200 replies to this topic

[Doug Nye]

But if Nick Mason's car is 03 as you suggest, then a photograph would eliminate it from this discussion...

Exactly my point. Nice photo kurtiejjj, and I must say I think this is the first time a post from Michael has struck me as being twaddle.

DCN

[backfire]

mikeC, if you follow this link you will see the Mason car in the Donington Collection - http://www.flickr.co...oto/2196454155/ also Bill Harding mentions it an earlier post on this thread. I understand that the Senna roll bar extension first appeared at Brands - it was done because Senna had requested a slight change in seating position, because the blood was being cut off from his legs.

[Lee Nicolle]

To liven this thread up a little, here's the car and man in question at Monaco 1984 going through, I think, Tabac.. Forgive me for putting my site's logo (www.theretromobilist.com) right over the image (this is all the negative could give me in terms of quality), hope this prevents it from ending up in places where I don't want it to end up



That reminds me, I still have a Toleman front-wing languishing in my shed, albeit it is a 1985 one, can anyone finally shed light on those cars??

If you build a new car around it you will then have a genuine 85 Toleman!
It seems that a lot of 'historic' racecars these days are. And some of it was done in period.
I was reading Allen Browns site recently about 5000s and really some of those cars are literally third tub! and later models.

[Lee Nicolle]

To liven this thread up a little, here's the car and man in question at Monaco 1984 going through, I think, Tabac.. Forgive me for putting my site's logo (www.theretromobilist.com) right over the image (this is all the negative could give me in terms of quality), hope this prevents it from ending up in places where I don't want it to end up



That reminds me, I still have a Toleman front-wing languishing in my shed, albeit it is a 1985 one, can anyone finally shed light on those cars??

If you build a new car around it you will then have a genuine 85 Toleman!
It seems that a lot of 'historic' racecars these days are. And some of it was done in period.
I was reading Allen Browns site recently about 5000s and really some of those cars are literally third tub! and later models.

[backfire]

I know that March would change the tub on their F2 cars after one race at the Nurburgring, because it would shake the rivets loose! But all of that changed in the carbon fibre era, only a major shunt (such as Cecotto's at Brands Hatch) would see a tub binned.

[Michael Ferner]

Exactly my point. Nice photo kurtiejjj, and I must say I think this is the first time a post from Michael has struck me as being twaddle.

DCN

Had to look up the word...

But then again, you would say so, wouldn't you, given that the premiums of those lunatics put food on your table...


But I still stand by what I said. We've been through the Ship of Theseus routine a few times, and what it teaches us. Suffice it to say here that to state that a car that exists today is the same as one that ran in circles in 1984 is stark nonsense. No thing that existed in 1984 still exists today. Everything changes with time, even persons. I'm no biologist, but I believe that every cell of my body, every atom has since changed many times over. Even the only tangible link, the "contents" of my brain, have changed considerably over that period of time. It is true what we sometimes say, "I was a different person, then"!

As for people, trying to fill the emptiness of their lifes by converting effort (as in power to earn money) into ownership of artefacts that are conceived as less empty and meaningless, well... each to their own, I guess. If "someone", then, has the industry to "manufacture" such an artefact with a believable (hi)story, then kudos to him/her! Simples.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 18 April 2012 - 09:03.

[Patrick Morgan]

Had to look up the word...

But then again, you would say so, wouldn't you, given that the premiums of those lunatics put food on your table...


But I still stand by what I said. We've been through the Ship of Theseus routine a few times, and what it teaches us. Suffice it to say here that to state that a car that exists today is the same as one that ran in circles in 1984 is stark nonsense. No thing that existed in 1984 still exists today. Everything changes with time, even persons. I'm no biologist, but I believe that every cell of my body, every atom has since changed many times over. Even the only tangible link, the "contents" of my brain, have changed considerably over that period of time. It is true what we sometimes say, "I was a different person, then"!

As for people, trying to fill the emptiness of their lifes by converting effort (as in power to earn money) into ownership of artefacts that are conceived as less empty and meaningless, well... each to their own, I guess. If "someone", then, has the industry to "manufacture" such an artefact with a believable (hi)story, then kudos to him/her! Simples.

With respect I must disagree (in good humour) with all the above. I can only speak for myself here but I believe I'm not unique in approach.

First off a good number collectors go for cars over paintings or property because of a love of the sport. Formula 1, Indy, LeMans cars and others are the pinnacle of a pursuit and are the product of engineering ability (design, fabrication, machining etc.) as well as blood, sweat, tears and a good deal of sacrifice. When you buy one of these cars you are not so much buying an object but the effort and artistry (for want of a better word) that has gone into producing it. Most of us view ownership as paying for the privilege of looking after the car for a while.

I'm not alone in this by any means but I go to huge lengths to preserve the originality of my cars and those of my customers. Sometimes parts are damaged beyond being salvageable but as much as can possibly be saved is. All race cars are "Triggers Broom" to a degree and there is a valid argument for saying the chassis (the bit the plate is bolted to) is the car and it's history. We try really hard to bring as many bits back to life as we can to keep each car as close to how it was back in the day. When you hold a piece of any car or engine it's not just a part Senna or anyone else drove, it's a part that someone designed, someone else made and someone else fitted (although this may have all been the same bloke / girl if we're talking 70's and before). The thing that makes the difference is that a part made in 1984 was cutting edge at the time. Reproducing it today isn't generally too difficult (although getting modern suppliers to use period techniques to get the finish correct can be a challenge). In many ways that's the history you are buying. If Senna drove it it will have more appeal as it adds another dimension.

If all these cars were simply chucked at the end of each year we wouldn't have the opportunity to watch or hear them again. The thought of not hearing a screaming V10 or V12 ever again is fairly unthinkable.

[Michael Ferner]

I think you're missing the point. I'm in no way critical of the general ownership and preservation of racing cars as a means of honouring the achievements of former generations. It's where specific races and drivers inflate the price of the object of desire where I'm lost. A 1984 Toleman is just that, a 1984 Toleman. To try to enhance its value by tracing it back in time to a specific event is foolish - unless you find an even bigger fool who is prepared to send your kids to college for that. In any event, you're bound to run into VERY REAL problems trying to proof your lineage. And for what??? What's wrong with saying, "I have a 1984 Toleman", and saying JUST that. In real terms, every other claim is wrong, anyway, and can be refuted without too much effort. Often, the only argument left is the "cuboid of space theory", which is only valid if you believe in it.

No matter how often or long we discuss these principles, there is NEVER going to be a perfectably acceptable answer to the problem. Thus, the only deciding factor whether you will get your money or not, will be the gullibility of the buyer. And, since we all know that there is no limit to the potential foolishness of man, what difference does it make? Just cobble together a few pieces of sheet metal, and if you find somebody dumb enough to believe that it's the Ferrari that Ascari drove at Indy, you're my hero. You and I will know it's wrong, but who cares? The owner is probably satisfied, because his ego is boosted, and nobody with a real interest will be fooled. Maybe I'm getting a bit cynical with the times, but to hell with the uneducated masses - they will believe what they are told to believe, anyway. And in this, like anything else in life, money talks.

In this very case, chances are that both cars contain bits and pieces that can be traced back to Monte Carlo 1984. For me, it doesn't matter, because I know the 1984 car does no longer exist in real terms. What matters is that today there are two cars that represent the design efforts of the 1984 Toleman team. Whether "somebody" has the industry to "manufacture" a believable (hi)story that is worth GBP 100,000 or whatever to a prospective buyer is of no interest to me. And, I dare say, it shouldn't be of any interest to any sensible enthusiast. A 1984 Toleman is a 1984 Toleman; that is the concept of preserving art. Anything else is foolishness on the part of star struck people.

[backfire]

To answer MF - one word, NOSTALGIA

[ensign14]

's where specific races and drivers inflate the price of the object of desire where I'm lost. A 1984 Toleman is just that, a 1984 Toleman. To try to enhance its value by tracing it back in time to a specific event is foolish - unless you find an even bigger fool who is prepared to send your kids to college for that.

Meh, you can get a print of the Mona Lisa that's indistinguishable from the original; you can get a Tom Keating knockoff of an Old Master that fools the experts. So why are the originals that much more precious?

Mind you anyone who pays more than a fiver for load of Jackson Pollocks is two pegs short of an easel, certainly.

[Patrick Morgan]

I agree and disagree! That's probably not helpful! I do think the specific achievements of a particular chassis are important.

Fakes sold as original are certainly not good. Copies that claim to be copies are just fine and the workmanship can often be staggering. Just as long as they claim to be what they are. Happily in the case of some cars proving the linage is no hassle. Many teams keep very good records and if the ownership trail is clear there tends not to be a problem. I can however site two examples that have given me headaches and while one supports Micheals argument the other is kind of the other way.

1. Leyton House CG901B - the Magny-Cours Cappelli car. Leyton House made 6 chassis in 1990. Several (at least 3) apparently sold as the Magny-Cours car. Cappelli's designated race car was chassis 2 for that race. However that car suffered a gearbox failure on Saturday morning and Ivan qualified chassis 3. The story as I understand it is that having failed to qualify for the Mexico GP, the previous race, and having qualified 7th this time around the motor was changed in chassis 3 but was left otherwise untouched and raced rather than take the risk of switching back to chassis 2. It makes sense but there is no evidence I have come across that makes it fact and I've looked into it in a lot of depth. To back up Michaels argument I t wouldn't bother me a great deal if it turned out that chassis 2 raced that day (I have chassis 3). It's a great car, defiantly did Silverstone and looks stunning. The doubt over the history was reflected in the price.

2. Porsche 956 106B - Didn't sell at auction a couple of years back. There were whispers that it was not the car it said it was and the chassis plate was missing - never a good sign. However after a lot of digging and talking to the detractors friends of friends came to the conclusion that each had an axe to grind when it came to the team owner (I do not have any opinion ether way on the justification). 106B is not a factory car and it suffered a massive crash in 1985 at Spa. It then became 106B II unofficially. Is it the same car that finished 2nd at LeMans '85??? Well most of the tub is not the same but for sure, most of the rear end is according to the photos I have of the various bits. It's the only honeycomb 956 RLR produced and survived (the front of 106B I was utterly destroyed) so I was pretty happy that although it had been built back up in the late 1990's it was essentially the car that won Brands in 1986 - tub no question, front suspension no question (It's unique), body also unique. Having bought the thing we then found the original chassis plate wedged under the fuel cell!

I do think there is something about the particular car that did something - Vettel names all his cars which I think is great. It's a mine field certainly and going in to buy a car hoping it's what you think is probably not much good if you are after a specific chassis. Having said that most of them are just great if you pick the right type. One of the things that really appeals to me, back up my view of a car if you like, is if Tamyia made a kit of it. Sounds weird maybe but they were unlikely to make a kit of a car that they didn't think held a place in peoples hearts..... It's not the only thing you look for but it's a guide.

It's a really emotive subject isn't it? I just like the engineering and if it did something great then that adds to it all. Webber's Red Bull from Spa last year would be a good car - that pass was really something (even if the DRS zone was just ahead).

[Charlieman]

I think you're missing the point. I'm in no way critical of the general ownership and preservation of racing cars as a means of honouring the achievements of former generations. It's where specific races and drivers inflate the price of the object of desire where I'm lost. A 1984 Toleman is just that, a 1984 Toleman.

I sort of agree. If a car wins a great race and goes into a collection in authentic condition, it becomes special. The same can be applied to cars with a consistently recorded racing history, with reliable information about what was changed and by whom. But when Toleman sold their cars, they were not recognised as "special". They were cars that had been heavily used by the team -- with records about component change for factory consumption, not historians -- modified and repaired race by race.

There's another sort of "special", in my mind. Some series production racing cars are better than others made to the same design. The Kieft F3 driven by Stirling Moss springs to mind (although I can't find anything on the web to support my recollection).

[Michael Ferner]

You have certainly missed something re Jackson Pollock, but otherwise your comment highlights an important aspect: some of the Mona Lisa copies fetched an impressive price indeed during the period of time when the original went AWOL - and why not? If the copy is good enough to fool the buyer, he has every right to spend his last dime on it!

Why do people spend enormous amounts of money on art? Because they can afford it, and they "need" a form of investment that stands out as culturally acceptable. Why, every millionaire could just as easily buy hundreds of Volkswagens with his surplus money (certainly a much safer investment than art!), but that wouldn't quite have the air of it, would it? Do these people love art? Perhaps, but that's just not the point. Very few, if any, could tell an original from a fake, in all probability. That's why they hire experts, to do the "dirty work" for them. And pay them handsomely. Essentially, they're the same sort of people that buy historic (racing) cars... Fools, in other words.

Except: we're dealing with "functional art", here. Racing cars are not made to be hung up in museums, they get used and abused, crashed and repaired... I haven't done much research into 1984 Toleman's, but a quick look at my notes shows that all three existing cars were crashed numerous times during the first month of service alone. Senna crashed three times at Detroit alone, his "race car" (presumably the Monaco swimmer) having been repaired overnight after Friday practice along with Cecotto's sister car, both "badly damaged". I'm sure Toleman kept minute records about which part went into which car during that scramble... not! Especially, with the next race through a concrete chanel only six days away, and another series of crash tests at Dallas. And we get hung up on chassis plates...

[Patrick Morgan]

Well from a fool (again in good humour) I do my own dirty work and I enjoy it. You get to talk to some great people and glean some great stories. Sure you have to be careful of the rose tint but that's just fine.

Racing cars are great in the day and fantastic to look after. I don't feel that what you own makes you stand out culturally necessarily. Maybe I'm wrong. In the case of Toleman they no doubt didn't keep great records, in the heat of the moment you go for getting on the grid every time. I guess that doesn't help much in terms of proving originality. At the end of the day it comes down to how much you value what you are looking to buy, how much research you have done into it and if the amount of money involved is worth the risk to you or not.

Someone (I think it was Lovejoy on the BBC circa 1992) said that the more you pay for a fake the more you are likely not to doubt it's authenticity. In the case of most racing cars this tends not to be the case. In the case of Mr. Mason I applaud his attitude to commissioning an independent to find out what he has. This is common in aviation and a good way to look at things.

Edited by Patrick Morgan, 18 April 2012 - 21:07.

[Michael Ferner]

Well from a fool...

To make it clear, the "fool" comment was actually reserved for the "high-end" collector, both in art and racing cars. There's no foolishness in buying a painting or a sculpture from the artist next door, or having a historic racing car to spend the weekends with. I know, both can be tons of fun, and immensely satisfying. The "fools" are those who regard art or racing cars as investments, though even that is not necessarily so - but those are the ones that are easily "fooled"...

[Patrick Morgan]

To make it clear, the "fool" comment was actually reserved for the "high-end" collector, both in art and racing cars. There's no foolishness in buying a painting or a sculpture from the artist next door, or having a historic racing car to spend the weekends with. I know, both can be tons of fun, and immensely satisfying. The "fools" are those who regard art or racing cars as investments, though even that is not necessarily so - but those are the ones that are easily "fooled"...

It's fortunate I'm not high end then!

[ensign14]

Except: we're dealing with "functional art", here. Racing cars are not made to be hung up in museums, they get used and abused, crashed and repaired...

A pair of Gandhi's spectacles were sold for the tens of thousands recently. John Lennon's Rolls Royce was the most expensive ever sold despite its paintjob. It's almost totemistic, one has something that was in the hands of genius. And of course that's all the rarer. There aren't enough Senna-driven racing cars to go amongst the hundreds of thousands that would like one; there are more than enough Allen Berg-driven ones...in which case they are worth a "normal" amount.

People are buying rarity - after all, gold isn't that much useful otherwise.

[Michael Ferner]

It's fortunate I'm not high end then!

Don't take this fools ramblings too seriously...

[Patrick Morgan]

People are buying rarity - after all, gold isn't that much useful otherwise.

Money in the bank is not worth a whole lot ether these days - if you own gold in bars at least you can hold the stuff and prop the kitchen door open with it. You can't say the same for your average saving account at 0.2% when inflation is 5% (in the real world at least if not in the world of made up numbers....)

Edited by Patrick Morgan, 19 April 2012 - 07:21.

[Michael Ferner]

A pair of Gandhi's spectacles were sold for the tens of thousands recently. John Lennon's Rolls Royce was the most expensive ever sold despite its paintjob. It's almost totemistic, one has something that was in the hands of genius. And of course that's all the rarer. There aren't enough Senna-driven racing cars to go amongst the hundreds of thousands that would like one; there are more than enough Allen Berg-driven ones...in which case they are worth a "normal" amount.

People are buying rarity - after all, gold isn't that much useful otherwise.

Rarity is an argument for an investor, sure. But more important is desirability. And that's aaaall in your head...

[Patrick Morgan]

Don't take this fools ramblings too seriously...

It's all good stuff. Like I said it's an emotive subject. All I can say is that I don't do fakes but in reality if you are going to run these cars things do get replaced from time to time however avoid it if you can but make it safe (whatever the cost). I still view Clive Chapmans Lotus 49 Monaco car (3 time4s winner) as pretty much the ultimate in terms of an original car. Even the paint is said to be original and it smells right. That's what you have to strive for, get as close as you can, keep as much as you can and do whatever it takes to save the bits that can be saved safely.

[PCC]

John Lennon's Rolls Royce was the most expensive ever sold despite its paintjob.

A paint job created, incidentally, by a group calling itself 'The Fool'...

[PCC]

The "fools" are those who regard art or racing cars as investments, though even that is not necessarily so - but those are the ones that are easily "fooled"...

I think you're over-generalizing a bit. I once had some marginal involvement with a high-end art collector who did it strictly for investment. I knew (indirectly) another, even higher-end collector who wasn't strategic at all - he just bought pieces that he loved. But they had one thing in common - they didn't amass the resources needed to be high-end collectors by being fools.

[Michael Ferner]

The "fools" are those who regard art or racing cars as investments, though even that is not necessarily so - but those are the ones that are easily "fooled"...

[PCC]

Oh, I think I misunderstood your statement - sorry!

[BRG]

The car up for auction is featured heavily in the new edition of 'Octane'. Of course, I am sure that Silverstone Auctions didn't co-operate with the magazine to drum up interest....

[simonlewisbooks]

The car up for auction is featured heavily in the new edition of 'Octane'. Of course, I am sure that Silverstone Auctions didn't co-operate with the magazine to drum up interest....

Wasn't the same car featured in VINTAGE RACECAR some years back? Ed McDonough track tested a 184 at Donington.

[Peter Morley]

The car up for auction is featured heavily in the new edition of 'Octane'. Of course, I am sure that Silverstone Auctions didn't co-operate with the magazine to drum up interest....

A lot of cars that are tested by the Classic Car magazines are coming up for sale, the commercial realities of magazines and newspapers is that it is the advertising rather than the cover price that pays for them.

[Peter Morley]

Wasn't the same car featured in VINTAGE RACECAR some years back? Ed McDonough track tested a 184 at Donington.

That's most likely to have been Alastair Davidson's TG184-01

[LittleChris]

The car up for auction is featured heavily in the new edition of 'Octane'. Of course, I am sure that Silverstone Auctions didn't co-operate with the magazine to drum up interest....

It's also featured in this months ( June ) Motor Sport which arrived on my doormat this morning. Much better cover than last month I'm glad to say

[BRG]

A lot of cars that are tested by the Classic Car magazines are coming up for sale, the commercial realities of magazines and newspapers is that it is the advertising rather than the cover price that pays for them.

Surely not? What price journalistic integrity?

[Gary C]

the car was bid up to £505,000 but did not sell.

[D.M.N.]

the car was bid up to £505,000 but did not sell.

A bit more here: http://www.itv.com/n...ell-at-auction/ (the Formula 3 car sold at £113k)

And pictures here: http://www.itv.com/n...car-at-auction/

[Doug Nye]

In essence, if a genuine bid much above £300,000 had been achieved I would have been advising the vendors to rip that bidder's arm off before he changed his mind... Unless built by certain marques, single-seat F1 cars from that era are notoriously hard to sell 'well', regardless of who might once have driven them in a notable event. As Michael Ferner identified, above, this is a Toleman...a Toleman...

But for the Senna story even a bid in six figures should grab a vendor's serious attention.

DCN

[Gary C]

today :

[mfd]

today :

I know this might surprise some, but I believe the car on the right is a better investment

[carlt]

I know this might surprise some, but I believe the car on the right is a better investment

what about the car hiding behind the large men ?

[Thundersports]

what about the car hiding behind the large men ?

They are a minefield too.........

[Peter Morley]

I know this might surprise some, but I believe the car on the right is a better investment

That 6 cylinder Beetle is only a Touring version so it isn't a rare car by any standard, I suspect that when house sales pick up such cars will lose a large chunk of their current values.
A lightweight RS is reasonably rare which explains (almost justifies!) their high values/collectability.

I think the auction result shows that single seater's just don't sell well at auction - let's see what happens in their post sale negotiations (which are ongoing for a lot of the cars).

[RTH]

......................... I suspect that when house sales pick up such cars will lose a large chunk of their current values.

The oil may have run out by then.

[Peter Morley]

The oil may have run out by then.

Depends where you are - every empty plot near me is being bought up and built on, but then we're in the midst of the eurozone which as you're all being told is in a terrible state!!

When the oil does run out I suspect people will lose interest in old cars anyway!!

[kayemod]

When the oil does run out I suspect people will lose interest in old cars anyway!!

If we don't have oil to run cars on, we can always do what Thierry Boutsen did with a Williams F1, hang it on a wall of his Monaco office, where it looks very impressive. We have a decorator in at the moment, and are discussing options for other rooms. I showed my wife the pic of Boutsen's office in the current issue of Motor Sport, and all she commented on were potential dusting problems, but some women just don't understand artistic concepts.

Edited by kayemod, 17 May 2012 - 12:01.

[Michael Ferner]

Depends where you are - every empty plot near me is being bought up and built on, but then we're in the midst of the eurozone which as you're all being told is in a terrible state!!

Economies, economies...

It's funny, but most people still seem to fail to grasp that it's debt that drives the current "crisis", instead turning to blame it on the banks, the Euro, the politicians, whatever. Somehow, community debt appears to be viewed as non-consequential, and politicians who dare make that a campaign topic (with the unavoidable cuts in public services) might as well stay at home, as they have as much chance of being elected as a snowball has of surviving in the desert. It will be interesting to see where Greece is headed, and if that will have a deterrent effect on other communities, what with the consequences of denial and common "national "responsibility. Democray, democracy, where art thou going...

With community debts now threatening to wreck national economies and currencies, people begin to lose confidence in the latter, and turn to more traditional investments, like gold, housing, estate... and in doing so more often than not increase their personal debts! Oh my, this is going to be "funny"...

[mfd]

That 6 cylinder Beetle is only a Touring version...

Of course it is & I hadn't spotted that, but still it's not an E or an Aston

[RTH]

Spot on Michael.

[Peter Morley]

Of course it is & I hadn't spotted that, but still it's not an E or an Aston

As long as it isn't a 911E masquerading as an RS, apparently one 'RS' owner was rather disappointed to find out that a factory fitted sunroof wasn't a factory option!

It certainly makes more sense than an unrestored Aston, but I think there are plenty of other cars to spend that kind of money on that have greater potential.

[Peter Morley]

Economies, economies...

It's funny, but most people still seem to fail to grasp that it's debt that drives the current "crisis", instead turning to blame it on the banks, the Euro, the politicians, whatever. Somehow, community debt appears to be viewed as non-consequential, and politicians who dare make that a campaign topic (with the unavoidable cuts in public services) might as well stay at home, as they have as much chance of being elected as a snowball has of surviving in the desert. It will be interesting to see where Greece is headed, and if that will have a deterrent effect on other communities, what with the consequences of denial and common "national "responsibility. Democray, democracy, where art thou going...

With community debts now threatening to wreck national economies and currencies, people begin to lose confidence in the latter, and turn to more traditional investments, like gold, housing, estate... and in doing so more often than not increase their personal debts! Oh my, this is going to be "funny"...

This is a subject that really shouldn't be discussed here, but suddenly worrying about debt is the problem, there are very few businesses that have survived without some kind of loan and the current lack of lending is preventing people from making money and the same for governments, they have never worried about borrowing money before and suddenly changing that policy makes life more difficult and is hardly going to promote growth.
As for the Greeks, given they still own all their buildings etc (unlike say the UK govt) they don't see a problem with borrowing money, since they have collateral, the problem is the lenders don't see it that way - and it is peanuts, e.g. compared to how much the UK leant to Ireland.
The current housing boom (and record car sales etc) here seems to reflect a lack of faith in banks, people are spending their savings rather than leaving them in a bank since they are worried their savings will disappear.

[arttidesco]

here seems to reflect a lack of faith in banks, people are spending their savings rather than leaving them in a bank since they are worried their savings will disappear.

Given the prevailing buy more stuff mood it is then perhaps surprising that the Toliman in question didn't get snapped up or off loaded depending on your point of view.

Back on topic I think

[D-Type]

I think part of the problem is that the more 'modern' your classic is, the more difficult it becomes to play with your toy. I was down at the startline of the Goodwood FoS last year. Mephistopholes was driven down to the start and the driver executed a three-point turn and sat there with it ticking over, I won't say quietly but certainly contentedly, waiting for the start. There was similar lack of drama about a 250F and its peers. Then the modern F1 cars came down, each complete with a crew of about half a dozen attendants who used a portable starter the size of a rock drill to turn it over and get it started. You could see which car an owner could take to Silverstone, Oulton or wherever for a race meeting and which one would need a manager to organise the back-up team.

[Lee Nicolle]

While I agree with you the number of 5000s at least that are being restored? at huge expense tends to nullify that.
Though F1s are a different story ofcourse in comparison to a humble old Chevy or 308.But still more than 1 person required to run the car.

As for the VW6 being worth more than the Toleman defenitly not. BUT a lot easier to sell,a lot more useable in real terms. You cannot take the Toleman on a Sunday drive, or at least not on the streets!