I quite agree with Bill Putnam's fresh perspective on this issue. I
would like to add a bit more in that vein.
Bill mentioned that the racing he does is "polite." I believe this is
true of all of the good Vintage clubs. Driver attitude is monitored
closely. CSRG has a Driver Observer program where drivers observe
those running in other groups, and will call them in for counseling if
they appear too aggressive for safety. All the drivers are coached in
the attitude that the car is not a tool to be used to win at all
costs. These old cars have already made all the racing history they
are going to. All we can do is try to keep them going and present them
in the manner they were intended to be seen, while having loads of
fun.
Will this be the attitude of someone driving a replica? If the car can
be built once from scratch, or from cheap donors, it can be built
again. If the replica is built to be more powerful than the original,
and the replica driver finds himself contending for the lead, will his
Testosterone start writing checks his car can't cash? This opens up a
terrible possibility that if a cheap replica is involved in a crash, an
irreplaceable original may be destroyed, or worse someone may be
seriously injured. A replica can also be built stronger and safer than
the original, using modern techniques. If replicas were allowed to race
with originals, I think the first time something like this happened, it
would take the drivers about 2 minutes to call a meeting and ban
replicas forever. It should not come to that. Replicas should not be
allowed to pass themselves off as originals at true Vintage events. It
increases the risk of damage to originals because, in the back of his
mind, the replica driver *knows* the car can be replaced.
I also agree that it is a shame to cut up a original to make something
new. Granted, there is attrition, and some cars end up beyond saving,
but the right thing to do is use the parts cars to "restore" original
siblings, not to make a "new" car.
|