My recent interest in sports racing cars and the 6045LM thread has sparked me ask your opinions. Scenario 1 - If a sports racing car was damaged or used up to the point that the chassis required replacement and the owner sent the car in for repair would not the repaired car with a replacement chassis still be the original car? The owner certainly did not give up the ownership of the car, he simply had the car repaired. One could consider the chassis a service item similar to a set of spark plugs or tires, although a much more important service item in this scenario. Scenario 2 - A second car is rebuilt around the damaged and newly repaired chassis but this car has virtually nothing but the original chassis. Does this car qualify as the original car even though the car in scenario 1 still exists with an unbroken chain of ownership and title documents. I'm certain that some of these cases have been in court over the years, what has happened to the ownership of some of these cars claiming the same serial numbers? Is one of the cars given a new VIN if they are both titled? I've had my share of fun with serial numbers and the law. I recently purchased a factory race car from its original owner. These cars were raced in competition in 1969 and when 1970 came around the factory had a limited budget and tried to beat the homolgation rules. They decided that they would not produce new cars in order to homologate them for racing but instead they took advantage of a facelift on the car and sent out a new front bumper, grille, hood, seats and dashboard (which conveniently had a new 1970 VIN). The dealers were instructed to install the dashboards and go racing with their "new" cars. When the owner purchased the car from the factory it was sold to him as a 1969. He was not even aware the the "public VIN" in the dashboard was a 1970 and differed from the one on his title. The owner had sold the car in 1990 to one of his friends. The friend had the car titled with the 1970 "public VIN" and then passed away in 1997. The car was then sold by the widow back to the original owner in 1997. When I went to purchase the car it became evident that the VIN in the dashboard did not match the original owners title. We knew where the hidden VIN on the car was and after removing some items to gain access to it sure enough it matched the 1969 VIN. In the end the DMV got involved and we had a VIN verification done on the car. The officer that performed the inspection removed the same items we did to gain access to the hidden VIN. The VIN verification officers report declared the "frame VIN" to be the correct one and the "public VIN" in the dashboard to be incorrect. The car was a 1969 not a 1970 and the DMV sent the widow a letter revoking the title that existed under the 1970 VIN as it was the 1969 vehicle. DMV viewed the hidden VIN as the DNA of the car and that the car was in fact the 1969. If we translated this philosophy to the the first two scenarios then the car in scenario 2 would in fact become the legitimate car even though the original owner of the car never gave up ownership, he simply had his car repaired. Many race cars do not have a hidden VIN. Your thoughts are appreciated.
"Real" in terms of the law, or "real" in terms of Ferrari (as in certification)? It's not necessarily the same thing. In both these cases, the cars could be considered real. Ferrari's own certification program allows for a new chassis. I believe it states that the chassis should (shall?) be made by the original company. There's a 250LM and 250P that recently have had a new chassis made by the original guys. The old frames in both cases were damaged beyond use by fire and/or accidents. The DMV will consider them real and, if you pay enough money to Ferrari, should be able to be certified. No big surprise, others have claimed the 250LM's serial number (No, not 6045), but a court ruling eventually sorted that all out. The original frame for the LM still exists, but it's useless. I believe the frame tag has been cut out, but I may be wrong on that. In the second example, as long as the manufacturer hasn't written the VIN off, then, that too, can be made into a car. Heck, in this day and age with good lawyers, one could probably even get around that one. Probably a bit more tricky with Ferrari, but the recent eBay Devin/Ferrari example will pave the way on this one. (i.e, creating a car out of a chassis. In this case, a chassis that is not written off.) There's lots of issues around this of course, but, in my opinion, the owner of a car has the right to do whatever is necessary to repair their car. If that means a new chassis, fine. It's still a real car. The problems usually revolve around unscrupulous people that pick up remains of a car. Then, one remains of a car goes into a shop, and three come out. Or, the owner of the remains sells some bits off to one guy, and other bits off to another, and both make new cars out of it. Nah, this stuff doesn't really happen, does it? Steve
This is why I personally think that a proper original car has all original components installed (including but not limiting to frame, engine and bodywork). Repairs and replaced entities should be documented properly. Too often it turns out that the claimed "reunited engine" is the same old incorrect engine restamped to have a set of new numbers (Oh boy!) or "exact restoration" is based on a poor replica bodywork remotely based on what can be seen in old photographs (=there are too many SWB Berlinetta reconstructions using correct serial number). With the factory involved this is getting even more complicated. I am very concerned about the factory restamping restamped engines "back to original" as a part of their program; sooner or later they will make a mistake too. A car built using an original frame is - and will always be a reconstruction using original frame. It does not much matter what different parties eventually involved (manufacturer, owner, court of law, whoever) thinks about it, they can't go around the facts. Soon as one car has been turned into three, none of them can not be taken seriously anymore. Best wishes, Kare
Obviously this is a very complicated issue. Firstly my reading of the requirements for Authentication by Ferrari Classiche would not allow a car with a replacement chassis to be authenticated even if manufactured by the original chassis manufacture. In addition I believe that their requirements would not allow a car to be authenticated that was missing it's original chassis stamping. (IMO this is a bit disingenuous as there is much credible evidence that Ferrari themselves re stamped chassis and switched chassis tags for various reasons and it's interesting to note that the press day photographs of 0846 show no chassis plate at all) Remember Authentication by Ferrari is simply that. No more no less. They can use any criteria they wish and people can take it for whatever they want to. It is not a legal certification such as DMV or Government issued Title. The above is not new and has been Ferrari Chassiche's policy for years. Definitionally 0846 for example could never be "Authenticated" under those criteria. Establishing legal identity is a totally separate matter and the requirements to do such vary from place to place. Exactly what something is and what it is not is quite separate from what people feel something is entitled to be called. The market is efficient and the facts are available. If one digs deep enough, what something is worth, taking into account what it is and is not, is also not a issue. "No Stories" car trade at one price cars with a "past" trade at other's. If I were to put 0846 and 0854 up for auction, (Once again I'm not) in light of the massive disclosure available the market would price them accordingly and efficiently. The law case involving Egon is one to watch as it could have great effect on all of this but in the end all that really matters is what something really is and what it is not.
These scenarios present the worst of all alternatives: Car 1 is a replica and car 2 is a recreation. Car 1 can't claim any provenance other than the running gear, and Car 2 nothing but the chassis. ...but find 'a length of period heater hose' and either becomes a bone fide "historic" racer.
Just one man's opinion, but: If a car has the complete chassis replaced, even by the factory, than IMO it is a recreation. The car has to have at least 51% of the original chassis and suspension components to retain it's S/N, plus the original motor. Preferably, it would have at least 51% of it's original coachwork, but that should not be a requirement. If the original motor was so blown up that it had to be replaced and not repaired, the car has to have at least 51% of the specific motor provided as a replacement by the factory to be still considered original. As far as I'm concerned car #2 is nothing more than a fake, even if it contains 49% or less of the original chassis (but nothing else) Of course these percentages can not be exact, but I'm sure you get the drift.....
Generally the FIA agrees with you as well. (to receive Historical FIA papers) Most feel the majority of the original chassis is key. While this has been restored and was invited to race at Historic Le Mans IMHO it doesn't meet Dr. Stu's criteria. Best Image Unavailable, Please Login
Jim, Nice looking GT40!! Actually, what original bits went back on the restoration/recreation? Regards, Art S.
The tires! ...knew it all along... Though, far from kidding, if my restoration-knowlege is truly as good as I think it is, then it would probobly be Coker, who you buy your tires from Jim. To really think about who produces vintage Firestones anymore, they are some of the best. Coker's Vintage Firestones can be fitted for Lolas, GT40s and P4s. But seriously Jim, that car looks amazing! To a lesser extent, it would be smart to have a duel-zone spa system in it. So Im sure youve got one. Safe-fuel-tank, near 30k miles, you would need to re-do the valve gear etc, new gaskets for the carbs, new starter motor and probobly a clutch. I dont think you would do a pully-swap, because it could cause some trouble on a GT, due to the transaxle. Great buy! Better Investment! Kind Regards Jon
Hi That one isn't mine. I was just posting it as an example of what others have done. I do have personal knowledge of a "major" Ferrari that was built from about the same as that "Ford GT" but that's a story best told around the campfire... Mine is undergoing her 25K service. We freshened the motor and did replace the clutch even though it really didn't need it. She'll be out and about soon. As an aside J6 is one of the more original race cars in existence. Best Image Unavailable, Please Login
I believe FCHAT user MACCA took that photo as I drove up the hill at the 2000 Goodwood Festival of Speed. Best
I'm afraid I can't take credit for that one - I took some but none as good. I scanned it from the event report in 'Motor Sport' and the copyright is with LAT Photographic. Paul M
