In a message dated 01/02/2006 5:58:08 AM Central Standard Time,
henry@henryfrye.com writes:
> Personally, I doubt I would pay more for a car because of its history.
>
> For me, it is all about "What will she do!"
>
> 1. In viewing the responses, I was somewhat surprised that there was little
> mention of discussing the racecar's history. I am asking myself whether this
> absence is a reflection that race history is not a significant consideration
> for
> most Triumph racers.
>
Henry, while I am sure your position is shared by others, it is a
position that has evolved since vintage racing has become 'so racy.'
I can assure you that, at least early on, a vintage race car's
'history' was of critical importance. There were 'powers' within the
hobby that were requiring a 'vintage history' for participation. In
those days you needed a 'vintage log book' to qualify, and
'historically significant' cars were given special treatment. More
than once I was offended by some big 'Muckity Muck' at an event
saying, "We want 'historically significant' race cars at our events,
and not a bunch of rusty TR3s." Well...look what's happened. Now the
'historically significant' cars are staying home and our current grids
are filled with 'science-fiction vintage' racers. That's meant to be
descriptive and not derogatory. Still great fun, and certainly more
exciting, but far different from the way vintage racing started.
Bill Dentinger
=== unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net
|