| zzyzx | 01-06-2004 07:51 PM |
Forester 2.5 XT: Excluded from Solo II competition
�
�
This issue came up on SCCA Forums, and since I was the original person asking the SEB for clarification on this issue, I'm going to quote myself below so you know what's going on regarding classing of the Forester 2.5 XT in SCCA Solo II competition:
[quote]
I was the one that asked for the clarification. Time this is discussed, I suppose, and this seems to be the appropriate thread.
Yes, Doug Gill confirmed that the Forester XT is currently classed in FSP. In your local Region, FSP or SM would fit. But since Regions get to do what they want, this is not the real issue.
As to National level competition, we have a problem. Here's a direct quote from Doug Gill:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Section 3.1, 3rd paragraph, says, "Unstable vehicles with a high center of gravity and a narrow track, including SUVs, minivans, and 4WD pickups, must be excluded." Subaru calls the Forrester an SUV and SUVs must be excluded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As ridiculous as this may seem, this is the issue currently being investigated by the SEB.
Now, if the Forester is to be excluded from this rule, it's possible this would take a change to Section 3.1, which means the change would not be effective until Jan '05.
The other alternative is simply to class the Forester XT, thereby avoiding Section 3.1.
Needless to say, in this current day and age, Section 3.1 needs revising as the spirit of the rule as stated, when crafted, certainly does not apply to vehicles like the Forester XT. I spoke at length about this with Charlie Clark and he'd like to see this rule go away altogether.
I sent the SEB a list of reasons (all obvious to those familiar with the vehicle...), but I did not send in any recommendation of classing. If you are interested in seeing this vehicle classed, then please write a letter to the SEB ASAP. Or, if we can put together a list of source materials that proves this is not an SUV, and make a case to the SEB on these grounds, that may also be beneficial. Either way, it'll have to be classed, though, and that's a lot easier path to go down, IMO...
I find it unlikely that the SEB would consider the Forester XT an "unstable" vehicle and exclude it altogether. Even if the SEB determines that in stock form it's unstable, it can still be classed in Street Prepared. Other cars have taken this path though AFAIK not for this particular reason.
- Steve Sulatycki
[/quote]
Here's the link to the thread on SCCA Forums:
[url]http://www.sccaforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000246[/url]
Right now, there are three (possibly more) options:
1) Nothing is done, and the Forester XT is excluded from National level competition based on Section 3.1 (current situation).
2) Forester XT is classed by the SEB.
3) Forester XT is classed, and SEB decides to suggest to BOD that Section 3.1 is revised.
If you have any interest/input on any of these issues, then please make yourself heard - write that email to the SEB.
- Steve
[quote]
I was the one that asked for the clarification. Time this is discussed, I suppose, and this seems to be the appropriate thread.
Yes, Doug Gill confirmed that the Forester XT is currently classed in FSP. In your local Region, FSP or SM would fit. But since Regions get to do what they want, this is not the real issue.
As to National level competition, we have a problem. Here's a direct quote from Doug Gill:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Section 3.1, 3rd paragraph, says, "Unstable vehicles with a high center of gravity and a narrow track, including SUVs, minivans, and 4WD pickups, must be excluded." Subaru calls the Forrester an SUV and SUVs must be excluded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As ridiculous as this may seem, this is the issue currently being investigated by the SEB.
Now, if the Forester is to be excluded from this rule, it's possible this would take a change to Section 3.1, which means the change would not be effective until Jan '05.
The other alternative is simply to class the Forester XT, thereby avoiding Section 3.1.
Needless to say, in this current day and age, Section 3.1 needs revising as the spirit of the rule as stated, when crafted, certainly does not apply to vehicles like the Forester XT. I spoke at length about this with Charlie Clark and he'd like to see this rule go away altogether.
I sent the SEB a list of reasons (all obvious to those familiar with the vehicle...), but I did not send in any recommendation of classing. If you are interested in seeing this vehicle classed, then please write a letter to the SEB ASAP. Or, if we can put together a list of source materials that proves this is not an SUV, and make a case to the SEB on these grounds, that may also be beneficial. Either way, it'll have to be classed, though, and that's a lot easier path to go down, IMO...
I find it unlikely that the SEB would consider the Forester XT an "unstable" vehicle and exclude it altogether. Even if the SEB determines that in stock form it's unstable, it can still be classed in Street Prepared. Other cars have taken this path though AFAIK not for this particular reason.
- Steve Sulatycki
[/quote]
Here's the link to the thread on SCCA Forums:
[url]http://www.sccaforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000246[/url]
Right now, there are three (possibly more) options:
1) Nothing is done, and the Forester XT is excluded from National level competition based on Section 3.1 (current situation).
2) Forester XT is classed by the SEB.
3) Forester XT is classed, and SEB decides to suggest to BOD that Section 3.1 is revised.
If you have any interest/input on any of these issues, then please make yourself heard - write that email to the SEB.
- Steve
| zzyzx | 01-06-2004 08:00 PM |
Pics / vids
�
�
Just in case you're wondering what a Street Prepared Forester XT would look like, here's two pics, and a short vid of mine at a local autox:
[IMG]http://home.kc.rr.com/sulatycki/steve/forester1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://home.kc.rr.com/sulatycki/steve/forester4.jpg[/IMG]
And the short video:
[url]http://home.kc.rr.com/sulatycki/steve/run_sleepy_run.AVI[/url]
- Steve
[IMG]http://home.kc.rr.com/sulatycki/steve/forester1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://home.kc.rr.com/sulatycki/steve/forester4.jpg[/IMG]
And the short video:
[url]http://home.kc.rr.com/sulatycki/steve/run_sleepy_run.AVI[/url]
- Steve
| adhowe70 | 01-06-2004 08:12 PM |
But it IS a high CG vehicle and should be excluded for safety reasons. People roll Golfs autocrossing... the Forester is even more likely to go over.
When you put R compounds on an Impreza, you can put it on 2 wheels. When you put them on something like a Forester, there's the distinct possibility of putting it on its lid.
Andy H.
When you put R compounds on an Impreza, you can put it on 2 wheels. When you put them on something like a Forester, there's the distinct possibility of putting it on its lid.
Andy H.
| Hondaslayer | 01-06-2004 09:00 PM |
I had my XT on two wheels on the stock Geolanders :eek:
| Kostamojen | 01-06-2004 09:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adhowe70 [/i]
[B]But it IS a high CG vehicle and should be excluded for safety reasons. People roll Golfs autocrossing... the Forester is even more likely to go over.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That is incorrect. The COG is still low for the forester due to the drivetrain location and actual weight ballance. There is no "roll-over-warning" sticker located anywhere in any Forester, which is something that [i]every[/i] other SUV has had for years.
Yes, any car can roll, and actually older golfs have solid beam rear axles (and small, narrow tires as well) which can increase the chance of rollover due to lack of suspension independence.
[B]But it IS a high CG vehicle and should be excluded for safety reasons. People roll Golfs autocrossing... the Forester is even more likely to go over.
[/B][/QUOTE]
That is incorrect. The COG is still low for the forester due to the drivetrain location and actual weight ballance. There is no "roll-over-warning" sticker located anywhere in any Forester, which is something that [i]every[/i] other SUV has had for years.
Yes, any car can roll, and actually older golfs have solid beam rear axles (and small, narrow tires as well) which can increase the chance of rollover due to lack of suspension independence.
| zzyzx | 01-06-2004 10:51 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adhowe70 [/i]
[B]But it IS a high CG vehicle and should be excluded for safety reasons.
Andy H. [/B][/QUOTE]
How much high is the COG in a Forester as opposed to, say the Impreza WRX wagon? Does a Forester have a COG higher than an F-150 Lightning pickup truck (4700lbs., 8.5" of ground clearance). Point being both the WRX Wagon and F-150, being on opposite ends of the COG "argument", are legal for autox competition.
Next time you post in this thread, please bring something to the table, not just an unfounded opinion without any meaningful perspective.
- Steve
[B]But it IS a high CG vehicle and should be excluded for safety reasons.
Andy H. [/B][/QUOTE]
How much high is the COG in a Forester as opposed to, say the Impreza WRX wagon? Does a Forester have a COG higher than an F-150 Lightning pickup truck (4700lbs., 8.5" of ground clearance). Point being both the WRX Wagon and F-150, being on opposite ends of the COG "argument", are legal for autox competition.
Next time you post in this thread, please bring something to the table, not just an unfounded opinion without any meaningful perspective.
- Steve
| Patrick L | 01-06-2004 11:37 PM |
The XT is as much of an SUV then a WRX wagon.
That is stupid. It should be allow. It sits on an Impreza chassis.
and not a SUV chassis. Point that out to them.
That is stupid. It should be allow. It sits on an Impreza chassis.
and not a SUV chassis. Point that out to them.
| trhoppe | 01-07-2004 10:07 AM |
I like this idea!
Exclude all wagons :devil:
-Tom
Exclude all wagons :devil:
-Tom
| KC | 01-07-2004 10:24 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe[/i]
[B] I like this idea!
Exclude all wagons :devil:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Who's a bastard now? :devil: :lol:
[B] I like this idea!
Exclude all wagons :devil:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Who's a bastard now? :devil: :lol:
| dwx | 01-07-2004 10:26 AM |
Yeah I was just thinking that. We have a guy locally that races a first generation F150 Lightning. There is no way that thing rolls less than a Forester, and I've never seen it in dangerous position. If you've ever driven a Forester, it doesn't feel unstable at all. I would guess its CoG is not much higher than an Impreza.
| 10th Warrior | 01-07-2004 10:44 AM |
damn, so much for my top secret idea of showing up at nationals with a XT and winning FSP :)
[QUOTE]When you put R compounds on an Impreza, you can put it on 2 wheels[/QUOTE]
i have never seen nor experienced that.
[QUOTE]Subaru calls the Forrester an SUV and SUVs must be excluded[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It sits on an Impreza chassis[/QUOTE]
i would also point out to the SEB that the marketing department is not staffed by engineers. or, send them some literature from SOJ about the Forester STi Type M and see if its refered to as a SUV :lol:
[QUOTE]When you put R compounds on an Impreza, you can put it on 2 wheels[/QUOTE]
i have never seen nor experienced that.
[QUOTE]Subaru calls the Forrester an SUV and SUVs must be excluded[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It sits on an Impreza chassis[/QUOTE]
i would also point out to the SEB that the marketing department is not staffed by engineers. or, send them some literature from SOJ about the Forester STi Type M and see if its refered to as a SUV :lol:
| paultg | 01-07-2004 12:35 PM |
This thread is cool. I really hope they allow the Forrester to run. Maybe they'll class my '93 Merc. Villager too. :D :lol: ;)
Paul G.
Paul G.
| ibis | 01-07-2004 12:43 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adhowe70[/i]
[B] When you put R compounds on an Impreza, you can put it on 2 wheels. When you put them on something like a Forester, there's the distinct possibility of putting it on its lid.
Andy H. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior[/i]
[B] i have never seen nor experienced that.
[/B][/QUOTE]
There is a local Utah SCCA member who put his really really low 3 series BMW on two wheels...then one wheel...then it slammed back down breaking a couple of struts.....this was at Nationals in Topeka 2 years a go I believe.
I would say...its your forester...you signed the waiver...just dont endanger the volunteers out there grabbing cones just so you can prove a point.
It is a sweet SM set up though!!!!
justin (ibis)
[url]www.team-arg.com[/url]
[B] When you put R compounds on an Impreza, you can put it on 2 wheels. When you put them on something like a Forester, there's the distinct possibility of putting it on its lid.
Andy H. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 10th Warrior[/i]
[B] i have never seen nor experienced that.
[/B][/QUOTE]
There is a local Utah SCCA member who put his really really low 3 series BMW on two wheels...then one wheel...then it slammed back down breaking a couple of struts.....this was at Nationals in Topeka 2 years a go I believe.
I would say...its your forester...you signed the waiver...just dont endanger the volunteers out there grabbing cones just so you can prove a point.
It is a sweet SM set up though!!!!
justin (ibis)
[url]www.team-arg.com[/url]
| zoomfactor | 01-07-2004 01:05 PM |
A number of guys in the SE went for rides in the Subaru of Gwinnett XT at the SE Subaru Challenge in Tampa. [B]That damn thing corners like a racecar and I'm sure it pulls on my WRX.[/B]
What I'm wondering is why hasn't someone issued a Press Release for the One Lap of America. With driving talent and some upgraded brakes, the Forester will surprise a few Porsches and VWs
What I'm wondering is why hasn't someone issued a Press Release for the One Lap of America. With driving talent and some upgraded brakes, the Forester will surprise a few Porsches and VWs
| Jaxx | 01-07-2004 01:40 PM |
hmm i know yet another utah member that put a civic SI on 1 wheel .. .at poketallo
| 10th Warrior | 01-07-2004 01:44 PM |
[QUOTE]There is a local Utah SCCA member who put his really really low 3 series BMW on two wheels...then one wheel...then it slammed back down breaking a couple of struts.....this was at Nationals in Topeka 2 years a go I believe. [/QUOTE]
sorry for the misunderstanding. i was refering specifically to Imprezas. i think we've all seen those crazy FSP mkII golfs bouncing around :)
sorry for the misunderstanding. i was refering specifically to Imprezas. i think we've all seen those crazy FSP mkII golfs bouncing around :)
| bemani | 01-07-2004 02:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dwx [/i]
[B]If you've ever driven a Forester, it doesn't feel unstable at all. I would guess its CoG is not much higher than an Impreza. [/B][/QUOTE]
I've driven the XT before, and it does feel unstable to me ... it might be just preceived unstability, but I was very worried that it might topple over on a sharp turn.
[B]If you've ever driven a Forester, it doesn't feel unstable at all. I would guess its CoG is not much higher than an Impreza. [/B][/QUOTE]
I've driven the XT before, and it does feel unstable to me ... it might be just preceived unstability, but I was very worried that it might topple over on a sharp turn.
| Achilles38WRX | 01-07-2004 03:54 PM |
didnt the scca used to have the "sport truck" class?
either way, the forester is probably only minutly more topheavy than a wrx wagon. all the heavy parts are in the same place, just has a taller roof and more glass.
either way, the forester is probably only minutly more topheavy than a wrx wagon. all the heavy parts are in the same place, just has a taller roof and more glass.
| 10th Warrior | 01-07-2004 03:59 PM |
[QUOTE]didnt the scca used to have the "sport truck" class?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]and 4WD pickups, must be excluded." [/QUOTE]
note that only 4wd trucks are excluded. 2wd ones are up to the organizers.
[QUOTE]and 4WD pickups, must be excluded." [/QUOTE]
note that only 4wd trucks are excluded. 2wd ones are up to the organizers.
| adhowe70 | 01-07-2004 04:11 PM |
Maybe its just a regional thing, but the F-150 Lightning wouldn't pass tech in my region. Also, I would flunk a PT Cruiser. We had one at an event, I instructed the novice. I feared for my life becuase it was very top heavy. Also, for what its worth, poor driving habits can roll anything in H Stock and half of G Stock.
Maybe in SP trim with stiff springs and stiff sway bars the XT will be OK. But it looks like bad news to me.
Andy H.
Maybe in SP trim with stiff springs and stiff sway bars the XT will be OK. But it looks like bad news to me.
Andy H.
| lark6 | 01-07-2004 04:49 PM |
I understand bemani's and adhowe's concerns, and I wish I had something meaningful (like technical info) to add to the conversation, but this doesn't sit right with me. The Forester may be marketed as an SUV but is categorized as a car for insurance purposes. I can't imagine its CG is much higher than a Golf or Focus hatchback. Prepared properly and driven properly I would think it would not pose any greater risk of rollover than those cars, or a WRX wagon for that matter.
At the risk of getting jumped on here I'll say that I have autocrossed my slow old Forester S, with stiffer sways and performance rubber (not R compunds) but on stock springs and at stock ride height, in NASA Gruppe H. I was not terribly competitive as I'm a novice autocrosser, but my times steadily improved and I didn't come close to rolling the car. I understand this may say more about the laxity of NASA's rules enforcement cf. SCCA's than about the Forester's propensity to roll under auto-x conditions.
Again without technical info to back me up I may as well be babbling incoherently. Apologies if I come across that way.
Ed
PS: I suppose there's always rallycross and TSD...?
At the risk of getting jumped on here I'll say that I have autocrossed my slow old Forester S, with stiffer sways and performance rubber (not R compunds) but on stock springs and at stock ride height, in NASA Gruppe H. I was not terribly competitive as I'm a novice autocrosser, but my times steadily improved and I didn't come close to rolling the car. I understand this may say more about the laxity of NASA's rules enforcement cf. SCCA's than about the Forester's propensity to roll under auto-x conditions.
Again without technical info to back me up I may as well be babbling incoherently. Apologies if I come across that way.
Ed
PS: I suppose there's always rallycross and TSD...?
| leecea | 01-07-2004 05:24 PM |
I guess the same issue applies to other vehicles that are powerful non-traditional SUVs. Infiniti FX, Nissan Murano, Acura MDX, Lexus RX, etc all come with high hp and stability control systems. Granted, they are more SUV-like than the Forrester but the line may not be easy to draw as to what is an autox-worthy SUV and what isn't.
Consider what happens if we let Forrester's compete because they are not really SUVs in our opinion, then someone gets hurt and sues. IMHO they would have an easy time of showing that it was considered an SUV, the organizer should have know better than let it run, and the waiver isn't worth anything as protection.
Consider what happens if we let Forrester's compete because they are not really SUVs in our opinion, then someone gets hurt and sues. IMHO they would have an easy time of showing that it was considered an SUV, the organizer should have know better than let it run, and the waiver isn't worth anything as protection.
| zzyzx | 01-07-2004 05:24 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adhowe70 [/i]
[B]Maybe its just a regional thing, but the F-150 Lightning wouldn't pass tech in my region.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Funny that, considering it's currently legal for National level competition per SCCA Solo II rules.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adhowe70 [/i]
[B]Maybe in SP trim with stiff springs and stiff sway bars the XT will be OK. But it looks like bad news to me.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I get the feeling you didn't even watch the short vid in my original post. An SP prepped Forester XT in a right hand off camber turn. Does it look like an unstable vehicle to you?
- Steve
[B]Maybe its just a regional thing, but the F-150 Lightning wouldn't pass tech in my region.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Funny that, considering it's currently legal for National level competition per SCCA Solo II rules.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by adhowe70 [/i]
[B]Maybe in SP trim with stiff springs and stiff sway bars the XT will be OK. But it looks like bad news to me.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I get the feeling you didn't even watch the short vid in my original post. An SP prepped Forester XT in a right hand off camber turn. Does it look like an unstable vehicle to you?
- Steve
| zzyzx | 01-07-2004 05:33 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by leecea [/i]
[B]Consider what happens if we let Forrester's compete because they are not really SUVs in our opinion, then someone gets hurt and sues. IMHO they would have an easy time of showing that it was considered an SUV, the organizer should have know better than let it run, and the waiver isn't worth anything as protection. [/B][/QUOTE]
All legal pontification aside, the point here is that there are currently many vehicles that [b]are[/b] legal - all 2WD pickup trucks - that don't have nearly the stability a Forester does. The original rule, as intended, no longer applies.
That said, there are many cars that at this point are well known to be unstable and prone to roll in stock trim - the E30 chassis BMW for instance - yet have never been excluded from competition. I could pontificate that somebody could sue the SCCA because the SCCA knows that this vehicle is not stable yet failed to exclude it from competition. Well, nobody has! My point is that your argument is at best very weak and would be deemed the same in a court of law.
The line certainly is "fuzzy" at this point regarding the new generation of car-like "SUVs", and the SCCA needs to update it's rules to reflect this.
Also, keep in mind that there are many cars currently classified in SP, which are not legal for stock competition. If for some reason it's not deemed stable enough in stock trim, this has no bearing whatsoever on SP or SM or any non-stock setup.
- Steve
[B]Consider what happens if we let Forrester's compete because they are not really SUVs in our opinion, then someone gets hurt and sues. IMHO they would have an easy time of showing that it was considered an SUV, the organizer should have know better than let it run, and the waiver isn't worth anything as protection. [/B][/QUOTE]
All legal pontification aside, the point here is that there are currently many vehicles that [b]are[/b] legal - all 2WD pickup trucks - that don't have nearly the stability a Forester does. The original rule, as intended, no longer applies.
That said, there are many cars that at this point are well known to be unstable and prone to roll in stock trim - the E30 chassis BMW for instance - yet have never been excluded from competition. I could pontificate that somebody could sue the SCCA because the SCCA knows that this vehicle is not stable yet failed to exclude it from competition. Well, nobody has! My point is that your argument is at best very weak and would be deemed the same in a court of law.
The line certainly is "fuzzy" at this point regarding the new generation of car-like "SUVs", and the SCCA needs to update it's rules to reflect this.
Also, keep in mind that there are many cars currently classified in SP, which are not legal for stock competition. If for some reason it's not deemed stable enough in stock trim, this has no bearing whatsoever on SP or SM or any non-stock setup.
- Steve
| adhowe70 | 01-07-2004 05:37 PM |
Watched it. Sweepers don't bother me too much. Slaloms are typically where our locals get their cars upset. Once you get it rocking on the bumpstops, its tough to get it back under control. Watch the rollover tests on SUV's... its not the first move that puts them over... its the 3rd or 4th.
If you can keep it off the bumpstops and if the CG is low enough that it passes the "statics check" with 1.3g's of lateral force, it'll be OK. The Forester has a significantly better aspect (height to width) than most SUV's and many cars. That being said, I don't disagree with National's decision to exclude it.
Regarding the Lightning... maybe we have a narrower view of "high CG" because we have a hard time getting lots that are flat. We have one lot in particular with a decent slope on it.
Andy H.
If you can keep it off the bumpstops and if the CG is low enough that it passes the "statics check" with 1.3g's of lateral force, it'll be OK. The Forester has a significantly better aspect (height to width) than most SUV's and many cars. That being said, I don't disagree with National's decision to exclude it.
Regarding the Lightning... maybe we have a narrower view of "high CG" because we have a hard time getting lots that are flat. We have one lot in particular with a decent slope on it.
Andy H.
| pleiades | 01-07-2004 05:41 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by zzyzx [/i]
[B].... Does it look like an unstable vehicle to you?........
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
No, it makes me jealous as hell!! :lol: :lol:
I've driven the wheels off of stock outbacks, stock wrx wagons, stock wrx sedans, stock foresters, stock RS, stock legacy, etc... and 1/2 of the above in modified form. They all handle about the same (Lots-o body roll stock, nice and flat when modifed). Can it be rolled? Yeah, just like everything else. Will it roll under normal auto-x situations? NO! The forester is not an SUV regardless of (as someone already mentioned) what SOA's marketing department says. It's an impreza with a funny looking rear. I'm sure that the SEB as well as Mr Ducan know about the forester and intend on classing it.
I'm betting it'll end up with the stadard rex. Any takers? ;)
[B].... Does it look like an unstable vehicle to you?........
- Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
No, it makes me jealous as hell!! :lol: :lol:
I've driven the wheels off of stock outbacks, stock wrx wagons, stock wrx sedans, stock foresters, stock RS, stock legacy, etc... and 1/2 of the above in modified form. They all handle about the same (Lots-o body roll stock, nice and flat when modifed). Can it be rolled? Yeah, just like everything else. Will it roll under normal auto-x situations? NO! The forester is not an SUV regardless of (as someone already mentioned) what SOA's marketing department says. It's an impreza with a funny looking rear. I'm sure that the SEB as well as Mr Ducan know about the forester and intend on classing it.
I'm betting it'll end up with the stadard rex. Any takers? ;)
| DrBiggly | 01-07-2004 06:16 PM |
It is true that the Forester is built on the Impreza chassis. Can anyone find a specific reason WHY Subaru calls the Forester an SUV? Does the NHTSA call it a SUV or is it just the Subaru marketing department that has made this distinction?
How does SOJ classify this vehicle? If it is called SUV here and not there, I would be easily led to believe that this discrepency is caused by none other than the marketing heads at SOA.
How does SOJ classify this vehicle? If it is called SUV here and not there, I would be easily led to believe that this discrepency is caused by none other than the marketing heads at SOA.
| driggity | 01-07-2004 07:19 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrBiggly[/i]
[B] It is true that the Forester is built on the Impreza chassis. Can anyone find a specific reason WHY Subaru calls the Forester an SUV? Does the NHTSA call it a SUV or is it just the Subaru marketing department that has made this distinction?[/B][/QUOTE]
A. Marketing
B. NHTSA lists it as a Subaru Forester 4-DR.4x4 Wagon and classifies it as a "Medium Passenger Car". At least under the crash test section of their site.
[B] It is true that the Forester is built on the Impreza chassis. Can anyone find a specific reason WHY Subaru calls the Forester an SUV? Does the NHTSA call it a SUV or is it just the Subaru marketing department that has made this distinction?[/B][/QUOTE]
A. Marketing
B. NHTSA lists it as a Subaru Forester 4-DR.4x4 Wagon and classifies it as a "Medium Passenger Car". At least under the crash test section of their site.
| kwh29 | 01-07-2004 07:39 PM |
After seeing Porter's XT run at the Subaru challenge there is no way the car is unstable in SP or SM trim.
If I was the SEB I'd put Forester (all) in GS or HS because of the soft and high stock suspension. I'd put the XT in ESP with the WRX because it effectively _is_ a WRX after sp-legal modifications. I'd put the other Foresters in DSP next to the Impreza (all NOC) listing as the thing is probably too fast, despite its weight, in FSP and the RS's are already mid-pack competitive in DSP.
A. Howe, are you the same person who posted about the Lightning on the Evolution list? It's been quite conclusively shown by some SEB members there that the Lighning is not just legal for autocross but already classed via catchalls and run in FS and ESP without protest for several years. You might want to take the safety steward class and brush up on just what cars are and are not legal for soloii competition. Simply because you've seen a car get on two wheels when driven by a nitwit doesn't mean the car is basically unstable. I've heard of people flipping 944's and it's hard to imagine a more stable stock car.
--Kevin H.
If I was the SEB I'd put Forester (all) in GS or HS because of the soft and high stock suspension. I'd put the XT in ESP with the WRX because it effectively _is_ a WRX after sp-legal modifications. I'd put the other Foresters in DSP next to the Impreza (all NOC) listing as the thing is probably too fast, despite its weight, in FSP and the RS's are already mid-pack competitive in DSP.
A. Howe, are you the same person who posted about the Lightning on the Evolution list? It's been quite conclusively shown by some SEB members there that the Lighning is not just legal for autocross but already classed via catchalls and run in FS and ESP without protest for several years. You might want to take the safety steward class and brush up on just what cars are and are not legal for soloii competition. Simply because you've seen a car get on two wheels when driven by a nitwit doesn't mean the car is basically unstable. I've heard of people flipping 944's and it's hard to imagine a more stable stock car.
--Kevin H.
| KC | 01-07-2004 07:53 PM |
Ok... so your Forester looks modified....
Would you be able to say that a stock Forester on stock struts with new hoosiers would not tip?
Wanna try? :)
Would you be able to say that a stock Forester on stock struts with new hoosiers would not tip?
Wanna try? :)
| adhowe70 | 01-07-2004 08:02 PM |
Not on the Evolution list. Sorry.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just a little too cautious. We've had a lot of freaky **** happen in the Northwest the last couple years. And its happened to experienced drivers as well as novices.
I have taken the SSS class. That's why I say that what is "legal" and what is "safe" are two different things. And again, with all the accidents we've had in the Northwest (we've wrecked more than a half dozen, 2 totals) I'm going to err on the side of caution. What works for your site doesn't necessarily work for mine. Unfortunately, we have priors. :(
I dunno. Maybe I'm just a little too cautious. We've had a lot of freaky **** happen in the Northwest the last couple years. And its happened to experienced drivers as well as novices.
I have taken the SSS class. That's why I say that what is "legal" and what is "safe" are two different things. And again, with all the accidents we've had in the Northwest (we've wrecked more than a half dozen, 2 totals) I'm going to err on the side of caution. What works for your site doesn't necessarily work for mine. Unfortunately, we have priors. :(
| pleiades | 01-07-2004 08:04 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Ok... so your Forester looks modified....
Would you be able to say that a stock Forester on stock struts with new hoosiers would not tip?
Wanna try? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
It'll certainly put a wheel in the air! lol.... But honestly, I think you'd have to try really hard, or hit something to cause it to flip. And of course we're supposed to have courses designed to keep people from hitting things. Flipping anything is possible, but the likelyhood of flipping a forester, even in stock trim on hoosiers is low, imho. It's just a squareback of your car KC. ;) lol....
[B]Ok... so your Forester looks modified....
Would you be able to say that a stock Forester on stock struts with new hoosiers would not tip?
Wanna try? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
It'll certainly put a wheel in the air! lol.... But honestly, I think you'd have to try really hard, or hit something to cause it to flip. And of course we're supposed to have courses designed to keep people from hitting things. Flipping anything is possible, but the likelyhood of flipping a forester, even in stock trim on hoosiers is low, imho. It's just a squareback of your car KC. ;) lol....
| zzyzx | 01-07-2004 08:31 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Ok... so your Forester looks modified....
Would you be able to say that a stock Forester on stock struts with new hoosiers would not tip?
Wanna try? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe I will, but that won't happen until March. I have all the hardware, just need to find a good time.
That said, realize that the stock tires on a Forester are taller than what I'd (or anybody would...) run on the car. I'd run 225/50-16s or 245/45-16s, which would lower the car. Between the shorter sidewals and stock-legal wheel spacers, I think it would fair pretty well.
That said, I'd also be watching the D-Stock WRXs from my rear view mirror after the launch at ProSolos. ;)
- Steve
[B]Ok... so your Forester looks modified....
Would you be able to say that a stock Forester on stock struts with new hoosiers would not tip?
Wanna try? :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe I will, but that won't happen until March. I have all the hardware, just need to find a good time.
That said, realize that the stock tires on a Forester are taller than what I'd (or anybody would...) run on the car. I'd run 225/50-16s or 245/45-16s, which would lower the car. Between the shorter sidewals and stock-legal wheel spacers, I think it would fair pretty well.
That said, I'd also be watching the D-Stock WRXs from my rear view mirror after the launch at ProSolos. ;)
- Steve
| lucien2 | 01-07-2004 08:56 PM |
Like Ed, I don't have anything than anecdotal experience to add to this....
It took some doing, but 2 years ago I convinced the hard-a$$ National Capital Chapter of BMW CCA to allow my Outback for HPDE at Summit Point. They said it was marketed as an off road vehicle and was ineligible. I sent them photos and specs and they finally relented. Anyway, I took the car there, totally stock, on its stock rubber (H rated 205/70/15).
suffice to say, the car performed remarkably well. My instructor commented on how surprisingly stable it was. Following instructors reported that the car lifted its inside rear wheel in turn 8 and 9, but I was hardly the only one.
And I am happy to report we kept the shiny side up, which is more than can be said for one lowered E36 M3 Sedan.
I offer this up only because OB is to Legacy as forester is to Impreza, in my mind.
It took some doing, but 2 years ago I convinced the hard-a$$ National Capital Chapter of BMW CCA to allow my Outback for HPDE at Summit Point. They said it was marketed as an off road vehicle and was ineligible. I sent them photos and specs and they finally relented. Anyway, I took the car there, totally stock, on its stock rubber (H rated 205/70/15).
suffice to say, the car performed remarkably well. My instructor commented on how surprisingly stable it was. Following instructors reported that the car lifted its inside rear wheel in turn 8 and 9, but I was hardly the only one.
And I am happy to report we kept the shiny side up, which is more than can be said for one lowered E36 M3 Sedan.
I offer this up only because OB is to Legacy as forester is to Impreza, in my mind.
| Porter | 01-07-2004 11:47 PM |
The folks who are looking to exclude the Forester from SCCA competition are smoking crack. ;)
The vehicle is classed as a CAR, not as a truck. It is a unibody construction passenger car that happens to have tall struts to make it LOOK like an SUV.
The NHTSA and the DOT in most states both classify the Forester as a CAR, specifically a Station Wagon.
And yes, I'd be totally comfortable autocrossing a 100% stock Forester XT. With a reasonable amount of air in the tires (mid 40s) there's almost no chance that you could put the vehicle in a state where it would lift or roll.
Remember, with the low CoG that the boxer motor and AWD system provide, the total CoG of the vehicle is actually lower than many "shorter" vehicles. A stock Forester slides very predictably for this reason.
Here's hoping that the knee-jerk reaction doesn't disqualify one of the most entertaining and interesting vehicles currently eligible for SCCA competition! :p :D
The vehicle is classed as a CAR, not as a truck. It is a unibody construction passenger car that happens to have tall struts to make it LOOK like an SUV.
The NHTSA and the DOT in most states both classify the Forester as a CAR, specifically a Station Wagon.
And yes, I'd be totally comfortable autocrossing a 100% stock Forester XT. With a reasonable amount of air in the tires (mid 40s) there's almost no chance that you could put the vehicle in a state where it would lift or roll.
Remember, with the low CoG that the boxer motor and AWD system provide, the total CoG of the vehicle is actually lower than many "shorter" vehicles. A stock Forester slides very predictably for this reason.
Here's hoping that the knee-jerk reaction doesn't disqualify one of the most entertaining and interesting vehicles currently eligible for SCCA competition! :p :D
| 7SMwrx | 01-08-2004 04:58 AM |
I agree with Porter on the exclusion remark.
I've disproved the lift statement for an impreza chassis (been already told by workers here in ATL about my 2 wheel status before) - but properly prepped Forresters wouldn't roll except under extremely stupid use.
AH, there's the rub - SCCA must be careful since Solo2 is an entry-level member magnet. There are more Autocrossers than any other form of competition nationally. And many new novices bring their stock, ill-prepped, cars to the lot. So, SCCA is protecting workers, novices and their insurance rates for event operation when they instinctively rule out SUVs from Classes.
I read the previous comments - did anyone ask "why?" As in, why would you want to campaign a Forrester nationally? It could not be truly competitive against it's other chassis siblings in a Stock class (remember, that class would have better chances with other choices).
I'd do like those who want to heavily mod their machines - come to Street Mod - put a 20 sq.ft. wing on it, swap-up to Stage 4, swap steering box, gut suspension, turbo-back exhaust, wide DOT cheaters. Let's play!!!
But a Nationally competitive machine in any class?
- - unlikely....I'd let it go.
I've disproved the lift statement for an impreza chassis (been already told by workers here in ATL about my 2 wheel status before) - but properly prepped Forresters wouldn't roll except under extremely stupid use.
AH, there's the rub - SCCA must be careful since Solo2 is an entry-level member magnet. There are more Autocrossers than any other form of competition nationally. And many new novices bring their stock, ill-prepped, cars to the lot. So, SCCA is protecting workers, novices and their insurance rates for event operation when they instinctively rule out SUVs from Classes.
I read the previous comments - did anyone ask "why?" As in, why would you want to campaign a Forrester nationally? It could not be truly competitive against it's other chassis siblings in a Stock class (remember, that class would have better chances with other choices).
I'd do like those who want to heavily mod their machines - come to Street Mod - put a 20 sq.ft. wing on it, swap-up to Stage 4, swap steering box, gut suspension, turbo-back exhaust, wide DOT cheaters. Let's play!!!
But a Nationally competitive machine in any class?
- - unlikely....I'd let it go.
| pleiades | 01-08-2004 07:11 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by 7SMwrx [/i]
[B].....But a Nationally competitive machine in any class?
- - unlikely....I'd let it go. [/B][/QUOTE]
forgot to mention in my post earlier, that I was fortunate enough to take a spin in the Subaru of Gwinnet forester turbo, and not only do i know it's just as stable as any other subaru, I would take that thing over a standard WRX, any day for auto-x! More torque, More HP, shorter final drive. It goes!!!! Should make wagon owners everywhere proud! ( ;) lr & kc)
Steven - who's been seen campaining non-competative cars in national events. :lol:
[B].....But a Nationally competitive machine in any class?
- - unlikely....I'd let it go. [/B][/QUOTE]
forgot to mention in my post earlier, that I was fortunate enough to take a spin in the Subaru of Gwinnet forester turbo, and not only do i know it's just as stable as any other subaru, I would take that thing over a standard WRX, any day for auto-x! More torque, More HP, shorter final drive. It goes!!!! Should make wagon owners everywhere proud! ( ;) lr & kc)
Steven - who's been seen campaining non-competative cars in national events. :lol:
| KC | 01-08-2004 07:59 AM |
I'm not saying exclude the car, the reviews on it are glowing! :)
However... I'm thinking of someone taking the NON-XT, and auto-xing that... when you say 'Forester' you need to include all models I would think.
Not knowing enough of the differences in suspension between the XT and the S, I would assume the S has a much softer suspension than even a WRX wagon. Throw Hoosiers on and S and what's the chance of roll over?
Sure, YOU'LL put a wider/low profile tire.. but what about the masses or the kid that borrows mom's car and runs it with the stock tires in stock? (Thinking S here again... not XT)
Anyone have spring rates/shock data on the whole '04 Forester line? I know the chassis layout. I get that point... but in order for it to 'sit higher' than a normal impreza, there's longer springs, and more shock travel, right?
--kC
However... I'm thinking of someone taking the NON-XT, and auto-xing that... when you say 'Forester' you need to include all models I would think.
Not knowing enough of the differences in suspension between the XT and the S, I would assume the S has a much softer suspension than even a WRX wagon. Throw Hoosiers on and S and what's the chance of roll over?
Sure, YOU'LL put a wider/low profile tire.. but what about the masses or the kid that borrows mom's car and runs it with the stock tires in stock? (Thinking S here again... not XT)
Anyone have spring rates/shock data on the whole '04 Forester line? I know the chassis layout. I get that point... but in order for it to 'sit higher' than a normal impreza, there's longer springs, and more shock travel, right?
--kC
| Sergeant_V | 01-08-2004 09:51 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]I'm not saying exclude the car, the reviews on it are glowing! :)
However... I'm thinking of someone taking the NON-XT, and auto-xing that... when you say 'Forester' you need to include all models I would think.
Not knowing enough of the differences in suspension between the XT and the S, I would assume the S has a much softer suspension than even a WRX wagon. Throw Hoosiers on and S and what's the chance of roll over?
Sure, YOU'LL put a wider/low profile tire.. but what about the masses or the kid that borrows mom's car and runs it with the stock tires in stock? (Thinking S here again... not XT)
Anyone have spring rates/shock data on the whole '04 Forester line? I know the chassis layout. I get that point... but in order for it to 'sit higher' than a normal impreza, there's longer springs, and more shock travel, right?
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
that's a very good point
[B]I'm not saying exclude the car, the reviews on it are glowing! :)
However... I'm thinking of someone taking the NON-XT, and auto-xing that... when you say 'Forester' you need to include all models I would think.
Not knowing enough of the differences in suspension between the XT and the S, I would assume the S has a much softer suspension than even a WRX wagon. Throw Hoosiers on and S and what's the chance of roll over?
Sure, YOU'LL put a wider/low profile tire.. but what about the masses or the kid that borrows mom's car and runs it with the stock tires in stock? (Thinking S here again... not XT)
Anyone have spring rates/shock data on the whole '04 Forester line? I know the chassis layout. I get that point... but in order for it to 'sit higher' than a normal impreza, there's longer springs, and more shock travel, right?
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
that's a very good point
| BOY | 01-08-2004 10:13 AM |
The chances of Joe Schmoe showing up to an event in a bone stock S Forrester are pretty remote. Regardless, the older Forresters were a total treat to abuse and I'd say from first hand experience that they rotate easier than my RS did stock for stock. The Forrester is and always has been a station wagon. Subaru doesn't sell trucks in the states, all of its [u]cars[/u] are just that. 2 chassises, and varrying ride heights. Look at most Detroit steel out there, most American cars ride higher than the Forrester, are softer sprung and pitch and roll so dramatically that I'm amazed anyone would even consider them competition worthy.
Yet again, the real world is moving way beyond SCCA's adaptive skills and yet again it will take a rediculous amount of letter writing, complaining, etc to get the SCCA to issue a Fastrack correction to an antiquated rule. Come on SEB, I've been saying it for years, the rule book needs to be completely rewriten for those of us not competing carbeurated pushrod motors.
Yet again, the real world is moving way beyond SCCA's adaptive skills and yet again it will take a rediculous amount of letter writing, complaining, etc to get the SCCA to issue a Fastrack correction to an antiquated rule. Come on SEB, I've been saying it for years, the rule book needs to be completely rewriten for those of us not competing carbeurated pushrod motors.
| zzyzx | 01-08-2004 11:22 AM |
Let me dispel some of these myths before they take on a life of their own...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Not knowing enough of the differences in suspension between the XT and the S, I would assume the S has a much softer suspension than even a WRX wagon. Throw Hoosiers on and S and what's the chance of roll over?
[/B][/QUOTE]
XT and S suspensions are identical. Ask me how I know if you feel the need (Hint: wife owns the "S")
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Sure, YOU'LL put a wider/low profile tire.. but what about the masses or the kid that borrows mom's car and runs it with the stock tires in stock? (Thinking S here again... not XT)
[/B][/QUOTE]
On the stock tires, the Forester is as stable if not more so than any passenger "car". Perhaps that's why there is no disclaimer either in the vehicle or in the manuals that make any statement about rollover, yet as we all know the "traditional" SUVs all have that legalese printed at every opportunity, everywhere you look.
Better yet, what if said kid takes mom's E30 BMW and rolls it at an autox, which there is ample evidence to say this will occur, then said family Quotes Section 3.1 stating that the SCCA has taken responsibility for excluding "high COG" vehicles, and yet after 15 years of the autox experience with the E30 BMW and multiple rollovers that SCCA has not taken action, then sues the SCCA for negligence.
We had an E30 rollover in our Region, BTW.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
... but in order for it to 'sit higher' than a normal impreza, there's longer springs, and more shock travel, right?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, measured that. As compared to GC8 stock struts, the front is less than 1 inch longer and the rear is exactly the same length. So, travel is all of 1 inch greater in the front on a Forester. Given this, spring length is irrelevant. For all I know the length may be the same as the GD* chassis.
Keep 'em coming KC, you're 0 for 3 so far. ;)
The point is that wheter you can imagine the Forester rolling or not is irrelevant. I can dream up a situation in which any car can roll. The fact is that we have many cars currently competing in autox that are more prone roll than the Forester, yet are classed and allowed to compete because they are called "cars".
Personally, following the example I gave about the BMW above, I think the rule should be dropped entirely for the SCCA's sake. Merely assuming the role of excluding "unstable" vehicles puts them on very shakey ground legally speaking.
- Steve
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Not knowing enough of the differences in suspension between the XT and the S, I would assume the S has a much softer suspension than even a WRX wagon. Throw Hoosiers on and S and what's the chance of roll over?
[/B][/QUOTE]
XT and S suspensions are identical. Ask me how I know if you feel the need (Hint: wife owns the "S")
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Sure, YOU'LL put a wider/low profile tire.. but what about the masses or the kid that borrows mom's car and runs it with the stock tires in stock? (Thinking S here again... not XT)
[/B][/QUOTE]
On the stock tires, the Forester is as stable if not more so than any passenger "car". Perhaps that's why there is no disclaimer either in the vehicle or in the manuals that make any statement about rollover, yet as we all know the "traditional" SUVs all have that legalese printed at every opportunity, everywhere you look.
Better yet, what if said kid takes mom's E30 BMW and rolls it at an autox, which there is ample evidence to say this will occur, then said family Quotes Section 3.1 stating that the SCCA has taken responsibility for excluding "high COG" vehicles, and yet after 15 years of the autox experience with the E30 BMW and multiple rollovers that SCCA has not taken action, then sues the SCCA for negligence.
We had an E30 rollover in our Region, BTW.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
... but in order for it to 'sit higher' than a normal impreza, there's longer springs, and more shock travel, right?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, measured that. As compared to GC8 stock struts, the front is less than 1 inch longer and the rear is exactly the same length. So, travel is all of 1 inch greater in the front on a Forester. Given this, spring length is irrelevant. For all I know the length may be the same as the GD* chassis.
Keep 'em coming KC, you're 0 for 3 so far. ;)
The point is that wheter you can imagine the Forester rolling or not is irrelevant. I can dream up a situation in which any car can roll. The fact is that we have many cars currently competing in autox that are more prone roll than the Forester, yet are classed and allowed to compete because they are called "cars".
Personally, following the example I gave about the BMW above, I think the rule should be dropped entirely for the SCCA's sake. Merely assuming the role of excluding "unstable" vehicles puts them on very shakey ground legally speaking.
- Steve
| KC | 01-08-2004 12:04 PM |
I wasn't myth hunting. I was asking questions because I'm not familiar with the product.
0-3? Wasn't even trying to prove anyting!
:furious:
--kC ;)
0-3? Wasn't even trying to prove anyting!
:furious:
--kC ;)
| trhoppe | 01-08-2004 12:16 PM |
bah! 0 for 3....
KC is a looooooooser :lol:
-Tom
throw out all wagons
KC is a looooooooser :lol:
-Tom
throw out all wagons
| lucien2 | 01-08-2004 12:22 PM |
I guess the easiest question to ask is this: If the US DOT calls it a car, why would SCCA call it an SUV?
| ChrisW | 01-08-2004 12:31 PM |
At one of the BMW autox events here in the SF bay area someone almost rolled a BMW SUV (X5??)
assuming that the XT has a higher roll center than the impreza chassi (in all it's varieties) then it should be excluded.
The insurance rates for autocross events is rising, some comprimizes have to be made.
It sucks, but that's the way it is (currently)
assuming that the XT has a higher roll center than the impreza chassi (in all it's varieties) then it should be excluded.
The insurance rates for autocross events is rising, some comprimizes have to be made.
It sucks, but that's the way it is (currently)
| kwh29 | 01-08-2004 12:41 PM |
A bit OT:
[QUOTE]Better yet, what if said kid takes mom's E30 BMW and rolls it at an autox, which there is ample evidence to say this will occur, then said family Quotes Section 3.1 stating that the SCCA has taken responsibility for excluding "high COG" vehicles, and yet after 15 years of the autox experience with the E30 BMW and multiple rollovers that SCCA has not taken action, then sues the SCCA for negligence.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked the E30 and Golf/Jetta aren't high CoG vehicles. They have a normal (for their type) CoG but have serious changes in their roll centers under cornering loads. Note that _every_ rollover or near-rollover I've ever heard of in those cars included one or more of these three things:
--R compund tires
--dead shocks
--reported harsh driving
My point being that any _single_ measure of "rollover potential" will be flawed. It would take a serious study to make a valid quantitative measure of rollover potential.
[QUOTE]We had an E30 rollover in our Region, BTW.[/QUOTE]
Given that you're in Kansas it's not surprising. Would that be the one that rolled at Topeka a few years back? :D
--Kevin H.
(argumentative today, thanks to a broken server. Grr.)
[QUOTE]Better yet, what if said kid takes mom's E30 BMW and rolls it at an autox, which there is ample evidence to say this will occur, then said family Quotes Section 3.1 stating that the SCCA has taken responsibility for excluding "high COG" vehicles, and yet after 15 years of the autox experience with the E30 BMW and multiple rollovers that SCCA has not taken action, then sues the SCCA for negligence.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked the E30 and Golf/Jetta aren't high CoG vehicles. They have a normal (for their type) CoG but have serious changes in their roll centers under cornering loads. Note that _every_ rollover or near-rollover I've ever heard of in those cars included one or more of these three things:
--R compund tires
--dead shocks
--reported harsh driving
My point being that any _single_ measure of "rollover potential" will be flawed. It would take a serious study to make a valid quantitative measure of rollover potential.
[QUOTE]We had an E30 rollover in our Region, BTW.[/QUOTE]
Given that you're in Kansas it's not surprising. Would that be the one that rolled at Topeka a few years back? :D
--Kevin H.
(argumentative today, thanks to a broken server. Grr.)
| DrBiggly | 01-08-2004 01:04 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW[/i]
[B] At one of the BMW autox events here in the SF bay area someone almost rolled a BMW SUV (X5??)
assuming that the XT has a higher roll center than the impreza chassi (in all it's varieties) then it should be excluded.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm kind of curious how you can parallel a BMW X5 to a Forester XT.
How can a vehicle with a curb weight of 4586lbs (X5 3.0) or 4824lbs (X5 4.4) really be compared to a vehicle with a curb weight of 3140 lbs in the case of the Forester?
Not to mention that the NHTSA classifies the Forester as a car and the BMW as an SUV.
(Forester)
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2533.html[/url]
(BMW X5)
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2232.html[/url]
I do not understand the basis of your comparison. Please elaborate! :)
[B] At one of the BMW autox events here in the SF bay area someone almost rolled a BMW SUV (X5??)
assuming that the XT has a higher roll center than the impreza chassi (in all it's varieties) then it should be excluded.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm kind of curious how you can parallel a BMW X5 to a Forester XT.
How can a vehicle with a curb weight of 4586lbs (X5 3.0) or 4824lbs (X5 4.4) really be compared to a vehicle with a curb weight of 3140 lbs in the case of the Forester?
Not to mention that the NHTSA classifies the Forester as a car and the BMW as an SUV.
(Forester)
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2533.html[/url]
(BMW X5)
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2232.html[/url]
I do not understand the basis of your comparison. Please elaborate! :)
| driggity | 01-08-2004 01:36 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW[/i]
[B]assuming that the XT has a higher roll center than the impreza chassi (in all it's varieties) then it should be excluded.[/B][/QUOTE]
Since the XT is a variety of the impreza chassis I doubt it has a higher roll center than itself.
And why should it be excluded if it has a higher roll center than the impreza? Should all cars with a higher roll center than the impreza be excluded?
[B]assuming that the XT has a higher roll center than the impreza chassi (in all it's varieties) then it should be excluded.[/B][/QUOTE]
Since the XT is a variety of the impreza chassis I doubt it has a higher roll center than itself.
And why should it be excluded if it has a higher roll center than the impreza? Should all cars with a higher roll center than the impreza be excluded?
| zzyzx | 01-08-2004 05:35 PM |
I think DrBiggly hit the nail on the head. I looked into the NHTSA data and here's what I saw:
Forester is classed as a "Medium Passenger Car" with the description of "Wagon".
Now, the interesting thing is that the other mini-"SUVs" that one could argue are similar to the Forester, according to the NHTSA actually aren't. The NHTSA has classed the following as SUVs:
Toyota RAV-4
Volvo XC90
Honda CR-V
Infinity FX45
Given that the NHTSA is where insurance companies go to class cars, etc., I would find it hard to rationalize otherwise.
At least the NHTSA isn't confused on the matter.
- Steve
Forester is classed as a "Medium Passenger Car" with the description of "Wagon".
Now, the interesting thing is that the other mini-"SUVs" that one could argue are similar to the Forester, according to the NHTSA actually aren't. The NHTSA has classed the following as SUVs:
Toyota RAV-4
Volvo XC90
Honda CR-V
Infinity FX45
Given that the NHTSA is where insurance companies go to class cars, etc., I would find it hard to rationalize otherwise.
At least the NHTSA isn't confused on the matter.
- Steve
| Storm | 01-08-2004 05:55 PM |
I think it may be easier to see what "cars" will get crushed by the XT in the prospected classes that it would fall into given the current (NOC) catch-all. HS and FSP are long standing classes that have a strong following. SCCA may be trying to snip this in the bud. Who initiated the motion to exclude the XT? Do they have interest in either HS or FSP?
I haven't dove into the SCCAForums discussion yet. What does Hollis and/or Gill have to say about this? He usually has some sort of evidence to back up these kinds of decisions. They can't be standing by the no-SUV wording.....
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
I haven't dove into the SCCAForums discussion yet. What does Hollis and/or Gill have to say about this? He usually has some sort of evidence to back up these kinds of decisions. They can't be standing by the no-SUV wording.....
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
| zzyzx | 01-08-2004 06:28 PM |
Hi Jay,
Just to clarify. I simply emailed Doug Gill to clarify if the Forester XT is legal in FSP for National level events. He clarified that it is, though, brought up the SUV issue. Hence, it was Doug who brought this issue up - there wasn't any motion to have the XT excluded. Doug said he'd send it to the SEB for clarification. That said, now that the SEB is involved, I'd doubt that they're going to let the XT slip into FSP w/o classing it. I highly doubt that they'll exclude it from competition. However, as far as Doug is concerned, currently it's excluded from competition (citing Sec. 3.1), because it's marketed as an SUV. Andy hasn't commented on it other that saying that the issue was logged and under review (on SCCA Forums).
- Steve
Just to clarify. I simply emailed Doug Gill to clarify if the Forester XT is legal in FSP for National level events. He clarified that it is, though, brought up the SUV issue. Hence, it was Doug who brought this issue up - there wasn't any motion to have the XT excluded. Doug said he'd send it to the SEB for clarification. That said, now that the SEB is involved, I'd doubt that they're going to let the XT slip into FSP w/o classing it. I highly doubt that they'll exclude it from competition. However, as far as Doug is concerned, currently it's excluded from competition (citing Sec. 3.1), because it's marketed as an SUV. Andy hasn't commented on it other that saying that the issue was logged and under review (on SCCA Forums).
- Steve
| Porter | 01-08-2004 07:38 PM |
The Forester is not an SUV.
Period.
If I take a Lotus Esprit, put a hatch area on the back of it, and MARKET it as an SUV, does it make it one?
Period.
If I take a Lotus Esprit, put a hatch area on the back of it, and MARKET it as an SUV, does it make it one?
| dadswrx | 01-08-2004 09:34 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Porter [/i]
[B]The Forester is not an SUV. Period.
If I take a Lotus Esprit, put a hatch area on the back of it, and MARKET it as an SUV, does it make it one? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, Subaru can certify the Forester as an MPV or a passenger car as long as it meets NHTSA's definitions. To know for sure, one of our Forester comrades needs to open the drivers door and look at the certification plate/sticker for the marking (e.g., MPV, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or passenger car). The fact that Subaru advertises the XT's ground clearance of 7.5 inches (19cm), leaves little doubt that they are certifying as an MPV. (you won't find a ground clearance spec for an Impreza) They may be doing this to fall under the slightly reduced regulatory burdens and fuel economy requirements applicable to MPV's (as compared to passenger cars). The MPV classification may be what the SCCA is concerned with. Quite frankly, I'm not very familiar with the NCAP program and how they are categorizing vehicles.
Here are some links to really old interps relative to the classification of Subaru's. If you have the time, it's interesting reading for the Subie enthusiast.
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.1.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.14.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/87/nht87-1.91.html[/url]
As for the Lotus Espirit Hatchback, it doesn't appear that it would meet the definition of MPV or Light Truck. The long-winded definitions are shown below:
IMHO, I'd really enjoy auto-x'ing a Forester XT. You'd have a terrific view of the cones! ;)
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
Part 571.3 Definitions:
Passenger car means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.
Truck means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.
Multipurpose passenger vehicle means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.
Plus, NHTSA interpretations has referred to the following as examples of "special features."
Part 523.5(b) An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile-
(1)(i) That has 4-wheel drive; or
(ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
(2) That has at least four of the following characteristics (see Figure 1) calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure--
(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
(v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.
[B]The Forester is not an SUV. Period.
If I take a Lotus Esprit, put a hatch area on the back of it, and MARKET it as an SUV, does it make it one? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, Subaru can certify the Forester as an MPV or a passenger car as long as it meets NHTSA's definitions. To know for sure, one of our Forester comrades needs to open the drivers door and look at the certification plate/sticker for the marking (e.g., MPV, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or passenger car). The fact that Subaru advertises the XT's ground clearance of 7.5 inches (19cm), leaves little doubt that they are certifying as an MPV. (you won't find a ground clearance spec for an Impreza) They may be doing this to fall under the slightly reduced regulatory burdens and fuel economy requirements applicable to MPV's (as compared to passenger cars). The MPV classification may be what the SCCA is concerned with. Quite frankly, I'm not very familiar with the NCAP program and how they are categorizing vehicles.
Here are some links to really old interps relative to the classification of Subaru's. If you have the time, it's interesting reading for the Subie enthusiast.
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.1.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.14.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/87/nht87-1.91.html[/url]
As for the Lotus Espirit Hatchback, it doesn't appear that it would meet the definition of MPV or Light Truck. The long-winded definitions are shown below:
IMHO, I'd really enjoy auto-x'ing a Forester XT. You'd have a terrific view of the cones! ;)
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
Part 571.3 Definitions:
Passenger car means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.
Truck means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.
Multipurpose passenger vehicle means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.
Plus, NHTSA interpretations has referred to the following as examples of "special features."
Part 523.5(b) An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile-
(1)(i) That has 4-wheel drive; or
(ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
(2) That has at least four of the following characteristics (see Figure 1) calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure--
(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
(v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.
| BOY | 01-09-2004 12:04 AM |
Call me crazy but I recall my owners manual specifically saying that Subaru AWD is not designed for offroading! The Forrester is based on the Impreza chassis, uses the same drivetrain components, but rides what an inch taller? Look, its as much of an SUV as an OBS :furious: Per the NHTSA definition(s) it is a car, it is not 4 wheel drive but all wheel drive... no engagable transfer case. It doesn't meet the weight limitation but it may meet some of 2i-v.... so may an OBS, is it not legal for nationals? What separates it from other Impreza wagons? ground clearance. Is it an SUV, not in any rational person's book. Is the Forrester an SUV, only in appearance.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dadswrx [/i]
[B]Well, Subaru can certify the Forester as an MPV or a passenger car as long as it meets NHTSA's definitions. To know for sure, one of our Forester comrades needs to open the drivers door and look at the certification plate/sticker for the marking (e.g., MPV, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or passenger car). The fact that Subaru advertises the XT's ground clearance of 7.5 inches (19cm), leaves little doubt that they are certifying as an MPV. (you won't find a ground clearance spec for an Impreza) They may be doing this to fall under the slightly reduced regulatory burdens and fuel economy requirements applicable to MPV's (as compared to passenger cars). The MPV classification may be what the SCCA is concerned with. Quite frankly, I'm not very familiar with the NCAP program and how they are categorizing vehicles.
Here are some links to really old interps relative to the classification of Subaru's. If you have the time, it's interesting reading for the Subie enthusiast.
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.1.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.14.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/87/nht87-1.91.html[/url]
As for the Lotus Espirit Hatchback, it doesn't appear that it would meet the definition of MPV or Light Truck. The long-winded definitions are shown below:
IMHO, I'd really enjoy auto-x'ing a Forester XT. You'd have a terrific view of the cones! ;)
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
Part 571.3 Definitions:
Passenger car means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.
Truck means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.
Multipurpose passenger vehicle means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.
Plus, NHTSA interpretations has referred to the following as examples of "special features."
Part 523.5(b) An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile-
(1)(i) That has 4-wheel drive; or
(ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
(2) That has at least four of the following characteristics (see Figure 1) calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure--
(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
(v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dadswrx [/i]
[B]Well, Subaru can certify the Forester as an MPV or a passenger car as long as it meets NHTSA's definitions. To know for sure, one of our Forester comrades needs to open the drivers door and look at the certification plate/sticker for the marking (e.g., MPV, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or passenger car). The fact that Subaru advertises the XT's ground clearance of 7.5 inches (19cm), leaves little doubt that they are certifying as an MPV. (you won't find a ground clearance spec for an Impreza) They may be doing this to fall under the slightly reduced regulatory burdens and fuel economy requirements applicable to MPV's (as compared to passenger cars). The MPV classification may be what the SCCA is concerned with. Quite frankly, I'm not very familiar with the NCAP program and how they are categorizing vehicles.
Here are some links to really old interps relative to the classification of Subaru's. If you have the time, it's interesting reading for the Subie enthusiast.
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.1.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/79/nht79-4.14.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/gm/87/nht87-1.91.html[/url]
As for the Lotus Espirit Hatchback, it doesn't appear that it would meet the definition of MPV or Light Truck. The long-winded definitions are shown below:
IMHO, I'd really enjoy auto-x'ing a Forester XT. You'd have a terrific view of the cones! ;)
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
Part 571.3 Definitions:
Passenger car means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle, multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.
Truck means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.
Multipurpose passenger vehicle means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.
Plus, NHTSA interpretations has referred to the following as examples of "special features."
Part 523.5(b) An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile-
(1)(i) That has 4-wheel drive; or
(ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
(2) That has at least four of the following characteristics (see Figure 1) calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure--
(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
(v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each. [/B][/QUOTE]
| dadswrx | 01-09-2004 06:43 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BOY [/i]
[B]Per the NHTSA definition(s) it is a car, it is not 4 wheel drive but all wheel drive... no engagable transfer case. It doesn't meet the weight limitation but it may meet some of 2i-v.... so may an OBS, is it not legal for nationals? What separates it from other Impreza wagons? ground clearance. Is it an SUV, not in any rational person's book. Is the Forrester an SUV, only in appearance. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, its not important what you or I believe. What matters most is how Subaru certified it. Any Forester owners out there that could provide this info?
However, I don't believe that NHTSA has any definitions for "4-wheel drive" and AWD cars are not likely to be excluded despite your rationale. As such, if the Forester has "4-wheel drive" and four of the special features listed in 2(i) thru 2(v) then Subaru could classify it as an MPV. (note, it definitely meets 2(v) as I showed in my previous post) On the other hand, Subaru could also certify it as a passenger car because it may satisfy that definition as well. Why would Subaru classify as an MPV? So they can market as an SUV? I don't believe so. Subaru can market the Forester however they choose. The critical thing to Subaru's vehicle classification is what safety and fuel economy standards would apply to these vehicles. MPV standards are not quite as rigid as passenger car standards. Less rigid standards typically means more profit because they are cheaper to build.
Until we get confirmation of what Subaru actually did, anything else is just speculation. Then again, I'm uncertain whether the SCCA considers the manufacturers vehicle classification or just decides on its own what the vehicle is.
Just my .02
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
[B]Per the NHTSA definition(s) it is a car, it is not 4 wheel drive but all wheel drive... no engagable transfer case. It doesn't meet the weight limitation but it may meet some of 2i-v.... so may an OBS, is it not legal for nationals? What separates it from other Impreza wagons? ground clearance. Is it an SUV, not in any rational person's book. Is the Forrester an SUV, only in appearance. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, its not important what you or I believe. What matters most is how Subaru certified it. Any Forester owners out there that could provide this info?
However, I don't believe that NHTSA has any definitions for "4-wheel drive" and AWD cars are not likely to be excluded despite your rationale. As such, if the Forester has "4-wheel drive" and four of the special features listed in 2(i) thru 2(v) then Subaru could classify it as an MPV. (note, it definitely meets 2(v) as I showed in my previous post) On the other hand, Subaru could also certify it as a passenger car because it may satisfy that definition as well. Why would Subaru classify as an MPV? So they can market as an SUV? I don't believe so. Subaru can market the Forester however they choose. The critical thing to Subaru's vehicle classification is what safety and fuel economy standards would apply to these vehicles. MPV standards are not quite as rigid as passenger car standards. Less rigid standards typically means more profit because they are cheaper to build.
Until we get confirmation of what Subaru actually did, anything else is just speculation. Then again, I'm uncertain whether the SCCA considers the manufacturers vehicle classification or just decides on its own what the vehicle is.
Just my .02
Mike
02 WRX Wagon
| KC | 01-09-2004 07:24 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dadswrx[/i]
[B] Until we get confirmation of what Subaru actually did, anything else is just speculation. Then again, I'm uncertain whether the SCCA considers the manufacturers vehicle classification or just decides on its own what the vehicle is.[/B][/QUOTE]
I went to Subaru's home page.... "Forester is only small SUV rated "Good" in 2 IIHS crash tests!"
I think it's their marketing that is doing them no good in this case.
[B] Until we get confirmation of what Subaru actually did, anything else is just speculation. Then again, I'm uncertain whether the SCCA considers the manufacturers vehicle classification or just decides on its own what the vehicle is.[/B][/QUOTE]
I went to Subaru's home page.... "Forester is only small SUV rated "Good" in 2 IIHS crash tests!"
I think it's their marketing that is doing them no good in this case.
| DrBiggly | 01-09-2004 08:31 AM |
Out of curiosity, who is the IIHS (does anybody know?) and why do they differ in vehicle classification from the NHTSA?
Marketing. :alien:
Marketing. :alien:
| Warp3 | 01-09-2004 10:19 AM |
[quote]The fact that Subaru advertises the XT's ground clearance of 7.5 inches (19cm), leaves little doubt that they are certifying as an MPV. (you won't find a ground clearance spec for an Impreza)[/quote]
Ummm...what about the Legacy Outback...remember all the ads about "more ground clearance than a Ford Explorer"...and the outback is most definitely not an SUV...it's a station wagon...period.
According to my 1999 Impreza owner's manual, the 2.5RS has a ground clearance spec of 5.7 inches whereas the other Impreza (L and OBS) are rated at 6.5 inches. According to Edmund's the '04 Legacy Outback's ground clearance is 7.3 inches.
I mean, c'mon, the Forester is no more an "SUV" than the Toyota Matrix is...they are marketed as hybrids but are simply wagons that are slightly taller than normal. Look at the Toyota Echo...sure it's 3 inches lower than the Forester but it's also 3 inches narrower (height/width ratio is just barely lower than that of the Forester) and it has an inline engine so it likely has a HIGHER c.o.g. than the Forester!
I think the Forester XT would make a [b]great[/b] DS/ESP car...maybe not nationally competitive, but definitely competitive locally and would likely outperform the WRX in capable hands.
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
Ummm...what about the Legacy Outback...remember all the ads about "more ground clearance than a Ford Explorer"...and the outback is most definitely not an SUV...it's a station wagon...period.
According to my 1999 Impreza owner's manual, the 2.5RS has a ground clearance spec of 5.7 inches whereas the other Impreza (L and OBS) are rated at 6.5 inches. According to Edmund's the '04 Legacy Outback's ground clearance is 7.3 inches.
I mean, c'mon, the Forester is no more an "SUV" than the Toyota Matrix is...they are marketed as hybrids but are simply wagons that are slightly taller than normal. Look at the Toyota Echo...sure it's 3 inches lower than the Forester but it's also 3 inches narrower (height/width ratio is just barely lower than that of the Forester) and it has an inline engine so it likely has a HIGHER c.o.g. than the Forester!
I think the Forester XT would make a [b]great[/b] DS/ESP car...maybe not nationally competitive, but definitely competitive locally and would likely outperform the WRX in capable hands.
Shane -- [url]http://www.warpthree.com[/url]
| 8Complex | 01-09-2004 12:15 PM |
Just wanted to add my $1/50 in the conversation here since I'm a closet Forester-lover...
Speaking as an engineer (someone who has worked directly with marketing), marketing people and statements don't mean jack.
It's like grouping all music into a "dance" catagory, just because you can dance to anything with a beat, even though just about all music has a beat.
Speaking as an engineer (someone who has worked directly with marketing), marketing people and statements don't mean jack.
It's like grouping all music into a "dance" catagory, just because you can dance to anything with a beat, even though just about all music has a beat.
| driggity | 01-09-2004 12:29 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DrBiggly[/i]
[B] Out of curiosity, who is the IIHS (does anybody know?) and why do they differ in vehicle classification from the NHTSA?
Marketing. :alien: [/B][/QUOTE]
from the IIHS website:
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers"
while the NHTSA website states:
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970, as the successor to the National Highway Safety Bureau, to carry out safety programs under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966"
So you have an organization funded by insurance companies and a division of the DOT. I'd think that the DOT classification is the one that would matter more in this case.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] I went to Subaru's home page.... "Forester is only small SUV rated "Good" in 2 IIHS crash tests!"
I think it's their marketing that is doing them no good in this case. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think Subaru's marketing gives a rat's ass about the Forester's ability to compete in auto-x. They (probably) want to classify it as an SUV for crash worthiness because its going to do much better than the competition. If it were compared to other mid-size wagons they wouldn't be able to make the above claims.
[B] Out of curiosity, who is the IIHS (does anybody know?) and why do they differ in vehicle classification from the NHTSA?
Marketing. :alien: [/B][/QUOTE]
from the IIHS website:
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers"
while the NHTSA website states:
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), under the U.S. Department of Transportation, was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970, as the successor to the National Highway Safety Bureau, to carry out safety programs under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966"
So you have an organization funded by insurance companies and a division of the DOT. I'd think that the DOT classification is the one that would matter more in this case.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] I went to Subaru's home page.... "Forester is only small SUV rated "Good" in 2 IIHS crash tests!"
I think it's their marketing that is doing them no good in this case. [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think Subaru's marketing gives a rat's ass about the Forester's ability to compete in auto-x. They (probably) want to classify it as an SUV for crash worthiness because its going to do much better than the competition. If it were compared to other mid-size wagons they wouldn't be able to make the above claims.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét