--On Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:58 PM -0800 Pat Kelly
<lollipop487@comcast.net> wrote:
> Linking the P classes to the same requirements as Stock classes is
> totally new. In prior times, the P classes were linked to road racing
> classes, and the limitations listed in the PCS/GCR/GTCS, etc.
> Why not give the P classes the same linkage to the road racing books as
> Modified? That's the way it has been in the past.
Pat,
I don't consider this "linking Prepared to Stock". The proposal has the
same documentation requirements for both, but that's not the same thing.
The only references to the PCS or GTCS in the Solo II rules is in 17.11,
the allowance for "in excess" cars to compete in Prepared.* The same
concept applies to other Club Racing classes competing in Solo II, such as
Showroom Stock cars competing in Stock, Touring and Improved Touring
competing in SP, Spec Miata in DSP, etc. It seems logical that these cars
should have to provide the rules to which they are prepared, and any
documentation required by those rules (if any). Same concept as CM and FM,
basically. The proposal will be revised appropriately.
But for Prepared cars that are not 17.11 "in excess" cars, I can't see how
the PCS or GTCS is useful at all.
* I also see the reference to the PCS in the Appendix A listings for the
240Z, 260Z, and Rx-7 in E Prepared. These appear to be different from the
norm, and I'm not yet sure how to work this in.
[Directing this to everyone...] So for Prepared cars that are not 17.11
"in excess" cars, what do you think should be the required documentation?
Please send your letters to seb@scca.com.
Mark
|