>Dennis wrote:
>> Dennis' Note: The original STU rules wording required that the vehicle
>> both be registered for the street, and have passed an
>> emissions test. However, State/Province licencing requirements and
>> emissions requirements vary, and range from no
>> requirements (Kentucky) to vastly stringent requirements
>> (California). As such, the SCCA cannot maintain a level playing field
>> without explicitly specifying the equipment that must be on the car
>> in order for it to be "street legal".
> This is in no way an attempt to fuel the flames, just my opinion....
That's cool.
> If the car is to be a StreetTouring classed car, it is my opinion that the
> original wording be retained. Street Touring Unlimited, being an extended
> class of Street Touring, should retain it's Street Touring status as the
> name implies. Altering the original intent of Street Touring rules, just
> to accommodate unlimited mods, even those that may render the vehicle
> incapable of being licensed for the street in some states, should not be
> allowed. If we are in fact attempting to draw the maxed out street pocket
> rockets, doesn't it make sense that they should be legal licensed street
> vehicles, irregardless of the state in which they are licensed. Otherwise,
> the whole concept of Street Touring is compromised.
Here's the problem in a nutshell.
Case 1:
Driver A lives in a state with no emissions testing, and the only licencing
requirement is that the vehicle have a valid VIN. Driver B lives in a state with
not only an emissions level test, but also a visual inspection.
Driver A (under the current rules) can do anything he wants to the car. Driver B
must comply with his state's emissions requirements. Driver A comes to an event
in Driver B's state, and clears the field.
Is this fair? If Driver A is protested by Driver B, how do you resolve the
protest?
Case 2:
Driver A, from Alaska, and Driver B, from Florida, and Driver C, from Ontario,
got to Nationals, in Kansas. All three drivers protest each other for emissions
legality. How is the protest resolved? Driver B just-so-happens to have done
modifications to his car after he passed his state emissions test that would
make the car illegal if it were re-tested. How do you prove that?
Case 3:
Driver X is the top STU driver in the country, attending and winning every
National Tour and ProSolo held that year. In August, his state passes
legislation that would make his car as it stands emissions-illegal if it were
restested (although his current sticker is good to October) Is his car illegal
for Nationals?
Case 4:
Driver Q builds a top-notch STU car that he intends to only race - a trailer
queen. It is in fact emissions and licencing requirements legal, but his state
requires insurence, and as the vehicle will never see the street (and his
state's insurence is expensive) he wishes to not licence the vehicle. Is it fair
to force him to insure the car?
In essence, the emissions and licencing stuff is unenforceable, and liable to
cause all kinds of nasty impound problems - so drop it.
> Other than allowing supercharging and turbo mods, what is the major
> difference between this proposal and the current Street Prepared rules?
- Open brakes
- Open suspension (on stock mount points)
- Open engine/driveline of similar make under 3.1l
- Much more permissive body mods (aero kits, etc)
It's really a DOT-tire, production car based, no-tube-frame-stock-unibody
Modified class.
DG
|