At 11:31 AM 3/1/2004 -0500, Mark Sirota wrote:
>There are two separate issues at hand.
>
>(1) The Prepared category used to have no defined required documentation
>rule, as the rule was oddly located in the opening to Section 13, and
>Prepared explicitly did not build on Stock. So the question is, now that
>we're addressing this, what should the required documentation for Prepared
>Category be?
>
>(2) What to do about documentation that was never available to the
>consumer, or that is only available in non-book form. The current thinking
>is that you need to provide only the media (fiche, CD, whatever), not the
>means to read it; that can be covered by the bond if need be. Note that
>the proposal uses the word "documentation", not "manual". If there is no
>media of any sort available to the consumer, then access to the
>documentation might have to be covered by the protestor's bond. [I freely
>acknowledge that none of this is clear in the proposal, and a future
>version of the proposal will do better.]
>
>Mark
Some ideas:
It might help to "define" in some way what actually needs to be
"documented" in Prepared since a very large portion of what needs to be
documented in other classes is either "free" or "already defined in the
rules" for Prepared.
Once it is clear what is left to document, then folks can look at how to do
so. I suspect that much of what is left can be documented in "less official
means" than is needed for other classes. If, for example, certain chassis
dimensions must stay "stock" or within a rules defined variance from
"stock", then maybe one of the credible industry (rather than OEM) body
shop oriented publications can be used. An awful lot of what the automotive
service industry relies on clearly comes straight from the manufacturers.
Why not use it whenever possible?
Dick Rasmussen
CM 85
85 Van Diemen FF
|