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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Babcock" <Billb@bnj.com>
To: "Jay Creel" <jaxonracing@yahoo.com>
Cc: <JWoesvra@aol.com>; <fot@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Fot] alternatives to the SCCA?
> Actually, I think Jack is being brutally honest for good reasons. I've
> organized a few races myself, and been involved to a degree in the
> inner politics of several vintage organizations. There are good
> reasons why these organizations resist the pressure of sliding the
> requirements of vintage racing to later years so that various SCCA
> refugees can race.
>
> The cars that people come to see race--even the other vintage racers--
> are cars from the fifties and sixties. Around 1970 wings and slicks
> came in and racing changed forever. Even production cars had lots of
> ground effects and aero tricks. Vintage racing has already changed a
> great deal. The grand old cars don't show up as often anymore--they
> are worth too much and cost too much to fix for their owners to have
> them t-boned by some guy who is risking 20K in a corner VS. their
> couple of million. Vintage organizations are getting tougher on their
> rules, not easier. And it's for good reason. I argued the other side
> long and hard--and I was wrong. It doesn't help vintage racing to
> slide into the 70's, it kills it.
>
> Vintage means Vintage. Adding cars to a group that will circulate out
> front and lap every vintage car, even if they aren't scored against
> them, will change the game and keep even more true vintage cars at
> home. Already saw it happen. If there's enough interest and money in
> it then you can certainly organize racing events that suit these
> cars. The SCCA isn't making these moves in spite of the vast amounts
> of money being made in running club events that include obsolete or
> low-interest cars. Here in the Northwest, Team Continental and the
> ICSCC run races with over 40 racing classes. Of course you're on the
> track with some of the most misbegotten iron you ever saw, but it's a
> fun group.
_______________________________________________
http://www.team.net/donate.html
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|