The Split Forum Discussion

[h4887]

Originally Posted by John Turner

As for the comment intended to be sarcastic, I really don't know relevance or point that you are trying to make, there.

No sarcasm there. So if I race my classic car, is that a topic for Classic Cars or Historic Racing?

[John Turner]

OK, Geoff, perhaps you didn't realise that your 'smilie' was a sarcastic one!

If you race your classic car, in historic events, then you would want to discuss it in the Historic Racing Today forum, ie here!

The reference to the new Classic Car forum was simply an announcement of a new forum to cater for Classic Cars, as a sub forum to the Road cars Forum, since they had not been specifically catered for before. The announcement for that was posted in a selected number of fora where we thought the posters and guests would be most likely to be interested.

[MagnetON]

Originally Posted by h4887

No sarcasm there. So if I race my classic car, is that a topic for Classic Cars or Historic Racing?

If you want to discuss the history of the model/marque it's a "Classic", if it's "Jeez lads, what brake fluid should I use, I'm getting fierce brake fade through Paddock Hill" it's Historic Racing. If it's "I bought the car in 1978 from a guy who had it from 1950 when he bought it from the guy who raced it in Monoposto class 4 in 18oatcake" then it's "Racing History".

I hope that's cleared it up for you

[Andrew Fellowes]

Oh thanks MagnetON for clearing that up

No I'm not a convert yet, contributors will polaris, accidental discoveries will suffer (as has been said) and by reducing variety some places will become so stagnant that they may dry up altogether.
I see the logic but witness what makes TNF so interesting at the moment,no I dont read them all, yes some the fluff is very boring, but.....
Oh well, Good Luck, and I will continue to lurk, .....in parts.

[Andrew Fellowes]

Oh sharpen up Fellowes! Your spulling is terrwible. ahhhh!
Sorry about the last post, hope you get my drift though.

[Bryan Miller]

My problem is that in this thread we have 10 RT4's at Eastern Creek , which started as a historic racing today item , but very quickly dived off into history of specific cars and trying to assist people who had something 20 years ago , then went back and forth.

Bryan .

[John Turner]

Bryan, this was the one issue that did concern us; the crossover between threads that started correctly on one forum but where the discussion moved in a direction that suggested it would be more appropriate in the other. There are a couple in the other forum which I could justifiably move in here, but we continue to monitor to see which way the discussion is moving. However, we are happy to respond to requests from you to move threads, but would you really want that to happen too often, and why, if, as we hope, you look at both forums. What we don't want is a load of redirects, nor return to what, for me at any rate, seemed to be a 'stew' of 'Ancient and Modern'! Remember too, that this 'problem' (if that is how you see it) is mainly race car specific, it is of far less significance in respect of events and races, the drivers and the personalities, and, of course the current safety and regulatory requirements of historic racing cars that are being raced now. All these can be easily allocated to one or the other of the forums.

Look at it this way; you have two front forum pages about your favourite subjects, instead of one! We have already seen a lot of activity on this new forum particularly from drivers and enthusiasts of the many areas of Historic racing that take place today, and the Motorsport Historic forum, whilst a bit slower, hasn't exactly been inactive either has it? In response to Andrew, there is no way that you the posters and we the mods, who are every bit as enthusiastic about the subject as you are, will allow the older forum to wither; you all seem to be overlooking your own substantial input and influence over the threads. It's going to be as active and diverse as we all want to make it. We're looking for growth in both forums, not contraction.