Aaron Johnson wrote:
>I'm just trying to clarify how a rule is interpreted.
It's my position that no clarification is needed.
>I've read the book from cover to cover and what I found is that
nowhere >does it mention either "Car," "Automobile," or "Vehicle"
minimum weight.
Then you skipped 15.B, first paragraph, second sentence. It
specifically references a "vehicle's" minimum weight.
>the reference to Street prepared was their allowance for
Improved Touring >cars to run with IT rules in their respective
street prepared class.
In every case, though, the IT car will be absolutely
uncompetitive in its SP class. That's just an accommodation so IT
cars have a place to play in Solo. Since SP has no minimum
weights, it may well be that an IT car has a weight advantage
over an SP-prepped example of the same car. All the other
disadvantages it has will overwhelm that, however.
>Why not allow production cars the same in prepared.
They _are_ allowed that. All you're arguing about is the
requirement to buy a few more pounds of ballast.
>What would be the basis for losing the appeal?
Uhhh, well, lessee here.... Might it be that your car is
underweight? Yeah, I think that's it.
>There is no rule that allows driver adjustable sway bars in
Prepared
Uhh, yeah, there is. You might wanna reread the Prepared Rules,
paying closer attention to 15.7. The word "any" is a powerful
one, and it is not qualified by a subsequent prohibition against
driver adjustability.
Jay
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|