----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Solow <gregmogdoc@surfnetusa.com>
To: David C. Wingett <elkhorn@megsinet.net>; FRIEND OF TRIUMPH
<fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: "Were Raced"?and Vintage Racing
> Dear David,
> Stewart's comments were directed at participants in "Vintage Racing,"
> not SCCA "Current Racing".
> And therein lyes the distinction between "Vintage Racing" and " Racing
> Old Cars!" Vintage Racing traditionally was/is about racing cars that
are
> prepared to the rules and /or technology that was in place and existance
at
> a given time in the past. Traditionally that time was usually a date
limited
> to a year before 1965 or 1967. That date may vary from group to group.
> That is why it is called Vintage Racing. I have no argument with anyone
> that is interested in "Racing Old Cars", in fact I think that it is a
great
> pastime. My argument is with those who do this and call it "Vintage
Racing"
> As a mechanic and engine builder, I like to have some idea of what I
am
> competing against. When someone whistles by me on the straight, is it
> because they have done a better job of building an engine than I have, or
is
> it because they have 200cc more displacement with valves sizes .150
inches
> larger than they are suppossed to be?
> Perhaps a partial solution to that would be for each competitor to
> "testify" to the size of their engine and if it is larger than it is
> suppjossed to be, then the displacement must be painted on the side of the
> car for all to see!
> If they were then caught lying about that displacement, then the 13-13
rule
> would apply. At least then all would know why the 1800cc Lotus 26R or the
> 1800cc Porsche 356 was so damn fast!
> My personal preference would be for the SCCA rules in force in the
1967
> GCR be used as a guideline for car preparation. Displacement as standard
> +.040 thou. overbore max. Standard valve sizes as delivered from the
> factory. Standard carburation as approved by SCCA or possibly FIA. No
> roller rockers or roller cams. Blocks and heads must be of original
> manufacture, type, and material. I would allow aftermarket rods as a
> reliability addition, as long as they were of original demensions. and so
> on...
> I believe that it is time for a shot of HONESTY in what we are doing
in
> Vintage Racing. At the very least everyone should have to "fess up" to
> what they are running!
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg Solow
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David C. Wingett <elkhorn@megsinet.net>
> To: FRIEND OF TRIUMPH <fot@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 12:58 AM
> Subject: "Were Raced"?
>
>
> > Stewart/Greg
> > When you mention the HSMA philosophy of preserving Triumphs as
> they
> > "were raced" You do many others a Great disservice ... the Triumph is
> still
> > raced today . The few that will still carry on a marquee that died off
> more
> > then two decades ago should be looked upon as heroes and there autos as
> the
> > High bread of the specie. There may soon be a day the SCCA opens the
flood
> > gates and squeezes us out.
> > The Runoff entry list for the E Prod group has only 3 TR-6's
in
> > it. Dwight Cooke, Mark Gerdes & Sam Halkias. (per the SCCA web) It's my
> > understanding that Speedvision may carry this race on Sat.10/9/99.
There
> > are many others of us that have chosen not to freeze ourselves in time
but
> > to continue the Racing tradition that the Triumph was built on.
> > The philosophy I most appreciate about Vintage is the strict
> > enforcement of GCR 9.1.1 & others. The racing is clean and that comes
with
> > ATTITUDE...It's not the age of the car, It's the maturity of the driver.
> Any
> > auto that's still racing, many long years after the walls of the factory
> > have fallen silent ...IS Vintage.
> > David Wingett
> >
> >
>
|