I don't really have a problem with this.
The rules of Stock don't allow any mods that would generally render a car
non-street legal. In Street Prepared, barely anything will cause it to no
be legal. Therefore, a Stock class car is either generally street legal or
cheating. A Street Prepared car is also probably legal, but in tightly
controlled stated, the playing field is leveled by not requiring a
registration.
The rules strictly define these classes.
In Street Mod, there are specific rules allowing or prohibiting parts to be
changed. Coming up with an SCCA definition for street legal will create too
many rules and make the class unattractive. Letting the state regulate this
legality does pose an uneven playing field, but it allows creativity to
those who desire to do so.
Besides, aren't the Californian autocrosses too big already? No need to
attract more there. I think we need more from Alabama! ;)
Requiring an interior is a good rule, because it promotes a "Streetable"
car. My Supra has no Interior, it passed inspection in Arizona with only
weird looks. I haven't tried in Washington yet... The car is not really
that good of a street car - it's either hot or cold, gets wet if it rains,
and gets to your ears on long trips. It did get pressed into daily driver
service for a month last year. Boy was I glad to have my other car back!
So, should still be (barely) licensable, but not really street friendly. I
don't think it's in the spirit of the street mod class as is. I would like
to see an open street type class to run it in, though.
- Michael McAvoy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Mitchell
> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com writes:
>
> > 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.
|