SRA market price

**Phoenix Atom** · September 3, 2016, 08:02 PM

I recently bought a used SRA from TMI. Before buying, I tried to research the market as much as possible to figure out market value of SRAs. Here’s what I found along the way:

2015 SRA: $45k sale price by TMI 200 miles (no typo, 200)

2012 SRA: on offer at $45k by Sector 111. 2500 miles.

Year unknown K20 SRA: 26K miles sold at $41,699 by Eddie Hill. https://www.arielatomchat.com/forums/thread2532.html

2014 SRA: $39,900 asking price. Sold by TMI Oct. 2015 for unknown price. http://classifieds.racerconnect.com/1315-for-sale-2014-specraceatom-nasa-legal-race-winning/details.html Mileage unknown.

2015 SRA: likely $39,000 sale price. 700 mile car auctioned on Bring-a-Trailer (bringatrailer.com) 7/12/16: No sale at $35k. Believed to have sold after auction for $39k. http://bringatrailer.com/listing/2015-ariel-atom-sra/

2011 SRA: $35,000 asking price. Sold by TMI Oct. 2015 for unknown price. http://classifieds.racerconnect.com/1316-for-sale-ariel-atom-track-car/details.html Mileage unknown.

2013 SRA: $34,500 asking price. Sold by TMI July 2016 for unknown price. http://arielatom.com/recentlyaddedinventory/2013-specraceatom-pre-owned Mileage unknown.

Year unknown SRA: 5k miles, for sale at $34K by TMI.

2013 SRA: $32k sale price by TMI. 7500 miles.

2011 SRA: No sale $28,480 on Bring-a-Trailer May 2015. http://bringatrailer.com/listing/2011-ariel-atom-sra-prototype/ Mileage unknown

2013 SRA: 500 miles. Sold for $40k on Bring-a-Trailer July 14, 2017. http://bringatrailer.com/listing/201...ec-racer-atom/

2012 SRA: 10,000 miles. K24. Sold for $33k October 2017.

Also along the way, I concluded that the K20 cars are not worth less just because they are K20s. Under certain circumstances, the K20 has a very slight advantage over K24s and vise-versa so it’s really a wash and would take a very, very skilled driver to eek out that advantage whichever way it broke in a given situation.

I also concluded that a car which was crashed and had a chassis replacement by TMI is not worth less than a car that was never crashed hard enough to wreck the chassis. In fact, if crash damage was repaired by TMI, or perhaps any of the Atom dealers, the car is not devalued in my opinion.

If crash damage is repaired correctly and thoroughly, as I must assume is the case when TMI performs the repair, the repaired car should be as good post-repair as it was at the time of the crash. And perhaps better because it has a fair number of new parts. In fact, in the case of chassis replacement by TMI, the entire car will have had a thorough going over by the manufacturer with all nuts and bolts correctly torqued pretty much just like the buyer of a new Atom would receive.

If others have thoughts regarding either the K20 v. K24 or repaired car questions, I’d be interested in hearing what folks think.

And if anyone has personal knowledge of other SRA sales, hopefully with something to substantiate it such as a link to a web site, please post it. But please do not post sales information regarding Atoms other than SRAs because that's what this thread is about. If you wish to start a similar thread about non-SRAs, feel free but please don't post it here.

**MadMaxAtom** · September 4, 2016, 03:36 AM

Been in the car business all my life.It is my profession.A car that has been crashed will ALWAYS be worth less because buyers are wary of them. The only cars that do not drop in value after being wrecked are vintage race cars or cars with very desirable provenance.

The "book" value of a car is greatly affected by condition.Well cared for average mileage cars are often worth more than abused/neglected low mileage cars.

Past sales are not always an indicator of current values as the market changes.You can use it as a guide (Just like NADA,KBB etc) but it is NOT the final word.

Selling price is determined by the market rather than the seller. You can ask whatever price you want for a vehicle,but unless someone is willing to buy it for that price, you are not going to sell it,so what is it's true value?

**Phoenix Atom** · September 4, 2016, 01:02 PM

With almost all cars, especially street cars, I completely agree that a previously crashed car is worth less than a car that wasn't previously crashed. That said, if the car was repaired correctly it's worth less only because of perception. If correctly repaired (which is a big if), there is no reason other than perception that the repaired car isn't just as good and worth as much as if the car was never crashed and repaired in the first place. Again, even correctly repaired cars are generally worth less than never crashed cars but that is because of perception and uncertainty about the repair.

The problem is that in almost all instances involving the sale of a previously crashed car, a buyer doesn't know if the car was repaired correctly. That uncertainly (or the likely reality that it wasn't repaired correctly) is what decreases value.

But the SRA is different under a very common circumstance. When an SRA is crashed and repaired by TMI, there is no uncertainty as to the repair. The manufacturer is doing the repair so in my book there is little question that the repair is done correctly. And if the repair involves chassis replacement, the undamaged parts are stripped from the car, the chassis goes to the dumpster, undamaged parts are inspected, new parts replace damaged parts and the lot are bolted to a brand new chassis. By the manufacturer. So in the end you have the guys who built the car when brand new take the damaged car completely apart to replace the chassis, inspect every part that will be reused, add new parts, torque every nut a bolt to spec and set the car up as new.

How can all that not be a very good thing that eliminates any uncertainty regarding the quality and value of the repaired car? In fact, how about this scenario: imagine there are two identical SRAs, same mileage, same condition. The green flag drops and for 30 laps they're neck and neck with no performance difference. Then one crashes and is off to TMI for chassis replacement and other needed repairs. The front body work and both front corners need to be replaced. No other damage occurred.

TMI gets the car, strips all parts off, puts the old chassis in the dumpster along with the damaged body work and suspension, then puts the car back together with a new chassis, two new corners and shiny new front body work. In the process, TMI checks every part it bolts on (it pretty much has to because the TMI disassembles the entire car then puts it back together), torques every nut and bolt to spec and sets the car up as it would a new car ready for delivery.

Now further imagine that both formerly identical SRAs go up for sale. Except they're no longer identical. The never damaged car and the TMI rebuilt car are now for sale sitting there side by side. The price for each is the same. Hmmm. Which car is the better bet? The one that is maintained by the owner or the TMI rebuilt car? Let's compare:

The never crashed car: who maintained it? How skilled was that person? Were corners cut? Are there mechanical issues brewing which are difficult or impossible to detect upon inspection? Are there any structural issues just due to age and use that can't be seen? Significant uncertainty is involved.

The TMI rebuilt car: Skilled mechanics (the same fellows who build these cars when new) disassembled and inspected each part of the car. Then those same guys bolted all undamaged parts to a brand new chassis and installed new parts where needed. Every single nut and bolt was torqued to spec in the mother of all nut and bolt checks. The car is set up up to new specs (alignment, shock adjustment, ride height, etc.). Shiny new bodywork with brand new paint is fitted so that at least those pieces (along with the chassis) look brand new. Little to no uncertainty is involved. Or certainly much less uncertainty that is involved with the other car.

Both cars are for sale for the same price. Which do you chose? I think any rational person would choose the TMI repaired car. Even if the owner of the never crashed car stored the car with TMI, as many owners do, and if TMI maintained the car, the crashed/repaired car was still subject to much closer inspection (complete disassembly and reassembly), has many new parts installed and looks better. There is nothing about the crashed/repaired car that is inferior to the other car and it is superior in numerous important ways.

**MadMaxAtom** · September 5, 2016, 03:01 AM

Let me guess..you bought a repaired SRA..

Step on a Coke can and squash it.Now repair it. Sure..it may look the same and still hold 12oz of fluid..but if you were selling it, 100% of the buyers looking to buy a Coke can will buy the one that was undamaged vs. your "fixed"one,especially if they can buy the clean one for the same money.
I would buy the undamaged one as well,and pay MORE money for it compared to one that was damaged. It is just common sense to do so.

Something original with a clean history is always worth more.

I have been buying and selling vehicles for over 40 years professionally.I go to two different auctions a week.The prices paid at those auctions reflect the vehicles history as well as current condition. If a vehicle has been damaged,many people won't even buy it at any price.The potential for trouble with a collision damaged vehicle that has been reconstructed is always there..

I buy and sell hundreds of vehicles every year.I have bought 3 different Atoms.Sold one.That being said... I would NEVER EVER NEVER pay the same or more(!) for a previously damaged Ariel Atom, as I absolutely know it will be more difficult to sell and it will NOT bring the same amount of money or more money than one that has a clean history.

There is always the possibility of hidden damage on a vehicle that has been crashed/flooded/burnt and then repaired,no matter who fixes it. I am also a licensed auto damage appraiser and have built hundreds of wrecks, and know a lot about collision damage and repairs.
Some of the things that happen to a structure during a crash cannot be seen with the eye and may not rear their ugly head until years later. I've personally seen this collateral damage many times. You live and learn.

Bring ANY vehicle with a sordid history in for a trade and you will get less. Much less in most cases. Even insurance companies will pay you less for a reconstructed vehicle if you total it and have coverage,and most banks will not loan you the same amount of money to buy that vehicle. They all know: that vehicle is worth LESS, as it has been damaged.

An undamaged clean history vehicle will ALWAYS be more valuable than one that has been damaged.

That is just the way the real world works. Sorry...

**Phoenix Atom** · September 5, 2016, 12:15 PM

Your coke can analogy makes no sense. If you repair a coke can, you have a repaired coke can. In my example, you have no repaired parts on the car. All parts are either new (chassis, both corners and bodywork) or taken from the wrecked car because they weren't damaged in the first place.

And your argument devolved into the context of street cars in general and flooded street cars, in particular. Which, by the way, I completely agree that having been wrecked devalues such cars, particularly flood cars. But that's not what my post addresses. I'm talking specifically about SRAs which are manufacturer disassembled and reassembled with all new parts replacing any damaged parts. Sticking to the point would be helpful.

Now, other than what amounts to "trust me, I've been doing this for many years and I know," all the while changing the context of the discussion, I ask that you tell me specifically where my logic fails. If you would chose the never crashed car in my example over the factory rebuilt car and pay more for it, well, good for you. But, I can't imagine your "common sense" is common at all among rational folks who think it through. But I guess it actually does explain where the logic of my example fails: I started from the premise of a rational person.