cadreamn67
Platinum Forum Member
- Messages
- 608
I had always thought the so called LAT (Los Angeles Tiger?) options were determined to be "factory correct".
I think I have seen some recent postings here that seem to imply they may not be.
The CAT Shop Notes (page II24) indicate that back in 1976 Bill Barnett of Zanesville, Ohio had gathered evidence for SCCA racing purposes that they met the rules for standard parts. The rule then stated that a part is stock or a standard part if : "an item of standard or optional equipment could have been ordered with the cars installed on the factory production line, and delivered through a dealer in the United States." If true that sounds pretty "factory correct" to me. (It also is stated that dealer installed options did not qualify, which makes the use of LAT in the definition a bit curious.)
Was there subsequent information that called that conclusion into question or perhaps has the issue become clouded again with the passage of time? Sorry to be replowing old ground, probably this can be dispensed with quickly.
Cheers, Gene
I think I have seen some recent postings here that seem to imply they may not be.
The CAT Shop Notes (page II24) indicate that back in 1976 Bill Barnett of Zanesville, Ohio had gathered evidence for SCCA racing purposes that they met the rules for standard parts. The rule then stated that a part is stock or a standard part if : "an item of standard or optional equipment could have been ordered with the cars installed on the factory production line, and delivered through a dealer in the United States." If true that sounds pretty "factory correct" to me. (It also is stated that dealer installed options did not qualify, which makes the use of LAT in the definition a bit curious.)
Was there subsequent information that called that conclusion into question or perhaps has the issue become clouded again with the passage of time? Sorry to be replowing old ground, probably this can be dispensed with quickly.
Cheers, Gene