Autosport – 25 July 2019

25 JULY 2019 AUTOSPORT.COM 57

OPINION CLUB AUTOSPORT

here are lots of things that you’ll see (and hear) at
big historic race meetings, such as the Silverstone
Classic this weekend. Eclectic grids, close
competition, sideways action and lots of noise
will be a given. What you won’t necessarily see
is a reflection of what happened when these cars raced in period.
Clearly, one of the big appeals of historic motorsport is the link
to the past, seeing cars you either recall from your youth or didn’t
get the chance to experience the first time around. But it’s not
unusual for pacesetting cars from previous eras to be beaten by
machines that didn’t achieve anything back in the day.
This used to frustrate me a lot – seeing Ferrari 250 GTOs
outclassed by Jaguar E-types that would have struggled to see
which way Enzo’s berlinettas had gone in the 1960s, for example.
But now it very much depends on why the order is different.
The obvious acceptable difference is driver ability. Martin
O’Connell took an unfancied ATS D4 – a car that often failed
to qualify, never mind score a point – to victory in the 1977-80
Formula 1 car race at the Monaco Historique last year. Nick
Padmore was second in a Shadow DN9 (which took a best finish
of fourth in the world championship). Given the quality of both
drivers and the challenge of the famous street circuit, this doesn’t
really seem a problem. Clearly few drivers are going to be as good
as Alan Jones and Nelson Piquet, or O’Connell and Padmore.

A more thorny one is the level of preparation, which in most
cases is now better in historic racing than it was in period, thanks
to increased knowledge and, in some cases, time and money. The
circumstances and nature of the improvements then become key.
On Autosport’s recent Historics podcast (‘Secrets – and
controversies – of Historic Motorsport’), leading racer and
preparer Simon Hadfield suggested that a simple rule would be,
‘As it was, so it should be’. This seems entirely sensible and there
are certain series that could undoubtedly benefit from taking
things back to this basic approach.
But what about cars that were unreliable in period, sometimes
for piffling reasons? Allowing some reasonable changes, to
improve reliability or to allow cars to run with more easily
obtained parts, is pragmatic. And it can lead to superb fields.

Historic racing is booming, but is behind-the-scenes development

of some cars detracting from what makes the scene so evocative?

KEVIN TURNER

Rose-tinted spectacle

“If you allow some to bend

the rules, it will inevitably

put other competitors off ”

T

Pre-1960 grand prix car events have been greatly improved in

recent years by the pace of Lotus 16s, the unique Tec-Mec and

Scarabs – all of which were abject front-engined F1 failures.

And all of which have won races.

Clive Chapman, son of Lotus founder Colin Chapman and head

of Classic Team Lotus, believes this isn’t a problem. “At the time

the team was so stretched, the Lotus 16 design was overambitious,

the resources were inadequate, and dad spotted fairly early on that

Cooper and rear-engined was the way to go,” he says. “We’ve been

able to sort the frame, the fuel system, the gearbox – all those

things that gave so much trouble. Suddenly you’ve got a car that’s

going to win. They are to original spec, just sorted out, and the 16

was the most sophisticated front-engined car.”

This does of course allow cars to be more competitive than they

were in period and therefore the look of races can be very different

to how they were, but most people would surely rather see these

machines racing than not.

Allow things to go too far, however, and it becomes more

problematic. One issue is safety – as speeds increase, so do the

forces and potential severity of any accident. Another is that

the further the cars progress from originality, the less they

evoke the past – for the drivers or enthusiasts.

A perceived advantage of certain cars can also hurt grids. There’s

already the problem of one machine becoming the car to have in

particular categories. Pre-1966 touring car races sometimes look

more like three single-make series running together than a period

field: Ford Falcons at the front, Ford Lotus Cortinas in the middle,

Mini Cooper Ss at the rear. They are the cars to have if you want to

win, and they have good support networks.

One solution, as suggested by Hadfield, is to offer incentives –

perhaps extra points – to competitors running unusual cars.

Surely another would be to rein in some of the more excessive

cars. It’s pretty clear, for example, that Cortina development has

gone too far, and Ferrari and Aston Martin owners have been put

off by the pace of E-types, Cobras and TVRs in pre-1966 GT racing.

It’s understandable that organisers don’t want to turn cars

away, because it affects their bottom line, but there has to be tight

scrutineering. If you allow some to bend the rules, it will inevitably

put other competitors off, and take

historic racing further from the

things that make it so appealing.

It’s natural that teams and

drivers want to go quicker and

quicker. But tighter regulation

could help ensure historic racing’s

future. Even if the ‘wrong’ cars

still do some of the winning.

NEXT WEEK

SILVERSTONE

CLASSIC REPORT

1 AUGUST ISSUE