Repowered Classics

[ERC]

The way I see it there are as many ideas on what is and what isn't a "classic" as there are owners and cars. Whilst I appreciate the time, effort and workmanship that has gone into your MG ERC I personally don't see it as a classic as it exists. I would consider it to be a hotrod. Had that particular MG been raced 25 or more years ago as it now exists then it would be a whole different story.

And therein lies the major issue. How do you then define a Hot Rod? A Zephyr raced in period with a Corvette engine was just accepted as "a car". Put a 1970 Corvette engine into a Mk4 Zodiac today and it magically becomes a Hot Rod.

Why do we need to to have specific definitions anyway? Everything is down to Personal Perception. As several regular posters on here know, I carried out a very quick quiz on perception and the results enlightening.

Some time in the late 70s I attended a meeting at the Auckland Car Club called by a group who were trying to get a series running for pre 1960 cars. There was no resolution at the end because there was so many differing views as to what should or shouldn't be allowed and as and added problem there were already a couple of cars being built and the owner/builders wanted the rules written to suit their cars.

No surprises there then! Nothing changes... Most series develop to suit a perceived need and I am the first to admit that long before I even dreamed of building my own car, I was aware that Jo Hill's Triumph Herald V8 was outlawed from mainstream classic competition, as many deemed it a Hot Rod, but what I saw was a well constructed car, driven with verve and a real crowd pleaser on Targa.

Watching the on track performance of many drivers over many years, the ones who really get the crowds on their feet are the pre-cursors to the drifters. The days when there was more power than grip. That is why Muscle cars are so popular today. Smoking tyres and bags of oversteeer appeal to the crowds far more than beautifully driven Formula Fords. Just put Ken Smith in Formula Ford or Skidmark Parsons in his TR8 or Mal Clark's Rover on old rally tyres and ask the average (and I do mean average) spectator who rates the higher in spectator appeal?

However, anyone wanting to recreate the SPIRIT of a bygone age, by putting in a larger engine is now deemed to be a hot rodder, even though the car may have been built out of period parts.

I am NOT taking a dig at anyone in particular here nor everyone in general so please no one get offended by what I have written. I would not envy the job of setting the rules for any class. Let us remember that things should be done within the "spirit of the regulations".

Spot on. I don't take offence, but the spirit of the regulations is indeed the key point. It should also be the spirit of the age and in that respect, many people change tack 180 degrees.

Dave's post above is in similar vein. Perception/viability/sustainability/practicality etc. It is not a one dimensional issue, but some see it that way. "It wasn't done in period". Why not? Because no-one thought of it. That is the only reason and for some of us, that is not sufficient to outlaw.

Meanwhile, the critics will fit electronic ignition, use modern oils/filters/tyres/shocks/disc pads, remanufactured heads, cams and cranks (even blocks!) to a better quality etc., "to iron out issues with the originals" not to mention data loggers, shift lights etc., to their own "classics".