Your points get no argument from me. My racing attitude is what we all
agreed "Corinthian" meant even though I'm sure we made up a new
definition ;) I spent 6 years on the VARAC driver conduct committee. In
all that time we sat one driver down for the offence of "gratuitous
touring" (wasn't what he was actually doing, or what we called it at the
time). He had a F5000 (which we allow by invitation only, but we had
allowed his entry on the day) and the problem was that when the FFords
came round to lap him three laps into each session he couldn't see them in
his mirrors, and the combination of a real big car with huge potential and
very slow lap speeds presented real problems. So we asked him to sit out
the race.
My initial comments, BTW, were a bit of a rant, and identified as such. If
I had to make a real easy to grasp, bottom line differentiation between
racing and touring, it's that in racing passing in the corners is allowed
and expected, and in touring it isn't - pass only on the straights. I have
no problem grasping the difference between vintage racing and SCCA, Pro,
Winston Cup, etc. - vintage racing is the one with a column with little
curls on top ;)
Brian
At 03:04 PM 09/27/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>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
Brian Evans
Director, Global Sales
UUNET, An MCI WorldCom Company
|