[DeTomaso] 11k mile 74 Pantera for sale

[Julian Kift]

Mike,


As I see it, there's only a thin line between a 'kit car' project and the new regulation; I don't like the term 'kit car' and we should differentiate a true 'kit car' vs. a component vehicle, the latter made up of components specifically manufactured for the car and it being an owner assembly with a set of instructions (e.g. akin tour childhood Meccano set).


A Superformance, Ultima and SLC are all strictly speaking component vehicles, not relying on donor vehicles (albeit for drive train of choice) but under the new law as I read the press articles only Superformance would qualify, because it is a 'replica' and of a vehicle that was produced more than 25 years ago. This new statute thus allows Superformance (and other replica manufacturers) to sell turnkey vehicles up to 325 per year, with the caveat that the engine must meet stricter CARB compliant emissions standards (and currently only the GM LS3 crate engine is CARB compliant with an Execuitve Order). That is not the industry revelation that the bill was first perhaps intended to be, nonetheless you will be able to walk into Superfomance soon and drive that GT40 right off the showroom floor, albeit perhaps only with a Chebbie motor....


http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/small-volume-carmakers-get-big-break-motor-vehicle-safety-act

https://www.rcnmag.com/news/low-volume-legislation-encapsulation

I'd be happy for you to do some reading and research and tell me I'm wrong, but as I interpret all the press to date if Mr. Kim wants to build a 'completely new car' and not a GT5S replica he may delayed a decade or two...... but I'm sure it's a good investment if you want to put your money down 😊

Julian
________________________________
From: Mike Drew <MikeLDrew at aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:10 PM
To: Julian Kift
Cc: Himes, Terry (397C); Scott Couchman; detomaso at server.detomasolist.com; Jay Stewart; Garth Rodericks
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 11k mile 74 Pantera for sale



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2018, at 14:31, Julian Kift <julian_kift at hotmail.com<mailto:julian_kift at hotmail.com>> wrote:


I thought the rolling chassis was to be built in South Africa, which means it would be admissible under current regulations the same as Superformace etc.? There are ways around the engine and transaxle fitment where the rolling chassis is shipped to an approved installer e.g. Olthoff Racing is the go to shop for Superformance GT40's.

Julian, you are talking about a kit car. This is not a kit car project.

The kit car rules have the car sold through a dealer uncompleted, then sent to an installer who conducts the drivetrain etc installation.

This is a completely different set of circumstances. This is a low-volume, turn-key car, which would only be possible thanks to a new set of state (and federal?) statutes.


>I also thought the bill was a House Initiative not a CA State bill, so why not build it outside CA?

>>>That’s an excellent question?  Apparently the feds created the law but it’s up to the states to write regs to implement it.


>The other puzzling aspect is the latest report of patent filing on the design of a GT5S, that's complete BS, there's nothing new and novel about a design that was in production 25 years ago.

>>>Agreed. However (Ken the patent attorney needs to weigh in here) I think a manufacturer needs to keep a patent active, or after some period of time it slips into disuse and somebody else can reestablish it for themselves?

>The only positive I see is that maybe by waiting they will realize that they should be building an Si replica, which is now 25 years old and would comply with the new regulation. That would offer a vehicle that is out of reach to more people due to exceptionally low production volume, whereas I would still drop $250K on a GT5S over $300K on a replica of it, to think that is a viable business model is asinine. BTW the low volume bill really isn't as big a deal as first made out as it only covers 'replicas' and of a vehicle built more than '25 years ago' so does nothing for small volume modern supercars like the Superlite SLC / Ultima and plethora of high performance kits that don't mirror a vintage vehicle. It simply legaleezes an industry that already exists.

>>>That is where you are exactly wrong. The statutes you are referring to are for replicas of existing designs. The new laws are for new clean-sheet cars. There are something like 25-30 different companies trying to bring out new designs in accordance with this law. The Superlite, Ultima etc could be among them....

It’s possible they are trying to patent the GT5-S shape for that reason. My this reasoning, it would then be a new car and not a replica of an existing car?

Ken?

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
   Mike,

   As I see it, there's only a thin line between a 'kit car' project and
   the new regulation; I don't like the term 'kit car' and we should
   differentiate a true 'kit car' vs. a component vehicle, the latter made
   up of components specifically manufactured for the car and it being an
   owner assembly with a set of instructions (e.g. akin tour childhood
   Meccano set).

   A Superformance, Ultima and SLC are all strictly speaking component
   vehicles, not relying on donor vehicles (albeit for drive train of
   choice) but under the new law as I read the press
   articles only Superformance would qualify, because it is a 'replica'
   and of a vehicle that was produced more than 25 years ago. This
   new statute thus allows Superformance (and other replica manufacturers)
   to sell turnkey vehicles up to 325 per year, with the caveat that the
   engine must meet stricter CARB compliant emissions standards (and
   currently only the GM LS3 crate engine is CARB compliant with an
   Execuitve Order). That is not the industry revelation that the bill was
   first perhaps intended to be, nonetheless you will be able to walk into
   Superfomance soon and drive that GT40 right off the showroom floor,
   albeit perhaps only with a Chebbie motor....

   [1]http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/small-volume-carmakers-get-big-
   break-motor-vehicle-safety-act

   [2]https://www.rcnmag.com/news/low-volume-legislation-encapsulation
   I'd be happy for you to do some reading and research and tell me I'm
   wrong, but as I interpret all the press to date if Mr. Kim wants to
   build a 'completely new car' and not a GT5S replica he may delayed a
   decade or two...... but I'm sure it's a good investment if you want to
   put your money down
   Julian
     __________________________________________________________________

   From: Mike Drew <MikeLDrew at aol.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:10 PM
   To: Julian Kift
   Cc: Himes, Terry (397C); Scott Couchman;
   detomaso at server.detomasolist.com; Jay Stewart; Garth Rodericks
   Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] 11k mile 74 Pantera for sale

   Sent from my iPad
   On Jan 16, 2018, at 14:31, Julian Kift <[3]julian_kift at hotmail.com>
   wrote:

   I thought the rolling chassis was to be built in South Africa, which
   means it would be admissible under current regulations the same as
   Superformace etc.? There are ways around the engine and transaxle
   fitment where the rolling chassis is shipped to an approved installer
   e.g. Olthoff Racing is the go to shop for Superformance GT40's.

   Julian, you are talking about a kit car. This is not a kit car
   project.
   The kit car rules have the car sold through a dealer uncompleted, then
   sent to an installer who conducts the drivetrain etc installation.
   This is a completely different set of circumstances. This is a
   low-volume, turn-key car, which would only be possible thanks to a new
   set of state (and federal?) statutes.

   >I also thought the bill was a House Initiative not a CA State bill, so
   why not build it outside CA?

   >>>That's an excellent question?  Apparently the feds created the law
   but it's up to the states to write regs to implement it.

   >The other puzzling aspect is the latest report of patent filing on the
   design of a GT5S, that's complete BS, there's nothing new and novel
   about a design that was in production 25 years ago.

   >>>Agreed. However (Ken the patent attorney needs to weigh in here) I
   think a manufacturer needs to keep a patent active, or after some
   period of time it slips into disuse and somebody else can reestablish
   it for themselves?

   >The only positive I see is that maybe by waiting they will realize
   that they should be building an Si replica, which is now 25 years old
   and would comply with the new regulation. That would offer a vehicle
   that is out of reach to more people due to exceptionally low production
   volume, whereas I would still drop $250K on a GT5S over $300K on a
   replica of it, to think that is a viable business model is asinine. BTW
   the low volume bill really isn't as big a deal as first made out as it
   only covers 'replicas' and of a vehicle built more than '25 years ago'
   so does nothing for small volume modern supercars like the Superlite
   SLC / Ultima and plethora of high performance kits that don't mirror a
   vintage vehicle. It simply legaleezes an industry that already exists.

   >>>That is where you are exactly wrong. The statutes you are referring
   to are for replicas of existing designs. The new laws are for new
   clean-sheet cars. There are something like 25-30 different companies
   trying to bring out new designs in accordance with this law. The
   Superlite, Ultima etc could be among them....
   It's possible they are trying to patent the GT5-S shape for that
   reason. My this reasoning, it would then be a new car and not a replica
   of an existing car?
   Ken?
   Mike

References

   1. http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/small-volume-carmakers-get-big-break-motor-vehicle-safety-act
   2. https://www.rcnmag.com/news/low-volume-legislation-encapsulation
   3. mailto:julian_kift at hotmail.com