This really frosts my cake . . . I leave town for a week and miss an entire
round of the "What is Vintage" debate!
Well, it won't stop me from chiming in, since I see that someone has
suggested:
> The question is: do you race old race car[s] or do you race old cars?
Are you
> there to drive an old warhorse for another lap of glory, or there to drive
> an old car? Are spectators there to see cars build last year, or cars
raced
> in the Glory Days of Racing?
> . . .
> If you want to preserve history, then require history on everything. If
it
> is about real cars, then they need to be real race cars.
All of which is well and good, but doesn't go nearly far enough. To truly
preserve history and show the spectators exactly what it was like "back in
the day", no vintage car should be allowed on the track without its original
driver.
I mean, can it truly be said that the spectators are really seeing the
"Glory Days of Racing" if that 50's Ferrari is driven--not by Phil Hill--but
some 18 year old who got his racing license a month ago?
As I see it, this would solve a whole host of problems:
1) There'd be no artificial premium on the value of a car with racing
history - except to the original driver(s).
2) There'd be about three dozen guys eligible to race (Augie Pabst in his
Scarab and 35 others), thus reducing the pressure on race organizers to sift
and winnow the burgeoning fields to manageable levels.
3) Many wonderful old race cars could be preserved for museum use for lack
of available drivers.
4) Burt Levy would be have more time to write books.
Now, if I can only find that Healey 100-6 and the TR4 I raced when they were
new, I too--for once--could be one of the elite few.
Jim Hill
Madison WI
|