> More importantly, when does it get in the way of safety? Authenticity should
> be secondary for things like roll bars, fuel cells, fire systems, proper seat
> mounting, updating to dual braking master cylinders, and perhaps even tires.
Myles (and Brian, especially Brian) I know that in the past I've written and
said things that make
me appear to be "authentic at all cost" but... I agree 100% with the safety
issues - I'd no more put
an original fuel tank in my car in place of the fuel safe cell than I'd use a
rope lap belt as used to be
done. Or use anything less than a contemporary SA rated helmet
It's really virtually impossible to have a safe race car that's 'showroom
quality' original - if
nothing else, as Brian pointed out, an L section Dunlop is as close as you can
get to a correct 13 tire
now, they're just not made...and the Dunlop has tremendously higher performance
that the period
bias ply did.
But things like this are a far cry from building a Rousch engine for a Mustang
that's 500 plus HP -
that's where I start to lose my understanding of why ANYONE would want to go
Vintage Racing. Why
not just get a GT1 car and go contemporary racing?
I think my whole attitude towards 'correctness' swings back and forth
depending on variables of
performance vs. reliability front runner vs back marker, I admit my own
inconsistancy but... you
can't maintain a club with any rules if the sands are always shifting. It's
probably safer for the
existance of vintage racing in general to try and keep it conservative knowing
it will always 'creep'
forward rather than throwing the flood gates open all at once which will
probably kill the game.
Hell, my own car, which has a long documented race history ( and I wish were
more correct)has
probably 50% more HP than it did when it was the class champion in '58 & '59,
but last year in a
race at Mosport with 40 'contemporary' vintage cars, I was lapped more than 100
total times in 30
minutes (and I don't pedal slowly!)
Another recent example is my
> front hubs. The original ones cracked and broke and N.O.S. parts are not
> available. The ONLY available solution was billet aluminum ones from the UK.
> It can certainly be argued that they're lighter, thus better performance,
> but I would argue that they're MUCH safer and less likely to break. So,
> what's the answer???
Again, because we are here as a hobby, I don't think there's anything wrong
with fixes like that - I
machined my front hubs to take tappered rollers instead of ball bearings - even
with Dunlop 4.50 L
15 with a 4" tread width, they generate so much more cornering power than 1958
period tires, I
was shattering front bearings.
But all these things are a far cry from building a duplicate Sebring Sprite or
using a 1275 in car
that was only mfg. with a 948.
I guess in a perfect world (of vintage racing) if you had a race this week with
an identical
assortment of cars as on a grid of any period, the finishing order, driver
aside, should be identical
- they'd all be faster than in the original period - better rubber, fuel etc. -
but the order should be
similar. A lousy car in 1957 shouldn't be a great car in '97.
As I read what I'm writing I can see the tiredness of years of trying to
explain (usually to no effect)
why in vintage racing you can't just do absolutely anything you want, which
generally is answered
by 'but all i want to do is have some fun' - it seems to take being around
vintage racing for a while
for the ramifications of absolute freedom to become obvious.
I'm rambling so it's time to sign off (thou that never stopped me before)
Mike
|