The car should be legal, as there is no FWD/RWD stipulation - in fact, I
know a 318is has been run in ST.
As for the tires, as long as they meet the treadwear rating and have
escaped the exclusion list...they'll be legal until the get 'added' to the
list!
Stan Whitney
At 11:05 AM 2/4/99 -0600, Dave Hillman wrote:
>
> The most recent Street Touring rules at Jerry Mouton's great site
>( http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/street_touring_rules.html ) indicate
>that "No limited slip differentials, except for factory viscous coupler
>type units" are legal, in Section 18.a.
>
> That was the last hurdle, AFAIK, to the legalization of our 1995 Nissan
>240SX SE in Street Touring.
>
> I can find nothing else in the rules which would exclude it, other than
>it possibly being 'sports-car based'. It does meet the SCCA 'sedan'
>definition, having 4 seats and 4 factory seat belts, and the chassis has
>never been used for a 2 seat vehicle, AFAIK.
>
> I'm concerned that I see no RWD vehicles listed in the sample vehicles,
>but there seems to be no comment on driven wheels in the actual rules.
>
> Can someone say with authority, or at least a convincing tone, that the
>240SX will be ST-legal in '99?
>
> We're not going to run the 240SX seriously, so I won't be heart-broken
>if it winds up excluded, but we've got the UTQG 160 Yokohama Nexuses for
>it already, and it might be fun to try Street Touring.
>
> Speaking of Yokohama tires, anyone else notice that the Yokohama A032s
>are *not* on the exclusion list? Neither are Toyo RA-1s or Pirelli P-Zero
>Cs.
>
>--
> D a v i d H i l l m a n
> nma, scca, scscc, aroc, imoc
>
>
>
|