I think I mentioned this a few years ago, but Bob Monday was forced to drive
home on Saturday night, following a Tour event in Evansville (He lives in
Indianapolis) to retrieve his spare tire cover after someone threatened a
protest following Saturday's runs. Not a short trip by any means, and his
argument for leaving it at home was that the extra race tires fit more
easily without it. In a Neon, it weighs 4 to 5 lbs at most. I can lose
more weight than that by cleaning out the glove compartment...8-)
Phil O.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
To: <RTBLUE007@aol.com>; <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: New thoughts on an old rule...
> 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
> ///
/// 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
///
|