Inside Jaguar: Making a Million Pound Car Channel 4 Replica/Reproduction

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 246

The same "Replica" arguments apply to classic cars as the do to aircraft. Just like you can get a dataplate "original" spitfire you can purchase brand new heritage body shells for MG's minis, Jag e-types etc. Therefore building a completely new car with no original parts what so ever but if you have a cars "dataplate" you can transfer that and have a completely new "original" MGB for example with none of the parts ever coming from and MG factory! Reshelling in the classic car business is quite common.
Profile picture for user stuart gowans

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 1,988

"It doesnt add any aviation credibility at all ! " I beg to differ, all Jaguar bring to the table is the ID, possibly not even the actual plate, and the relevance, is that both the classic / vintage A/C industry and the classic / vintage car industry work within each of their respective governing bodies guidelines; I'm sure there are many differences as well as similarities, but essentially once declared a new build (unless a one off kit) the manufacturer must comply with the regulations, the difference being that Jaguar are still going whereas Supermarine are not...... but if they were, and chose to endorse / support "Airframe Assemblies" by naming them a sub-contractor, new build Spitfires could once again grace our skies.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 2,895

Simply to expand Richw_82's aircraft content.... It is said that William Lyons of S.S.Cars sought permission from John Siddeley of Armstrong Siddeley to use the name "Jaguar" (as in Armstrong Siddeley radial aero engine) to rename his company and throw off the name S.S. That's an impressive list of aero production work Rich - did you research it yourself or is it published in one of the Jaguar books? I watched the programme (I was born and raised only about a mile from the Browns Lane factory) and one point I remember from it was someone at Goodwood who seemed pleased with Jaguar's action as it meant enthusiasts will be able to see racing E-types racing as the 12 originals either won't be raced because they are to valuable (£5 m was mentioned) or, if they are, the drivers will hold back so as not to risk damage. Roger Smith.
Profile picture for user richw_82

Member for

9 years 11 months

Posts: 1,664

I'm going to continue and assume that this will be moved out of Historic...
- They are the unique identifiers for the cars in question (despite semantics on the description) and were taken out at the time (not just invented 50 years later)
They weren't taken out with anyone. The numbers only correspond to Jaguar's records, and were to meet a bare minimum for racing homologation. Same as they said they would make a certain number of C-type, D-type and didn't. Just because the numbers aren't used doesn't mean there was an intent to build them.
- The numbers are in the build book ledger of the time, as was shown on the programme, so the company recognised that they were at least considering building 6 more and registered their unique build numbers in their ledger of record.
I missed that - so at least they're eligible in some regard. Do they appear in the dispersement log book, complete with specification, trim and paint details? I doubt it.
- I think you will find that JLR will have wrapped up exclusivity clauses in their dealings to prevent exactly what you say.
(re: building your own.) You'd be wrong. http://www.rspanels.co.uk/parts.php?cat=2
-Plus the DVLA recognise these as homologated vehicles from the era, which do not comply with current SVA regs, hence why they are not 'road legal' in the UK.
They don't comply with current regs, but they class as a built up car and you can get a period number plate for them. The date of first registration means you can't get free road tax, but if you can afford to build one I don't think thats an issue.
- so were these 6 lightweights also built at Browns Lane
The new Browns Lane Site is not Browns Lane as was in 1963. Unless you're building the cars in someone's front room, as its now a housing estate.
myself and Rich are on different sides of this argument and unlikely to be swayed from our views.......
:D Fair point. I will say I still class them as Jaguars - I just argue the continuation bit. My friend is building an XJ13 with an original quad cam engine, and I was fortunate enough to have a good chat with Peter Wilson who was part of the team that built the original; I also intend to one day have a go at building a D-type. But even if the factory sanctioned it, I wouldn't be calling it anything other than a replica. Regards, Rich
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

I'm going to leave the debate here for now, as it really does parallel the world of classic aircraft rather well. Whilst, technically, there are no aircraft reproduced in the same way as the Lightweight 'E', it does open up possibilities. For me, I would suggest that as they are a car produced by the original company, by and large to the original specification, AND marketed by the original company, that they are not merely replicas, but late production examples. It is worth recalling the accurate definition of a replica - that it is an exact copy of the original in every detail. Too often, we use the word to describe a lookalike. Bruce
Profile picture for user richw_82

Member for

9 years 11 months

Posts: 1,664

Simply to expand Richw_82's aircraft content.... It is said that William Lyons of S.S.Cars sought permission from John Siddeley of Armstrong Siddeley to use the name "Jaguar" (as in Armstrong Siddeley radial aero engine) to rename his company and throw off the name S.S. That's an impressive list of aero production work Rich - did you research it yourself or is it published in one of the Jaguar books?
Hi Roger, I believe the makers of the Jaguar aircraft then had to ask permission to use it afterwards too. The list comes from a book on Jaguar by Philip Porter, I should have credited it but couldn't find the source at time of posting! Kind regards, Rich

Member for

13 years

Posts: 8,832

I enjoyed the show and it reminded me of the controversy over Charles Churches new Spitfire that I believe was awarded the next serial number on from the original production run.
Profile picture for user Mark12

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 10,028

I smile. It seems like only yesterday that Lynx Engineering D types, based on an E Type donor with IRS, were of modest price. Now even these are commanding prices in the £.25m region. I still cherish the opportunity to have put a few gentle miles on Mike Hawthorn's Sebring works XKD406/3CPF prior to a Mille Miglia outing...second only to the back seat of a Spitfire. Interesting timing of the programme with the run up to the Christie's auction of P9374. There are strong parallels. For me, old or new, Spitfire or racing Jaguar...just wonderful engineering. :) Mark .

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 564

Rich last one (promise) Quote: The new Browns Lane Site is not Browns Lane as was in 1963. Unless you're building the cars in someone's front room, as its now a housing estate. Actually Track 7 and the service workshops (which is where these 6 examples are built) is part of the original Browns Lane site, I have been visiting here for years both before and after demolition of the rest of the factory. Track 7 is still used to build all Jaguar Production Prototypes, before being sent down the main production lines These facilities and the adjacent Veneer Manufacturing Centre complex are all that remain of the original factory footprint, but its the same buildings as in 1963.. Mark12, I quite agree Spitfire or Jaguar, the engineering aspects of these builds is a joy to behold and cherish in a world where 'craftsmanship' is rarely found.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,780

'The difference being that Jaguar are still going whereas Supermarine are not...... but if they were, and chose to endorse / support "Airframe Assemblies" by naming them a sub-contractor, new build Spitfires could once again grace our skies' New build Spitfires are already gracing our skies as are P-51's in the U.S. If you start manufacturing in series production - there are a whole raft of legislation that will open for the people concerned . Hence why its very likely that 'rebuilds' will always be the prefered build method.
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

The debate is as to whether it 'should' be an issue at all. If a Spitfire, or Mustang is built to the exact same specification as the original, using entirely new parts, why should the CAA have any say over whether it is airworthy? (other than by the normal checks)

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 2,895

The list comes from a book on Jaguar by Philip Porter....
Thanks Rich, Roger Smith.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,780

The CAA would have a say as it becomes series production of new aircraft. That brings in a raft of legislation and the likes of needing a design authority to certify it.
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

But why does it? Its an old design - nothing has changed. Why do we need a modern design authority to certify an old and already proven design? Its a reasonable debating point, and has every relevance to historic, (or rather classic) aviation.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,780

It would be a new aircraft therefore it needs manufacturer support in the same way as it would if you decided to buy a new Cessna 182. There is product liability issues - how would you address it if one came apart ? Refer them back to Supermarine?

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 9,780

Tony T - Charles Church had a Mk.V built that effectively could be called a hybrid . Unfortunately he met his untimely end in it.
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

It would be a new aircraft therefore it needs manufacturer support in the same way as it would if you decided to buy a new Cessna 182. There is product liability issues - how would you address it if one came apart ? Refer them back to Supermarine?
OK, so what happens if one comes apart now. Same question applies.. The design is the same. In theory, there are still product liability issues. It would be more sensible if we set a limit on liability in terms of design. Say fifty years after production ceased? After which no case could be brought against an original manufacturer, or its successors for faults in the design or construction of a vintage type. That said, postwar designs already have there own life limits which have to be satisfied.
Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 8,399

Tony T - Charles Church had a Mk.V built that effectively could be called a hybrid . Unfortunately he met his untimely end in it.
To be clear, this had nothing to do with the design of the aircraft, or its construction. It was an engine failure, followed by poor judgment in trying to save the aircraft.