[Purist]

Bob, I don't disagree with what the man himself said. On the other hand, we can both be right from our own perspectives, because the car could be quite unstable compared to today's machinery, but not so much compared to its contemporaries, and Greenwood would have been used to driving a car that was that way. So, it wouldn't have been such a big deal to him.

Uh, Bob, the point of racing IS to go fast. That being the case, what's the problem with wings (if anything, they'd be on of the features that harken back to the purity of what racing was supposed to be about). And if you're issue is exclusivity, that only the big teams can produce really good wings, I have a newsflash for you. That's how is is with the whole car. So by your standards, EVERYTHING on the cars MUST be a gimmick! And still, I don't understand, and maybe it's my engineering background, how wings are a "gimmick". It just doesn't compute, and at some level, I have a real aversion to such comments.

Of course, wings started out as just little stubs, but there is a VERY noticeable difference between a Lotus 49A and a Lotus 72 even, much less a Lotus 79 (and I haven't even gotten into the 80s or 90s with the car designs). Indycars of the mid 60s looked like bulbous "torpedo racers", but by 1972, you have cars resembling early Lotus 72s with those rear-deck-looking wings. I'm more than half blind, literally, and even I can tell that wings made a BIG visual difference on the cars.