>> The rules mean that on a regular basis, the car must be made
>> legal enough to pass whatever inspection procedures your state/province
>> requires of you.
> Exactly WHY should that requirement be in the rules, when it's
> not in the rules for ANY other Solo II class? That's the question
> that nobody has wanted to answer.
Well...
It was/is the intent that SM cars be in some way nominally streetable, like
SP is.
The orginal proposal didn't require plating. Instead, it had a long laundry
list of exactly what "road going equipment" was required on the car. For
some reason - I don't exactly remember why, it's in my notes - Denver
didn't go for that. I think part of it was a political problem with having
a "street" class that didn't require the vehicle to be registerable at any
point in time.
I actually prefer the explicit list myself, but then I don't always get
what I want. :)
As I recall, the requirement for plates, but no commitment to the current
state of the vehicle having to be "plateable", was a compromise between the
"they've gone too far" ST rules, and the "they haven't gone far enough" SP
rules (both with regards to emissions requirements and streetability)
DG
|