STU Turbo Car Weights?

Front wheel drive cars may reduce their minimum weight by 5%.
Front wheel drive cars with a strut type front suspension may
reduce their minimum weight by an additional 2.5%.

So does that mean that, if one is racing an FWD car w/struts, they take the restrictor table weight and subtract 5%, then subtract 2.5% of the resulting weight...

OR

...take the table weight and subtract 3%...??

K

All deductions are reductions from the base weight. So you add the deductors first (5% + 2.5% = 7.5%) then you deduct that from the base.

So, for example, if your FWD VW GTI is running a 37mm TIR, the base weight is 2985. You're FWD so you get 5%, and you have struts so you get another 2.5%, for a total of 7.5%. 2985 minus 7.5% = 2762#.

But, if you want to argumentate with me, I'll say you take the smallest deductor first, then the largest, so you'll need to weigh 2766# ;)

(Note that when you take them in sum, e.g., 7.5% instead of 5% then 2.5%, you get more...)

GA, offerin' his unsubstantiated Internet opinion yet again...

No argumentationing from me, Greg...

Thanks!
K

2003 Mazdaspeed Protege STU
Bought this car with a log book for STU?

2.0 liter turbo former Grand Am Car.

What is the weight?

Thanks for any help.
JRAttachment 2747

Varies depending on the TIR size...see GCR. - GA

So with a 37mm TIR weight would have to be more than 2985? It is a FWD so can reduce weight by 5%
Sound right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrem72

So with a 37mm TIR weight would have to be more than 2985? It is a FWD so can reduce weight by 5%
Sound right?

---

"More than"? No. A turbo car running a 37mm TIR would have to be "at least" 2985. And you can deduct 5% for FWD.

- GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

"More than"? No. A turbo car running a 37mm TIR would have to be "at least" 2985. And you can deduct 5% for FWD.

- GA

---

:) Greg is now that 8th grade math teacher that gave us a B on the test

"more than": weight > 2985 (2985.000 is bad, 2985.001 is ok)

"at least": weight >= 2985 (2985.000 is ok)

">=" is my keyboard's best rendition of "greater than or equal to"

.

'Zactly! And 2984.49 is "bad" (If we had scales that had hundredths resolution, we'd round off to the nearest pound.)

But, I was more trying to clarify the implied characterization than the math. So I'm actually the 8th grade writing teacher that gave you a B.

- GA