Car Eligibility Rule Clarification

[Bill Miller]

OK, I'll bite. How is it that you can get away with it in an 87 but not an 84?
[/b]

Because w/ the Rabbits there's a digit in the VIN# that differentiates between a 1.5/1.6/1.7 and a 1.8. There's nothing in the '87 VIN# that differentiates between an 8v and a 16v (both 1.8 motors). That's why.

And not all A2 Golfs came as GTI's either (w/ all the GTI goodies like rear discs and a close-ratio box), yet you can build any one of those cars into a GTI. You could even build a 4-dr version, if you were so inclined.

 

[Knestis]

Went in last night...

* * *

Summary of Request

To amend the ITCS to eliminate the “create a model” prohibition and “two VIN numbers” requirement clauses.

Details of Request

It is respectfully requested that ITCS 17.1.4.C is changed in the following respects:

Amend ITCS p. 2, par. 1, by striking the following sentence:

…be coated, painted or plated). <strike>Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies</strike>. Parts or assemblies…

Delete ITCS p. 2, par. 4:

<strike>The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required</strike>.

Intent and Rationale

The intent of this change is to allow entrants to build or repair IT cars using body or chassis parts—including entire unibody shells—which are otherwise identical to the parts they replace, from trim levels or models of cars not included on their ITCS spec line.

This change is based on the logical application of the “stock replacement parts” rule (GCR, 9.1.3.C, p. 294) to body components. If I use a part or assembly from a car not on my spec line, that is otherwise the same as that from a car that is listed, then the source of that part is not an issue. If I use a part or assembly that is not of the correct specifications defined for my spec line, then it is illegal regardless of its source.

It is immaterial that, in the absence of the above clauses, someone might attempt to use a unibody shell or chassis component different from those found on cars included on their applicable spec line: Any such use would be illegal regardless of whether the above clauses are included in the ITCS.

Further, it is no more difficult to police the legality of a chassis, body, or unibody shell—each being just an assembly of parts—than it is to do so for many other components. The checking of visible VIN plates is not an inspection of the legality of any part of an IT car and should not be thought of as such.

 

[tnord]

why do i feel like this is a rule looking for a problem?

soooooooo, i can convert my 1.6L miata into a 1.8 now??

 

[shwah]

If the unibody is identical, you could replace your bent 1.6 unibody with one from a 1.8, regardless of possible VIN number differences, and end up with a legal 1.6 car. You could also install ALL systems/parts that are unique to the 1.8 car and 'create' a 1.8 car using a 1.6 shell. In the end it would be the same thing as going out and buying a 1.8 car and swapping over the compatible suspension/cage/seat/ whatever parts from you 1.6, and that is the point of this conversation.

If there is any difference between the two 'body assemblies', then no. If you somehow ended up with something different than a 1.6 or 1.8 car - some sort of hybrid - it would not fit the IT ruleset already, as it would contain 'modifications' not allowed by the ITCS.

I say all of this not knowing a thing about Miata model/chassis lineage, just assuming at some point the same car became available with a different engine/trans/rear end or other bolt on items.

I like this. It is logical, and removes a barrier to running a given car/shell in a class legaly and fairly.

 

[tnord]

what i fear is the ability to now create a model that didn't exist from the factory. a model that is in some way faster in IT trim than any option originally offered. i'm no good with r00ls, but it seems to me that we just created an infinite possibility for combinations of parts amongst models of cars, and in no way can reasonably classify them all. i fear the clever people are going to find an overdog combination somewhere.

 

[Crack Monkey]

what i fear is the ability to now create a model that didn't exist from the factory. a model that is in some way faster in IT trim than any option originally offered. i'm no good with r00ls, but it seems to me that we just created an infinite possibility for combinations of parts amongst models of cars, and in no way can reasonably classify them all. i fear the clever people are going to find an overdog combination somewhere.
[/b]

But, people already create 4-door '87 GTIs. That to me, seems even worse than using a 94 (1.8) Miata tub for what will be raced as a 91 (1.6) car

 

[tnord]

But, people already create 4-door '87 GTIs. That to me, seems even worse than using a 94 (1.8) Miata tub for what will be raced as a 91 (1.6) car
[/b]

i don't know about the VW stuff, but here's a specific example of what i'm talking about.....

if i swap a 1.8L into my 1.6L tub (or do i have to swap my 1.8 tub with a 1.6? whatever ) i end up with smaller/lighter (but still good enough) brake rotors at each corner. this creates an advantage for the 'hybrid' car that didn't exist when the respective models were classed. find some specific make/model combination that you can find just the right advantage and you may have yourself an overdog.

or am i not reading this rule change right?

 

[MattP]

Yes, you're reading it wrong. Only the body shell will be allowed to be replaced (or substituted, same thing) and only if it's identical. You'd have to swap over the 1.8L brakes and any other parts specific to the 1.8L cars.

Here's my question:

Would it still be illegal to use a non-sunroof CRX shell that is otherwise identical for a CRX Si ITA car?

 

[tnord]

Yes, you're reading it wrong. Only the body shell will be allowed to be replaced (or substituted, same thing) and only if it's identical. You'd have to swap over the 1.8L brakes and any other parts specific to the 1.8L cars.
[/b]

why? show me where it says i must completely convert everything? the "may not create a model" option was crossed out.

 

[Gary L]

Travis - ya missed it. I think.



If you use the 1.8 engine, you have to use the 1.8 brakes (and everything else 1.8 specific) with it. You just used the tub... the sheetmetal. Period.

 

[MattP]

why? show me where it says i must completely convert everything? the "may not create a model" option was crossed out.
[/b]

Good point, I missed that part. I think you need to leave that line in, even if the VIN requirement is dropped. I don't think Kirk's intent (judging from his intent paragraph) is to allow that type of hybrid, but taking that line out seems to allow them.

 

[shwah]

Yeah I think we are in agreement of the intent here. The challenge as always will be rule words that describe that intent and nothing more/less.

 

[GKR_17]

Ok, lets say I claim the 1999 E36 M3 tub is the same as the standard ITS or ITA E36 versions. Now you'll have to prove there are differences at a protest (not an easy task, especially if you don't run the same car). Just because Bubba Joe says there are no differences in the tub doesn't make it true. If it's too hard to find the right tub, maybe you should build a different car.

Grafton

 

[lateapex911]

Flip that around Grafton,...

.... what if there are differences in tub A, the correct tub, and tub B, the incorrrect tub. Tub B has two extra sheetmetal gussets spotwelded at the factory to stiffen a weak area around the rear subframe area.

Now, a competitor went to the dealer, bought the parts and spotwelded them on his Tub A, and he's now a cheating bastard, LOL.

What do you do?

Well, according to the logic, nothing, because there is no knowledge, due to no research.

Same result, no?

Except he's going to draw less attention because his numbers match....

 

[Knestis]

It's a hell of a lot easier to find the M3 reinforcements than it is to find illegal gearbox internals. And the bond is a bunch less.

It's not legal to make that change under the current rules and the only true disincentive to doing so is someone filing a protest. Rules and their enforcement are two entirely different things. Trying to make the rules enforce themselves, or serve as a proxy for actual enforcement, is a lost cause.

This one rule does not define how your car has to be, Travis - it's got to conform to the spec line for the class, year, make, model written in your logbook. Expecting a change to the current rule all by itself to be a loophole-proof statement isn't realistic at all.

With respect, you gotta read those rools before you have room to get TOO critical of proposed changes.

...Would it still be illegal to use a non-sunroof CRX shell that is otherwise identical for a CRX Si ITA car?[/b]

Is it legal to reskin your sunroof Si with the roof sheetmetal intended for the non-sunroof model? Sure.

The issue here is partly (I think) that many of us forget that the body is just a collection of parts (with part numbers, available from the dealer and in the aftermarket). It might be my rallying background but when I reconstituted Pablo after the roll, the primary thing I did was replace the "assembly" of sheetmetal parts.

I put that word in quotes because there's probably a functional consideration there, in terms of how it can be up- and back-dated, since "assembly" figures largely in that rule.

If the "create a model" verbage doesn't come out, it becomes logically impossible to replace an identical the body shell across models.** Frankly, i don't know if that clause currently accomplishes what it was intended (or anything, for that matter), but it puts the revised rule in a bind.

K

** EDIT - added italics. It will quite obviously be illegal ot replace a body shell with one different than that defined for your spec line, just as it is now.

 

[tnord]

This one rule does not define how your car has to be, Travis - it's got to conform to the spec line for the class, year, make, model written in your logbook. Expecting a change to the current rule all by itself to be a loophole-proof statement isn't realistic at all.

With respect, you gotta read those rools before you have room to get TOO critical of proposed changes.
Is it legal to reskin your sunroof Si with the roof sheetmetal intended for the non-sunroof model? Sure.
[/b]

i make no illusions about being well versed or even having a strong understanding of the ruleset. what i'm good at is copying what others are doing. i am the common IT racer. i read the rules probably once or twice when i built the car, and haven't really looked at them beyond that.

i'll continue to think about it, but it seems as though that "spec-line" thing has it covered in regards to my desire to create my own hybrid model mismatching parts.

 

[BlueStreak]

The Civic SI roof issue is an interesting point. Was it possible to order a Civic SI without a sunroof? If it was NOT possible, would the re-skin still be legal?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Civic SI roof issue is an interesting point. Was it possible to order a Civic SI without a sunroof? If it was NOT possible, would the re-skin still be legal? [/b]

"Manual and electric sunroofs, original or aftermarket, where the panel is not normally removable shall be retained and run in the closed position. Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed provided the panel is securely retained. Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed. All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material."</span>

 

[ITABoy]

What Happened on this Question

I'm trying to figure out what happened on this question and to the proposal. Reading the 2009 ITCS I see that all mention of serial numbers for IT has been dropped, leading one to conclude that an IT log book doesn't even have to declare a serial number any longer.

If I'm not mistaken, this allows the builder to mix tubs/chassis and complete drive trains so long as the tub/chassis are identical for the two drive trains in question. The entrant then would simply declare that he has one engine(and matching drive train) or the other and be classified on that basis. Obviously the resulting car would have to meet all the matching specifications, including weight.

Is this correct, or am I missing something.

 

[lateapex911]

Correct. (Not sure what tech inspectors will make you do at log booking time. I bet that it will vary depending on the tech you deal with.)