Patrick, you wrote....
"On the issue of classes. I think the problem here lies with CAMS (why
not, they are to blame for everything else that's wrong with Australian
motorsport - not much overall but they cop the blame on all fronts). No,
seriously, I still find this Australian fanatacism/belief (call it what =
you
will) for the governing body to decide what is or isn';t a racing car =
rather
strange. After all, in the UK, or Ireland or most other countries of my
acquaintance, a race is what the promoter decides the rules will be.
In Ireland, we ran historic racing by saying, we would accept cars =
within
certain dates and which we were satisfied were historic. True, we were
extreme, didn't broach any of those horrid concepts such as democracy =
and
suchlike but then it worked well, as the drivers got start money and a
better prize fund than even the FF1600 championship at the time.
I think what needs to be done is for CAMS to be told where to stick its
capacity to deciee what is or isn;t a category and where promoters have =
a
potential grid they can get filled, to propse running a race to those
regulations. Of course, safety regs and suchlike are decided by the
governing body but the current situation of waiting for the grinding
bureaucracy at CAMS to do something makes little sense to an economic
rationalist (that is, privatise the government and shoot the people who =
are
surplus, incidentally) like me.
Can somebody not go to the management at somewhere like Wakefield Park =
and
ask them to run an invitation race for Group C sedans and then build the
idea from there? Why must CAMS sanction everything first? The RAC =
certainly
doesn't in England"
Group C cars do get invites to a number of Open Race Meetings, not =
all-Historics though and they prove popular with the spectators. By =
encouraging this trend we may see more of these original cars returning =
to the track - BTW, I had a telecon with a fellow competitor this =
morning and have now located (hidden in a country shed) a Group C Tourer =
that hasn't raced for over 15 years.
However, doesn't the concept of promoters putting together classes / =
races that suit them puts us back in the situation that has been aired a =
number of times on this list by many people in the US? Surely you end =
up with valid Historic cars being denied a race because somebody doesn't =
like them, or, you get some late model cars that run all over the rest =
of the field? =20
Also, by having one central body for vehicle rules, eligibility, =
classes, etc don't we avoid what appeared to me (observing from outside =
the US) to be the cause of much soul searching on this list where =
different clubs allow different specifications for the same model of =
car, thus making it difficult for people to race their cars at some =
events (or for their cars to be totally non-competitive if they run =
somewhere else)?
Much as we may knock the Confederation of Australian Motorsports, at =
least they have provided a standard set of rules for each Group within =
the Historic 5th Category and everybody in Australia knows exactly what =
those rules are and has to conform to them. It may sound like =
structured despotism, but at least the result is that it allows =
competitors to run their car at any race meeting in Australia that has =
invited entries for that competitor's Group.
Maybe the numbers of cars is significantly greater in North America, but =
there still seems to be a steady input on the topic from people such as =
BrianE, MylesK, SimonF, TedS, et al, which seems to indicate that there =
is a desire from competitors in the US to have a chance of running at =
any and every race meeting in the US - or have I misunderstood what =
people have been saying?
....regards....Andrew
=00
|