A finished March Hare kit car!

Oh, it’s not mythical after all!

And it’s for sale… but I’ll get to that in a future entry with some more photos. This was built by Bruce Kirk in St. Louis, MO in 1988 with his teenage son. It’s one of only seven believed to have been molded by Jim Edwards. It’s had numerous adventures, including being driven down to a car show in Indianapolis where they got to drive it around the 500 race track for fun. It’s currently sitting in his garage waiting for a little attention, or a buyer. Anyway, it’s great to see such a rare car finished.

The picture is nice and big — click to zoom in.

finished-march-hare-kit-car

27 Responses

  1. ts says:

    What kind of glass does this one have for a windshield? Would be nice to have as a collector’s item, but I’m guessing it has the kind of glass that would make it “extralegal” as a driver. Still might be worth getting an occasional ticket over.

  2. I think I remember from an earlier discussion on this car that the glass on the original was just plexi… So yeah, not totally legal or safe…

  3. Rick says:

    Do you have contact info, Shannon?

  4. John says:

    Stock cars and sports cars drive 180-190 mph during races and encounter debris with polycarbonate windshields every weekend. What’s unsafe about it? It’s susceptible to scratching from grit and heavy wiper use but it’s certainly impact resistant enough for automotive use. It’s just not as durable as glass. It’s DOT approved for use in motorcycles. I’m just sayin 😉

  5. Rich says:

    John

    With some of the hard coatings they have for lexan even wipers are ok. Lexan windshields are much stronger than safety glass in the near future we might even see DOT approval for it’s use. Now Plexiglass is a different animal altogether because of it’s brittle nature and tendency to shatter and isn’t safe for use as a windshield.

  6. ts says:

    I’d feel perfectly safe driving a vehicle with a lexan or polycarbonate windshield, and I wouldn’t be worried about driving one with a plexiglass windshield, but I would be worried about future owners of any car I work on driving with plexi or tempered glass up front. Cutting a laminated safety glass windshield is a lost art but it’s a skill that can be learned, and although a lot of windshields usually end up broken before one comes out intact hopefully it’ll get a lot of these rare and unfinished kits on the road.

  7. Rick says:

    *Rant alert* Wrong on all counts. Lexan/polycarb windscreens are regulated by US law to conform to vehicle extraction testing. While polycarb (also known as Lexan – get the terms straight!) may be safe for race use, on the street there is no place for it as a windshield. Polycarb can and will break into very large pieces in cold weather if struck by something large, like another car. Rich, plexiglas and polycarb are two different animals. Plex definately has no place on a car. Polycarb will also yellow and sag over time, so to make a piece that would be suitable for a windscreen would require a piece that’s almost 3/8″ thick to hold it’s shape. Motorcycles don’t have to conform to glass impact standards – the windscreen is optional for bikes. It’s not optional for automobiles.

  8. Rich says:

    Rick

    I believe I already stated that Plexi and Lexan aren’t the same. And also stated Plexi shouldn’t be used on anything as a windshield. Your comment makes it seem as tho I consider the two materials as the same and both suitable .

    Also I had the terms straight and never used the term Polycarb in my post. Before “Ranting” and “Correcting” someone you should have your facts in order.

    Your assertion that you would need at least 3/8 inch thickness in Lexan is based on what? Not many of us are going to be traveling at 200 mph. I would like to pose a question to you . Have you ever been in a car with a Lexan windshield? I have a friend has a 1969 TVR Vixen S2 it’s had the same Lexan windshield for nine years and the windshield still looks new a daily driver in Chicago. While in Montana a few years back we had the chance to open his car up. Since during the day and in fair weather there isn’t a speed limit on some of the freeway there. His 3/16 inch windshield held up with no obvious flex at a GPS verified speed of 179 mph. And before you tell me a Vixen S2 can’t go that fast they do when it has a 400 hp Rover V8 in it.

    This isn’t what I think could be or what I assume it’s what I have seen . Here is a link about Lexan as a windshield now maybe these guys are crack pots too but I doubt it. http://woundedwarriortravel.com/safer_at_any_speed.htm Sure this is race related .

    Now I am sure you are some sort of qualified expert in Lexan or windshield design .Whether you are or not correcting someone for making a statement they didn’t make is bad form. Now I am sure this frosts your nuts and all .Now you know being lectured to as if you are a four year old is annoying in the same way you attempted to do. Oh in closing the next time you are close to a light plane look at the windshield thickness it’s not over 1/4 inch I would have to check but even bird strike rated windscreens are not that thick but I could be wrong on that count. And a Ariel Atom is an automobile and has no windshield.

    Rich

  9. Rich says:

    Rick

    I believe I already stated that Plexi and Lexan aren’t the same. And also stated Plexi shouldn’t be used on anything as a windshield. Your comment makes it seem as tho I consider the two materials as the same and both suitable .

    Also I had the terms straight and never used the term Polycarb in my post. Before “Ranting” and “Correcting” someone you should have your facts in order.

    Your assertion that you would need at least 3/8 inch thickness in Lexan is based on what? Not many of us are going to be traveling at 200 mph. I would like to pose a question to you . Have you ever been in a car with a Lexan windshield? I have a friend has a 1969 TVR Vixen S2 it’s had the same Lexan windshield for nine years and the windshield still looks new a daily driver in Chicago. While in Montana a few years back we had the chance to open his car up. Since during the day and in fair weather there isn’t a speed limit on some of the freeway there. His 3/16 inch windshield held up with no obvious flex at a GPS verified speed of 179 mph. And before you tell me a Vixen S2 can’t go that fast they do when it has a 400 hp Rover V8 in it.

    This isn’t what I think could be or what I assume it’s what I have seen . Here is a link about Lexan as a windshield now maybe these guys are crack pots too but I doubt it. http://woundedwarriortravel.com/safer_at_any_speed.htm Sure this is race related .

    Now I am sure you are some sort of qualified expert in Lexan or windshield design .Whether you are or not correcting someone for making a statement they didn’t make is bad form. Now I am sure this frosts your nuts and all .Now you know being lectured to as if you are a four year old is annoying in the same way you attempted to do. Oh in closing the next time you are close to a light plane look at the windshield thickness it’s not over 1/4 inch I would have to check but even bird strike rated windscreens are not that thick but I could be wrong on that count. And a Ariel Atom is an automobile and has no windshield.

    Rich

  10. Rich says:

    A pic of a 1/4 inch Lexan windshield one like the trike I am building. Being they are the same trike his has to be about the same size mine will be . 54″X 36″ no apparent sagging. http://www.geocities.com/reluctorvalve/lookoutsmallpic.html Quite a bit larger than the average car windshield.

    Rich

  11. Rich says:

    A pic of a 1/4 inch Lexan windshield one like the trike I am building. Being they are the same trike his has to be about the same size mine will be . 54″X 36″ no apparent sagging. http://www.geocities.com/reluctorvalve/lookoutsmallpic.html Quite a bit larger than the average car windshield.

    Rich

  12. Rick says:

    Rich, You’re right. I was reading ‘TS’ post as yours, as he was mixing and matching plex with poly. And, no, I haven’t been in a road-worthy car with a poly screen, I have looked at prototypes using poly glass. My facts and assumptions are based on 20 years of being in the signage industry, where we use poly on a regular basis. No comparison to vehicles? Maybe, but our stuff has to stand up to highway abuse and hurricane force winds from time to time. And we’re not talking about pressure differential on the screens – it’s impact and optical quality. Your friends TVR may just be fortunate, who knows. No wipers or inspection in Chicago, huh? Have a snowplow go by at 60 mph and throw a 8 pound hunk of ice at it and see how it fares. Same idea with aircraft. A good friend of mine flys several models of light aircraft; their canopies are polycarb (some are plex – eeek), and even he admits that he’d be afraid of a bird strike. As for your Tri-Magnum, it’s still classified as a bike, and you can use whatever you want for a screen. I’d probably use poly, too, just for the simplicity of cutting and shaping. But I can almost guarantee some warping in the years to come.
    I never said I was an expert with polycarb, only relying on the years of using the stuff. I don’t mind being lectured as long as there are facts to back it up. Race cars don’t count, since they’ll probably change the glass out for every race as they get pitted from track debris. Ariels are still grey-market cars and they weren’t designed for a full windscreen. It still comes down to individual state statues what is required and what will pass for a windscreen. If Chicago can pass poly, bully for them. I still want the option of being able to bust out the window if I get caught in an accident.

  13. Rick says:

    Rich, You’re right. I was reading ‘TS’ post as yours, as he was mixing and matching plex with poly. And, no, I haven’t been in a road-worthy car with a poly screen, I have looked at prototypes using poly glass. My facts and assumptions are based on 20 years of being in the signage industry, where we use poly on a regular basis. No comparison to vehicles? Maybe, but our stuff has to stand up to highway abuse and hurricane force winds from time to time. And we’re not talking about pressure differential on the screens – it’s impact and optical quality. Your friends TVR may just be fortunate, who knows. No wipers or inspection in Chicago, huh? Have a snowplow go by at 60 mph and throw a 8 pound hunk of ice at it and see how it fares. Same idea with aircraft. A good friend of mine flys several models of light aircraft; their canopies are polycarb (some are plex – eeek), and even he admits that he’d be afraid of a bird strike. As for your Tri-Magnum, it’s still classified as a bike, and you can use whatever you want for a screen. I’d probably use poly, too, just for the simplicity of cutting and shaping. But I can almost guarantee some warping in the years to come.
    I never said I was an expert with polycarb, only relying on the years of using the stuff. I don’t mind being lectured as long as there are facts to back it up. Race cars don’t count, since they’ll probably change the glass out for every race as they get pitted from track debris. Ariels are still grey-market cars and they weren’t designed for a full windscreen. It still comes down to individual state statues what is required and what will pass for a windscreen. If Chicago can pass poly, bully for them. I still want the option of being able to bust out the window if I get caught in an accident.

  14. Rich says:

    Rick

    The way most windshields are installed allows for the seal to fail from the inside. So it can be pulled or pushed out or in the case of a Mini Marcos you park one tire on the curb and open the door and it pops out.

    They don’t MOT cars here so no inspection also it’s a production car not a kit . The wiper blades according to him are made for use on Helicopter windscreens probably silicon .

    Signage and car windshields? well I guess if a cars windshield was backlit by fluorescent lights for 16 hours a day you could say that. Being exposed to that sort of light for long periods daily would cause an accelerated oxidation . Signs are also in the same place and exposed to the sun in a different way.
    When you add to that the signs are painted increasing the material temperature/UV absorption and in some cases vacuformed changing the temper of the material. So I really can’t say you can compare the two just because of the different environments they are exposed to.

    On the subject of large objects hitting the windshield . If you got a 8 pound chunk of ice in the windshield at 60 mph a casket would probably be your new home either way . Where Safety glass would more than likely let the object through to you Lexan would have a greater chance of deflecting the chunk.

    So if they MOT cars where you live Lexan wouldn’t be an option . If you are going to back light the windshield for 16 hours a day with fluorescent lights it would be out too. Or using a heat forming process without properly cooling it making it brittle then no.

    In short because of different applications and material UV exposure Poly would function differently in signs . Because Safety Glass and Lexan have different impact properties the odds of an object making it through to you depends on the material used. Unlike my friends car most kits would see limited use and less wear on the Lexan that could be polished back to near new optical quality . And using automotive seals or adhesive allows the window to be pulled or pushed out in either case.

    So that is my side of the Lexan/Safety Glass issue . Signs and Windshields are apples and oranges for the most part.

    Rich

  15. Rich says:

    Rick

    The way most windshields are installed allows for the seal to fail from the inside. So it can be pulled or pushed out or in the case of a Mini Marcos you park one tire on the curb and open the door and it pops out.

    They don’t MOT cars here so no inspection also it’s a production car not a kit . The wiper blades according to him are made for use on Helicopter windscreens probably silicon .

    Signage and car windshields? well I guess if a cars windshield was backlit by fluorescent lights for 16 hours a day you could say that. Being exposed to that sort of light for long periods daily would cause an accelerated oxidation . Signs are also in the same place and exposed to the sun in a different way.
    When you add to that the signs are painted increasing the material temperature/UV absorption and in some cases vacuformed changing the temper of the material. So I really can’t say you can compare the two just because of the different environments they are exposed to.

    On the subject of large objects hitting the windshield . If you got a 8 pound chunk of ice in the windshield at 60 mph a casket would probably be your new home either way . Where Safety glass would more than likely let the object through to you Lexan would have a greater chance of deflecting the chunk.

    So if they MOT cars where you live Lexan wouldn’t be an option . If you are going to back light the windshield for 16 hours a day with fluorescent lights it would be out too. Or using a heat forming process without properly cooling it making it brittle then no.

    In short because of different applications and material UV exposure Poly would function differently in signs . Because Safety Glass and Lexan have different impact properties the odds of an object making it through to you depends on the material used. Unlike my friends car most kits would see limited use and less wear on the Lexan that could be polished back to near new optical quality . And using automotive seals or adhesive allows the window to be pulled or pushed out in either case.

    So that is my side of the Lexan/Safety Glass issue . Signs and Windshields are apples and oranges for the most part.

    Rich

  16. Tom Alvary says:

    Well, this certainly is a spirited exchange.

    My first point is regulatory. In NY and IL, the states with which I’m familiar, you need to have a DOT-stamped (approved) windshield on a car, or a DOT-stamped (approved) wind screen on a motorcycle. In both jurisdictions this device is not essential equipment, but if you have one fitted it must be DOT (US Department of Transportation) approved.

    Secondly, comparisons to aircraft canopies are not useful. Almost nothing strikes an aircraft canopy. No rocks, gravel, debris, very few bugs, and a bird strike is an unusual and serious matter. They are also made of VERY light and thin free-blown plastic, usually acrylic. Polycarbonate is also commonly used, but more easily scratched and of lesser optical quality. These canopies get their stregth from the compound curved egg shell shapes they are blown into. On the road, they would offer little protection from flying debris.

    I considered buying the unbuilt junk March Hare in NJ elsewhere on this site, and was the high bidder on the ebay action, but the seller Joe wouldn’t take less than $1000 for it. Considering it was water logged, cut up around the nose and missing pieces, I passed. I had two ideas about how to fit a windscreen on it. The first was to find a suitable DOT windshield and have it cut down. This is expensive work, and usually takes a couple attempts by a first class shop experienced in cutting down windshields (for chopped top cars, usually) but it is the best way. There are a number of newer cars with long windshields that have a center section with almost the right curvature. It seems like a Prius would be very close, and I would have built up the body to accommodate a slight difference.

    Barring that, I would have built a buck out of wood in exactly the right shape, made as smooth as possible. I would then have heated (softened) and draped 3/16″ polycarbonate over the mold to make the windshield. Having a curve molded into the screen is essential to holding its shape on the road an in the sun. Finally, I would have faked the “DOT-Approved” markings with metal lettering punches branded into the plastic.

    Just a thought…

  17. Tom Alvary says:

    Well, this certainly is a spirited exchange.

    My first point is regulatory. In NY and IL, the states with which I’m familiar, you need to have a DOT-stamped (approved) windshield on a car, or a DOT-stamped (approved) wind screen on a motorcycle. In both jurisdictions this device is not essential equipment, but if you have one fitted it must be DOT (US Department of Transportation) approved.

    Secondly, comparisons to aircraft canopies are not useful. Almost nothing strikes an aircraft canopy. No rocks, gravel, debris, very few bugs, and a bird strike is an unusual and serious matter. They are also made of VERY light and thin free-blown plastic, usually acrylic. Polycarbonate is also commonly used, but more easily scratched and of lesser optical quality. These canopies get their stregth from the compound curved egg shell shapes they are blown into. On the road, they would offer little protection from flying debris.

    I considered buying the unbuilt junk March Hare in NJ elsewhere on this site, and was the high bidder on the ebay action, but the seller Joe wouldn’t take less than $1000 for it. Considering it was water logged, cut up around the nose and missing pieces, I passed. I had two ideas about how to fit a windscreen on it. The first was to find a suitable DOT windshield and have it cut down. This is expensive work, and usually takes a couple attempts by a first class shop experienced in cutting down windshields (for chopped top cars, usually) but it is the best way. There are a number of newer cars with long windshields that have a center section with almost the right curvature. It seems like a Prius would be very close, and I would have built up the body to accommodate a slight difference.

    Barring that, I would have built a buck out of wood in exactly the right shape, made as smooth as possible. I would then have heated (softened) and draped 3/16″ polycarbonate over the mold to make the windshield. Having a curve molded into the screen is essential to holding its shape on the road an in the sun. Finally, I would have faked the “DOT-Approved” markings with metal lettering punches branded into the plastic.

    Just a thought…

  18. Rich says:

    But more useful than comparing windshields to static signs subjected to very different conditions . Most kits that used custom safety glass windshields didn’t carry a DOT marking .

    How many times have you heard of anyone being fined for not having the DOT stamped shield? Owning an exotic car (Production car not a kit) myself and having been pulled over a few times never had it happen.

    There are also a few things to consider, based on the year pan used there might be different requirements as to DOT certs. How likely is it to be an issue in the first place ? Will this be a daily driver or a garage kept toy that might see 2000 miles a year?

    The priority should be on the safest option that can be used with the minimum of time or complexity. Also if there was to be an inspection of that nature even with the faked stamping anyone trained would know the difference.

    You can do what you want just don’t use plexi on it. If the DOT issue is a concern you might consider a kit that uses an off the shelf windshield. Because cutting down an approved part would more than likely void the certification and what if the stamp is on the part removed?

    Just a thought

    P.S TVR windshields from that era carry no DOT cert just company etching.

  19. Rick says:

    Rich,
    I agree for the most part, it’s not apples to apples. But bottom line is that almost every state, including Illinois, requires federally mandated safety glass in vehicles. Your friends TVR is illegal, even though it does not require inspection (’67 and earlier are exempt, apparently). Here are the statutes:
    (625 ILCS 5/Ch. 12 Art. V heading)
    ARTICLE V. GLASS, WINDSHIELDS AND MIRRORS

    (625 ILCS 5/12‑500) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12‑500)
    Sec. 12‑500. (Repealed).
    (Source: P. A. 77‑37. Repealed by P.A. 90‑89, eff. 1‑1‑98.)

    (625 ILCS 5/12‑501) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12‑501)
    Sec. 12‑501. Windshields and safety glazing material in motor vehicles.
    (a) Every motor vehicle operated upon the highways of this State shall be equipped with a front windshield which complies with those standards as established pursuant to this Section and Section 12‑503 of this Code. This subsection shall not apply to motor vehicles designed and used exclusively for off‑highway use, motorcycles, motor‑driven cycles, motorized pedalcycles, nor to motor vehicles registered as antique vehicles, custom vehicles, or street rods when the original design of such vehicles did not include front windshields.
    (b) No person shall knowingly sell any 1936 or later model motor vehicle unless such vehicle is equipped with safety glazing material conforming to specifications prescribed by the Department wherever glazing material is used in doors, windows and windshields. Regulations promulgated by the Department specifying standards for safety glazing material on windshields shall, as a minimum, conform with those applicable Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.205). These provisions apply to all motor vehicles of the first and second division but with respect to trucks, including truck tractors, the requirements as to safety glazing material apply to all glazing material used in doors, windows and windshields in the drivers’ compartments of such vehicles.
    (c) It is unlawful for the owner or any other person knowingly to install or cause to be installed in any motor vehicle any glazing material other than safety glazing material conforming to the specifications prescribed by the Department.
    (Source: P.A. 92‑668, eff. 1‑1‑03.)

    From this website: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh%2E+12&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%A0ILCS%A05%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=28705&SeqStart=120700000&SeqEnd=131800000&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code%2E

    So while polycarb may in fact be “safer” in some situations, it’s still illegal, and still suffers from scratches and ordinary road conditions more than glass and could compromise visiblilty. Will that affect cars that are driven rarely? No, probably not. Does your exotic car have safetly glass…I’m sure it does, and I’m almost positive that somewhere in the vehicle manufacturing data there is mention of the glass characteristics. I know that the eastern European countries have their own version of the DOT stamp (EU or TUV), I just couldn’t tell you where it is on the glass. Heck, even my old ’66 Beetle has safety markings on the glass, so your argument on registration years holds no water. Safety glass was introduced by Ford back in 1919… Oh, and back to the TVR…the company etching is the certification. Somewhere in that etching should be a circle E http://www.carwindshields.info/windshieldmarkings.htm
    but I’ve never looked at a TVR that close, nor do I really care.
    I am curious as to where you might have read or heard that polycarb might become DOT approved, though?

    In the end, we’re going to disagree with each other no matter what facts or fictions are brought into the discussion. Until polycarb is tested and approved by the gov, it will be illegal for use as a windshield for cars.

  20. Rich says:

    There isn’t one on there because it’s from a late 50’s Ford Consul . Thats just the way it goes with British cars. Now if you are going to let the DOT cert stamp stop you then most early Manta kits Sterlings Cimbria and a whole host of other early kits don’t have DOT certified windshields.

    They had spot on the discovery channel about plastic tech. It was their contention that Polycarb would be used as a weight saving measure in EV cars.

    So the long and short of it is most early kits run “illegal” glass on them. If that is a sticking point then looks like Fiero rebodies or kits using off the shelf glass are for you.

    I never said his Lexan windshield is legal I said they don’t MOT cars here. So basically most early kit drivers will run the risk of lethal injection if they are caught running non DOT glass. As far as fiction goes if you are trying to hint at my lying to you about anything let me make something clear to you.

    I have nothing to gain by lying to you for one thing . For another thing you don’t mean shit to me so why would I bother? And finally you need to gain some people skills because your “rant” inspired all of this.

    Maybe people have blown sunshine up your skirt and accused you of being smart ? Or maybe you think that being rude with that “Wrong on all counts” remark makes you look clever. What ever the excuse learning to deal with people might be a good option for you. Insulting people without knowing what they have actually done is bad move in any respect. How many cars have you built? Now I mean that you did not farmed out to others to build for you.

    Just because I have things you don’t and have done things you haven’t doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that I don’t own them. Don’t figure that because you haven’t done something that nobody has .

    So sit and stew or write another rant but as far as I am concerned you aren’t worth my time after this . Spend the rest of your life in the minivan scared of the DOT and their legions of windshield inspectors . So show me where I said “Lexan is legal” in my other posts if you find it then your last post was justified if you can’t it was childish and uncalled for.

    Ciao

    Rich
    P.S Save the snotty smart ass remarks about this post .

  21. Karl says:

    Rick,Rich ect

    Ok we can all agree that Polycarbonate has not been approved for use in automobile windshields. With respect to Rick’s posting of the Illinois regulation, a good effort but but section 12-503 is missing. But it supports the fact that only approved safety glazing can be used.

    With respect to Rich’s responses , after reading all of his postings no mention of Polycarbonate being legal can be found. Since he wasn’t stating it was no citation was called for. As for the notion Polycarbonate will become certified as a weight saving measure it’s possible but the material doesn’t meet abrasion standards as of yet.

    I find the conduct of both you gentlemen appalling. This is a public forum meant for the polite discussion of the kit car hobby. Not a place for name calling or petty bickering if I were the moderator you both would be banned and all you posts deleted.

    I have enjoyed this site for a long time and have never had cause to post before. Hopefully this will be the last time it’s required.

    Thank you for your time

  22. Creig says:

    A couple of responses to the above. Lexan is the registered trade name of GE polycarbonate plastic. It is more than 200 times more resistant to breaking than glass. NHTSA tested it (1/4 inch I think if memory serves)in regard to NEV’s and found that a golf ball impact at 200 mph did not break it and barely dented it. At 50-60 mph or so DOT approved safety glass begins ejecting glass fragments back into the passenger compartment. NHTSA acknowledged that a large number of facial and eye injuries in auto accidents result every year from flying glass fragments, yet the US C.F.R. still makes it federal law that cars have glass windshields. This is not right. Lexan (polycarbonate) should be required as the material for auto glazing; it would prevent thousands of injuries every year. It also would improve gas milage by lightening cars. At least one OEM car maker is now petitioning NHTSA to try to get the federal law changed.

  23. Bryan says:

    For the record, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) regs trump the state standards, pure & simple. And it’s irrelevant that folks get an occasional glass shard in the eyes. ‘Poly’ (generic term here) windshields don’t ‘give’ enough in a ‘human-to-windshield’ contact situation; glass will shatter and absorb some of the impact energy – Lexan & other ‘poly’ windshields will just contain the ‘human matter splatter’…

  24. Rich says:

    I found this video it’s slightly off topic but cool in a destructive way . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsls5ZPCUnE like they always say “Don’t try this at home!”

  25. Tom Alvary says:

    Wow, seems like everyone missed THE ANSWER RIGHT THERE!!!

    My careful reading of 625 ILCS 5/12-501(a) clearly indicates that this section shall not apply to:

    “…motor vehicles registered as antique vehicles,”

    Well, that’s just dandy. Supposing the March Hare is going to be registered as a 1966 or 1972 or whatever VW, you just register the car as an Antique Vehicle, and you’re done. Use whatever windscreen you want. In Illinois, at least, the car would be hands down legal on antique plates.

    Its worth looking at your state’s code to see if there’s a similar exemption.

    Quite a pleasant surprise, really…

  26. Rich says:

    Tom

    So anything over 25 yrs or older would be exempt. Wasn’t there something in there about it having to been designed without a windshield? They would more than likely let it slide just on the antique thing.

    The fairing video was loads of fun tho. Still wouldn’t want to be shot at what a fun job that guy has . The deer slug part was very surprising .If it was locked down like in car body it wouldn’t have gone as well but still really amazing.

  1. June 6, 2009

    […] posted a teaser image of Bruce’s award winning March Hare kit, and I wanted to follow that up with a few more shots of his beautiful example of this rare classic […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *