"Batman the Horse" (batmanthehorse)
10/04/2016 at 13:56 • Filed to: Theseus | 2 | 5 |
How do we even legally define a car?
lone_liberal
> Batman the Horse
10/04/2016 at 14:21 | 4 |
To me it’s more of a car when it is driven enough to be crashed than if it was more “original” (whatever that means for a race car since they are continually changed) and sat in a museum. Then it’s an artifact or a sculpture. The reverse is worse, though. If something is restored to an impossible degree and then sits it stops being a car and is purely sculpture it loses the historic aspect.
RallyWrench
> Batman the Horse
10/04/2016 at 14:30 | 2 |
That car is right back to being properly used, it was at the pointy end of the early 60's GT grid at Laguna. That’s about as “car” as it gets. Overrestored cars, with chrome or polish where there shouldn’t be, too-thick paint, cosmetically restored but non-running especially, are just museum pieces. That’s why I prefer historic races and rallies to museums and Concours, you’re missing most of the experience when they’re stationary.
camaroboy68ss
> Batman the Horse
10/04/2016 at 14:41 | 1 |
Ah the age old restoration question of how far is too far? Along with a Ferrari like this, the muscle car world is hot bed of debate for this as well. The main factor is do you restore, say a 69 Camaro Z/28, you have decided to go all original but how far do you go? In the 90's and early 2000s a lot of restorations did “assembly line” fresh restorations but that cannot be farther from the truth. None of your Chevys, fords or mopars in the late 60s came off the line with perfect panel gaps, zero over spray, perfect inspection marks(if they had any) or black painted undersides. Lately the trend has seem cars restored now with the improper gaps, overspray everywhere and correct markings. I understand a few cars need to be this high of caliper to preserve the line practices but in the parking lot car show you end up taking it too, who cares?
Berang
> Batman the Horse
10/04/2016 at 15:29 | 0 |
I think depends on the state of the car. If something is a total wreck, or was modified in the past, or possibly butchered in a previous restoration, I don’t see the point in preserving it as it sits. Sure accident damage, bodges, and bad repaints tell some sort of story about the car’s life - but they’re usually not important parts of the story.
Take look at the 1938 VW beetle that was discovered a few years ago and recently “restored”.
This car started out as a hand built prototype beetle. It then went through decades of abuse and terrible hacks until what was left of it was what is pictured above. It made no sense to preserve it in its hideously deformed state. So they restored it. And by restore I mean they basically built a new car to the 1938 specs, which incorporates what was left of the original car when they found it.
Sure it’s no longer original, but it wasn’t original anymore when they found it. It is however a lot more useful as an artifact now than it would have been had they left it as found, since even if it lacks originality it is a far better example of what the 1938 protoypes looked like than the hack job it had been turned into by decades of neglect.
Then take for example this 1936 Toyota, the oldest known survivor:
The museum which has it wants to preserve its originality, even though it has been extensively hacked up and as it sits it is not exactly a great representation of originality. I think it has been modified enough that there’s no real point in preserving it as is - it’s preserving more unoriginal aspects than original - so why not go ahead and restore it?
On the other hand I’ve seen cars in pretty good shape get “restored” which is also a disaster.
AfromanGTO
> Batman the Horse
10/04/2016 at 16:28 | 0 |
I don’t mind an over restoration of a classic. If I am going to spend that much money. I want the panels to align perfectly, have all of the gaps uniform, and perfect paint. I’d also like to have everything put together like a Wednesday car. I’d prefer it to look perfect, and then go out and use it.