The continuing debate over what "vintage racing" is (or should be) has been
fascinating, educational - and occasionally frustrating.
Frustrating because of the apparent attitude of some very experienced and
knowledgeable that "racing is racing" . . . and everything else is just a
form of "touring".
Brian Evans wrote:
> If you're not racing, then you make the track a more dangerous place. For
> me. And I don't accept that. So I hope that everyone who thinks that in
> Vintage racing we just "show' the cars stays the hell off of the race
track
> when I'm on it, because I'm racing.
Jim Hayes wrote:
> >Guys, we are all out there racing, no matter what we say, and racing can
> >have consequences. If we cannot accept that "incidents" occur, we should
> >not be involved.
For starters, I don't know of anyone who claims that vintage races can be
made risk-free or incident-free. It may be a goal, but it can't be done.
Drivers make mistakes and misjudgments, no matter how talented they are, and
mechanical objects--particularly old race cars--tend to fail at singularly
inappropriate times. Nor am I aware of any dedicated vintage racers who're
out there just to "show" their car.
But more to the point:
"Racing" under NASCAR rules frequently involves bumping the car in front of
you out of the way - often into a cement wall at high speed.
"Racing" in Formula I has this year seen drivers putting their own teammates
out of the race on the first lap.
"Racing" in today's SCCA involves metal-to-metal (fibreglas-to-Kevlar?)
contact at virtually every contested corner.
Is this kind of conduct to be accepted in vintage "racing"? Is it so hard to
grasp the concept that in vintage racing there are other considerations
beyond winning at all costs? Like, for example, not wrecking your car and
injuring yourself . . . or (worse) not wrecking MY car and injuring me?
Doesn't vintage "racing" include leaving an extra "tenth" to allow for the
unexpected?
Professional racing drivers have spare cars to hop into when they write one
off. They're PAID to win races as an occupation. They also drive in a MUCH
safer environment than you and I do, in even the safest of vintage cars (has
your roll cage been tested for its controlled-crush capabilities?). And
professional racing drivers compete in a field of equally talented OTHER
professional drivers.
Clearly the clueless, the stupid and the incompetent should be excluded from
vintage racing (perhaps by requiring far more than a single session of
drivers' school). Clearly the "tourers" should not be on the track (perhaps
by some generous variant of the 107% rule).
Equally clearly, there's nothing whatever wrong with driving your car to the
limits of its capabilities and to the limits of your skill. But if you're
putting yourself and your fellow vintage racers at unnecessary risk, there
are other racing venues available.
My first SCCA race was in 1962. My most recent vintage race was this past
weekend. They share at least one important factor - everyone wants to be
able to take their car home in one piece. Thirty-seven years ago a lot of us
_drove_ our cars home. I can tell you from that experience that you can
drive hard, drive to win, give no quarter to your opponent . . . and still
leave a bit of margin so you don't have to hitchhike home from Willow
Springs leaving a broken car behind.
That, I think, is what vintage "racing" should be.
Jim Hill
Madison WI
|