Dumb bodyshell rule

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by 88YB1@Oct 31 2005, 05:10 PM
Very interesting.  I drive a Pontiac Fiero.  The GCR spec line lists both the Formula and  GT models for 1988.  They have a different code in the vin, and the Formula is about 200 lb lighter.  Since there is only one spec line in the ITCS does that mean I could put the fastback GT body panels on my Formula?  ITCS trumps the GCR, and the vin statement being discussed is in the GCR.  Just asking.  Would make no sence doing this , but going the other way would be an advantage for the GT.  Remove 200 lbs from the rear, then ballast back to minimum with weight up front.

Chuck

[snapback]64116[/snapback]​

I'm pretty sure the VIN# requirement is in the ITCS. No reason for it to be int eh GCR, as it is a category-specific issue.

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by 88YB1@Oct 31 2005, 05:10 PM
...put the fastback GT body panels on my Formula?

[snapback]64116[/snapback]​

Yup. For example, the Mazda RX-7 guys all swap the good GTU (?) body parts onto the base models. Since they're on the same line, you can swap assemblies.

Of course, this is the antithesis of the point of this thread about swapping chassis, but there you are...

 

[Catch22]

In terms of the VIN after a crash question...

What about Production? They currently don't require a matching VIN.
So racer Bob does the same thing to his G Prod car and replaces it with another chassis. Currently totally legal in Prod, but he now has a car with a different VIN.

Besides, if you crash a chassis and replace it, aren't you supposed to get a new logbook?
New chassis and new cage = new logbook. Right?

 

[lateapex911]

Well, yes he is SUPPOSED to admit and get it checked out after a crash... but.....it is easier to run one by tech with no VIN to confirm things. The cage part with the stamping can easily be moved.

FYI, aren't VINS in THREE places on modern cars? The dash, the door, and a stamped VIN, usually on the firewall, which is the hardest to swap, as it requires cuttting out and welding into the new chassis. Tough to smooth both sides of the weld, as it's usually in a place with poor or impossible rear acess for tools.

Now, the point about the Fiero is excellent, as there is one, (of many I am sure), example of a case where you can benefit from allowable parts swapping.

So, why not the chassis too?

Lets think of some examples where the chassis is either not listed, or on a seperate line, and swapping would create a benefit. i've come up empty so far.

 

[dickita15]

in tech we have debated if you need a new logbook when you attach a new tub to your cage. it has come up a couple of times. I have always been told to error on the safe side and issue a new log book. in the cases I remember the driver did not care. I only wonder when you have a grandfather issue like an ERW cage.
by the way I do check VINs when I do an annual. one local its car has a different dash pad but when i checked the firewall it matched the log book.

kirk sorry for the topic drift. back to what the rule should be.

 

[turboICE]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 07:10 PM
FYI, aren't VINS in THREE places on modern cars? The dash, the door, and a stamped VIN

[snapback]64127[/snapback]​

Yes but only two have to match in the rules right? Theorectically you could have matching door and dash VINs and pass tech?

This winter's project car fortunately has the stamped firewall and door VINs that match - but the dash VIN is long gone to who knows where.

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 11:10 PM
... Lets think of some examples where the chassis is either not listed, or on a seperate line, and swapping would create a benefit. i've come up empty so far.

It's an interesting exercise (I've yet to come up with one, either) but the correct solution to the problem will make it moot point. If the donor chassis has, say, reinforced suspension pick-up points, it will be illegal if no make/model in the spec line of the "declared" car has them.

It makes no difference whatsoever if it provides some competitive advantage, as is the the case with any other consideration per the ITCS.

Talk to me, guys - ITAC'ers probably aren't weighing in because they know that they have to consider the request after the fact but the rest of you need to try to punch some holes in this suggestion...

K

 

[Greg Amy]

Scott, the logbook typically goes with the cage. For example, if you replace your Autopower bolt-in cage with a new fancy welded one, we can either issue a new logbook (but we usually re-stamp the numbers into the new cage). The logbooks for IT cars do list the VIN in the front page; I would expect that a change in VIN could/would get caught on re-inspection (I'd catch it) or during the next annual (ditto).

The IT rules specify at least two VIN (stampings or plates) are required. I would not, for example, reject a car that had one good under the hood (usually stamped on the firewall) and one good plate in the doorjamb, but had mis-matched VIN in other places, such as on replacement parts. The point of the VIN requirement is "to establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle", not to bust your balls.

Speaking as a competitor and not a Tech Inspector, I assure you with full disclosure that if I wrap my little NX2000 into a much rounder ball, I will purchase a non-T-top NX1600 and swap over the VIN plate and graft my VIN stamping under the hood. Yes, I am admitting I will cheat to the letter of the rules, but the result is totally and completely the same as if I had started with a non-T-top NX2000 (which are virtually unobtainable; I had to order mine new from the factory).

This rule is no longer necessary and should be stricken.

Greg

 

[charrbq]

When we crashed our "86 ITA Civic, the roll cage wasn't harmed, but the car was destroyed. We put the cage into our current ITC car. The old log book number was obliterated and the new number stamped when the log book was issued.

I do know of one case where a Civic was destroyed in a crash, but the cage was okay. The cage was removed, modified and mounted in a CRX. It was a legal cage, but had the old car's log book number. It, too, had the number obliterated and the new number stamped to match the new log book.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 31 2005, 06:34 PM
It's an interesting exercise (I've yet to come up with one, either) but the correct solution to the problem will make it moot point. If the donor chassis has, say, reinforced suspension pick-up points, it will be illegal if no make/model in the spec line of the "declared" car has them.

[snapback]64132[/snapback]​

Interestingly enough, your example fits the E36 BWM of all things. The M3 has reinforced suspension pick-up points in the rear. The 325i does not (at least from the factory). Of course, your logic is correct (if one accepts what you are proposing) that it would still be illegal for a "cobbled together" 325i because they didn't have the reinforcements from the factory.

 

[lateapex911]

Well, I guess the only issue is the:

Either-

Less than scrupulous competitior who knows the difference and takes advantage of the rule. He destroys the VIN, knowing it's not required, and wants to hide the evidence.

The ignorant competitor who gets an M3 chassis and (Yes, of course, why spend big $ on an M3 chassis...bear with me..) and builds an E36 ITS car, not knowing of the reinforcement issue. The VIN remains, and someone tips him of his mistake...gulp. A whole lotta work for nothing.

The flipside on the first point is a guy who's going to that will fake a VIN anyway, and the second guy needs to do more due diligence.

I'm just playing devils advocate here.....

 

[Catch22]

I simply can't come up with a reasonable objection to this.
I'm trying to punch holes in it and I can't.

 

[mlytle]

there are some lines of cars that would have to be watched out for if the vin rule was dropped. bmw's for instance. the e36 body styles all look identical from the outside, but the "m" models got some reinforcement and stiffening in key places that the regular 325's didn't. you can tell from the vin if it was built as an m3 or not. without the vin, wellll..

it would be nice to be able to "build" the car to a spec line though. bmw 318's are dirt cheap to buy. swap the drivetrain and you can "build" a 325. certainly opens up more racing options and potentially lowers some initial costs.

marshall

 

[Super7]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 04:15 AM
Now, of course, as a tech guy you can say, well they have to check the cage and if it doens't have the number they will know, but if he used the same cage parts, it could slip through un-noticed.

Or he builds a brand new cage and gets out his number stamps.

I have two sets downstairs in the shop.

I now of one ex-racer who tried this once, except he did it in ear shot of the tech chief.

Just because the cage has a number doesn't mean it was ever inspected. This is a good argument for KEEPING the VIN. (Only as a check of the car being the same as the one that went thru inspection and was issued a log book in the first place.)

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Catch22@Oct 31 2005, 06:43 PM
In terms of the VIN after a crash question...

What about Production?  They currently don't require a matching VIN.
So racer Bob does the same thing to his G Prod car and replaces it with another chassis.  Currently totally legal in Prod, but he now has a car with a different VIN.

Besides, if you crash a chassis and replace it, aren't you supposed to get a new logbook?
New chassis and new cage = new logbook.  Right?

[snapback]64123[/snapback]​

Not to muddy the discussion w/ Prod rules, but most of the places where the VIN # is, can legally be removed from a Prod car, and in some cases, removed from an IT car. For example, the older VWs (pre-'80 or '81) had the VIN# stamped on the p/s shock tower. The rule say that you can remove this, and add camber plates. You're now left w/ the dash tag, and a sticker on the door jamb (the only places I know of where the VIN# is located). I believe the ITCS says 'stampings or plates', so technically, the sticker doesn't fit the bill.

Given that the important specifications for a car, are already defined on the spec line, I think that it's time for the VIN# rule to go. That, coupled w/ the fact that there are loopholes for certain cars (see earlier post re: Mk II VW Golfs), only reinforces it. I also believe that this is a case of 'overall benefit vs. potential downside'. Just how likely is it that someone could gain a competitive advantage from dropping the VIN# rule vs. the ability to put more cars on the track? Not to mention that it would let people like Greg sleep better at night!

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by mlytle@Nov 1 2005, 03:13 AM
...  bmw 318's are dirt cheap to buy.  swap the drivetrain and you can "build" a 325.  certainly opens up more racing options and potentially lowers some initial costs. ...

Exactly.

Okay - watch out, ITAC since it's coming your way. I submitted exactly what Zaslow suggested on the previous page, deleting from ITCS p. 2...

** The words originality and from the first paragraph

** The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determin the model and typ efor competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.

** Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

Seabass et al. - you can do your part by supporting this to the ITAC, the CRB (through your representatives), and to the club racing office when comment time comes...

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

- Is there really a problem finding correct original chassis' - or is this just to make things EASY? Might something a little HARDER to do benefit the majority?

- We have a hard enough time in this club policing ourselves - do we need to throw another hard-to-detect issue in the fire?

I understand the reasoning to do it, but there may be reasons NOT to.

As I play Devil's Advocate, I will ask this question (which the answer would be your reason for submitting the porposal):

Is there a PROBLEM that you are trying to SOLVE while POTENTIALLY creating grey areas in car prep?

AB

 

[Greg Amy]

I got to thinking about what I wrote last night, in regards to my desire to build a new car using an alternate chassis. Then, it pretty much hit me: I believe we can do this NOW and do it legally, the only difference being the cost and complexity of doing so.

So, here's what I'd do, step-by-step. Tell me where in this process I break the:

1. spirit of the rules, and
2. letter of the rules.

So I've got this Nissan NX2000 (or Rabbit GTi, or Honda CRX Si). I just rolled it into a little ball and it's obvious that it will not be cost-effective to repair it. However, say finding a valid replacement chassis is impossible, so suddenly it is cost-effective to rebuild it 'cause to replace it is infinitely expensive.

Looking for parts, I recognize that the same stuff can be pulled off a Nissan NX1600 (or Rabbit diesel LS, or Honda CRX HF) because it's the same parts. So, I go to the junkyard (uh, sorry, "auto salvage facility") and start pulling off removable parts from an NX1600 to install on my car. The two cars use the same panels.

Legal, right?

As I start to pull apart the 2k, I recognize that the roof is wrinkled. Further, the inner fenders and quarter panels are toast, too, so I go to the ASF and cut those from the 1600 to re-weld on my 2000. Remember, these are all the same parts.

Legal, right?

After I cut apart the 2k for those panels, I'm dismayed to find the floorpan and front clip is bent, too. Back to Joe's ASF for the identical floorpan and front clip from the NX1600 (again, same stuff).

Legal, right?

So at this point I'm ready to install the NX1600 parts back on "my NX2000" but as I sit there with the "car" on the rotisserie I'm simply staring at a firewall with a VIN stamping on it. Then it hits me: I can either completely dissect this NX1600 sitting over hyah, and re-weld all the parts onto this firewall hyah, or I can remove the firewall from the NX2000 hyah and weld it into the NX1600 hyah.

The end result is exactly the same. In fact, I can argue that the latter is more likely to be factory-correct than the former.

So let's go one step further: what's the magic in that firewall sitting on the rotisserie? Is it a sacred part simply because it has the VIN stamped onto it? What happens if I had damaged the firewall and needed a replacement part from Nissan? It's not going to come from the factory with my VIN stamped on it, and it's perfectly legal for me to replace it as a repair, so I can re-stamp that VIN back on it, right? Or, is there some rule that says you can't replace the firewall (trust me, there's not)?

So, if I can replace the firewall and restamp the VIN (or, simply graft the VIN stamping from my old firewall onto the replacement part), then how about I forego the trouble of dissecting the NX1600 and instead remove the piece of the firewall with the VIN stamped on it and graft it into the NX1600? That and the pop-rivited VIN plate on the dash panel make me totally legal for IT.

What is the difference? And, given any difference, how will you know that I did it one way or the other? Isn't the end result, technically and spiritually, the same thing?

If this bothers you, then just keep this in mind: I rescend my previous delcaration that I will cheat and use an NX1600 chassis. Instead, I declare that I am actually REPAIRING the NX2000 by dissecting an NX1600 and using the identical - legal - parts to repair the NX2000 appropriately.

As far as you know.

I'll write it again: This rule is no longer necessary and should be stricken.

GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

I like your example. It fits the arguement perfectly - becasue the car you drive can do that. I suppose (DA hat on again) that the issue is one where it involves cars that CAN gain advantages.

Having said that, I wouldn't want to be the one to find a replacement NX2000 WITHOUT T-Tops...yuck!

Like I said, it may be easier, but do the Pro's outweigh the Con's? If ya'll think so - WRITE IN! Make sure you state the PROBLEM before you propose a "solution'. A change for the sake of chage is rules creep.

AB

 

[turboICE]

The nissan S13 chasis was produced from 1989-1994 identically, but only came with the ITA SOHC engine in 1989-1990, from 1990-1994 it came with the ITS DOHC. The chasis is idenitcal throughout production - given the chasis' popularity with younger kids who think they can drift, yes it is really hard to find any shell without quarter panel damage less likely being limited to 1/3 of the production years for the chasis. Add to that finding one without a sunroof. Does it make it easier to build, yes. Does it make it cheaper to build, yes. Would it provide any competitive advantage beyond being easier and cheaper, no. Aren't those the correct answers to the idea behind IT rules?