More Boneschi 4R BS

[RonHorowitz <RonHorowitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. H, et al.,

> if the usually accepted story is at
>all correct in its broad outlines,

The historians challenge, as you know, is that so often, they aren't.
Falsehoods repeated often enough have a nasty habit of becoming "facts."
In this particular instance, I've formed no opinion either way. Maybe it's
true, maybe it's false, or maybe the story is, inconveniently, neither true
nor false, but a matter of perspective on a larger picture not generally
comprehended. Who was the first President of the United States? How long
was the Hundred Years' War? Regardless of "The Truth", no one cares to know
the full answer. In this instance, I really can't say, but I'll pass your
response along to my friend and we'll see if he can shed a little light.

>If there is documentary evidence that "Boneschi sold the project to the
>Quattroruote boys", fine, it is a Quattroruote prototype

You've made it sound, perhaps unwittingly, as though if there's no
documentary evidence, lack of documentation alone _makes_ the story false.
If the story is true, regardless of any lack of documentation, fine, the
car is a Quatroruote prototype. And if the story is false, regardless of
how well documented it may be, not fine, the car is not a Quatroroute
prototype.

Of course, the car is also for sale, and it does have to be acknowledged
that a documented provenance tends to enhance sales price.

> (but I would think
>Boneschi would have been unhappy that the work, and the money, then went
to
>Zagato.)

Reasonable speculation, but, of course, speculation none-the-less. At this
point, we can speculate plausible scenarios, motives, incentives, or
personalities involved, but we know very little. A thousand and one
colorfull stories never make the books, and the ones in the books are often
distillations, codefications, embelishments, etc.

>If Boneschi built the car first, and Quattroruote saw it, liked
>the idea, and proposed the project to Alfa and to Zagato, I would think it
>could be called a Boneschi "Zagato" replicar and a source or precedent for
>the 4R, but not a "prototype" or "the first Quattroruote".

Point taken, but I might suggest protoype, archetype (?!), influence, or
"the first Quattroruote" may well be matters of semantics or perspective
more so than fact. I don't know, but maybe my friend can shed some light.

>
>I don't know whether Ron's two separate sentences "Straight from the
horses
>mouth or from the other end, you be the judge", and "Of course, if you
>really want to know the truth, you can always ask Stu Schaller..." mean
>that Dr. Ing. Schaller was a source for the information,

My dear Mr. H, are you suggesting that the good Doc Schaller is a horses
ass? (And he says such nice things about you....) No, Stu wasn't the source
of the info, that was just me being a wiseguy.

> I find curious
>the statement that "The reason the 1969 factory 1750 replica is on a 101
>chassis is because the project was started in 1964 and it took five years
>to complete."

Let's see if we can get more info.

>I could be wrong on all counts.

Perhaps it's best not to think in terms of right or wrong, but in terms of
reasonable questions asked or answered.

>Replicas, retrocars, and nostalgia cars
>(a nice, useful term I gleaned from a British source) can be interesting
IF
>well done and IF not taken too seriously, but I find the genuine past, the
>genuine present, and the possible future quite enough.

I know what you mean, but lest we forget, the 4r was genuinely a phenomenon
of the past, things like the new CSX Cobras etc. are genuinely being built
in the present, and death and taxes are _definitely_ in our future....

Regards,

RON
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided