Andrew
Agree we should open up the FV issue to the list.
I've had a number of calls from FV people in the last few months asking f=
or
some advice and assistance in getting accepted into the historic ranks.
As far as I can see the only reason for currently excluding them is a for=
m
of snobbery ... they're not real race cars ..... they sound like ducks
farting in wet grass .... they're not as fast as a F5000 (which we all kn=
ow
are much slower than FF!!)
My personal view is that if they are no longer competitive in state
competition the cars should be historic - no arguments. I would also muc=
h
prefer to have them mixed with historic FF than the BDA's and F5000's whi=
ch
they run us with at present.
Interestingly the CAMS Year 2000 paper - produced after zero consultation=
but amazingly containing some items that actually make sense - discusses
the need to have a more orderly transition from modern racing into
historics. This rather goes against the Mexican arguments in relation to=
the Group R issue!
The issue then becomes one for the promoters - which categories should on=
e
run at which meetings? =
The HSRCA has already moved to cater for a wider audience. The
introduction of pre-60 and post-60 meetings is brave as they will be
difficult to run profitably until numbers grow some more, but they do
create the capacity to introduce a greater variety of machinery.
I have suggested to the FV guys that they talk to the HSRCA about gettinj=
g
a start at the Oran Park GP meeting in August, and have mentioned the sam=
e
to Col Haste and to Rob Lesslie. Hopefully the Group C guys can also get=
a
start - this from memory was one of the topics you raised around Xmas whe=
n
the rest of the list was on holidays and we had to write the whole thing
for them.
It would be very helpful if other listers could give us some input on the=
acceptance of FV to historic ranks in other parts of the world.
regards
Jeremy Braithwaite
Age and Treachery Racing Australia =
http://usersw.bigpond.com/atroz/index.htm
|