One thing to remember about Supplemental Classes is that the initial
published rules are meant to be "experimental" not "cast in stone". Less
rigor is employed in creating them than the other classes/categories whose
rules are honed by years of users and abusers. As such, arguments such as
"its been there since the beginning" hold less water in such cases. Doesn't
mean they hold no water, just less.
STS has only recently achieved "permanence" as a class. The review of the
UD/BD clause is part of the rules honing process for that permanence.
Whatever happens now regarding that clause will likely be a part of ST for
as long as it lasts.
--Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bthatch@juno.com [mailto:bthatch@juno.com]
> The original intent of setting up the ST category included updating and
> backdating. The whole reasoning for establishing the ST category was to
> give competitors a street legal category with modifications allowed
> between Stock category and Street Prepared category.
[snip]
>Creative rules readers have invested their time and energy to
> develop ST legal cars. I haven't noticed these "Frankencars" dominating
> the category. Why make a rules change that is the equivalent of catering
> to people moving into a house next to an airport and then complaining
> about the noise?
[more snip]
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|