"Dan Bettis" <140mhZ24@isoc.net> wrote:
> Do you have a copy of this new proposal you could mail or email me.
The proposal is available on-line at http://autocross.dsm.org/stu.html
> I was planing on running the class next year if it is still around.
I think it's safe to say that STU will be around next year. STU+our changes is
still up in the air.
> I am running it next week in Peru.
Cool! I'll see you there then.
> I am not going to was my time starting to build a
> engine if all the rules are changing.
You should be safe - 90% of the proposal isn't "changes" as in "this was allowed
before, and is not any longer" - it's more like "this is what we thought the
rules meant, but it was hard to tell, so we re-wrote the rules to explicitly
state what we thought they meant"
STU wasn't broken, just incomplete.
It's probably worth mentioning that Denver may decide to adopt the whole thing,
or just bits of it. We don't know yet.
The only real changes are:
- some slightly larger engines are allowed, according to valvetrain technology
- all the Street Prepared allowences apply (so any steering wheel, any seat,
cages, and fuel cells)
- any brakes allowed
- the emissions requirement was thrown out, but the requirement to be street
licenced was retained. (There's an explicit list of stuff that must be kept on
the car to help cover some ultra-permissive states that would allow a
built-to-the-rules CP car to be street licenced)
- the engine block must be from the same manufacturer/brand as was availible in
the car from the factory (ie, the DSMs could be had from the factory with either
a Mitsu engine or a Chrysler engine, so an STU DSM could use any Mitsu or
Chrysler engine, subject to the displacement limit. However, a Mercedes engine
is not allowed, even though Chrysler and Mercedes are the same company, as you
couldn't buy the car from the factory with a Mercedes motor)
- no nitrous bottles in the car during runs
Again, none of this is approved yet, but approved or not, it shouldn't affect
your engine-building plans.
DG
|