1906 Stanley Model H “The Gentleman’s Speedy Roadster”
Yesterday’s post on the 1987 Camaro IROC and subsequent discussion about whether the term ‘sports car’ applied to it had me reaching for one of my older books on my shelf: “A History of Sports Cars” by G.N. Georgano (1970). It’s a fairly seminal tract on the subject, and starts with the following words:
“More words have been written on the definition of a sports car than on any other kind of vehicle”
And then he goes on to distill what is undoubtedly the most appropriate definition:
“Practically every car has been entered for sporting competition of some kind or another, but the definition must surely rest not on how cars were actually used, but on the makers’ intentions. Here one can hardly find a better definition than that of Cyril Posthumus who said that a sports car is one in which performance takes precedence over carrying capacity ” (emphasis added)
Note: “capacity” might best be interpreted also as “comfort” in the modern sense. Meaning, performance has taken precedence over those qualities that would have likely impeded it, such as passenger capacity and creature comforts.
So the origin of the term “sports” obviously has to do with road cars being used in sporting events, with a further narrowing to those that were specifically designed to enhance its performance and competitiveness, even if not necessarily used in competition.
But clearly the ability to readily be competitive in motors sports was an essential part of the definition of a sports car for a very long time, and was especially true during the Great American Sports Car Boom, which really got going in the immediate post war era and lasted into the 60s. In that time, participating in various sporting events like rallies, road races, gymkhanas, etc. was a key aspect to sports car ownership, and it was during this time that the term ‘sports car” really became a common one in the US, and one that was closely associated with sporting events. And one that was initially associated mostly with British roadsters, and a few other European brands and models.
Of course, there were sports cars going back long before the Sports Car Boom. And the book I have quoted does an excellent job at tracing the origins and evolution of the sports cars, which is very much not limited strictly to two-seaters, as there were a number of key four-passenger cars that very much fell into the definition and had success in sporting events.
Just to make things a bit less clear-cut, Georgano also uses the term ‘sporting car’ interchangeably with ‘sports car’. It really was about specific abilities, and not limited to any particular size or the number of possible passengers.
For that matter, some early sporting events required four passengers/observers to be seated during the even even, such as the famous Prince Heinrich Trials, which Ferdinand Porsche won (at the wheel) so convincingly in 1910 with his very advanced Austro Daimler, one of the most important early (and very genuine) sports cars in Europe.
So what was the first American sports car? Undoubtedly the 1906 Model H Stanley Steamer, ‘The Gentleman’s Speedy Roadster’, which could readily exceed 60 mph, and even top 70 or 80 according to some. Those were unheard of speeds at the time. Yet it was perfectly tractable.
Within a few more years, there were of course a number of American cars that fit the description too, like the 1912 Mercer Runabout.
Although American sports cars tended to be larger and heavier than European ones, it certainly doesn’t mean they didn’t fit the description or inclusion in the book, like this 1935 Duesenberg SSJ.
But that’s not to mean American sports cars were limited to large, expensive machines. The Ford Model T unleashed a substantial industry that offered every conceivable part to turn a T into a true high-performance sports car, as well as genuine racing cars if so desired. They may have been called Speedsters, but they were also sports cars, even if the term wasn’t in use in the US at the time.
And that continued for some time. We tend to think of hot rods as being all about drag racing, but in reality, most of the pre-war and much of the early post-war hot rod movement was about all-round performance, not just in a straight line. Improvements in handling, braking and all-round dynamics was a common goal.
And the appearance of expensive European sports cars like the Jaguar XK-120 in 1948 unleashed the great home-built fiberglass sports car boom, when so many body shells were being offered to make an old Ford frame and chassis (or other make) look like something very expensive from Europe.
Although the Corvette may have been not very competitive in its first couple of years, it was clearly a sports car from the beginning, according to the definition, what with its its triple side-draft carbs and spartan accommodations. And starting in 1956, it became competitive; very much so.
Given that the 1964 Pontiac GTO and all of its copy-cats made no sacrifices in terms of “carrying capacity” (or any other comforts), it certainly was never a sports car.
And since the Mustang and other pony cars were commonly sold in very modest performance versions, the definition doesn’t apply either. Although it’s also hard to argue that some versions, like the Shelby GT350, weren’t genuine sports cars, given that it gave up its back seat and other amenities to the quest for more performance.
Frankly, the term “sports car” has become largely anachronistic. As technology advances, there’s little or no need to give up passenger capacity, comfort and amenities for performance. A Tesla S is the fastest accelerating production car in the world to 60 (in 2.28 seconds), beating the most expensive “sports cars” in the world, and it seats up to seven. And it’s a well know fact that popular sports cars like the Miata are not exactly built to be faster than quick sport sedans or be specifically more competitive in racing/sporting events, but designed more to offer a specific driving experience.
Like so many others, the definition of “sports car” arrived from a specific source: to be more competitive in sporting events. But nowadays, the most important sporting event is in creating a user experience and public image. And for those purposes, “sports car” has a pretty broad application. But one could also argue that it’s a mostly anachronistic term that just won’t die fast enough. Like so many labels that have largely outlived their original meaning, it’s mostly in the eye of the person using it. The phrase, that is.
I think it’s easier to say what is not a sports car than what is. The early Corvettes with the powerglide transmission were questionable I think. The Cadillac Allante was not, even though it is a two passenger car, but then the Mercedes SL of that time was not either.
Stutz Bearcat and Mercer Runabout: definitely! Morgan? Yes too.
I’ll tell you when the definition of the sports car died. The Toyota Sport Truck. Racing stripes, bucket seats and chrome trim rings. Throw in a TV commercial showing it drag racing a Lotus Esprit and people lose it.
Interesting that America’s first sports car was a steamer, what we’d consider alternative energy today.
Tesla S may not be a sports car, but the Tesla Roadster certainly was. It was also an electric convertible, unique among production EVs so far. (By the way they’ve said there will be a new Roadster once Model 3 is up and running in volume.)
Is there an electric sports car available for sale in the US today? There’s been talk from several vendors such as Audi, but I’m not aware of actual delivery yet. BMW i3 and Fiat 500E are certainly sporty, but not quite sports cars, they’re too practical.
Years ago I bought my ’93 Miata with an electric conversion in mind. It could be a very sweet electric sports car, especially with the top down. But now you can get a lightly used 500E or other EV for much less than the parts cost of a conversion.
I agree that it’s anachronistic, my answer in the other topic was more when I started or stopped calling certain cars sports cars, and the semantics of it, not so much my present day outlook. I think what separates sports cars between today and the past is few, if any, current new cars could be driven off a showroom floor, have some numbers applied to the side and be competitive, let alone eligible(safety equipment and such), in a race environment.
I would concede the 65-66 GT350 was as sports car as a not-originally-meant-to-be-sports-car could get. The GT350 R DEFINITELY is. It could also be argued to a certain extent that many homologation specials could qualify as well, Hemi powered Wing cars for NASCAR, and early Z/28s, Boss 302s for Trans Am come to mind on the American side. All of those were pretty compromised for street use by their race bred mechanicals/aero.
Another car that might be in the running for the first American sports car is the American Underslung. Harry Stutz designed it in 1905 (first produced in 1906) in his role with American Motorcar Company in Indianapolis. Its low stance was from the springs and axles mounted above the frame (with huge wheels for ground clearance) and a 475 cubic inch four that was supposedly good for 75 mph. They were *not* cheap. The company went out of business in 1914. The attached photo is of a 1907.
There are probably others, as the chaotic state of early auto manufacture guarantees that many forgotten attempts at cars like this were out there but now forgotten.
I just noticed how the Stanley doesn’t put springs between the wheels/axles and the frame, it puts them between the entire frame and the body.
Given the Stanley’s really high unsprung weight and its high center of gravity (made necessary by the full elliptic springs between frame and body) I would bet on the American Underslung over the Stanley on a road course any day. Not that such an opportunity for a wager will come my way any time soon.
A steamer huh? So… all that smoke is not from a burnout????
It might be from a burnout. Cheech and Chong’s cars smoked like that.
I’d argue that throughout automotive history, there have been far more SPORTING cars than actual sports cars.
And in my opinion, such cars as early Corvettes (’56-62), Porsche 356s, etc, qualify more as sports cars than many of their more modern equivalents. A sports car should be focused on performance, not amenities or creature comforts.
That being said, I certainly wouldn’t mind owning and driving something like, say, a Miata. It and anything else out that that’s similar come closer to the above criteria than something like a new Corvette with power/electronic everything.
A sports car does not need to be good at the drag strip to qualify as a sports car. It does need to have exceptional handling or at least be capable of it with minor mods. This requires it to have a 50-50 weight distribution, or close to it, and to be very light weight and a low center of gravity.
The first post war mass produced American sportscar would be what?
’53 Studebaker Champion? (at least in looks if not handling/performance)
What about the Crosley Hotshot?
Don’t know that much about it. Never seen one in person. Does it qualify as mass produced?
The Hot Shot is definitely a candidate for first American postwar sports car. It meets most criteria used for popular Brit makes. No amenities. Crash box. Removable windscreen. Disc brakes. No doors. Easily upgraded performance. Won at Sebring. Scared them at Le Mans. Series production: made in the hundreds each year.
I’d vote for the Corvette before considering the Studebaker, if only because of the fiberglass body.
And the 1st gen T-Bird as the first one with a bit of genuine oomph (later T-Birds being a different kettle of fish entirely, of course.)
Definitely the Crosley Hotshot. The ’53 Studebaker Starlight coupe was of the ‘sedan’ genre, as it was made to handle four or more people at any time.
As much as I love the Studes, the 53 Starliner is a sports car only in the mind of the advertising copywriters. Especially the Champion, with its dull, overtaxed flathead six.
Mike Lamm lusted for a 53 Stude for years, and finally wrote up how once he had it, the car did not live up to the car in his mind. He reported that it drove not a lot differently from many other early 50s American cars, with slow steering and less-than-sporting suspension to go along with its willowy frame.
First Generation MAZDA RX7,Early 70s BMW2002,1994 SUPRA and NISSAN SILVIA R32&R34s.
Chevy Volt? The performance in this case is energy efficiency. Carrying capacity is somewhat limited too and has been reduced in the name of efficiency.
I would call the AC Cobra and Sunbeam Tiger V8 sports cars of their day.
Boy, that Corvette advert made me cringe.
One thing I would note regarding ads and sports cars is that in many cases, if the ad needs to say “this car is a sports car”, it likely is not what many enthusiasts would call a sports car.
For instance, Bentleys used the “Silent Sports Car” tagline for years, yet calling a Bentley MkVI a sports car is pretty tenuous.
Pay no mind to what the guys in the fancy suits say or write. It’s all double-speak.
For me a sports car is about the driving experience, not performance. I have to feel one with the car. Feel the front tire grip through the steering wheel and the rear through the seat. There should be no slack or delay in its response. I should sit low inside it. The original Miata is a great example.
A car can be extremely fast yet completely dead and disconnected. That’s not a sports car in my book. YMMV.
My definition of sports car:
Two seater (I make allowances for Porsches), manual transmission (yes, I’m out of date – sorry, if it ain’t got three pedals it ain’t a sports car) with a floor shifter, bucket seats preferred although some of the early ones had a bench seat.
And I’ll allow conversions. A first generation Mustang is not a sports car. However, once Shelby got done with them, they were. Removing the back seat was instrumental to the conversion.
Yeah, yeah, what it really comes down to is I stand and point. “That’s a sports car, that one isn’t.” Which is what the majority of us do.
An interesting aside: During the 1930’s there really weren’t any American sports cars. At that point, the general automotive attitude was that, with the advance of automotive technology, sports cars were obsolete. Why would you want a specific type of car for sporting performance when, in theory, any automobile should be capable of it?
The MG answered that question.
Clearly muddy waters here. Ask 10 different people to define “sports car”, and you will get 10 different answers.
11 different answers; here’s mine:
A sports car is a four-wheeled vehicle which prioritizes speed and road-handling.
Now to try and find the exceptions that break it.
Veyron – check
Mustang – generally no, but specific models yes.
Crosley Hotshot – yes
M5- yes
Toyota TRD truck – no because it’s not about road-handling
Plymouth Roadrunner- no (see above)
Tesla S – no because performance is not the car’s priority
I’m sure there’s a fatal flaw, but I leave it to more learned folks to find it for me while I sip some more coffee.
Or, to paraphrase what Justice Potter Stewart once said in a Supreme Court opinion on obscenity, I am not going to try to describe it, but I know it when I see it. 🙂
The closest machine I would define as a sports car? Renault 5 Turbo 2. Having driven one of the 200 or so that made it to the States, yes I am biased. 🙂 And I don’t even like French cars.
Light weight, great handling, easy to toss, engages the driver, enough power to qualify as a car that fits the slow car driven fast requirement. Mid-engined gets bonus points.
A sports car is a car with a maximum of two seats, designed for pure driving enjoyment. Weather protection is optional, as is storage, radio or even heat. I dont remember who I am quoting. I believe I read this in ROAD&TRACK back in the 70s. R&T was a great magazine dedicated to the automotive enthusiast, now its become a picture book filled youtube searches. So Sad!