autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: STU and Subframe Connectors, Etc

To: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: Re: STU and Subframe Connectors, Etc
From: Robert Glover <rob@f-body.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:30:52 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:

> >From the STU FAQ (www.wincom.net/trog/stu/faq.html)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> 4. Why isn't my [Miata | CRX | MR2 | Other 2-seater] eligible for STU?
> 
> Designing STU posed a difficult problem - include as many different cars
> as possible, with very liberal preparation rules, but yet still keep the
> class fair - any eligible vehicle should have a reasonable chance at
> being competitive.
> 
> In autocross, a light car has an advantage over a heavy car, and a small
> car has an advantage over a large car - B Stock (Miatae) quite regularly
> beats ESP at National level events.
> 
> By not allowing small, light cars like CRXen and Miatae into STU, we give
> the larger and heavier cars more of a fighting chance. And besides, there
> are plenty of classes where the 2-seaters are already
> competitive. The SCCA did not need another "spec Miata" class.
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> Yes, I AM this organized. :)

This brings up an issue I was pondering earlier today...

How can ESP-type cars be competitive in that class, when cars such as
ASP-prepped Mazda RX7-TTs will run in there too?  Or have I missed
something and that car would NOT be legal?

It's hard enough for C4 Corvettes to keep up with those things, let alone
f-bodies.

I'm just trying to examine all the possible vehicles that'd fall into the
class and see which would end up being class dominators.

Rob



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