Printable View
8. Transmission/Final Drive
A. Rear wheel drive only is permitted.
B. The final drive ratio is unrestricted. Internal transmission gears shall remain stock.
C. Cars may use sequentially shifted motorcycle transmissions. Reverse gear is not required.
Am I reading this correctly? Does this rule B 'require' the use of the standard transmission? Or at least using the standard gears even if they were re-located? If so, isn't the 'may' in C redundant?
Ian
"B" Allows you to run any chain and sprockets that you would like. However no modifications to the factory gear box.Quote:
Originally Posted by ianashdown
"C" essentially defines that a sequential transmission is legal and a reverse gear is not needed. This language kind of separates wording used as defined to other classes that must run a opperational reverse gear.
It only states that the gears remain stock, doesn't say anything about its location etc.
Mentioning sequential shift seems redundant if you must use stock gears doesn't it!
Ian
Poorly written, but I'd warn strongly against even thinking about trying something other than the stock "normal" engine/transmission layout.
I guess I'm gonna have to put that Yosh Close Ratio 'box back on EBay ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
VERRRY poorly written
The way it is written it is allowing a vehicle that is only driven by the rear wheels, but not requiring it. To require rear wheel drive it would need to say, "Only rear wheel drive is permitted".Quote:
Originally Posted by ianashdown
I was looking at the possibilities of a longitudinal engine re-using the 'stock' gears in a conventional transaxle layout.
There are interesting possibilities . . . Sorry 'were'!
You would add close to 100lbs to the total weght of the car making it very tough to get to minimum weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by ianashdown
It is because of easy-to-twist wording like this - where the original writers intentions were to allow only motorcycle engine/transmission combos, but didn't write it that way - that I have stated a few times that the FB rules need the same sort of re-write that the FF/FC rules got before something gets out of hand.
I do not agree Richard. I think that the current rules are well thought out with a couple of minor exceptions that can be very slightly reworded for additional clarification. I think that the complete rewrite of the FF and FC rules caused added concern and complication where this was not necessary. However I do agree that it was good that they combined the rules as that was the original intention of the project.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare