Michael McAvoy wrote:
<speaking of the SM street licensing requirement>
>I don't really have a problem with this.
I do.
>The rules of Stock don't allow any mods that would generally
render a car
>non-street legal.
Correct. But you're STILL not required to license a
Stock-Category car. And one option you have in Stock is to _not_
license your car for the street. In some states, that can save
you quite a bit of money in registration and inspection fees,
taxes, and insurance.
>Therefore, a Stock class car is either generally street legal or
>cheating. A Street Prepared car is also probably legal,
Not "street legal," since SP rules allow you to remove or defeat
all emission control equipment. It may be possible to build
certain cars to SP competitiveness (is that a word?) and keep
them emissions-legal, but that's not generally the case.
>The rules strictly define these classes.
Which is a Good Thing. In general it's very clear reading the
rulebook what you're allowed to do to your car.
>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.
Well, if an "SCCA definition" just isn't good enough, then maybe
SM needs to be promoted by some other club. ;<)
>Letting the state regulate this
>legality does pose an uneven playing field,
Yep. And it _still_ won't guarantee that an SM car is a
streetable car. If you can make a car unstreetable prepping it
for SP (you definitely can; I've done it myself), then you can
certainly do so (and must do so, if you want to be compeitive
once the class matures) in SM. So you will have the ridiculous
contradiction of completely unstreetable cars that are required
by the rules to be "legally registered for the street," which is
a simple matter for anybody with a bit of ingenuity. And for
what? the fantasy that new competitors won't recognize the
specialized nature of the machinery that's beating them by 10
seconds?
Jay
|