I agree. Greg Solow
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Hill <Jim_Hill@chsra.wisc.edu>
To: <vintage-race@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: Our Sport
>
> 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
>
>
|