Well, she IS Chinese...............!!!!!!!

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I bought an Anniversary car because it is one of 40 made by Shelby. If I had not had this one built, I would have waited until I could have found one of the originals that I could afford. Again I will say, this is my choice. I love the car and I resprct the man that created it. There must be something to having a Shelby built car. All you have to do to see this is follow the sales of his against other manufacturers. Anniversary #001 sold at auction for $205,000. An original Daytona Coup was solt to a Doctor in Philadelphia for $3,750,000. All built by Shelby American.

Casaleenie: ........now that Shelby has a 39K roller out, we are ALL confused. *Just one more thing we can blame Shelby for, I guess! Poor guy; never catches a break.:D

CSX 4027's initial post pondered why Mr. Shelby catches so much flak on CC. Others in this thread have asked why so much fuss between "real" and "replica." I have the answer.

We're all really bored, and have way, way too much time on our hands. ;)

Oh, and we're obviously not with Edley's girlfriend. :p

nevermind.

Let me set some terms straight so we are all on the same page here.
#1) Reproduce - to produce again, bring into existence again.
#2) Reproduction - something made by reproducing or being reproduced, copy, close imitation, duplication etc.
#3) Replica - a reproduction or copy

#2 is referring to a continuation car built by Shelby in the Registry.
#3 is the rest of us.

I don't know about Real 1 but I'm pretty damn sure he's driving a replica.

OH BOY!!!!!:rolleyes:

Nuke
 

I don't know about you but I'm Consecratin on what you wrote:MECOOL:

AC: What you consider or don't consider a REAL Cobra is of no moment. I go by the facts and SAAC. BTW, I also notice you don't have a Shelby.

I didn't say "all have inferiority complexes" Read what I wrote.

TerrySPF: Yes you can get a fiberglass Shelby CSX for $39,900.00. Yes it goes in the registry. Yes its a REAL Cobra according to the facts and SAAC. I believe there is a distinction in the registry between glass and aluminum bodied continuation Cobras too. But $39,900 will not get you an aluminum bodied Cobra as original. Alloy cars are still more expensive and sell for substantially more. Apples and oranges. Sorry to disappoint you.

Yes, you could put a chebby engine in your CSX if you insisted and changed the mounting points on the chasis but I don't think you would be that stupid. Or would you?

Mr Nuke: Look in the dictionary my friend. Reproduce and replica are synomous. Yeah. My car is a replica/reproduction of the original series. No question about that. It would have to be to be to be built to original specification. Duh. But the new Continuation series also have the distinction of being REAL Cobras at the same time. No rocket science here guys. Those that don't understand this I guess must not have the ability to grasp simple concepts. The others who do and who continue to argue against it have some other axe to grind. Comical actually.



:LOL:

Evan: I know, I know.......apples and oranges.......aluminum and 'glass.....seperated in the registry.....etc.

My point was, I could spend 40K, be able to call my car "REAL" (after all, isn't THAT what counts??) just like you do, have my car in the registry (just like you do), and save myself, what.....100K? That's a bargain in anybodys book ....... especially Shelby's!

The comment on the Chebby engine was just to get your (and the rest of you Shelby owners) blood flowing to see a Chevy engine listed in the Shelby registry. -Does the SAAC list the engine you have in the car (like SPF's registry does)?
But hey, the car would be faster and a lot easier to get parts for! There WAS a reason why Shelby went to Chevy first you know!!:eek: :LOL:

So if you ever list it in Ebaymotors make sure it's in the right category.

I cant believe I am getting drawn into this again,but it always blows my mind the kicking Shelby gets,couldnt it be he is a business man like everyone else who files a copyright suit ?After all the BS dies,he will still be the man who started all this so I dont see why he shouldnt get a small chunk of the pie,I mean talk about someone else at the office taking credit for a task you did,,this is the ultimate.
So now that I have added my 2cents worth,let all us folllowers bow to the cobra GOD.while the rest go out and scrape those nasty red ,white and blue snake emblems off their cars,it was Shelbys dream you know,cant imagine you would want to carry that around for all to see.Tk

Sorry Real 1, I just never really understood your point from the start. Ya came off a little on the harsh side with your mine's real and SPF's aren't deal. Your name doesn't help either. I went on a cruise with a gentleman a couple weekends ago and he owns an aluminum bodied CSX4XXX series. I kept telling him how neat his car was and he never really wanted to talk about it and how everyone in his club owns "Cobras". They all loved their cars and it didn't matter if it was an FFR, SPF or Shelby American. You and he seem to look at it a little differently and I like his view better.

One other item of note. I just can't really grasp the idea of a replica/reproduction being "real". Just doesn't really sound right.

I cant believe that an aluminum body costs over $50,000 to produce....unbelievable.

that is because they dont senor bluerooster.

Evan,

I read it

you said it

KK :D

sorry for the long post, however I observed many references to the "apples and oranges" ----"glass and aluminum" defense.

here is a little food for thought. to see the figures referenced do a google search for apples and oranges


Apples and Oranges-A Comparison
S A. Sandford
Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) Vol. 1, No. 3,May/June 1995
We have all been present at discussions (or arguments) in which one of the combatants attempts to clarify or strengthen a point by comparing the subject at hand with another item or situation more familiar to the audience or opponent. More often than not, this stratagem instantly results in the protest that "you're comparing apples and oranges!" This is generally perceived as being a telling blow to the analogy, since it is generally understood that apples and oranges cannot be compared.
However, after being the recipient of just such an accusation, it occurred to me that there are several problems with dismissing analogies with the comparing apples and oranges defense.

First, the statement that something is like comparing apples and oranges is a kind of analogy itself. That is, denigrating an
analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges. More importantly, it is not difficult to demonstrate that apples and oranges can, in fact, be compared (see figure 1).


Granny Smith Apple and Sunkist Orange
Fig.1
Materials and Methods
Both samples were prepared by gently desiccating them in a convection oven at low temperature over the course of several days. The dried samples were then mixed with potassium bromide and ground in a small ball-bearing mill for two minutes. One hundred milligrams of each of the resulting powders were then pressed into a circular pellet having a diameter of 1 cm and a thickness of approximately 1 mm. Spectra were taken at a resolution of 1 cm-1 using a Nicolet 740 FTIR spectrometer.
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 4000-400 cm-1 (2.5-25 mm) infrared transmission spectra of a Granny Smith
apple and a Sunkist Navel orange.


Fig.2
Conclusions
Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar.
Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.
A Personal Note
I, for one, intend to carry a copy of figure 2 in my pocket so that the next time someone accuses me of comparing apples and oranges, I can whip it out, shove it in front of their eyes, and say, "No - this is comparing apples and oranges!" That should fix them.

Scott A. Sandford is a research astrophysicist working at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California.
Caleb Brown is an illustrator and biologist living in Montana. By day he drives a delivery van, and by night he draws pictures with
ught

Todd,

OK, Well, that settles that.....

Nuke427: Yeah, to me when when I get together with other guys and we talk about the hobby they are all "Cobras" to me too. No problem there. In the vernacular we all have come to refer to these cars as "Cobras". I have no problem with that. In our hobby thats how we see all these cars. I do too.

But when we are talking specifics and facts as to what is and is'nt considered a genuine Cobra I'm just pointing out the facts. No insult is intended nor do I intend to come off "harsh". When the discussion turns to the subject and someone says "Continuation Cobras are just replicas because they weren't made in the '60s" I just in turn point to the facts. If I have to say mine is genuine/REAL Cobra and a SPF isn't... aren't I just pointing out the obvious? Whats this some kind of new flash? Is a SPF a genuine Cobra.? No. Did you buy the SPF believing it was? No. Is the SPF a SAI product? No. Can it legally and legitmately be called a Cobra by those that produce and sell it? No. Is it recognized by SAAC as a REAL Cobra? No.

Why is it only harsh when I point out the facts? Why does this make me a snob? Why are guys with SPFs so defensive about it? Yet it doesn't seem to be considered "harsh" at all when insults are directedl my way for stating the facts or when someone plain out says "I consider the CSX nothing more than a replica cause it wasn't made in the 60s". Funny how that works.

The answers to all the previous questions in the second paragraph above as to the second generation Cobras (Continuation series) is "yes", like it or not. I didn't make the facts. I'm just pointing them out in the course of a discussion on the issue.

Harsh? No, I don't think I was. Harsh is more aptly used to describe the insults I have to put up with because I just state it like it is.

Call your car a Cobra. Thats fine with me. To me it is too as we all refer to these cars. But say the Continuation series Cobras are just replicas and not REAL Cobras and you and I will part ways and will have a little debate on that subject every time.

Blue Rooster: Well I also don't think an aluminum body costs $50,000 to produce. The aluminum rollers are approximately $70,000.00 last I checked (and I haven't checked in a while). The glass bodied roller is $39,900 with a price increase to $42,000.00 the end of the month. The price difference is about $30,000.00 due to the reduction in cost of the glass car. The differential used to be about $20,000.00.

Aluminum is more labor intensive and difficult to make and is considered more desirable by many. Supply and Demand usually dictates price regardless of cost of manufacture. As I understand there was more of a demand for aluminum bodied CSX's this year than glass.

:cool:

We can debate, part ways whatever. It starts with you are tired of guys using the "Shelby" name to sell their cars. They shouldn't be in the Shelby category on Ebay. They should be in replica/kits. All I'm stating is that your car may belong there too. Your ID Real 1 does have a meaning. You own a real kit car made by a Shelby company. That's nice. I can complain the same about guys like you trying to pass off your kit for a real 65 Shelby 427 Cobra. I'll pass mine off as a "real" Backdraft Racing roadster. If I bought a Shelby American and titled it here in MO. my title would say 2003 Special Construction. MO. won't title it as a Shelby Cobra b/c it comes with an MSO that says kit on it. I too just state the facts, like em or not.