Remaking old cars ?
Discussion
Interesting question. Industrial protection isn't my day to day field but having done a quick search it looks like 25 years in the EU, which given that the Mark II Escort ran from 1975 to 1981, might make it expired.
A whole bunch of other IP provisions run for either 50 or 70 years though, and I am not enough of a legal brain to know to what extent these other provisions might be applied to something like a car bodyshell.
That said, though, I have no reason to believe the tooling still exists.
If it had to be done again, it would a fortune. When they did it in the first place, in the mid 1970s, they were able to amortise the cost of that tooling over something like one million units (not sure of the exact number but it's something around a million).
I don't know how many people are likely to buy a Mark II bodyshell now, but I can imagine in an ideal scenario it might be as many as a few hundred, maybe even a thousand, over ten years or so. The costs of creating the tooling would therefore would be astronomical per unit.
That's why people who are designing very small run sports cars don't tool up steel monocoques, but rather use completely different forms of constructional design (see Lotus, TVR etc)
A whole bunch of other IP provisions run for either 50 or 70 years though, and I am not enough of a legal brain to know to what extent these other provisions might be applied to something like a car bodyshell.
That said, though, I have no reason to believe the tooling still exists.
If it had to be done again, it would a fortune. When they did it in the first place, in the mid 1970s, they were able to amortise the cost of that tooling over something like one million units (not sure of the exact number but it's something around a million).
I don't know how many people are likely to buy a Mark II bodyshell now, but I can imagine in an ideal scenario it might be as many as a few hundred, maybe even a thousand, over ten years or so. The costs of creating the tooling would therefore would be astronomical per unit.
That's why people who are designing very small run sports cars don't tool up steel monocoques, but rather use completely different forms of constructional design (see Lotus, TVR etc)
CF tubs really are the way forward then?
or how about a spaceframe with a "whatever brand" covering
http://youtu.be/yigRgG_NIyU
a few of these will have you pumping out quite a number of cars daily
or how about a spaceframe with a "whatever brand" covering
http://youtu.be/yigRgG_NIyU
a few of these will have you pumping out quite a number of cars daily
Not sure that Ford would have an issue as such.
Dynacorn in the USA make various Ford Mustang shells (as well as CM & Chrysler models) and there's quite a few companies making Model T and 29-34 Fords in steel too.
Apparenly, with the time & money you can put in an old ragged shell, it's often cheaper to start with a fresh body.
For the popular models, you can pretty much build one from scratch from the aftermarked with engines, trim, suspension etc but the market is far bigger there of course.
Dynacorn in the USA make various Ford Mustang shells (as well as CM & Chrysler models) and there's quite a few companies making Model T and 29-34 Fords in steel too.
Apparenly, with the time & money you can put in an old ragged shell, it's often cheaper to start with a fresh body.
For the popular models, you can pretty much build one from scratch from the aftermarked with engines, trim, suspension etc but the market is far bigger there of course.
Lowtimer said:
No it doesn't. You'd still be in breach of the intellectual property rights of the original designer, or whoever owns those rights.
Certainly my friend had no rights, I remember raising the point with him but I can't remember his exact reply.But if you think about it all aftermarket parts are copies of the genuine parts.
Whilst I'm sure if you made a 100% copy of a car you'd be in breach of copyright I suspect you'd only have to vary a couple of tiny details to get away with it - indeed even trying to make 100% accurate replica, it would probably be different enough.
That's one point.
And not only do they not look like the original, they also don't work like the original. They are not a reproduction of an original Ferrari part in any way. They are not even monocoques, they are just stick-on parts.
Coming back to bodyshells, as I said it's quite possible that Ford would be happy to allow reproduction of the Escort shell if approached in the right way, and if they still have tooling it might be viable, but I strongly doubt that it could made financial sense if new tooling had to be made. It's one thing to knock out a wing or a bonnet, those are simple shapes, but a full shell is a complex thing which have to be made of many parts all of which must fit very tightly together without a lot of hand work, unless you want the price to be in the stratosphere.
That's a standard of consistency and accuracy which pattern wings and bonnets very rarely have.
And not only do they not look like the original, they also don't work like the original. They are not a reproduction of an original Ferrari part in any way. They are not even monocoques, they are just stick-on parts.
Coming back to bodyshells, as I said it's quite possible that Ford would be happy to allow reproduction of the Escort shell if approached in the right way, and if they still have tooling it might be viable, but I strongly doubt that it could made financial sense if new tooling had to be made. It's one thing to knock out a wing or a bonnet, those are simple shapes, but a full shell is a complex thing which have to be made of many parts all of which must fit very tightly together without a lot of hand work, unless you want the price to be in the stratosphere.
That's a standard of consistency and accuracy which pattern wings and bonnets very rarely have.
Lowtimer said:
Coming back to bodyshells, as I said it's quite possible that Ford would be happy to allow reproduction of the Escort shell if approached in the right way, and if they still have tooling it might be viable, but I strongly doubt that it could made financial sense if new tooling had to be made. It's one thing to knock out a wing or a bonnet, those are simple shapes, but a full shell is a complex thing which have to be made of many parts all of which must fit very tightly together without a lot of hand work, unless you want the price to be in the stratosphere.
That's a standard of consistency and accuracy which pattern wings and bonnets very rarely have.
The pattern part folk use OE panels as masters to create low-cost tooling which is then used to knock out pattern panels; the system I've seen uses a low melting point alloy melted around the panel to create a press die. I think they generally need fettling before use and they're only good for 50 or so panels before they wear out, but it's certainly a lot cheaper than proper steel dies. You could make steel dies for pressing hundreds of panels cheaper than the full Bhuna mass-production ones, it's just a matter of hardness and wear resistance; the longer you need the die to last the more expensive it is.That's a standard of consistency and accuracy which pattern wings and bonnets very rarely have.
As for the hand work, having seen mini shells getting boshed together by Brummies and the dimensional variation that it produced; even OE panels were approximate back then!
As long as you have a set of body jigs, assembly doesn't need much more than a spotwelder and someone to operate it.One important thing to remember with the BMH shells and the American Dynacorn shells is that that is all you are buying, in the same way as you would buy any other replacement body panel. You are not buying a new car, mereley a replacement part for it, albeit a significant part. You do not get a VIN or registration with the new shell, and to build it up into a complete, legal car you must have an original example from which to transfer the VIN and registration to the new shell. In the eyes of the law this is still the same car as the old rotten one you are restoring.
In order to produce a series of new old cars, assuming you could get the tooling and any necessary permission from the original manufacturer, you would then have the issue of how to get brand new but old tech cars legally registered. Would you have to pass current emissions, crash tests and type approval? I can't see any manufacturer attempting this, and it would be far too expensive and onerous for any individual to tackle.
In order to produce a series of new old cars, assuming you could get the tooling and any necessary permission from the original manufacturer, you would then have the issue of how to get brand new but old tech cars legally registered. Would you have to pass current emissions, crash tests and type approval? I can't see any manufacturer attempting this, and it would be far too expensive and onerous for any individual to tackle.
thegreenhell said:
One important thing to remember with the BMH shells and the American Dynacorn shells is that that is all you are buying, in the same way as you would buy any other replacement body panel. You are not buying a new car, mereley a replacement part for it, albeit a significant part. You do not get a VIN or registration with the new shell, and to build it up into a complete, legal car you must have an original example from which to transfer the VIN and registration to the new shell. In the eyes of the law this is still the same car as the old rotten one you are restoring.
In order to produce a series of new old cars, assuming you could get the tooling and any necessary permission from the original manufacturer, you would then have the issue of how to get brand new but old tech cars legally registered. Would you have to pass current emissions, crash tests and type approval? I can't see any manufacturer attempting this, and it would be far too expensive and onerous for any individual to tackle.
SVA them? Its what some car companies do for imports that arent produced in enough numbers to formally type approve.In order to produce a series of new old cars, assuming you could get the tooling and any necessary permission from the original manufacturer, you would then have the issue of how to get brand new but old tech cars legally registered. Would you have to pass current emissions, crash tests and type approval? I can't see any manufacturer attempting this, and it would be far too expensive and onerous for any individual to tackle.
ajprice said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Eric Clapton had this Ferrari 458 built to look like a classic 328 at considerable cost,
512BB, but yeah it's still a nice thing.
This modern Escort Mk1 works for me, base it on something small and RWD (MX5?)
Edited by ajprice on Sunday 19th May 21:02
thegreenhell said:
One important thing to remember with the BMH shells and the American Dynacorn shells is that that is all you are buying, in the same way as you would buy any other replacement body panel. You are not buying a new car, mereley a replacement part for it, albeit a significant part. You do not get a VIN or registration with the new shell, and to build it up into a complete, legal car you must have an original example from which to transfer the VIN and registration to the new shell. In the eyes of the law this is still the same car as the old rotten one you are restoring.
In order to produce a series of new old cars, assuming you could get the tooling and any necessary permission from the original manufacturer, you would then have the issue of how to get brand new but old tech cars legally registered. Would you have to pass current emissions, crash tests and type approval? I can't see any manufacturer attempting this, and it would be far too expensive and onerous for any individual to tackle.
Plus, any sane end customer user wouldn't *want* it to be a new car, in the eyes of the law. It would be massively to your disadvantage in terms of tax and regulation. You would be far, far better off starting with a ghastly old rot-box with paperwork and re-shelling it, as with a Heritage shell MGB.In order to produce a series of new old cars, assuming you could get the tooling and any necessary permission from the original manufacturer, you would then have the issue of how to get brand new but old tech cars legally registered. Would you have to pass current emissions, crash tests and type approval? I can't see any manufacturer attempting this, and it would be far too expensive and onerous for any individual to tackle.
HD Adam said:
Not sure that Ford would have an issue as such.
Dynacorn in the USA make various Ford Mustang shells (as well as CM & Chrysler models) and there's quite a few companies making Model T and 29-34 Fords in steel too.
Apparenly, with the time & money you can put in an old ragged shell, it's often cheaper to start with a fresh body.
For the popular models, you can pretty much build one from scratch from the aftermarked with engines, trim, suspension etc but the market is far bigger there of course.
I wish we had something similar over here for Mk1 and Mk3 Capri shells Dynacorn in the USA make various Ford Mustang shells (as well as CM & Chrysler models) and there's quite a few companies making Model T and 29-34 Fords in steel too.
Apparenly, with the time & money you can put in an old ragged shell, it's often cheaper to start with a fresh body.
For the popular models, you can pretty much build one from scratch from the aftermarked with engines, trim, suspension etc but the market is far bigger there of course.
J4CKO said:
Wonder how different it would need to be, a MK1 Escort shell with a few differences as per the above, would Ford bother chasing it up ?
That would be a different car, so would be ok, providing you were not selling it with ford badges. The car is clearly not a Mk1 escort. It looks like a modern take on it, which ford have never done. Its a bit like the clapton car. Its clearly inspired by another ferarri, but if you had build that independantly of ferrari, they could not claim you copied their design, because its neither a 458 or a 512BB.If that wasn't the case then every eurobox manufacturer would be sueing each other.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 20th May 08:48
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff