159 replies to this topic

[bill patterson]

With all the comments on Autosport, Motor Sport, Classic & Sportscar and Octane; the following quote comes from the Octane magazine thread

The only mag I can confidently say always offers something new and fresh is Vintage Motorsport.

I agree wholeheartedly. I find Vintage Motorsport to be a breath of fresh air which is written by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. OK, the race reports are of the USA scene and major European Events but the feature articles are worth reading and the photographs are of excellent quality and properly sized

[Stephen W]

I recently was offered a cut-price introduction to OCTANE and have kept the subscription going as it offers another view on "Vintage" motorsport.

[HDonaldCapps]

Get rid of the vanity, er, vintage race reports and related items and the magazine would improve dramatically over its already excellent state, to say nothing of allowing much more room for its generally excellent articles.

Then again, it would probably also fold, for obvious reasons....

[Red Socks]

Magazine is really quite good but when we get reports like the latest on the Huffaker - which I looked forward to reading - only to find an enthusiatic report on a car with the wrong engine, the wrong gearbox and moden suspension components-with no comment on the fact I began to wonder what the point was.

[Paul Parker]

I have been a subscriber for many years and enjoy Vintage Motor Sport's driver biog articles and race histories because they are mainly about American motor sport, something which the average Brit/European is lamentably ignorant of.

Additionally it is not primarily an ad sheet with articles in between which is very welcome, although like Donald I am not too bothered by the contemporary American 'vintage' racing scene therein but appreciate the need for its editorial coverage.

[Jerry Entin]

The following is the opinion of Willem Oosthoek:
"Having been a regular contributor to Vintage Motorsport the last decade, I noticed that in the past two years editor Randy Riggs has moved to that slippery slope with his requirement that submitted articles contain 4,500 to 5,000 words max, in other words, getting close to the realm of fluff pieces. Motorracing subjects from the past need more space if they are to be covered in depth. Also, basic proofreading of historical facts seems to have been put on the backburner in spite its bi-monthly circulation, which should provide plenty of time to avoid the frequent bloopers in recent issues. Other annoying features of the magazine are the columns which are becoming increasingly focused on the personal lifestyle of its writers, and how they spent the summer/winter between classic car events. Nothing to do with motorracing history, but perhaps the columnists have run out of relevant material. The magazine's lay-out is not particlar good either, fuzzy to look at, with the commingling of regular articles and pages and pages of ads.

At only half of VM's production run, I find that Casey Annis' monthly magazine Vintage Racecar has made tremembous strides the last few years. Articles are longer and more in depth, subjects more diverse and international, and historic racing coverage more limited. Today it is the better magazine if motorracing history happens to be your primary interest."

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Jerry Entin
The following is the opinion of Willem Oosthoek:
"Having been a regular contributor to Vintage Motorsport the last decade, I noticed that in the past two years editor Randy Riggs has moved to that slippery slope with his requirement that submitted articles contain 4,500 to 5,000 words max, in other words, getting close to the realm of fluff pieces. Motorracing subjects from the past need more space if they are to be covered in depth. Also, basic proofreading of historical facts seems to have been put on the backburner in spite its bi-monthly circulation, which should provide plenty of time to avoid the frequent bloopers in recent issues. Other annoying features of the magazine are the columns which are becoming increasingly focused on the personal lifestyle of its writers, and how they spent the summer/winter between classic car events. Nothing to do with motorracing history, but perhaps the columnists have run out of relevant material. The magazine's lay-out is not particlar good either, fuzzy to look at, with the commingling of regular articles and pages and pages of ads.

At only half of VM's production run, I find that Casey Annis' monthly magazine Vintage Racecar has made tremembous strides the last few years. Articles are longer and more in depth, subjects more diverse and international, and historic racing coverage more limited. Today it is the better magazine if motorracing history happens to be your primary interest."

I have to admit that I find myself nodding as I read Willem's comments on VM. I was not aware of the 5K max on the articles, but, as they say, upon reflection it seems to make the light bulb begin to gain a few Watts and "Doh!" burst from the lips. Are the articles getting in the way of the vanity race reports?

As for Vintage Racecar, in the past I was not very kind to it and still feel my criticism is justified for what was being produced at the time. However, I will second Willem's opinion that it has made tremendous strides in recent years. I now find myself actually paying attention to an issue after I have read it versus the former scan-and-shelve routine. Indeed, I find myself looking forward to the arrival of VR, something that I would have once considered bordering on the improbable. However, they -- along with Motor Sport, still need to correct the nonsense printed regarding the 1933 Tripoli GP to give that particular axe another pass or three on the grindstone.....

[Paul Parker]

My God, 4,500-5,000 words for a magazine article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If only. In British magazines you are lucky to be allowed 1,500-2,000 and most of the time it is less. This obviously has to do with the need to maintain/increase revenue from advertising space and also keeps payment to non-staff contributors down as we are paid per 1,000 words.

I well recall one ex-editor of a British journal telling me that it was a magazine not a reference book and if they wanted more info readers should buy the appropriate book(s).

In my opinion much of the print media in this country has been 'dumbed down' not only in content but also with the style of writing and the vocabulary used.

It is undoubtedly sad that most magazines are now aparently aimed at the 14-18, perhaps up to mid-20s age groups for whom apparently superficial, lightweight articles and tabloid speak phraseology are considered adequate.

The irony being that when I was young (sounds of violins playing and the wearing of obligatory rose coloured glasses) it was analytical detail and lots of it that I desired, as I am sure is still the case for others.

Instead younger readers are offered virtually adjective free writing with no flow that reads like some truncated, badly translated instruction manual.

However some journals are definitely improving as I have already suggested so end of bad tempered rant.

Harrumphh.

[timbo]

Originally posted by Stephen W
I recently was offered a cut-price introduction to OCTANE and have kept the subscription going as it offers another view on "Vintage" motorsport.

I buy Octane most times because it sells in the newsagent for under $10, far less than a lot of overseas magazines, including vintage Motorsport.

Just think, if I didn't buy magazines at all, I'd probably have saved enough money to buy a decent historic racing car.

[RA Historian]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Get rid of the vanity, er, vintage race ...

Don, that phrase sums up very nicely what is my view of that segment of the sport. I cannot speak about such racing other than in the US, and it may be very different across the pond, but here I have long been of the opinion that vintage "racing" really is not. It has become apparent to me over the past decade plus that the vintage racing scene has been taken over by boy racer types who want to win at all costs in order to impress others and to have that trophy on their mantle, not for the enjoyment of driving a race car fast. I do not wish to impugn those vintage racers who are members of this forum, for I feel that by reason of their contributions and membership here that they are "legit". But it seems to me that the front runners at most vintage events are driving machines that are far from legitimate. I am tired of far more Listers, D Jags, McLarens, etc., running than ever were built. I am disgusted with Corvettes, Camaros, etc running with bigger engines, modern suspension, altered mounting points, so on and so on, producing cars that are multiple seconds faster than they were, even accounting for improvements in tires. It seems to me that it is fast becoming a situation where the legitimate, period correct cars are far outnumbered by the "hot rods" that pass for vintage racers at most events. For those reasons, and others, I find that I spend the vast majority of my time at such an event in the paddock, looking at the legitimate race cars and talking to the 'anciens pilotes' that I do hanging on the fence.

Getting back to the phrase I copied from Col Capps, yes, that says quite a bit. There really is more vanity than vintage in that form of the sport these days, and that is sad.

Which, of course, brings us to the context of the quote. I skip over the 'race' reports in Vintage Motorsport, et al, because I simply cannot take the text in which some writer is using a bag full of superlatives to describe what Col Capps describes as vanity racing. You know the type of writing and adjectives I mean. Come on, now, remember just what you are seeing. It isn't the Indy 500 or Le Mans after all, but from some of the breathless prose being used one would think that what is being described is one of the great events of the decade. Give me a break.

Also, I have also noticed that there is a level of errors in VM much higher than should be the case. It seems to be annoyingly common to have cars regularly described by the wrong year, such as describing some car as a "1957" model when that series of cars was not even built until 1959. Happens way too frequently. Further, not an issue goes by without errors placing races, wins, etc. in the wrong year. Also, cars are misidentified with too much frequency. A proof reader is desperately needed at that magazine, as well as a photo caption writer who does not write at a third grade level.

As mentioned in earlier posts, the articles are very good indeed and well worth reading. But it is the race reports that get my goat, as you have seen. By all means run some photos of the races, but to have race "reports" is a waste of space. Vintage Racecar covers racing much better with photos and minimal text. After all, the actual racing really does not matter except to the particpants and their families.

I do not say that maliciously, as I am a subscriber and an occasional contibutor. I just want it to get better, much as Motor Sport has done in the past couple years. It can be done.

I probably will get some flak for what I have just written, and I apologize if I have offended anyone. But I simply want vintage racing to shed the hot rod mentality that it has in the US and go back to the enjoyment and driving authentic old racers at speed, and I want the US magazines that cover it to improve their content and cover the cars and history of racing, not waste pages of breathless prose on, as Col. Capps so aptly states, "vanity racing."

Sorry,
Tom

[HDonaldCapps]

Last night I took the time to pull a number of issues of VM off the shelf, both recent and not so recent, and did the same with VR. Hmmmm, it was interesting to realize that over the past, oh, two years that the number of errors, minor and major, and the overall editing of VM certainly was on the skids. I had recognized this, I suppose, but had not realized it, if you will. Plus, the articles seemed somewhat "different" more often, that is shorter and lacking that "editorial touch" we all need. And the space devoted to Vanity Racing seemed more noticeable, although that could be just me.

On the other hand, VR seemed to go in the opposite direction. The articles getting a bit longer, signs of there being an editor with some level of fact checking being done, and generally a more interesting magazine. I continue to ignore all the "market" stuff and the Vanity Racing -- which is much more compressed than in VM. It is not perfect, which is an aspiration not a true goal, but it a damn sight better than it used to be.

Of course, this got me to wondering what is going on, but it was getting late and I decided to save that thought for another day.

As for Tom's comment on Vanity Racing: Go, Tom! I think you nailed it. Something changed and it is not a change for the better. It was fun to see the likes of Our Dave Kane or Mighty Mike Argetsinger or Swift Burt Levy or Wild Willie Green blasting around the track in some sort of machinery and obviously having Fun. The cars were just an excuse to go somewhere, meet other slightly off-center folks, talk, and just enjoy the whole thing. The point of the exercise was the Experience itself. I will saw that I saw some of that at Monte Carlo in May, along with those whose focus was Winning. In my view, the former outnumbered the latter, but then that is just me.

I can understand the urge to buy an old racing machine, fix it up, put it on the track, and have at it. However, when it gets like the Masters or Grand Masters divisions in football (soccer on this side of The Pond) where winning becomes a Death Sport, sorry, but count me out. I played my last league play in such a division and the first year or so was fun. Then it got Serious, followed by Very Serious. As much as I loved to play, I became solely a referee and came to dread my assignment to these divisions, which was another example that one must accept the bad along with the good that the assignor deals out. Ditto with Vanity Racing in too many cases today. It does not take many to change the nature of the game for the rest. I find the Vanity Race reports in VM, well, I think Tom gives you an idea of what I think....

Vintage Racing is one thing, Vanity Racing is another. The former I understand, know why people do it, and can share their enjoyment. The latter....

[Mark A]

I found Vintage Motorsport on the shelf of my local newsagent here in the UK about 18 months ago, I bought a few but then found they did an online subscription which gave the opportunity to read it online, great as I was travelling a lot at this time last year.
They decided to stop doing it earlier this year which was a shame and after I realised and contacted them they have now continued my subscription with the paper copy at no extra cost.

As someone who never saw the old VM I find the current one very good, and as someone who obviously being a resident in Europe knows little of US motorsport history I found it a great insight to that area of racing I know little about.

Personally I'll continue the subscription for another year and after the comments above may order an old copy from them to have a look at how good it used to be as it must have been amazing.


I currently get Motorsport, Octane and Vintage Motorsport on subscription and enjoy them all in their own way.

With regards to the Vanity racing comments, personally I don't read the race reports unless it's a meet I was at or the picture shows something interesting I want to know more about (and this is where the reports could be a precursor to an article on an interesting car that turned up at that race meeting, but rarely are).

Attending race meets I go to see the cars (or meet up with someone I know who is racing). I rarely know the drivers and enjoy watching a good dice between a few cars. The overall result is fairly meaningless to me unless the leading cars are racing together (or I know the driver) which probably brings it back to Toms comments about race reports being for family and friends.

[Ray Bell]

I can verify that the same happens in this corner of the world...

For this reason there are many more Mustangs, for instance, in our Group N races than ever raced here 'in the day'... often driven by people who used to race much smaller cars. They've aged, their wallets have fattened and their egos with them.

The same applies in a number of areas, but I have to say that it's heartening how many are out there in 1500/1600cc openwheelers and driving the wheels off them. Some of these blokes are people who raced them back in the seventies, some are drivers who raced lesser cars then and aspired to get into these little rockets.

Good on 'em! They've kept their sharp edge in their driving and put their skills to the test against each other in a manner that shows the crowd how these cars truly used to race when people like Leo Geoghegan and Greg Cusack and Johnny Harvey and Alfredo Costanzo and Johnny Walker used to spirit them around the circuits.

Of course, at the worst end of this deal is what happened to the Niel Allen ME5 sports car. It was sold to Europe and then went through a course at a wind tunnel so that it gained certain 'minor improvements' in its aerodynamics. It grew a wing too. And I guess it was accepted because nobody in Europe knew or cared a stitch about the reality of the car. I can guarantee that wouldn't be allowed to happen under the CAMS' rules, even if the car came from Greenland or somewhere equally distant.

[red stick]

Originally posted by RA Historian
It seems to me that it is fast becoming a situation where the legitimate, period correct cars are far outnumbered by the "hot rods" that pass for vintage racers at most events. For those reasons, and others, I find that I spend the vast majority of my time at such an event in the paddock, looking at the legitimate race cars and talking to the 'anciens pilotes' that I do hanging on the fence.

*

As mentioned in earlier posts, the articles are very good indeed and well worth reading. But it is the race reports that get my goat, as you have seen. By all means run some photos of the races, but to have race "reports" is a waste of space. Vintage Racecar covers racing much better with photos and minimal text. After all, the actual racing really does not matter except to the particpants and their families.



Sorry,
Tom

Front seat at the BRIC isn't all it's cracked up to be?;)

I don't go to vintage races for the races. I like to see the cars, talk to the people, and hear the stories. I like to hang on the fence and watch, and hear, my favorites go by. But what order they go by in means nothing to me. And as far as I can tell, it means little to most of the people I'm watching with.

[Andrew Stevens]

Unfortunately the running order matters to some of the drivers out there...which is where the problem lies I think! Perhaps organisers should not present prizes to the winners of any race, but at the end of the meet draw a number out of a hat and give the prizes (if any) to everyone who finished in, say, 8th place in each race, just to keep the 'pot hunters' under control. Also the prizes should be to the car, not the driver! After all, isn't vintage/historic racing about the cars?

[Stephen W]

Just picked up the Nov/Dec issue in my town centre WH Smiths; it worked out considerably cheaper than taking out a subscription. I'll start to keep an eye out for the Jan/Feb issue.

I have bought it occasionally in the past but it seems to have upped its game. Will have to get the Sept/Oct issue to read the first part of the LOLA story!

[Pils1989]

Originally posted by Andrew Stevens
Unfortunately the running order matters to some of the drivers out there...which is where the problem lies I think! Perhaps organisers should not present prizes to the winners of any race, but at the end of the meet draw a number out of a hat and give the prizes (if any) to everyone who finished in, say, 8th place in each race, just to keep the 'pot hunters' under control. Also the prizes should be to the car, not the driver! After all, isn't vintage/historic racing about the cars?

What's the point of going racing if your goal isn't 1st place on podium? If it isn't, what a waste of money.

Better off doing track-days then where there is no competition allowed.

[David McKinney]

I am sure your restructuring would make not a blind bit of difference, Andrew
Some drivers will still want to win
It is called Historic Racing, after all
I am not old enough to remember what ERAs looked like being driven flat out before the War, and only just recall 250F Maseratis. But to see them today being driven as they were designed to be driven shows modern spectators what it was all about
It is called Historic Racing, after all
If no-one's going to try, I for one won't bother going to watch

[Stephen W]

Originally posted by David McKinney
I am not old enough to remember what ERAs looked like being driven flat out before the War, and only just recall 250F Maseratis. But to see them today being driven as they were designed to be driven shows modern spectators what it was all about
It is called Historic Racing, after all

I remember the Richard Seamen races at Oulton when there would be a group of ERAs battling race long!

The VSCC events always seemed to bring out the racers in their old cars. The idea of wealthy hooray-Henrys pottering round in third gear would certainly put me off attending!

[RA Historian]

The just-out issue of Vintage Motorsport very unfortunately has an article about a McLaren M8F that is full of falsehoods. The car in question is owned by Scott Hughes, who loudly claims that it is the Peter Revson works M8F from 1971. The article, written by a regular field reporter for the magazine, fawningly repeats all the false claims of Hughes. Apparently, the writer listened to Hughes, took the line of bull in fully, and regurgitated it in print.

What is wrong? Plenty. Let us start by emphatically stating that the Hughes car IS NOT THE REVSON CAR!!!

The Hughes car was not even in existence in 1971, when Peter won the Can Am in an M8F. The Hughes car was built in 1973 by Commander Motor Homes team from spare parts, mainly from Trojan. At that time Commander did have both works M8Fs from 1971, but this car, the Hughes car, was built by Commander as a third team car.

The actual Revson M8F is in a museum in Holland, after years and years in the Peter Kaus collection.

The identities of the cars in question has been verified time and time again. The Hughes car has many significant differences from a works car, such as in number, placement, and type of rivets, bulkheads, body reinforcements, and many other idiosyncrasies that are identifiable by experts. One, the other, and/or both cars have been inspected by experts and verified. Don Devine, noted McLaren owner and authority, has seen them and unequivocally states that the Hughes car is not the Revson car. Doug Nye, whom we all know, is in complete agreement that the Revson car is in the Dutch museum and that the Hughes car is not the Revson car. Jennifer Revson, sister of Peter, who has made it her lifetime mission keeping the memory of Peter alive, knows where her brother's cars are, and this one is in Holland, not with Hughes. I cannot put my finger on his name at the moment, but a Commander team mechanic also verifies that the Hughes car is the Commander car, not the Revson car.

So what is the problem? When Hughes bought the car, from Bill Wonder, I believe, he got a car that was not painted up in Peter's colors. Hughes painted the car as the '71 works Revson car, and has been very visible at many vintage events across the US in the last couple years, unashamedly claiming that his car is the Revson car. He has been told on many occasions by many knowledgeable people including Jennifer Revson and Don Devine, exactly what his car is but Hughes continues to spread the misinformation ( I could use a much stronger word) about his car. Hughes is making a false claim which not only is dishonest to fellow entrants, the public at large, race promoters, and I would suspect future buyers, but also is falsifying and demeaning the memory of the great Peter Revson.

I find this most objectionable. It is one thing to erroneously think your car is something that it is not, and then to make the corrections when informed, but it is something entirely different --and reprehensible-- to know that your car is not what you say it is and then to continue to spread falsehoods after you know the truth.

The writer for Vintage Motorsport who was suckered into this by Hughes should have taken the minute or two required to do some elemental research. Sixty seconds on Martin Krejci's excellent web site would have informed him that the Hughes car is the Commander car, not the Revson car. It is a pity that the writer did not take the time or minimal effort required, but rather just repeated what he was told. Any motorsports writer in the historic arena should be aware by this time that not is all that it appears.

It is also sad that the magazine printed this piece, which has hardly a shred of truth in it. The sad by product of this is that people will read the article, and because it is in print, believe it to be true, thus furthering the falsehood.

I fervently hope that Vintage Motorsport runs a correction in its next issue.

[David Birchall]

Tom, have you sent the above info to the editor of the magazine?

[RA Historian]

Tom, have you sent the above info to the editor of the magazine?

Yes. I have sent him several e mails since the article hit print. In those e mails I have included cut-and-paste quotes and forwarded e mail messages from Don Devine, Doug Nye, and Jennifer Revson about this matter. I have not heard anything in response since early Tuesday at which time he forwarded an e mail to me from the article's author in which the author says that he called Hughes on the phone to question him about this and that after talking to Hughes, he believes Hughes! Absolutely unbelievable; Hughes must have a silver tongue. I replied to that e mail with more evidence (not that more is needed; the facts are there plain as day), but have not as yet received a response from the magazine's editor.
Tom

[bobLee]

Bogus Revson Team M8F

The just-out issue of Vintage Motorsport very unfortunately has an article about a McLaren M8F that is full of falsehoods. The car in question is owned by Scott Hughes, who loudly claims that it is the Peter Revson works M8F from 1971. The article, written by a regular field reporter for the magazine, fawningly repeats all the false claims of Hughes. Apparently, the writer listened to Hughes, took the line of bull in fully, and regurgitated it in print.

What is wrong? Plenty. Let us start by emphatically stating that the Hughes car IS NOT THE REVSON CAR!!!

The Hughes car was not even in existence in 1971, when Peter won the Can Am in an M8F. The Hughes car was built in 1973 by Commander Motor Homes team from spare parts, mainly from Trojan. At that time Commander did have both works M8Fs from 1971, but this car, the Hughes car, was built by Commander as a third team car.

The actual Revson M8F is in a museum in Holland, after years and years in the Peter Kaus collection.

The identities of the cars in question has been verified time and time again. The Hughes car has many significant differences from a works car, such as in number, placement, and type of rivets, bulkheads, body reinforcements, and many other idiosyncrasies that are identifiable by experts. One, the other, and/or both cars have been inspected by experts and verified. Don Devine, noted McLaren owner and authority, has seen them and unequivocally states that the Hughes car is not the Revson car. Doug Nye, whom we all know, is in complete agreement that the Revson car is in the Dutch museum and that the Hughes car is not the Revson car. Jennifer Revson, sister of Peter, who has made it her lifetime mission keeping the memory of Peter alive, knows where her brother's cars are, and this one is in Holland, not with Hughes. I cannot put my finger on his name at the moment, but a Commander team mechanic also verifies that the Hughes car is the Commander car, not the Revson car.

So what is the problem? When Hughes bought the car, from Bill Wonder, I believe, he got a car that was not painted up in Peter's colors. Hughes painted the car as the '71 works Revson car, and has been very visible at many vintage events across the US in the last couple years, unashamedly claiming that his car is the Revson car. He has been told on many occasions by many knowledgeable people including Jennifer Revson and Don Devine, exactly what his car is but Hughes continues to spread the misinformation ( I could use a much stronger word) about his car. Hughes is making a false claim which not only is dishonest to fellow entrants, the public at large, race promoters, and I would suspect future buyers, but also is falsifying and demeaning the memory of the great Peter Revson.

I find this most objectionable. It is one thing to erroneously think your car is something that it is not, and then to make the corrections when informed, but it is something entirely different --and reprehensible-- to know that your car is not what you say it is and then to continue to spread falsehoods after you know the truth.

The writer for Vintage Motorsport who was suckered into this by Hughes should have taken the minute or two required to do some elemental research. Sixty seconds on Martin Krejci's excellent web site would have informed him that the Hughes car is the Commander car, not the Revson car. It is a pity that the writer did not take the time or minimal effort required, but rather just repeated what he was told. Any motorsports writer in the historic arena should be aware by this time that not is all that it appears.

It is also sad that the magazine printed this piece, which has hardly a shred of truth in it. The sad by product of this is that people will read the article, and because it is in print, believe it to be true, thus furthering the falsehood.

I fervently hope that Vintage Motorsport runs a correction in its next issue.

Tom the Commander crew chief was John Collins. I remember John Collins telling me over and over in the late eighties that the Billy Wonder M8F was not the Revson Team car. John said it was painfully obvious that the Wonder chassis was not a team chassis. John was at Commander when the Ex Wonder chassis was assembled into a car from spare parts.
Denny Hulme told me in 1991 that he had driven the Peter Kaus Team M8F for Kaus in the super sport series and that it wasn't his car but Peter's M8F. Craig Pence, a noted McLaren chassis historian, has long maintained that the ex Wonder M8F is not a team car. Tom Fredricks one of the mechanics that worked on the Revson Team M8F and restored it for Chuck Haines prior to sale to Peter Kaus told me that Peter Kaus had Peter Revson's team M8F. Chuck Haines has also told me that the Revson Team M8F was owned by Peter Kaus. The evidence is overwhelming that the Hughes M8F is not the Revson Team M8F. I hope the other members of TNF that have knowledge join us in our outrage against this misrepresentation and write the editor of VM, Randy Riggs.

This post deserves its own thread

[Larry Fulhorst]

Bogus Revson Team M8F



Tom the Commander crew chief was John Collins. I remember John Collins telling me over and over in the late eighties that the Billy Wonder M8F was not the Revson Team car. John said it was painfully obvious that the Wonder chassis was not a team chassis. John was at Commander when the Ex Wonder chassis was assembled into a car from spare parts.
Denny Hulme told me in 1991 that he had driven the Peter Kaus Team M8F for Kaus in the super sport series and that it wasn't his car but Peter's M8F. Craig Pence, a noted McLaren chassis historian, has long maintained that the ex Wonder M8F is not a team car. Tom Fredricks one of the mechanics that worked on the Revson Team M8F and restored it for Chuck Haines prior to sale to Peter Kaus told me that Peter Kaus had Peter Revson's team M8F. Chuck Haines has also told me that the Revson Team M8F was owned by Peter Kaus. The evidence is overwhelming that the Hughes M8F is not the Revson Team M8F. I hope the other members of TNF that have knowledge join us in our outrage against this misrepresentation and write the editor of VM, Randy Riggs.

This post deserves its own thread

All that he had to do was to say the car was painted as a tribute to Peter Revson's memory. At the 1996 30th Can-Am reunion there was a M8C painted like the 1971 Jerobee M8B. Everyone knew it was a tribute car and that the paint job was not an attempt to confuse the history back to Bruce McLaren's 1969 Championship winning car. It would appear that the owner of the FAKE Revson car thinks that people have a short memory. Too bad for him that the internet has called him out!

[E1pix]

RA Historian and Other Posters:

I admire all you guys setting the record straight on the "ex-Revson" car.

I've learned of late that this sort of thing is more common than we'd like to believe.... and I suspect that the goal is to command top-dollar based on such fabrications, with the seller providing "documentations" based on such mistruths, come sale time. Using the good name of a passed great American driver adds to my disgust.

Perhaps one should start a new "Vintage Buyer Beware" thread here, one which puts all the truth in one place.

Edited by E1pix, 12 March 2011 - 02:18.

[bobLee]

Bogus Revson M8F team car

RA Historian and Other Posters:

I admire all you guys setting the record straight on the "ex-Revson" car.

I've learned of late that this sort of thing is more common than we'd like to believe.... and I suspect that the goal is to command top-dollar based on such fabrications, with the seller providing "documentations" based on such mistruths, come sale time. Using the good name of a passed great American driver adds to my disgust.

Perhaps one should start a new "Vintage Buyer Beware" thread here, one which pouts all the truth in one place.

I believe the current owner of the bogus team car was misled by the previous sellers. The Scott Hughes M8F does have Can-Am history as a customer car it is just not the Revson Team car. Scott Hughes has been told by Jennifer Revson and others that he does not have Peter Revson's Team M8F and given lots of details of the differences. Further Mr. Hughes has been told the location of the real Team car now owned by Evert Louwman and on display in the National Dutch Auto Museum. Yes there are seemingly more cases of made up cars and history showing up. Sometimes the owners misrepresent their history to get into prestigious events and others to enhance the value of the car.

Jennifer Revson has registered for the site and plans to post here as soon as the site permits.

[RA Historian]

I believe the current owner of the bogus team car was misled by the previous sellers.

FYI, according to Martin Krejci, this is the ownership chain for the Commander-built car for which Hughes is making false claims:

"There was another car built by Commander from spare parts. Its ownership history is as follows: Commander Motors => Nearburg => Crompton => Finn => Bill Wonder=> Scott Hughes (~2010) {claimed to be Revson's car but it is not}"

Tom

[BritishV8]

The just-out issue of Vintage Motorsport very unfortunately has an article about a McLaren M8F that is full of falsehoods. The car in question is owned by Scott Hughes, who loudly claims that it is the Peter Revson works M8F from 1971. The article, written by a regular field reporter for the magazine, fawningly repeats all the false claims of Hughes. Apparently, the writer listened to Hughes, took the line of bull in fully, and regurgitated it in print.

What is wrong? Plenty...

I photographed Scott Hughes' McLaren M8F at Watkins Glen last September.

My sixty-some snapshots - mostly close-ups of design/construction/preparation details - can be viewed here:
Scott Hughes' 1971 McLaren M8F Can-Am Racecar

Perhaps my photos will facilitate your pointing out the specific features which differentiate Revson's M8F from the "Commander" M8F and/or others?

I'm always very curious to learn anything I can about these cars, original or not. What's original or at least "period correct" versus what's been added to keep a car like this actively vintage racing? (I'd be the last person to criticize an owner for making changes for the sake of safety, reliability, etc.) What specific features made the "F" different from predecessor models?

[jj2728]

Mid-Ohio Can Am 1971.

[RA Historian]

V8 and JJ, nice photos of the Hughes car, but as has been posted earlier, despite anything Hughes may claim, this car is NOT the works M8F that Revson drove in 1971. I repeat once again, this car, as owned by Hughes and despite all his claims, did not even exist in 1971, but rather was built by Commander Motor Homes Team in 1973, largely from the Trojan spares bin.

I paste here part of a letter I received from Don Devine, McLaren owner and expert, after his inspection of the Hughes car a couple years ago:


"I met with the owner Scott Hughes with the "wanna be"
team car at a car show last weekend.

He told me all the reasons he believes he has a team
car, fiberglass tail section paint under other colors, log book/
bought from Commander crew member in 1990s, letter from
Joel Finn/owned car in 1980 when I looked at it and passed
on buying it because of ?? (questions then about its authenticity), a steering rack in car stamped
with #7 on it, etc. Nose he bought from John Collins son Graham.
Then I told him those were all bolt on, add on, doesn't make it
a team car.

1 I started at the front with pick up points front A-Arms/ have steel
reinforcing plate instead of stainless on team cars. Trojan/Commander
2 Front air box is style on Denny's car not Peter's. Bodywork from Collins
3 No chassis Plate?
4 Rivet pattern on rear bulkhead wrong has two inch staggered pattern,
Trojan style, not the one inch on team cars. Wrong size rivet also.
5 Rear tree/body support is steel not Titanium.
6 Roll bar is Titanium but brace for roll bar to engine is steel not Titanium.
7 Headers are steel and not stainless as on team cars.
Two other items I will check at Elkhart in July.

Told him there are only three people who think his is team car,
himself, Bill Wonder/previous owner MAYBE, Joel Finn/previous owner."

Thus, Devine's cursory inspection revealed several telling discrepancies. Hughes apparently is staking a major portion of his claim on the fact that he has the log book to the '71 car. Fine and dandy. That was sold separately a few years ago to a previous owner by a former Commander employee. That proves nothing; that log book has been separated from the real car for decades. It is not as if that log book has been welded to the chassis of the car since it was built.

V8, we are not in any way criticizing Hughes for racing the car. But, we are criticizing the lack of truth present. Ideally, he should be racing the car in Commander colors, which were mainly white. We even would not be criticizing him if he were racing the car as he has it liveried today if he were up front and honest and indicated to the world that the car was liveried in McLaren/Revson colors, but in fact was not the McLaren/Revson car but was a repaint of the Commander car. There are numerous other McLarens running around the country which are painted in team colors, but the owners are honest enough to state up front the history of their cars and that it is not an actual team McLaren car. Can we expect anything less from Hughes? All we ask that he be honest enough to admit that his car is not the Revson car. Further, we ask that Vintage Motorsport magazine, having had its writer duped by Hughes, print a correction in its next issue that states that this car in fact is the Commander car and not the Revson car. Simple.
Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 12 March 2011 - 23:31.

[jj2728]

V8 and JJ, nice photos of the Hughes car

Tom, maybe you missed the caption, but the photo from my dad's archives is from Mid-Ohio 1971 and it IS the Revson M8F.

John

[jj2728]

Denny's McLaren Mid-Ohio 1971.

[E1pix]

Denny's McLaren Mid-Ohio 1971.

JJ:

Great Stuff, Thanks for sharing!

I was 11 then, too young to push a shutter release yet. Dang!

[RA Historian]

Tom, maybe you missed the caption, but the photo from my dad's archives is from Mid-Ohio 1971 and it IS the Revson M8F.

John

John, yes I did. Apologies.
Tom

[David McKinney]

...we ask that Vintage Motorsport magazine, having had its writer duped by Hughes, print a correction in its next issue that states that this car in fact is the Commander car and not the Revson car. Simple.

In a way that is the most important part of your post

And from what's been said already, the least likely to happen

[RA Historian]

Friends, I have received an e mail from D. Randy Riggs, editor of Vintage Motorsport, informing me that his magazine will run a correction in the next issue pointing out that the Hughes car is NOT the Revson car.

Thanks to all who have helped out with posts, e mails to me, and e mails to Randy at the magazine. We have been successful.

Thanks to Randy Riggs for listening to our complaints and rectifying the erroneous article by one of his writers that appeared in his magazine.

Tom

[jj2728]

[jj2728]

[JacnGille]

Friends, I have received an e mail from D. Randy Riggs, editor of Vintage Motorsport, informing me that his magazine will run a correction in the next issue pointing out that the Hughes car is NOT the Revson car.

[llmaurice]

Reading most of the above threads and finally gleaning what is meant across the Atlantic by the term "vintage" as opposed to the more universally adopted Historic and Classic descriptions , I feel that ever more "recreations" exist in the USA than elsewhere in the world .
With the above in mind ,I can't wait for Bill Colsons epic on the Lotus fifteen which will certainly blow the lid off a number of such machines .
I have nothing against the odd Hooray Henry wanting the world to think that the famous sports racer they had built is the real deal because they bought a pair of British saloon tail lamps as were used in the original build and that they constituded the authenticity that is claimed for the whole "special" .
They are fine if trotted round the odd fashionable race circuit in a parade so punters can see what the cars looked like in period but certainly should not be allowed to race against genuines machinery .
Fortunately ,the above trait doesn't appear to have filtered down to the cut and thrust world of FF1600/2000 or Classic F3 so here in UK we can still see those little beauties as they were originally produced although once again ,in the US a steel crank and (I believe) even an alloy cylinder head has been produced along with the Honda variant put up as an "alternative" . Why not just call a halt and leave our little Ford powered formulae alone and keep creating Formula MIATA and whatever else you feel the need to
"Vintage" racing indeed --keep that for the real vintage cars !

[David McKinney]

"Vintage" racing indeed --keep that for the real vintage cars !

...which of course FF1600/FF2000/Classic F3 are not
()By the accepted British definition)

[llmaurice]

...which of course FF1600/FF2000/Classic F3 are not
()By the accepted British definition)

My point exactly ! Early FF1600 up to '71 =Historic . Post '71 =Classic.
Vintage is normally accepted as pre 1931so why call early post WW2 single seater cars Vintage ?

[David Birchall]

For the same reason we drive on the "other side of the road".
We are allowed to!
The world is no longer pink from one end to the other gentlemen.

[Allan Lupton]

For the same reason we drive on the "other side of the road".
We are allowed to!

Funny that - I thought you had to. . . .

See above for other example of the "two great nations divided by a common language" effect, such as here in England "randy" is an adjective but from the context I suppose it must be used as a name in the USofA.

Edited by Allan Lupton, 16 March 2011 - 08:16.

[Revvy]

Jennifer Revson's response.

The just-out issue of Vintage Motorsport very unfortunately has an article about a McLaren M8F that is full of falsehoods. The car in question is owned by Scott Hughes, who loudly claims that it is the Peter Revson works M8F from 1971. The article, written by a regular field reporter for the magazine, fawningly repeats all the false claims of Hughes. Apparently, the writer listened to Hughes, took the line of bull in fully, and regurgitated it in print.

What is wrong? Plenty. Let us start by emphatically stating that the Hughes car IS NOT THE REVSON CAR!!!

The Hughes car was not even in existence in 1971, when Peter won the Can Am in an M8F. The Hughes car was built in 1973 by Commander Motor Homes team from spare parts, mainly from Trojan. At that time Commander did have both works M8Fs from 1971, but this car, the Hughes car, was built by Commander as a third team car.

The actual Revson M8F is in a museum in Holland, after years and years in the Peter Kaus collection.

The identities of the cars in question has been verified time and time again. The Hughes car has many significant differences from a works car, such as in number, placement, and type of rivets, bulkheads, body reinforcements, and many other idiosyncrasies that are identifiable by experts. One, the other, and/or both cars have been inspected by experts and verified. Don Devine, noted McLaren owner and authority, has seen them and unequivocally states that the Hughes car is not the Revson car. Doug Nye, whom we all know, is in complete agreement that the Revson car is in the Dutch museum and that the Hughes car is not the Revson car. Jennifer Revson, sister of Peter, who has made it her lifetime mission keeping the memory of Peter alive, knows where her brother's cars are, and this one is in Holland, not with Hughes. I cannot put my finger on his name at the moment, but a Commander team mechanic also verifies that the Hughes car is the Commander car, not the Revson car.

So what is the problem? When Hughes bought the car, from Bill Wonder, I believe, he got a car that was not painted up in Peter's colors. Hughes painted the car as the '71 works Revson car, and has been very visible at many vintage events across the US in the last couple years, unashamedly claiming that his car is the Revson car. He has been told on many occasions by many knowledgeable people including Jennifer Revson and Don Devine, exactly what his car is but Hughes continues to spread the misinformation ( I could use a much stronger word) about his car. Hughes is making a false claim which not only is dishonest to fellow entrants, the public at large, race promoters, and I would suspect future buyers, but also is falsifying and demeaning the memory of the great Peter Revson.

I find this most objectionable. It is one thing to erroneously think your car is something that it is not, and then to make the corrections when informed, but it is something entirely different --and reprehensible-- to know that your car is not what you say it is and then to continue to spread falsehoods after you know the truth.

The writer for Vintage Motorsport who was suckered into this by Hughes should have taken the minute or two required to do some elemental research. Sixty seconds on Martin Krejci's excellent web site would have informed him that the Hughes car is the Commander car, not the Revson car. It is a pity that the writer did not take the time or minimal effort required, but rather just repeated what he was told. Any motorsports writer in the historic arena should be aware by this time that not is all that it appears.

It is also sad that the magazine printed this piece, which has hardly a shred of truth in it. The sad by product of this is that people will read the article, and because it is in print, believe it to be true, thus furthering the falsehood.

I fervently hope that Vintage Motorsport runs a correction in its next issue.

First, I would like to thank Tom for expressing his interest, and initiating this topic, in the completely erroneous information regarding the Scott Hughes car, which appears in the current issue of Vintage Motorsport Magazine. And thanks also to the Friends and fans of my brother, Peter, who have so kindly spoken up and supported me about this most distressing distortion of my brother's Can-Am racing history. Scott Hughes has been told by me, three historians, that I know of, and numerous fellow vintage racers that he doesn't have my brother's 1971 championship winning M8F team car. In fact, what Hughes owns is a 1973 Commander Motors built car. Peter's "real" M8F team car is owned by Evert Louwman, and resides in the beautiful Dutch National Motor Museum in The Hague, and hasn't even been in the US since 1985. The fact that Hughes has been very ugly to me personally, when I've approached him about this matter, and willfully spews untruths to my brother's fans, who approach his car thinking they're touching a part of my brother's racing history, and then basks in the glory of it all, is despicable to me. He is the antithesis of everything my brother stood for in life, and I'm not going to sit back and allow him to blatantly disrespect Peter like this. I've written a very detailed letter to Randy Riggs, editor of Vintage Motorsport, asking for a correction in the next issue, and have received a reply that he would. This year marks the 40th anniversary that Peter won the Can-Am championship and sat on the pole at Indy. Naturally, I'm very proud of Peter, not only because of his racing ability, but as a man who possessed great character, and the best brother a sister could have ever hoped for. Thanks for all your support! Jennifer

[E1pix]

Jennifer Revson's response.

First, I would like to thank Tom for expressing his interest, and initiating this topic, in the completely erroneous information regarding the Scott Hughes car, which appears in the current issue of Vintage Motorsport Magazine. And thanks also to the Friends and fans of my brother, Peter, who have so kindly spoken up and supported me about this most distressing distortion of my brother's Can-Am racing history. Scott Hughes has been told by me, three historians, that I know of, and numerous fellow vintage racers that he doesn't have my brother's 1971 championship winning M8F team car. In fact, what Hughes owns is a 1973 Commander Motors built car. Peter's "real" M8F team car is owned by Evert Louwman, and resides in the beautiful Dutch National Motor Museum in The Hague, and hasn't even been in the US since 1985. The fact that Hughes has been very ugly to me personally, when I've approached him about this matter, and willfully spews untruths to my brother's fans, who approach his car thinking they're touching a part of my brother's racing history, and then basks in the glory of it all, is despicable to me. He is the antithesis of everything my brother stood for in life, and I'm not going to sit back and allow him to blatantly disrespect Peter like this. I've written a very detailed letter to Randy Riggs, editor of Vintage Motorsport, asking for a correction in the next issue, and have received a reply that he would. This year marks the 40th anniversary that Peter won the Can-Am championship and sat on the pole at Indy. Naturally, I'm very proud of Peter, not only because of his racing ability, but as a man who possessed great character, and the best brother a sister could have ever hoped for. Thanks for all your support! Jennifer

Jennifer:

Thank You for the courage it took to write your letter, for the obvious love and respect you still hold for your brother, and for helping to set the record straight on his dynasty.

I was a huge fan of your brother, seeing him in several races at Road America and elsewhere. Your comment about fans "thinking they're touching a part of my brother's racing history" literally gave me the chills. Hearing you've been disrespected personally on top of the slams given your brother really makes me mad. Peter was a true American hero and legend, and he has yet to be "replaced" in our country. Peter died when I was 13, and I very much remember my dire sadness carrying on for many weeks, and months — and on some level, still today. Knowing you've lost two brothers in this great sport makes it all the worse.

If Mr. Hughes has a soul he will set the record straight immediately. My hope for him is that everyone learns of these blatant lies, and when selling time comes, there are no interested buyers. As an American, I cannot imagine another countryman taking advantage of an American hero in this way, it sickens me.

Thanks Again for your courage and respect for Revvie, you will see him again in time.

[RA Historian]

Thanks, Jennifer, heart felt and sincere response. I was very pleased to have helped in some way to get the correction in print.

Now Hughes. I hope that wherever he shows up this year that as many people as possible go up to him, and as long as he has his car painted in McLaren colors with Peter's name and number on it, tell him in no uncertain terms that his car is NOT Peter's car but is the Commander replica. If he repaints the car to Commander colors, wonderful. That would be nice. If he does not, let him know that he is faking it! Keep the pressure on. He must acknowledge the truth. An apology to Jennifer and to all Peter's fans certainly would be in order also.

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 16 March 2011 - 20:49.

[E1pix]

Thanks, Jennifer, heart felt and sincere response. I was very pleased to have helped in some way to get the correction in print.

Now Hughes. I hope that wherever he shows up this year that as many people as possible go up to him, and as long as he has his car painted in McLaren colors with Peter's name and number on it, tell him in no uncertain terms that his car is NOT Peter's car but is the Commander replica. If he repaints the car to Commander colors, wonderful. That would be nice. If he does not, let him know that he is faking it! Keep the pressure on. He must acknowledge the truth. An apology to Jennifer and to all Peter's fans certainly would be in order also.

Tom

RA:

Agreed 100%!!!

The man should be ashamed of himself.

[ryan86]

The intrigue of this thread almost makes we want to buy the magazine to find out what it's all about. Maybe it's true what they say about there's no such thing as bad publicity.

[fbarrett]

Randy Riggs is a good guy and deserves credit for recognizing the writer's (and the editor's) errors. As an ex-magazine editor myself, I know exactly
how easy it is to fall victim to such false information.

Frank