autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: STU Rules Update Update

To: <dg50@daimlerchrysler.com>, "Jay Mitchell" <JEMitchell@csi.com>
Subject: Re: STU Rules Update Update
From: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:21:22 -0500
Dennis wrote:

<quoting me>

>> Ummm,more like ESP on steroids.
>
>No, because ESP is a 2 marque class. Camaro & Mustang. GS is a 6
or 7 marque
>class.

Rules is rules. The ALLOWANCES you propose are like SPU, not STU.
Taking full advantage of your allowances to optimize a car for
Solo II will result in an unstreetable (for practical purposes)
car.

>> Other than not allowing interior removal, I don't see all that
much to
>> distinguish this class from EM.
>
>Mod cars are purpose built race cars, with slicks, tube frames,
carbon-fibre
>lift-off bodies etc. STU cars aren't. This was covered earlier
in the thread.


So, it's like Mod with production chassis/body. Still not very
closely related to real street-driven vehicles. SP does a lot
better in that regard, IMO.

I did read your original proposal and subsequent "refinements."
So I do understand the history of the discussion. I don't much
care, since, even if a class results, I don't believe it'll do
any better than Sport Truck, F125, or ST, ALL of which were
ostensibly implemented to increase Solo II participation. STU is
yet another in the "if only" series of wish-list classes, and it
apparently will take some folks awhile to figure out that it's
not the details, but the concept itself, that is flawed.

Jay


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