Driving vs originality

Herman · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:57 pm

A posting by Johan:

Quote:

For all those deeply fortunate individuals who use and/or race their cars, I wish to raise a subject, but my own thoughts are so garbled that I am afraid I am going to ramble on a bit. It's that whole using vs. preservation philosophy thing that's got me going , herewith some random thoughts, observations plus a few things I've read :

Owner of a very original sports racing car refusing to race at Goodwood because he does not want his car humiliated by hot-rod D-Types. Fangio telling the owner of a 250F that he used 11 000 revs during a race, but had a new engine for each ; owner telling Fangio he uses only 9000 because he has only one engine. ERA R4D - without comment. Should the Williams Monaco winning T35 be raced? Is a car mothballed in a museum still alive? What purpose does such a car serve? How is that different from the raced one? What can be done to improve the reliability of an old engine? What can be done to improve the performance of an old engine? What should never be done to improve either? Finally, and this one is specifically for those who race their own cars both hard and frequently : What is the difference between racing and vandalism? (I'm not being facetious, I am talking about your own approach, or philosophy if you like ; is there a line you will not cross in the pursuit of a faster time?)

Now I've confused myself even more, so feel free not to respond. But I'm really damn curious to hear how love of Bugatti manifests itself.

Thanks
Johan Buchner

Herman · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:02 pm

One thing I found very interesting, and which I also experienced (racing sailboats):

* How much risk will you take during a race, knowing you might damage things?

* Are cars in musea dead? Let's put it this way: I (and many with us) really like the sprints at the concours at Paleis Het Loo. This is where the cars get their karma. Roaring exhausts, screaming tyres, that's what it is about.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:37 pm

Something else I've thought of : The guy who races his original T35 against some rich tosser in a replica is in a no-win situation. He has to preserve and look after the original for future generations, as well as wanting to enjoy the racing. The replica driver merely has to decide how much money he's prepared to spend to fix another blown engine or crumpled body and twisted chassis. But if you ban all replicas, then that whole debate over what exactly constitutes a replica starts all over again. And only allowing replicas , well , that's no solution either, is it?

I wonder if it is possible to ban all ass-holes from historic racing? Then again, perhaps defining an a**-hole would prove every bit as difficult as defining a replica. The American Supreme Court's definition of pornography is interesting : "I can't tell you what it is, but I'll recognise it when I see it."

Just a thought.
Johan

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:07 am

Reading through my own post again, I fear I may have given the impression that all replica owners are tossers; I assure you this was not my intention. The term "tosser" applies to many owners of the real thing as well. And there are some owners of both who are actually, so I have heard, quite charming. You know, good people.

Glad I cleared that up.
Johan

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:07 am

That's the advantage of buying a Van Gogh: It was intended to hang on the wall, as a collector you can hang it on the wall.

If you buy a Bugatti, if you ride it, you will wear out certain parts, which later need replacing, reducing the originality of your Bugatti. If you race it, you can damage it and it wears even worse, so you need replaments, maybe even replacement bodywork after a crash. Gone is your original car.
If you put it in a museum, the car is "dead".

Either way, you loose.

I'll buy a van Gogh then, instead of a Bugatti!

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:09 am

Make that a Rembrandt Bugatti sculpture! I like them better than van Gogh's, you can put them anywhere (even in your garage), and it won't wear or lose originality!

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:06 pm

Point taken, but no work of fine art, regardless of how moving, awesome, controversial etc, was ever meant to be a life form in itself, it is merely the vision, thoughts and feelings of the artist expressed in bronze, granite or on canvas. Every Bugatti, original, replica or Piech, has an internal combustion engine which imbues it with a soul and a personality. A Bugatti is alive, and as with all living creatures, including people, this life will end. The debate is not that, given enough time, all cars will die, but rather how to define a dead car.

Are dead cars mothballed in museums, or do they eventually have so many components replaced that they become, effectively, clones of themselves? All machines, when used, must wear out. But remember Jaap, that's why Ettore designed them, to be sacrificed for the glorification of racing-drivers. It does make for some interesting "choices of the heart" for the modern day owner/racer, doesn't it? Mind you, given the complexity of both Bugatti the man and his cars, simple solutions must remain impossible. The same goes for all cars loved by enthusiasts.

Johan

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:18 pm

Johan, my point was different: original cars are impossible (unless they're dead). In my opinion Bugattis were meant to be driven, so sooner or later some components will have to be replaced, either by originals or by new ones. All discussion about originality of the Bugattis is going beyond what they were intended for. All operations on Bugattis, undertaken from the 30's until now, taking donor organs was to keep them alive, to keep the heart beating! So: I'd rather see a Bugatti with parts from all over the place (Imaginary replica frame, T44 axles, T49 engine, T35 radiator or whatever) is better than no Bugatti at all, or a dead one in a museum for that matter.

And: Not all Bugattis have internal combustion engines (the T52, T56 and of course the steam engine!).

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:43 pm

Mentioning the T52, 56 and the steam engine is just the kind of vicious underhand retort I would use. I am very impressed! Overall I think we agree, but the oldest existing Bugatti is now perfectly preserved in Prague, and I am reasonably sure that it will stay that way. To start using this car would be every bit as tragic as retiring the late Rodney Felton's Brescia trials car.

The point I'm trying to make is quite simple ; complex problems deserve complex solutions. What would be considered an act of appalling vandalism against the Prague Bugatti, could very well be termed "an average day's use" for the Felton one. It is up to the owner to make these difficult choices, knowing full well that regardless of which course he decide upon, he will be cheered and jeered in roughly equal measure by people who do not own Bugattis. People like me in other words. I love it when Bugattis are enjoyed, but hate it when they get damaged. Is it any wonder that the B.O.C. ignore people like me?

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:51 pm

Ok, I'm also convinced that we start to agree.

These cars were never build to remain original (there are even doubts about the use of non-original parts by the factory itself!), but to be used!

All debate about originality is very much caused by the incedible value of these cars (which, if you look at it from an other side, are like 250 year old men, who used to win marathons when they were young, and are still running today), if this value was not so ridiculously high, there would not be the same debate about originality.

In the end, it's the owner who decides what he's going to do, whether preserving originality, turning it into a hot-rod, or taking it apart for parts. I myself know of two cars that I think should be taken apart, to remove their engines. Those who know me know what cars I'm talking about!

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:08 pm

The Dean car is a much more appropriate home for that engine than in a plane which never flew. If you put it back into the original airframe, it will become merely an ornament. And a replica airframe? A replica engine, of course.

J.J.Horst · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:44 pm

A replica airframe, and as many as possible original parts. Reason for this is that the original wooden frame can not be used anymore. Many of the metal parts can be used, of most of them two were made in fact.

How does 3 out of 5 work for an airplane??

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:11 pm

Jaap, this is what makes it all so interesting. You have a great passion for that plane, and you have done an enormous amount of work to raise awareness of it. Because of you seeing it in flight might soon be possible. So yes, I am very sure that you will move heaven and earth to obtain the original engines.

But while it most certainly is a thing of great beauty, I have been madly in love with the late Martin Dean's creation ever since Ronald "Steady" Barker road-tested it for the second issue of Supercar Classics (Actually that's not quite true, in the beginning I thought the standard T59 was prettier). There is but one thing to do with differences : Celebrate them!

I wish you success with the Bugatti plane.

Johan

superleggera · **Joined:** Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:13 am **Posts:** 97

Unfortunately "originality" isn't what you will find in most museums with the mothballed Bugatti's. Most are somewhat derelict due to non-use, mis-use or were non-runners long before they were put on static display. (or wrongly modified by museum staff without the background to properly restore/fix) I've taken a close look at quite a few with advanced permission to view afterhours (and document) -- and the atrocities that can be viewed when looking beneath the dash, under the chassis or within the engine compartment are numerous.

Trick is identifying what is "factory correct" via the above and hopefully using that as a standard for future restorations or keeping one alive in use on the road still today.

Johan Buchner · **Posted:** Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:04 pm

Another dimension to be considered. You are absolutely right, just because it has not been touched in ages, doesn't mean it was correct when withdrawn from service in the first place. I've just always assumed that chassis 365, apart from being the oldest Bugatti, is also the most untouched. But now I'm starting to wonder if that is actually the case. Has anyone seen this car up close recently? In what condition is it?

Thanks for bringing this up Mark. Bugatti ownership truly is about responsibility, not only to the car, but also to future generations. As time goes by, the issue just keep getting more and more complicated. After James Diffey's untimely death, his wife honoured her husband's memory by trailing his Brescia. Retiring the car may be the way to prevent any further wear and tear, but by using it as her husband did she is doing something infinitely more glorious. And when it wears out, so what? The memory of James Diffey is worth any number of rebuilds. Not so?

More to ponder. And then even more. It is good.

With Gratitude
Johan

Driving vs originality

Who is online