autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: minimum weight requirement

To: "Charles Cox" <charles@coastalbay.com>,
Subject: Re: minimum weight requirement
From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 17:09:15 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Cox" <charles@coastalbay.com>
To: "Dave Whitworth" <dave@wcsllc.net>
Cc: "Autox" <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: minimum weight requirement


> MessageHow ballast is secured is a safety item. If this situation where
> someone put kitty litter unsecured into a car for ballast was done,
something
> is definitely wrong with how cars are inspected.

First of all, please remember this was 1) a solitary incident, and 2) twenty
years ago!

And 3) if it wasn't in the car when it went through tech then the inspectors
never saw it. And 4) it was held in with the full harness that also held the
driver in place (obviously strong enough to restrain the weight since it
held the other driver who did not need the ballast).

I am not saying that was a good idea, just noting how it was done.

Please recall, I was not arguing any aspect of the rule, merely noting what
had happened in 1982 when the weight-with-driver rule did briefly exist. It
may be useful knowledge when raising the issue anew. It is not a tech
inspection issue, it is an impound issue. Tech is pre-event, impound is
post-event.

--Rocky

///  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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>