Jamie Sculerati wrote:
>It's a Federal crime to exceed the speed limit on a Federal
>reservation, too. That hasen't stops the thousands of people
>from commuting at high speeds on two the Park Service-controlled
parkways
>near me.
I understand where you're going, and I agree to some extent.
>Removing the cat exercises an *option* within the SM rules --
there's
>no *requirement* to remove it.
No, but is the intent of the rules to _allow_ emission equipment
to be removed or defeated? I'd have to say it is, given that
"Drivetrain and related components are unrestricted..."
>By *requiring* a current registration tag,
>the SM rules throw emissions and roadworthiness enforcement over
to the
>state governments who are supposed to be doing it, and
implicitly
>discourages competitors from messing with their emissions
systems.
I don't honestly believe that any of the rules writers expect
that the most competitive SM cars will be emissions-legal. If
that were the intent, it would be trivially easy simply to
require it.
>As I
>remember the conversations, it boiled down to a matter of
enforcement --
>did we routinely want to have to pull cats off cars in impound
to insure
>they weren't gutted?
Certainly no more difficult than in Stock.
>The registration solution isn't
>perfect, but it is practical.
If you want to "encourage" roadgoing legality of vehicle
emissions systems (I don't buy that supposition, BTW), it would
be a simple matter to require it in the rules. That's not the
intent of the rulesmakers (ask Dennis), nor is it my position
that it should be the intent. The "Vehicle must be legally
registered for the street" verbiage is the part that contradicts
everything else and, IMHO, is what should be deleted from the SM
rules. That's a more restrictive requirement than Stock.
Jay
|