>>I do feel this list by its fragmentation is becoming
>>elitist - and for entirely thewrong reasons.
>
>Elitist? Really? Maybe I'm blind but I don't see it.
Outside
>of a few good nature ribbings I don't see anyone suggesting
>that certain models stay off of the list.
I agree - no-one has suggested others stay away but the way
the list has broken into predominantly TR's and spitfires
suggests
elitism and the distancing between models is coming in
through preference.
>I don't know why there isn't more traffic concerning 6
cylinder
>saloons. I wish there were. I know that they are
exceedingly
>rare here in the US but could it be that they are just too
>practical of a conveyence to become a hobby car? That those
>who are driving them are doing so because they need to get
>there? Because they are users and not hobbyists?
Dave, I wasn't suggesting or implying the big saloon owners
in isolation may be feeling they are short changed and I
feel sure there are many Triumph saloon owners who keep
their cars as hobby projects rather than daily drivers. That
said, I know there are at least 20,000 Big Six Triumphs
still licenced in the UK who are not Club members. For those
people, the cars probably ARE daily drivers, though for many
of the 30,000 plus Triumph members with British clubs, their
cars are both daily and hobby vehicles. Primarily, the
gripes coming to me are from people who feel that because
the list is US based and the US and Canada only bought the
sports cars, many other Triumph owners who have a great deal
to contribute themselves, feel outsiders. What many US
listers seem to overlook (though no-one is criticising them)
is that the sports cars themselves were by no means the only
cars made by the company. Another widely held view seemingly
only visible in North America, is that non-sports cars were
in the minority of those made by the company. This simply
isn't true and makes existing listers only partially
representative of Triumph enthusiasts and the cars it made.
For many ordinary owners of other Triumphs, I've had it said
to me that this list is a crushing bore because its just TR,
GT6, Spitfire and VERY little else. As an example, some
285000 Spitfires were made throughout its history, while
about 500,000 Dolomites, Toledos and front
wheel drives (with engines ranging from 1300 - 2000 sixteen
valves) went down
the same/adjoining lines and in much the same period. Then,
there were the Standards plus Barbs, Innsbrucks, Stags and
it
needs to be said that not been for Standard, Triumph might
have died for all time on the night of Nov 14, 1940.
Equally, Herald/Vitesse derivatives were outstandingly
popular on a global scene - and the Mk II Vitesse (almost a
GT6+ in other clothes) was absolutely outstanding. As far as
the big saloons are concerned, it was almost certainly the
accruing profits from these cars in isolation in the
'sixties that
substantially contributed to restoring STI fortunes under
Leyland control such that development for the sports cars
might continue. If it hadn't been for the larger (more
boring(?) cars for North American listers) saloons, the
later Spitfires and GT6's might never have seen the light of
day. This is a crucially important point that the vast
majority either overlook through ignorance or are just not
interested in. I think that's sad.
>I don't know. I don't have my thumb on the pulse of the
psyce
>of the typical saloon driver. I, for one, would like to
see more
>traffic on the larger sedans. After all the differences
are little
>more than skin deep. We all have something to learn form
>one another.
I totally agree. Reverting to an 'all-models, all types'
Triumphs list would certainly increase global 'membership'
progressively and I think it would definitely help to foster
a greater understanding of the company and its products as a
whole, apart from expanding the cameraderie among
enthusiasts. Only last week, I took a group of 15 North
American 'Triumph enthusiasts' round the display hall at
Gaydon and we (naturally) spent rather more time with the
Triumphs than we did with MG. Their open-mouthed
astonishment at the number of non-sports Triumphs had to be
seen to be believed. They all thought it was a 'sports car
only manufacturer' and were fascinated by the other models -
especially the 16 valve Dolomite Sprint. My own view is that
outside of the US and Canada, interest in the cars
demonstrated by Triumph owners as a whole is far more
representative of the WHOLE range than part of it. This is
why I feel that elitism through splinterisation has entered
the list as a whole. It goes further than that, too. The
Friends of Triumph list for which membership is only by
invitation concentrates entirely on the racing of sports
cars. From the many posts I've read from FoTers, the racing
scene is entirely US oriented. There's nothing wrong with
that but many FoT listers seem to think their racing
standards and groups are representative of the world as a
whole - and they most certainly are not. For those of us
living outside the US, the rules and groupings are more
gobbledegook than something into which we can translate or
make an approximation as to what is going on.
>I got hold of a 1959 edition of Sports Car Illistrated
which
>had a nice review of the TR10 Station Wagon (estate). Now
>I realize that that is an SC engined car and if I owned one
I would most probably look for guidance on the spitfire list
>(as I would if I had a Hearld or Vitess) but the Vangard
>powered cars and the six cylinder saloons do belong on this
>list. As do you (if for no other reason than to drop the
>occasional bombshell of facts in on an errant discussion
>about who's half backed theory is more correct that
whom's).
Thankyou - I'm sorry if I periodically spoil people's fun. I
don't mean to and I only do that because some of us who were
lucky enough "to see it from the inside looking out" are now
somewhat pre-occupied in correcting a few myths that have
sprung up in the past and need to be rectified before they
become historical fact and cast in bronze for all time.
>I also subscribe to the wedge list. There are more Aussies
and
>New Zealanders on that list than there are on the main list
>which is a much larger list. I wish there were more folks
from
>places other than the US on the list. Then, maybe, some of
these
>SNIP would realize that there is a whole nother
>world out there where things are done differently.
Sometimes
>better, sometimes just different.
Absolutely - and this is why I feel that the lists in their
current structuring are to many people's disadvantage and do
not serve the marque as a whole as perhaps they should. As I
said above, too much splinterisation. It makes me wonder if
the same thing would have happened if MG had continued
making its own saloons rather than badge engineer other BMC
bodies and call them MG's.
>Maybe then they wouldn't
>gripe about paying $1.50 for a gallon of gas, a price most
>of the world's inhabitants would give their eye teeth for.
Well, on that score, 95 octane ROM unleaded has just
increased to about $1.10 a litre in the old country. I
filled up the Sienna chariot over the weekend with the soon
to be banned substance called 4 Star leaded. That little
trip up the road on a trailer to the gas station cost me
US$75 to drive away from the pump. On a range of 325 miles
till I refill again, that's a cost of 23 cents a mile!
Possibly gounds for sympathy?
>But then I am rambling. We have just returned from a 100+
>mile excursion in the TR3 with the local club but nobody on
the
>list wants to hear about that "crap." They said as much.
At our fuel costs and traffic density, that's some
excursion!! BTW, I've copied this to the list as a whole
because I feel that Phil Johnstone (Club Triumph) and Leon
Guyot (Triumph Sports Six), who are both at a high profile
in these important UK based Triumph clubs, might want to
agree/disagree with what I've said and/or add other
dimensions.
Let me just say in conclusion and IMHO that if
triumphs/spitfires/2000-register@autox.team.net lists could
find a way to come together rather than drift apart, the
Triumph following globally would probably be greatly
enhanced and all participants would eventually agree that
convergence is arguably better than divergence.
Cheers
John
|