The Smelly Edge of the Vintage Distinction

Drum brakes or not?

There's obviously a bunch of ways to delineate this, but I agree with earlier articulated - why try? What's the point?

Some older cars feel old by today's standards, some few do not. In either case, it isn't tightly correlated to how enjoyable the car is to drive.

More time on the roads, less time on the forums.

 

I'm a total outsider to this whole scene but my view is that there is more of a case to be made for the C4 -> 365GT4 -> 400 -> 400i -> 412 line as "vintage" than the 365BB and relatives as "vintage". By applying the "washington's axe" model of continuity, they've got the same basic architecture as the 250GTO and similar undisputed "vintage" models.

But, I'll be the first to say I know nothing of what I speak...

 

I use the Justice Potter Stewart method. I know it when I see it.

 

I knew I should have mentioned the sturm und drang...

 

Veteran = cars up to 1905
Edwardian = 1905 to 1919
Vintage = 1919 to 1930
Pre-War = 1930 to 1948
Post-War = 1948 to ?

Personally the sliding scale makes no sense (cars hitting the 25 year mark as classic), we need to create more categories, ie. Classic say from 1960 to 1980 maybe, and Boring from 1980 to 2000 and so on.
Pete

 

I'll simplistically go with wood steering wheel = vintage. And the car does need to stink.

 

post-war = 48 to 63
rock'n'roll = 63 to 73
disco / smog / opec = 73 to 88
computerized = 88 - on

 

With a car that can only trace its manufactured and sold as a separate entity history back to ca. 1949, period terms need to suit that car.

IMO, generally:

Front-engine roadgoing V12's built/sold before 365BB/308: Vintage

Everything after that: something else.

 

+1.

Like these suggestions. How do we go about getting them 'used'?
Pete

 

I don't think Rob was trying to make any distinctions about which cars were to be considered vintage. I think he put the Boxer in its own forum with the TR because there would be a considerable number of owners for those vehicles who were interested specifically in those vehicles, just as there are a similar number of owners here interested in general older Ferraris.

In short, there probably aren't enough 365 GTC/4 owners on F-chat to necessitate that car having its own forum, but there are enough Boxer and TR owners to do so. At some point you have to draw the line and I think Rob drew it in the best possible place.

 

El,

What has nothing to do with Fchat? I was trying to side with Zarathustra's (read his thread in the beginning) interpretation of 12 cyl carbed cars as being the cut off point for vintage Ferrari's. I was making a point that even at an FCA sanctioned meet, a carbed 365 BB was not in the same class with other injected Boxers which many people at the event found odd.


Gene.

 

"Vintage" is a term evidently without a common definition as applied to Ferraris, and we could post all day with different opinions on the correct names and cutoff points, failing to take into account the usual "grayness" of definitions and limits.

For me the quality of "vintageness" for a Ferrari reflects the vision and the products of a man and a company during a glorious period, and is equivalent in that sense to the quality of "Ferrariness". The elements that defined that vision and those products are in my opinion the following, with the first one clearly predominant. The more of these elements a Ferrari has, the closer it is to the true glory of a vintage (real) Ferrari. I exclude pure racers of course, which deserve rules of their own.

Dual Racing - GT use

Ferrari SPA an independent company
Enzo Ferrari alive

V12 up front
Carbs
Stickshift
Borranis
Wooden steering wheel

No P/S
No electric windows
No A/C
No electronics (including electronic ignition)
No ashtray or other comfort or entertainment accessories
No shield if not a racer


Taking into accounts these elements, The pinnacle of "Ferrariness" is probably a 250 TdF or a 250 SWB, while the absolute pit would of course be the "california". Both are Ferraris, but one of them is a masterpiece that has it all, whereas the other just has a badge and a big butt.

 

I forgot another element of "Ferrariness" measure: Two seats.

 

Excellent summation. One more item: Unique coachbuilt body, or at least production during a period when a not-insignificant proportion of production was coachbuilt.

 

I am not trying to define a group, nor implying that the Ferraris that have all these qualities "make the cut", and not the others. Not many Ferraris fit all the discriminators (the few which do are the best). Even the "california" (yes, the new one, hence the quotes and the lower case) is a Ferrari. The discriminators just measure different shades of the elusive quality of "Ferrariness".

A GTC loses some of that quality, because it was never meant to race, it has electric windows, AC, and fake-looking wood in the interior. But it has most of the other elements in spades.

The 275 GTS also loses some of it because it also never was intended to race.

As for the "california", there is very, very little "Ferrariness" left.

Cheers,

Julio

 

You are apparently not aware that the competition 250 GT Berlinetta PC (SWB for some) had an ashtray as original equipment.

 

Interesting. What makes you think I am not?

 

Wizard of Awes

Dorothy Gale: Borranis and Nardis and Webers! Oh, my!

Dorotea Galetti: Borranis e Nardis e Webers! Oh, il mio!