Sure - Mike Manghelli, SCTA president for 2000 is a member of this list. I'm
certain that he will welcome any constructive input from the participants.
Steve Batchelor is again the head of car tech, number in 1999 rulebook.
Give Steve a shout - fix the rulebook, come on out and attend the rules
meetings, attend the board meetings, help in the proof reading process all
it takes is hunderds of unpaid hours. Hey - reformat the book to look like
NHRA's. How's that for an idea? Remember all suggestions for changes can be
put onto the form available at every SCTA meet, I recieved only two for
1999, and the cutoff date is Nov 1st.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: Skip Higginbotham <saltrat@pro-blend.com>
To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 8:32 PM
Subject: Rules
> Hi Team,
> Well, I have read all the rulebook comments and I'm really going to put my
> foot in it now.
> I have a basic problem with the rule book.
>
> The problem that I have is that it is designed to give the inspector too
> much latitude in interpretation. Further, changes that are made to it do
> not tend to clarify or definitize areas that cause problems during
inspection.
>
> As a result (I think), for three inspections in a row, I get complained to
> about things that aren't even in the rule book and on top of that some
> inspectors who wouldn't design a streamliner that way I did try to
> influence future changes or additions to be made the way they currently do
> things in another association (type of racing). Interpretations include
> disapproval (verbally) of: Halon in the cockpit; steel rings around lug
> bolts for steel wheels; warning about my helmet which is much stronger
than
> many that are allowed to run, etc. In most of this, no notes were placed
in
> the log book! And no changes were made to the "book". The exception was
> Oxygen breathing systems. That was put in the book. Never mind that
> addition of oxygen to the drivers body at a density altitude of 6 to 8
> thousand feet makes perfect medical sense.
>
> I do not want to complain and complain and not do something....so.....
>
> I would like to join in the rules making process and participate in
> clarifying every section of the "book" to make it easier for the inspector
> to do his/her job. And somewhere along the way make it possible for a car
> owner/builder to have a fighting chance of making it through inspection at
> a Bonneville meet without unnecessary heartburn. Necessary heartburn
caused
> by not meeting the rules, as written (not just as interpreted) is just
fine.
>
> I guess that the door panel discussion just made me flip!
>
> Dan, can I help somehow?
>
> Skip in central Texas, (where the heat may have finally gotten to me).
> I'm trying to be productive here!
>
|