insulted by a kit car

I did exactly that when I found the rare engine block and began starting the reconstruction of my Mercedes 300SL W194 Prototype and was originally welcomed, congratulated and afforded access to the archives in Germany and numerous photo, and tech publications help from both the factory archivists, representatives and ex-drivers including John Fitch. But then something changed; notably the head of the Mercedes Benz Classic Center changed leadership and they opened a competing restoration and fabrication facility in the US and their demeanor with regard to my project suddenly changed. I became an enemy of their brand and no longer looked upon as an ambassador of the mark that I was for many years. Suddenly I was considered some sort of counterfeiter. In all fairness I can understand their hostility because I directly compete with the very lucrative business of restoring 300SL's in the US but it is still unfair for them to marginalize me and this particular project that had so much previous support before the leadership changed. They have no institutional memory. I am NOT creating a vehicle that is a counterfeit of an existing car and not mass producing... The project exists only to resurrect a previously destroyed (scrapped by Factory record) rare race car.

 

Well, it can't be that "shattering." It looks like the complete docs are all on the "My Garage" section on Ferrari.com. If you have or had any of these cars, you get access to all of Ferraris docs on these cars, including the aforementioned homologation certificates. I don't think that it's appropriate to send these out but I'm happy to show the homologation files to anyone who cares in "My Garage" on Ferrari.com if you're around me when I have my computer. They are very coo documents and I truly appreciate that Ferrari makes these documents available to us (registered owners of these cars).

 

Why is it inappropriate if it is legal and public knowledge? I don't see "My garage" on that site anywhere.

 

Because clearly it's not "public knowledge" if they only give someone access to it if you have "My Garage" access on their site. I have a whole database of docs for the Ferraris I own on there that I have never seen other places (not that I have looked very hard). Given the circumstances, it just doesn't seem ethical to me to share their documents that they choose to share with registered owners only.

 

Thanks for the update. In any event Gelescoe cars are new builds as are SPF cars. They are very acceptable at Goodwood, where Bullfighter seems to think only those with Millions to spend on old builds can play.


Fact is the age of the recreation is upon us, and many an auto connisuer is into recreations for very good and positive reasons.

Its also not ripping off art. Art is somethign started to which the end product is undetirmined, art is also usualy the product of one mind. Recreating acar is like building acopy of a house. A car is an industrial product built in series it a spec. To the extent that there are no longer trademarks on a particular shape anyone is free to replicate it. Some go the extra length of recretaing the origional by blueprint or pattern, some even seek licemsed permision. The trend today seems to be licensed permision, although what a factory 5 cobra licensed by shelby has to do with an orgional cobra is debatable, like for example sold axle different chassis fiberglass, but yeah for what its worth its licensed.

If you are not recreating a current product, and your car is not debasing a brand (ie amr2 with ferrari badges) , or better yet if its licensed then the worst that can be said of a recreation is that it increses the population of a particular car, possibly harming speculation price growth of old builds, but in reality enhancing derieability for the brand and old builds.

The dsantioning of recreations has been handles by bodies such as the FIA, this is good as we have really great and authentic recreations and their acceptability means they have avalue, as opposed to a base kit car.

 

Ok I see your point however why is it ok to admit that the 288 GTO was homologated, as public knowledge, but not to reveal it about the F50? If the F50 were a homologation car shouldn't that be just as widely known and reported as part of that car's history? As it is now the last known homologated works Ferrari was the 288 GTO and its spinoff versions. But now you're saying the F50 and Enzo are also actually race cars with homologation certification? Can you show me elsewhere this is stated? To keep it hidden seems silly.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that they are "actually race cars with homologation certification." This started because you said that many of the models I listed (288, F40, F50, Enzo, Cs, Scud, 599 GTO) are not homologation cars. I said they all have homologation docs from Ferrari as evidenced by the docs on the Ferrari site that they share with owners. I have no idea what specific purpose the docs are for and I never said that these are "actually race cars" (again, your words). All I said is that these cars have homologation certification papers that I have seen copies of per Ferrari. Beyond that, the docs are in Italian and since my Italian is limited, I can't really read that.

Regarding the 288 vs other cars, don't ask me to explain why Ferrari does what they do. It's not my company and thus not my business. If you have a problem with it, you should take it up with them. As far as F50 race cars, look up the F50GT. Ferrari even specified a race series for it. You can find that info pretty easily.

Find someone who has those cars and is known to Ferrari SpA as the registered owner. They should have access to the docs on the site that they can show you on their computer.

 

Well I'm searching for the truth and for the meaning of what you are saying as it is quite confusing. You say the F50 was homologated, then you are saying it's a secret, then you say... ?

To my knowledge, there is no historical F50 works Ferrari that was homologated. According to this story: http://www.classicdriver.com/en/article/cars/1996-ferrari-f50-gt-one-three the F50GT project was scrapped because Ferrari could not afford to homologate it once Mercedes, McLaren, and Porsche put out the necessary funding for homologation. Ferrari bailed out. The extant F50GTs that were built are collectible cars with nowhere to race as they were never certified to race. But the 288 GTO was. Correct me if I am in error as an F50GT/Evolucione would be shattering news indeed.

 

This is all I am saying and I have never said more or less than this:

There are homologation documents as displayed to owners of those cars on Ferrari's site. What those docs are for, I don't know. Is it a secret, I don't know. Whether those docs in themselves qualify the car for any series, I don't know. What they say, I don't know because I don't read Italian. They are labeled as "CSAI Homologation Certificate" and there multiple certificates for each car. If you have access, you can check them out for yourself and draw your own conclusion. I told you, don't take my word for it; get access or find an owner with access and look at them yourself.

They are right there on the site under the My Garage section.

 

Ok I am clear about most of that but I cannot access or see any My Garage section on that site. Can you help me to find it? I cannot just access them and find them myself apparently.

 

The most basic point you're missing is that it's not your decision, or mine, as to whether it's acceptable to create a copy of a Mercedes 300 SL, or whether it's debasing the brand. It is up to Mercedes, who created and own the design rights to the car. We can have 100 threads on this topic here, but no matter how much you argue that you are helping Mercedes out, ultimately it's not your call or my call. You don't have to convince me that a fake Gullwing is saving the brand or saving the next generation or anything. I think it's junk, you may think it's interesting, but either way Mercedes is the authority on these cars.

Again, if this thread was about Rolexes, Patek Phillippe or another famous watch brand, anyone arguing that we need to create replicas to save the brand would be viewed as a scofflaw, at best, and probably a parasite to a hobby (vintage watches) enjoyed worldwide. But we somehow need to debate whether it's OK to fake a '60s sports car, when a fake '60s watch would be unacceptable in the horology community.

The trend today, in music and cars, is ripping off the art of the past. It is difficult to conceive, design and build something like a Ford GT40, Shelby Cobra, Porsche 550 Spyder, et al. It takes a kind of genius to come up with the idea and see it through. Copying someone else's great idea? Meh...

With regard to money, I don't care whether a car costs millions or thousands -- not sure where you came up with that. My point is that guys with seven- and eight-figure cars do actually drive them. But it doesn't take millions or anything close. Anyone can go vintage racing in a real MG, real Healey, real Porsche, real Corvette, real Jaguar, real Lotus, etc. As far as I'm concerned, it's all equally good. Someone racing a fake? Biggest question is why they bothered, in 2014, to ape the past instead of creating something and furthering the sport. Imagine if Colin Chapman had just decided to do Jaguar replicas or Enzo Ferrari had just done Alfa tribute cars instead of starting his own company. They would have been inconsequential footnotes.

 

Go to Sports and GT Cars. Then go to My Ferrari. On the My Ferrari page there is a section marked "Limited Access." Login there and then you go to page that displays every Ferrari you own and the cars you have owned. It's called "My Garage." Under each car, there is a section called "Car Details." Click on that and in brings up a page for the car and a tab that says "Documentation." Click on that and you get all sorts of docs for that particular model, from Technical Manuals to Homologation Certificates. There are multiple homologation certificates for each car. I assume this is for running changes.

 

You throw the term fake around, in fact you imply even a licensed copy is a fake. This is clear in all your comentary, your view goes way beyond licensing.

As to why people like vintage racing, or for that matter build recreations. i guess its the same reason why people still like swiss watches, you know those anachronistic mechanicald evices which by comparison with modern stuff keep poor time. I guess its the same reason that people like to buy new watches styled like old watrches.

Racing has many threads. Most racing is spec racing, in fact nealry all racing adheres to one spec or another. Historics are a form of spec.

Technology has also removed cars from being viceral live things, machines we can relate to, older non computer driven race cars bridge the gap, they have their own appeal just like a swiss watch, we dont all buy antique swiss watches, we also buy new ones that look like the old. Yes an omega is a licensed copy of an omega, but there are lots of similar looking watches out there too. In fact there are lots of copied watch designs being produced, just with different labels. So if ferrari wont authorise new old ferraris or cant, the market will be filled by those who can, just like with watrches. Its a pity that by your standards the only ones wearog legalya ferrari badge are those that are made out of real chopped up ferraris. I personaly would much rather see full new builds than chops, but as you make clear legal issues mean we will see more chops. To me these things are not brands, but cars and machines, its the difference between us.

Yeah its a manufacturers decision to license a recreation, but licensing or recreations is a grey area legal term with lots of case work on both sides. The majority of manufacturers, (excluding ferrari and to a degree mercedes) seem to have no problem with these tribute cars. You have a problem with them whether licesed or not, you just dont feel you have a leg to stand on when they are licensed, but your terminology and general cometary indicate the whole concept is an anathema to you..

Most of us here seem to care ,more about the machine. therefore unlike you, we are aghast at cutting cars, even though a cut ferrari can wear a ferrari badge. We are far more comfortable with the idea of santioning a recreation that does not destroy something of historic or period value, than making legal arguements which cause destruction.

Yes you are right ferrari controls its brand and licensing, and yes to the extent they control
a particular design they control what is done. I would say that while you are stuck on legalese, things move on recreations get made and are well accepted by the majority. If a manufaturer wants to prevent its badges going on a recreation that as you say is their call, but its a legal trademark call which has little to nothing to do with the value and desireability of a recreation. Once again please note I am taking of recreations not kit cars. Ferrrari in fact does not stop recreations, what they stop is fakey doos with badges and in one instance favre and assembly line of GTO's. They certainly have not stopped allegreti or any number of otehr shops making swbs cali spyders and GTO's. What they are doing is stopping crappy replicas.

You make lots of coments about cheap c types going to the 711. this implies a frame of mind.

 

So I take it you are not a big fan of the Sharknose project or the W125's Mercedes that Crosswaith and Gardener built?

 

If I wanted to go vintage racing, which is exactly what it states, it would be quite hard to drive a new design, actually it would be impossible. So once you have decided to go vintage racing and you don't want to drive an MG or an Austin Healey, because you had a couple growing up and now after having some financial success you would love to drive one of your dream cars from back then; a Ford GT, a C-type Jag, a Testarossa. But, at over 8 million or so it's just a bit over your budget, however you can can go out and acquire a replica of this beloved vehicle and they let you drive it in some vintage events. Awesome.

This person gets to experience what it was like to drive an otherwise unobtainable piece, for a fraction of the cost and have fun. Personally, I don't believe someone is going to be suckered into believing it real, when it's sold, as originals are quite heavily documented.

As for design, you can't build cars like you could in the 60's, they will never get on the road and we all know that, this is why many of us covet and love the unhindered designs of the past. Saying a person who has the talent to build a recreation should try to build an original design is ridiculous. A person with the ability to sculpt metal at the Scaglietti factory did not have the ability to design the body, which is why many Ferraris were designed at Pinin Farina. A mans gotta know his limitations and/or ability, or you wind up with Hugos.

Recreations exist in many forms and no one gets all pissy about them, especially if it gets the car back on the road. Also I don't really feel using terms like "junk" to describe a perfect recreation is the right tone. Many cars have been recreated (restored) sporting only a vin plate and no one would call those junk.

 

"Prove your damages", I say

 

Ferrari has and does.

Remember the "MERA," which was marketed as a 308 replica and sold completely finished on a Fiero frame through Pontiac dealers? In court, the creator claimed that it was an "original design" that just happened to resemble a 308.

Yeah, right. . .

Ferrari sued and put them out of business.

Intellectual property must have value, not just in the intrinsic sense that the creator made something original, but in the marketplace as well: There is little incentive to innovate if any pirate or counterfeiter is free to rip off the design and sell it as original. The consequences to art, science and technology could be devastating.

 

I agree. I think the argument is vintage reproductions clearly can't cause damage to modern sales. I'm not aware of any case of vintage prosecutions.
McBurnie Daytona's are the closest example I'm aware of but they were offering those cars much closer to new than say a 62 or 63 GTO reproduction today.( Or a cobra, Spyder, GT40 etc). Also, maybe replicating very limited edition race cars further limit the (legal) argument of damage. Not my problem really, just fodder for useless debate.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

There are generally two types of 'collectors'. Those who purchase the rare missile firing Boba Fett action figure, have it professionally graded and store it in a hermetically sealed vault. Then there are guys like me, who rip open the package, shoot the missle and put it on the shelf.

I like to play with my toys. There, I said it.

As most red blooded males, I have a love of Ferrari products. I also was raised on Miami Vice. Thus I have a 1990 White TR sitting in the garage.

If I came upon a Mcburnie Daytona kit car in the $12-15k range, I would consider buying it for two reasons. 1) As a movie prop collector, I strive to get as close to screen used as possible. 2) I like to play with my toys. There is no way I would let a Daytona Spyder sit. It would get used, rock chips, miles racked up etc.

With the above said, I couldnt bring myself to devaluate such a rare auto. I have done this with various movie gun replicas. I buy the gun with the intention of gutting/modifying it. In the end it gust goes in the safe until I find a demilled or the correct parts for the movie gun Im working on.

Do I look down on kit cars? Depends. There are some great builders who are truly artists (rare). But I wouldnt be offended if a Fiero based TR pulled up at the gas pump. In the end hes a car guy like me. The whys and how he came into a replica dont concern me.

 

+1 Very balanced and realistic view.

 

Some people say.......
some people say that cucumbers taste better pickled - YouTube

 

A well balaced view, in theory people on this site are car guys, I dont get dissing otehr car guys.

The mera was ripping of an in production design. Like the guy in Spain doing MR2 ferraris it was not well done either. That is a far cry from a recreation of design decdes from being current. At a certain point a design is no longer proteceted, what is protected is a trademark like a horsey or a current production design. Within those parameters of prytection there is no devatating consequenes for recreating a decades old non design, happens with watches posters etc every day..

 

I'm referring to a guy who builds his own, doesn't represent it as a Ferrari built car

AS IF the guys buying the Fiero based cars would have been Ferrari customers anyway, gimme a break Ferrari. It makes me laugh when they go around stamping their tiny little feet.

 

Aren't all cars "kit cars" in reality? Body by Alcoa, engine by Ferrari, brakes by Brembo, tires by Pirelli, electrics by Marelli, suspension by Delco Remy...the list goes on and on...

 

Wow, 14 pages of pretentiousness and self righteous arrogance.