Doug
I actually think this is a good exercise. Not everybody interrupts the rules
in the same way. What's absolutely clear to one is as thick as mud to
another. This kind of discussion helps clarify things for the future. And
maybe will lead to a wording change.
John Beckett, LSR #79
----- Original Message -----
From: <dferguso@ebmail.gdeb.com>
To: <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: rules
> i guess i would personally have a tough time in tech inspection if i
rolled
> in with a production entry with some nice, well crafted, polished or
> anodized beadrolled aluminum doorpanels and i started getting flack about
> them from the rules commitee, while another production entry with old ,
> ratty, mildewed original cardboard factory doorpanels slipped right thru,
> with the rulebook written as is. (like having original doorpanel
upholstery
> is necessary to classify a car in the production category - come on !) i
> think we have beaten the rule interpretation issue to death on this forum.
> obviously one cannot build a legal entry just by reading the scta/bni
> rulebook, since i wouldnt even think that this doorpanel issue would be an
> issue at all. rather , it appears that every aspect and detail of vehicle
> construction must be approved another groups consensus or jury rule
> committee on a case basis via their interpretation, and not what the
> rulebook says verbatim . whatever ------------------
> ill shut up now- i dont even have a production ride
> POSITIVE regards, doug @ black radon engineering
>
>
|