RE: Jaguar XKSS continuation - New York 2016
Discussion
Lowtimer said:
BrewsterBear said:
You seem to think that because a company called Jaguar, which has since been through American ownership and is now in the hands of Indian ownership, are building these this makes it OK.
You seem to think that because a company called Jaguar, which has since been through American ownership and is now in the hands of Indian ownership, are building these this makes it OK. I think it is not OK.
You're apparently making up law according to your particular sentiments. The company we call Jaguar has been the same legal entity ever since it was founded as Swallow Sidecars. It has continuity of ownership of its intellectual property and designs. The fact that it has changed owners several times in no way diminishes its continuous history as a legal entity. If Jaguar assigns a given chassis number to a given vehicle then by definition that chassis number is accurate. Jaguar is the sole definitive source of Jaguar chassis numbers.You seem to think that because a company called Jaguar, which has since been through American ownership and is now in the hands of Indian ownership, are building these this makes it OK. I think it is not OK.
If you seriously think Jaguar intends to defraud the public into believing the car is 60 years old rather than newly produced then you are deluding yourself. If you don't think that then you have no cause for complaint.
And also I find this insistence that because an Indian firm administers the ultimate budget, the design, engineering and manufacture being British is inconsequential (and the fact in reality the budget will come from their own sales, not Indian steel) - and that somehow it's not a real Jaguar is intorverted and backward looking to the point of absurdity.
It's tantamount to being angry that it's not the good old days anymore.
jamieduff1981 said:
Strangely elitist viewpoint. I mean Lord March is well regarded as a bit of a tosser, but if the owners of the originals were so confident of their inherent provenance, I don't understand their massive insecurity at the prospect of a handful more being built.
That there isn't car enthusiasm - it's more the hallmark of someone who is desperately clinging to outdated notions of birth-right superiority without any tangible merit to underpin it.
Spot on, chap. Lord March’s comments got right up my hooter, regarding the lightweight E-type. They are NOT replicas. Jaguar are entitled to build and sell these. But it’s ‘buyer beware’. At no point do Jaguar claim that any of these new cars automatically gain any history. They can’t - they’re new. If buyers think that they’re jumping on the historic car bandwagon on the (comparative) cheap, they deserve to be disappointed. But if they have total passion for these cars and wish to purchase them to create their own legacy, fair play.That there isn't car enthusiasm - it's more the hallmark of someone who is desperately clinging to outdated notions of birth-right superiority without any tangible merit to underpin it.
I’ll shed a tear for those poor old multi-millionaires that feel snubbed when I can muster sympathy. All I know is that some of these owners are speculators rather than enthusiasts. With such t**ds pushing values out of reach of the enthusiast, it’s quite nice to think that they get their comeuppance from time to time.
Yay! I just got a bit Daily Mail there!
405dogvan said:
I can't wait for someone to build the "missing Austin Rovers" which were sadly lost due to the endless industrial disputes which forever halted work at the factories.
"Red Robbo" editions of the Metro or Marina perhaps
Mind you, replicating the quality of design and manufacturing of those cars will be trickier than just making a new E Type. Plastics that awful, fit that bad, reliability so poor they need rebuilding within weeks of delivery - that will take some time to sort out
Still, the Chinese own the name now I guess - they'll crack that no probs ;0
I'll have an MG EXE please. It was intended to use the 6R4/XJ220 V6 engine. I bet it would have been a handful "Red Robbo" editions of the Metro or Marina perhaps
Mind you, replicating the quality of design and manufacturing of those cars will be trickier than just making a new E Type. Plastics that awful, fit that bad, reliability so poor they need rebuilding within weeks of delivery - that will take some time to sort out
Still, the Chinese own the name now I guess - they'll crack that no probs ;0
http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/concepts/concepts-...
BrewsterBear said:
Lowtimer said:
If you seriously think Jaguar intends to defraud the public into believing the car is 60 years old rather than newly produced then you are deluding yourself. If you don't think that then you have no cause for complaint.
I have already replied to your points, but let me try one last time and state it as clearly as possible. Jaguar issued these VINs to cars that existed. Those cars were destroyed. It is my belief that those VINs were destroyed with the cars and as such should not be reused. Anybody else found reusing a VIN on an entirely different car is breaking the law and this practice is colloquially known as "ringing."It would appear you believe that Jaguar has the right to re-use those VINs because they want to add historical substance to the (admirable) technical and profitable exercise they are running of building brand new cars that are very similar to old cars they used to make. I disagree.
These are lovely looking things and I have no doubt they will be immaculate replicas, but they aren't and never will be the cars that those VINs belong to.
A VIN is a single car's DNA. It is the very stuff of that car. You can't give it away, trade it, swap it, replicate it. The chassis number *is* the car. If Jaguar were not trying to sell these cars as the originals then they would issue new VINs. They are not; they are re-using VINs from cars that once existed and were then destroyed.
I can't state it any more simply than that. If you cannot grasp that this is fraud, however tasteful you may find it, then I can't help you any further.
virgilio said:
Can anybody confirm that these will NOT be road legal? I'd have thought the re-used VIN would be a trick to get them road-registered as '50s cars. With a fully new VIN I guess there is no way these cars can be made road legal anywhere in the world...
It would not be that difficult to make these cars road legal. You can use the Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) scheme if you’re making or importing a single vehicle or a very small number of vehicles. Small alterations from the original specs would no doubt have to be made but so what?BrewsterBear said:
charlie7777 said:
Many of the entries at the recent Goodwood 74mm were recreations. They were indeed announced as such by the event commentary and some were even winners.
He must have been referring to the Revival then. Either way, I'm not doubting they are lovely cars. I just disagree with digging up VIN plates from the past and slapping them on brand new cars, pretending they are something they are not. Not quite sure why March has drawn a line in the sand with recreations built by the factory when he's entire event is underpinned by recreations, ringers and absolute frauds.
What is interesting about these 'ringers' is that the process of their creation is 100% open and above board. There will always be damnation for them as the owners of earlier recreations wish to keep the two types separated for purposes of valuation but there is no reason for people to get over emotional about these cars. They aren't trying to be something they are not like very many classics and they are properly documented unlike many classics and they can be used and abused unlike many classics.
But I guess the point is that as 'ringers' go these are the most honest type you can get and maybe March doesn't like that much honesty at his events?
BrewsterBear said:
Lowtimer said:
No-one is being deceived in any way so your accusations are empty and use of the term "ringing" is, frankly, defamatory.
Car A is written off in a fire 60 years ago. Car B is built 60 years later with similar components manufactured in the 21st century. Car B is given the VIN of car A. This is ringing. These are the facts. It is only defamatory if it is not true.Car A was 'allocated a VIN' and then totally destroyed in factory fire 60 years ago, before that car was sold....so there was nothing stopping that manufacturer, 60 years ago, building a replacement car in it's place and allocating the same VIN, as they are entitled to do, as the car has not been sold. Said manufacturer decided not to build anymore 60 years ago, but as they are entitled to do so, now has decided to make a new car to allocate that same VIN to.
These are the facts, this is not ringing.
aeropilot said:
BrewsterBear said:
Lowtimer said:
No-one is being deceived in any way so your accusations are empty and use of the term "ringing" is, frankly, defamatory.
Car A is written off in a fire 60 years ago. Car B is built 60 years later with similar components manufactured in the 21st century. Car B is given the VIN of car A. This is ringing. These are the facts. It is only defamatory if it is not true.Car A was 'allocated a VIN' and then totally destroyed in factory fire 60 years ago, before that car was sold....so there was nothing stopping that manufacturer, 60 years ago, building a replacement car in it's place and allocating the same VIN, as they are entitled to do, as the car has not been sold. Said manufacturer decided not to build anymore 60 years ago, but as they are entitled to do so, now has decided to make a new car to allocate that same VIN to.
These are the facts, this is not ringing.
williamp said:
I can see both sides. It probably comes down to when, legally it becomes a "car". At some point between sheet steel being unrolled and the customer collecting, the collection of bits becomes recognised, legally as a "car". I wonder at what point in the manufacturing process that is.
In my mind I see the point being whether the VIN plates were affixed to the cars when they were destroyed but I must admit that I have been assuming that while the numbers may be have been created and logged the only way they can now be used today is that they were never assigned to the cars that were in build when the factory burnt down. I feel it would be fair to say that if those 9 cars had their physical plates attached then the view that they are ringers is pretty much spot on?DonkeyApple said:
In my mind I see the point being whether the VIN plates were affixed to the cars when they were destroyed but I must admit that I have been assuming that while the numbers may be have been created and logged the only way they can now be used today is that they were never assigned to the cars that were in build when the factory burnt down. I feel it would be fair to say that if those 9 cars had their physical plates attached then the view that they are ringers is pretty much spot on?
Particularly if they ended up the property of Jaguar's insurers. But, we don't know the answer to any of that, do we?ToneyCaroney said:
DonkeyApple said:
In my mind I see the point being whether the VIN plates were affixed to the cars when they were destroyed but I must admit that I have been assuming that while the numbers may be have been created and logged the only way they can now be used today is that they were never assigned to the cars that were in build when the factory burnt down. I feel it would be fair to say that if those 9 cars had their physical plates attached then the view that they are ringers is pretty much spot on?
Particularly if they ended up the property of Jaguar's insurers. But, we don't know the answer to any of that, do we?Either way, I like these 'continuations'. They aren't hiding what they are in any way and they give 9 lucky people a chance to own something that is still very special and I'm generally a fan of any new car that is different like these.
DonkeyApple said:
williamp said:
I can see both sides. It probably comes down to when, legally it becomes a "car". At some point between sheet steel being unrolled and the customer collecting, the collection of bits becomes recognised, legally as a "car". I wonder at what point in the manufacturing process that is.
In my mind I see the point being whether the VIN plates were affixed to the cars when they were destroyed but I must admit that I have been assuming that while the numbers may be have been created and logged the only way they can now be used today is that they were never assigned to the cars that were in build when the factory burnt down. I feel it would be fair to say that if those 9 cars had their physical plates attached then the view that they are ringers is pretty much spot on?Just saying..
jamieduff1981 said:
it's more the hallmark of someone who is desperately clinging to outdated notions of birth-right superiority without any tangible merit to underpin it.
I don'the know, I'm from the US so I've never seen Lords, Dukes or any of that in action, but I have seen Downton Abbey and it seems pretty cool. charlie7777 said:
virgilio said:
Can anybody confirm that these will NOT be road legal? I'd have thought the re-used VIN would be a trick to get them road-registered as '50s cars. With a fully new VIN I guess there is no way these cars can be made road legal anywhere in the world...
It would not be that difficult to make these cars road legal. You can use the Single Vehicle Approval (SVA) scheme if you’re making or importing a single vehicle or a very small number of vehicles. Small alterations from the original specs would no doubt have to be made but so what?The relevant code would be IVA, not SVA, for a passenger car in this category, and a careful read through of the IVA guide here would appear to rule them out in anything like the spec to which they are being built--
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-t...
It's "Normal IVA" rather than "Basic IVA" because they are completely new build cars rather than rebuilds or builds using components from previously registered cars. And as I read it, "Normal IVA" requires compliance with modern Euro-standards for, amongst other things: "brakes, crash safety, seat belt installation & anchorages, exhaust emissions (including CO2), noise and silencers and anti-theft protection" (page 12 of the IVA guide).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff