"Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com> wrote:
> By "the car has current plates" I assume you mean that the car is
> registered for street use, correct? In fact, with the verbage that
> someone posted a while back (which I haven't verified), you state "the
car
> must be legally registered for street use", right?
Which means "the car must have current registration, legally obtained". It
makes no assumptions as to the current legality of the car as it sits on
the competition surface.
> Glad to see you're keeping an open mind.
Having an open mind has nothing to do with it. SM was intended from the
very first to not require cats or emissions equipment.
> On a completely different note, that the SCCA supports a class explicitly
> designed for road-going cars, and that the SCCA is allowing (and by
> implication encouraging) those cars to run without cats is silly both
from
> a legal standpoint as well as a PR standpoint. Given the focus on
"street
> legal" why don't you require a cat on those vehicles originally equipped
> with one, just like the fed?
"You cannot legislate morality"
The simple fact is that the majority of the street-driven, hopped-up cars
that form the SM vehicle pool don't have cats on them. The kids all take
them off. Require a cat, and you run into "Whaddya mean I gotta put my cat
back on - screw that!" and you lose them.
This isn't an SM-only thing either - the various drag race sanctioning
bodies' "street" classes dropped their emissions requirements a long time
ago for similar reasons.
The rules mean that on a regular basis, the car must be made legal enough
to pass whatever inspection procedures your state/province requires of you.
If, after that is accomplished (of which your plates are proof) you choose
to defeat these systems, that is entirely your affair. The SCCA is not in
the business of enforcing the emissions laws, nor is it capable of doing
so.
DG
|