Jim Isbell wrote:
>I think it should at least have a "rolling date" edge rather than the
>arbitrary 1972 cut off date that has been im place for several years now
>so as to exclude slicks and wings. Is there something "nasty" and
>unpleasant about slicks and wings?
Well, unfortunately, there IS something nasty about wings and slicks.
If someone is foolish enough to drive one too close to the limit, they
find out that the limit is a cliff, not a gentle slope. The traction
characteristics of these cars are way too abrupt for the range of
abilities one typically finds at vintage events. Granted, Jim seems to
have just the right attitude for vintage racing, but IMHO, he has the
wrong car. All I can say to that is nobody forced him to buy a 79 Lola.
When people ask me what kind of car to buy to get into Vintage racing, I
tell them to first find a bunch of people they want to race with and
then find out what cars they accept. Failing that, you can at least go
to a bunch of events in your area and figure out which events you want
to run, then find out what they accept. Proper research BEFORE buying a
race car is the only way to avoid lots of heartburn on this subject.
>The last time out my little FA was screaming its heart out and a damned
>Indy car was lapping me every other lap, scaring hell out of me when it
>went by each time. They should not be mixed like that.
Tell me about it. In an early Formula Junior, I keep getting blown off
by F2 and FB cars. The Fords are also lots faster, given another 10-12
years of suspension and tire technology. There are always going to be
significant speed differentials in this sport. Unless you can get
enough people with similar cars together for a "challenge" race, cars of
different potential will be mixed. How many different groups can you
have?
|