reshelled with another from the same factory in the same period ( something frowned upon un til relatively recently) is a pretty good thing for the authenticity of a production type car.

Certainly when compared with something built from scratch yesterday, all materials, fabrication materials and tools, as well as techniques have changed for the better in the last 3-4 decades.

I couldn't fake a lotus cortina A frame, my weldings too good (and believe me, its not!)

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Looking at the Photo of the Jag,I would have thought that the roof could have been used,Oh,and I doubt that the chassis plate would have been destroyed.

Bet your sweet ass Terence!....

[backfire]

I have seen the completed Lindner Nocker body unit today, the work is stunning. CMC have used well over 90% of the original metal (hence over 4000 hours) , so it is no doubt as original as can be. I understand that Peter Neumark has acquired the replica that was built around the mechanicals salvaged from the original car - so all the parts can be reunited.
Believe me this will be no chassis plate fiddle!

[simon drabble]

whilst I don't doubt it is technically restored not a fascimile I just wonder about the moral issue of restoring a car in which someone was killed.... I know I would not want to drive it (not that I ever will!). I think there are some cars that should not be restored.

[skentellytubby]

I agree Simon

When this car reappears on the scene its going to create huge interest. Maybe not for the right reasons...some people will be infatuated if they know the Peter Lindner history (as we all know by the rubber neckers you get at motorway accidents)

I saw the photos in C&SC Magazine et al when it was announced that the car was to be rebuilt and, to be honest, I was a bit horrified.

People die in cars with very little damage. But the car looked like a grave. It didn't just kill Peter either, four others died.

I'm sure CMC have done a stunning job and I will no doubt have a good look at it when it appears in public, I'm just not sure about the underlying morals. I'm pretty pragmatic and not really not the type of person to get silly about things like this, but I'm just not sure whether I'm comfortable with it. Its just a bit creepy?! Simon and I can't be the only people that thinks its a bit questionable, even the CMC website only mentioned that the car had a massive accident, nothing about Peter's death (http://www.classic-motor-cars.co.uk/...er_nocker.html)

But hey, I'm not the owner so who cares! Just my opinion...

Saying that, I'd like to have gone to see it because I'm often in and out of the Novelis plant just across the road.

[Heightswitch]

people get very hung up on originality for 1 reason and 1 reason alone....MONEY!!

My Car is an Old Car built as a replica of something else, looks like, feels like, smells like, goes like, (also cost the same to build as an original)

Do I care what others think, Nope. I built it for me.

Any restored or re-built car is no longer original. original is in the same untouched condition as it left the factory.

If a griffith or E-type or anything else is re-built into a new chassis Then it is no longer original. People will argue this point all day long and come up with reasons that justify why this is not so. In reality their is only 1 reason and that is that they have an over inflated opinion of what extra money can be gotten out of it.

any old car will cost £X to build up. whether original or not it should be enjoyed for what it is. My non original car cost the same £X to build as a re-build to an original.

All you have to do is take a look at the people who have a hang up about originality. Pound to a penny the person you are looking at is protecting his or her wallet or has an "original" car for sale at an over inflated price.

I do agree that some cars should never be re-built. The most famous TVR in this category was Brian Hough's. Bits of the car still exist but thankfully The chassis and body was cut into many pieces and then buried.

Sometimes the pursuit of money by greedy individuals is just creepy.

Reminds me of the story about a man who owned 2 ming dynasty vases. he smashed one so the other would become literally priceless!

N

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Heightswitch

Reminds me of the story about a man who owned 2 ming dynasty vases. he smashed one so the other would become literally priceless!

N

Emm, where did he bury the bits of Vase? I might know a man who could 'fix it up'

[p261brm]

I have to admit some association with CMC, though not now for some time, we all move on; I started my motor sport life with E types and somehow have never broken the tie completely. The workmanship at CMC Bridgnorth is of the highest quality, attention to minute detail is of the highest attention to 'getting it right' and do not in any way suggest or imply jiggerypokery by Peter, Nick or any of lads in my original post [which seems to have turned into a thread], might need their input one day! . But we seem to have now two perfect in every detail re-creations of the same car, I accept as much as possible has been incorporated, but they are re-creations in my book, and stand by my original statement once the original chassis is replaced, like virginity, gone. My harp with the restoration world in particular in my case Jaguar's the customer did not want an E type, the last I did for CMC a series 1 with air conditioning, vented discs, power steering even a cubby hole door off a series 11 and lord knows what else and ends up about as far removed from a series 1 E-type as some of those so called 'lightweights' on the grid at Woodygood, and other race venues. I have no problem with manufactoring methods or even materials in the keeping of 'our' cars on the road or circuit, [as long as the block was iron in period, not like an FVC I spied once in aluminum !!!] Race series as far as E's and the such like are concerned perhaps it's time for Mod sports? then some one will bend those rules....

[Heightswitch]

I think the CMC car is in itself a fantastic piece of workmanship and probably the exception to the rule whereby a usual re-build using a filler cap from the original car gains the car original status.

Its fantastic to see all of the pieces that are being re-fettled re-fettled in such a way. Common sense however would just see a car re-built with some new bits. again this is down to someone being able to sell it for more.

Its funny how history changes perceptions. if that car had been crashed and re-built via a re-shell in its day when a new car no one would bat an eyelid at its status if then unaltered today. re-shell it today however and the purist will say it isn't original, again always down to money.

Real racers just enjoy the cars for what they are. old cars!

I know of very very few original racing cars.

I know lots of re-built and restored ones puporting to be original and worth thounsands more than they actually are?

You certainly cannot fault the workmanship.

N

[p261brm]

Quality of workmanship, attention to detail etc etc aside, the fact remains that there now two re-constructed [ I refuse to term either or both as 'restorations'] Lindner lightweight E-type's from the remains of the original car crashed so heavily at Montlhery. One, re-constructed by Lynx reportedly using a factory supplied monocoque and the one by CMC, presumably both with chassis number S850662 Engine RA1347-9S Gearbox EB9642CR and body number R5863. I personaly do care one jot if in the future some one is daft enough to purchase both or one as the original Lindner lightweight E, I shall admire accordingly and drool jealously at the re-construction's, that is what they both are, not Phoenix from the ashes.

[terence]

Quite right Stuart,one would hope that any new sections that have been welded in,were done with gas as opposed to TIG,dont want the things cracking up now,do we ?

[Robert Farrell]

Originally Posted by p261brm

So now we are twelve again!

Surely not. I count at least 15 at HSCC Silverstone 15/16 May.

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by Robert Farrell

Surely not. I count at least 15 at HSCC Silverstone 15/16 May.

Just like rabbits, start with 2, the Lord [depending on your choice] knows where it will end.....

[simon drabble]

somebody will just go too far and build one which no longer looks like an E Type and has carbon fibre internals....

[p261brm]

To avoid any later confusion, I supose the two factory built semi lightweights should join the debate, both with the S prefix to chassis numbers, but as far as I know with standard mechanics.
These cars had steel monocoques, but with alloy doors, boot lid and bonnet. These parts were also supplied as factory competion components. [certainly used on Quicks WOO 11 until ultra lightweight fibre glass components replaced them in 1968 produced by Davrian.] Along with wider wheels these factory supplied components were homologated. Hoburn & Eaton [Rochester] produced an up-rated oil pump, I seem to remember these were also 'factrory' approved. The 12 lightweights had 20 gallon fuel tanks whereas standard cars 12gallons, but most cars used in competion had larger tanks fitted, at 5-8 mpg they needed them.. How this effects appendix K where tis stated tanks of original capacity, with vented discs on the front! of some cars, no body seems to care anyway.