Over (?) Development of Historic Racing Cars

[terence]

Hmmm,do you have a sum in mind Stuart?

[Richy_Rich]

Originally Posted by john ruston

Of course Pre War cars should not have Dog Boxes and nor should many of the Post War cars.But some do!

I wish I'd picked a different example now I wasn't in any way advocating the use of dog boxes...

Originally Posted by john ruston

Don't get the bit about spectators and rules of the hobby.The rules are for the competitors and as long as its a level playing field the few paying punters will watch Historic Racing not pretend Historic Lookalike Racing.It easier and cheaper for the competitors if people play to the rules and use cars as in period.

I was merely agreeing with grantp when he said, "I would rather that than have a declining pool of cars available resulting in ever decreasing grids even if it does push the boundaries of a definition of 'original', whatever that was."

If it comes down to it I'd rather see more cars out there than not. And, like it or not, for many 'developing' the car is as much a part of the sport as driving it.

Yeah, it's not always fair and every championship has some Dick Dastardly who's going to bend the rules or blatantly cheat. But he still represents one more car on the grid...

I was also thinking about my own car and how all this relates, the only really non-period part (other than safety stuff) that I'm using is an electric water pump. Is this over development? It's certainly helped with over heating and possibly saves money in blown engines so it's not always about the performance (although I'll admit that it might help with that too).

I guess this goes back to the age-old 'dry sump argument' - make it illegal to keep costs down vs. increased cost of imploding engines

[terence]

Originally Posted by Richy_Rich

Yeah, it's not always fair and every championship has some Dick Dastardly who's going to bend the rules or blatantly cheat. But he still represents one more car on the grid...

But the point is that there are too many "Dicks" on the grid,these people are responsible for the absence of others who simply refuse to race against bent cars.Super performance is not what's needed to make for good racing,closer matched cars always provide more of a spectacle than Dick roaring of into the distance with his hooky version.Plus of course there is more satisfaction from actually 'racing' against other cars as opposed to being out front on a high speed demo run.

[Richy_Rich]

Originally Posted by terence bower

But the point is that there are too many "Dicks" on the grid,these people are responsible for the absence of others who simply refuse to race against bent cars.Super performance is not what's needed to make for good racing,closer matched cars always provide more of a spectacle than Dick roaring of into the distance with his hooky version.Plus of course there is more satisfaction from actually 'racing' against other cars as opposed to being out front on a high speed demo run.

Ok, well if that's the point then I'm in complete and total agreement with you

[cyrilmac]

Originally Posted by Richy_Rich

Ok, well if that's the point then I'm in complete and total agreement with you

Only just arrived here but all the above makes sense to me.

[iconway]

I'll try and keep this brief. My first race car was a bog-standard road runner with nothing more than lowered/stiffened suspension and a well-prepared engine, as per the championship regs. In my first season I drove it to every meeting (including Spa) as there were extra points on offer, and it never let me down. The only 'development' the car received over the winter was a few tweaks to the suspension and a heat shield to channel cold air into the carbs. Next season my times improved and it became a properly competitive car. Stupidly, of course, I sold it (but it is still out there).

I then went through a succession of 'interesting'/'rare' cars on the basis that they were eligible for certain meetings/series, before eventually realising that in their homologated form they were never going to be competitive. One was a baby saloon, not particularly popular as a race car but with potential. I got a great engine-builder to build me a great (legal) engine and got to my first race at Donington to find there were another 8 identical cars in the paddock, all far more 'developped' than mine. Another was an ex-works 'special' (which really did deserve the epithet 'plastic pig'), but it turned out to be awful to drive and even with a big engine and more 'development' was still uncompetitive (I'd already guessed as much but left it to someone else to prove the point).

On the other hand, I once had the pleasure of racing a Marcos 1800 on the Brands GP circuit (before 'Sheene' was straightened), which turned in similar lap times to those taking part in the recent Masters meeting. There was a car that needed no 'development' but was blindingly quick out of the box due to the brilliance of the original design and component choice (though it could have used a better synchro, from memory).

Finally, a friend and intermittent visitor to this site has a Griff, and has spent much time and effort trying to comply with the papers rather than 'develop' it into a race-winning car. For them, having a straight car is more important than winning.

As a competitor, isn't the object is to have fun and maybe overtake a few people during the race, then have a laugh about it afterwards in the paddock? The whole concept of altering the wheelbase or moving the diff to be 'more competitive' strikes me as completely bonkers.

For spectators, it's great to see Minis mixing it up front with Mustangs and Falcons, even though it may rarely have played out that way in period (not sure a race made up entirely of Minis, Anglias and Cortinas would thrill the crowd in quite the same way, although last year's one-make St Mary's Trophy was entertaining as a one-off).

At the end of the day, if people have money and determination, no amount of regulation or scrutiny will stop them 'over-developping' their cars. But as recent results have shown, it doesn't mean that a really well-prepared and well-driven, straight car can't win!

[john ruston]

A very reasonable post and makes lots of sense.

[simon drabble]

Well there you Ian - approval from the Grumpy old man!! For what its worth I am in your racing camp

[Redneck Rocket]

This http://bringatrailer.com/2010/06/11/...-griffith-200/might answer some questions.

[Richy_Rich]

Originally Posted by iconway

As a competitor, isn't the object is to have fun and maybe overtake a few people during the race, then have a laugh about it afterwards in the paddock? The whole concept of altering the wheelbase or moving the diff to be 'more competitive' strikes me as completely bonkers.

That's the only reason I turn up to either watch/race. I remember when I first raced in about 2000 with the JCC there was some endurance race they used to put on that seemed to consist of a radical and maybe a caterham both 7 laps clear of the rest of the field who, incidentally seemed to be having a great time and providing a much more interesting spectacle.

[Cliff Ryan]

Originally Posted by iconway

As a competitor, isn't the object is to have fun and maybe overtake a few people during the race, then have a laugh about it afterwards in the paddock? The whole concept of altering the wheelbase or moving the diff to be 'more competitive' strikes me as completely bonkers.

Well said that man!

[richard crossley]

Originally Posted by Cliff Ryan

Well said that man!

Echoes our conversation yesterday Cliff

[skentellytubby]

Hear hear.

One of the most relevant and concise posts I've read.

[Al Weyman]

Originally Posted by Cliff Ryan

Well said that man!

Who will be laughing after the Thruxton Challenge Clifford?

[Cliff Ryan]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

Who will be laughing after the Thruxton Challenge Cliff?

Hopefully we both will

[Al Weyman]

Of course we will