>> Case 1 (Driver from no-emissions stave vs driver with heavy-emissions state)
> Do not allow the protest.
But you've dodged the major issue here - is it fair that someone can have an
advantage based on what state/country the vehicle is registered in?
I don't think it is - and the serious drivers will do silly things like register
the cars in emissions-free states.
>> Case 2 (Drivers from geographicaly distant states protest each other)
> I think you can resolve the whole thing by stating that any non factory
> parts be emissions legal, regardless of the licensing state...
Emissions legal how?
If my state/province has a tailpipe sniffer only, and I have a fuel computer,
then I adjust the computer to pass emissions, and once I have my sticker, I set
it back to max power. My competitors see all the black smoke, and protest. I'm
from Alaska. How are you going to carry out an Alaska emissions test in Kansas?
How can you even tell if the car is legal, unless you have Alaskan test
procedures, and Alaskan specs? What if the state we're in doesn't have tailpipe
tests, so no garages have sniffers? The SCCA isn't going to buy a sniffer and a
full set of procedures and specs...
>> Case 3: (State changes legislation mid-season)
> It would remain legal untill the next required licenseing/testing period.
> These things are usually required annually...
OK, so I've got my illegal-but-legal-'till-next-year car. I get protested, and
the state I'm protested in happens to be my home state. We drag the car down to
the sniffer - and it fails, because they're using the new laws.
> Case 4: (Trailer Queen trying to save money)
> If insurance is required for licensing, yes.
No, that's not fair. The only difference (in this case) between the trailer
queen and a daily driver is the tags - we assume the vehicle is legal for sake
of argument. If the driver wants a trailer queen to save wear and tear on the
car, and he doesn't want to pump money into unused liability insurence, why
force that extra expense?
> My point is that if it is NOT a street legal car, from stem to stern, then it
> should not fall under ANY Street Touring rules. If the driver/owner does not
> want to conform to licenseing/emissions laws, then it is my contention that
> he/she should not build a Street Touring Unlimited car...
That's nice and noble in theory, but it falls on its face in practice. As soon
as you rely on state/provincial law to do your dirty work for you, you open up
this huge can of unenforcable worms. The difference between a street legal
California car and a street legal Kentucky car is the difference between a Stock
car and a Mod car.
The only way around the problem is for the SCCA to decide what is or is not
"Street Legal" and explicitly require these items in the rules. And the harsh
bottom line is that if these requirements are too restrictive, the kids will
keep on drag racing (and street racing!!) where nobody cares about what they do.
This is "Unlimited". It needs to really BE "Unlimited". It is only "Street
Touring" because of the 4-seat, front-engine, production-car-based formula.
Incidently, this emissions spectre hangs over the current Street Touring class
right now. I think they've dodged the bullet so far because there is a
gentlemen's agreement (implicit or explicit, I don't know which) between all the
involved parties not to go there. As soon as some real money or prestige is on
the line - like a National Champion's jacket - I expect that someone will break
ranks, and all hell will break loose.
The only other alternative is to say that if the car has tags and/or an
emissions sticker, it's legal no matter what parts actually appear on the car,
or how they're tuned. "I see nosink...!" That amounts to tacit permission to
cheat.
Either way, why bother? If you cannot enforce the rule, or will not enforce the
rule, why have the rule?
> It is either a street car or it isn't...
And under these proposed rules, a street car is one that has all the equipment
in STU.1C. If there's something you think should be there but is not, tell me.
DG
|