Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
The standard part rule evolved from problems with other manufacturers. Stuff like WS6 Brakes on a base Camaro. That's the problem you will be running into by trying to allow the BRZ/FR-S the same parts. It's not the BRZ/FRS it's all the other combinations guys will want to get the exception for.
|
If the exception said 'joint-venture cars that share the same chassis/driveline (Engine/Trans)' can you think of an example of how this screws anything up?
I can't think of any advantages that are unlocked with this wording, but maybe I'm missing something.
Saabaru/WRX wagon - I see no advantage/these cars all blew up and went to SM/ST
Solstice/Sky - ZOK suspension BS Saturn Sky? Who cares, do it.
Firebird/Camaro - WS6 parts on an SS Camaro, Z28 parts on a Formula (not a V6 model) Who cares again, I see no real advantages here either.
Corvette/Caddy and F150/Mustang - ....these are not the same cars.
Quote:
|
You are also making quite the exception and where do you draw the line. The line is pretty well defined right now. Once you allow the BRZ to install the TRD springs, can you then also install the OEM BRZ springs on an FR-S?
|
Yep, who cares, do it. I can't think of a situation where this rule would allow a car any kind of significant performance advantage. Someone tell me what I'm missing.
The FR-S and the BRZ need to be on an equal playing field, period. There's too many SCCA members that bought these cars to compete in Street class to let a Toyota document with unfortunate verbiage alienate half of the owners. I think it's a bit ridiculous to see how many BRZ owners have simply bailed because of this minor performance advantage, but the cars
should be on the same level of prep.