Damon Hill in BTCC?

[racer69]

I downloaded a Ford Sierra for SCGT which Damon Hill apparently drove in the BTCC. What year did he drive and how did he go.

[Aysedasi]

I've never heard of Damon driving in the BTCC, but then again, I'm no BTCC expert.

[KA]

It was a one-off appearance at Donington in either 1988 or 89- the BTCC back then included a 1-hour race with driver changes, and Hill appeared in one of the RS500s- think it might have been one of Graham Goode's cars. I can't remember exactly how he got on without looking it up, but I think he finished something like 5th or 6th

I think it was one of those points in his career when he was struggling for a budget (that describes much of his F3 & F3000 career...)-I think he made a couple of appearances in sportscars that year as well

[Carrie]

It was indeed at Donington and it was in 1989, I can't remember how he got on either, I'd have to check the video (wherever it might be)

[Nononsensecapeesh]

4th Place, sharing with Sean Walker

[VIVA GT]

OK, as this thread's been resurrected, here's a picture:

[crmalcolm]

I imagine this is one of the threads that definitely didn't need to be resurrected after so long.

Four posts in the same day 16 years ago, and then nothing. Suggests that the original query was answered to the posters' content - or that there was nothing worth discussing in any length.

I would imagine if Carrie and KA still had a burning desire to know the answer to their question 16 years later, they would have repeated the question somewhere else by now??

[btccbloke]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I imagine this is one of the threads that definitely didn't need to be resurrected after so long.

Four posts in the same day 16 years ago, and then nothing. Suggests that the original query was answered to the posters' content - or that there was nothing worth discussing in any length.

I would imagine if Carrie and KA still had a burning desire to know the answer to their question 16 years later, they would have repeated the question somewhere else by now??

just imagine they had been sitting waiting patiently for someone to give that answer

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I imagine this is one of the threads that definitely didn't need to be resurrected after so long.

Four posts in the same day 16 years ago, and then nothing. Suggests that the original query was answered to the posters' content - or that there was nothing worth discussing in any length.

I would imagine if Carrie and KA still had a burning desire to know the answer to their question 16 years later, they would have repeated the question somewhere else by now??

This thread (along with many more) was resurrected by someone who was new to the forum and has obviously trawled through and found a number of old threads which was of interest to them, and so has added comments.
I too wasn't a member of the forum when this thread was originally live, but seeing it this morning prompted me to add the photograph I have as I thought it may be of interest to other members.
If there is still no interest in this, and other recently resurrected threads, it will just fizzle out again. However, if other members now find them of interest it will have been a successful resurrection surely?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

This thread (along with many more) was resurrected by someone who was new to the forum and has obviously trawled through and found a number of old threads which was of interest to them, and so has added comments.
I too wasn't a member of the forum when this thread was originally live, but seeing it this morning prompted me to add the photograph I have as I thought it may be of interest to other members.
If there is still no interest in this, and other recently resurrected threads, it will just fizzle out again. However, if other members now find them of interest it will have been a successful resurrection surely?

I agree - a lack of interest will see a thread fizzle out.

Not all resurrections are a bad thing, if there is more to be added. So the picture you posted is exactly that - something that those who may not have seen it before may be interested in.

I also think though, before resurrecting a thread then a question to be asked might be - why did the thread die in the first place?

As the posting guidelines state - ' Before posting, ask yourself these questions [...] Has the topic been covered before?' The question is just as pertinent to whether a thread should be resurrected as it is to creating a new thread surely?

[btccbloke]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I agree - a lack of interest will see a thread fizzle out.

Not all resurrections are a bad thing, if there is more to be added. So the picture you posted is exactly that - something that those who may not have seen it before may be interested in.

I also think though, before resurrecting a thread then a question to be asked might be - why did the thread die in the first place?

As the posting guidelines state - ' Before posting, ask yourself these questions [...] Has the topic been covered before?' The question is just as pertinent to whether a thread should be resurrected as it is to creating a new thread surely?

iI can agree not all resurrection are bad when there is new or valuable information to add.
However resurrecting about 15 over a 10 min period with nothing of note and no context to what they are adding just looks like someone spamming the boards.

If a topic is of interest and there's something worth noting is being bought up surely a new thread referencing the old is better than digging up old conversations where the moment is gone and half the posters have left

[Nononsensecapeesh]

I sometimes get carried away, there I said it.