John Lye wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 11/23/98 +0000, Bill Sohl wrote:
> >Larry pretty much has the right bent on the realities of
> >older cars competing in current SCCA classes.
>
> Yeah, he certainly does since he races a Datsun 510, and he's
> our paddock mate, so he was specifically speaking of our own
> Chip Bond and the FOT axle order.
>
> >Remember the showroom stock class which had just
> >such a limitation.
>
> It still does, as far as I know.
I wasn't sure it even still existed. I lost interest
once the TR-8s dropped from being eligible. Isn't
the cut-off something like only 4 years?
> >Given the sponsor money at stake
> >for both individual entries as well as event and race
> >support, you can see where the pressure comes from.
>
> Well, so much for "club racing" and "amateur racing", eh?
I think we all recognize that the broad brush of
SCCA racing is far removed from club or amateur
racing. It takes big $$$ to compete at that
level on a repeated and consistent basis. Just look
at the $$$ that went into Group 44, Bob Sharp's
Datsun/Nissan efforts, etc. For my perspective,
true club racing is more along the lines of the
regional non-SCCA efforts such as EMRA (Eastern
Motor Racing Association).
Now I wish to note that my comments are not
intended to put down the SCCA. My comments
simply reflect reality. Clearly, once the PR
value of selling new cars was recognized by
the factories, then the evolution to today's
SCCA competition could had to have been expected.
That is even more true for the vehicles typically
in SCCA racing. Is there any doubt that many
of us thouroughly enjoyed driving a TR (or MG,
Alfa or whatever) having read about the competition
successes of our model vehicle in the pages of
various automotive journals?
Cheers,
Bill Sohl
|