FWIW, Doug, I didn't write the quote below - I am an innocent victim of
"quotitis in Email"! I just said that VARAC allowed the Webers for our
vintage production cars. In fact, you could probably say that we consider
carburation "free" as long as it was period available. So we also allow
superchargers a-la Shorrock, etc. If I showed up with period mechanical
fuel injection on my car, I would expect to be allowed if it was period
available. I honestly have no idea why we allow these things - i suspect
that the CASC rules at the time were pretty similar to SCCA, so the answer
may be lost in the sands of time.
On the BOP V-8 (love the name of that motor - BOP!) in a sprite deal -
VARAC doesn't allow cars to be created in that config now. Only engines
that were factory available options in the year of manufacture of the
specific car may be used, unless a specific exception is granted. So
the example would have to be that the exact car ran with a V-8, in
recognized races, probably in Canada as a "special" or modified car, and
the owner would have to build a case for review by VARAC eligability
committee. They would have to be convinced by train of evidence of the
veracity of the car, they would have to consider the historic significance
of the car, and then they would recommend a decision, probably to be
ratified by the VARAC Board. In the only such case that I know of, we then
classified the car in question (a highly modified MGA TwinCam) as a Sports
Racer, rather than a Production Sports Car. So that makes it awfully
similar to various old "specials", where Ford frames were cut-and shut,
various engines dropped in, mish-mash bodywork applied and presto, a car
was born! Key is that the car was born before 1961!
We have "grey areas". For example, we let all our Mini's run with 1275
engines, even though probably only 20% of them left the factory as 1965
Cooper S's. 1965 is our cut-off for Mini's, BTW. We also let all external
hinge Mini's run, even though the Mk2 didn't come out till 1967. We also
let them all run as dry suspension cars, even though almost all 1275 Cooper
S's were wet suspension. So practicality does rear it's ugly head from
time to time.
brian
At 03:21 PM 11/30/00 -0500, S800Racer@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/30/00 8:36:06 AM, brian@uunet.ca writes:
>
><< Anyway, correct me if I am wrong -- a readily available Weber DCOE
> >is probably cheaper to acquire than a Moss newly manufactured SU
> >setup. And period correct for almost anything. So I like VARAC's
> >approach to use of it... >>
>
> Most of the time I agree with the postings that Mr. Evans puts on the
>list but I have to disagree with the above.
> Dropping the 215 cu. in. V8 in the Sprite is just as period correct
>though isn't it? It doesn't fit any legitimate configuration where the car
>could have legally raced that way, but since the car and the engine were both
>available at the same time, it's just as period correct as the Weber DCOE's
>on cars that were not allowed to run the Webers in that period.
> Weber DCOE's are not "period correct for almost anything" and
> restriction
>of the intake/carburetion has a lot to do with the performance of the motor.
>When cars that were originally restricted to the rather small carburetor that
>the model was equipped with is now allowed to bolt on a much larger
>carburetor, they have more hp. It's quite simple and not at all period
>correct.
> While VARAC & others have every right to run their classes as they wish,
>I prefer more restrictive carburetor rules as per the SCCA PCS
>specifications. It helps to maintain some balance between various cars
>within the same class.
> Bigger carbs are not a "safety item" and I don't have sympathy with the
>argument that Webers are cheaper or easier to find since carbs generally do
>not wear out and require replacement.
>
> Doug Meis.
Brian Evans
Director, Strategic Accounts
UUNET, A WorldCom Company
|