Karen says:
>Why? You start with the Stock rules, which permit the OEM
configuration,
>and then you add the SP update/backdate rule at the front of
Section
>14, and then you go to the item-specific parts of the book and
see
>what the other allowances are. This is part of that "read the
rules
>in context" thing...
OK, you're right about that.
>> 2. "Fuel filters must be of automotive type..." as opposed to
what?
>> Bicycle type? Aviation type? How we gonna tell the difference?
"... and
>
>Oh come on. Go to Schuck's and see what they'll sell you. Not
Boeing
>Surplus, or Mort's Marine.
Karen, Karen. Try to acknowledge what the rules really ALLOW, not
what you'd like them to be limited to. In Stock, fergoshsakes,
you can install a custom-built one-off shock absorber. If I've
got the facilities to machine my own shocks out of billet stock
and am willing to do so, I can do that. As long as they meet the
dimensional/installation/geometry constraints, they're legal,
even in Stock. Is it your position that they've gotta have a
brand name you recognize on 'em? When you can run "any" fuel
filter, that would have to include a filter you fabricated
yourself, as long as it met whatever other criteria apply. I
guess that you could produce a "certificate of automobility" from
the fabricator, and put a warning on it not to use it on anything
but a car, and you'd meet the requirement.
>> may serve no other purpose." So I can now protest a car for a
fuel
>> filter that holds too much fuel. As a point of back-to-Earth
reference
>
>Not if the competitor can show it's for a car, not a 737.
OK. I see where this is going, and I think the net effect is that
some cosmetics will have to be considered in laying out a fuel
system for an SP car. No biggie.
> Wanna run
>some herkin' filter? It better say FRAM (Wix, Purolator, etc.;
I can see
>you getting farfetched on brand name requirements) on it and
have a part
>number that can be looked up in an automotive catalog. Doesn't
sound hard
>to me.
I see no requirement anywhere in the wording for a "part number."
Again, I guess a custom fabricator could supply a part number and
an "automotive catalog" for his one-off filter. Still, I could
see filter-specific benefits from fabricating your own filter
housing and using a replaceable element, similar in concept to a
Canton-Mecca fuel filter. Is it your position that this is now
illegal?
>You're descending into the "people probably have no common
sense" argument
>stream... Next you'll want the book to explicitly say that your
aftermarket
>shocks can be connected (i.e., at both ends), or that you really
should
>put bolts into the mounts for your aftermarket seat.
Not at all. The new wording appears to prohibit attachment of the
fuel line to a fuel pump, filter, or induction system - "may ONLY
connect." You and I know this was unintended, but it should be
corrected before being perpetuated in the rulebook. WE know the
context, but will somebody reading and trying in good faith to
follow the rules fifteen years from now have any way to know that
the rules, in this one place, don't REALLY mean what is
explicitly stated?
>>The way I read
>> the new wording, you're subject to protest if anyone else
thinks they're
>> big enough to "serve another purpose."
>
>Oh probably
"Probably" is acknowledgement enough for me. If you make laws
(rules) general and prohibitive enough, then almost everyone
becomes a criminal (cheater), and enforcement of the laws (rules)
will necessarily become discriminatory, since you can't put
everyone in jail (disqualify everyone).
>Why can't people just stop trying to screw the system and focus
their
>attention on springs, bars, shocks, diffs, etc.?
And how do those SP allowances differ from the fuel system
allowances? Why insist that your concept of SP is the definitive
one? It's legal to run a Stock car in SP. Is that what we all
should do, just to make sure we aren't inadvertently doing
something that another competitor (or the PC, or the SEB) might
find "unreasonable?"
>It sure seems easy for you to criticize when
>you have an axe to grind.
I have no axe to grind. My car hasn't got one of these things on
it. I just hate to see the rules made more vague and apparently
self-contradictory.
> Soon I'll have to dare you to volunteer for
>the SPAC, so you can see what it's like on the other end :-)
And just maybe I'll accept the dare. Doesn't mean they'd have me,
though. =8<P
Jay
|