DG posted:
> 2) Does the proposed rule solve the problem? Yes. I don't see that there's
> any debate needed on this.
Yup, it pretty much solves the problem. It also means a very uncertain
status for the rest of this year.
> Incidently, there is a very real, VERY LARGE, public relations problem
with
> the SCCA and the turbocharged population at large. Real or imagined, a lot
> of people believe that the SCCA has a politically motivated anti-turbo
bias,
> and this proposed rule further feeds the flame. This is an opportunity for
the
> SEB to demonstrate that it listens to the membership and that this
supposed
> bias does not really exist.
It's far, far too late for that... Besides irrepairably damaging their
reputation with the "turbocharged population", they've also managed to soil
their reputation with some the general SCCA population as well. I've heard
numerous comments from friends and fellow racers who's general comment was
"Boy, you guys got screwed, didn't you?"
> - that oil and coolant lines use the stock source and/or return points
*Which* stock source points? The old or the new? This part is vague, and
essentially unnecessary. In fact, most of the bullet points are
unnecessary. Limiting it to "same number of cylinders and displacement"
would do it.
My whole beef with this situation is that at least 4 people inquired and
were told by someone representing SCCA (not necessarily SEB) that it was a
legal swap. There are a number of people who have made the swap based on
that. Now, not only is it specificly disallowed, but the status of it's
current legality is uncertain. Something stinks in the state of Colorado...
It's not a difficult swap, and it would probably cost me the $75 I spent on
a used 14B, which I'll probably put back on after the season's over anyway.
It'll be interesting to see how the T25 affects my autox times.
Mac Crossett
1996 Eagle Talon TSi AWD #49ESP (to be T-25 powered again this weekend)
|