DOT inquiry has begun on replicas

[bobl]

A number of the leading companies in the industry have received registered letters from the ever friendly U.S. Department of Transportaion.

This fishing expedition is officially to determine the size of the industry and the sophistication/compliance of automobiles produced by the manufacturers/assemblers/end consumers.

Purportedly, this was, indeed, initiated by C.Shelby which would certainly give rise to the speculation that he's going to "get even" with this industry since he lost the bevy of lawsuits.

Anyone, have anything to add to this?

[Tom T.]

Stay low and don't forget to duck.

[agro1]

....Heeeeeere we go.

[xlr8or]

Lets not speculate or start bashing.. Just watch and see as the facts roll out. Who know's maybe something good will come of it.
I doubt it but maybe.

[Slow Dawg]

I heard through the grapevine a few days ago about the letters and the first thing I thought was CS was behind it. What I would like to know, is SAI being investigated also? If not, WHY?


Ron

[Tom T.]

Me no bash. Me no speculate. Me stay low and not forget to duck!

TT

[Jamo]

Excuse me....

Who the hell is bobl?

What is his/her/its source of information?

[Jamo]

...and BTW, who defined "industry" as just the cobra replica mfgs?

[mr bruce]

These are the inquiryies concerning the practice of importing complete ,finished cars,(Cobra, GT40) sans drive train,from South Africa, no?

[bobl]

Jamo, who the HELL am I? Just someone of no consequence out here who has more than a casual interest in, yes, the whole industry....and wanted those that have the capital invested to be aware of a lurking shadow....

[Jamo]

Glad you're interested in the industry, and I'll accept your motives at face value, but having checked out your profile...

...who the hell are you?

[Mark IV]

..This goes back a while. NHTSA has "talked" to Shelby previously. Note that they have no issues with the component car idea, only with the "continuation cars"

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


I have posted this before. It shows that SAI was "stretching the envelope" with the continuation cars. And this does not begin to address the issue of when and where the components of the "continuation cars" were produced.

I doubt that the feds are acting at the behest of Shelby or SAI. More likely the insurance industry has triggered this if it is indeed happening.

Keep in mind that several manufacturers have contravened the law selling "turnkeys" of component cars. I am sure one of our esteemed barristers could better explain the federal regulations on component cars. I have spoken directly with senior people at NHTSA regarding compnent regulations in the course of my previous work with AC Cars. They are helpful but firm about compliance.

Rick

[decooney]

Well, that about wraps it up!

- go ahead and hit that delete/thread button now.

[petek]

bobl,

Understand that when a person joins the forum without indicating much information in his profile and then proceeds to post a topic that may cause a number of people to get excited, worried, concerned, etc. ... well, let's just say that it's an easy way to become labled a troll. Jamo was very much correct in asking who the heck you are!

When you say "A number of the leading companies in the industry have received registered letters from the ever friendly U.S. Department of Transportaion. " could you be more specific? Which "leading companies" are you suggesting received a registered letter from the DOT?

Many of the Cobra manufacturers are represented here ... if we knew which companies you were referring to we could check with the companies.

If the "industry" you write of excludes other companies producing body kits and/or complete cars, do you know why those companies were excluded?

[Back in Black]

By an undisclosed source, that completed cars (turnkeys) will soon be subject to current DOT and EPA rules. This would not (currently) affect kits...

Looks like turnkey minus is going to become the wave of the future. I suspect this may be due in part to the ever increasing number of turnkeys being sold, and ending up out there for the plutocrats to notice, and sink their rabid fangs into.

Call around and ask the manufacturers.

[Jamo]

BinB
You I know--thanks for the info.

[bobl]

Heck guys..... go ahead and check with the companies... any of them. Furthermore, Rick (MKIV), I think once you check this out a LITTLE further rather than making a hipshot assessment, you'll find out that this D.O.T. inquiry in NOT the letter that you published.

Slow Dawg, is on it..... read his post.

And whether I have credentials, an original car, eleventeen replicas, none at all. no credentials.... it doesnt alter the facts of what I posted.

You all have the "heads up". I'm done. My mission, of simply informing you, is done. Rock on.....

[Jamo]

See ya--have a nice day.

[Great Asp]

Shane!, come back Shane!


Great Asp

[Mark IV]

BOBL- The letter I posted indeed has nothing to do with what you speak of-it is almost 5 years old. Perhaps I did not preface the post with enough information to make its relevance clear. I am sorry that you took this as a "hipshot assement"-it was not a shot or comment on you, it was a historical document to show that NHTSA is and has been aware of what goes on. And it is NHTSA, not DOT that would be directly involved in such efforts.

One of my points is that companies that violate the law by selling complete turnkey cars will bring increased scrutiny by the authorities. Those who do it right will be harmed by the actions of the violators.

Rick