Replicas, why bother ??

If someone is an enthusiast for Ferrari, or Lotus, or Porsche, a fake pretty much dismisses the marque as irrelevant. They reflect a cheap, quick fix mindset. Why pay so much money for a 512 BB and then maintain it when you can just get a fake one that's cheaper to buy and maintain, and create the impression that you're wealthy? (No one creates replicas of VW Beetles, original Fiat 500s, etc. Only expensive cars get faked, because replicas are about simulating ownership of a significant car. Period.)

With regard to licensing, that does make it legal (Caterham). But if you were to travel the country and assess the fakes on a one-by-one basis, you would likely find that a lot of replicas aren't licensed and are just done on the assumption that Ferrari and other carmakers will overlook an individual theft overseas. The notion that faking a certain car is helping out the manufacturer of the real one is ludicrous: the market for 250 GTOs isn't going to collapse without a bunch of fakes to support it, and no one's going to forget the car.

That said, licensed replicas are also a waste of time. I'm impressed by the well kept, well driven, real enthusiast cars like a Porsche 944 Turbo, 914-4 or Ferrari 308 GT4 infinitely more than the umpteenth fake 'Cobra' -- which has become sort of the embarrassing "hollow gold chain" standard of replicas. They're like used Miatas around here. And no, I don't buy the idea that a fake Cobra is fun and a real Ferrari 308 isn't. Been there, done that. A real classic Ferrari, Porsche, etc. is fun, and when you talk to onlookers it's a no-excuses car: yes, it's a Ferrari. Not a real expensive one, but one from Maranello. It tells people you know your stuff, and you're comfortable buying and enjoying what you can afford. You don't need to pretend. If you need new, the Lotus Elise/Exige is still around and you won't find a car that's more raw, more fun, more affordable in its performance bracket, etc.

Again, I agree with the OP. There is no reason to bother with fakes. As I posted earlier: there are far too many very cool affordable and authentic Ferraris, Porsches, Lotuses or whatever turns you on to bother with poser-mobiles.

And, I find fakes to run counter to everything that makes most of here passionate about Ferrari at more than a sheet-metal-deep level. I realize some guys would be happy with a Countach powered by a VW bug motor as long as it has scissor doors, but for the most part -- and especially in the vintage section of this site -- there's a level of appreciation that goes beyond the "look at me, I have an expensive car" threshold.

I know that several people have posted here talking about their specific replicas, and I'm not interested in getting personal or critiquing your specific car. I'm not in law enforcement and I don't work for Ferrari, Porsche, etc. I just have zero interest in reading about them on a Ferrari board, or hearing why they're better than Ferraris (or whatever marque is being copied). They aren't. If they satisfy your need, and you're comfortable that the design was bought legally, then go drive them. The excuses made on behalf of replicas don't make them any more desirable, IMHO. In fact they've slipped into the ridiculous in this thread.

Fake is fake. Real is real.

/done

 

What I meant was that it doesnt matter because these reproductions offer the same driving experience and visual pleasure as the real thing.

 

Sure, possibly they do for some people but if you read the post above by Bullfighter, there is a lot more to this issue of replicas.

 

I get the impression he is mostly talking about kit cars/poorly done replicas.
Also, i do not ponder that much when it comes to this subject. It's not that important.

When i see reproductions such as these :

Ferrari 250 GTO Replica - 1962
1957/1963 Ferrari 250 TRC Testa Rossa Recreation
http://www.gtoengineering.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DSC000151.jpg

all i see are beautiful cars, with Ferrari engine, chassis GB etc that i want to drive and enjoy.

 

That's where we differ as I see the original cars as the ones I want to drive. These to me are irrelevant to Ferrari. Show me the worlds finest fake Rolex with real gold and diamonds and still I wouldn't be caught dead wearing it.

 

I think companies like Singer (Porsche) and Icon (Jeeps) are changing the dynamic here. Both appear to have Pagani-like attention to detail, resulting in works of art clearly superior to what's being replicated...or, as they say, re-imagined.

They start with an original and keep the VIN. My guess is that this allows them to go beyond kit car, as well as enabling an end-run around modern safety requirements and IP protection. But the running gear is completely replaced with modern parts.

Singer has Cosworth tuning the engine. The interior and wheels are bespoke but made to appear like the original, only now with richer materials and textures. The body panels and wheel areas are completely redone in carbon. They take a late 80's 911 and turn it into a 1970's looking one. Only, it's no particular 1970 model. Its an amalgamation of various styling cues from Porsche's past, that together produce a whole new model that simultaneously evokes the old. I think only the frame is left from the original VIN, and that is "adjusted" as well.

Long/short...its a brand new car pretending to be old. This may or may not fall under "replica", but I can certainly see why people "bother".

 

The difference is that a Rolex is a watch you wear and that is it. Same for a fake Hermes belt or a fake Picasso. They just stand there. These cars will deliver the same driving experience if built right. Same noise. Same power. Same smell...

Sure i love the original cars more, they are after all the real thing and the reason why i love Ferrari but these reproductions do make me drool.

 

Replicas like the ones you posted are of very high quality but still are irrelevant to Ferrari. I could drive one and still never know what it's like to drive a Ferrari. It may be hard for some to understand this.

 

I see them as beautiful cars too, just not Ferraris.

 

Modified or customs and yes, a whole different category but still a real car, real as in yes it's a Porsche. cars like these always tend to be taken more seriously and have more value than a kitcar or replica because of their it's origins.

 

Really? Then you don't know much about watches, clothing or art. There is craftsmanship in all these that replicas simply don't have. The wearer or owner knows.

 

I am not talking about craftmanship here. I know that watches for example can be very complex pieces and take very precise craftmanship but other than owning a beautiful Patek what other dimension does it give to its owner? I simply dont see a watch or painting or a sculpture giving me the same pleasure as driving. Driving is a much more active passion IMO than having a piece of art. I understand people enjoy these things but they have fewer dimensions than a car. I dont see how my Panerai will give me the same memories as my Porsche. I like looking at my watch every now and then..but i love using my Porsche. I have hundreds of hours of memories of trips i have taken with all the cars i have driven, with my wife, my father, my friends and the cars were always a big part of it. That is why i think a reproduction like the ones i have posted are worthy and relevant to me.

 

What do you mean (ir)relevant to Ferrari? To the company? To the history? And why does it matter to your driving enjoyment? A lot of big time collectors race reproductions. I dont think they would waste their time and money driving reproductions if they didnt enjoy and felt they could have a comparable pleasure as if they were driving the real thing.

 

I mean they are irrelevant to Enzo, his company, the people that work there, even Pinninfarina and the designers there. Why? because they didn't have anything to do with creating it. Thus, it is no Ferrari. Sure some wealthy people may like to participate in nostalgia races with replicas. People like to re enact the civil war too. But when they cross that finish line they know full well that is no win for Ferrari. It can never be, because the car is a fake. It's maybe a way to pretend. I also know for a fact that there are people that pull out there priceless real cars and risk them in the same type of events. And there it is... some people just don't want to pretend.

 

Now quick! Someone lock this thread!!! LOL

 

It is funny that you worry about your enjoyment being relevant to Ferrari Spa when they have been caught displaying one of the reproduction in their own museum. A few cars racing in Ferrari own historic challenge are/were replicas..so Ferrari only cares as long as they can cash out. If i were you, i wouldnt worry too much if what you do with your own money is relevant to them .

These replicas have a lot of genuine Ferrari part, it usually is just the body that is crafted a shop with no ties to Ferrari. But then, so are the real cars when they leave the factory. If we look at several historical cars that are often discussed here, they are fixed, maintained, restored outside of Ferrari..

 

Not to complicate an already complicated discussion - but I'm curious what people here would make of the DeLorean DMC-12. If you're familiar with the history of the car (I assume many here are as "car people"), you know that the rights to the company, brand, and all of the parts inventory was bought up several years back. The company is now back in business and producing new "old" DMC-12's from original parts inventory (as well as performing restorations). However, they're also starting to manufacture new parts, even a fully electric DMC-12.

So, is a 1982 DMC-12 produced in 2013 with all original 1982 parts under the DMC brand and ownership, fully licensed, still an "authentic" DMC-12?? Or is it a "fake" considering DeLorean, himself, doesn't own the company, they're built in the US and not Ireland, and it's 2013 and not 1982??

For some, "authentic" apparently has as much to do with where the car was assembled, by whom, and the circumstances of the manufacturing - as much as it has to do with the authenticity of the parts (which may get down to the literal machines that the cut the metal and the language spoken by the guy doing the QA!). I suspect that many people may have varying definitions of "authentic" when it gets to the finer points - some which may be literal and others simply emotional.

In the case of the DMC-12, the brand is literally "authentic" - the current owner owns the trademarks, the blueprints, the parts inventory, the whole nine yards. They can produce an entire "new" 1982 DMC-12 from all of the original blueprints and parts, even using the same processes and techniques if they wished. But for many it still won't be "authentic" because it was physically constructed in 2013, and it was built by Americans in Texas versus in Ireland by a rowdy group banking the future of their town on the company... there's heritage there. But is the car any less authentic at a TECHNICAL level? Probably not. The components meet the technical specs called-for by the designer, and it looks, runs, an operates like one that rolled off the assembly line in the 80's.

I suspect the emotional authenticity will never be the same for some - because they'll "just know" as some have indicated. But others may consider it technically as authentic as any other DMC-12. Whether one or the other (1982 vs 2013) is appealing to a buyer may really come down to the buyer's own value system - a collector "knowing" whether the car existed in whole/assembled-form and had heritage in 1982, versus someone who may simply be an enthusiast and desire the experience of driving the car.

 

That 2013 production DMC-12 reminds me of current production Cobras in many ways.

 

Who cares about DeLorean? He was still wanted in the UK on fraud charges when he died. The new cars are what they are. I don't care for them but they evidentially have a legal right to exist.

 

Ferrari can do as they wish. It is their brand, their rights.

That doesn't confer you any rights to do as you wish.

Have you ever owned copyright, a patent or a commercial license to produce something? If you did, you'd understand.

 

I would consider the new Deloreans as continuation models just as Shelby did with his Cobras. Its still buikt under proper license and with correct parts so that's legit in my mind.




PDG

 

So it's ok for them to charge people to come to their museum and show a "fake"? If i travelled to Italy to see a California Spider and paid $$ in hotel, tickets, id be pissed to find out the car i am looking at is not the real thing.

 

Also, as i have said earlier, the main motivation of these reproductions in my opinion is to own something as close to the real thing as evidenced by high profile owners owning such cars and racing them. They must provide a close enough experience for these people to waste their time racing them or even having them built to their specs.

 

So it's ok for them to charge people to come to their museum and show a "fake"? If i travelled to Italy to see a California Spider and paid $$ in hotel, tickets, id be pissed to find out the car i am looking at is not the real thing.

 

I own several. I also understand what sd copyrightable and what is not. I know certain designs/looks I use will be knocked off, so the part I can copyright cant be legaly copied and is hopefully a differenttaible quality at the point of sale. But yes If I could protect the whole thing then I would make more, but such is life.

Now copying an out of production ferrari takes away no new Ferrari sales, so the harm is pretty much not there. Yes if someone copied a 458 there wouldeb an issue. When people started grafting onto Vws rolls rouce style radiators there was an issue. If ferrari hade atrademark grill there would be an issue with copying it. Therefore we know you cannot copy a ferrari horsey, or a bmw kidney grill. But a car shape is not copyrightable, and the lements that are have a finite copyright life unless they remain in production, none of which applies to a swb GTo or even a 288.