Sorry, but where is that specified? I honestly don't recall seeing that...Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
On edit: Sorry, just found it. That's in a terrible location in the rules, guys! Why is that buried in a rule about re-fabricated rear suspensions in STO and STU??? I see a line that starts with "STO and STU cars that come with a solid rear axle..." and it doesn't apply to me and I move on. Dropping in a coda that has nothing to do with that opening line is bad ju-ju...Seriously, move that rule to the the STL-specific section, like where the minimum weights are specified...? While you're at it, delete and move the .18 one to its appropriate class-specific area, too.
As a general rule-writing rule, if a line applies only to a specific class, move it to the specific class's rules section.
So, as you can tell, this 2.5% is truly news to me, I thought FWD and RWD were on equal weight parity. Being a FWD'er I'm OK with it, of course; after all, we've had many prior technical discussions about the relative value of FWD vs RWD, and I'm on record that FWD should get a weight break. On the other hand, 2.5% ain't that bad; it's only 62 pounds on 2500...
So scratch that sentence of mine you refer to, I see where the RWD'ers get a tad more weight. - GA
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks