autox
[Top] [All Lists]

re: STU Rules Revisions Revised

To: autox@autox.team.net
Subject: re: STU Rules Revisions Revised
From: Dave Hillman <hillman@planet-torque.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
Dennis wrote...
> Revisions Made:
> 
> - Bump displacement limit to 3.200l
> - Expand engine swap language to allow "corporate family" engines.
> - Re-enforce language that engine mods are indeed unlimited

   There needs to be some consideration in the rules for changing
corporate families.  Scott Mitchell already mentioned this, but I haven't
seen it addressed.  If I swap a VW VR6 into a Skoda, and then Skoda is
sold to Honda, is my car legal?  When does it become illegal?  Does it
depend on *when* I did the swap?  How do you protest that?

   Or alternately, a swap is legal between any two companies that have
ever been part of the same corporate family.  Wow, is that a nightmare.

   ( I think the hot ticket a 3L Ferrari F1 motor in a Fiat Uno ;)

   And, since engine modifications are 'unlimited', all you are doing is
restricting the original of the block.  That doesn't seem to be worth all
the hassle, so I recommend dropping the 'corporate' language entirely.

> - 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?

   Without trying to be antagonistic, this doesn't sound like the same guy
who has been calling new-STU an 'inclusive' and 'permissive' class.
   
   I don't see a downside to forced induction displacement factor.

--
 D a v i d  H i l l m a n
 scscc, nma, scca, imoc






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>