Jim Hill wrote:
>
> In response to some of the recent comments about vintage racing's raison
> d'être:
>
> Life is a series of never-ending compromises. Especially when you're
> trying to recreate something that no longer exists (like the past) or
> something that perhaps never did exist (like ourselves as the pilots of
> famous racing cars). The good news is that we all get to decide where to
> make those compromises, where to draw lines, and who we want to play
> with.
>
> Tell me this: If you happened to own the Cooper Monaco that Stirling
> Moss put on the pole at the Times Mirror Grand Prix for Sports Cars at
> Riverside at the dawn of the sixties, and it had been hermetically
> sealed until you bought it yesterday, would it be the "same car" without
> a thirty-year-old, pre-Goodwood Stirling at the wheel?
>
> Would it be the "same car" if you ran it today with Valvoline oil,
> without a hint of the smell of burning castor oil that was the hallmark
> of the racing cars I remember from that time? (Who knew that a laxative
> could supply such an exotic aroma?)
>
> If I have to buy someone else's history to get on the track, I can't
> afford it. Besides, I'd miss half the fun that _WAS_ sports car racing
> in the 50's and 60's - trying to turn a sports car into a passable race
> car.
>
> Multiple choice - Which of the following cars is more "period correct"
> (i.e., the one you'd most like to see next to you on the grid at Road
> America):
>
> 1) A mid-50's special that was raced for some 20 years, during which
> time every part from the steering wheel on out was wrecked and/or
> replaced with a part that was lighter, faster, more aerodynamic, etc.
> (Suppose it started out looking like just another MG-based special and
> now it looks like a spec racer with a Kevlar body.)
>
> 2) That same 50's special that's now been "restored", using modern
> materials and techniques to recreate all those now-unobtainable original
> parts. Of course the frame is all new higher quality steel, and the body
> was fabricated by an artist in aluminum rather than being beaten into
> rough shape with a mallet . . . &etc
>
> 3) A "brand new" special, built last winter by the same fellow who
> originally built the car above, who's used the same 50's technology that
> went into the construction of the original car - and built for the same
> reason: because it was fun. (Perhaps, as someone suggested, a "new V8
> engined MG-TD")
>
> 4) Your best friend's restoration/racecar project, which began with the
> remains of a Healey 100 of undetermined origin and which has consumed
> two parts cars, every period-correct speed and reliability modification
> that could be found, the finest modern safety equipment that money can
> buy, and five of the happiest years of his life.
>
> 5) A brand new Speedwell Sprite replica containing not a single part
> more than 6 months old, but with a grinning now-68-year-old Stirling
> Moss behind the wheel - about to provide you with a story you can tell
> for the rest of your life regardless of the outcome.
>
> Me? I'd like to see them all. If we remember that it's more about
> "vintage" than about "racing", and we don't lie about our cars, and we
> can hang on to the goal of period authenticity without spending all our
> time debating history and eligibility, and drive with the proper respect
> for each other and the cars, we can all have a good time.
>
> Jim Hill
> SpyderWeb Racing
> Amici Triumphi
> Madison WI
> Motto: The First Concept of Superior Principle is Always Defeated by the
> Perfected Example of Established Practice
Jim has hit the nail on the head. Way back when I was in college from
1959 to 1963, we had guys modifying cars which for the most part never
got raced but were street driven. In my class of 24 Mechanical
Engineers, we had a TD with a 265 Chevy, a stock 53 Allard K2 -I think
was the designation, -a Cad powered full fendered machine. A 60 MGA with
a 283 Chevy, a 59 MGA with a 260 Ford, and my 57 Plymouth with hand
built swaybars, beefed up suspension, sort of a watts linkage and a
killer 301 with 3 speed OD for a total of 6 forward speeds.Some of my
friends outside of college had a 53 Studilac, a 54 Fordilac with the
glass hood. we were all into modifying and racing either on the drag
strip or the road courses. Nobody was particularly interested in what
class they were put in as long as they could race. We were not turned
away any place. The organizers would find a class to put the car in and
let us have some fun.
If today's vintage "racing" takes the hard nosed attitude that the car
must be totally original from the 60's, there will be some interesting,
but very small grids, since many people will not bring not their very
expensive machinery, nor can too many people even begin to afford them.
I see nothing wrong with period prepared cars that are not original race
cars but are correctly prepared for the period with todays safety
modifications. --As long as they are not tried to be passed off as an
original race car.
In my opinion, the spirit of vintage racing is to have a period
appearing car with today's safety improvements allowed and go out and
race at 80-90% with good sportsmanship. This puts on a good show for all
doesn't unduly jeopardize the all original cars that are out on the
track.
As an aside, this past weekend, I issued an SCCA logbook to a 66
Spitfire Mk I that stretched the current SCCA GP rules. This car was
built by a GT1 team and was every bit as sophisticated as today's GT1
and Trans Am cars. He went out and was 5 seconds faster than everything
else in his race at Blackhawk. He proceeded to lap up to 3rd place with
an engine that would not run below 2000 and had problems going over
6000. The car was incredible and the driver was pretty good himself to
lap E & F prod cars as well as some IT and other assorted classes. THe
car was definitely not vintage, as it was a state of the art mini GT1
car with absolutely impeccable workmanship. 30 years from now they will
probably be making this car run in some modified class. Potent mods are
still going on today
Bill D.
|