DWhitesdJr@aol.com wrote:
>
> Jack Woerle said: "We (SVRA) do allow Hoosier tires, mainly because the
> Dunlop L tires cost so much more. The tire issue is valid, but in my opinion,
> un-resolveable."
>
> If the issue is one of cost, why not mandate Dunlop L section HARD COMPOUND
> tires. They will last forever (at least 4 to 5 seasons), and the
> performance is identical (because the tire is the same type compound) to what
> was available when the cars were "really" racing.
>
> Every "improvement" over what was used when the cars were "really" raced,
> costs money. Stop allowing "improvements" and you will lower the costs of
> maintaining the race cars. As an added dividend, you may go slower, but have
> closer and safer racing. Even NASCAR has figured that one out.
>
> This is not an "un-solveable" issue. Historic racing in Europe has used the
> HARD COMPOUND tire rule with success for several years. Steve Earle now uses
> it. Lap times of vintage cars at every North American track are seconds or
> even tens of seconds faster than they were when the same cars were running at
> the tracks when new. While I think driving standards are high in vintage
> racing, do we really believe that we are better drivers than Moss, Redman,
> Donahue, etc., were, when they were in their prime? Require period tires,
> engines, suspensions etc., and we will reduce costs and have closer, more
> competitive racing.
At last!!!!!!!!
I couldn't agree more. I've tried both the soft and hard Dunlop L's on my
special which being underpowered really plows it's front end and gets huge
amounts of wheel spin at the rear.
On either the soft or hard I get more than a season..the Hard about a season
and a half (probably 9 events)
Personally I LOVE the way the Dunlops handle.
But my own feelings aside, your letter reflects my own . I agree that much
of the increase in costs of vintage racing are to keep up with the guys who
want to go faster regardless of the car they're driving.
Thank you.Thank you.Thank you.
Mike
|