Bill Babcock wrote:
> Speaking of "point in time" issues--I'm replacing fairly
> large amounts of my TR3 tin with fiberglass (which has more to
> do with it being severely rumpled than any great weight
> savings). I might have some trouble with sanctioning bodies.
> Surely this was a common practice in the 60's, Yes?
"Common practice" or "legal"? Replacing one's headlights with
taped-over styrofoam was a "common practice" at the time, as was
reversing the direction of the headlights (TR 2/3s, Sprites,
etc) but both were of dubious legality (not to mention marginal
competitive advantage).
My hazy recollection of the 60's (yeah, I know) is that the
guiding principle involved the legality of "removing metal" from
most parts of the car and the illegality of "adding metal"
except when specifically approved. Of course, under the
California Sports Car Club interpretation of the SCCA rules, I
can hear someone making the argument that "removing" body parts
is legal because they're "metal", and that fibreglas
is not "metal", so . . .
Jim Hill
Madison WI
|