Why the obsession with originality of classics?
Discussion
Yertis said:
Depends on the car surely and how well it's been modified and by whom. An unmodified TR6 isn't that nice a car to drive IMO, but one with a well sorted suspension is transformed, and terrific fun to throw around. And what about Monaros? You'd be hard pushed to find one that's not been modified to some extent, while still 'new', and they're nowhere near classic status yet.
My own view is that if a car is actually being used to get from a to b, and is not some kind of preserved-in-aspic museum-piece, then making it better at going from a to b is perfectly valid. Happens in aerospace all the time. We don't say, "Oh the character of that Tornado has been ruined by the fitting of modern avionics" do we.
But the MOD don't collect classic jet planes as their hobby (OK a few) they want Tornadoes to kill people or at least as a threat that they might kill people. So anything that makes them more efficient for this purpose is OK and the primary reason for updating the avionics is that the MOD can't afford a whole new set of planes so upgrading what they've got is cheaper.My own view is that if a car is actually being used to get from a to b, and is not some kind of preserved-in-aspic museum-piece, then making it better at going from a to b is perfectly valid. Happens in aerospace all the time. We don't say, "Oh the character of that Tornado has been ruined by the fitting of modern avionics" do we.
Some people have old cars because they don't have new cars, like with your Tornado example.
Most people on this forum have old cars (which have been labelled by ourselves and stuff everyone else's opinion, as classics) because we want to have old cars.
An upgrade that significantly changes the driving experience then changes the reason for wanting the car. An XK with a Guy Broad 5speed box is much easier to drive than one with a Jaguar Moss box. But if you want easy to drive a modern X100 or X150 XK would be easier still to drive.
At the end of the day you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Yertis said:
Happens in aerospace all the time. We don't say, "Oh the character of that Tornado has been ruined by the fitting of modern avionics" do we.
The Tornado is a current front-line combat aircraft. It is there to do a job. It's the best available 'daily driver', for its pilots.If a Lancaster bomber was fitted with modern avionics, power controls and quad Pratt and Whitney turboprop engines, I'm pretty sure that we'd very much say that it had been ruined.
Equus said:
This
If I want to drive a modern car, I buy a modern car, strangely enough.
Strangely enough a modified or upgraded classic car isn't a modern car. If I want to drive a modern car, I buy a modern car, strangely enough.
Modifying cars to improve performance or reliability has taken place since the first car turned a wheel, why should it suddenly cease when a car reaches a certain age ?
Almost every classic car I've owned has been modified to some extent, from indicators fitted to supplement trafficators to a five speed gearbox, electronic ignition, larger capacity radiator, radial tyres, alternator conversion ... whatever.
None of which made any of them into a modern car, just a classic car with improved usability in modern traffic conditions.
Why do you feel the need to take everything to extremes ?
Randy Winkman said:
LotusOmega375D said:
Here's how I view it. Let's say there are two examples of the same car parked side-by-side at a car show. It doesn't matter whether a Mini or a Maserati. One is presented as modified and the other as factory original. It would always be the factory original car, which would garner most of my attention.
But which one would you like to own and drive?If I want to drive a modern car, I buy a modern car, strangely enough.
Modifying cars to improve performance or reliability has taken place since the first car turned a wheel, why should it suddenly cease when a car reaches a certain age ?
Almost every classic car I've owned has been modified to some extent, from indicators fitted to supplement trafficators to a five speed gearbox, electronic ignition, larger capacity radiator, radial tyres, alternator conversion ... whatever.
None of which made any of them into a modern car, just a classic car with improved usability in modern traffic conditions.
Why do you feel the need to take everything to extremes ?
I ran a MK2 RS2000 with a Zetec twin cam on twin 40 Webers. It needed a couple of stabs of the throttle from cold and would cough and splutter a bit till things had warmed through and it cleared its throat. Even then it needed to be given enough revs to stop plugs fouling and it certainly didn't like to sit or idle for long. It might have been a modern engine but it retained period fuelling etc and the quirks that went with it. It felt a lot like the MK1 Escort twin cam I drove around the same time, which displayed the same foibles.
I buy cars to drive them but and there's no reason why one cannot make that experience a better one without losing a cars character. It's just where do you draw the line? How about swapping out points for electronic ignition? I mean who wouldn't want the experience of being stranded at the roadside when your points gap has closed and you don't have a screwdriver?
Bottom line is there is no wrong answer. What some folk want from a car will simply be different from what others may want.
It's good there are varying opinions on this subject - there's no correct answer each of us has our own reasons for owning a classic, I like to drive something different from todays sad 'Blobs' in a nice colour [not silver, black or white] that stands out from todays Computer designed machines. Obviously It's advantageous if said classic show's some degree of reliabilty, that's a huge bonus IMO. I suspect the anoraks view their classic as an investment [VERY SAD] Me I just enjoy mine - if by fitting modern improvements affects it's value according to the anoraks, then this doesn't bother me - I bought the car to enjoy, the improved reliability that modern engines give it simply improve my enjoyment still further
mph said:
None of which made any of them into a modern car, just a classic car with improved usability in modern traffic conditions corrupted pastiche of what was valuable and interesting about the car before I f
ked with it.
Fixed that for you. ked with it.
You've got to ask yourself what it is that people value about classic cars.
In very few instances is it only the aesthetics. It is also what they represent in terms of their engineering and technological heritage. If you partially destroy that, you're partially destroying what makes them important in the first place (and if they're not important, they're not 'classics').
If you own a classic, regrettably there's nothing anyone can do to force you to care for it sensitively and with at least some degree of taste (as there is with Listed buildings, for example), but you shouldn't be surprised when others don't value your 'improvements' as highly as you do.
It clearly doesn't matter what others value it at.
Sure, you get some spoons who think spending £20k on mods means their car is worth £20k+ more but the majority know the end value isn't what's important but the end product being what they want.
If I bought an XJ12 it would be off to KWE for handling and electrics mods straight away. Why? Because I drive my cars in every day situations so with our modern roads it means I can use them at will. There is also no shortage of original cars out there. It's irrelevant what it costs.
The Suffix A I'm building up will not be remotely '1972'. It'll be a reliable, better handling, fast road car. It's irrelevant that it would be worth more restored to original as that's not what I want. By the end of the project I'll have spent about £50k building what I want. Not what someone else wants.
Would I buy a privately modified car? No. Too many uncertainties over what was done and the quality. No seller would go down to what I'd be offering. I always buy originals as the basis of any project.
Only rarity has a relevance to me. Common cars are open season to do with whatever you want and it is terribly, terribly sad that debt fuelled, currency devaluation economics have inflated asset values and caught old cars up in the fiasco to the point that enthusiasts feel dictated to by dullard investors and speculators.
Sure, you get some spoons who think spending £20k on mods means their car is worth £20k+ more but the majority know the end value isn't what's important but the end product being what they want.
If I bought an XJ12 it would be off to KWE for handling and electrics mods straight away. Why? Because I drive my cars in every day situations so with our modern roads it means I can use them at will. There is also no shortage of original cars out there. It's irrelevant what it costs.
The Suffix A I'm building up will not be remotely '1972'. It'll be a reliable, better handling, fast road car. It's irrelevant that it would be worth more restored to original as that's not what I want. By the end of the project I'll have spent about £50k building what I want. Not what someone else wants.
Would I buy a privately modified car? No. Too many uncertainties over what was done and the quality. No seller would go down to what I'd be offering. I always buy originals as the basis of any project.
Only rarity has a relevance to me. Common cars are open season to do with whatever you want and it is terribly, terribly sad that debt fuelled, currency devaluation economics have inflated asset values and caught old cars up in the fiasco to the point that enthusiasts feel dictated to by dullard investors and speculators.
DonkeyApple said:
Only rarity has a relevance to me. Common cars are open season to do with whatever you want ...
As the law stands at the moment, all cars, no matter how rare or historically important, are open season for their owners to do whatever they want with.Personally, I'd like to see some sort of 'listing' system where (perhaps in return for the historic vehicle road tax exemption) classic and vintage cars were given some sort of graded listing, that reflected their rarity and/or importance, and the level of modifications permitted controlled accordingly.
Historic race cars already have such a system (though perhaps best not to get into discussion of how appropriately it is administered), via the FIA Technical Passport..
Equus said:
DonkeyApple said:
Only rarity has a relevance to me. Common cars are open season to do with whatever you want ...
As the law stands at the moment, all cars, no matter how rare or historically important, are open season for their owners to do whatever they want with.Personally, I'd like to see some sort of 'listing' system where (perhaps in return for the historic vehicle road tax exemption) classic and vintage cars were given some sort of graded listing, that reflected their rarity and/or importance, and the level of modifications permitted controlled accordingly.
Historic race cars already have such a system (though perhaps best not to get into discussion of how appropriately it is administered), via the FIA Technical Passport..
'Listing' has relevance to properties as they tend to be unique not one of thousands of identical machines. When you look at how it operates in property it is very rare for blocks of identical properties to be listed. It is typically a system that protects a particular example not the whole gamut.
And as for the FIA Technical Passport, it is an unregulated system and so, like all unregulated systems where great wealth can be created at the ticking of a box it is wholly corrupt and riddled with signatories for hire. The world of historic racing is poxed with kitcars, ringers and trigger's brooms.
Equus said:
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of 'listing' system where (perhaps in return for the historic vehicle road tax exemption) classic and vintage cars were given some sort of graded listing, that reflected their rarity and/or importance, and the level of modifications permitted controlled accordingly.
I think that does work like that in other countries already, the car has to be in "period" trim to qualify for whatever the local benefit is (reduced taxation etc).DonkeyApple said:
People simply aren't buggering about with genuinely rare cars.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm afraid I just don't trust self regulation. And if thousands of examples remain of a certain car, it would obviously attract a very low level of 'listing', allowing much greater flexibility of modification and lower levels of scrutiny (which is basically how the building listing system works, too, only it's on rarity or historic importance of features rather than the whole building, necessarily).
I agree with you entirely about the state of the FIA Technical Passport system, but it's a hell of a lot more closely regulated than roadgoing classics... with the latter, you can add 'tastelessly and inappropriately modified' to your list of kitcars, ringers and trigger's brooms.
InitialDave said:
I think that does work like that in other countries already, the car has to be in "period" trim to qualify for whatever the local benefit is (reduced taxation etc).
I guess the other way to enforce it would be via the MOT system: if you want to modify your old car (or opt out of the 'listing' process altogether), fine, but if you do so it triggers modern levels of scrutiny and compliance, including emissions.Equus said:
mph said:
None of which made any of them into a modern car, just a classic car with improved usability in modern traffic conditions corrupted pastiche of what was valuable and interesting about the car before I fked with it.
Fixed that for you. ked with it.Equus said:
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of 'listing' system where (perhaps in return for the historic vehicle road tax exemption) classic and vintage cars were given some sort of graded listing, that reflected their rarity and/or importance, and the level of modifications permitted controlled accordingly.
Brilliant. More rules, more bureaucracy, more needless and pointless cost which will affect thousands of car owners, many of whom have modestly-valued classics, and most of whom take the entirely reasonable view that they'd quite like to be allowed to do whatever they want to their own cars thanks-very-much-Mr-Stasi. The last thing cherished car owners need is any more dis-incentive to use the bloody things, surely?
CharlesdeGaulle said:
Equus said:
Personally, I'd like to see some sort of 'listing' system where (perhaps in return for the historic vehicle road tax exemption) classic and vintage cars were given some sort of graded listing, that reflected their rarity and/or importance, and the level of modifications permitted controlled accordingly.
Brilliant. More rules, more bureaucracy, more needless and pointless cost which will affect thousands of car owners, many of whom have modestly-valued classics, and most of whom take the entirely reasonable view that they'd quite like to be allowed to do whatever they want to their own cars thanks-very-much-Mr-Stasi. The last thing cherished car owners need is any more dis-incentive to use the bloody things, surely?
I'm definitely not the more bloody rules camp, its bad enough as it is!!
LotusOmega375D said:
DonkeyApple said:
So let's say there are 5,000 of a particular old car remaining. They are all parked in a field and they are all absolutely identical. All as they left the factory. Just what's the point? It would be like being at an IT or accountancy convention.
Seems a rather unlikely scenario to me, but you're welcome to arrange it for us.Go to the Le Mans Classic next year and you'll get to see row upon row of near identical 911s of each generation.
Equus said:
mph said:
None of which made any of them into a modern car, just a classic car with improved usability in modern traffic conditions corrupted pastiche of what was valuable and interesting about the car before I fked with it.
Fixed that for you. ked with it.You've got to ask yourself what it is that people value about classic cars.
In very few instances is it only the aesthetics. It is also what they represent in terms of their engineering and technological heritage. If you partially destroy that, you're partially destroying what makes them important in the first place (and if they're not important, they're not 'classics').
If you own a classic, regrettably there's nothing anyone can do to force you to care for it sensitively and with at least some degree of taste (as there is with Listed buildings, for example), but you shouldn't be surprised when others don't value your 'improvements' as highly as you do.
You have a habit of projecting your own values onto others and then speaking on their behalf. You have no idea of how I care for my cars. At least I own several classic cars which is more than you do apparently.
I'm a professional engineer and any "improvements" on my cars are carried out with taste and for valid reasons. I've also owned, and had restored, significantly historic vehicles which remained totally unmodified. I understand and appreciate where modifications are desirable and where they're not.
You put yourself forward as the arbiter of all that's acceptable in the Classic car movement and you do so in an unnecessarily aggressive and unpleasant manner.
You claim to be a professional person. I can only assume that in your profession good manners aren't a pre-requisite.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff