Snip
<<<I suppose the old saying is true..."Education is the key." I wonder
if the folks on the TR-7 list sit around and say "You know, my car is
ugly, a mechanical nightmare, AND the decline of BL." I guess it all
comes down to perspective...Like Garfield once said, "Funny is in the
eye of the beholder."
- --
Michael S. Lishego
>>>
Very true - I certainly am not going to suggest that we should have the
arrogance to dictate to TR7 enthusiasts about whether or not they should
care about their cars. IMHO, the car enthusiast cadre should take in
everything - warts and all.
The danger, however, is that people will attempt to "re-write" history -
something Joe Stalin was so good at; we'll get people saying that it
"isn't true" that the TR7 (or at least the people behind it) lay at the
heart of the roller coaster ride to destruction of the British sports
car business, or that the Speke built cars were "quite good". They'll
tell us that the critics were all wrong and the TR7 is such a wrongly
maligned car.
I realise that a fresh generation, who weren't around when the battle
between MG and Triumph was in full swing, will have a less cynical point
of view and will be more ready to view the TR7 for what it is (or has
become) rather than what it stood for in the eyes of many. Good for you
I say.
I will admit that by the time the TR7 convertible came on the scene, and
natty alloy wheels and attractive colour schemes were on offer, it had a
lot to offer. I looked at one recently, in a dark metallic red, and I
could see much to appreciate in it. There are fewer on the roads today,
and we need to ensure that they survive.
But then my mind turned back to the thought that if the MG factory (and
its supporting factories, primarily at Swindon and Cowley) had been
granted a fraction of the TR7/Speke budget, what might we have seen
instead?
David Knowles
|