"Carroll Shelby Speaks Out" Article

[Keith Lyles]

While reading the latest issue of Fast Fords and Mustangs or Super Ford (can't remember which one), I ran across an article called "Carroll Shelby Speaks Out". Carroll seemed pretty torque about the outcome of the court decision on the copy right infrigement suit aganst unnamed Cobra kit/replica manufacturers. Although he made it quite clear he was talking about a company from South Africa. What is of interst is a comment made about the U.S. Government possible curtailing of roller cars entering the country citing emissions as the platform for issue. Confusing in the sense that SPF enter the country without Engines. Would make an interesting argument. Anybody know of any impending Govt. regulations on the table supporting such a statement ? Also Carroll eluded to his venture or participation with Ford Motor Company on a Ford Cobra Roadster. "Seems that would would be cutting off your nose to spite your face". Anybody else read this article. Your thoughts appreciated.

[Cobrabill]

Carroll Shelby is using up valuable oxygen that could be better utilized by someone that deserves our recognition.

As far as the "regulation" comment goes,Shelby is talking out of his ass-again.

[Mr.Fixit]

SPF cars coming into the country are not "cars" they are "motorcycle parts" or so I have been told. That's why they can't put the headlamps and tailights on until they get here, or so the rumor was said.

[Excaliber]

sneaky, them SPF folks, I like it!

Ernie

[Cobrabill]

We're just snakes in the grass.Or in my case-sand.

[Jeff Frigo]

He can lick me!

[Satanpez]

Didn't he get in trouble in California because he was making/selling Series 1 cars that weren't up to emission standards?

-steve in nj-

[Keith Lyles]

The article appeared in the Jan 2003 edition of Mustang & Fords. So as to not misquote the journalist doing the interview, Carroll was responding to a comment concerning imitation of Cobras. His issue was with licensing and lack of response from those he querried which led to his series of law suits. What prompted me to start this thread was a comment he made to "something happening in the market to put these companies out of business". He was referring to safety and emissions standards. He believes that loopholes exist that allow Cobra Replicas to come into country without meeting the same strigent safety/emissions requirements as US manufacturers. I was only curious as to whether other knowlegable individuals in the business know of some impending restrictions down the road. The only companies that come to mind are Superformance, Kirkham and Johnex however there may be more. As far as the Cobra Roadster project, I believe it is probably at the vision stage and not a real project as of yet, but you never know since Ford in Heads Down and Butt up in the GT-40 program.

[SFfiredog]

I read the article and I don't understand his comments. I would assume the government requirements would effect on all replica or "continuation" Cobras, not just the ones from overseas.
I don't remember seeing catalytic converters, air bags, or 5 mph bumpers on any CSX 4000 or 7000 series cars. I guess ole 'Shel is going to be out of the Cobra business too.

--Mike

[Cal Metal]

Since SAI uses the Kirkham roller for their CSX 4000 series, how is that position any different than SPF or Johnex?

[Mark IV]

....from the NHTSA site...

Mr. Donald J. Rager
Chief Operating Officer
Shelby American, Inc.
501 S. Rancho Drive, Suite H-53
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Mr. Rager:

This will acknowledge receipt of the application by Shelby American, Inc., for temporary exemption of the Shelby Series 1 from the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The application, which is dated May 29, 1998, meets our procedural requirements, and we are preparing a notice for the Federal Register asking for public comment on your request.

We note that you planned to begin production of the Series 1 on July 1, 1998. Because of the statutory requirement that the public be offered an opportunity to comment on exemption applications, we generally afford a 30-day comment period. and a decision is reached 30 to 60 days after that. This means that Shelby must not sell any Series 1 vehicles unless and until the Administrator has responded affirmatively to Shelby's petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 208. We shall, of course, inform you when a decision has been made.

We also note (p. 2 of the application) that Shelby requests exemption from S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208, quoting S4.1.5. to the effect that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must comply with S4.1.2.1. You are using an outdated version of the Standard. Passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1997, must comply with S4.1.5.3, which, in turn, references S4.1..5.1(a)(1).

In the meantime, we have comments on certain information contained in the application regarding the Shelby Cobra CSX3000 Series Continuation Cars ("Continuation Cars"). You have informed us that the Continuation Cars are assembled "from certain new old stock parts surviving from . . . 1965 . . . supplemented by new parts manufactured from original tooling or build new to original specifications." We understand that "These vehicles are registered when sold as 1965 vehicles." We further understand that only two Continuation Cars have been built to date, and that the market for these cars is estimated at one to two units a year.

In our opinion, a vehicle assembled in 1997 or 1998 from parts manufactured in 1965 as well as from parts recently manufactured from original 1965 tooling is a motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect and applicable to it at the time of its assembly, unless it has been exempted by the Administrator. Because Shelby did not include the Continuation Cars in its petition for exemption from Standard No. 208, we surmise that the company may be proceeding under the assumption that the Continuation Cars are not required to comply with any Federal requirements because they are registered as 1965 models. This is incorrect. We believe that Shelby should review the Continuation Car program in light of its Federal obligations before manufacturing more of them. With respect to the two Continuation Cars that have already been sold, if Shelby determines that they do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied at the time of their assembly, it is required to notify their owners of that fact and offer to repair, repurchase, or replace them. Alternatively, Shelby, after its determination, may apply to the Administrator for a decision that the noncompliances are inconsequential to safety and that it should be excused from notification and remedy.

Shelby's application explains that parts for the Continuation Cars survive from the original planned production run of 100 cars, approximately half of which were completed in 1965. This was "the basis for homologation of the racing program." We understand that Shelby would like to continue the manufacture of the Continuation Cars indefinitely, until the supply of parts is exhausted. Under our interpretations, the Continuation Car would not be a motor vehicle subject to our regulations if it is manufactured for competition on closed courses, trailered from event to event, and not licensed for use on the public roads. You may wish to consider this approach with respect to future production of the Continuation Cars. Any statement of origin issued for these vehicles under this approach should state that they are not to be titled for highway use.

We have comments as well on the Shelby Cobra CSX4000 Series Component Vehicles ("Component Vehicles"), and the Daytona Coupe and 289 Cobra, which you also inform us are component vehicles. The term "component vehicles" refers to vehicles that are sold without engine and transmission; these components will be installed by the owner or at his or her direction, "and privately register the resulting vehicle." Under our interpretations, the installer is regarded as the manufacturer of the motor vehicle and responsible for its compliance with all applicable Federal regulations. However, Shelby is responsible for the compliance (and certification of compliance) of any part that it has manufactured recently from original tooling if that equipment item is directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The principal components we refer to are the vehicle's glazing and lighting equipment (we assume that brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, and seat belt assemblies are purchased new from suppliers who have certified their compliance with the Federal safety standards). In light of this paragraph, Shelby may wish to consider converting its Continuation Cars into Component Vehicles.

However, I must advise you that, under longstanding interpretations, we would still regard Shelby as the vehicle's manufacturer and responsible for compliance and its certification if it offered the Continuation Car's engine and transmission for sale to the purchaser of a Component Vehicle Continuation Car concurrently with the Component Vehicle or as part of the sales transaction.

We would appreciate your views on this issue.

If you have further questions, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mac Yousry
FAX 714-974-3816
d.7/17/98
ref:571


And there are other issues NHTSA has had with SIA and it's products.

[Great Asp]

This issue reminds me of a lot of issues, where our goverment (that's right, yours and mine) has standards and laws set in place to protect us. Gun control in one form or another comes to mind.

But the long and short of it is, if you want to own a car like these, you can.

I keep typing more, but it doesn't seem to add to the above.

Eric

PS Oh yeah, I bet the guy that wrote that letter above, is NOT elected.

[Tony Ripepi]

That explains the continuation Cobra that was for sale out of Las Vegas some time back but , it could not be licensed for street use in California, any other state but the here. The dealer had no concrete explanation except that it was non negotiable in CA.

TR

[mr bruce]

At issue is complete ,finished cars, less drive train. Listing them as "motorcycle parts " is clearly subterfuge, skirting the spirit of the law. Kirkham cars are truely brought into the country as parts and pieces, so that exempts them. Kits sold and built in the USA are also "parts". Ferraris and other fully assembled cars are put thu a ferocious emmission/safety test before being allowed on US roads .Shelby does indeed have a beef about the certain South African cars.

[ELGEE]

I wonder where all this is going to end up when Mr. Shelby
expires? He should revel in his past fame and glory and pass on
happy,not bitter...!!!...Yeah,a lot of us older guys would have always remembered him as a semi-hero,but, if it weren't for the kit car industry,he would be about as famous as Tucker----I for one will not cry over his demise---but I will still love my faux Cobra !! I'm just tired of all this crap !!!
"IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY"

[rdorman]

I can see it now. Shelby loses and trys to drag the rest of us with him. Kiss the rollers goodbye! Can any one just shut him up? No wait, I know the answer to that. We would have to pay him off to shut him up. As soon as I get the chance I am going to remove the fake dash plate of my Cobr..... oops, cant say that, my component ....... damn sold as a roller.... my hand assembled motorcycle parts that resembles a Cobra(rights restricted), that says Shelby Manufacturing on it. This ole fart keeps it up he will see the whole kit car industry killed. Sorry, but I have lost my patience with him.

Got a title for your memoirs Carroll "How to pi$$ off everyone who gave a **** I existed". Guess calling your self the only 'manufacturer of Cobras is kicking your butt a bit 'eh?

[agro1]

Think about it this way guys....Because of all this, maybe they WILL ban the sale TKM rollers for street use which will only make the ones we have worth down the road...Cause ours are/were the reason for all of this crap...

Shelby is a friggin punk, but if his ranting and raving draws more attention to my car, thus increasing it's worth - fine by me.

[Mark IV]

I for one sincerely doubt that Superformance is declaring the chassis as "Motorcycle parts" to US Customs as it is not needed to import them. The cars are legit "rolling chassis component vehicles" and are legal to import and sell as such. Read closely in the NHTSA letter about the powertrain installation and what it entails legally.

Go to the www.nhtsa.gov site and read the laws regaring component cars, they must only meet NHTSA standards for components, i.e. brake hoses must meet current standrds, glass must be certified, etc. NO requirements for crash standards, impact, etc.

There has been some comments here and elsewhere that that the Feds are trying to ban rollers, I have been unable to unearth any such info to date. If anyone has info to the contrary please post or link it here for our edification.

Rick

[Excaliber]

..it's complicated at best. As far as Hawaii goes, it's SO complicated to register a "new" (or used) Cobra here I'm considering a move to the mainland. You need: Outside door handles among other "requirements". It can get real ugly real fast. Hmmmmm,,,,,,wonder how Ohio would be..........

Ernie

[Bill Wells]

mr fixit...motorcycle parts ? i can't stop laughing...i have a 2 in 1 vehicle....a cycle and a car...a TWOFER !! now, is that value or what ? two for the price of one. HAR HAR LOL..save me. your comments are usually 99% right on with where i stand, but on this one , i am not there with ya. bill, non cycle parts spf owner