"an objective standard" I don't think the use of this term is allowed, when
referring to SCCA rules or policy
Sid
Larry Steckel wrote:
> OK. So it generally agreed that it is illegal to modify a stock part, in
> this case an interior panel, to get easy access to a shock absorber which is
> a legal allowance. Yet,I seem to remember the Solo Board granting an
> allowance to owners of Sentra SE-R's to drill a hole in the bottom of the
> McPherson strut tubes so they could mount Koni shocks.
>
> Is there an objective standard, or are are the rules more a question of
> situational ethics?
>
> Larry Steckel.
>
> >From: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>
> >Reply-To: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>
> >To: Autox <autox@autox.team.net>
> >Subject: Re: Rear Shock Access for cars
> >Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> >Howdy,
> >
> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Eric Linnhoff wrote:
> > > Whatever. I think the point is a semantical one at best. You are not
> > > supposed to cut a "shock access" hole if it didn't come that way from
> >the
> > > factory. But you can cut that same hole if it's for a C&C item such as
> > > speakers or a pair of rearward aimed 100W driving lights to combat those
> > > dimwits who insist upon driving behind you with their high beams on.
> >
> >Good thing we've got a rule that:
> >
> >a) inconviences competitors
> >b) encourages what are obviously "semi-cheating" workarounds.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
|