In a message dated 6/29/98 9:21:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
tshirley@voyageronline.net writes:
<< You
can't see the interior panels from trackside as the cars pass by at
racing speeds anyway. >>
But isn't an important part of vintage racing the ability of fans, young and
old, to see the cars in the paddock (where they spend 90% of the racing
weekend)?
My original point was a skeptical one. Someone wanted to gut his interior and
replace all of it with aluminum "solely" in the interests of safety. Yet did
he ask about self actuating fire systems or nomex covers for the seats or a
four layer nomex driving suit? All these items cost more money, substantially
increase fire protection, but don't give a performance advantage. Could there
be a correlation there? How many of you have seen a car arrive on the grid
with a gutted interior, a fire bottle instead of an onboard system and the
driver in the minimum layers of nomex. Can you really say this guy is
concerned about fire safety?
Most organizations don't allow roll cages to stiffen the car or tie into the
suspension, even though that might be safer. Maybe we should try this idea
with gutted interiors... you can gut the interior in the interests of safety,
but you must add the equivalent weight as ballast to the car. Maybe then we
would learn who is really doing it in the interests of safety, and who is
using the safety excuse as a performance advantage.
PS...I think the SVRA has taken a similar approach with their minimum weight
for specific cars.
|