On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:27:47AM -0700, charlescox@coastalbay.com wrote:
> I don't read it as contradictory. On the contrary, what it does say is there
> must be a muffler (and essentially, that a muffler can take any
> form...meaning, an open exhaust does not suffice) but the adequacy of, or
> whatever device it takes to muffle it doesn't matter...that's what they are
> saying. Otherwise, why mention mufflers at all?
Okay, then the last inch of the exhaust tip is a muffler. Its
adequacy is defined according to the criterion in section 3.5.
What is your definition of a muffler? You seem to refer to function,
but then you reject the functional definition in section 3.5.
Rule 3.5 defines a muffler as far as the rules are concerned. The
rules are intended to be complete as written. You are bringing in
additional criteria from outside the rules.
Also note that it is not the role of the tech inspector to enforce
that rule. If you feel that someone is in violation of 3.5, you
should bring it to the attention of the Event Chair or the Chief of
Sound.
--
john@idsfa.net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|