Just IMHO from a P guy who, happily, does not need to worry about such
stuff...
"Spare tires, tools and jacks may be removed." This, it seems to me,
permits the removal of some things that have some fairly significant weight.
Either they are weight that you don't really want to carry, or they are
weight that, if they got loose, could cause significant damage. Or both.
At the same time I recall a clarification (maybe its a rule now) that IF
your spare could be securely fastened, it could remain in the car. Some
prefer that for weight distribution.
As to the cover. IMHO it is neither a tire nor a tool/jack. IF it can be
securely kept in place, it must be. IF the hardware that held the tire in
place ONLY holds the tire in place, upon removal of the tire it is loose and
must be removed. But IF the hardware that held the tire in place ALSO holds
a cosmetic cover in place, AND does so securely with the tire removed, it
must remain. Whether that hardware or some other holds the cover in place,
if it does so securely the cover must remain.
(The warped cover argument does not work. Replace it. Otherwise the missing
fender or other body parts from a street accident would also be legal.
Clearly, missing bodywork that reduces weight is not legal no matter how
inadvertently it happened.)
Of course, rules and logic do not always breathe the same air. It would seem
logical that the cover should come out also (why keep it in? It really is
not a weight issue is it?). But I think the rule would have to be revised to
read "Spare tires, tools, jacks, and associated mounting or retention
hardware and covers may be removed" or words to that effect.
I do, however, seem to recall the issue raised at some time in the distant
past, forcing someone to keep the cover in because even though it was easily
removeable it COULD be securely attached. I also recall protests and DQs
involving such things as the illegal removal of the acoustical insulation on
the underside of a Stock class Porsche hood, which people thought a trivial
BS protest until they found the removal made the car 20+ pounds lighter.
Maybe the cover on this car weighs one pound and is not an issue; maybe the
cover on that car weighs 15 and IS an issue. The rule has to be
one-size-fits-all as much as possible.
But IMHO, someone with a dog in the fight needs to submit the rule change
proposal and see what comes from it. At the least, if there are reasons not
to adopt it, you might find out what those reasons are. At best, you might
get a change.
--Rocky
----- Original Message -----
From: <RTBLUE007@aol.com>
To: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: New thoughts on an old rule...
> In a message dated 12/12/01 3:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> elinnhoff@smmc.saint-lukes.org writes:
>
> << 13.2.F states: "Spare tires, tools and jacks may be removed."
> Would not one be permitted, under this allowance, to also remove the
> loose hardware that held these items in place? That sure seems
> reasonable to me and well within the spirit of the rule. If so then
> there would be no longer be any hardware to "permanently" hold the
> spare tire cover in place thereby making it not "held permanently in
> place" and by definition, removable. Right?>>
>
> There seems to be twice as many interpretations as there are actual
> rules...LOL
> Sounds to me like 13.2.F means EXACTLY that: "Spare tires, tools and jacks
> may be removed", NOT the fasteners and trim that go along with it.
Especially
> since it all bolts so neatly back together and poses not threat of busting
> loose.
> On the other hand, the next gens are able to get away with it. I've taken
my
> spare tire cover out each time this year without the slightest protest,
even
> at impound in national tour. The cover is held down with Velcro strips, a
> pretty poorly designed attempt at it too! This has busted loose when left
> intact at a local event, especially after getting warped during the floods
at
> Devens.
> You think the few ounces will make me faster? Of course it will...LOL
> Neither will running without other small trim items, but it's not about
the
> non-performace issues. It's really all about being fair by creating a
level
> playing field through Consistency of rules and the Integrity of how they
are
> worded. Where do you stop with "exceptions" to rules with each
> interpretation. ;]
>
> Rich Hagan
> 2001 Neon ACR
> NER/SCCA
>
> /// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
> ///
> /// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
> /// with nothing in it but
> ///
> /// unsubscribe autox
> ///
> /// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> ///
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|