TAC - Tiger/Alpine re-shelling discussion thread.

Post general questions relating to Tigers
garyv8tiger
Posts: 650
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:57 am

reshell

Post by garyv8tiger » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:01 pm

something else here if a reshell is not a tiger .should it be allowed to enter in concourse tiger shows ect ?or will they have to join the alpine club?

Red Race Tiger

Post by Red Race Tiger » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:30 pm

Gary your'll go straight to hell for that...... :cry:

65beam
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:46 pm

tiger

Post by 65beam » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:09 pm

could someone answer my questions since i'm not really in the know on your laws and regulations.

User avatar
gvickery
Site Admin
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:45 pm
Location: Surrey

Post by gvickery » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:40 pm

1. Is there a law in the uk against swapping engines, etc without government permission? Answer: Yes - Like for like is OK. A larger capacity engine should be declared, if you don't insurers will walk away from a claim.

2. Do the cars have to meet strict mechanical and body standards to be driven? Answer: Yes - every car must pass an annual test to confirm the vehicle meets the minimum acceptable environmental and road safety standards required by law. The test doesn't guarantee the general mechanical condition of your vehicle and it doesn't cover the condition of the engine, clutch or gearbox.

3. Does your normal inspection procedures require that all components match the original numbers when built? Answer: No

4. Does the original registration number stay with the car for it's entire life and gets transferred to new owners when sold? Answer: Yes.

5. Are your regulations such that it makes it difficult to change the cars in any drastic way? Answer: Difficult - Yes, impossible - No.

User avatar
gvickery
Site Admin
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:45 pm
Location: Surrey

Post by gvickery » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Gary, speaking personally and not as a 'voice of STOC' - and putting aside the 'Q' plate scene for a moment, I kind of agree with 'Bobbybutton', 'Meadowhog', 'RedRaceTiger' etc that re-shelled Tigers should be fully acknowledged by the UK Tiger community. Even have a 'Show' category.

There are enough of them in the UK after all and some very nicely executed ones that most current owners acquired unwittingly and who I think should not be excluded from exhibiting them at STOC shows in their own right. In my book it is far better to acknowledge these cars than to walk past them whispering 'Alger'.

I don't condone re-shelling as "saving a Tiger", simply because for the last 10 years, if not a lot longer, 99.9% of buyers want the 'real thing' - what Jensen built. Regular buyers do NOT want re-shelled cars with a hazy past (and I am very mindful of Meadowhog's points about how much metal has to be left to be still considered the original item but that's another post) but we have to face up to the legacy of the past. So yes, there ought to be ways to acknowledge, 'conversions', Algers', re-body's' and 're-shells' but I have no wish to see the stock of them increased. Besides there is the far trickier development of 'continuation' cars or 'log book rebuilds'. A couple of those are washing around in the trade and I have no reservations about pointing them out.

The flip side of acknowledging 'Algers' is acknowledging cars that are not and here I (personally) believe STOC should adopt 'T.A.C.' or an authentication method that, among other things, permits folk to be reassured.

Graham

michael-king
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:35 am
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Post by michael-king » Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:42 am

Graham,

I can see the difficulty of your position in this thread, wearing 2 hats.. that of STOC president and that of your own opinions. I think what you said is very fair.

I feel the term "alger" has obtained negative tones due to the fact it was often associated with cars that were fraudulently represented.. which is a pitty as its a good term.. perhaps we can start "Tipines" though in some ways that impies ther reverse of alger..

I agree that isolating converted cars is a bad idea, many of them are often better than surviving Tigers or have had as much time and effort spent on them. However their carrying of the donor VIN and JAL is unfortunate.. but once done.. cant be undone. Discouraging the practice in the future is a good move.. setting up categories for them at events etc is a nice idea.

As for cars that were purchased as factory cars and then turn out to be conversions, it's an unfortunate situation and I feel sorry for the owners who get caught out by this... it does not change the way their car drives, is presented etc.. but i can imagine discovering such a thing might remove some of the enthusiasm due to a feeling of deceipt... hence embracing the cars for the qualities they offer is a good thing, that way while it will be openly known as a convetrted car, the quality of the car/conversion can be acknowledged or maybe rated/approved through a club instigated process.

There is a big difference between saving/preserving a car and recreating one, and there is no problem with either.. as long as the process invloved is transparent.
Michael King
63 Alpine SII - 65 Alpine SIVGT
65 Tiger MKI - 66 Tiger MKIA
Image

Mal
Posts: 672
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:39 am
Location: NZ

Post by Mal » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:19 am

If the DVLA allows the swaping of tags when a car is rebodied and the car has to have an R added to it's chassis number hopefully it would encourage owners to go through this process when rebodying. Which is a good thing. It makes everything transperent for any potential purchasers in the future.
Hopefully they won't put to many additional costs in the way so people avoid the process.
Image

garyv8tiger
Posts: 650
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:57 am

Post by garyv8tiger » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:48 pm

Red Race Tiger wrote:Gary your'll go straight to hell for that...... :cry:
paul
i was trying to inject some humour :mrgreen: .this thread is going round in circles .and mainly contributed by the australian tiger police.

at the end of the day if you reshell why do you need to tell anyone you dont .but i think you should declare it if you sell it .i bet theres a good few reshells passed tac :?:

meadowhog
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: South Bucks

Post by meadowhog » Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:04 pm

Sensible words gentleman,

should we start a new thread on 'when is Tiger not a Tiger' to split away from acceptability of reshells. To my mind this would discuss the finer points of Jenson built cars, although I do have reservations of giving away too much detail. The problem I have on this thread is a reshell is currently technically illegal, not to mention decieptful and hence this discussion should not really be happening.

Have any TAC inspectors found border line cars that would give a heads up on whats acceptable without giving the game away. That I believe is difficult to answer due to so many variables. Im suprised theres not more input from the USA.

The law should be our guidline (and may change)but I guess this will always be challenged. An example I gave in my first post is worthy of note due to the car having virtually nothing left of the origianl and still being recognised as original. How much is the 'R' on the log book worth?With guidlines on whats acceptable, potential decievers might actually do a proper job (at a slightly higher cost) and produce an acceptable car for TAC. If so the issue of reshell becomes pointless as I believe nobody will try to build cars that arent what they seem. This I believe would add value and credibility to the marque.

User avatar
gvickery
Site Admin
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:45 pm
Location: Surrey

Post by gvickery » Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:33 pm

There are a number of points made lately I need to catch up with soonest but first please let me tackle the label "Tiger police" some of our posters having started using.

Here is a sample of what has come my way this past two months.

1. New member buys a Tiger at auction for £20K+ only to find there is another car claiming the same chassis number that has the JAL / plate, engine and transmission of his Tiger, probably axle too. This other ‘Tiger’ is an Alpine that hasn’t been properly converted, it even wears Alpine ‘top hats’ but its owner didn’t know the difference when he bought it in 1991; he thought he was buying a Tiger. The Tiger of the new member however, has been given the JAL number / plate, engine and gearbox of another Tiger that no longer exists. The ‘Alpine V8’ owner now knows he doesn’t own a Tiger and the Tiger owner is left with a Tiger with incorrect factory ID and the innards of another car. Both have handmade ‘weighing machine’ chassis plates.

2. New member buys a Tiger for £25K+ from the trade and submits its ID with photographs to the Club with his membership application. The chassis plate is good but the number doesn’t correlate with the body it has. At first it seemed that a past ‘restorer’ who was working on two cars at the same time picked the incorrect plate out of his ‘bacci tin’ when time came to refit the primary ID. He did get that wrong but he had also re-shelled the car.

Two (4 cars) in two months. What does this behaviour tell you? Isn’t the first case simply deception for financial gain ‘in spades’. The second apart from being the action of a clown also intended to deceive for financial gain. For every ‘honest injun’ intent on “saving a Tiger” that might be described or shown to me, I’ll show one that was done for no other reason than to make a buck out of the buyer.....and leave a ‘time bomb’ to be sorted out 10 years later

It is this that the “Tiger police” seek to prevent happening again. Is it so bad to believe that?

Graham
STOC Editor
Last edited by gvickery on Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

martin172
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:14 pm

Post by martin172 » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:20 pm

That's awful to read. I really feel for these guys.

I had some reservations about the TAC but after reading that I say bring it on.
If a TAC tag on a car can save this sort of misery then it can't be a bad thing.
I never imagined that cars like this were so common
Has either new owner managed to sort the situation/ got their money back?

meadowhog
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: South Bucks

Post by meadowhog » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:20 pm

I for one completely, agree with you Graham. More reason to have pointers for the potential buyer. I know a lot of this info is out there but if you dont know where to find it....................STOC could be the one stop answer.

garyv8tiger
Posts: 650
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:57 am

Post by garyv8tiger » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:04 pm

if you spent 25k on a modern you would hpi it .would you not have a specialist check it out if you were buying a tiger and not sure ?

i know i would .

gtsmrt
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by gtsmrt » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:05 pm

LEE-LOR LEE LOR... THIS IS THE TIGER POLICE!!:lol: If certain people want to label us Aussies, so be it but as Graham pointed out previously, I for one hate seeing people get deceived. Unfortunately we cannot prevent this type of behaviour from occurring, but having a clear cut, black and white way of inspecting for originality is the only way. If it means not divulging information to the buyer so be it, that is why we have clubs to assist people. If us 'Tiger Police' help prevent just one owner from being stung as described in Graham's post, I'm more than happy with that.
Robin O'Dell
Tiger MK 1a
ENJOYING THE EXPERIENCE AS DAD WOULD HAVE

gtsmrt
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Post by gtsmrt » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:08 pm

garyv8tiger wrote:if you spent 25k on a modern you would hpi it .would you not have a specialist check it out if you were buying a tiger and not sure ?

i know i would .
That's a no brainer, but unfortunately people do it.
Robin O'Dell
Tiger MK 1a
ENJOYING THE EXPERIENCE AS DAD WOULD HAVE

Post Reply