Gentlemen,
Time, please!
Shall we accept that there are divergent opinions on the subject of whether
or not we should re-construct our Triumphs in the form of a modern Lotus?
I for one have seen fairly little new information brought to the fray
recently on this debate. Quite frankly, while I am INTERESTED in the topic
(I have seen the bonding material available at my local body shop supplier),
I have no interest in furthering a turf war among the warring factions of
engineeringdom.
I respect anyone who is willing to front their opinion and back it up with
relevant facts. But, ( and I mean but)
1. WHO is going to un-originalize their spit in the name of strength unless
they intend to beat it up, as in racing it.
2. Given #1, why is this discussion not taking place on
alt.gearhead.scca.com?
3. As a general principle, any one thing done well - even if inferior in
technical spec - is almost certainly better than another "superior" thing
either poorly executed or used in an inappropriate manner.
For example:
The Lotus 61 Formula Ford that I helped restore had a completely bronze
brazed frame from the factory. Thirty years old, there were no cracks or
otherwise on the artful puddling of dis-similar metals! Yet, my GT6 had a
similar treatment (damn DPO) on its sills, and the heat warpage was bad
enough to need a fair chunk of bondo to cover. Still, that repair has
survived a serious racing accident and general hard use for about 25,000
miles! Yet, I sneered at the thought that my car had bronze on it...
apparently without cause.
I'm sure the same can be said of MIG, TIG, stick, plaster of Paris, etc.
Shall we call it a draw?
Dave Terrick
backyard engineer at heart,
where ignorance if often bliss!
|