Why Is The Chassis Considered The Most Critical Element Of A Vintage Cars Authenticity?

Cars often get new engines (especially race cars), and various other parts (gearboxes, axles, bodywork), but seldom new chassis. The chassis is the skeleton of the car, the thing to which those other parts are attached.

Just my opinion.

 

Ha, Bluebottle posted just as I was about to post the following:

The engine may be the heart of the car, but the chassis is the backbone. Not uncommon to see heart transplants, but not so much with backbones.

 

Great minds think alike!

 

There will (almost always) be an identical engine number stamped as the same as the chassis number.

There will also be an internal engine number that is another question altogether.

But the serial number, in general, is the car.

Matt

 

I thought about this a lot when setting up the GTE Register. In order to track body switches, engine swaps and the like, I could not track a car, but rather assembled one from the five major parts (chassis, engine, gearbox, rear axle and body). This made it easy to follow the various bits as they moved on.

I chose to use the chassis as the primary component because it is the one that goes down the assembly line to have the other parts added to it. Also note that the chassis number is added to the body and engine by Ferrari only after they determine which chassis it will go on. (The gearbox and rear axle do not have the chassis number on them). So to me, the chassis is the essence of the car.

 

Jaguar D-Types are an interesting case in point because they have both tubular assemblies front and back AND a central monococque which allows them to be split into two cars. Either are worth much less than half and in recent years a lucrative industry has formed to repatriate cars creating one complete (with all original parts and one fake). The chassis is the backbone as already stated the rest are just parts.

 

I am what they call a "srict constructionist" in supreme court circles. I agree that all provenance ought to start with the chassis. I am seen Ferraris burn down to the tires but still be completely restored (the spyder of Dick Teague for instance) That's why I hate Jguar resurrecting building D-types and Lighgtweight E-types, they are creating future confusion in auction circles. And when I was given a book on McLaren and i got to the fifth time they said "And in 19 such-and such the chassis was replaced" I threw the book away because you can never be too sure that the discarded chassis wqs destroyed so then there will be two with the same SN

 

It's a bitza. There used to be, maybe still is, a secret society of which few dared to talk about called Telaio, which is Italian for chassis. Hey, why is that black Suburban stopping outside my window...

 

Nice knowin' ya, Dale.

 

Tomorrow’s headline: Man commits suicide with a double tap to the back of the head.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat

 

Well I guess I'm next for drawing attention to you.

We had a good run.

Somebody feed my dog for me.
(I don't have a dog).

 

If you really, really, really, want an education in this area, AND you don't mind missing maybe a week of your life, go read the #0846 thread. It may be the longest running thread on the Internet. The funny thing is you'll be able to see how I, and many others, did a 180 on the subject.

 

It helps to go back to Bugatti. From about 1910 into the 1950s, Bugatti produced something on the order of 7000 cars. Known far and wide for their racing cars, chief among these was the Type 35. Production was 1924-1930. While less than 350 were made, the T35 in its various configurations is known as the most successful racing car of all-time with over 2000 victories to its name.
Fast forward to after the war (WW2) and the resumption of racing. I think credit goes to the British for recognizing the need to make sense of 'real cars' vs. 'bitsas' and 'cobbled-together cars' along with modern copies/'fakes'. A necessary process of discernment was required if racing and trading (selling) vintage cars was ever to have any order and authenticity.
I think the modern recognition of 'the chassis is the car' has a great deal of its origins in the Bugatti Owners Club (UK) use of the 5 major components measuring standard.
My memory is fuzzy, but the RAC may have instituted a fifths rule- X(?) of the 5 major components must be present for the car to be judged valid.
There are racing Bugattis today that are 'real' save for the chassis that are built on a BOC-numbered and recognized replica chassis.
All in all, they put a great deal of thought into figuring all of this out.

Hope this helps.

 

If the chassis survives elsewhere, that's presumed to be the car.
As an example; I have all but the chassis. You have the chassis. To the purist, you have the car.
If the chassis doesn't survive and everything else is original, the value is perceived to be diminished. To what extent will depend on the particulars of the car in question.

 

RC1 - its complicated

My friend Readplays is mostly correct. Bugatti were in demand in the 1950s and 1960s but their value was so low it was often cheaper (and sometimes the only option was) to strip and rebuild with whatever Bugatti parts were then available. It was also relatively common for people such as Ray Jones to maximise their profits by taking an entity such as a Mercedes SSK, Bugatti Type 35 or Alfa Romeo 8C2300 and rebuild it on an unknown frame with all of the authentic parts while taking the now surplus original frame and building that into a second car and selling BOTH. The greater value in the 1980s spawned a cottage industry that began to take whatever had been discarded (the Brits, Kiwis and Aussies especially never throw anything away) with the four corners scoured for anything usable and hey presto another car would be built up. In the pre internet era (even the 1990s) it was common for people to buy cars that appeared authentic to then hear that someone had another example claiming to be the same entity.

With people turning up at Bugatti Owners Club (BOC) events in Type 35s that may have been built last week, both claiming to be a Bugatti, experts decided that to be considered a genuine Bugatti an entity must contain three of five original elements, chassis, front axle, rear axle, gearbox and engine to be considered authentically a Bugatti although these did not necessarily have to be from that specific entity. This can lead to two cars with the same chassis number since a single entity could have two of those original elements with a third original element from another car and a second could have other elements.

See https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/18216/lot/326/

Another major test for the juvenile industry was the first major legal case about what makes an entity real came when Ed Hubbard sold the Bentley aka Old No. 1 which won Le Mans in 1929 and was then converted:

"The records reveal that the 4½ litre pattern differential was over stressed so the standard production 6½ litre differential was fitted with standard spicer shaft. The chassis frame was replaced, along with the front axle beam. A new gear box of the D Type, along with a new differential and spicer shaft were installed. Bracing across the front of the frame was changed. The Hartford friction shock absorbers were deleted and replaced by twin hydraulic Bentley and Drapers. It seems likely that the steering column was changed as well. There was a modified crankcase to accommodate the Bosch starter. Thus it can be seen that the 1930 car was very different from the 1929 car both in appearance and specification."

It won Le Mans again in 1930 and into 1932 Barnato (Bentley's chairman) decided to ask chief engineer "Mr. Hassan started with a 4+ litre chassis frame which was stronger than the old 6.5 litre because it was feared that it would break or crack. Mr. Hassan told me that he used all the existing parts of the older car -- that is the radiator, the clutch, the gear box, the axles, the scuttle, the electrical equipment and pedals, as Mr. Hassan said in terms, "and we finished it up in the form it is now. It was ready for the 500 miles race in that September but Captain Barnato thought it would be a bit faster with a bigger engine, so we obtained an 8 litre engine and I built that into the car. That is the state that it ran in in the race when Clive Dunfee unfortunantly went over the top and was killed as a result."

Now after that crash the car was further rebodied twice, fitted with new side members AND "Based on all this data and information, it is Mr. Hay's considered opinion that none of the 1929 Speed 6 survives with the exception of fittings which is impossible to date. Of the 1930 Speed 6 he believes that only the following exist on the car as it is now, namely pedal shaft, gear box casing and steering column. Of the 1932 car, the 4 litre chassis and 8 litre engine form in which it was involved in the fatal accident, he believes that the following exist: the chassis frame, suspension (i.e. springs, hangers, shackles and mountings), front axle beam, back axle banjo, rear brakes, compensating shaft, front shock absorbers and mountings, the 8 litre engine, some instruments and detailed fittings."

Reliant Scimitar (makers of the three wheeled Robin as used by Del Boy on the UK tv hit Only Fools and Horses) had agreed to buy the car for 10 million pounds 1990 (valuing it at more than the GTO and Bugatti Royale sold in that period) but backed out after signing the contract when they realised just how much was original eg. none. The British High Court ruled that for the car to be real it must meet several tests, namely:

1. Historical continuity;

2. Physical originality; and

3. Owner's intent.

And decided that because it met the Historical continuity, ie it was built as, rebuilt as, continued to contain every existing part of and represents an entity. Now this case ruled that like Grandfathers axe it was ruled that an entity doesn't need to contain anything to be considered legally that entity, it simply needed to contain more of that entity than any other single entity AND have Historical continuity from its creation. To that end if a car suddenly appeared after a lengthy period believed lost, be concerned about why it was thought lost and how it got to be discovered. The final 3rd point is whether the owner knew it was real (or not) or misrepresents just what part was real or what it was not or what form it was as an entity. And to close that case, the court ruled in the vendors favor.

Full story here http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html
Also see https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24876/lot/359/
OR Ship of Theseus for the intellectual view on the concepts what is an entity and what constitutes original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

As for Ferrari perhaps the gold standard for cars with questionable identities should go to cars such as the 375 Plus #0384AM, 250LM #6045, 330P #0818 OR the 330P3/4 #0003/0846. I would look to the following to judge a car/ auto:

- Does the car contains ALL of its original entity (the gold standard) - none of these cars meet that standard but the GTO #3413 or 4153 pass this test
- If not does the car contains all its original chassis (the silver standard) - (#0384AM of the aforementioned four arguably MIGHT), the others don't
- If not does the car contain its original chassis, what about its original parts (perhaps the three out of four) (the bronze standard) - bizarrely they all contain the majority or at least some original Ferrari parts, even #0846 was rebuilt with some authentic parts from the various cars that passed through David Piper and others hands incl. original bodywork and some mechanical components although they don't come from a single entity.

Further
- Is there another entity claiming to be that entity. (#0384AM is fine), #0846 is the only entity claiming to be that number, #6045 was built into one entity from the two that existed in 2012 and the rest was scrapped by Ferrari Classiche while both claimants of #0818 are being offered sale as a package with a Classiche caveat to create one car.
- Did the car exist as a known single entity from the day it was sold (#0384AM did), #0818 and #6045 were built into two entities but both were well known. #0846 did not since it ceased to exist in the 1970s and is said to exist from the late 1990s/ early 2000s
- If there is more than a small timeframe post 1970 when the car was lost and discovered, was anyone associated with the discovery of the entity someone also known to have built (or sold) replicas and was the entity found in the same place it was lost and if not is there any explanation for why.

For some purists only a car that was wheeled out of a factory and straight into a museum is original.
Like a good Facebook status, its complicated.

 

Yes, it is all very complicated but hopefully less so in the future.

I had forgotten that Middlebridge owned Reliant but that seems like an unfair link to make. I remember the group being an investor in lots of things, classic cars bring just one of them. I have photographs of cars with their jockey logo on the windscreen but it always saddened me to think that beautiful Vignale bodied Ferraris were just an investment/asset.

From what I recall of the case at the time was that Middlebridge had agreed to purchase a car at a certain price but then the market collapsed. They were then committed to buying a Bentley at a price far higher price than its market value. They tried to use originality as a “get out” but this did not work out for them in court.

If we are going to bring Only Fools & Horses into the discussion then it would only be right to mention Trigger’s broom. In my view this sums up the whole “historical continuity” issue.

 

The real 0846 was not rebuilt after burning at Le Mans, 1967 after which time it was never used again.

The only authentic Ferrari parts in JG's replica are the engine which is a 3 litre 312 F1 engine, not a P4 engine as he claims and totally wrong for a P3/P4 and possibly the rear clam from 0858.

0846 is NOT the entity claiming to be that number. 0003 is. It's not 0846. It's 0003.

0846 ceased to exist in 1967 and from the early 2000s the chassis is claimed to have existed since 1967 by JG claiming his replica chassis is that chassis, but it's not.

I do wish people would stop referring to JG's "falsa P4" as 0846. It's 0003.

 

My favorite saying in this subject is a quote I'd like to own: "Marilyn Monroe with a red dress on is the same as Marilyn Monroe in a blue dress." In other words,
the outer covering is only temporary and (at the risk of being labeled a misogynist) maybe no dress at all is preferable. So what I am saying is the body on a car with a separate chassis should be regarded as just a temporary metal clothing. There have been GTOs that had the wrong body for a few years and then were reconverted back, same with a 250LM that had a Porsche 906 body fitted after an accident.
Going back to the Monroe example, maybe if she had had a twin sister born of a fertilized egg (did they do that back then?) created from her father and mother and that egg reimplanted in a woman who subsequently gave birth that would be as close as you could get to the real Marilyn, and even then close is no cigar. I remember at a Bev. Hills car meet meeting a Marilyn Monroe imitator right down to the mole on her check and enjoying walking around with her arm in arm but feeling guilty as the real Marilyn was only blocks away, a-molderin' in the grave....

 

Steve, my referring to #0003/0846 (or any of those cars) was neither supporting nor denigrating any of those cars nor making any statement on their originality. It was simply referring to the process that any purchaser should go through to assess whether they are original or not. And actually if you read the grandfathers ax parable it is not any more important than the other two tests (continuous history and owners intentions). It would be fair to note that #0003/0846 fails even the continuous history test BUT so what, the point is some buyer might decide that the risk involved with the cars claimed history is creating good value for the buyer and that they can somehow prove the historical connection.

Debates about just what 0003/0846 is should remain in the one and only thread, no?

 

I appreciate that you said earlier in your post that the car doesn't meet the Silver or Gold Standard and you referred to it as #0003/0846 but you later referred to the car as just 0846 which certain people can copy and paste on their own without your earlier statement. I know what you meant but the sentences on their own can be taken out of context.