> Subject: Vintage Opinion
Vintage racing is growing as people who want to be more
> then spectators and can not afford to go professional racing are able to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> participate in the experience at what ever level they can afford (it ain
> cheep).
>
Can't convince me on that one! There are more transporters in the paddock
with pro crews at vintage races (witness the LRP Fall Festival where there's
practically no parking space in the main paddock for the "little guy") than
many pro races, and too many owners who can afford to write off expensive
cars.
Cheap racing is an oxymoron, but vintage is more expensive than SCCA amateur
racing and even some pro events.
Vintage racers are generally less agressive than pros or certainly the
youngsters running SCCA who want to turn pro. Most of us are a bit old for
that kind of racing or have other obligations that prevent us from
dedicating ourselves to be pro.
Reminds me of the conversation in the pits at NHIS last year where we were
wondering if AARP would sponsor a racing team....or if not, then Geritol...
Ah, which brings up another dilemma, my 17 year old son who wants to try
racing. Do we let him drive one of my cars, or buy a SS car and let him duke
it out with the SCCA crazies. Does a youngster have any business in vintage
racing? He certainly doesn't have any sense of the history - and it may be
difficult to get across the idea that one does not try to win at all costs.
Hmmmm, do we need a minimum age for drivers in the rules too?
jeh@fotec.com http://www.fotec.com/jim.htm
veni, vedi, veloce
|