fot
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fot] alternatives to the SCCA?

To: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@spitfire4.com>
Subject: Re: [Fot] alternatives to the SCCA?
From: Bill Babcock <Billb@bnj.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:29:12 -0700
I've made the same argument many times, that most of the people who  
really care about a 1959 Testarossa are dead or at least not racing,  
but I've discovered its not really true. There really was a golden age  
and nineteen year olds still appreciate it. Cars are immortal even if  
drivers aren't. Drive a Jaguar XK120 or even a TR3 downtown and the 20  
year old  girls all give it a doubletake, even if the driver has white  
hair. Do the same thing in a Datsun 240Z and you're just an old guy in  
an old car.

On Jun 1, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Rocky Entriken wrote:

> If "Vintage means vintage" translates to "nothing later than 1972  
> (or whenever) can run, ever," then there's a basic problem with  
> that, as hinted below by the phrase "The grand old cars don't show  
> up as often any more."
>
> I am in charge of the voting for the hall of fame of an organization  
> of professional motorsports journalists. We discovered some time ago  
> that our original division of pre-war and post-war (meaning WW II)  
> had a problem. No problem when we started doing this in the '70s  
> when pre-war was basically 1890-1940, a 50-year span, while post-war  
> was 1945-1970, a 25-year span. So far, so good.
>
> But by the time we got to the '90s, we discovered the potential pre- 
> war candidates were a finite group, and we'd elected most of the  
> really good ones. While the post-war candidates were an ever-growing  
> group now comprising nearly 50-years worth of drivers.
>
> The solution? We abandoned pre-war and post-war and defined the  
> categories as "historic" and "modern" with the cutoff being 30 years  
> ago. This meant that the cutoff moved forward every year, so today a  
> star from 1978 is "historic era." and the historic era becomes  
> infused with new candidates each year just as the modern era is.  
> (The idea for this pattern actually comes from how the Baseball Hall  
> does it, when a player transitions to being an "old timer").
>
> So what I'm saying is, if in 1988 a 25-year-old car (1963) was  
> vintage, then why in 2008 isn't a 1983 car -- or a car built. to  
> 1983 specs -- vintage?
>
> Especially since the idea behind vintage -- purportedly -- isn't  
> about winning but just about putting the grand old cars on the track  
> again?
>
> --Rocky Entriken
>
> --
_______________________________________________
http://www.team.net/donate.html

Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>