But it doesn't say vehicle "without driver" as indicated elsewhere in the
rule book (nor does it say with driver). Aaron is correct indicating there
needs to be new language. If this has been argued in protest or appeal, the
rule should be re-written.
Clarification is needed if any valid argument can be presented and his
argument is valid.
Ballast is cheap compared to trying to be competitive with 150# drivers when
you are up to 100# or more over that...which can be physically impossible to
attain for some.
Unless you qualify any weight with "as raced", any weight the car can be,
with driver, with additional gas, etc., at any time should be allowed (what
comprises the "vehicle" and when does it apply?)...therefore without that
qualification, the car can weigh whatever you can get the scales to read no
matter what you add to the "vehicle".
If you write (it should be written) that it is to be "as raced without
driver" then you have to clarify what comprises the "driver"...with helmet,
clothes, etc... The rules simply aren't written properly.
Cars should be weighed "as raced with driver" like most any other form of 4
wheel motorsport...then problem solved. (not to mention a properly leveled
playing field).
Charles Cox
mailto:charles@coastalbay.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com>
To: "Aaron Johnson" <fpspitfire37@msn.com>; <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: minimum weight requirement
> Aaron Johnson wrote:
>
>
> >I'm just trying to clarify how a rule is interpreted.
>
> It's my position that no clarification is needed.
>
> >I've read the book from cover to cover and what I found is that
> nowhere >does it mention either "Car," "Automobile," or "Vehicle"
> minimum weight.
>
> Then you skipped 15.B, first paragraph, second sentence. It
> specifically references a "vehicle's" minimum weight.
>
> >the reference to Street prepared was their allowance for
> Improved Touring >cars to run with IT rules in their respective
> street prepared class.
>
> In every case, though, the IT car will be absolutely
> uncompetitive in its SP class. That's just an accommodation so IT
> cars have a place to play in Solo. Since SP has no minimum
> weights, it may well be that an IT car has a weight advantage
> over an SP-prepped example of the same car. All the other
> disadvantages it has will overwhelm that, however.
>
> >Why not allow production cars the same in prepared.
>
> They _are_ allowed that. All you're arguing about is the
> requirement to buy a few more pounds of ballast.
>
> >What would be the basis for losing the appeal?
>
> Uhhh, well, lessee here.... Might it be that your car is
> underweight? Yeah, I think that's it.
>
> >There is no rule that allows driver adjustable sway bars in
> Prepared
>
> Uhh, yeah, there is. You might wanna reread the Prepared Rules,
> paying closer attention to 15.7. The word "any" is a powerful
> one, and it is not qualified by a subsequent prohibition against
> driver adjustability.
>
> Jay
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|