I haven't seen any postings regarding this subject yet, and was a little
surprised so I thought I would post the letter I sent to the SEB.
seb@scca.com
I understand the need to make changes to the rules regarding vehicle
identification. I never understood why the rules were changed between
1998 & 1999. Prior to
1999 we had min & max. height requirements on number & letter sizes,
and they fit your current proposal. My concern is over the "single
color & type face".
I might be wrong about the cars that the SEB is trying to bring about
changes in, but please note the cars pictured on the 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002 Rule Books. Are
these the cars that need changed? Every one of these cars would not
meet the new rules. Every one of them has a different typeface letter
than their number. As they
are all black and white pictures, I don't know if they would meet your
color requirements. I would bet that if you look at the cars in each of
your local regions 80+
percent of them would have different number & letter typefaces. I think
it would be sad to loose a trophy at a National tour, Pro Solo,
Nationals because someone
protested you that your numbers were a different typeface than your
letters. As pansy as a protest as that might be, (I personally
wouldn't do it, but we all have meet
someone who would) if its not protestable it should not be a rule!
As a side note, I know of several competitors (all in the military) who
run red, white, and blue numbers on Black cars. None of them are
difficult to see, each color
would be acceptable individually on the car. I think it would be sad if
this patriotism would be sacrificed under these rules.
As a member who usually works in our local region timing trailer, I
agree that many cars have identification that is difficult to read, and
a rule change of some type is
needed. The biggest help would be enforcement of the existing rules
regarding contrast. The second most difficult thing to read is some of
the crazy italicized
typefaces that make letters difficult to make out. This change does not
address that. So in summation, I agree that a change needs to take
place, I don't think the
current proposal is the change that is needed. A revisit to the 1998
rules might be more what is sought after.
--
Cynthia & Craig Naylor
Naylor & Naylor
ph/fax 858-679-3754
E-mail - Magazine@pacbell.net
/// 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
|