DeLoreans Coming Back to Production(money.cnn.com)
money.cnn.com
DeLoreans Coming Back to Production
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/27/luxury/delorean-coming-back-to-the-future/
9 comments
According to this, the new regulations limit such replicas to 325 cars per year per company:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/08/new-law-vintage-cars/
Doesn't sound like much room for abuse.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/12/08/new-law-vintage-cars/
Doesn't sound like much room for abuse.
So you set up a factory that "leases" it's manufacturing capacity to any paying company then start 10-100 corps that are all just coincidently making replicas of the same car and all "leasing" the factory in sequence.
I mean I don't know why you'd do that but it is the obvious work around
I mean I don't know why you'd do that but it is the obvious work around
I doubt the law is that stupid, and judges tend to frown on shenanigans like this.
Well the law says[1]:
Except as provided in this section, sections 30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce ... unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.
which according to [2] has been ammended with:
(A) LOW-VOLUME MANUFACTURER- The term `low-volume manufacturer' means a motor vehicle manufacturer, other than a person who is registered as an importer under section 30141 of this title, whose annual worldwide production, including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer, if applicable, is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles.
So assuming the various shell companies aren't owned by each other it just depends on whether the factory's owner is manufacturing the car or the company leasing the factory. The definition[3] of manufacturer says "person -- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles" which doesn't give a lot of guidance on that because these laws are clearly aimed at the corporate person not the individual assembly line workers (who would of course be employed by a temp-agency).
I mean not that it matters much. They still have to be 25 year old models and any IP has to be correctly licensed (which would mean getting the companies to sign off on a deal with a probably very high dodginess/profit ratio) I don't see any one trying to make or succeeding to sell 10000 '89 Ford Ranger clones.
That said you're absolutely right that if it ever got to court the judges would pierce the veil like * that *
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112
[2]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp114&refer=&...
[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30102
Except as provided in this section, sections 30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce ... unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.
which according to [2] has been ammended with:
(A) LOW-VOLUME MANUFACTURER- The term `low-volume manufacturer' means a motor vehicle manufacturer, other than a person who is registered as an importer under section 30141 of this title, whose annual worldwide production, including by a parent or subsidiary of the manufacturer, if applicable, is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles.
So assuming the various shell companies aren't owned by each other it just depends on whether the factory's owner is manufacturing the car or the company leasing the factory. The definition[3] of manufacturer says "person -- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles" which doesn't give a lot of guidance on that because these laws are clearly aimed at the corporate person not the individual assembly line workers (who would of course be employed by a temp-agency).
I mean not that it matters much. They still have to be 25 year old models and any IP has to be correctly licensed (which would mean getting the companies to sign off on a deal with a probably very high dodginess/profit ratio) I don't see any one trying to make or succeeding to sell 10000 '89 Ford Ranger clones.
That said you're absolutely right that if it ever got to court the judges would pierce the veil like * that *
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30112
[2]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp114&refer=&...
[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30102
Thanks for looking up the actual law. Does the inclusion of "by a parent" mean that the companies would all need to have separate ownership, so you'd have to go recruit a bunch of friends into the scheme?
But there are quite a few companies churning out "replica" Ford Cobras, GT40s, Lamborghini Countachs and the like
Not really.
This is already in effect in a de facto way. The specialty builders tend to grab cars from pre-1973(I think) since they are grandfathered in and don't have to pass safety, emission, crash, etc.
I suspect that many builders might be able to pass some of these regulations, but the need to be "grandfathered" stops a lot of the possibilities.
It will be interesting to see if some form of "standard" chassis emerges that actually can pass the regulations.
This is already in effect in a de facto way. The specialty builders tend to grab cars from pre-1973(I think) since they are grandfathered in and don't have to pass safety, emission, crash, etc.
I suspect that many builders might be able to pass some of these regulations, but the need to be "grandfathered" stops a lot of the possibilities.
It will be interesting to see if some form of "standard" chassis emerges that actually can pass the regulations.
In the context of the number of new cars manufactured and sold every year, the amount of kit or specialty customs is not worth worrying about.
I feel sorry for the person who will inevitably be killed.
Tesla should've fund a way to license the design people would've paid much more than 100k for that one.
One of my neighbours a few doors down actually has an original DeLorean. He only gets it out on the road 3 or 4 times a summer and is constantly working on it although fixing it up is more of a hobby for him than anything else so I don't think he considers that to be a negative.
It is quite exciting to see it go.
Unfortunately the doors locked in the open position last summer which took him quite a bit of fiddling to get fixed. I suppose that was better than having it locked with users inside though.
It is quite exciting to see it go.
Unfortunately the doors locked in the open position last summer which took him quite a bit of fiddling to get fixed. I suppose that was better than having it locked with users inside though.
"The price is about $100,000, and unfortunately hover conversions and flux capacitors aren't included."
Sad that the original manufacturer options are somewhat lacking, but luckily there are always after market add-ons: http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/EB00/121G.oap
Sad that the original manufacturer options are somewhat lacking, but luckily there are always after market add-ons: http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/EB00/121G.oap
This same type of article about the DeLoreans comes up at least once a year. Vaporware.
$100k for one? Holy cow. If I'm spending that I'll get a Tesla. I get the novelty and I'm genuinely happy to see them doing it but that seems sky high for a V6 coupe.
I was so excited!!! Then I was left sad after reading they're only going to produce 300 of them at a rate of 1 per week out of old spare parts, except for an updated engine.
So you can take an old car design, you make new ones but triple the power of the engine and... You don't need to recertify it ?
...but it was a terrible car! Just stylish; and now that style is dated.
Still stylish.
But, I wouldn't buy one, because I like living, and I don't really want a car that "luckily" doesn't have to meet safety standards. Also, $100k will buy a lot of modern sports car, including a Tesla or a Nissan GT-R (depending on the kind of supercar you like), which also happen to meet modern safety standards. DeLorean's are beautiful, but not $100,000 worth of beautiful, to me, when they also suffer from most of the usual failings of cars designed 40 years ago.
But, I wouldn't buy one, because I like living, and I don't really want a car that "luckily" doesn't have to meet safety standards. Also, $100k will buy a lot of modern sports car, including a Tesla or a Nissan GT-R (depending on the kind of supercar you like), which also happen to meet modern safety standards. DeLorean's are beautiful, but not $100,000 worth of beautiful, to me, when they also suffer from most of the usual failings of cars designed 40 years ago.
I'm sure they're aiming for the nostalgia factor. Their target market is probably people who grew up with Back to the Future and always wanted one of these cars but don't want to deal with finding and maintaining an old, old used one with no manufacturer support. That demographic is getting to an age and point in life where a decent number of them (small, but perhaps enough) can afford this sort of price. "Dated" is exactly what you want, here. Just the right kind of "dated."
I wouldn't buy one either. I'm in the right demographic, and nostalgic for them, but not that nostalgic. But I think enough of my fellows are that this will enjoy some success. It won't be a mass market item, but that's OK.
I wouldn't buy one either. I'm in the right demographic, and nostalgic for them, but not that nostalgic. But I think enough of my fellows are that this will enjoy some success. It won't be a mass market item, but that's OK.
> I'm sure they're aiming for the nostalgia factor.
That's a polite way of putting it. They're aiming for the kind of geek whose money-to-sense ratio is so high that they'll pay any amount of money for a thing that reminds them of a thing they liked when they were kids, no matter the quality.
Granted, replacing the engine fixes the #1 problem, which was that some dipshit thought 130 horsepower was enough for a status-symbol sports car. But somebody that silly isn't going to stop at one mistake.
That's a polite way of putting it. They're aiming for the kind of geek whose money-to-sense ratio is so high that they'll pay any amount of money for a thing that reminds them of a thing they liked when they were kids, no matter the quality.
Granted, replacing the engine fixes the #1 problem, which was that some dipshit thought 130 horsepower was enough for a status-symbol sports car. But somebody that silly isn't going to stop at one mistake.
Wasn't the engine due to tougher emissions regulations? I thought that it was supposed to have something better, but ended up stuck with what it got because the original plans wouldn't have passed emissions by the time they actually started producing the car.
As for being polite, if the buyers have the disposable cash for it, who am I to judge what they buy? Most cars are luxury purchases to an extent. Almost nobody buys the minimum necessary. It's just a matter of how much unnecessary spending you do.
As for being polite, if the buyers have the disposable cash for it, who am I to judge what they buy? Most cars are luxury purchases to an extent. Almost nobody buys the minimum necessary. It's just a matter of how much unnecessary spending you do.
> and I don't really want a car that "luckily" doesn't have to meet safety standards.
Especially with the purported engine upgrade. A 400 HP modern engine in something that might have struggled to meet early eighties standards of braking, handling, and so on is a shiny coffin.
Especially with the purported engine upgrade. A 400 HP modern engine in something that might have struggled to meet early eighties standards of braking, handling, and so on is a shiny coffin.
That, too. I had a 350Z, which had 287 horsepower, and was terrifyingly fast...but, it also had the brakes, suspension, tires, and cage to match. It could stop faster than it could accelerate. I can't imagine driving a car with 1975 brakes, suspension, and cage, with even more horsepower. Even though the Delorean is probably heavier than the Z, so its top speed is probably not more than the Z, even with more power; the ability to stop and turn are also reduced by the increased weight.
It really does seem like a very bad idea. Then again, people of the prior generation would seek out a 1968 Camaro or a 1963 Corvette Stingray, which could be, and often were, equipped with terrifyingly large engines. A Camaro or Mustang or other muscle car from the 60s, in particular, are kinda famous for being able to go really fast, but only in a straight line.
So, yeah, I just can't see it. Even if I had that kind of disposable income, and even though I have on a couple of occasions considered buying a Delorean (when I was in my 20s I even looked at one, but it needed more work than I was willing to put into it), the factors that led to it being under consideration just don't line up with a new one at $100,000. The one I was looking at was listed at $10k, and I think the seller was hinting that he'd take as little as $7k by the time I walked away. In short: As a project that didn't cost a fortune and didn't need to be a daily driver, it seemed like maybe a good idea.
It really does seem like a very bad idea. Then again, people of the prior generation would seek out a 1968 Camaro or a 1963 Corvette Stingray, which could be, and often were, equipped with terrifyingly large engines. A Camaro or Mustang or other muscle car from the 60s, in particular, are kinda famous for being able to go really fast, but only in a straight line.
So, yeah, I just can't see it. Even if I had that kind of disposable income, and even though I have on a couple of occasions considered buying a Delorean (when I was in my 20s I even looked at one, but it needed more work than I was willing to put into it), the factors that led to it being under consideration just don't line up with a new one at $100,000. The one I was looking at was listed at $10k, and I think the seller was hinting that he'd take as little as $7k by the time I walked away. In short: As a project that didn't cost a fortune and didn't need to be a daily driver, it seemed like maybe a good idea.
They did have one great point (other than the styling, which is very much a matter of taste), which is that they defied the trend for sports cars to require the driver to be tremendously uncomfortable to drive them. They're very comfortable for me (185cm) and even taller drivers find them quite roomy.
This regulation may need some tweaking to stop abuse.