<VV> Claypool's parts car
airvair at earthlink.net
airvair at earthlink.net
Sat Apr 3 19:15:49 EDT 2010
I want to thank you all for proving my point, in a round-about manner. What
you all proved is that people who think a car has to be restored to an
"as-built" condition (meaning no accessories added or deleted) simply don't
have an answer to the situation I cited. They are absolutely beside
themselves, and can't handle the problem. Their ideology won't allow them
to see reality.
What they cannot grasp is that there may be hundreds if not thousands of
copies of their particular type of car, but maybe only a handful or less of
some rare option. In that case, the option becomes at least as valuable if
not more so than the car. So they fail to see that the best solution is to
salvage the rare option and install it in a viable car, thus preserving not
only the rare accessory, but its installation in a car AND its operation.
So what if it ends up in a car that didn't have it installed by the
factory? At least that rare part of the equation is preserved. And THAT is
my whole point. Why sit something on a shelf, or worse, throw it away when
you can preserve it? And why throw away the knowledge its installation AND
function as well? Preserve history by installing it in a car. That does the
most good possible.
Anyway, thanks again guys, for proving me right.
> [Original Message]
> Subject: Re: <VV> Claypool's parts car
> If the shoe fits....
> I was just trying to return the intellectual discussion to the parameters
> had laid out originally, parameters you (or someone like you) violated.
> whole discussion would be pointless if you violate those parameters.
> Apparently, you don't like to stick to the rules in any game. You must be
> horrible with everything from board games on up.
> "Original" vs "restored", etc. as you present it is irrelevant for sake of
> this discussion.
> Anyway, to get back to the original discussion, the point is that there
> three, and ONLY three options. Some Corvette people feel that a car HAS to
> be restored to an "as-built" condition, with NO variation on options. The
> discussion consists of deciding which path is the best: 1) scrap the parts
> car WITH the rare option, 2) scrap the parts car and salvage the option,
> only for it to become a dustcatcher on a shelf, or 3) do #2 but install
> option in an appropriate car. NOTE that "restoring the parts car" is
> absolutely, positively NOT an option in this intellectual discussion. What
> part of "no" don't you understand? And I don't care who has what
> capabilities. Consider if the God of all heaven and earth, who created the
> entire universe, wouldn't have the power to "restore the parts car". Use
> THAT parameter, then maybe you can possibly grasp the idea.
> Again, what I want to discuss is that of the possible three options, which
> is best. My position is that #3 is the best, because #1 loses everything,
> #2 loses the knowledge and function of an installed and working system,
> while #3 preserves it all. Preserving it in a car that had it in in the
> first place is incidental and really not all that earth-shatteringly
> important. And THAT is where I feel such Corvette people are doing more
> damage than benefit. THAT is my point.
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Chris & Bill Strickland <lechevrier at earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Re: <VV> Claypool's parts car
> > >such a thing as the limit of practicality. If some people choose to
> exceed it, so be it. But at some point, you simply don't have enough left
> of the "original" item to call it the original item. You get my point?
> > >
> > And, to whom are you speaking? Perhaps, to me?
> > If so, the point is that the limit of practicality is different for
> > different people and different locales -- Take Widman's 1960 -- on the
> > west coast, it is a hopless crushable basket case -- I sold a better
> > body shell for scrap as no one wanted it for free -- In Bolivia, with
> > their import laws, labor rates, and Richard's desire, suddenly it
> > changes to a doable project.
> > http://www.widman.biz/Corvair/English/English.html
> > You can't impose your standards of practicallity onto others -- it is
> > individual thing dependant upon individual situations, individuasl
> > resources, and individual desires.
> > And, I believe you are introducing a new argument in regards to the
> > original post -- "originality". Your words, "restored to 'as built'
> > condition" only refers to condition, not originality, so now, you want
> > to talk "originality"? Well, Original and restored can not, by
> > definition, sit side by side -- only unrestored cars are "original" --
> > once you start restoring, you can aim for your "original condition",
> > the process itself destroys any "originality".
> > Cars are only original once, and any change to said vehicle destroys a
> > part of that originality, even though "routine maintenence" requires
> > it. So, what is it you want? "Original", "maintained as original", or
> > "restored to original condition" -- the end result may be similar, but
> > they are not the same thing.
> > Regardless of any organization's rules which may attempt to define such
> > otherwise. Calling a rose a fish doesn't make it so.
> > Apologies to Richard for mis-speaking his surname in an earlier post.
> > mo, and I'm stuck to it.
> > Bill Strickland
More information about the VirtualVairs