REPLICAS-REBUILD--REBUILT--BUILT--RULES.

[John McKechnie]

Original - first stage of existence of a thing . [Standard Dictionary definition]

[CUSTAXIE50]

Original - first stage of existence of a thing . [Standard Dictionary definition]

Thing from which another is copied,at first, in the beginning.

[nzeder]

Original - first stage of existence of a thing . [Standard Dictionary definition]

Simple then no single race car is "Original" then.

For it to be historic/classic it must be at least....checking MSNZ rules....15 years old (for T&C - don't ask me a car that is 15 years old is not classic in my mind and never will be - just an opinion and we all have them but pre 78 for me = classic) and some part would have been replaced in that time.

So using the dictionary definition there is not a single "Original" Classic race car around on the track (sure there might be in a museum/collection somewhere but would you want to trust it on the track with all the "original" gear, pads, plug leads, tyres etc)

[Racer Rog]

Utter Rubbish
Roger

If one takes the time and knows what was used in the way a car was built in the first place, and goes down the right road in putting this car together,and the right paper work goes to the right authorities,and they come back to you and say yes the paper work with photos are all in place ,and say this car is as good as one can get to the original that was out there,you should have the right to put the original name to it.

[ERC]

....checking MSNZ rules....15 years old (for T&C - don't ask me a car that is 15 years old is not classic in my mind and never will be

What about the "T"? The area that everyone has shied away from...

[nzeder]

What about the "T"? The area that everyone has shied away from...

Fair call - and like the C it can mean different things to different people. I would think a Thoroughbred car is one designed and used for one purpose - racing. So that rules out most vehicles including any car sold as a road car. It must be a pure race car to be true Thoroughbred so that is formula type cars aka wings and slicks. Or have I got that wrong?

So under this topic there is Schedule CR here in NZ for those type of replica's which someone said is all about single seaters having not read those rules in great depth I can't say if that is the case but CR also covers retrospective special - it could have been build in period so you can build it today using all those parts available in period etc - again a single seater focus? So is there no such ruling for saloon/sport and gt's?

So asking the original poster - what is the main focus of this thread? All replica's or ones that can't fit under Schedule CR but fall under T&C - again T&C is very clear - based on standard series production cars so why is the T in there if a Thoroughbred is, as I have stated above aka, not/never a series production car. It does get a bit confusing and I can understand why people build cars outside of the rules.

If you are replicating a period car that raced then for it to be a replica (back to the dictionary) it must be"An exact copy or model of something". If "the car" you are replicating does not exist to use an a base for the exact copy then it surely must be based on known proof of the spec - if no such proof exists then it can never be a replica as it can't be proven what it is an exact copy of. If any one part is different = not a replica.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Thank you nzeder and CUSTAXIE50 for your replys. I do not have any issues with anyone who for example finds an appropriate body shell and builds a copy/replica of something like a Lotus Cortina/Escort Twincam/Mini-Cooper S/Brabham Viva etc to race because if we look honestly at the cars raced in that era many were just that, gutted base model shells with good gear fitted. What I do find unusual is those that would want to scratch build a copy of something that has long since gone to the scrap yard and then claim it to be the original car reincarnate or a perfect copy of the original. As I said in my previous post one would have to state that they were building this car to the exact specification as it existed on a certain date and then recreate it warts and all to that spec, making allowances for modern safety requirements only.

See thats the point they go and build something and claim it to be the original car.

[nzeder]

It is really simple...if building a car today it can never be a replica...the rules are such it can't happen. I say this using the dictionary terms.

1. We know to be called a replica it must be an exact copy.
2. Rules are such that for a cage to be approved it must be built to the rules of the date when approval is sort.

These 2 points prove you can't build a replica. A tribute hell yeah, true replica...hell no.

Any tribute or replica can never be called the original...as there can only be one to have the title original. All this based on dictionary definitions of the words "replica" and "original"

Please prove me wrong.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Utter Rubbish
Roger

So if you know it all how does one go about it,say building a car like the custaxie where does one start with a build like this.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Fair call - and like the C it can mean different things to different people. I would think a Thoroughbred car is one designed and used for one purpose - racing. So that rules out most vehicles including any car sold as a road car. It must be a pure race car to be true Thoroughbred so that is formula type cars aka wings and slicks. Or have I got that wrong?

So under this topic there is Schedule CR here in NZ for those type of replica's which someone said is all about single seaters having not read those rules in great depth I can't say if that is the case but CR also covers retrospective special - it could have been build in period so you can build it today using all those parts available in period etc - again a single seater focus? So is there no such ruling for saloon/sport and gt's?

So asking the original poster - what is the main focus of this thread? All replica's or ones that can't fit under Schedule CR but fall under T&C - again T&C is very clear - based on standard series production cars so why is the T in there if a Thoroughbred is, as I have stated above aka, not/never a series production car. It does get a bit confusing and I can understand why people build cars outside of the rules.

If you are replicating a period car that raced then for it to be a replica (back to the dictionary) it must be"An exact copy or model of something". If "the car" you are replicating does not exist to use an a base for the exact copy then it surely must be based on known proof of the spec - if no such proof exists then it can never be a replica as it can't be proven what it is an exact copy of. If any one part is different = not a replica.

So one has to use the same 40year old wheels & wheel nuts.

[CUSTAXIE50]

It is really simple...if building a car today it can never be a replica...the rules are such it can't happen. I say this using the dictionary terms.

1. We know to be called a replica it must be an exact copy.
2. Rules are such that for a cage to be approved it must be built to the rules of the date when approval is sort.

These 2 points prove you can't build a replica. A tribute hell yeah, true replica...hell no.

Any tribute or replica can never be called the original...as there can only be one to have the title original. All this based on dictionary definitions of the words "replica" and "original"

Please prove me wrong.

So if you build a new tub,it has to have the same rivets they used 40years ago,and the same number in the same place on the tub.

[nzeder]

So if you build a new tub,it has to have the same rivets they used 40years ago,and the same number in the same place on the tub.

For it to be a replica by the dictionary definition it can be build using new parts but they must be an exact copy of the part being replicated.

However as stated the cage must meet current rules so that point alone means the car will not be an exact copy so it is not a replica (again dictionary definition) so you might as well build a tribute as that is what it will be. However is there rules for how to build a tribute?

[Howard Wood]

This has been thrashed over already ad infinitum on a thread called The Race Replica Debate., or at least until about page 5 when the thread was hijacked by some clown. There is ample provision for the creation of replicas and recreations, tribute cars for the most part, frankly are a crock of s@#t.

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

[Carlo]

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

+1

[CUSTAXIE50]

This has been thrashed over already ad infinitum on a thread called The Race Replica Debate., or at least until about page 5 when the thread was hijacked by some clown. There is ample provision for the creation of replicas and recreations, tribute cars for the most part, frankly are a crock of s@#t.

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

Now be nice now Howard,i dont think you can call them lazy or unskilled to do the job properly. some have this view that no one will know how it was built in the first place would that be the case Howard.

[John McKechnie]

Appears to me Howard is just calling the one man earth shifting device that has a handle to hold it by with a wedge enabling the ground to be parted and moved , a spade.
Being called a Rivet Counter just shows you are concienciously paying attention to detail.

[Carlo]

. some have this view that no one will know how it was built in the first place would that be the case Howard.

Sorry but I am with Howard on this one for it only because they are too lazy to find out how it was built.

[nzeder]

Nobody who knows what they are doing is seriously suggesting ALL the original components MUST be used and modern safety standards need to be included if the car is to be used in competition. However, absolutely, if verifiable knowledge of say the rivet pattern used is available why would you not replicate that.

It seems to me that the debate about how accurately a car should be rebuilt or replicated is driven by those too lazy or unskilled to do the job properly.

I also agree and if a replica in the context of a race car allows for the changes in the area of safety equipment ie cage and all are on the same page with this regard then it can be called a replica other details are correct.

I was just saying if the dictionary term is applied then they can't be called a replica. If a replica race car allows for changes in the area of drive protection cool that is what needs to happen to see it on the track call it a replica.

[CUSTAXIE50]

Sorry but I am with Howard on this one for it only because they are too lazy to find out how it was built.

Who built custaxie-1&2

[Carlo]

Who built custaxie-1&2

Gary Orton and associates and it was never built as a 100% replica