In a message dated 6/17/99 9:04:35 AM EST, dg50@chrysler.com writes:
> Nobody has yet presented ANY evidence as to why DSM owners
> with backdated turbos
> (some of whom have had them for _years_) should have to 1) spend
> a ton of money 2) spend a lot of time and effort, and 3) reduce
> the competitiveness of the cars un-backdating their PREVIOUSLY
> LEGAL turbos (or backdating the motor too).
Backdating turbos was not "previously legal". No one asked the SEB to
rule on the issue until now. The SEB is saying that in the framework of
the section in the rulebook concerning the updating or backdating of
components for Street Prepared cars, we consider a turbocharger to be
part of the engine unit, and therefore cannot be updated/backdated
separately. The SEB feels this is in accordance with the spirit and intent
of the Street Prepared rules. We receive a dozen or more letters every
year from people asking if specific updates/backdates for certain parts on
their cars are legal under 14.1.C. Many of the rules in the book are by
necessity broadly written in order to cover all eligible cars, and when
applied to specific parts of certain cars, the SEB has to rule on the
legality of that particular application. And just because many people make
a modification, or because no one has protested that modification, does
not necessarily prove that it is legal or illegal.
<snip>
> Any way you look at it, there is NO NEED for the SEB to be making
> legislation to slow the DSMs down. Where's the evidence?
> Where's the problem?
The SEB is not making legislation to slow the DSM's down. We merely
are interpreting and clarifying an existing rule in the book. That's part of
what we do. If someone had written a letter asking this question 3 years
ago, the answer and the clarification would have been the same.
If you think the rule(s) should be changed, write a letter and explain what
we should change and why. We are merely interpreting the existing rules.
GH Sharp
|