STU Target Weight/WHP Ratio

[benspeed]

I still have no idea why we would create such a list of "off the chart exceptions" in STU. Why would a 3.2 liter BMW built to STU specs only weigh 3200 lbs. A 3 liter "ANYTHING ELSE" would weigh 3300lbs. I wont even begin to address the inconsistency suggested by the ridiculously low Detroit Iron weights listed.

I'm with you on that - doesn't seem right....

[kipv]

STO (over 3 liters) should run in STO to STO rules.

[Chip42]

I'm with you on that - doesn't seem right....

I could see these making sense AFTER an envelope had been defined or a car built to the rules as written came up as a serious under/over. but to just willy nilly chuck them upon the class, and in such disorganized, redundant, and unneeded way, they add confusion about the class in general. bad move by the STAC on that one.

similarly - some american V6s or S52 M3s might make sense in the class as they would be woefully slow in STO (assuming this is true and that anyone cared). but again - an envelope needs to exist so that people can see the alt classification as fitting in or not.

3.0L, factory crank, head, intake, TB. country of origin and where it was sold are irrelevant. play ball. let the field sort itself out THEN start applying controls.