|
Bespoke is the TACCOC club magazine for its
members. It is printed roughly four times a year, and John Holmes
has been the Editor since the club began in 1976. From time
to time, various extracts of interest will appear on this site.
The piece below is an editorial written a few years ago now,
but one that certainly generated interest from around the globe.
EDITORIAL
We seem to be going through another phase of the old arguments
over Originality again; what’s right and what isn’t. It’s hard
to continue the explanations over and over, when it seems a
perfectly clear situation to most of us. In a “Bespoke” editorial
originally published four years ago now, the position was explained
thus:
 |
The dreary old arguments about originality are rearing
their ugly heads again, in articles in various magazines,
and letters to assorted Editors. Not originality as it
relates to concours cars, but originality as it concerns
replicas, look-alikes, copies, fakes, clones (or whatever
you want to call them), and imitation period specials.
There are many very talented people who can build themselves
a car out of a collection of elderly, often unrelated
parts, and call the resulting assemblage “a 1935 (or whatever)
Sunbeam (or whatever) Special”. These machines are often
beautifully built, look wonderful and can provide great
fun. No problem.
The problem occurs when the owners want to compete with
their new machine in an event for other cars, ostensibly
from the same, or similar, period. Entry is often refused
(or should be refused) because their car is not genuinely
from the period, but is a modern assembly of parts from
the period. It is a car created where no entire car previously
existed. “But it’s no different,” they claim, “from a
genuine car that’s had everything replaced with new bits
over many years.” Or: “It’s no different from a car that’s
been restored with new parts. That’s not an original car
either.”
Wrong. The difference is large, and it’s fundamental.
The American author B S Levy rather neatly defined a “Real
Car” as “a vehicle that has occupied the same continuous
and recognisable hole in the atmosphere since it was built”.
It doesn’t matter what has been replaced, or how often.
The whole forms the continuous and traceable history of
the same car. Old cars, especially racing cars, were consumable
items. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that a Maserati
250F that was crashed and rebuilt five times, with a new
chassis after one accident and a new body after another,
plus various new engines and gearboxes, all of this taking
place before 1960 while the car was still in active competition,
is not a real 250F. Equally, if the same car survived
undamaged, un-crashed, to the 1990s but needed a new chassis
because the old one had rusted away, it would still be
a ‘Real Car’.
It is a legitimate practice to gather together the parts
from an original car that has been destroyed, broken up,
or dismantled. Reuniting all the original car’s components
restores the original “hole in the atmosphere”. Problems
can arise when someone else is doing the same thing, and
two people ‘restore’ the same car, each claiming the identity
of the real thing. Some groups in America have a neat
way of preventing this. They divide all cars into their
five major components: Chassis, body, engine, running
gear and suspension. To claim ownership of a particular
vehicle, you must be able to prove you have ownership
of the majority (at least three) of the five major components
of the actual car in question. Having similar parts from
another vehicle is not good enough. Neither is just being
the owner of the mythical ‘chassis plate’.
This process bears no relation to that of the man who
dedicates his life to collecting parts, so that when he
has enough of the right bits, he can put them all together,
manufacturing anything still missing, to create his dream
machine. Perhaps the ultimate example of this was the
‘Don Biggar Jaguar D-type’. This was a car built for a
customer by ‘Classic Autocraft’ in Sydney a few years
ago, using many real D-type parts. D-type parts were once
available direct from Jaguar as bolt-on bits to up-rate
any Jag, and therefore exist in some numbers, without
necessarily having ever been attached to a D-type. This
particular car was created on a small production line
alongside real D-types under restoration. The replica
was able to duplicate the genuine cars in the minutest
detail, and was accurate down to the very last rivet.
But it was a new car, created where no previous car existed.
It is a fake, and is not permitted in Australia to compete
alongside real cars. It doesn’t matter how good it is;
it’s still not a ‘genuine’ car.
Period Specials are a different thing again. Specials
have always been built from often disparate collections
of parts. Some of these cars have splendid histories,
like the amazing Lycoming Special. Enthusiasts continue
to create these wonderful machines today, and I hope they
always will. Problems arise when they try to legitimise
their creation, claiming it to be a ‘period’ vehicle.
They quote the long and glorious history of New Zealand
special building, stating that what they have done is
no different from what has always been done, and by many
of the most famous names of our sport. Their mistake is
to try and justify an old age for their car, simply because
it’s been built from some old parts. This can’t be done,
and the famous special builders from the past didn’t do
this either. When Graham McRae built his magnificent Masarrari
220S, he used some parts (like the differential) that
dated back to the 1920’s. He did not then try to claim
the car was a 1920’s special. It was built in 1959, so
it became a 1959 car.
The same thing is still true. If you assembled a collection
of vintage or 1950’s parts into a special in 1999, yours
is a 1999 car. It might look like a Type 35B Bugatti,
it might look a bit like an AC Cobra, but it is still
a new car, created where no previous car existed. It doesn’t
matter how good it is; it’s not a ‘genuine’ old car. It
is therefore ineligible to compete with the Pre-1969 Historic
Racing and Sports Racing Cars, or the Pre-1974 Classic
Sports & GTs, or whatever. Construction age matters.
A ‘true’ period special is one actually built in the period,
like the Masarrari, the Lycoming, and any number of others.
These are also now genuine ‘Historic’ cars, and can legitimately
compete as such. A modern collation can not. The International
rules are very clear. The Motorsport New Zealand rules
are very clear. Some local clubs might choose to ignore
this, but it has always been so. It must always be so.
By all means continue to create these cars, be they replicas
of one of the great models of the past, or just a period-type
special. The results are often magnificent examples of
the builder’s talents, and deserve all the enthusiasm
they inspire. But please recognise and enjoy these cars
for what they are, and don’t be offended when you can’t
get a Certificate of Description, or when your entry for
an event is rejected. The late, lamented Graham Collins
put it so succinctly when he said: “It’s like trying to
join the golf club when all you own is a hockey stick...”
‘nuff said.
|
That editorial provoked considerable reaction from readers
around the globe. One response came from a writer in America
that I’d never heard of (not on our mailing list), who was enthusiastically
in favour, and said that “it should be required reading for
anyone considering building a Historic car for competition.”
Once out of our hands, copies of our magazine must get forwarded
internationally to a much larger readership. I suppose we should
be flattered. Or nervous…
So what has changed in the four years since that piece was
written?
Nothing.
Well, not quite. There have been some alterations introduced
into the MotorSport New Zealand regulations in the last couple
of years. The most significant was the introduction of a Category
CR, which allows Replicas and Period Specials to collect a Certificate
of Description. This allows them to compete in meetings where
such a category is included in the event’s Supplementary Regulations.
Then and only then can such cars take part in current race meetings
run under the MNZ rules for Classic and Historic cars. But don’t
hold your breath expecting to see Category CR included in a
TACCOC race meeting. We have more than enough competitors with
genuine cars lining up to compete at our events without having
to pad the entry with cars which are outside our sphere of interest.
Don’t get me wrong. These cars are often magnificent creations
and worthy of our respect. But they are no more than that –
creations. They are not Classics, they are not Thoroughbreds
and they are certainly not Historics. They do have their own
‘hole in the atmosphere’, and it was made on the day that they
were assembled. They don’t fit into a competition field that
covers earlier eras. And they never can…
There is a major row brewing in the UK over this very subject
at the moment. Paul Fearnley’s editorial in the June issue of
“Motor Sport” has this to say:
“The issue of replicas, recreations and fakes in historic
motor racing has long been a thorny one, but the recent huge
growth in this arm of the sport and the subsequent increasing
value of the cars have made owners and restorers even more prickly
about the subject.
“And now they’re apoplectic. For FIA President Max Mosley
has waded in and opened the door to new ‘old’ cars – albeit
100 per cent accurate facsimiles.
“Max’s view would seem to be that people are becoming reluctant
to race cars of real provenance. And it’s true that some million-pound
machines have been mothballed in order to protect their value.
But the general consensus would appear to be that owners of
significant racing cars still want to see them being exercised,
used for the purpose for which they intended.
“Historic motor racing is not Mosley’s area of expertise.
He does a pretty good job at smoothing the waves created by
10 F1 teams – but there are over 10,000 historic cars/owners
wordwide with a keen interest in keeping fakes out…
“Whatever the FIA says and does, it will be the well-established
clubs, packed with marque experts and dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts,
who will keep an eye on the situation and decide to cold-shoulder
fakes or not. But for how long will they be able to keep tabs
on them all?
“There are ‘dishonest’ cars out there, but fewer than you
might think. Would it not be better to expose them now while
those who know the truth are around to pass judgement, rather
than create a huge problem 30 years down the line?”
What Fearnley is referring to when he talks about FIA President
Max Mosley “opening the door to new ‘old’ cars” is that the
current system for authenticating historic racing has been recently
thrown into turmoil by the FIA’s plans to introduce a Historic
Technical Passport (HTP) in place of the current Historic Vehicle
Identification Form (HVIF). The crux of the discontent lies
in the FIA’s assertion that technically correct replicas will
qualify for an HTP, which has led to fears that a rash of newly
constructed cars will appear in period races. An FIA document
stated: “Any car will now be eligible for an HTP provided its
specification is identical to that of the period model it purports
to be.” Regardless of what the FIA says, race organisers have
pledged to retain tight control over cars entered for events.
In spite of claims to the contrary, ‘dishonest’ fakes already
exist, in some numbers. There are many well-known instances,
some of which have resulted in lengthy and expensive court battles,
where two cars claimed the same chassis number. I’m told that
one of the visiting English Lolas at the recent Phillip Island
Classic race meeting in Australia was claiming to have the chassis
number of an identical car that has been well-known and traceably
occupying the same ‘hole in the atmosphere’ in Australia for
the last forty years. And the UK car’s owner apparently also
competes in England and Europe with another, earlier, front-engined
Lola that claims the chassis number of another well-documented,
identical, long-term Australian resident car… The best spin
you can put on this is that it is identity confusion and an
honest mistake. At its worst it’s fraud.
Curiously, there are some instances where dual identities can
be almost legitimate and, arguably, acceptable… In the old days
of complicated shipping regulations and customs carnets, teams
often used to swap identities and paperwork from car to car,
to smooth their way through border crossings and the like. Our
own Geoff Manning tells a lovely story about his days as a Formula
One mechanic in the sixties. That well-known ‘Motor Sport’ journalist,
the late Denis Jenkinson, was famously obsessive about chassis
numbers. Geoff and another mechanic were working in an all-but
deserted pit lane on one of their team’s cars after a practice
session. ‘Jenks’ came wandering along and asked them: “What
chassis number’s this, then?” Geoff’s laconic reply: “What number
would you like it to be, Denis…?” Such things were of lesser
importance back then.
There is another well-known story about Denny Hulme early in
his international career when he was racing a Formula Junior
Brabham (a car he’d built himself while working at the Brabham
factory), crashing his car in a race in Europe, rushing back
to the factory, building a new replacement chassis, transferring
all the parts and the paperwork and taking it back to Europe
to carry on with the rest of the season. This ‘new’ car carried
on the identity of Brabham BT6 chassis #9, while someone else
subsequently acquired and resurrected the original chassis #9
as the earlier incarnation of the same car… Both cars apparently
still exist today.
I don’t imagine this problem will ever go away. We’re all just
doing our bit to maintain standards in an ever-confusing situation.
And, as “Motor Sport” confirms, our position is precisely in
line with current international opinion. There are very few
things in this world that are ever completely cut and dried,
but the issue of replicas and fakes should still be one of them…
 |
|
Peter Herbert in his 1971 Elden Mk 8FF
Historic Formula Ford at the TACCOC Autumn Classic, Pukekohe.
|
 |
|
Rodin Wootton in the ex-Roly Levis Brabham
BT18, using all of the track and then some at the TACCOC
Autumn Classic, Pukekohe.
|
 |
|
Ian Garmey’s 1961 Cooper T56 FJ, with
Wayne Rodgers at the wheel. TACCOC Autumn Classic, Pukekohe.
|
 |
|
A real period special, Ken Williams
at the Domain Hillclimb in the BBM Mercedes Mk II, built
in Australia in 1962.
|
 |
|
How rare can you get? This is the only
Elfin Mk 1 FJ ever made, built in the UK in 1960 by brothers
Peter and Paul Emery, who later went on to build the Emeryson
cars. Driven here at the Domain Hillclimb by current owner
Nigel Russell.
|
 |
|
Rex Oddy in the ’86 Lotus Excel at the
same event.
|
 |
|
Hoppy” Hopkins in his lovely old Triumph
TR3, Pukekohe.
|
|
