>I rather resent the implication that I'm creating a "DSM dominatrix class".
I
>think there's a passle of supercharged Integra Rs, M3s, turbocharded Neons,
>Integra-motored Civics, DOHC Starions, hopped-up supercharged Grand Prixs
etc.
>etc. etc. who would beg to differ. For an "I" class, this one sure is wide
>open....
Well I think you may be on to something.... It definitely is wide open if
and only if you band all wheel drive. AWD will be a HUGE advantage in
getting power down, especially when you talk about the power you guys could
potentally make.
-----Original Message-----
From: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>
To: autox@autox.team.net <autox@autox.team.net>; werace4u@aol.com
<werace4u@aol.com>
Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 9:49 AM
Subject: STU Rules Update Update
>Changes that went in last night:
>
>- added new displacement limits based on valvetrain type, as discussed
>- changed wording of shock absorber rule from "as per SP" to "unlimited"
>- changed wording of sway bar rule from "as per SP" to "unlimited"
>- restored requirement for vehicle to be registered and plated
>
>Notes:
>
> - OK, as silly as I think it is, enough people seem to care about the
>requirement that the vehicle has plates that I put it back in. HOWEVER,
I've
>also put in language that all you need to satisfy this requirement is a set
of
>current plates. You cannot protest otherwise legal modifications because
they
>are not street legal in the car's state/province of registration -
enforcing
>that would be flat-out impossible, and if we even _tried_ to enforce that,
we'd
>scare everyone away.
>
>Repeat after me: "This is a _permissive_ class".
>
>I also added a paragraph stating that the SCCA doesn't condone driving
>no-longer-legal cars on the street as a CYA thing. (Although upon further
>reading, I'm going to tighten up the wording a little)
>
>- On this being a "forced induction required" class: Yup, sure looks like
that,
>don't it? Now go read the rules for STU as they exist in the back of the
'99
>rulebook. Say, that looks like a "forced induction required" class too,
doesn't
>it? In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that _these new rules don't
change
>the essence of what STU is, based on the existing rules_. Neat trick huh?
>
>I rather resent the implication that I'm creating a "DSM dominatrix class".
I
>think there's a passle of supercharged Integra Rs, M3s, turbocharded Neons,
>Integra-motored Civics, DOHC Starions, hopped-up supercharged Grand Prixs
etc.
>etc. etc. who would beg to differ. For an "I" class, this one sure is wide
>open....
>
>DG
>
>
>
>
|