Who's a B'stard?
Discussion
I think It’s time to ruffle some feathers.
The expression “bastard“ refers to the condition of being born to parents who are not married to one another. When one advances the idea that classic TVRs are being bastardized, this propagates the notion that TVRs were not cross-bred bastards to begin with. Let’s all please remember that these cars were the product of a commercial venture whose intent, above love and passion, was to turn a profit. Lilley and company, as it happens, built some of our favorite cars, but let’s recognize them for what they are. TVR’s board could only purchase engines that would fit their parameters not only for long term availability, weight, and build quality, but they also had to be units that fit within budgetary constraints. Until the advent of the AJP V8, all TVRs were bastards. After all, aside from purchasing components, there were no financial ties between TVR and Ford or BL that might constitute a “marriage.”
Beyond this point, it appears as though some imbeciles would pass moral judgment and condemn those who may be wishing to maintain or improve their property as they deem appropriate for their own enjoyment. I say: It’s your car, you paid for it, have at it! Who, after all, has the final say on what modification is OK and what isn’t? Where are we to draw the line? Is exchanging thirty year old rubber suspension bushings with urethane an example of bastardising a classic? The resulting behavior and character is certainly not identical to what the factory was selling in 1977. If the Essex engine was not originally supplied in a TVR with triple Weber down-draft IDF or DCNF carburetors, but an owner decides that this suits his or her need, why is this not simply called gilding the lily? In the same vein, if an owner of a 1600cc M-series car decides to modify their car by installing a turbocharged Essex, bored and stroked to 3450cc, would it be “bastardising a classic” or a vast improvement? In one sense the parentage would remain the same and in another, the design intent could not be questioned.
Consider another example. Would it be considered bastardising a classic if somebody were to fit a Vantage specification, dry sump Aston Martin straight six to a TVR M chassis? If not, then what makes any other engine choice any different? A high school friend fit a Mazda 13B rotary to his M. He loved it. My only complaint was, and is, –no turbo.
In the end these may merely be individual perspectives, yet while one person considers an engine swap an improvement and another perceives it as “bastardising a classic,” only one of these individuals is likely to be an ignorant, stupid, offensive imbecile with little to no regard for someone else’s joy.
There is a world of difference between those who do this with a sense of humor and those fools that are serious. Go on, let the feathers fly.
The expression “bastard“ refers to the condition of being born to parents who are not married to one another. When one advances the idea that classic TVRs are being bastardized, this propagates the notion that TVRs were not cross-bred bastards to begin with. Let’s all please remember that these cars were the product of a commercial venture whose intent, above love and passion, was to turn a profit. Lilley and company, as it happens, built some of our favorite cars, but let’s recognize them for what they are. TVR’s board could only purchase engines that would fit their parameters not only for long term availability, weight, and build quality, but they also had to be units that fit within budgetary constraints. Until the advent of the AJP V8, all TVRs were bastards. After all, aside from purchasing components, there were no financial ties between TVR and Ford or BL that might constitute a “marriage.”
Beyond this point, it appears as though some imbeciles would pass moral judgment and condemn those who may be wishing to maintain or improve their property as they deem appropriate for their own enjoyment. I say: It’s your car, you paid for it, have at it! Who, after all, has the final say on what modification is OK and what isn’t? Where are we to draw the line? Is exchanging thirty year old rubber suspension bushings with urethane an example of bastardising a classic? The resulting behavior and character is certainly not identical to what the factory was selling in 1977. If the Essex engine was not originally supplied in a TVR with triple Weber down-draft IDF or DCNF carburetors, but an owner decides that this suits his or her need, why is this not simply called gilding the lily? In the same vein, if an owner of a 1600cc M-series car decides to modify their car by installing a turbocharged Essex, bored and stroked to 3450cc, would it be “bastardising a classic” or a vast improvement? In one sense the parentage would remain the same and in another, the design intent could not be questioned.
Consider another example. Would it be considered bastardising a classic if somebody were to fit a Vantage specification, dry sump Aston Martin straight six to a TVR M chassis? If not, then what makes any other engine choice any different? A high school friend fit a Mazda 13B rotary to his M. He loved it. My only complaint was, and is, –no turbo.
In the end these may merely be individual perspectives, yet while one person considers an engine swap an improvement and another perceives it as “bastardising a classic,” only one of these individuals is likely to be an ignorant, stupid, offensive imbecile with little to no regard for someone else’s joy.
There is a world of difference between those who do this with a sense of humor and those fools that are serious. Go on, let the feathers fly.
I am trying to work out the time you have written this and what your state of mind may have been at the time.
I think the piece is eloquently written with a fabulous grasp of english. (for an american that is even more extraordinary)
I think though that the piece leads me to draw an inevitable conclusion..........................
You need to find yourself a Girlfriend
N.
I think the piece is eloquently written with a fabulous grasp of english. (for an american that is even more extraordinary)
I think though that the piece leads me to draw an inevitable conclusion..........................
You need to find yourself a Girlfriend
N.
Slow M
There is no thing as an original 'classic' TVR, many (pre73) left the factory as kits, many more were finished to varying standards, TVR often changed parts (to suits lines of credit with suppliers?). I have never seen a restored TVR with an original chassis finish (was that one coat of paint ot two?) and many don't have original paint colours.
One of the great things about the UK TVRCC when I was a member was that there wasn't a poncy concours element to the club, people modified their cars to suit their needs and it was respected by other members.
Today the TVRCC may be different, I haven't been a member for 4 years so I don't know, please tell me it isn't so.
To me your post is just stating the obvious
davidy
There is no thing as an original 'classic' TVR, many (pre73) left the factory as kits, many more were finished to varying standards, TVR often changed parts (to suits lines of credit with suppliers?). I have never seen a restored TVR with an original chassis finish (was that one coat of paint ot two?) and many don't have original paint colours.
One of the great things about the UK TVRCC when I was a member was that there wasn't a poncy concours element to the club, people modified their cars to suit their needs and it was respected by other members.
Today the TVRCC may be different, I haven't been a member for 4 years so I don't know, please tell me it isn't so.
To me your post is just stating the obvious
davidy
On a previous project, i.e. building my first kit car. I visited the factory and feeling slightly guilty about my intended slightly radical upgrades to the car. Discussed these with the MD of the company, thinking that his views may be less than favourable. His comment was - It's your car you can do what you like with it, give me a ring if you need any help.
After completing said mods I went to several meets and my mods were admired and copied by several and frowned upon by a few bobble hats. Thats how it always will be - it's called evolution and is accepted by most and wined about by others.
However if it's a rare thing you're twiddling with, it's always nice to see a few left in original condition, although I regard certain upgrades using up to date technology as a necessary evil if they make the car and it's occupants safer. When my son suggested I drop a larger lump into my 1600M, I told him if I wanted a bigger quicker M, I would buy one and allow the new owner of the 1600M decide for his/herself what to do with it.
There you go - lots of words and staying slap bang in the middle of the fence. Wot an old bastard I am!
Alan
After completing said mods I went to several meets and my mods were admired and copied by several and frowned upon by a few bobble hats. Thats how it always will be - it's called evolution and is accepted by most and wined about by others.
However if it's a rare thing you're twiddling with, it's always nice to see a few left in original condition, although I regard certain upgrades using up to date technology as a necessary evil if they make the car and it's occupants safer. When my son suggested I drop a larger lump into my 1600M, I told him if I wanted a bigger quicker M, I would buy one and allow the new owner of the 1600M decide for his/herself what to do with it.
There you go - lots of words and staying slap bang in the middle of the fence. Wot an old bastard I am!
Alan
Slow M said:
It appears as though some imbeciles would pass moral judgment and condemn those who may be wishing to maintain or improve their property as they deem appropriate for their own enjoyment.
I find your post offensive - maybe it was alchohol induced. Peolpe make comment, not necessarily judgement - it does not make them imbeciles. My biggest rant is peolple producing replicas and then trying to pass them off as originals with whatever diverse unsubtantaited history they can dream of...(no offence to any serial replica builders who do not pretend to be anything else). Frequent point of origin USA.
Nice blue chassis by the way.
Edited by Daftlad on Thursday 2nd August 21:36
Edited by Daftlad on Thursday 2nd August 21:40
Well I'd like to get mine sorted so that it wasn't on 1971 mechanics and could handle the rebored engine and put that power to the rear wheels.
Plus have screws and bolts that matched and weren't 'period' 1971, assembled in a shed in between watching 'On The Buses'
Plus have screws and bolts that matched and weren't 'period' 1971, assembled in a shed in between watching 'On The Buses'
Edited by vixen1700 on Friday 3rd August 01:13
Daftlad said:
Slow M said:
It appears as though some imbeciles would pass moral judgment and condemn those who may be wishing to maintain or improve their property as they deem appropriate for their own enjoyment.
I find your post offensive - maybe it was alchohol induced. Peolpe make comment, not necessarily judgement - it does not make them imbeciles. My biggest rant is peolple producing replicas and then trying to pass them off as originals with whatever diverse unsubtantaited history they can dream of...(no offence to any serial replica builders who do not pretend to be anything else). Frequent point of origin USA.
Nice blue chassis by the way.
Edited by Daftlad on Thursday 2nd August 21:36
Edited by Daftlad on Thursday 2nd August 21:40
beer on Sat?N.
There may not be many original "classic" TVRs here in the UK, but in the States, I know of a handful of completely original 2500Ms still with the original owner and original paint and chassis, etc. , as an example. Agreed, many of the cars have gone through multiple owners, color changes, modifications, etc.
Thanks to you all, I now have slightly more clarity than before and I recognize that there are simply divergent views on this subject although I do still wonder what logic some of them are based on.
Some of you are clearly mad. I mean that only in the best of ways.
I have another, related, question.
I know a man in the USA who owns a Jaguar. The car in question left the factory as an XKC model. During its long racing career, it has had many pieces replaced, some because of wear and some because of "incidents" along the way that left large portions of car strewn about the track. I believe much of the subframe as well as most of the bodywork have been replaced. I personally believe that the only components that this chassis left the factory with that are still part of the car are the gear box casing, the engine block, and (maybe) the cylinder head. The serial number gives this beautiful machine provenance but my question to you is: would you consider this an “original” C type?
Some of you are clearly mad. I mean that only in the best of ways.
I have another, related, question.
I know a man in the USA who owns a Jaguar. The car in question left the factory as an XKC model. During its long racing career, it has had many pieces replaced, some because of wear and some because of "incidents" along the way that left large portions of car strewn about the track. I believe much of the subframe as well as most of the bodywork have been replaced. I personally believe that the only components that this chassis left the factory with that are still part of the car are the gear box casing, the engine block, and (maybe) the cylinder head. The serial number gives this beautiful machine provenance but my question to you is: would you consider this an “original” C type?
Adrian@ said:
No clarity what so ever, this is after all a TVR forum. What holds true with TVR's would just be laughed about in Jaguar circles.
Adrian@
Adrian. Where were you today and yesterday. I was looking out for you but you didn't appear??Adrian@
John. Went to your S turbo a few times during the weekend but you were awol. We were all in garage 22. sorry I missed you speak soon.
Neil.
Gassing Station | TVR Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff