Jaguar has opened Pandora's box with this lightweight t-type

I think the difference is, the Jags will be regarded much like the Sanction 2 Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagatos.

The Cobras...who knows exactly how many were made after period. If somebody wanted to buy a car from ol' Carroll, he'll find a car to sell.

 

Yea, I agree. I can understand the negative sentiment, and I do think the owner of a "real" lightweight E might bristle at this, but not the same to me as Shelby...whether that's my perception or a reality, I'm not seeing it.

I see this almost like Nissan's Vintage Z program from 1997. The intent was for Nissan to refurbish 200 240Zs to factory original condition. They ended up only doing 40, they were expensive and a LOT of parts were replaced...that was certainly necessary but they did purchase a boatload of relatively clean Z's. For that effort, why not recreate parts a la NOS?

What you ended up with would be akin to Theseus' paradox. Was it really a 240Z? To many, no.

Years later, that program has taken on a semi-legendary status, and owning one of the 40 cars made is somewhat significant.

I think the Jaguar program is similar - not quite the same in that these are recreations, but so long as they recognize they aren't "original", I don't see the harm.

 

Shelby created a big mess in California trying to pretend that they were old car parts lying around that he assembled later on. It changed the way that component/kit cars were able to be registered in that state. It also got his cars banned from being registered in the state if I understand it all correctly.

Because of what happened with Shelby, I don't know that you would be able to bring one of these Jag's into Cali and register it as a 1963 Jag. Now that I think about it, with the crackdown on cars less than 25 years being brought into the US, I wonder if you could bring one of these Jags in at all, unless it was already registered in England as a 1963.

 

not true.

the gto was designed and honed in late '61 and then released from early '62 - the lightweight e type didnt appear until 1963
in fact iirc according to jack sears 3729gt was inspected by the jaguar works prior to the launch of the lightweight

they wont be at Goodwood
Lord March considers them replicas and wont allow them

odd really when its been reported Gelscoe GT40's and other such stuff (replica aston dp214 5BVY for example) has raced at the revival. Not to mention the original cars with hot engines or modern parts fitted that totally outperform the more original cars.

tbh as long as these are built to original spec and given FIA Historic Papers (to prove it) I dont see the issue. This has happened with no problem on other types of car

oh and the repair bill will be exactly the same should one of these "new" cars crash as it would for one of the originals. Same with engines should they blow etc.
Only real issue for the owners of the originals is bad damage affecting resale value - but then again these are race cars so maybe could be expected to have been crashed an repaired numerous times.

I didnt quote your bit re the modern replacement parts - but from what I can gather they have been built using either original type components made by Jaguar (the bonnets for example were built using an original bonnet press) or bought from the specialists who supply people restoring and racing the originals today.

this is very different from the Shelby example
no one is being conned here - the monocoques didnt suddenly appear from a storage room "we built these in '63 guv but never used them" but are totally new but built to original specs using some original tooling.

Shelby was never a true manufacturer either - unlike Jaguar.

As for putting them on the streets Jaguar have stated these are not road cars but are for racing only - though of course that wont likely stop people trying.


Tbh I do think Jaguar has messed up here
in my view what they should have done is buy 6 original tatty '63 e types, strip them down to a bare shell, repair it and then modify that the way that would have been done in period with a new chassis.
They could have released the original parts back to the s/h market and also maybe added a 2nd data plate with a note "modifed by the works to full lightweight spec" and the nos chassis number.
The end result would still have been 6 "new" lightweights but they would be genuine '63 cars and eligible for road use as well as not upsetting the purists at Goodwood etc.

 

True. The XKSS was a road going car,and a number of the planned production run were lost in a factory fire. (9?) However,Jag building 'new' lightweights is different,and I presume a big money earner,and publicity coup. As you say,Lord March does not consider these would be eligible at Goodwood. as they are,however you look at, it a modern replica of the real thing. Would like to own one nevertheless. ...GOBSMACKING!

 

Car snobs dont like recreations. Yes at one point they objected because they were not licensed therefore stealing a design. This was smokescreen. But as we saw with aston on the sanction 2 zagatos you can have licensed recreations, and now Jag does it too.

Let me ask this, how much orgional car remains on so many old race cars, are many of these not recreations with a period data plate, the polite term I believe is rebuilds I guess.. There is no way anyone is racing a 60s MK1 GT40 tub, or T70 for that matter.

Are people being fooled, anyone in the know who is into cars knows which one was built when and how much survives. Without recreations vintage racing is either a parade or some very few period survivors are being ground into mashed metal. Would it not be better to save the few survivors for posterity and run "correct recreations" . What is the difference. Seriously these were all series produced machines to a blueprint, inherantly replicable by nature.

What the bugatti folks said long ago stands, what makes a bugatti is not when or where it was built, but how it was built and to what standards.

As long as there is no design infringement, whats the issue.

And yes Glescoes race at goodwood.

Nor can you believe that the spitfire you see flying above is anything but a recreation, with maybe a data plate "rebuild". Who is going to risk their life in something built in 1940 to last 6 months, no one, they are all "rebuilds"

Whats the difference, there is one and we see it with historic aircraft, the period data plate one with some period metal somewhere is worth a lot more $$$, the market speaks, but that does not make one more enjoyable or effective than the other when being used.

100 years form now, if there is historic racing you know its going to be recreations, or there will be very little of it.

Lastly recreations being accepted will save a lot of "lesser" historic cars from being chopped. In case you think who cares about a rusty etype, what about the period correct and intact ferrari Can AM car chopped into a not quite right 330p3, that is a travesty.

The FIA sanctions "correct" recreations in europe for historic racing, and they have a very robust field.

Seems here its a money thing and many are concerned that recreatiosn will limit price rises of period builds. Well 500% later I dont think the hobby should be held hostage to a few dealers and maybe 100 owners pocketbooks. In fact many dealers see recreations as viable inventory to trade

Its all about the cars, drivign them and seeing them in action. A correct D Type is Dtype regradelss of when it was built, one is just worth a lot more than the other.

Standards for recreations, licensing agreements, are very necessary, not least to prevent such things as plastic continuation cobras from shelby with 60s chassis numbers. But is Chevron B16 made by Chevron anythign but a B16? Or a new build T70 from Lola?


The ship has sailed, anoraks can gnash their teeth all they want, drivers are gonna drive some cool great cars.