> That's not the point. Is Stock for stock cars, yes or no?
Absolutely NOT. You even point that out in your own words.
"Stock" is only a name for a class based on a philosophy that cars that are
based on stock cars.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that any car that is legal to be in the
class just because it was purchased from a car maker.
Per the rules, additions are allowed and some cars that are purchased as
stock are not allowed.
If the SCCA wants, it could allow completely custom cars into stock or ban
any car it wants to from stock.
If it does, it should be prepared to explain why it is in the best interest
of SOLO II.
I think that the reasoning that has been given is sufficient.
> It's like in the book Animal Farm that we all read in school, "all
> animals are equal, some are just more equal than others."
The only Orwellian construct is in your statement and intpretation that
"stock is for stock cars". It is not in the rules and your intreptation of
it is different from the philosophy as it is written in the rules and in the
classing that has been done.
> We already allow trick shocks and psudo-race tires in Stock so it's not
> really stock.
That is correct. Now go back and answer your first question.
> it is that it's not very likely any of the bumped cars would show up at
> Natz -- and if they did they probably wouldn't do well. All the club is
> doing by excluding some stock cars from Stock is limiting local
> participation.
Red herring.
The rules are written for the national competition and anything that CAN be
brought to them.
Can you guarantee that none of the bumped cars will ever show up for Natz
and that they would always do poorly?
Do the national rules limit your local club from changing the class at their
local events?
If they do not, they are not limiting your local participation.
|