Re: harness bar legality in stock?

[Andrew_Bettencourt@Kingston.com]

Matt has the right idea.  We need clarification.  perhaps an SEB member can
shed some light on the *intent* of the wording change.  In my mind,
anything that is bolted from B pillar to B pillar without telescoping
action *IS* providing additional structural rigidity - however nominal.
I'm also no physicist, but non-triangulated strut tower braces provide
structural rigidity - or they would be TOTALLY cosmetic, so that idea
doesn't fly with me.

The gray area in my mind is simple:  why change the wording of a perfectly
clear rule unless you intend to change the intent, and if that was the
goal, why not just make it clear?

AB



                                                                                
                                      
                    "matthew c.                                                 
                                      
                    mead"                   To:     Snapspinnr@aol.com          
                                      
                    <mmead-autox@goo        cc:     autox@autox.team.net        
                                      
                    f.com>                  Subject:     Re: harness bar 
legality in stock?                           
                    Sent by:                                                    
                                      
                    owner-autox@auto                                            
                                      
                    x.team.net                                                  
                                      
                                                                                
                                      
                                                                                
                                      
                    03/20/01 07:59                                              
                                      
                    AM                                                          
                                      
                    Please respond                                              
                                      
                    to "matthew c.                                              
                                      
                    mead"                                                       
                                      
                                                                                
                                      
                                                                                
                                      




On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 09:51:48PM -0500, Snapspinnr@aol.com wrote:
> Harness bars are specifically allowed in stock. There is a line in the
stock
> rules about them. And this year the SCCA did change the wording of the
rule
> so that "telescoping" harness bars are not required.

It seems that since the word telescoping no longer exists in the
rules, and there is no triangulation involved in the design of this
harness bar (just downrods on either side to keep it from changing
height) which might add structural rigidity, it's legal.  I may
have to call the headquarters for an interpretation, though.


-matt

--
matthew c. mead

mmead (at at at) goof (dot dot dot) com (you know what to do to email me)
http://www.goof.com/~mmead/