Rex Tener wrote:
>Okay, I don't have my rule book with me at work (I get more work
done that
>way), but I thought in Appendix G there was a clarification
that if a TSB
>comes out for a part, then both parts are legal, the old one and
the new
>one covered by the TSB.
No, that's about RECALLS, not TSBs. The difference is this: when
a mfr. issues a recall, they will perform the update at no cost
to the car owner. In fact, they have a legal obligation to do so.
This is why it makes sense for the Solo II Stock rules to require
that mandatory recalls be performed: there will be no cost to the
competitor to have his car updated. There is no requirement that
TSBs be implemented. Even when they specify that old parts are
always to be replaced by a different one, this won't always be
done at the mfr's expense.
> That way TSB's that are issued for "When a
>customer complains about squeaky trim, update to most recent
trim"
That correctly describes most TSB wording. IMHO, any part
retrofit called out in a TSB should be legal in Stock. That would
include the 911 cam chain tensioners.
Jay
|