[Fot] gearbox legality

[JWoesvra at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/21/2007 5:41:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
billb at bnj.com writes:

>  While I applaud SVRA for their intent, I feel they have just removed
>  another layer of "Vintage".
>
> And to those thinking the Toyota  box conversion is the answer, do your
> homework on spares  availability...
>
> Happy shifting.



I'm not sure who is "lurking" and not naming themselves, but I have an  idea.
 
Anyway, SVRA did not "just" remove another layer of "VINTAGE!
 
This transmission rule has been in effect for ten years. Do you guys ever  
read the stuff I print and post? I guess you don't, Henry...oops.
 
Anyway, I want cars on the track on Sunday. Nothin' I hate worse than  seeing 
TR's or such leaving Friday busted. Almost is bad is looking in a TR  guy's 
trailer and seeing 3 g'boxes lined up "jist 'n case.
 
As long as I have the reins on the tech side of SVRA you can count on  
reasonable solutions to the ever mounting reliability problems.
 
You can call me whatever you want, that is the way it is. 
 
BTW, If you read deep enough, there is also a small weight penalty for  
changing to a "modern" tranny.
 
If you want to be absolutely pure Vintage then you shouldn't be discussing  
alternate rods and cranks, alloy HD hubs, specialty gears, etc.
 
How many of you have fake headlights? That wasn't allowed until 1970. What  
about passenger seats? Had to have one until 1969.
 
Jack Woehrle
SVRA Technical Director for 16 years and not ready to retire
 
 
 
 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com