I'm with you Doug lots easier to find a 1995 camero than a 1968 and
cheaper too for the 1995.. It sure seems to me if you want to get young
racers involved you have to have classes for what they want to race..
Most I have seen are hot roding all sorts of import and smaller cars..
The kids are all into computers and everything that goes with it. In my
opinion give them a place to race a turbo toyota or honda and let them
play with the computer stuff and enigne some and seems like there would
be more. Didn't this whole thing start with a bunch of young guys
wanting to see how fast the old cars they fixed up would go?? What makes
anyone think it would be any different now.. Might want to look at this
new blood thing through 22 year old eyes and not our own.. Most of these
kids could probably care less about a 1980 Camero than they do a 59
Edsel.. I'd bet they both look the same to them for the most part..
My opinion useless as it is..
Dave Dahlgren
ARDUNDOUG@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 09/11/2000 4:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> dwarner@electrorent.com writes:
>
> << Doug,
>
> Thank you for your input. While your observation has valid points I see the
> opposite side. The current Modified Category has a year break of 51 years,
> this increases annually. While someone may have picked a '53 Stude to begin
> their LSR career in 1970 it is now obvious that the vehicle is at a
> disadvantage. Why not open an area for this person to run his car? He may
> have a couple of sons that want to join us. As their interests and 'need for
> speed' develop over a period of time they(the sons) will surely build a
> car/bike to meet the demands of increased speed and challenges. I believe
> that by adding under 50 classes we may be increasing the involvement in our
> beloved sport by younger generations which we all admit we need to attract.
>
> Dan Warner
> >>
> Dan,
> I agree with regards the older "modern" cars as defined by the present
> rules. A class change will make many "older" race cars competitive that are
> at a disadvantage by todays rules, hopefully getting them back into
> competition, possibly in the hands of the next generation of LSR competitors.
> Beyond those cars that could be "recycled" into competitive form by
> additional classes I see little value in additional classes. If someone new
> is getting into LSR today and didn't have access to an "older" race car they
> would tend to start from scratch with one of the better aerodynamic designs.
> Maybe I'm wrong, but if you're starting from scratch, building a LSR car
> based on a production body/chassis, isn't the initial "carcass" cost of
> anything 1975 to the early 90's pretty constant? It seems that the
> "carcass"cost of a 1949-75 production car to use in LSR would be high due to
> the demand among restorers and street rodders for these cars.
> I haven't gone back and reviewed all of the previous postings on the
> subject, so I may have my cutoff dates wrong. I do believe, however, that I
> have a pretty good handle on what the rule change is trying to accomplish.
> Regards the electronics and equipment restrictions on the proposed
> classes, that's all pretty much over my head. I just run a homemade set if IR
> injectors, a 1950's Vertex mag, and no sensors or other data gathering
> equipment. My concession to "high-tech" is my weather station and a hand-held
> calculator to interpolate "pill" changes and density altitude.
> Please explain your thoughts regards the next generation of LSR
> competitors being inhibited by the present rules and encouraged by more
> classes. Other than recycling an LSR car handed down by their predecessors I
> can't figure how the proposed rule change would encourage them. Maybe I'm
> missing something.
> As you know, my son Brian is now taking an active part in my LSR program,
> setting records in my XXF/MR at Muroc and Bonneville this year. Keeping him
> motivated and involved is one of my goals............Ardun Doug King, #1313
> XXF/MR
|