Same old same old

I've been away from this site for some time now.
Earlier today when I had a spare moment I decided to check back and see how thing are over here. I was not surprised at all to find this thread...
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/vendor-manufacturer-announcements/35284-tornado-gts-posts.html
I'm out of the whole GT40 owning world now, so I feel I can write this as a (relative) outsider.
It just seems HILARIOUS to me that a vendor can consider taking to court another vendor for "ripping off" his car which in itself is a "rip off" of a car built in the sixties!
I think the lineage for replicas was KVA-GTD-TORNADO-etc. each chassis an "improvement" on the last.
Did KVA take GTD to court?
Did GTD take Tornado to court?
GET OVER IT, it's pathetic, such a small community is choking to death.
Bye

Simon
 
It strikes me as Lame also Simon. I'd like to see the copyright on a design that is itself a copy/replica whatever.
 

George

CURRENTLY BANNED
To some degree, I can see that being silly considering they are all replicas, however, if I was Tornado, and had designed a car that was some how much lighter than everyone elses, I would like to have that secure for my business and not allow someone else to take my design. So I can understand the whole other side aswell. If you designed something in life that nobody else achieved wouldnt you want it patented/copyrighted as its YOUR design?

So its not silly in the end.
 

Andy Sheldon

Tornado Sports Cars
GT40s Sponsor
Simon

You obviously do not know what you are talking about.

Did KVA take GTD to court?

No because originally GTD had designed their own front and rear subframes which were grafted onto the old KVA chassis. When they did their own chassis they just joined the subframes together.

Did GTD take Tornado to court?

Yes they were in the process of doing so when they were sold out even though we had proved no part of our chassis was the same as theirs.

You are correct in that all GT40 chassis will be similar in overall shape as they must fit the same body shape.

But the detailed design of each chassis must be different and this is the original work that is owned by the designer.

There are 22 items that have been copied. They are not similar but exactly the same.

Usually when an item is copied an attempt is made to make it look different but no such attempt has even been made.

Darren openly admitted to me on the telephone during a conversation about the subject that he had one of our chassis at his workshop to help him with his 'development' work. We are currently tracking this owner down.

You must also remember that Darren at GTS has used pictures of our cars on his web site to mislead potential customers.

When contacted he eventually removed the pictures.

At the moment he is using a video of a Superformance and some pictures of what looks like an old KVA.

He does not have a completed GT40 car and has never built one so how can he sell a chassis and body?

We have also been informed that he has approached another of our customers asking to take pictures of his car for use in promotional material but the customer has refused.

We now have information that leads us to believe he has also copied our build manual.

I am sure you would agree this in not a proffesional way to run any business and those that do should be stopped at any cost to protect both the industry and future customers.

For further information on How Darren and GTS tuning do business just look him up on the Locost builders forum.

I am certainly not going to get into a protracted argument with you on the forum so this is the only post I will make on this thread.

We have received many emails showing complete support for our action against GTS.

If you would like to discuss the matter further please do not hesitate to call me.

Thanks

Andy
 
FWIW and having considerable experience in commercial litigation proceedings, I would advise any concerned parties to cease making comments in an open forum here or anywhere else on the WWW.

If you have a case, posts like yours Andy stand an extremely strong chance of damaging your chances of success, should a case ever be brought in the future.

And my parting comment would be that 'professional' is not anything that I, as an outsider have considered to be evident in these discussions to date.
 
Thanks for all the support from the forum community but i would ask you all not to comment any further because to be fair to Andy and myself it's hard not to want to respond.

The forum admin have asked us to keep it off the forum which i for one am trying to do, but, like i said when mud is being slung you feel you have to respond.

It would work out best for everyone concerned and the 'atmosphere' on the forum if Andy and I are left to work this out offline. We can make respective statements or otherwise privately and or after any outcome is determined.

D.
 
An important thing to remember is that when people copy other peoples ideas with just a few small differences to show it's not quite the same, have these people considered that these are fast cars and cars such as Tornado's have been tried and tested for years under all conditions.
Do any persons copying things consider the danger they may have built into such untried modifications and is there any legal come back on the consequences should a part malfunction at high speed and kill some poor sod who believed it must be satisfactory as there are pictures out there showing cars in daily use.

Just my thoughts
 
Frankly some of the early kit cars are quite shocking, I wouldn't for example want to drive a KCC or early KVA and I'm glad they have been copied with such 'untried' modifications!

I'm going to make no comment on the GTS v Tornado issue as obviously I'm going to be biased but there is a risk with any kit, scratch and low production number 'specialist' manufacturers. There is however also a risk with mainstream manufacturers, see for example Toyota (but almost every make has had issues).
 
Frankly some of the early kit cars are quite shocking, I wouldn't for example want to drive a KCC or early KVA and I'm glad they have been copied with such 'untried' modifications!

I'm going to make no comment on the GTS v Tornado issue as obviously I'm going to be biased but there is a risk with any kit, scratch and low production number 'specialist' manufacturers. ******There is however also a risk with mainstream manufacturers, see for example Toyota (but almost every make has had issues)*******.

Yes, but in that situation the buck stops with Toyota or the manufacturer in question, in the Kit Car application its usually 'you or I' the kit owner who assumes responsibility for for the finished product once its completed & regoed etc. Have a look at the 'fine print' in any of the purchase agreements & I think you will find wording to that effect. That is why very few if any kit suppliers venture into the completed car arena- plus of course this could put them outside the protection of being 'low volume' manufacturers.
 
Yes, but in that situation the buck stops with Toyota or the manufacturer in question, in the Kit Car application its usually 'you or I' the kit owner who assumes responsibility for for the finished product once its completed & regoed etc. Have a look at the 'fine print' in any of the purchase agreements & I think you will find wording to that effect. That is why very few if any kit suppliers venture into the completed car arena- plus of course this could put them outside the protection of being 'low volume' manufacturers.

I agree with what you are saying. I meant the risk that they've got it wrong rather than the responsibility.

SVA/IVA/'rego'/Type Approval for example only checks that the build has been performed to satisfaction. It doesn't (for example) check that the geometry is off, the chassis is too flimsy (well maybe for Type Approval), you've gone and let designers do the aerodynamics (eg new Beetle or TT) or even that you've ignored everyone else and put the engine behind the rear axle and have masses of mechanical grip with lethal let-off oversteer! ;)

As an example of just how wrong a major manufacturer can get it see this (which I'm sure you've all seen many times before) Mercedes CLR Le Mans Flip - YouTube

Also wrt road cars see Audi TT, New Beatle, A-class etc, there is a lower risk with a mainstream manufacturer but its not zero.
 
I agree with what you are saying. I meant the risk that they've got it wrong rather than the responsibility.

SVA/IVA/'rego'/Type Approval for example only checks that the build has been performed to satisfaction. It doesn't (for example) check that the geometry is off, the chassis is too flimsy (well maybe for Type Approval), you've gone and let designers do the aerodynamics (eg new Beetle or TT) or even that you've ignored everyone else and put the engine behind the rear axle and have masses of mechanical grip with lethal let-off oversteer! ;)

As an example of just how wrong a major manufacturer can get it see this (which I'm sure you've all seen many times before) Mercedes CLR Le Mans Flip - YouTube

Also wrt road cars see Audi TT, New Beatle, A-class etc, there is a lower risk with a mainstream manufacturer but its not zero.

Yes, but as you stated in your earlier post, 'You' would not have wanted any part of driving/owning a KCC or KVA, that implies that you have some degree of common sense, a rare quality in this day & age where we see all too often people who continue to drive cars with half flat tyres, obvious damage or wheel alignment issues, I remember a local car owned by a chap I know that I regularly followed each day on the same road going to work with the same left rear tire half flat day after day, I eventually got sick of it & told him he should get the 'slow leak' repaired, his answer, what slow leak? he didnt realise he had a problem... thats the sort of mentality your dealing with... put that guy in the car examples your quoting above & he would have an accident in a short time frame, put you or I in the same situation & [hopefully:)] we would realise the car had issues before we had reached a corner at speed. I agree that there have been some really crap examples from mainstream examples, I also know from years of building motors that people have $$$ to buy HP & Bling, but wont spend pennies to make the car stop or get around a corner safely. In recent times I have often refused to allow cars out of the shop after fitting a motor until the owner address's other issues, as a result I quite often 'lose' that client to other shops with lower standards... that seems to be the way of the world these days..
 

Seymour Snerd

Lifetime Supporter
Keep this up Sir, and I just may have to offer you a job!!! LOL

Actually, leaving aside the moral and saferty aspects of this and getting back to the legal ones... How would such a claim be made?

A copyright infringement in the case of the manual would be relatively straightforward, but for design of the frame or of the vehicle I don't quite see it:

  • There don't appear to be patents involved, and they seem unlikely given the probably obvious nature of any "invention" having to do with a GT40 kit design.
  • Trade Secret doesn't work well since the design is by nature out in the world for all to see.
  • Copyright infringment for the design of the chassis? That sounds hard....
  • Are there any other possibilities?
But then, here in America we use ultimately hopeless legal actions simply to bully the other guy and cause both sides to lose. But I thought that was our own unique talent; I didn't think it had spread to the motherland.
 
But then, here in America we use ultimately hopeless legal actions simply to bully the other guy and cause both sides to lose. But I thought that was our own unique talent; I didn't think it had spread to the motherland.

But the lawyers giving all the advise to sue make good money
 
here in America we use ultimately hopeless legal actions simply to bully the other guy and cause both sides to lose. But I thought that was our own unique talent; I didn't think it had spread to the motherland.

Far from it Alan, you guys have trained us well. The proceedures that must be followed make it extremely easy to sue someone even with a weak case. The system is weighted in favour of the system.

Oh, and never enter Mediation if you expect to be happy at the end of it. The best scenario for the Mediator is to achieve a situation where both sides are unhappy. And don't look for Justice either. That is an ideal that was lost long ago. No such thing as Justice, just business in another guise.
 
Back
Top