MHKitchen@aol.com wrote:
>
> Jarl;
>
> You've made yourself very clear on your feelings regarding what many racers
> do today relative to utilizing modern technology vs. the way in was done back
> then. But, I don't understand how you can say using better rod materials
> result in an unfair performance advantage other than extended reliability.
> We all know the costs of repairing and rebuilding vintage engines keep going
> up. Building them to last for maximum longevity makes sense for anyone with
> a limited racing budget.
Myles,
Spending an extra grand or so to unnecessarily replace con rods in
search of "longevity"? When the constraint is a "limited budget"?
Accidentally gaining a "safe" 1-2000 RPM? Jim may do as he wishes, you
can keep upgrading your Cortina regularly as often as you like, it still
doesn't make your cars "vintage" You may race them in vintage events,
but just because they still look like what they were historically, they
aren't vintage. Yes, in the past, when the cars were current, everyone
pushed the edge of the performance and rules envelope. Colin Chapman was
an excellent example. The point is that that was "real" (or
then-current) racing. The rewards were prize money, trophies, improved
sales of the cars, championships, the ego trip of winning, being the
best. Our venue is different, at least I hope it is. Real racing is
available to us, but I for one have given up that arena, and choose to
compete in a sport where history, and what it meant, counts. I could
play "what if" and upgrade my cars too, but if I did that, I'd go to
SCCA or the like and measure myself and my car against competition that
would truly assess my efforts. Jarl
IMHO this is a dead horse on which we cannot reach a consensus. Can we
go on?
|