Mike CP58 wrote:
>So, licensing has no meaning in SP, just it doesn't in SM....
It's not _required_ in SP. It is also not required in Stock.
Requiring it in SM is silly.
> Seeing how SM
>inherited it rule base from SP,
SM goes a lot further than SP in suspension, engine, and gearbox
allowances.
>So what if
>they make you license it.
Why require that in SM, but not in Stock and SP?
>Now, if licensing starts to include emissions
>equipment, then licensing could be a problem
>as SM cars from certain states
>could be faster than others.
Nope. If I live in California and want to build an SM car, I can
find a way to get an Alabama tag for it, which won't require any
emission inspection. And CA won't know or care as long as I don't
operate the car on the street. See how silly it gets?
>Licensing in SM is only meant to keep a SM car from looking like
a CP car.
So, how do you figure that SP cars don't wind up that way? They
don't have to be licensed.
Jay
|