Okay, let me jump in...
I raced SCCA for 12 years, so I'm familiar with the level of competition
that exists on that level. I drive no less hard in vintage than I did
in SCCA. However, at "moments of truth" I take a different tack. For
example, several years ago I was having a nice dice with a GT350 Mustang
at Mid-Ohio. I finally outbraked him at the end of the backstretch and
slid in front of him, allowing, probably, a foot of clearance as I went
up the hill to Eight. When we got to the front straight I knew what was
going to happen because I knew I had caught him napping on the back
stretch. So when we entered Turn One, he was forcing himself inside
me...trying to take my line. In fact, as we entered Turn One (and I can
show you tape of this) the corner worker to my right started to react to
what he knew was going to be an incident when we got to the apex. And
in SCCA racing there would have been an incident because I'll be damned
if I would have given the inside line to anyone. But this was vintage so
I moved to the right enough to give the Mustang room to pass and
resisted the temptation of tapping his right-rear as he went my.
I would argue that the level of attention in vintage, at least from my
personal perspective, is every bit as high as it was during my SCCA
days. And I would say that from a competitor's perspective, the level
of attention of those I race against is every bit as varied in vintage
as it was in MOST SCCA rcing. And you learn to deal with those varying
levels in both venues.
Rick Yocum
A backmarker in his
Chevy II - Group 6
-----Original Message-----
From: WSpohn4 [mailto:WSpohn4@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:35 AM
To: Rogsie; S800Racer; vintage-race; mgvrmark; drs
Cc: WSpohn4
Subject: Re: Rules and 'Cheating'
In a message dated 1/18/01 5:14:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Rogsie@telesistech.com writes:
> There are RC's at all levels of racing.
Yes, I know - I'm one of them, when placed in a much faster grid.
>
> Since the runoffs have been at Mid-Ohio, I've been every year. I hate
it
> when
> some SCCA racer claims that vintage racing is not real racing, partly
> because
> there is no contact.
I agree - if you are doing it right, there should be very little
contact.
Body contact happens when someone fails to 'do it right'. I frankly
think
that 'real man' thought and talk has little to do with racing, and that
bluster is often, but not always, exhibited in inverse proportion to
driving
skill.
>
> Oh, and yes, I did race SCCA for a couple years, but the vintage cars
and
> non-contact racing is more to my liking. And yes, I watch my mirrors
cause
> I'm
> not the fastest guy out there
Good for you - so do I.
> Also, Bill, if your not devoting 100% of your thought process to
what's going
> on on the track, then I think you should sit that one out. I've never
seen
> anyone talking on a cell phone while on the track, but we all know
what
> happens when people don't pay attention when driving, even on the
street.
>
Where did that come from? Please reread my post. I never said anything
about
not paying attention. But if you think the level of attention, of
awareness
of what is going on around you, is as high in a vintage grid as an SCCA
national, I would disagree with you.
> Back when I used to race bicycles, I came up with this little thought:
No
> matter how fast or slow you think you are, there will always be
someone who
> will be faster or slower than you, if not today, then tomorrow.
>
>
And I don't think I said anything that varies from that. Why is it that
when
I characterise slower, and sometimes less attentive drivers as roving
chicanes, that some people feel bound to come to their rescue, when from
where I sit, no slur was articulated against them in the first place?
Help me out here - my thought is that all, or most of the guys that took
exception to that innocent (in the sense of being neutral, or without
any
element of condemnation) characterisation are American. Not wanting to
start
an international incident here, but I have noted reactions like that
from
friends who are American liberals (we usually agree not to discuss
certain
topics so as to remain friends).
There is an odd (to much of the rest of the world, anyway) strain of
egalitarianism that says that all people are created equal, not in the
laudable sense that all should be afforded equal opportunity, but in the
more
literal sense that they really ARE somehow equal. When you see some
disadvantaged guy (maybe he isn't as gifted as the average guy in terms
of
intelligence, monetary means, physiognomy, or whatever), the sort of
person I
am talking about rushes to state that said disadvantaged person is just
as
good as anyone else etc., often in the absence of anyone saying anything
to
the contrary.
So let me clarify - there are some people that do NOT have the skill,
talent,
whatever, to race a car in a safe AND competitively fast manner. No
amount of
egalitarianism will change that. But they are not lesser beings because
of
that, any more than the good regional level SCCA driver is a lesser
person
just because he will never have the wherewithal to run at the Formula 1
level.
In discussing vintage racing, one inevitably touches on speed
differentials
resulting from equipment or driver differences. Can we agree that every
time
a mention of slower drivers comes up, or drivers with less innate skill,
we
are not uttering slurs against their character that can be remedied only
at
dawn, with oil guns at 20 paces? And that there is no need to leap to
their
theoretical defence? We can save a lot of bandwidth (what's left after
my too
lengthy response, anyway) that way.
To further outrage the people that took exception to me saying that
there is
a difference between vintage 'racing' and amateur (SCCA/CASC) racing,
let me
add that I received mail from people that participate in current racing,
saying 'Right on - the other guys will never understand" and mail from
vintage racers saying "What do you mean we don't do REAL racing?" So
there
are apparently two schools of thought on this, it isn't just my
overwrought
imagination.
Bill Spohn
(who runs an MGA, for heaven's sake - bottom 25% group, if he is lucky)
|