In a message dated 1/9/01 9:34:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, DWhitesdJr writes:
> There is no reason for an Arnolt-Bristol to be a back-maker if the cars are
> period prepared.
>
>
David Whiteside.....Yes, there is no reason for an Arnolt-Bristol to be a
back-marker ...if many of the other group production cars are also period
prepared. Not too much you can do for a 2,100 lb fully developed Bristol
120 hp, 1971cc, six cyl. of 1939 vintage... with mediocre drum brakes.
I'm not complaining...just stating a contemporary fact.
When I first began racing the A-B in 1984....the Alfas and MGAs were not
always in front of the Arnolt-Bristol ( other A-Bs included). The Arnolt-B
was considered to be faster than slow...but slower than fast... somewhere on
the grid in the mid-teens of say, 30 cars. Lap times and attitudes have now
changed. Then was then....now is now. It's a back marker in a 10-12 lap
sprint race.
Agreed....the Arnolt-B has always been an outstanding endurance (long legged)
race car compared to most other production marques. At Sebring between 1955
and the last time one raced, 1961...the Arnolt-B completed the 12 hours every
year ( with the exception of Sebring's first fatality in 1957...when Bob
Goldich flipped his A-B in the esses on the 40th lap..and Wacky called in the
remaining two A-B team cars to withdraw) and A-Bs finished as high as 14th
(1960) and 21st, 22nd and 24th (1961).
And to that end, counselor, the Arnolt-B in vintage race enduros....usually
enjoys looking at some of his faster, but disabled (DNF) British brethren
scattered around the track before taking the checker.
As British racer Tony Dean so aptly put it ....upon winning the Road Atlanta
Can-Am in 1970... in an old and tired 908: Mates, you have to finish to
win! The Arnolt-Bristol can do that!
I rest my case....
Lee Raskin, Esquire
Brooklandville, MD
Arnolt-B and 356ers.
Lee Raskin
Brooklandville, MD
Arnolt-B and 356ers
|