Talk:Daytona Sportscar
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Untitled[edit]
This article is terrible, misleading, and inaccurate. The photo shown is not a Daytona Coupe, nor is it a licensed recreation. There were only six original Daytona Coupes designed by Peter Brock, each one unique. The current accepted and licensed reproduction of the car is not the one shown, but instead the South African-built Superformance Coupe (which is recognized by Peter Brock, Carroll Shelby, and others as the "official" production modern Daytona Coupe). This article should be removed and rewritten. Whirling 02:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where is it misleading and inaccurate (post my minor change to emphasise that it is a reproduction)? There is an article on the 1960's Shelby Daytona which your alluding to. Is that wrong? The name admittedly is problematic (ambiguous) and perhaps this article could move to Daytona Sportscar which is what I just noticed Borland Racing refer to it as. You say that the S African Superformance Coupe reproduction is the "official" production. Perhaps it is, but there is no article on that as yet (as far as I know). -- I@n 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point is this particular reproduction is at best a third-rate effort (with the Superformance being the most loyal, being endorsed by Shelby and designed by Peter Brock who designed the original Daytona, and maybe the Factory Five coupe being the next-most-loyal, and this being in third place). I'll write a Superformance Coupe article soon (I have one on order). But the use of Daytona-like bodywork on a car powered by a General Motors powerplant won't be respected by most enthusiasts... 24.94.237.64 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- "Daytona Coupe" should not direct here, but rather to the page describing the original car. How can we change this? Whirling 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Daytona Coupe should redirect to this article. Why would we want to change that? To point the redirect to anywhere else would only confuse readers. The redirect is to find the article if a reader doesn't type the diacritic correctly. -- I@n 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- What you mean, I think, is that the names "Daytona Coupe" and "Daytona Coupé" should both be redirects to Shelby Daytona. I respect your point of view but am unconvinced. Peter Brock (the Australian) referred[1] to this car as a "Daytona Coupe" as did numerous Australian newspapers following his death. The official entry list in the rally in which the car was destroyed lists it as a Daytona Coupe also. On the other hand, the manufacturer, Borland Racing refers to it as a "Daytona Sportscar". Can you produce some evidence that the original Shelby car has greater rights to the name Daytona Coupe than this reproduction. Opinions about which car is the most loyal reproduction is largely irrelevant in that particular debate. -- I@n 09:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. The if you want proof, type into Google "dispute superformance shelby" -- Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name. Ford never gave the original race car a name, so Shelby named it "Daytona" after the race at which it premiered. The South African firm Superformance, which builds the best reproduction of the Superformance coupe (this Australian thing doesn't even use a Ford engine...?) of which they've built over a hundred (this Australian thing is some guy's project, whereas Superformance is a full-fledged auto factory, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_%28car%29 to see other cars built in this factory)... Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name. Shelby licenses that name, for an undisclosed fee, to Superformance to describe their Coupe. Any use of the "Daytona Coupe" name by this Australian firm constitutes trademark infringement. Whirling 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- You say "Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name.". This is the nub of the matter (I don't not believe you by the way, as it would be quite plausible, its just that I've never seen it stated in an independent source). Can you verify that statement and provide a suuitable citation? — Moondyne 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Whirling is correct. I own a Superformance Shelby Daytona Coupe... Shelby has established that they own the rights to the name and that they are the only ones allowed to license the name to anyone. You'll note that only Superformance coupe owners can put their cars into the Shelby Registry, for instance. Only Shelby has EVER created a Daytona coupe. In fact, the first Coupes were built by Shelby between 1963 and 1965 and carried SHELBY serial numbers (CSX 2287, 2289, 2300, 2601, 2602, and 2286). If you need further proof, look to the court case Shelby v. Superformance Itern. Inc., which led to the eventual settlement and licensing deal with Superformance. The trade dress infringement claim is premised on the ownership, by Shelby, of the rights to the Daytona Coupe and Shelby Cobra names and designs. As can be seen on page 46 of the opinion, a settlement was reached that left Superformance the sole licensee. Further, Peter Brock's involvement (and Carroll Shelby's later endorsement) clearly leave the Superformance Coupe as the proper successor to the line of original cars. For those interested, the case can be found at 435 F.3d 42. Sodfijd 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but the onus is on you to provide proof which is readily accessible to readers. What you've said here doesn't do that. The court case related to essentially the body shape (no mention of the name issue that I can see) and was won by Superperformance Intern. Shelby's 2002 appeal against the judgement was lost - as was a January 2006 appellants case. So this is a red herring - I go back to my previous question: Can you verify that Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name, and can you provide a suitable citation? — Moondyne 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only say that Shelby invented the Daytona Coupe name and has allowed Superformance (and NOT these Australian folks) to use the name in connection with their product. Shelby created the Daytona Coupes in the first place in 1963(http://shelbyamericancollection.org/collection/daytonacoupe.html). An agreement with the original designer, Peter Brock, allowed Superformance to have EXCLUSIVE use of the Shelby Daytona Coupe name -- which settled all litigation between the two companies. I don't see the problem with acknowledging this and maybe mentioning this Australian recreation as one of the "other" replica attempts on the market, along with Factory Five, and other companies that make unlicensed, unoffical attempts at recreating the car's shape. The idea that a Wiki search for "daytona coupe" -- which any auto enthusiast would rightfully expect to refer to the original car -- instead refers to a replica, and not even a licensed/authorized recreation, but instead this bizarre Australian creation that isn't even powered by a Ford engine, is bizarre. Also, according to its own website, this Australian "Borland company" has built only five cars... FEWER THAN THE TINY NUMBER FORD ORIGINALLY BUILT! Meanwhile, Superformance has built over a hundred coupes, is endorsed by all the people involved with the original car, recently sold one of its new coupes for $270,000 at Barrett-Jackson... I just can't comprehend why this replica, which some guy has built five of, would be the page "daytona coupe" would refer to?? It should refer to the original car from the 1960's and MAYBE feature a link to a few of the modern cars based on the design.Sodfijd 00:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- See here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-04-2005/0002951099&EDATE= Sodfijd 04:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but the onus is on you to provide proof which is readily accessible to readers. What you've said here doesn't do that. The court case related to essentially the body shape (no mention of the name issue that I can see) and was won by Superperformance Intern. Shelby's 2002 appeal against the judgement was lost - as was a January 2006 appellants case. So this is a red herring - I go back to my previous question: Can you verify that Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name, and can you provide a suitable citation? — Moondyne 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Whirling is correct. I own a Superformance Shelby Daytona Coupe... Shelby has established that they own the rights to the name and that they are the only ones allowed to license the name to anyone. You'll note that only Superformance coupe owners can put their cars into the Shelby Registry, for instance. Only Shelby has EVER created a Daytona coupe. In fact, the first Coupes were built by Shelby between 1963 and 1965 and carried SHELBY serial numbers (CSX 2287, 2289, 2300, 2601, 2602, and 2286). If you need further proof, look to the court case Shelby v. Superformance Itern. Inc., which led to the eventual settlement and licensing deal with Superformance. The trade dress infringement claim is premised on the ownership, by Shelby, of the rights to the Daytona Coupe and Shelby Cobra names and designs. As can be seen on page 46 of the opinion, a settlement was reached that left Superformance the sole licensee. Further, Peter Brock's involvement (and Carroll Shelby's later endorsement) clearly leave the Superformance Coupe as the proper successor to the line of original cars. For those interested, the case can be found at 435 F.3d 42. Sodfijd 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You say "Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name.". This is the nub of the matter (I don't not believe you by the way, as it would be quite plausible, its just that I've never seen it stated in an independent source). Can you verify that statement and provide a suuitable citation? — Moondyne 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. The if you want proof, type into Google "dispute superformance shelby" -- Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name. Ford never gave the original race car a name, so Shelby named it "Daytona" after the race at which it premiered. The South African firm Superformance, which builds the best reproduction of the Superformance coupe (this Australian thing doesn't even use a Ford engine...?) of which they've built over a hundred (this Australian thing is some guy's project, whereas Superformance is a full-fledged auto factory, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_%28car%29 to see other cars built in this factory)... Shelby owns the rights to the "Daytona Coupe" name. Shelby licenses that name, for an undisclosed fee, to Superformance to describe their Coupe. Any use of the "Daytona Coupe" name by this Australian firm constitutes trademark infringement. Whirling 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- What you mean, I think, is that the names "Daytona Coupe" and "Daytona Coupé" should both be redirects to Shelby Daytona. I respect your point of view but am unconvinced. Peter Brock (the Australian) referred[1] to this car as a "Daytona Coupe" as did numerous Australian newspapers following his death. The official entry list in the rally in which the car was destroyed lists it as a Daytona Coupe also. On the other hand, the manufacturer, Borland Racing refers to it as a "Daytona Sportscar". Can you produce some evidence that the original Shelby car has greater rights to the name Daytona Coupe than this reproduction. Opinions about which car is the most loyal reproduction is largely irrelevant in that particular debate. -- I@n 09:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Daytona Coupe should redirect to this article. Why would we want to change that? To point the redirect to anywhere else would only confuse readers. The redirect is to find the article if a reader doesn't type the diacritic correctly. -- I@n 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Daytona Coupe" should not direct here, but rather to the page describing the original car. How can we change this? Whirling 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- My point is this particular reproduction is at best a third-rate effort (with the Superformance being the most loyal, being endorsed by Shelby and designed by Peter Brock who designed the original Daytona, and maybe the Factory Five coupe being the next-most-loyal, and this being in third place). I'll write a Superformance Coupe article soon (I have one on order). But the use of Daytona-like bodywork on a car powered by a General Motors powerplant won't be respected by most enthusiasts... 24.94.237.64 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Superformance Article created. Superformance Coupe article will be created soon.BMan1113VR 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daytona Sportscar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226234343/http://daytonasportscars.com.au/ to http://www.daytonasportscars.com.au/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)