Replicas, why bother ??

If its irrelevant to them, and here I agree with you then there is no issue. There is never a win for Fearrai in historic races, the win for Ferrari was decades ago in a SWB or GTO. The only win in any old car or copy now is for the driver, therefore if its badged ferrari or not or you judge it a ferrri or not is irrelevant. What it is, is a cool old design race car, something genraly considdered not the fastest, but the most balanced and sublime to drive, thats why they are recreated.

 

Ok so you are good with SPF GT40's license paid same with Cobras licessed by Shelby. You dont object tot he concept, just the trademark issue. So youa re ok with the current Chevron licnese holder making more B16's. I am ok with your points, mayor thinks any recreation licensed or not is trashy, just trying to detirmine if you are in that camp to..

 

And I have no problem with recreation selling for whatever the market will bear. After all we see the aston zagato recreation went for 3.5 million.

My issue is with people who think the very concept of a recreation licensed or not, is a "fake" etc, they dont see any validity in it at all ever. I think they see this because cars are static reperesentations of wealth to them, and the concept of a car as a driving pleasure enhancer is alien, and that each car design when driven as designed touches pleasure centers and experiences in different ways. to them the pleasure of a car s from looks and $$$ value, soa recreation is an unfathomable waste to them. .

 

I respectfully think that NO, since you are trying to fool people.

 

Or maybe you just want to enjoy a hemi cuda for the drive.

 

Good thing an Enzo isn't classic.

And the P3 and P4 were Ferraris, not Pininfarinas.

SPF builds a car under license. They are not fakes, they are continuations, legally. For someone so caught up on intellectual property, that should be it. But you love to twist the facts to fit your mood.

By your own arguments, the Ford GT is a fake.

 

How is someone being fooled? The cars documentation tells everyone what the car is. Now alter that and you've got some problems.

 

You'd have every right to be upset. I'm glad your starting to see replica cars from our perspective.

 

And this is the mindset of (sadly most) people in Ferrarichat that worries me. Acquire a car just to "flip it" later and not using/enjoying them.

 

Which is eactly the case with a sanctioned recreation.

 

True whereas you get arecreation knowing you will probably take a financial bath, so its all about using/enjoying them, a true enthusiasts car.

 

Interesting how those on this thread most against a recreation dont own a ferrari or a track car.

 

Dont get me wrong, I would love to own that car. But Ferrari is doing what we have said reproductions owners shouldnt do which is pretend they own the real thing.

 

i don't know that to be true, but i do know most ferrari owners (or at least their fund managers) are very prudent when it comes to finances. But i know where your coming from. I modify my ferrari's to the chagin of many purist.

 

As I've said in another thread, as a non-Ferrari owner, every time (exaggeration of course) I see a potential Ferrari I have to ask the owner if its real to work out whether I've experienced something worth remembering or not. Not cool.

And also one day I'd like to own a 250 GT 2+2 or a 365 GT/4 2+2, if I can get to one before the replica bast@sds have not got there first.

Replicas should only be allowed to use common production cars for parts, not old historic cars. Simple as that.
Pete

 

Once you've dealt with legal barrier, it comes down to personal preferences. For vehicles I don't care too much for I'd have to invest time and effort to come to an opinion. So I'd only offer a pov for cars i know a little. Caterham 7s are superb and I'd never want to see them disappear. The 250F builds by Cameron Millar are a tour de force and need to stay.

 

Maybe you need glasses

 

I'm a purist, but you have every right to modify your car. You own it. I may not want to buy it, but Ferrari has been paid for their car, which is the honorable approach.

That's very different than creating a fake "Ferrari" that can deceive, and not licensing the design.

 

How about a change in gears? A while back, I remember somebody from Europe drafting a concept car that put a 250 GTO style body on a, I believe, a F599 chassis. Does anybody remember this? I can't find those pictures, but I recall thinking that the car looked really cool. Would this be a replica? Or a recreation? If someone other than Ferrari made it, would you purists turn up your nose at it?

Dale

 

This would have been similar to Jame's P4/5. An hommage to a vintage Ferrari built on a modern chassis. It is not a replica or a recreation since that particular design never existed. It had 250 GTO cues but it clearly was not a 250 GTO body.

 

Do you have any pics of this concept? I can't seem to find any.

Dale

 

2006 Vandenbrink Ferrari 599 GTO Mugello Concept - Front And Side Red - 1920x1440 - Wallpaper

 

Thank you very much. So what say ye purists? Would you kick this car out of bed?

Dale

 

Im not a purist i guess since i would love a reproduction GTO/SWB/TR. And that GTO concept looked pretty cool. Esp with a 599 Chassis and engine.

 

Interesting to see what Jay Leno says about it all as he is a guy who is into driving rather than polishing

AutoTraderClassics.com - Article Jay Leno's Column: The Collector