Editorial, October 2003
Ta da! No, your eyes aren’t deceiving you, we’ve had a bit of a rejig. Nothing too drastic — just a tweak or three: a more prominent space for your letters, an opportunity for you to show us your old photos and to put your questions to the great and the good, more space for race reports, some words of wisdom from ‘Jenks’ and some new regular featurettes we thought you might like.
Fear not, our commitment to inform, entertain and provide a meaty monthly read remains steadfastly intact — it’s just that we didn’t want to end up like the creaking Lotus 72E of 1975. There’s nothing wrong with glorying in the past, but it doesn’t do any harm to give your rose-coloured specs a good old polish every now and then.
Speaking of which, I’ve just got back from the Goodwood Revival Meeting. As ever, it was brilliant — and packed out. But like us, is it time for a review? It sounds a daft question, but it needs asking: can you have too many Ferrari 250 GTOs?
It’s vital that people don’t stop going because they’ve been twice and think they’ve seen it all. I am well aware that the Revival has gone way beyond pure motorsport, that the lifestyle mags have hooked into it as much as the specialist press, but even so ‘bums on seats’ will always be a finite and fickle resource. And there’s nothing like a new attraction to keep them rolling up.
So how about using the clout of the world’s best race meeting as an excuse to gather together the greatest grid of 1930s grand prix cars seen since Poland was invaded? I’m sure Jochen Mass and John Surtees would love a 12-lap ding-dong in a W125 or W154. And how about Emanuele Pirro in a D-Type Auto Union? Or how about a pre-WWI race? Edwardian Mercs, Fiats and Peugeots thumping around the place; you’d be amazed by how well they handle.
I know that the above isn’t strictly relevant to Goodwood’s history, and that the Festival of Speed provides plenty of variety, but I speak as an enthusiast of racing as well as racing cars. Of course you can’t have too many 250 GTOs, but to unduly labour the point would be bad form.
Paul Fearnley
Editor