Poorly enforced! Any other sanctioning body would have enforced the intent of
the
rule. SCCA officials had every right, according to the rules, to enforce the
rules. The tires were clearly different to everyone. It was an SCCA event and
BFG
made a concerted effort to circumvent the rules ... not to just a few "contract"
drivers (as had been the case in the past, but that's another issue) but to
everyone that had pre bought BFG tires for that event.
Another thing ... do you really think that BFG would have produced hundreds of
thousands of dollars of tires for that event without some "quiet approval" by at
least one SCCA official???? I wonder ....
John Whitling
Paul and Meredith Brown wrote:
> At 09:17 PM 4/22/99 -0400, John Whitling wrote:
> >Right off the top of my head here's one example ....
> >I think it was the '89 Nationals in Salina when BFG first introduced the 226
> >series tires. They were clearly different tires from the ones that had been
> >supplied by BFG all year ... specially made for Salina. The powers that be
> (not
> >you I understand) at the time let those tires run. That was pure politics.
> Were
> >you running a G stock SVO back then on Generals? In any case I'm sure you
> >remember the year and circumstances that I'm referring to.
>
> I think if you look back, the tire rules were changed after that, since I
> believe that they met the letter (though clearly not the spirit) of the
> April 30 rule as it was then written. The kept the model name the same.
> Poorly written rule, not politics....
>
> Paul and Meredith Brown
>
> MR2: "Not the easiest car in the world to work on"
|