Sorry to hear that you guys south of the equator are having problems getting
Vs accepted. The US was that way up until about '67 but then, largely
through the efforts of one man, Dewey Dellinger they gained acceptance (in
most sanctioning groups). Dewey was then Publisher of Victory Lane and an
owner of a beautiful Beach FV. Dewey was devoted to vintage racing and
particularly the "little guys" who make up the pack. Unfortunately Dewey
passed away last year from cancer that he contracted as a result of exposure
to some nasty stuff in Vietnam.
Since FV has been accepted by The Monoposto Register the class has grown
steadily and the quality of the cars participating is very high. I hope you
can get them accepted as they make excellent cars for many reasons.
GJB
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Braithwaite <ATROZ@compuserve.com>
To: Andrew Pursey <MorrisOxford@s054.aone.net.au>; Vintage Race
<VINTAGE-RACE@autox.team.net>; Patrick Young <ply@adtrading.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 5:22 PM
Subject: FV not good enough ....
>Andrew
>Agree we should open up the FV issue to the list.
>
>I've had a number of calls from FV people in the last few months asking for
>some advice and assistance in getting accepted into the historic ranks.
>
>As far as I can see the only reason for currently excluding them is a form
>of snobbery ... they're not real race cars ..... they sound like ducks
>farting in wet grass .... they're not as fast as a F5000 (which we all know
>are much slower than FF!!)
>
>My personal view is that if they are no longer competitive in state
>competition the cars should be historic - no arguments. I would also much
>prefer to have them mixed with historic FF than the BDA's and F5000's which
>they run us with at present.
>
>Interestingly the CAMS Year 2000 paper - produced after zero consultation
>but amazingly containing some items that actually make sense - discusses
>the need to have a more orderly transition from modern racing into
>historics. This rather goes against the Mexican arguments in relation to
>the Group R issue!
>
>The issue then becomes one for the promoters - which categories should one
>run at which meetings?
>
>The HSRCA has already moved to cater for a wider audience. The
>introduction of pre-60 and post-60 meetings is brave as they will be
>difficult to run profitably until numbers grow some more, but they do
>create the capacity to introduce a greater variety of machinery.
>
>I have suggested to the FV guys that they talk to the HSRCA about gettinjg
>a start at the Oran Park GP meeting in August, and have mentioned the same
>to Col Haste and to Rob Lesslie. Hopefully the Group C guys can also get a
>start - this from memory was one of the topics you raised around Xmas when
>the rest of the list was on holidays and we had to write the whole thing
>for them.
>
>It would be very helpful if other listers could give us some input on the
>acceptance of FV to historic ranks in other parts of the world.
>
>regards
>
>
>
>
>Jeremy Braithwaite
>Age and Treachery Racing Australia
>http://usersw.bigpond.com/atroz/index.htm
>
>
|