Race it or perserve it?

A racing car that does not race, is like a bird that does not fly.

 

Lots of proof on both sides of that arguement, as Napolis shared in another thread today.....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Race it!

 

Unless the car in question was entombed the day it was completed and has remained utterly untouched ever since, the entire concept of "originalilty" is a farce.

Tires, gas, oil, brake pads and fluids.... any of that stuff original? No? Oh well, so much for "originality".

Race cars get raced, smashed, repaired, raced, smashed, repaired.... and on it goes. Such is life, and life is good.

Some folks see a huge distinction between a GTO being raced and wrecked resulting in extensive new bodywork being required in 1964 or the same car suffering the same type wreck and repairs in 2004. I dont. Both are race cars that were wrecked, repaired and go on to race another day. Enzo smiles in happiness that his legacy is not lost nor wasted on polishing cloth wielding money obsessed wankers who are so focused on baloney that they have lost sight of the entire purpose these pieces of art were created for.


Terry

 

I think that concept was also recently disproven:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I dont think the car becomes a replica if you use the same molds/if the factory reproduces the parts you need.

If i had a vintage Ferrari , i would use it as my daily driver.

 

" Raced, smashed, repaired, raced, smashed, repaired"....... Sounds like a very expensive hobby.

 

Yes it's expensive. I think there is an overemphasis on originality sometimes.

Should I fear replacing a bent valve with one that wasn't in the car when new?

I think it's a worthy ideal. Thats all.

 

I don't agree with Doug here, because cars are machines and every part in a machine has a service life. Thus we either have static displays and then the car is NOT a car anymore or we use them and accept that the "car" as an entity is all about continuous history. Why people have problems with that I do not understand?

What Doug's article did discuss and this segment does not explain is that most cars racing today use modern components, some times cleverly hidden within old looking visible parts. This is IMO stupid and against the concept of historic racing. Heck why even own and race an old car if you simply want it to go as fast as a modern race car. Racing old cars is NOT about winning but about experiencing a time gone by, experiencing how it was, etc.

I'm one of those people. Todays events mean NOTHING, because they are just old car races. You do not win anything, and if you do it means nothing because the company that made the car is not basing it's future survival in your performance on the track ... like they did when it raced for real back in the '60's.

That is why I could not give a rats @rse if a modern race car gets bent because it is doing what a modern race should do ... win at all costs!, because there is a current worthwhile championship at stake and the companies reputation to up hold.

Anybody that races an old historic car and thinks that their performance behind the wheel matters is a wanker. The crowd do not care, they just want to see good clean fun and lots of 4 wheel drifts. They most certainly are not watching thinking heck I'm watching the next F1 champion race today!

I remember reading somewhere about the current owner/driver of a Ferrari F1 car beating Ascari's lap record and pumping his chest out, etc. ... again what a wanker. Track has changed, car has changed, circumstances have changed ... and it really does not matter how fast you are now.

The most important thing a historic racer needs to remember is that there is nothing gained from bending the car. Yep accidents happen and people matter more than the cars, but leaning on another competitors car to gain a place in historic racing is simply taking YOURSELF too seriously.

Racing does not have to be 11/10th's, it can still be fun and rewarding at 8/10ths and importantly the car is not worn out as fast. But yes drive/race the car!
Pete

 

I agree Pete.

I think part of the appeal of classic racing is that it is performance that we can access. It reminds us of simpler times way before computers. When tuning your new larger carburator(s) would shurely do the trick.

Everything was fine when the fastest thing you could possibly make was manageable. Todays performance makes alot of the performance untouchable.

I would keep a vintage racer whithin the bounds of what was reasonable at the time. It is not surprising for a newer more powerful car to be faster than an older car. If I were racing I would expect to be faster than an older car and slower than a newer car. That would be natural.

How much a driver wants to "improve" his car is a personal thing.

There are examples(TRANS AM in particular) where the cars have gotten pretty rediculous IMO.

Everyone likes to win though.

In vintage, it is in part, the romantic notion of a fair race. That is starting to get lost.

Parts need replacing. So replace them. I wouldn't belittle someone by saying that their car was a reproduction.

Thats just not right is it? Kind of degrading someone. I suspect the guy was looking for a fight.

 

Agree TOTALLY. A dent put in by Bruce McLaren when the car was chasing the MFG. Championship is a bit different than one put in by Joe Blow chasing lost youth.

 

I have a lot of respect for owners that race their extremely rare and expensive racecars. They were raced originally and damage is just part of the deal. I like Jay Leno's theory, drive the hell out of them, restore them, drive the hell out of them some more!