autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: removeable Rearview

To: TeamZ3@aol.com, jslz3@hotmail.com, autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: removeable Rearview
From: Josh Sirota <jss@marimba.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:50:49 -0800
Ahh, here we go, from Jerry Mouton's web site:

http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/car_class_stock_rules.html#s13

13.2 Bodywork

A. Accessories, gauges, indicators, lights and other appearance, comfort
and convenience modifications which have no effect on
     performance and/or handling and do not materially reduce the weight
of the car are permitted. This does not allow driver's seat
     substitutions. Delayed shutdown devices such as the "Turbo Timer",
which perform no function while the car is in motion, are
     permitted.  This does permit the installation of an additional
mirror (e.g. a "Wink"), but does not allow the removal of
     the original mirror. 

Josh

Josh Sirota wrote:
> 
> TeamZ3@aol.com wrote:
> > > Yea laugh if you want to but after 2 years of owning my Z3 when
> > >  installing the in car cam for McCamey I noticed Hey my Rearview mirror
> > >  has a release latch, It is designed to be removed and put back on with a
> > >  click, So I know I am not allowed to remove any parts off a stock car
> > >  that are held on with screw fasteners, But I thought it was legal to
> > >  remove things that were designed to be readaly removed. eg.  fastened
> > >  Floor mats, T tops, etc etc,  I know this is silly but is this weenie
> > >  protest bait? to remove the mirror?
> >
> > Just undo it and keep it in the car.
> 
> Despite the fact that my M Coupe has the same kind of latch, and has a
> mirror about 50% bigger than yours and is an absolute accident waiting
> to happen when driving on the street (can you say "blind spot?"), I very
> strongly believe that this is illegal when racing.  It's would be a
> *huge* competitive advantage to remove the mirror in these cars, since
> it has such a major impact on visibility.
> While it is clearly removeable and replaceable, the owner's manual makes
> no mention of doing such a thing.
> 
> Was there a recent clarification about this?
> 
> Josh

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