No, they should not run at all. They are NOT vintage racers!
Roger
>From: Tombread@aol.com
>Reply-To: Tombread@aol.com
>To: Anderci@aol.com
>CC: vintage-race@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: But IS it a Vintage Racer? (was Eastlake)
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:08:29 EST
>
>In a message dated 11/7/00 8:52:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time, Anderci
>writes:
>
><< YES! >>
>Then does it follow that anything built to original specs (more or less)
>and
>appearance (mainly more), allowing upgrades for safety reasons only with NO
>enhancement in performance -- though it seems the latter often is a
>consequence of the former-- qualifies as a vintage racecar? If not, what
>are the disqualifying factors?
>
>I have no quarrel with the NASCAR machines since they are mainly a
>sideshow,
>and a popular one, and run by themselves. But a plastic-bodied modern
>Cobra
>that mingles with the real thing seems like... false advertising. I feel
>disappointed, as I was when I learned the Ferraris on Miami Vice were not
>the
>real thing. Or when Ferris Buehler punted the Ferrari out of the garage
>into
>the ravine-- knowing it was just a plastic look-alike, no matter how good,
>suggests the intent to fool. Watching the driver of a 1964 aluminum bodied
>Cobra worth several hundred Gs working the corners is a worthwhile sight
>and
>I don't want to find out later that the car actually was a 1994 fiberglass
>bodied Chevy engined replica. If authenticity is a hallmark of vintage
>racing, then shouldn't replicas run in a separate class?
>
>
>
>Tom Butters
>The Greens Fork Group
>Creative Communications Services
>765-886-5098
>public relations & marketing
_________________________________________________________________________
|