Mike,
Based on the points you highlighted I would have to whole heartedly disagree with your assesment of the current state of historical authenticity.
First, safety rules, body classification rules, and engine class rules are three separate paradigms that are incommensurable. This topic concerns vintage engines being used purely in vintage bodies. Modern safety equipment has absolutely no relevance to the historical authenticity of the vintage engine class. A vehicles asthetics is well beyond the scope of "historical authenticity" in regards to the vintage engine class. Or, for lack of better words, how the car looks has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. This also goes for plastic replica bodies too.
Also, a quick look through the rule book and I don't see any mention of historical authenticity any where else but in the vintage engine rules. I personally doubt anyone is looking for increased reliability from a modern ignition system. I'd only use one the make more power and go faster.
Isn't "modern carburetion" an oxymoron? 
Nathan:
It's obvious we are using words differently. In my limited understanding of the English language, "historic authenticity" MUST include how the vehicle looks.
1. I'm not arguing against anything that I listed, particularly not against safety requirements. I listed them (and I've thought of many things left out) to illustrate the lack of "historic authenticity" (and against your argument that allowing a "modern" igntion would not be historically authentic.)
2. You brought bodies into the discussion, but I went beyond the current arguement.
3. Yes, for vintage engines which are not allowed EFI (and I know pretty much what Pete Richardson paid for his Hilborn mechanical FI - more than I could consider), Holley 500 (350?) CFM racing 2-barrels are modern, at least compared to Strombergs or Winfields. (I use Strombergs, but I bought my collection when they were cheap
)
By my understanding, there is little "historic authenticity" in the engine pictured in this thread. Beyond the block and perhaps the timing cover, I see nothing that is historically authentic. I doubt that you would find much more in a picture of either of Sunday's record setting V4F's. By my definition, a brand-new in the box magneto from Joe Hunt is modern and not vintage or historic. It is no more anachronistic to my eye than the DIS on the Dodge.
When I used the word "reliability", I was using it in a much narrower sense than normal. A Ford V4 with the ignition driven off of the camshaft between two of the three bearings, will NOT fire correctly 100% of the time and the cam is flexing everytime it pushes a valve up, not to mention the inevitable slop in the 1920's design of the gears and the driveshaft. Using a programmable box taking engine position directly from the crankshaft will fire correctly more reliably (closer to 100% of the time). Cost compared to a new magneto is similar. Oh! and it will make a few more horsepower, won't it??
This thread was a request for clarification of the new for 2007 rules for vintage engines. My inquiry was dropped shortly thereafter because there was no clear answer given. After looking at pictures of record-setting cars (and I know that non-conforming cars have had approved records) I thought that the point was moot. Apparently it is not.
However, when you and DW disagree, who gets the last vote?
Mike
