Pat Kelly wrote:
> Maybe my confusion causes your confusion. :) I don't know if
> I can explain
> my confusion, but I'll try.
:)
>Stock classes require manuals,
> right? If they're
Yes.
> so hard to come by for recent cars, or so expensive, how can
> a stock car be
> proven correct without it? My conclusion (probably a leap) is
> that because
> manual are not available, no recent car can be proven
> legal/illegal. Thus no
> cars.
This has come up recently, I believe, and the PC found a local/nearby
dealership that allowed or provided printouts of the applicable parts of the
manual, or assisted in the disassembly and inspection, with any fees being part
of the teardown bond the protestor put up.
This is one reason why the "competitor is responsible for having the applicable
factory shop manual" part of the rules should probably be updated to more
accurately reflect modern times. From the sound of things, the SEB is looking
to do just that, and from what Mark Sirota has posted, they are "as we speak"
working out a clearer, more precise wording. I'd like to hope that my first
post on the subject today, which was forwarded to the SEB as well, will have
some influence, but that's just my ego talking. :)
I do not think the intent of the SEB is to put an unreasonable burden upon the
competitor whose shop manuals aren't available to the public at all, or only on
fiche, or only on CD-ROM, or are unreasonably expensive (personal opinion being
that anything over $500 is unreasonable, Your Mileage May Vary). Is there a
need to have some sort of documentation that would verify certain things on a
production or production-based vehicle (such as wheelbase, to name one
dimensional example), regardless of the Solo 2 category? Yes. Should that
exclude "industry-standard" aftermarket information sources where the factory
documentation isn't readily available or accessible? Not automatically. And
it would seem to me that the very sane and reasonable members of the SEB (I
know enough of them to say this) might be amenable to that sort of update.
> I agree that some sort of commonly available manual should be
> used, such as
> a Chilton (we have one of those for our 88 Fiero). We have
Change "should" to "could" and you're on the right track. Although I would
probably restrict it to the "commercial" series Chilton's -- the "consumer"
versions have some weird compromises and bizarre editing sometimes due to space
restrictions imposed by combining multiple model years into one book (most
memorable one I have encountered involved a heater core change on a friend's
Fox-bodied Mustang. The '79-'86 model described in the Chilton's '79-'93 book
was very easy - remove glovebox and an access panel, then remove core, the
'87-'93 model I was working on had a different instrument panel and was
considerably different -- I couldn't find a way to do it without "rolling" the
IP to access, a non-trivial undertaking and something I didn't want to attempt
in the parking lot of my apartment building. The Chilton's manual had zero
mention of the '87-'93 model year in this area).
> I usually stay out of these discussions, and probably should
> have on this
> one. My thinking is more reactive than logical. Sorry.
No worries. I just wanted to understand the point you were driving at. :)
Jim Crider
autojim@despammed.com
(Still not speaking for the SPAC)
ORIGINAL MESSAGE
> ----------
> >From: "Crider, James A." <JamesCrider@metaldyne.com>
> >To: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@comcast.net>
> >Subject: RE: shop manuals
> >Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2004, 10:46 AM
> >
>
> > Pat, I'm confused as to what you mean here.
> >
> > Jim Crider
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Pat Kelly [mailto:lollipop487@comcast.net]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 12:31 PM
> >> To: Crider, James A.; autox@autox.team.net
> >> Cc: seb@scca.com
> >> Subject: Re: shop manuals
> >>
> >>
> >> If having manual is a requirement in Stock categories, why do
> >> the Stock
> >> classes exist? I'm puzzled.
> >> --Pat Kelly
|