Back in the '50's I used to shoot muzzle loading rifles with my Dad. Of
course they were real 19th Century rifles. A lot of others started to
do the same; hold contests, etc. Didn't take long to realize that the
supply of genuine rifles wouldn't last very long if they were fired
every weekend. You can sleeve barrels and painfully craft new lock
parts, but the result isn't very satisfactory. So nearly all
competitive shooting is now done with replicas. They look and work the
same, but cost a few hundred instead of a few thousand and can be junked
when worn out.
So just what is wrong with replicas that look and work the same? Is
that painfully restored CanAm car not a replica with a genuine number
plate? How many folks want to go 200 miles an hour with a 30 year old
tub? or 30 year old suspension links? Can 30 year old fiberglass be
made to look as glistening as folks who spend several hundred thousand
on a car want it to be?
What, then is a car? if it has a new frame and body isn't it a
replica even if it has a genuine number plate? Why get sanctimonius
about acknowleged replicas IF they are built with appropriate
technology? (Doesn't that restored CanAm car also have the poorly
disguised modern engine? just a thought.)
I don't agree with the European practice of racing 50 year old
cars as if they were new, including bashing them up. That only creates
replicas of cars that ought to be in museums. In my opinion, vintage
racing is about racing earlier technology cars. If they look right and
are right, the year of manufacture or preparation should be irrelevant.
This time is coming - the price of museum pieces makes racing them a
hobby only for the awesomely wealthy - and there are too many of us
non-wealthy racers to freeze us all out.
So: replica purpose built race cars should be recognized as ok, since
no one can, or tries to, tell the difference between a
built-from-scratch replica and a "restoration" that is a replica built
around an authentic number plate. Newly prepared production cars should
be ok for the same reason. Requiring authentic racing history only runs
up the cost and encourages number plate swaps.
Grant Reynolds (and my Zink is entirely original except for the seat
and the nose).
WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/07/01 10:50:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> S800Racer@aol.com writes:
>
>
>> Hang on there. Not everyone thinks that building a modified or special
>> to some earlier standard is wrong. Art Eastman wrote a very interesting
>> piece in Vintage Motorsport suggesting a class for constructors of specials
>> with some rules about use of vintage technology. I think that would be
>> great
>> fun.
>>
>
> Hmmm - you've just painfully and expensively restored your unique sports
> racing car, say an early McLaren, and then what shows up next to you on the
> grid, but a modern 'vintage' sports racer with ill concealed modern engine
> modifications and suspension technology at least a couple of decades more
> current, but built for a fraction of what you spent on your restoration.
>
> Please remember to smile when he blows you away on the track, and keep
> smiling when you eventually wind up as the only original Canam entry in a
> grid of replicants.
>
> Great fun indeed, perhaps, for those of a singularly masochistic bent.......
>
>
> Bill Spohn
|