It's great to see all the different opinions thrown out on this subject.
These are truly historic times when a whole bunch of racers and other
interested parties can become a part of a rules discussion. Usually I don't
even know what's happening until it is a done deal and I read about it in
the rule book.
But you guys asked for it, so here's some more opinions...
Name: I kind of like "Classic", because it doesn't make it sound as old as
"Nostalgia". And Classic kind of fits the general cutoff year discussion,
since I have heard of cars being referred to as classics when they are 20 -
25 years old.
Cut-off year: I understand the feeling by some that the cut-off should be
earlier, like 74 or 69. I think that the whole idea of this class is to
preserve a place to race for a whole batch of cars that have been racing for
a while and also to have classes where people can build and race a car
without spending a small fortune to be competitive. I don't think that
setting the cut-off at 69 will accomplish that because, frankly, to keep
things "cheap", I think you will need the large numbers of cars built in the
70's. There just aren't enough of the early cars left to think that a
significant number of them will be turned into race cars. And the 70's cars
are plentiful and cheap. Maybe that's why you see so many of them in land
Speed Racing. There are a lot of these cars already racing, and that is what
we are trying to preserve (I think). Now as for the debate of 74 vs. 81, I
am sure 81 was picked because of ease of enforcement. The difference in
aerodynamics between a 70 and a 81 Camaro are small compared to the
difference between that sort of Camaro and other "brick" cars out there. And
the 70 through 81 all look similar. More of a problem would be created by
cutting it off in the middle of these years as people would try to retrofit
75 and up bodies with pre 75 parts to make them legal. It is already hard to
enforce rules regarding cars of "mixed" years. There are plenty of cars out
there that run body parts from several years and pick one to claim for
registration purposes. And frankly, who cares, as long as it looks like the
year they say it is. I know 81 doesn't fit everybody's idea of where the
break should be, but for practical purposes, it seems to work to separate
the really aerodynamic cars that came out in 82. I'm sorry that so much of
this discussion centers around Camaros, but let's face it: there are a lot
of them out there. Even for the other makes, aerodynamics seemed to change
around 82. There are just a whole lot of cars competing out there now that
conveniently fall into a cut-off of 81. And these are generally the cars
that are seeing their records broken by 20, 30, 50, 75 miles per hour. When
cars have raced for years looking for a couple of extra mph, it doesn't take
a rocket scientist (sorry Mayf) to see what will happen to them when the
record goes out of sight. And how many of you can afford to build the latest
"state-of-the art" car now? For ease of application, I vote for 81.
Electronics: I don't think you should allow the new-fangled stuff that
controls everything with a computer unless the car originally came with it,
and then you can only use THAT one. Once again, I want to see categories
where mere mortals can afford to build a car. There are plenty of cars out
there that have set records using the old technology (you know, a coffee can
with 8 holes punched in it) and these are the cars we should try to
preserve. If older cars want to step up and run electro gadgets, they can
run in the current classes. Trying to have "entry-level" classes means
limiting more than just the body, and you have to admit that electronics
adds a whole new dimension of cost and complexity. I say keep the "Classic"
classes simple.
Misc ramblings: As far as "soft records" I am amazed that anyone would
think that the proposed changes will "give" people Red Hats. Bear in mind
that the cars that will fall into these categories have been racing against
each other competitively for years. After excluding the new records of the
techno-cars, there are darn few soft records in these classes now. It is not
like they are going to go out and set a bunch of soft minimums for the new
classes. There will be existing records for all of them. Any new "minimums"
will be established for the current classes where the record has not already
been set by a techno-car. I am sure that new minimums will take into account
similar records set in similar classes.
And for those of you that feel that there are too many classes already, the
logical end of that thought is that there is only one "real" land speed
record, and if you don't want to run against the 400+ mph record, don't come
out. I already made the comment that Land Speed racing is kind of like a
living, rolling museum. Where else can you see such a variety and so many
bitchin old cars run? This is what we need to preserve. The diversity of
classes hurts no one, and allows more people to feel a part of this
historical form of racing. It is not like we have to come up with a bigger
purse for the races since you can't win any money anyway. What is wrong with
allowing more people to compete? A few extra pages of classes in the rule
book isn't going to kill anyone, and if it allows more people to realize the
dream of racing on the salt, dirt or airstrip, it is a good thing.
The cars that will fit into the new categories are already there and racing,
or can be built to race without mortgaging the house. What other form of
racing can show such diversity and enthusiasm? I hope these new categories
receive the blessings of the racers instead of resentment toward making the
"pond" bigger.
David
|