On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:18:35 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-04-24 17:56:49 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-04-24 16:14:17 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

--- snip ---

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti.
Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have
come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti
Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/...php?f=1&t=2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back
streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical
resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The
Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between
1935 and 1939.
http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935...Aerolithe.html

The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a
replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That's true - and its never been seen since.

I wasn't suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was
suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.

http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the
story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a
gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he
bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been
acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the
show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the
factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all
righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon
is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world
debut - I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo
the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all
the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the
intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in
the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis
(while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard
chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis
which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photo...C0623.jpg.html
throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt
on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the 'Torpedo
Competition' with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body' which was also
exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of
that car.

It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full
restoration. There is a difference.
Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is
#57222, the original Paris Show chassis.

I didn't know about the chassis number but that confirms my guess. Is
the engine number also 235S?

As best as I can make out from what I have the engine number is 240S.

So it's not the original engine.

In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very
interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body
destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site
that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.

So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine,
certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been
built in the wrong material! It's certainly a stretch to call it a
'restoration'. Never mind.

My understanding is the body material is duplicated "Elektron"
Magnesium/aluminum alloy as use in the original.

One of the comments in the URL I have given above is:

"I did a bit of further research on the Bugatti riveted aluminum
cars. Three of them still exist, and they are definitely aluminum
bodies. At the time Bugatti called them "Elektron".'

... so may be Phil Reilly and the gang up in Canada (with the
duplicate Aerolithe) may have been mislead into using the wrong
material.


Anyway, regardless our bantering, restoration, or partial replication
of any of these great cars can only be commended, and I for one feel
privileged to be able to see them today.

I envy you. One way or another it is a unique motor vehicle.

--- snip ---

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens