> From: GuyotLeonF@aol.com [mailto:GuyotLeonF@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 4:36 PM
>
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999
> Peter Zaborski <peterz@merak.com>
>
> Most Triumphs sold in the world were not sporty at all
> but rather sedans (Heralds and Vitesses come to mind,
> the 2xxx series saloons, and even a joint project with Honda
> called the Acclaim).
> **************************************************************
> When did you last drive a Vitesse then ?
Never. Not sure if I have ever even seen one in the "flesh". (I am one of
the many colonists on this list, although I'm sure you already had me pegged
as such).
> My Herald Convertible certainly was 'Sporting' if not an
> outright Sports Car per se... (especially when I tuned it
> with period tuning items = 100 bhp and 110 mph!)
I believe the original discussion centered around the "sports car" as
exemplified by the convertible 2 seater Triumphs (mostly TRs and perhaps
Spits as well, but you'll have to ask Kai M. Radicke for a specific
definition of what he meant). Also, I was not the originator of this thread
but rather responded to his earlier post. And furthermore, the discussion
was concerning stock cars, not tuned cars (at least I believe it was).
> And as for your saying that my Vitesse Convertible is not
> sporty at all ???
No I am not saying anything about your car. My comments were meant to
illustrate that the majority of Triumphs sold in the world were not 2 door
convertibles of the TR series but rather sedans. The original poster to whom
I replied (Kai M. Radicke) seemed to imply that Triumph has a strong
sporting image whereas Honda does not at least partly based on the types of
vehicles they sold (sedans vs roadsters). I was attempting to refute that
claim.
> Do you realise what you are saying ???
I don't think I am saying what you think I am saying, so I'd have to say "a
qualified no". :-)
Peter Zaborski CF58310UO
|