I suppose this is a question that no-one can satisfactorily answer and on that
premise, one could question the validity of asking it in the first place - but
here goes...
Generally speaking, it is my perception that the majority of US enthusiasts
strive for 'total originality' in the restoration process of their cars that
borders almost on manic obsession - though there are many exceptions to this
rule. By contrast, in the UK and Europe (don't know about further afield) we
tend to take a more laid back approach to originality as a whole OK, I'm at
ease with all of that.
But what does perplex me is the tendency by what appears to be a steadily
increasing majority to start reviewing and arguing the toss on the
merits/demerits of 'later technology' being employed in cars that in
themselves are by no means a stroke of technical genius. In the past, I've
read of people getting obsessive about synthetic versus mineral oil, rubber
versus polyurethane suspension bushings, revability concerns about the 4 pot
TR engine, crankshaft vibration dampers, roller rockers, Toyota clutch thrust
bearings, cylinder head porting characteristics, slanging matches about roller
rockers, oil tightness - or the lack of it and heaven knows what else.
Surely its better to let sleeping dogs lie?
Standard-Triumph products are no different to their peer competitors of any
given comparable period. They reflected the manufacturing norms / product
expectations of more than thirty years ago - and some cases further back than
that. They are lawnmowers in terms of sophistication, they always will be - so
what can anyone gain by getting hot under the collar when it comes to
'importing' later or different technology to use in them? At best, only a
marginal difference and will it make them 'cut the grass any better?' My two
Triumphs are the large saloon versions - one of which is fuel injected and
both have major shortcomings in comparison to the cars of today. The only
concession I have given them are spin-on oil filters - but otherwise they
remain as they were built. Basic, ordinary, warts and all cars of 1970 and 74
respectively. They are athsmatic (one especially so), don't handle very well -
but adequately for the period and they are nothing more than quaint old fun. I
neither want or expect any more of them but am rapidly coming to the
conclusion this hobby is moving towards unacceptable limits (for me) where the
logic of almost everything that was done all those years ago is being called
seriously into question - and in pursuit of some form excellence that will
pass the scrutiny of today's standards of excellence.
It seems utterly pointless and periodically makes me wonder why I continue to
persevere with the movement as a whole. Frankly I am bored rigid by what I
read in my email box each day. My first move will probably be to cancel my
participation in these various lists, then jack in my clubs memberships - and
finally, sell the cars to someone who will want to turn them into something
they were never designed to be.
A return to the realms of reality and an acceptance of how things were because
that's the way they were would be SO refreshing but, I fear, a very vain
hope.
Jonmac
/// 6pack@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|