Porsche 917 Replica

[Joe T]

I have heard that there is now a very good 917 Replica out there somewhere.
Does anybody have any info or links etc
Or any experience of building one, I have seen a few Beetle based ones around.

Thanks

Joe

[Lee]

Hi Joe

There are 1 or 2 out there. If you do a search, and in the search box type
+917 +replica
and in the newer than put 2 years or whatever, you will find some good information.
All the best

[alan114]

Joe a company called Kraftwerkz do a fantastic 917 replica
www.kraftwerkz.net

[David Morton]

Joe,
Replica is a vey loose term when applied to 917's. David Piper made a comment that they are 'silhouette' cars.
They are visually similar on the outside but the frame is totally different and use flat 6 engines ( a used 917 engine would cost typically around $100,000 at the moment [info source - Adams Mc All Engineering])
The LMK 917 is still quite nice though but a 'replica' - not in my opinion.
REPLICA >noun. - an exact copy or model of something

[ChrisL]

[ QUOTE ]
REPLICA >noun. - an exact copy or model of something

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of sounding pedantic, the words "exact copy" are a contradiction. If it was absolutely exact, then it wouldn't be a copy at all because it would be the actual car. In reality, the word exact in this case is not absolute, but has a grading. Consequently the term replica means different things to different people. The merits and comparative level of accuracy can be debated, but I think that the generally accepted term (as used in 2004) is quite broad. The definition "model of something" is more meaningful. Just my 2c worth [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[David Morton]

You've hit the nail on the head in one. If it were an exact copy then it would conform to the definition of a replica.
It would not, as you say , be the actual car.
I don't call my GTD a replica and it could never ever be. Sure, it's a hybrid of parts and for all the world looks like a Mk 1 from a distance but it's not a replica. Its just something else, something I built up using various parts from GTD and elsewhere but I'll say it again - it's never ever going to be a replica. The legal side of passing something off as a replica is very definite and leaves anybody trying to pass something off as a replica, in English Law certainly, in breach of contract.
Copy is much more loosely defined but I still wouldn't go as far as to call my car a copy either.

[Joe T]

Interesting, and I suppose down to how closely something is manufactured in the original likeness.
For clarity I mean't 917 like then. in shape and conformation if not in detail.(I think)

[Lynn]

I am sorry guys, but the arguments over what constitutes are real car (GT40) have extreme merit and deserve careful consideration. In my opinion mincing words over what is a replica or not is getting to the point of being rediculous. When the term replica or facimile is used, again IMHO, it is refering ONLY to the visible shape and LOOK. It does not imply in any way that the car is indeed a copy mechanically. If you look up these words you will invariably find the word "graphics" or "graphical" associated with the explanation which implies that replica implies a visual copy.

If one is going to extend the description of replica to mean an exact copy in every detail, both internal and external, then as what, pray tell, are you going to refer to cars like the RF, GTD, Tornado, ERA and many others that look like the cars that were produced by FAV? I refuse to reference these to an "original" GT40. Because none of the "original" GT40s were exact copies of each other in look or internally. So, which chassis number are you going to use as your yard stick in determining what is called a replica? So, then by inference it is the only true example and the others can't even be called replicas because they are not exact copies of this one. (This is what floors me when I see comments about placement of mirrors and the like saying "it is not as original." What total BS! None of them looked alike anyway down to how many rivets were used in mounting windows and covers- they are all a bit different in some ways!) "Looks like a MK I from a distance" I challange you to tell me what a Mk I looks like in absolute terms! Which Mk I? Again, there is no absolute standard! These were racing cars for crying out loud. To apply dogmatic standard is pure foolishness to me and obviously piques me a bit. If one wants to hold themselves to these standards, by all means - drive yourself to distraction if that is what turns you on, but don't try to put your unrealistic qualifications on everyone else.

Bottom line: give me f---ing break! If it is very close to the original shape and proportions, it is a REPLICA. A T-3 is NOT A REPLICA, a LASER 917 is NOT A REPLICA, the 917 made in Australia (name elludes me at the moment) IS A REPLICA, the RF IS A REPLICA. REPLICA only refers to the outward appearance in my book.

Lynn

[Joe T]

I suppose I was hoping someone on here might have actually built one or have experience of someone building one.

Thanks

Joe

[Mike Inglis]

Try and track down Graham Turner, he has built a superb example of a 917.

[91740Gt]

Joe T,

I have both LMK and original 917 body panels, etc, and i can tell you that they may look similar from a distance but side by side they are very different.
The new 917 is visually correct even down to the dashboard with all panels and furniture copied 100% from two 1970 "Kurz" cars.
I will not say much on this subject as we will probably get all the "flack" flying about, but if you are seriously interested in a highly accurate 917 please keep in contact. We are at a critical SVA stage shortly for road use, but this brutal beauty will not be for the faint hearted and i will not entertain dreamers and tyre kickers.

Graham @ GTA

[Paul Thompson 'Hooligan']

Joe

'Replica', 'Copy', be as picky as you like - Graham's 917 looks AWESOME!! -

Can't wait to see and hear it in action!

At Autosport 2004 - (are you there in Jan 2005 Grahame?)

[ChrisL]

[ QUOTE ]
The legal side of passing something off as a replica is very definite and leaves anybody trying to pass something off as a replica, in English Law certainly, in breach of contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this correct? My understanding is that the RF40 was recently denied entry to the Bathurst 24hr quoting the rule "No replicas". A serious attempt was made by the entrants to distance the car from the original GT40, entering it as an RF40 in its own right with no luck. Maybe a legal challenge was in order here [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

PS. Australian law is founded on British law).

[91740Gt]

To Chris L,

I am at a total loss as to why/where you should deviate from the original question and replies.

My cars do race and, as usual, we shall be in the Sports Racing and GT Series here in the UK, as well as invitation races here and in Europe. We are not entering the Bathurst 24hours.................. ! ???

Let me assure you all that there are hundreds of races worldwide that good replicas, copies, fakes, call them what you will, are eligible for and i,m sure that the lovely RF 40s have plenty of racing in Australia.

Graham.

[ChrisL]

GTA917,

Oops. I'm not as much in my own little world as I may have made it seem (I hope). [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I was simply suggesting that the 917 replicas out there should be permitted to be seen as legitimate replicas, and used this specific RF40 situation as an example where the word "replica" can have a broad meaning, even in the legal sense. And yes, you are correct. There are many categories in which the RF40 is permitted to race. I'll crawl back into my hole now [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Peter D]

Graham, such an agressive answer - why ?

Peter D.

[91740Gt]

Why you ask?

Because Joe T asked a simple straight forward question in the first place and ends up with flack about replicas and Bathurst exclusions!!!!!

This forum is wonderful but many of the serious readers or newcomers do not receive the answers they are looking for and i see this thread as one of them.

Graham.

[Lynn]

Graham,

I think you will find that most are on your side, or rather Joe's, on this one!

You're right: Joe asked a pretty straight forward question and deserved a straight forward answer. It was only when someone tried to jump his case about the use of the term replica, that the thread went sideways for a bit. I think the negative post on Joe's semantics was way off base and I don't think I minced words in saying so.

I think you may have misinterpreted Chris' post. Or I did, as I think he was trying to call into question whether there was a legal definition for the term "replica" as claimed, especially based on the way it is then often misused, at Bathurst for instance. I really think he was defending Joe against the undeserved attack.

I am very pro-inclusionary and have a pet peeve against exclusivity. I think most here are also. So, I was very interested in your lower cost (maybe "more resonable" is a better term) approach to a GT40 build and hope to learn more about it. I really got interested in international sports car racing in the late 60s and early 70s when the 512 v 917 wars were at their height and so am very interested in the 917 replicas out there as well. As I said the Laser 917 was a disappointment to me, but your car looks very much the business. I am looking forward to seeing and learning about much more of your handiwork!

Regards,
Lynn

[Keith 'Baron' Hardy]

Pedantics (?) aside the car looks bloody fantastic and I want one. Can't tell from that shot, but is this the regular short tailed version of the beast? Oh bugger! Sorry, I didn't mean to use the term "version" It could be mis-construed, I meant is this the short tailed model? Crap! There I go again "model" - hmmm, can't use that word either. Er, is this the short tailed one? Heh heh.... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Paul Thompson 'Hooligan']

Does this answer your question? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]