When in doubt in racing, it is better to be exciting than historically correct down to the last detail
10/26/2015
There is a constant debate about what is "right" and "correct" in historic racing. Whereas 20 or 25 years ago, almost exclusively original vehicles were used in historic racing, nowadays completely rebuilt vehicles are competing more and more frequently, some of which hardly have a single part from that era. Although the cars comply with the homologation specifications of the time, in principle they are new cars that have incorporated a great deal of know-how gained over time.
When these cars compete against "really old" vehicles, they naturally have the upper hand. This does not seem to be in the spirit of the inventor and we wanted to know from our readers in the question of the week how they see this.
After all, or only 40 percent were against new cars and completely rebuilt vehicles competing in motor racing against proven originals.
26 percent can live with a mixture as long as equal opportunities are made possible, possibly by means of additional weights. And 33% take the view that there have always been newly built racing cars and that they should be allowed to compete as long as they comply with the regulations.
In other words, two thirds do not want a ban on replica racing cars and prefer exciting races to historical purism.
The results are shown here as a graphic:
The next "question of the week" is already in the air, this time asking how long a complete restoration actually keeps a car alive.
And, of course, you can view the results of the previous questions of the weekat any time on a dedicated topic page.
