Nice car!, Is a Factory Five, BD, CXS or a Fakeydoo?

First production
First race car
Raced - Survived
Different colors over the years
Different mechanical over the years

A Cobra -

chr

And a replica of CSX2000. :eek:

Yes, Hectorter, it is a CSX too.

Uh-huh. So, every Cobra is a replica of the one(s) before it? Which would mean every '65 Shelby is a replica of the one(s) before it, too? And every car ever built is ... well, never mind. Does "mental masturbation" mean anything to any of you?

Come on now - you know as well as I Shelby could have cared less about building street cars. Homologation was an evil of racing FIA GT. He hated it as much as every other GT manufacturer and they all tried to skirt it. They would much rather have been allowed to treat construction like the prototypes. The car did not matter. Remington thought they were piles of **** - Crappy steering, crappy geometry, crappy chassis. IMO Shelby would have tried a wheel barrow if he could have gotten someone to give him one. They were racers at the right place and time with amazing will and considerable luck.

Observer => "Is it a real one?"

Owner => "Real what?"

C7 != C2

They are both recognized as Vettes.

%/

I can not wait to get my non-Shelby Cobra Replica POS running. Thank God it is not remotely close mechanically to a 64 Cobra - it is destined for the track and its performance will do the talking one way or the other and guys that build track stuff will enjoy it and I seriously doubt there will be one that does not recognize it as a Cobra :cool:

chr

Hector:
No importa lo que le digas no saben la diferencia. No matter what you say to them they don't always know the difference.
I try to explain the difference between a kit and a replica and the real thing and they still look you crooked.
I just say "its my toy"
Saludos
Lou
http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/pict...=11557&thumb=1

That's an excellent point. Irregardless of what SAAC says or that SAAC kool aid drinking Real1 says the general population will see the car and know it's a Shelby Cobra. If there's no one around to explain to them any different that will be what they think and they will love it.

Gee, no one got the "tongue n' cheek" in my comment. Technically correct but offered tongue and cheek. ;) This highlights why SAAC categories and applied definitions are accurate, correct and appropriate.

ERA2076: I can't disagree with a word you said. BTW is ERA really up to chassis 2076? I owned ERA515 which I now believe is owned by Peter P. Great car.

Buddyg: I don't even like Koolaid. If I'm drinking their "Koolaid" there's many many others drinking too based on membership, Registry Sales, attendance and SAAC events and conventions and many more utilizing SAAC as a world authority and reference. Seems like you are in the minority my friend in actuality.

No doubt that when any of these cars are sitting there most people recognize the shape as a Cobra and in the common generic sense a "cobra". True. It is quite apparent you very much want you car to be something it's not i.e. a genuine Cobra as opposed to a replica of one. Here' a little tip for you.... if you stand there while the average Joe is looking at your car as noted some will no doubt wonder whether it is really a Cobra (i.e. genuine) or not. My advice to you is to keep very quiet and don't say a word and maybe they will conclude it's a genuine Cobra cause thats about as close your replica will get to one without having to mislead them. ;) Sorry to be nasty about it but your attitude begs for it.

Cheers.

If Mongoose Motorsports decided to do a C7 would it still be recognized as a vette or a vette replica?

I'm betting the "other guys that build track stuff" will recognize your entry as a cobra replica, just like what some of them are tracking :)

As a man with knowledge and serious hands-on experience with these cars - your credentials speak for themselves. Might I suggest you have a sidebar with Dr. Ed (also a man w/credentials) to iron out this apparent disconnect on old originals versus new continuations/replicas. According to the good doctor, the original cars were wonderful, glorious junk and the continuations / replicas / kits are also wonderful glorious junk. Apparently 50 years of racing tech improvements have yet to trickle down to replica builders - very disheartening :LOL:

Ned, viewed from the observation deck in a pool chair, anyone in the pool of mental masturbators', is also a mental masturbator by definition - it's in the SAAC Registry under miscellaneous.

Al, you better fix that rectocranial inversion.

I have no problem telling people my car is a Superformance replica of a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Your the one that's trying to make your Continuation car something it's not. It's not a real Shelby Cobra, it's a replica of the 1965 Shelby Cobra. Funny how Carroll Shelby the man who made these cars had issues with SAAC your beloved bible of all things Cobra.

Once again I don't give a crap what you or SAAC say. You can, that's the beauty of this Country. And speaking of attitude you have it in Spades.

That it is a replica goes without saying - guys that build track stuff are not going to recognize my car as a Shelby anything. They will however, immediately recognize it as a Cobra.

chr

acknowledged :)

Yep -

chr

Still swimming in the pool Ned, good for you!

FIA"s are numbered from 2000. Mine was built in 2002 - not sure how many they have built to date, 2152 is under construction in the ERA forum.

chr

I'm not an avid Cobra entusiast or historian. I just like 'em.
I think I understand in a simplistic way...maybe.
The CSX 4000 and 6000 cars are considered "real" shelby cobras because the chassis' are built under the direction of, and given the name "cobra" by, the Shelby company, the company that owns and has always owned the name "shelby cobra". They are not "original cobras" but they are "real cobras" for that reason. It's as if Ford were to authorize the production of, and offer for sale, a car that looks exactly like the '56 T bird and call it a Ford T bird. It would be a "real" Ford T bird, but not an original '56 Ford T bird. Any other maker of a car that looks like a 56 Ford T bird could not call his car a "real" Ford T bird. Those cars would be niether "real" nor original.
Likewise, cobra look-a-likes that are not CSX cars are neither "real," in that sense of the word, nor original. That's ok with me. That's the truth.
Most people on the street when they ask me "is it real?" are probably really asking: "is it original?" Of course, the answer from me is no. I suppose though, that a CXS 4000 owner could conceivably say "yes" but it would probably be disingenuous to not follow up with, "but it's not an original, if that's what you meant".

Jim, kudos to you. You nailed it!

Sorry Jim the SAAC calls them genuine not real. And we all know the Real 1?. Agreeing with you is major hypocrisy. Since he posted over and over the SAAC knows all.

Real may imply to some as original and the SAAC knows this. Real would be a term a con man would enjoy trying to pass a 4000 off as a sixties car. Remember some states allow an owner to title replicas as say 1965 and so.

Ralphy

Ralphy, would you accept Jim's explanation if he replaced the word 'real' with 'genuine' to be consistent with SAAC terminology?

I also agree that jim nailed it,

,I'm changing what I respond to people no longer well I say its a backdraft Cobra. it is a backdraft roadster from South Africa ,plain and simple a unique vehicle I am very grateful to own.

much easier when you're not trying to compare or make something else better or worse.