--- "John F. Kelly Jr." <76067.1750@compuserve.com>
wrote:
>
> -------------------- Begin Original Message
> --------------------
>
> Message text written by "Rocky Entriken"
>
> Once the car was classed in GT1 for club
> racing (which happened
> earlier in the year) it was at that instant classed
> in AP.
> -------------------- End Original Message
> --------------------
>
> You, Sir, are incorrect.
>
Agreed. I thought the issue had been closed, but
John's note prompted me to go back over the protest
and the rulebook, and I now realize the mistake that
was made by the Board.
The exact wording of the first sentence of 15.11.A is
this: "Vehicles prepared in excess of Solo II
allowances but prepared up to the current GTCS are
permitted to compete in their respective Prepared
classes." This sentence clearly indicates, by the
phrase "their respective Prepared classes," the need
for a preexisting classification in Prepared in order
to be eligible under this rule. The RSR has no such
entry, nor is it likely ever to have one, as it
doesn't come within a country mile of the production
or approvals requirements outlined in the beginning of
Chapter 15.
If the car in question had been a GT-1 Ford Probe V8
or 3-rotor Mazda RX-7, the correct course of action
might have been more obvious. But the principle is
the same.
Further, it is interesting to note in 10.4, "The
(National Solo Appeals Committee) will be the members
of the SEB." Do we take this to mean that the SEB
heard the appeal of the rules interpretation which
they issued in the first place? I hope not...it would
certainly throw the principle of judicial disinterest
right out the window.
I do not wish to detract from the superb performance
given by the Fordahls. But their Porsche was not by
any metric an AP car, and the "clarification" ruling
of the SEB permitting it to run there was clearly in
error.
Craig Blome, giving the pot a stir
|