Honest to goodness, I was not trying to start a fight. Not even really an
argument. You will note that it is a suggestion. The point is that each of
the items on the numbered list are time proven safety items of great value to
the inhabitants of a vehicle and the vehicle itself. Note, the catch word is
safety. This is not a "personalized" issue nor should it be an "alteration"
issue. It is an issue of letting judges know (whoever they might be in
whatever forum) that "basic" and "specified" safety enhancements to your
vehicle that date back more that twenty years in the market and in no way
effect the aesthetics of the car will not be penalized. I personally, and
again this is a personal opinion, don't believe that when it comes time to have
to make that salami slice that lack of seat belts, an electric system designed
to provide a constant flow of fuel to a fire, circuitry that turns your harness
into a toaster, or a brake system that loses all integrity on a single cut line
should be the factor that defines where the cut is made in the salami.
Please note that I did stick to "specified" safety enhancements, and that I
never suggested that they not be limited or determined by the venue. Only that
when looking to the rules that it should be expressed that there will be no
penalty for seatbelts that are cleanly installed, and a couple of other things.
I don't purport to be the person who makes the choice, but I would state that
seat belt and safety glass specifications appear uniform in all guidelines I
have been able to locate save for the TE/AE site mentioned in my earlier
correspodence (and the safety glass is irrellevant to us). The dual master
cylinder is patently my own pet peave, but is clearly a safety enhancement
only. The benchmark for the suggestion, if you will, is that performance
enhancements, aesthetic enhancements, comfort upgrades, or personal appearance
choices, remain personalizations and penalized in a stock class.
Thanx.
Bob Nersesian
|