New historics

[D-Type]

How do people feel about cars that never competed in period and have only recently been built up? Are they historic cars or really modern replicas. I am thinking in particular of the Kieft and the Walker Climax.

[David McKinney]

Assuming the Kieft and the Walker-Climax existed from the time of their construction, they cannot be called replicas. They are historic racing cars with no historic racing history.
Whether or not they should be permitted to race in events for historic racing cars - by implication, cars which have period racing history - is another argument.

[275 GTB-4]

To give the current crop of enthusiasts, officials, race teams and fans - please allow replicas to compete. By all means make it mandatory to include the word replica in the cars name if it does not have a racing history. Life's to short to miss out on the thrill of seeing a copy of a famous racing marque.

[Vitesse]

Originally posted by David McKinney
Assuming the Kieft and the Walker-Climax existed from the time of their construction, they cannot be called replicas. They are historic racing cars with no historic racing history.
Whether or not they should be permitted to race in events for historic racing cars - by implication, cars which have period racing history - is another argument.

Indeed, David, but IMO there are subtle differences in the status of the Kieft and Walker. The Kieft was never completed in period, AFAIK, but the Walker was. It was tested but found wanting against Rob Walker's other cars, so never raced. And there's a third category - cars which didn't race in period due to force majeure: I'm thinking here specifically of the Hill GH2, which is now running in TGP I believe.

As to replicas - by all means race them, but I don't believe that they should compete directly with original cars.

[krt917]

I agree Vitesse -replicas shouldn't race with originals, unless perhaps they use a significant number of original parts. It really depends on your definition of 'replica'. Some cars that have been built up probably have more original parts than 'original' cars that have been raced (and crashed and broken) for long periods of time and required new bits. Both scenarios are, I believe, fine. The problem really comes when 'new' cars or 'restored' cars suddenly find huge performance gains on the rest of thge field.

As for the Kieft and the Walker, both were - I believe - conceived in period and are, providing they adhere to the original parts/use the original bits where possible welcome additions to the historic racing scene.

I think I may have backtracked somewhere here (oh well..)!At the end of the day, it's difficult to come up with a hard and fast rule. Each car needs to be considered on its own merits.

[simon drabble]

Interestingly the two cars you mentioned race in BRDC Sportscar Championship. All cars have to have FIA papers or be in the Invited Class. I think that these cars and a D Type run as invited cars.
Certainly if period history was enforced then the Goodwood saloon race would be a very slim field!

[Andrew Kitson]

As an aside, I was suprised this morning, travelling along the A11 near Newmarket to have seen the famous ex-Moss SWB Rob Walker Goodwood TT winning Ferrari '1 SWB' complete with the famous no.7 on the white number roundels! This surely cannot be the original car can it? Risking the rush hour with everyday motorists in such a valuable car? I guess it was on its way to Snett but did not see who was driving.
Not the sort of car you would expect to see in the morning jams!

[TimD]

I've seen that on the road too Andrew, so I think he's quite prepared to use it. Also had my eardrums assaulted by the Maranello Concessionaires Le Mans 375GTB/4 Daytona once, in High Wycombe, of all places.

How that exhaust was ever road legal, I shall never know!

[Lee Janotta]

There's a similar controversy over here, especially in the Cobra and Trans-Am ranks... Since you can quite easily build a 289 Cobra replica that can leave the original chocking on your dust, or build a competent vintage Trans-Am competitor out of any 1973 or earlier Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, Barracuda, Mustang, Cougar, Javelin... Hell, even a 2-door Chevy II, Plymouth Valiant, or Ford Falcon if you're going for that really early A-Sedan vibe.

Personally, I think they should be admitted, but only if they're built with period technology, as all vintage racecars should be. But they should carry an * next to their number, or some other mark to identify them as replicas.

And they shouldn't carry sponsors. There are about 4 times as many Penske-Sunoco Camaros running around these days as there were in the 1967-1969 period.

[Peter Mallett]

I made this point in a thread about the Lancia Ferrari. As has been said it would be a shame not to see them put through their paces but to call them a "historic" car in terms of history is a bit ott.

However to take the performance gains point. These engines and mechanicals are just like grandfather's axe. As such it is reasonable to assume that the materials and technology available today will be used in any rebuild and so a performance advantage will always be gained. Let's face it, if the cars ran for three years they would be subject to constant development during that period so why would it be different now?

Whether that is within the spirit of "Historics" I'll leave to my betters but practically I see no problem with it.

[bolide]

I completely disagree. To my mind, life's too short to watch replicas racing against real cars!

If people want to buy, drive and race replicas that's their choice. But letting them race with period cars makes a nonsense of historic racing

The provenance and degree of originality of period cars now racing is another matter altogether. Clubs like the VSCC have their own rules regarding what constitutes a "real" car and club members abide by that

Ultimately it's up to the Clubs and their members what races and what doesn't. But racing a glassfibre-bodied D type (like the Revival Motorsports car, for example) isn't historic racing by any stretch of the imagination

Nick Froome
www.bolide.co.uk

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by simon drabble
Interestingly the two cars you mentioned race in BRDC Sportscar Championship

Have I missed something?
How do an F1 Kieft and an F1 Walker qualify as sportscars?

[dretceterini]

I doubt if there is a single historic car out there that hasn't had entirely new (and modern) parts put in at least the engine and gearbox. Cars like the Auto Unions are beautiful, and I'm thankful to have them, but they are still replicas. The metalurgy of that time is so bad compared to today that many of the components wouldn't even be good enough for lawn furniture..

[Lee Janotta]

Of course, an all-out ban on replicas would make the fields in most classes laughably small.

[Peter Mallett]

Nick,

I agree about glass fibre replicas but take, for example, an MGB. There are MGB's with pre 65 registration that have been restored, I've got one and if I was so inclined, could be made eligible for FIA papers. Then it is a short (if expensive) route to a competition car built to Appendix K. Now, in that case am I racing a replica a historic?

The point may be that there are very few "original" cars out there so a "replica" built to the original specification may be the only way that the category survives. The FIA is recognising this in the Historic Touring Cars, by moving the cut off to (I believe) 1970(?)

[simon drabble]

Firstly my apoligies I misread the earlier conversation and thought they were referring to another car that runs in BRDC championship!! I will read the comments more accurately in future!
re FIA papers I was told that they are going to introduce Gold FIA papers for cars with period history as opposed to cars that are built to FIA spec. This seems fair and logical as there is no reason why they cannot race together in general championship races and then at festivals the organisers can specify gold papered cars only.

[bolide]

Peter said:

"I agree about glass fibre replicas but take, for example, an MGB. There are MGB's with pre 65 registration that have been restored, I've got one and if I was so inclined, could be made eligible for FIA papers. Then it is a short (if expensive) route to a competition car built to Appendix K. Now, in that case am I racing a replica a historic?"

I'd call that a historic car with no racing provenance, not a replica. I take replica to mean a non-original modern recreation. Maybe we should define a new term for a period car that is now being used for competition in the spirit of its contemporaries?

The whole issue gets more contentious when clubs and organisations allow replicas (that is, modern recreations) to race against or appear with historic cars. It begins to blur the line between what's "real" and what isn't and I don't think that's a good idea

If the public begin to see historic race cars as disposable fibreglass replicas running lots of negative camber, all shod with huge Yokohama 032Rs, how is that different from modern racing? But I realise that that's another question entirely...

Nick Froome
www.bolide.co.uk

[Peter Mallett]

Nick,

Firstly you will find it easier to quote people if you use the "quote" icon to the top of the post's box.

Again I agree about the replicas as you define them but I come back to my point about the Lancia Ferrari. This car didn't exist as anything other than a pile of bits in various locations (unlike the MGB example). So where does that sit in terms of replica/historic with no racing provenance/historic racing car?

Boy, is this a question?

[simon drabble]

seems we are all on the same side of the fence, MG's etc racing on yoki's is not historic racing, however MGB's running to FIA spec and papered as such is historic even though the actual car might not have period racing history.

In the case of saloons and "club" sports cars there are very few left with period history as they never had enough intrinsic value at the time to be saved, so it will be very hard to make grids up without reverting to "period" spec cars

[verglas]

I remember this debate occuring way back in the 70's, fuelled by the late lamented DSJ in Motor Sport. He was incensed at the sudden influx of Maserati 250F's on the historic racing scene, many of which were replica's, or re-built cars using bits of original cars which then made them original in their owner's opinion. IIRC, things got pretty heated and clubs changed definitions of historic cars. Does anyone else remember the controversy, and the characters involved?

[eclectic]

Aha at last we get to Jenks!.

DSJ in his book, 'Directory of historic Racing Cars', 1987 Denis Jenkinson, was written precisely to address this question, his definitions of cars as either "Original, Genuine, Authentic, Ressurection, Re-construction, Facsimile, Special, Duplication, Destroyed, Scrapped, or Broken Up" has tood the test of time, I thoroughly reccommend the book which defines these terms extremely clearly as it covers the topic with good examples of each category. Sadly my scanner is on the blink or I would post his full definitions here. Perhaps someone has a copy and can do it for me?

Anyway this paperback together with its companions, 'Directory of Classic Sports-Racing Cars' 1987 by mike Lawrence, and 'Directory of Formula One Cars 1966-1986' 1986 by Anthony Prichard all published by Aston Publications are a must for serious students of our addiction.

[eclectic]

While we are on the topic, the VScc has wrestled with this problem for the last 50 years, and their system has been reasonably sound so far. Although there have been some racer/owners who doubtless would disagree!

It still seems a little wrong that my mildly tweaked 3 litre Bugatti T44 is regularly trounced by well sorted Austin Seven racers, but its handling and heavy coachwork are a major handicap! The T44 only ever competed regularly at Le Mans in the thirties with a conspicuous lack of success, so what should I expect!

[D-Type]

It us difficult isn't it? I remember reading an interview with Neil Corner where he explained that seriously racing his W163 Mercedes was out of the question as it would be blown into the weeds by the ERA's which in period would have been two laps behind. That's what 50 years of development, plus modern tyres, oversized engines etc can do.
However, as a mere spectator, I have to say that if these rich men didn't enjoy racing their cars the way they want to, we would never see them other than gathering dust in museums.

[eclectic]

Yes, indeed, many years ago I wrote an article in the Automobile (That's the GB version for old cars for you ex colonials on the other side of the pond!). In this I created an extended simile, comparing cars collected up in museums, ie the Schulmph collection in France to Victorian butterfly collections pinned to cork boards. How much better to see them flitting by on a summer day!

However we do need to know what is a 'real' historic car and what is a replica. There are so many replica GT40's Cobras and D types around, that even if I could afford one I wouldn't want one..the first question would always be "Is it a real one or a replica?" The creation of so many replicas really devalues the experience of enjoying the real thing.

That being said, anyone who has seen the Replica Napier 'Sampson' in action would have to admit its amazing, it tore past me in my Stutz Bearcat last year at Mallory..... The only original parts I believe is the engine which survived in a boat in Australia until the late Bob Chamberlain recreated the car from factory drawings.
Withut sampson, we would never see the mighty thunder of the very early race cars.

Apart from the 1907 GP Panhard of Mark Walker they hardly ever are run today, though several VSCC members have made wonderful specials using WW1 aircraft engines and original period bits.

So, in my view, some replicas do us a service, SO LONG AS THEY ARE ALWAYS DESCRIBED AS SUCH, ie described on the race programme as "the RECREATION of the Napier Sampson." Which is not always the case.

Another case that comes to mind are the re-created Ferrari Shark nose F1 cars.... Its good to see them, they are good copies, but they are most definitely NOT historic race cars.

[canadair]

This is quite interesting, in particular as I just asked this question in another topic, Lotus 49.
It appears to me that there is not much opposition regarding replica projects, although I think we have to separate the technical from the historic. By this I mean, that those who are more inclined towards the technical end, the actual mechanics of the car, seem to be saying, "bring them on, as the desire to see and hear the car, replica or not is the key, on the other side, some feel that the car is only the car because of what was done with it, and perhaps the memories should be left as such.
Well, I guess I can see both points, but being inclined towrds the technical, I firmly believe that recreating something is in itself a tribute to the original.
I am 40 years old, I never saw the original 49`s race, I was 6, and 1/2 a world away, so replica`s to me represent the only possible way to see this today, yes there are originals, but they do not exactly make every weekend event do they?
Bottom line, the cars of the late 60`s are probably the last of the F1 cars that can realistically be replicated, no one is going to attempt a 2003 Ferrari or Williams are they, but the Brabhams, Lotus, and such of that era are like the racers of the 30`s, Gee Bees, Mystery ship, etc, they are a realistic project given enough information, and determination, so why not.