At 11:17 AM 6/18/99 -0400, Mark Sirota wrote:
>GH Sharp wrote:
>> If I remember correctly, the TSB from Porsche gave the_option_of using
>> the oil-fed tensioner *or* the older-style hydraulic one. According
>> to past practice, a TSB or mfr recall notice that *mandates* use of a
>> superceding part in place of an older one makes the newer one legal
>> for Stock and SP.
>
>Yes, that sounds familiar.
>
>IMHO, this "past practice" needs to be updated. It needs to be okay to
>honor these TSB's, as that would get the SFC monkey (and its cousins)
>off our backs. Then we'd be able to legitimately tell people to go
>complain to the manufacturers.
Okay, I don't have my rule book with me at work (I get more work done that
way), but I thought in Appendix G there was a clarification that if a TSB
comes out for a part, then both parts are legal, the old one and the new
one covered by the TSB. That way TSB's that are issued for "When a
customer complains about squeaky trim, update to most recent trim" are
legal for the people that have the new update non-squeaky trim and the old
squeaky trim. However, the manufacturer still has squeaky and non-squeaky
trim in stock (BMW is famous for TSB's like this).
>Can anyone come up with a TSB that would be "dangerous" if the practice
>were changed to allow either the newer or older part, even if the newer
>one isn't actually mandated? I know the reason it's there is to prevent
>the situation where once the TSB is issued, everyone *has* to go spend
>money on their car to be competitive. (If that happened, by the current
>rule, everyone might have to actually go buy a newer car to get one
>legally with the updated part!)
I thought we already had that rule! :-)
Rex "I have got to stop giving rules advice to national champions" Tener
rex@marimba.com
|