Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: STx Notes, December Fastrack

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    ...can you explain the reaosning for the chart in STU including cars such as the Audi A4, Mini Cooper S, etc... that are listed with no notes and weight per the chart? wouldn't it have been easier to leave them to the main rules as they appear to me at least to be legal basd on 9.1.4.2 in general.
    I cannot; the chart was as much a surprise to me as to you (I don't recall seeing that published anywhere prior to this month's Fastrack.)*

    But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you**. Each of those cars that have engine displacements of less than 3001cc are already legal and allowed to the rules per the weighting chart, and unless they have some allowance/deviation from the standard STU rules (see 3.2L M3) there is zero reason that they should be in that chart.

    what does the chart mean in terms of motor swaps from those cars... how is the weight of a chart-car based swap worked out, or is it not allowed?
    I don't know. However, since the engine/chassis combo is specifically allowed in the class with that weight, and since the class structure is all around weight based on the installed engine, then I think** it makes perfect and common sense that any engine specifically allowed in the class (e.g., E36 M3's 3.2L) at a specified weight (e.g., 3200 pounds) is perfectly legal to be installed in any other chassis from that manufacturer (e.g., Z3 or E30) and run in STU at the chart-specified weight (e.g., 3200#). It's the same logic that follows the discrete disallowance of specific cars and engine in STL.

    I do think it's going to be fun when someone figures out how to put that Ford 4.0L SOHC V6 mated to a Tremec into an IRS-equipped Mustang Cobra chassis...

    Was this the intent of this rule? Can't say. But this kinda thinking is what happens when you start messing around with a basic rules structure and making individual allowances, without possibly being able to know all the answers (see Greg's Tip #1 from "How to Write a Rule").

    GA

    * As of this date, I am new to the committee; I have not had any significant interaction with members except on individual basis as an interested competitor.

    ** Please read my sig line. Now read it again. One more time if you're still not clear.
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 11-24-2010 at 10:49 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    I don't know. However, since the engine/chassis combo is specifically allowed in the class with that weight, and since the class structure is all around weight based on the installed engine, then I think** it makes perfect and common sense that any engine specifically allowed in the class (e.g., E36 M3's 3.2L) at a specified weight (e.g., 3200 pounds) is perfectly legal to be installed in any other chassis from that manufacturer (e.g., Z3 or E30) and run in STU at the chart-specified weight (e.g., 3200#). It's the same logic that follows the discrete disallowance of specific cars and engine in STL....

    GA

    * As of this date, I am new to the committee; I have not had any significant interaction with members except on individual basis as an interested competitor.

    ** Please read my sig line. Now read it again. One more time if you're still not clear.
    While it might be interesting to make a Z3M from my chassis, the better option would be to use the older M-50 2.5 liter, which also shares the same head casting but has a manifold that is both port matched from the factory as well as bigger runners and plenum. I'd get to stay at my same weight of 2750lbs too.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •