For some reason, this was sent to me rather than vintage-race@autox.team.net.
And in HTML format as well, gag!
Reply to author, not me.
mjb.
----
------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: WSpohn4@aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:45:53 EST
Subject: Rules and 'Cheating'
I thought of another example where I think I was in the right, but in which I
used a 'creative' approach to the rules.
Way back in the early days (early 70s) with ICSCC, I was running production,
and the rules were very limited in terms of what you could do to modify the
car.
They allowed the removal of the stock windshield and frame on an open car,
provided that they were replaced with a 'racing screen' in front of the
driver. It was the norm to make up a couple of brackets and a plexi screen
that was 6-8" high to keep the bugs out of the driver's face, but I noted
that the rules omitted any specification of size for the replacement screen.
I made up a base out of aluminum, folded over on itself, with formed tabs to
screw it to the body, with plexi sandwiched in between the layers of
aluminium - about an inch and a half of base, then plexi from there up.
Sounds conventional, you might say. Well it was, except that the 'windshield'
only stuck up out of the base by about a quarter inch. When tech said that
it needed to be higher, I explained that I had adhered to the letter of the
rule - I had a replacement screen with plexi, but the rules didn't say how
tall it should be. Tech of course said that this was not the intention of the
rule, and I responded that this might well be the case, but until they
rewrote it, that was the only way to enforce it.
I think I might have caused another rule change there, though I don't
remember - it wasn't until much later that I headed for law school to do this
sort of thing for a living.
I had one other similar adventure that also involved windshields. In
Vancouver in the old days, we had a city test that checked things like lights
and wipers. I was driving an MGA with a replica Brooklands style screen on
it, and as the test was mandatory, I took it through. I failed because I
didn't have working windshield wipers.
This gnawed at my budding legalistic mind, and I went to the library and read
the motor vehicle code. It turned out that there was a requirement for
working wipers, but no requirement for the windshield itself - I guess older
vehicles and Jeeps with fold flat screens had been contemplated by the law.
I went through again, this time with working wipers, that had been clicked
into the raised position, waving away in mid air above my little Brooklands.
They told me I had failed again and laughed at me. I (18 at the time) had
them call their supervisor and asked him to show me in the motor vehicle act
where it said that all cars needed to have a windshield. After 10 minutes of
fuming, they passed me, and affixed a decal that took up about a third of the
windscreen.
I still have that little windscreen in the garage somewhere, a trophy of my
first contest with authority.
Bill Spohn
------- End of forwarded message -------
|