[Fot] alternatives to the SCCA?

[Bill Babcock]

No question, the point is that the guys who own the megabuck cars are  
keeping them in the garage, and that's sad. It doesn't make sense to  
change rules to make that even worse so that guys with good TR3's will  
have good reason not to race.

The damage issue is a big deal with the handling difference of these  
cars, and it's the same thing a guy in a 59 Testarossa with it's  
limited brakes and skinny tires feels when Peyote stuffs inside him by  
outbraking him.  I feel bad about that, and it would be nice to find a  
solution, but vintage racing really has already changed. Hard to un- 
ring that bell, but let's not find another to start banging on.

I intentionally left the Mitty, off the all aluminum Tour last year,   
because racing with 70's cars with aero and slicks isn't that much  
fun. The carnage in my group the year I ran in it was astonishing-- 
worse than a SCCA race. I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore when they  
announced at the drivers meeting that cars with duct tape repairs had  
to have permanent repairs before the next event. Hmmm, what happened  
to suspensions for contact and the 13/13 rule.

I have no problem remembering my first vintage race--I wandered into  
it by accident at PIR. GT40's, Testarossas, T70, 917, 908's, scarabs,  
tipo 61's, and all kinds of other great cars. These days you only see  
them at the Monterey Historics and big races like that.



On Jun 1, 2008, at 5:07 PM, WILLIAM TOBIN wrote:

>  Hey Bill, maybe my $20k car is worth more to me than the $1M car is  
> to its
> owner. We're all not rich out there; I've encountered a bunch of  
> Average
> Joes out there who are great people.
>  Good point, though.
>  Thanks, Bill Tobin
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Bill Babcock" <Billb at bnj.com>
>  To: "Jay Creel" <jaxonracing at yahoo.com>
>  Cc: <JWoesvra at aol.com>; <fot at autox.team.net>
>  Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 7:05 PM
>  Subject: Re: [Fot] alternatives to the SCCA?
>
>
>> Actually, I think Jack is being brutally honest for good reasons.  
>> I've
>> organized a few races myself, and been involved to a degree in the
>> inner politics of several vintage organizations. There are good
>> reasons why these organizations resist the pressure of sliding the
>> requirements of vintage racing to later years so that various SCCA
>> refugees can race.
>>
>> The cars that people come to see race--even the other vintage  
>> racers--
>> are cars from the fifties and sixties. Around 1970 wings and slicks
>> came in and racing changed forever. Even production cars had lots of
>> ground effects and aero tricks. Vintage racing has already changed a
>> great deal. The grand old cars don't show up as often anymore--they
>> are worth too much and cost too much to fix for their owners to have
>> them t-boned by some guy who is risking 20K in a corner VS. their
>> couple of million. Vintage organizations are getting tougher on their
>> rules, not easier. And it's for good reason. I argued the other side
>> long and hard--and I was wrong. It doesn't help vintage racing to
>> slide into the 70's, it kills it.
>>
>> Vintage means Vintage. Adding cars to a group that will circulate out
>> front and lap every vintage car, even if they aren't scored against
>> them, will change the game and keep even more true vintage cars at
>> home. Already saw it happen. If there's enough interest and money in
>> it then you can certainly organize racing events that suit these
>> cars.  The SCCA isn't making these moves in spite of the vast amounts
>> of money being made in running club events that include obsolete or
>> low-interest cars. Here in the Northwest, Team Continental and the
>> ICSCC run races with over 40 racing classes. Of course you're on the
>> track with some of the most misbegotten iron you ever saw, but it's a
>> fun group.
>>
>> The SCCA's move is nothing new by the way. I heard people complaining
>> about the exact same stuff twenty years ago.
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Jay Creel wrote: