Ed,
The sentence you refer to pertains to aftermarket body parts that are given
a part number by a manufacturer to become legal. This happens more in
NASCAR, NHRA & SCCA than for us.
These body parts are then available to a select few, not the general public.
As in production classes in GT we consider a C4 Corvette the same car for
every year of it's production cycle. This means body parts for C4s are
interchangable. Export parts are also included as long as YOU can prove the
origin and production levels.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Van Scoy <edvs@uswest.net>
To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
Cc: Kim & Brad Johnson <b091696@snowhill.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: New Category
> Dan,
> A little confused here..... This seems to conflict with the sentence in
the
> definition of "Production" which says " A manufacturer's part number does
not
> constitute an original, factory installed body part" If I can swap
front-ends
> with other C4 generation Vettes, does that mean I can use the factory
fender
> flares GM put on the '96 Vette LT-4 before changing body styles in '97?
Also,
> (on a roll now) what about "export" parts that were put on Vettes ( &
other
> domestic vehicles) to make them legal overseas? More than 500 units were
> produced in Vettes - don't know about other models. Fair game in
Production
> class?
> Ed
>
>
> Dan Warner wrote:
>
> > <snip> As you know we allow any body parts to interchange on a
> > generation of vehicle. For example the front clip from a '80 Camero can
be
> > used on a '78 with no legality issues.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dan Warner
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kim & Brad Johnson <b091696@snowhill.com>
> > To: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: New Category
> >
> > > Dan, I like the additional classes idea. I'm not too sure why you
would
> > > pick 49-81, instead of say 49 to 86 (unless the Camaro/firebird is the
> > > driving force, rather than about half, or three quarters of the way to
> > 2000.
> > > Vintage is about 23 to 48.......so maybe 25 years is a thought. The
crank
> > > trigger/EFI thing just doesn't work for me. Many of the old (49 to
81)
> > > records probably were set with a crank trigger. Most of NASCAR's
attempts
> > > to "save cost" were usually the cause of more money being spent to
solve
> > the
> > > "lesser technology rule". Just my thoughts here in L.A.
Brad
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> > > To: land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Cc: bsykesjr@mediaone.net <bsykesjr@mediaone.net>
> > > Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 12:38
> > > Subject: New Category
> > >
> > >
> > > >I am proposing the addition of a new category to be added to the
SCTA/BNI
> > > >rulebook. The reason for this addition is that several cars that we
have
> > > not
> > > >seen on a regular basis are aerodynmically challeneged. The SCTA does
not
> > > >want to send cars to mothballs. The current Modified Category covers
> > > vehicle
> > > >bodies from 1949 to the present, a span of almost 50 years. I feel
the
> > time
> > > >has come to meet the needs of our entrants and create a place for
some of
> > > >our old friends to race.
> > > >
> > > >The new category, as yet un- named, will lay out something like this;
> > > >
> > > >1949 - 1981 AMERICAN coupes, sedans and pickups. NO EFI or crank
fired
> > > >ignition.
> > > >Body classes will include; Blown Fuel Altered, Fuel Altered, Blown
Gas
> > > >Altered, Gas Altered, Blown Gas Coupe, Gas Coupe, Modified Pickup,
> > > >Production, Production Supercharged, Production Pickup. Engine
classes
> > will
> > > >be AA-I and vintage engine classes.
> > > >
> > > >All other rules & safety items under the current Modified Category
will
> > > >remain the same.
> > > >
> > > >Records will be researched and old records reinstated to match the
body
> > > >break of '49-'81.
> > > >
> > > >I am open to comments and we will consider the input of all who take
the
> > > >time.
> > > >
> > > >Dan (I started it now) Warner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
|