From: "Charles" <golden1@britsys.net>
No, It's like a cop giving you a speeding ticket for speeding ON THE
DRAGSTRIP!
Some beancounter is getting a cost saving bonus for noticing we post
results online.
Why isn't SCCA going to bat for us on this one??? Time to write a letter...
Let's stop the duelling analogies and examine if the SCCA should "go to bat
for us".
Let's assume we purchased our cars ourselves, and are not leasing them, for
simplicity's sake.
We were able, before purchase, to examine the terms of the warranty.
If we had any objection to the terms re use of the car in timed contests, we
could have tried to negotiate the warranty terms prior to purchase, when we
had the monetary upper hand.
Our purchase of the car constitutes our acceptance of the terms of the
warranty contract.
If a "no racing" clause is in the warranty when we accept it, then we have a
choice: use the car "normally" and have the manufacturer take responsibility
for repairs under waranty, or race the car and accept reponsibility for
repairs ourselves.
We have driven the car in an autocross.
It is arguable that an autocross may not be "racing," and I have heard that
some insurance companies have accepted this argument, (perhaps the SCCA
could help support this argument, but I doubt they will, since "SoloII
Racing" is a trademark) if our warranty provider does, then great; if not,
we have voided the warranty. If we claim that autocrossing does not place
any more stress on the car than normal street driving, then we are deluded.
If we take the car to a dealer for warranty repair after knowingly voiding
the warranty, are we commiting fraud? An argument could be made that we are.
Is the manufacturer within his right to ask if we have raced the car to our
face? If he does, what do we say? If we are honest, we say yes, we have
raced the car and we will pay for the repair.
If the manufacturer has reason to believe that we have raced, by having read
results that seem to refer to us and our car, they have the right to ask us
if it the case that we have raced the car, and again if we are honest, we
must cop to the truth.
I am not a big fan of auto manufacturers, but I love cars, and so I want the
manufacturers to continue to be able to make them, and to sell them at
prices I can afford. If the repairs of cars that are campaigned in contests
of speed have to be borne by the manufacturer, they may decide A)not to sell
cars which expose them to such liability, B) to raise the price of their
cars to cover the costs of these repairs. Neither of these options sound
good to me. They may also choose to create special models that can withstand
the rigors of racing, and charge comensurate prices for these models, this
option does hold some interest for me, but I still think that these special
models would be cheaper if not burdened with the repair costs incurred while
racing under warranty.
Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch, your warranty repair is
paid for by all of us who buy cars (yourself included).
So, should the SCCA help us to convince the manufacturers that autocrossing
is a special form of racing that should not void warranties? Maybe.
Should they help us to commit fraud by concealing our participation in
contests of speed?
No.
Bottom line.
If you can't afford to race, don't.
Stop Whining.
R
|