triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Change is sad [but....] long thoughtful response

To: Michael Hargreave Mawson <OC@46thFoot.com>
Subject: Re: Change is sad [but....] long thoughtful response
From: Fred Marks <marks_fred@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
While we're at it, here's my spare change worth...

The ranting of purists and their counterparts in the
other camp will forever rage.  

We need to keep things in perspective.  Even those
among us who are the most casual about originality
concerns would likely blanch at the thought of an
Italia 5.0 liter (Egad!), myself included.  To my way
of thinking however, there is little evidence to
suggest that "irreversible modifications" (if indeed
there is such a thing, which I deny) of a volume car
such as a TR6 or (especially) a Spitfire given the
large quantities that were made, are threatening to
the LBC hobby or the existence of future classics.

I believe in both schools of thought.  Having
personally owned three TR6s, two bone stock originals
and one with "period" modifications, I can understand
the thinking of the purists.  There is great pride in
maintaining and driving an original specimen of the
marque.  

As one who is presently involved in the construction
of a modern V6 powered Spit, there are excellent
arguments I can make for the "modifiers."  There is
also great pride in the creation of something original
and different.

Yes, it is true that any reasonably well kept Triumph
can provide fairly reliable transportation and a great
deal of fun in unmolested form.  For some, that is
fine.  Others want something different.  

In my case for example:  I began with a pair of
"basket cases," a GT6 and a Spitfire.  In both cases a
restoration to original would have been a mammoth
undertaking, and certainly run in dollars many times
what these cars are valued at in concours condition.

Make no mistake.  These cars were no longer part of
anyone's equation when counting the number of vehicles
left.  These cars had expired many years ago.  Myself,
playing at Dr. Frankenstein, decided to breath new
life into these rusting hulks and baskets of parts. 
>From a drivetrain-less, thoroughly rusted out GT6 I
culled a restorable frame and suspension essentials. 
>From the gutted Spitfire, I took only the body.  Its
rolling chassis was sold to others who would find use
for it (maybe even as a parts donor for an ORIGINAL
restoration!).

Now, as a Triumph lover, I admit the temptation to go
for a full resto.  However, I also a certified
performance freak and really enjoy the idea of the
classic looks and feel of the Spit combined with
modern, competitive performance.  It was then I made
the decision to build a vehicle of questionable
parentage.  If either of my cars were running
examples, or needed only minor work, I would probably
not turn them into something not entirely Triumph.  

Carroll Shelby took a beautiful, well-balanced, finely
crafted AC roadster and had the audacity to drop a
Ford V8 in it.  The purists raged! The result of
course, was automotive history.  We remember the
Cad-Allards before the Shelbys.  We recall the Sunbeam
Tiger, Griffith and so many other "factory" hotrods. 
For each and every one of them assembled, there were
dozens, if not hundreds of "specials" built by
garages, amateur racers and individual enthusiasts
across the globe.  

Enthusiasts have ALWAYS sought to improve the
performance, styling or other features of the cars
they love.  Repeat: the cars the _love_.  That my
friends I believe is the crux of the matter.  I
personally doubt very much whether anyone will bother
to lavish great amounts of time and expense to build
an AMC Pacer special.  How about a V8 Reliant Robin?  
Maybe a Chevette?  (Now I KNOW you guys are gonna come
up with a couple of examples ).  Point is, if any of
these do in fact exist, they are a very very rare
phenomenon (the same can probably be said for their
owners).  

Generally speaking, people won't screw around with the
unloved cars, the ugly cars, the un-memorable cars. 
They will usually mess with the cars they admire,
love, remember fondly, and motivate them to want to
put the time and effort into re-building them, aiming
for either originality--or otherwise.

I'm sure that in 200 years time, if my V6 Spitfire
(when completed, hopefully in a great deal less time
than that) is one of the last surviving examples of a
Spitfire on the planet, it can be restored to
"original" if anyone really wanted to do it.  Welded
up motor mounts can be removed, original items
restored, Fiberglass work can be ground off and metal
reworked.  I ask you, what is irreversible?  

If the supply of our precious LBCs was down to nil I
would heartily support efforts to reduce their
bastardization.  For as long as there are literally
thousands of unloved, abandoned, forgotten little
treasures rusting away in yards and barns across the
fruited plain however, then I support the efforts of
all who would restore them to life, in any manner they
see fit to do so.

Just Another Humble Opinion...


Fred Marks

Brandon, Florida
'69 CGT6 3.4 
Work In Progress
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe triumphs
///
///  or try  http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Change is sad [but....] long thoughtful response, Fred Marks <=