Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcoat
The definition has gone from "Any production car that, with minimal modification, can be used competitively in motorsports"
To "certain production cars that are a purpose designed chassis that it does not share with any other vehicle and is used competitively in motor sports but not drag racing since it isn't a real motorsport"
This pretty much narrows things down to what I consider to be sports cars.
For the record I do not now nor have I ever thought an R/T was a sports car. It is just a very good case sample of how the 54 year old definition from the book is meaningless by today's standards and accepted definitions.
Oh, and drag racing is a motorsport the same as any type of racing is. To claim it is not is just plan wrong.
|
Pretty unrepresentative of both my points. Also just to note no one claimed drag racing isn't a motorsport, but moreover that for the purpose of defining Sportscars in the common idiom. For that purpose drag cars don't really apply as they are heavily modified cars of really any chassis type. You also purposefully didn't address any of my Coronet points, but I really don't care about that. Since it seems that, in this case, you're dead set on reductionist tactics simply to make or win a point (like there's any way to win an argument on the internet). I'll just leave it at agree to disagree and I'm going to exit this conversation at this final point.
Final note, because your out of hand dismissal here of Paul Frere's concept kind of gets my goat. How disrespectful of someone that probably contributed more to your own life's occupation and hobbies than just about anyone. This through his testing for major mfgs, recommendations, education programs and motorsports outreach. Really bad look man. Importantly, Frere's definition didn't come from the book I noted, but in another article during his long stint as Editor at the Eurpoean Road & Track (not 52 years ago.) Quoting the man or understanding his thoughts through his many writings are not some weakness. Of course historical perspective and nuance matter. Still the ideas are worth more than simple reduction, redirection and dismissal (subjective or not.) Once again, he was not "some guy", in the way that Chapman, Foyt, Bondurant, Andretti, McLaren are not just "some guys". He was one of the greatest who added to motorsports, craft, and discussion in almost every conceivable way. He wrote prolifically about motorsports from age 21 to 91 all the while he becoming an Driver, Engineer, and Journalist. He won championships in motorcycle, F1 (Ferrari) and Sports Car racing (LeMans.) He has a corner named for him at Spa-Francorchamps. He didn't care of his own ego so much so he wrote
the book on car handling physics in simple terms so everyone could understand and participate. Previously driving greats and press espoused that going fast came mostly as a result of god given gifts. Indeed, how to go fast was an improvable skill. So sharp and valued were his insights that he continued to be a paid test driver for Mazda, Honda, and Porsche well into his 80's. He died in 2008 at 91 years old from the affects of injuries suffered testing the Civic Type-R in 2006 at the age of 89. He knew what he was talking about and deserves better than that from someone of your age and background.