insulted by a kit car

Huh?

Maybe I'm wrong but you seem to want to argue Ferrari's use of its own trademark. Ferrari owns it and can do whatever it wants with it. What am I missing?

 

This is what I am saying:

Edit --
To clarify: If one believes a recreation, kit, etc. is to be viewed with some level of disdain, the same level of disdain might logically be applied to the practice of putting shields on a road-going Ferrari, whether done by the factory or an individual. Nothing to do with trademarks or lawsuits.

 

This is what you don't understand. Ferrari can make a shield stand for whatever it wants. It's their intellectual property and they have full control over it. They can put shields on anything they want. I buy a Ferrari mug with a shield on it knowing full well that mug is not a race car and Ferrari is not trying to deceive me into thinking it is. They even have a car named Scuderia. There is no problem. period.

 

It is viewed as what it is, which is a fake branded as real which is viewed as deceptive. A Ferrari with shields is still a real Ferrari with no deception implied. It is just some people that came up with this notion that only a race car can have shields, as this belief is definitely not held by Ferrari which owns the rights to the trademark. People can dream up any "rules" they want for Ferrari to follow, it matters little. Ferrari will do as it sees fit.

 

The majority of society cant even differentiate between a Ferrari and a Lamborghini. You know what you have.

 

If you disagree with me, that's fine; but I see is no need for statements like this. That's just being mean.

Actually, it was not "some people" who came up with that notion, it was Enzo Ferrari. The very purpose of the shields was to identify the car as a Ferrari team race car. He practiced this from his days at Alfa Romeo until his death, and it was only abandoned relatively recently.

I'll repeat here that it is of no consequence to me if anybody here builds or drives a replica, has shields on a 308 or similar, or wears a $250 "Rolex". I have simply been trying to state my belief that many people might see similarities between these things as I do.

This is starting to drift a bit too much. I think I've made my point clear enough. Happy motoring.

 

You don't think copying a painting or a car takes talent? Obviously you have no idea what it takes to do either.

Get a life guys. Nobody is convincing anyone of anything. Other than that you are all of such high moral standards.......let he who is without sin.......

 

Well, it seems this subject has been thrashed into oblivion. There IS, however, a facet which was mentioned little.

Modification of a somewhat current model to "appear" to be a different model entirely. I believe Stevie Wonder could see the FAIL here.

Take a look. Opinions? What does one call the "result." Frankenarri?

Ferrari 288 GTO Style Body Components for 308 or 328 | eBay

Seller claims:

Also note...

 

So by your various logics.

I can cut a lesser ferrari and rebody into something else, put horseies on it because its still a ferrari, just modified.

I can make an entire 250 gto using all new parts to spec, just dont put a horsey on it and its Ok.


You know I have no problem with that, to me option 2 is way better, it preserves original cars, and for me all I care about is how it looks and goes, the badge is actualy a detraction.

To me these days pretty much anything with a horsey on is a detraction meerly be association.

I guess thats why my "real" ferrari is grigio, its for me to enjoy, not to grab others attention.

Refering to all recreations as Kit cars is disingenious. There are licensed reproductions. Cars made from lesser cars(like a proteus ctype) all of whuch are santioned and legal. There are also recreations of long dead designs like pur sang bugattis and latteryly alfa t33;s and some ferraris.

Then you have plastic facimlies and rebodied fieros.

These are all very different and are either completly legal and sanctioned, a grey area of a trademark infingement by putting a bage of something its quite obviously not.

Yeah if someone puts horsies all over their fiero whatever, we are going to question their motivation, and its sometype of infirngement. Is this person a wanabee poseur probaly, but not more so that the new 458 owner with red tan and sheilds, doing 30 to the cuppuchino bar..

It seems at times you agree that its oK if the repro is licensed, so your arguement is more one of property rights. But in reality that is just a corner you get boxed into from time to time, the undercurrent of your view is that once a car ceased orduction thats it, and anything made subsequebtly is a fake driven by a poseur.

Considder that some enthusiasts are not driven by value, but rather by an appreciation of the thing unto itself, regardsles of badge, for these people recreations are no only acceptable but desireable. Many owners of recreations have the period builds as well, that tells you something, they are enthusiasts who really like to drive a poarticular machine.

Instead of attending cars and coffes and concors, just start driving man, that is what the machines really are for..

 

A big part of the problem with a lot of these re-bodied Toyota MR2's/Pontiac Fiero's et al, is that the panel fit is diabolical! - Especially most of the home built versions.

Next, after a couple of years the various bonded panels start to crack and come loose and the whole car looks like its falling apart!

Okay, for some people that simply tough doo-doo for the owner and people in the know realise exactly why it's happened.

However, for those not in the know, it gives the appearance that Ferrari's are shonky piles of ****e that crack up, fall apart and have dodgy panel fits to begin with!

This, I suspect, is a big part of Ferrari's issue with these replica kit cars (apart from the theft of I.P property) - They damage Ferrari's reputation!

 

Excellent point. Suppose the first Ferrari one sees, up close, is one of these.

"THIS is a Ferrari"?

 

As I have said, I do not have a problem with licensed cars or continuations. These are made with the blessing of the factory or whoever owns the rights. The manufacturer going through the proper channels wants to be a legitimate part of the brands history. This way the holder of the rights has some control of the quality and is responsible for whatever happens to the brand good or bad as a result of these continuations.

 

Cant express in words how much I agree with you here.

 

I think boxerman's point was about the pretentiousness of Ferrari within its own legalistic branding.

His position argues that the shields exist today as a pretentious jewelry item added to a car that isn't actually from the Scuderia. Today Scuderia Ferrari only focuses on the F1 program. Scuderia Ferrari has no GT racing program. That ended decades ago, I believe in or around 1973 where all factory P and GT works cars were discontinued from racing.

Therefore, virtually any Ferrari today with shields that drives on the road isn't from Scuderia Ferrari (exceptions perhaps being the FXX, 599XX, or 599 GTO which are virtually racecars that have nowhere to race).

 

Yes I see your point, however there were Enzo era road going cars with factory shields not just Scuderia, competition only vehicles. Yes it could be argued that they were technically the same car and made for homologation allowing the use of the shield for the road car. Truth is these road going cars never saw competition and still sported the shields. Ferrari sees no merit in this "rule" so why should I? Ferrari is probably the best marketed company in the world. They make their rules they can break their rules. Enzo put his team in place knowing they would make their own decisions in the best interests of the company and it's core values. How this has any relevance to someone making fake knockoff of real Ferraris I will never know.

 

Bad analogy. A five dollar timepiece will do the same job as a PP watch. The PP is jewelry.

Making yourself a car that resembles an iconic original can be for many reasons other than to be ostentatious. A copy or whatever term you care to use is usually more practical and useful for the intended purpose as a "car" which the exalted originals sometimes cease to be.
As long as it pleases it's owner, who cares? These cars do nothing to diminish the value and desirability of the originals(perhaps the contrary). Plenty of poseurs behind the wheels of the real things too. According to Webster;a person who pretends to be what he or she is not : an affected or insincere person

 

There is always an implicit intention to deceive others with a replica. That is in part the disdain for a replica. All those cavallinos, stuck on seats, wheels, gas cap, radio, etc. all bright yellow. Lemme guess.. The owner loves the look of the logo and thus needs to see it everywhere right?

 

RIght.

Right but they were made to be homolgated. Those days are long gone now.

Ok sure. I don't take issue with it.

I don't really know what you mean by that. What does 'best marketed' mean? I'd say McDonald's supersedes Ferrari by millions of orders of magnitude in that area. But what do you mean?

Because Scuderia shields denote a fake condition. Again, I personally like shields on some Ferraris. But the fake-to-fake parallel still exists. In other words, it can be construed as pure gimmickry. At best they are vestigial and a nod to heritage.

 

+1 I agree.

A poseur need not drive a replicar to be deemed so. A poseur can drive an actual Ferrari and own a host of expensive things. A good ratio of poseurs comprise Ferrari buyership today although a poll taken on it would probably not reveal who the true poseurs actually were. They wouldn't consider themselves to be that. Or maybe they would. I'd have to start a thread on it.

 

That's BS. The 288 GTO, F40, F50, Enzo, CS, Scuderia and 599 GTO were all made ONLY with badges. And Enzo himself put them on the 288 and F40.

But other than those, the cars that have the shields as options (which started in 1996 to 1997 IIRC) should really not have them, although they do look cool.

 

Most of those listed are not homologation cars. Don't know what you mean by BS (?)

Yes I don't have an issue with shields. I generally like them especially when they're countersunk properly from the factory

 

That's not true. They are all homologated. I think that I have the FIA Homologation paperwork filings on each of them on one of these computers here. The point is, not only factory race cars were supposed to have shields (from Enzo or Luca) because these are road cars from the factory that were only offered with shields. And the Scuderia played a significant role in producing the supercars (288/F40/F50/Enzo).

You said that no road going Ferrari is supposed to carry the shields (per the original Enzo statement).

I am giving you the counterpoint as that's not correct.

All of that aside, the original point made a while back is that all of the cars where shields are offered as an option or the cars where people go back and put shields on later are not supposed to have shields, only the race cars and "special" cars. That is correct and I agree with that, although the shields look pretty darn cool. I don't really have an opinion on those who choose to put on the shields.

Either way, it's not a big deal and not the point of this thread but I like to correct misconceptions before they multiply into commonly accepted errors. Sort of how "irregardless" has now made its way into the dictionary. How people couldn't nip that one in the bud long ago is beyond me.

 

I wasn't aware that, for example, the F50 or Enzo was homologated for racing. That's new to me. What race series was it to appear in?

I stated that unless the car was homologated from the Scuderia then the shields are "incorrect." That is all I implied. For example, the F430 with shields is not a homologated car from the Scuderia. I based my reasoning upon the 1973 termination date of all GT and P works programs. But again, that you say the F50 and Enzo were homologated is a new one to me. Do you have the history behind this that I can read? If shields have no actual meaning other than Ferrari branding then I do stand corrected.

Ok sure.

 

You have imposed this condition on Ferrari. Perhaps Ferrari feels so much racing technology exists in their road cars, that they feel the cars have the right to wear them. Who knows?

 

My comment was more about guys adding shields on their cars. Cars where shields were not a factory option.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk