Andy,
This wording *would* allow for wrecking yard replacements, provided that the
replacement part is not lighter than the original part. It would also allow
lower trim levels to upgrade to most higher trim level specs, (i.e., rear
discs, additional chassis bracing, etc.) again *if* the mod does not reduce
weight.
Brian
________________________________
From: Andy Hollis [mailto:awhollis@swbell.net]
Sent: Wed 6/25/2003 12:31 PM
To: Brian Fitzpatrick
Cc: autox@autox.team.net; evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [evolution-disc.] Please comment on the August Fastrack
So what exactly *would* you be able to ud/bd with this wording that would be
beneficial?
The best argument I have heard *for* ud/bd is allowing someone easier access
replacement parts from a wrecking yard without regard to matching the exact
model year of the vehicle. Sometimes there are small performance differences,
sometimes not.
The biggest argument against allowing drivetrain swaps is that not only will
ST have a specific car/model rise to the top and become "the car", but a
specific combination of parts will be required. So, you need to get this
model sheel, this other model engine, a different tranny and/or rear, etc.
This makes building a nationally competitive car more challenging. At the
regional level it will mean that no one will happen to have the right hybrid.
The perception and reality will be that regional ST cars will have a wide gap
compared to national ones. This is very true in SP now.
One final issue with ud/bd is that it tends to favor older cars. Newer cars
are tending to be heavier and have been typically split more along trim lines
in the SP listings. This reduces the ud/bd possibilities.
The suggestion Brian makes won't let you do any of the above, so I'm not sure
what it does allow you to do that has good rationale as an allowed mod.
Please educate me.
--Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Fitzpatrick [mailto:bfitz@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 9:42 AM
To: awhollis@swbell.net; seb@scca.org
Cc: autox@autox.team.net; evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [evolution-disc.] Please comment on the August Fastrack
Andy and other members of the SEB:
I didn't previously submit this to the SEB, but it was included in the
StreetTouring group discussion in response to a request from a STAC member. I
believe it is a way to eliminate "hybrid" cars without completely removing the
UD/BD allowance. Rewrite 17.1.B as:
----------
Equipment and/or specifications may be exchanged between different
years and
models of a vehicle if:
(1) the item is standard on the year/model from which it was taken, and
(2) the years/models are listed on the same line of Appendix A (Street
Prepared Classes), and
(3) the year/model from which the item is taken is eligible for the
class,
and
(4) the item is not an engine, transmission/transaxle, transfer case,
differential, or a component part of any of these units, and
(5) the item does not materially reduce the weight of the car.
The updated/backdated part or the part to which it is to be attached
may not
be altered, modified, machined or otherwise changed to facilitate the
updating/backdating allowance. Cars not listed in the Street Prepared
sections of Appendix A may not be updated/backdated until approved by the SEB
and published in SportsCar magazine.
----------
Optionally, word "materially" in item (5) could be omitted to make the
rule
even more enforceable. I borrowed it from the stock C&C rule.
This change would eliminate hybrid cars without completely restricting
UD/BD.
It would typically allow "upgrades" but not "downgrades" in order to save
weight.
Brian Fitzpatrick
#75 STS - BMW 325is
________________________________
From: Andy Hollis [mailto:awhollis@swbell.net]
Sent: Wed 6/25/2003 8:41 AM
To: Eric Linnhoff; autox@autox.team.net;
evolution-discussions@yahoogroups.com; Mark Sirota
Subject: RE: [evolution-disc.] Please comment on the August Fastrack
Eric,
Please submit clear, concise, enforceable wording that will speel out
what
you suggest (u/b yes, but no drivetrain). We've tried. You
participate in
the StreetTouring Yahoo group so you know how many folks have tried and
failed.
To wit, eliminate drivetrain swaps and I can still take an 89 Civic Si,
and
ud/bd every piece of lightweight trim from the base model Civic to get
almost the same result as starting with the base car and changing the
drivetrain.
I suggest that anyone who wishes to comment on this proposal spend a
bit of
time looking through the recent threads on that Yahoo group
(StreetTouring)
to follow some of the thought process.
--Andy
> > - Removal of 17.1.B, update/backdate allowance in ST
> ==============================================
> I understand the reason of this is to prevent the "frankenstein",
> SP-esque,
> engine-swapped cars that are showing up in Street Touring.
Specifically,
> the only CSP cars that are legal to run in Street Touring, the
> '88-'91 Honda
> Civics.
> There is absolutely no reason why a specific disallowance for engines,
> transmission, transaxles or rear ends could not be written into the
Street
> Touring Update Backdate allowance. And until such time as such a rule
> disallowing drivetrain swaps in ST can be written, I submit that
17.1.B
> should remain as is.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important
Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/7_TolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
evolution-discussions-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|