Well, since I started this, maybe I should end it.
My questions are based on a certain sickness I have for history. I feel
there is reasons to preserve history, and there are reasons to ignore it.
But if you say you are preserving it, then you should preserve it, and not
change it to match your perception.
Most of my background includes Corvettes, so I'll use that as examples.
Back in the '70s, people used to show their Corvettes and brag about the
history of the car. For example, you might have a placard at a show that
read: '65 Corvette, bought new, ran local drags in SS/A, changed 327 to 427
in '66, won divisionals, change to 454 in '70, won Winternationals. Now on
IMCA show circuit, won Best of Show in '72....
Or one like: '63 Corvette, original FI, bought '64 by Sam Smith and raced in
hillclimbs and local autocross, bought '66 by Bill Jones and place 3rd
Central Division SCCA road racing, 1st Central Division 1969. Won region
championship in '71 and '72.
But today, all you see are restored cars that look like they belong on the
showroom floor. The history of those cars have been lost. The importance
of those cars was not how Bob Smith Chevrolet sold the car, but what
happened afterwards.
Which brings us to why vintage racing is important, it keeps that history
alive. A car driven by Bob Bondurant or Sterling Moss is given a lot of
attention, but a car driven by Dick Durant, Pete Dock, or Bob Spooner are
not ignored and tossed like trash, either. They may not get as much
attention as Mark Donohue's AMC cars, but they are not considered junk and
considered only as a parts car for a street car.
However, what has happened in Corvettes with restorations, is that old
restorations from the '70s and early '80s are now being confused as
"original" cars.
You ask, so?
Restoration usually destroys originality, as so well pointed out here how
the parts off of one car can be used as a basis for another, as original
parts are often tossed in favor of new reproduction parts that are prettier.
After awhile, you have multiple cars of the same (as in vintage race cars)
or you have cars that bear only a sight resemblance to the original car due
to all the non-original parts.
Have any of you seen the #57 Heinz Confederate Flag Corvette or the
Greenwood Stars and Stripes Corvettes? How about #1 & #6 DeLorenzo/Thompson
Owens-Corning Corvettes? Perfect in everyway.
Except that on of the Owens-Corning cars was pieced together body parts on a
'67 race car. #57 was created from a wrecked street car.
Look at those cars today, and they look perfect with perfect body panels,
with perfect details.
Did any of you build cars like that in the '60s or '70s?
And so people who research originality to determine how things were really
done, in racing and in production street cars, get a false source of
information.
Many think things done in 20 year old restorations were how the factory did
them, when they really didn't.
You ask, so??
If you are into restoring, into preserving, into keeping the value of your
car at a given level or increasing, these all matter. You need a template,
and old, original cars are that template to compare to.
If you consider your car something to use, use up, then toss when done, it
doesn't matter.
If you say you are a rolling museum, then it matters. If it is just a neat
car, then it doesn't.
I have nothing against racing old cars. I raced an old car in current
times, in current classes. We raced a TR-3B in the late '70s and early
'80s. We raced a '66 Corvette in the late '80s and early '90s. We had a
lot of fun. We had after race parties. We had camaraderie. We had
friendship. We often borrowed parts.
But I never tried to pass it off as a rolling museum. I never tried to say
it was just like the ones on the track with Penske, Wintersteen, Donohue,
Guldstrand, and a host of others.
As to no contact, I think by allowing cars built today, by guys who simply
want to rub shoulders rather than locate an old race car (they are out there
and cheap), you have more trading paint than in current classes where old
cars run.
In two vintage races I was in, the first had two cars in a field of 20 hit.
The second had 5 incidents in a field of 40. In 6 years of regular SCCA
racing with the '66, I had contact with someone twice. I came back to find
tire marks on a rear quarter. Either I cut him a bit tight or he ran a bit
wide in Turn 5 at Moroso. The other time was tangling with a GT Pinto at
Summit Point and those GT Pinto guys were so out of hand, the Chief Steward
was ready to send them all home.
I just think there are a lot of excuses that are not valid in vintage
racing. There are lots of old vintage race cars to find. They really don't
need to look like a museum, they need to look real. Like they did back
then. And if your desire is to build and race a Datsun 510 like Paul Newman
did, then go. Take that 510 and race in SCCA, EMRA, MWCSCC, or wherever.
Just don't pretend that one you built today is a vintage race car.
Otherwise, people will look and say, "wow, they used Aeroquip and MSD back
then. They knew about running dry sumps and Wilwoods and JFZ and using
header wrap."
did you really build like that? People today think so.
|