On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 08:23 , John F. Kelly Jr. wrote:
> -------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------
>
> Message text written by INTERNET:Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net
>
> "As John very well knows, the Elise does not meet the production
> criteria
> specified in the rulebook for Stock or Street Prepared classes:
>
> "Cars running in Stock Category must have been series produced with
> normal
> road touring equipment capable of being licensed for normal road use in
> the United States, and normally sold and delivered through the
> manufacturer's retail sales outlets in the United States. Car models
> not
> specifically listed in any Stock Category class must have been produced,
> and must meet the above requirements and been sold through normal U.S.
> dealerships, in quantities of at least 1,000 in a 12- month period in
> order to be eligible for the Stock Category.""
> -------------------- End Original Message --------------------
>
> You are correct. However all the material you posted does not relate to
> the
> question to which I was responding.
Ok, sorry, John. I wasn't 100% sure which is why I put in the bit about
that rule not pertaining to Prepared. I was confused because you were
talking about the gray-market issue and that doesn't seem to be
important to Prepared classifications.
> My point is the SEB ignores its own rules.
> I can provide more examples but I don't have the time for
> research.
> How much do you want to know?
>
> --John Kelly
I actually agree that the SEB does a number of things that are
inconsistent with the rulebook. I believe they do it with good intent;
but the effect is often to reward those who push the rules rather than
those who attempt to comply. I'd rather see a more proactive cleanup of
the rulebook with more consistent enforcement.
Examples would include the exemption for BFG to continue producing new
R1's in only one size when their G-Forces weren't ready in that size (a
tortuous and unwarranted interpretation of the tire rule),
classifications of various vehicles late in the season (finally
addressed in the rule book, but still with too much flexibility to allow
competitors to respond to a new vehicle IMHO), and various rules
stretches on modification allowances.
I don't necessarily believe that the SEB as distinct from the SCCA as a
whole, should be motivated strictly by "what the members want". That
can lead to squeaky-wheel syndrome. I think they need to determine a
principle of competition that reflects what the members want, but then
provide guidance and vision that keeps us focused on that principle.
KeS
|