Dumb bodyshell rule

[Bill Miller]

What about the hundreds of iterations of Honda's and VW's? What about the weird and rare stuff?
[/b]

Andy,

I can't speak to the Hondas but I can tell you about the VWs. For any of the Westmorland Rabbits ('81 - '84), there's no difference between a 2-dr Rabbit and a Rabbit GTI chassis. The GTI was simply an option pkg. IIRC, it included the 1.8 engine, the 14x6 alloy wheels, the close-ratio trans, the vented front discs, front and rear sway bars, and the paint/trim bits. Sunroofs weren't manditory, colors were limited to black, white, red, and silver, A/C wasn't manditory, there was no power steering, and they came w/ either a blue or red velour interior w/ sport seats. The only other thing that I know they all came w/ was a rear wiper. Other than that, there's no difference between the shell (body in white) between them.

As far as the A2 chassis ('85 - '91), there's no difference between the 8v and 16v cars (and no way to tell them apart by VIN#).

 

[lateapex911]

[/b]

Well, maybe Bill is implying he doesn't like what I wrote. he's a bit cryptic these days, but perhaps some detail is important.

When I first started racing, I drove my car on the street, to and from races. no trailer, and yup, had an incident on the track that was rather destructive. I wanted to keep the car registered, but it made no sense to repair it. So I got another chassis, same year, and started moving things. The state never knew, and there was no gain or illegal aspect as far as the SCCA was concerned either. Same car, same spec line. No harm, no foul, as far as i know.

And what Greg is saying is the same thing..... it's all just parts. If they're the same, it's silly to treat them as a magical assemblege.

 

[Knestis]

Argh.

It shouldn't be necessary to demonstrate that there are no possible cases where someone can build themselves something that has an advantage, because to do so would be illegal.

Arguably, if one sources a Chinese fender that weighs significantly less than the OE parts, that fender is not legal - it is not an "exact equivalent of the original parts" (use of which is allowed by 9.1.3.C. If I learn that, for whatever freaky reason, the bodyshell of a Canadian diesel Golf weighs 50# less than the bodyshell of every US-market 2.0 Golf, I can't legally use it. It's not the same, either. To weigh less, some of the many parts that make up the bodyshell would have to weigh less. If they aren't the same as what was delivered on cars defined by the spec line under which I am racing, it freakin' not legal. Not now, and not if the VIN requirement were dropped.

Why are we being put in the position of having to prove - a negative - that would be impossible to cheat if this rule got nixed, when the whole point is that cheaters should be caught by the enforcement process?

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So tell me how we police this Kirk? If the Canadian version weighs 50lbs less, and only a select few know it, how the heck is it right to blindly allow it? Am I supposed to know the 1 quazillion chassis iterations of every car in my class?

The only thing that keeps most people fromt cheating is the fear of getting caught. Is the VIN stamp on the car not a proper window into the cars original origin? With the elimination of the VIN rule, don't we now have to just ASSUME everyones car is right without any way to actually check it? Can you cheat the VIN rule? Probably, but what is a better option?

Trust me when I say I understand your points. But the detractors will tell you the downside is worse than making it easier for a few rare cars.

 

[Bill Miller]

Well, maybe Bill is implying he doesn't like what I wrote. he's a bit cryptic these days, but perhaps some detail is important.

When I first started racing, I drove my car on the street, to and from races. no trailer, and yup, had an incident on the track that was rather destructive. I wanted to keep the car registered, but it made no sense to repair it. So I got another chassis, same year, and started moving things. The state never knew, and there was no gain or illegal aspect as far as the SCCA was concerned either. Same car, same spec line. No harm, no foul, as far as i know.

And what Greg is saying is the same thing..... it's all just parts. If they're the same, it's silly to treat them as a magical assemblege.
[/b]

I well and truly don't understand the logic behind this Jake. Why wouldn't you just register the new car? I imagine that there's more to this story than you're telling us. Did the new car not have a title? I can't believe you'd swap the VIN tags on a car that you were going to register as a road car. The penalties for that are a bit worse than getting DQ'd from an SCCA race. I also can't believe that you said, in just about so many words, that it's not cheating if you don't get caught (that comment has nothing to do w/ the SCCA). Maybe I'm naive, but I'm just not an "end justifies the means" guy.

 

[Greg Amy]

So tell me how we police this Kirk?[/b]

The same exact way we do now, Andy. The same way we keep someone from cheating and using the CN body today and swapping over the VIN plates.

Right?

The problem with that line of logic above, Andy, is that you're assuming the VIN rule is stopping someone from cheating by using that CN body today. That's illogical. If someone with the knowledge of this (theoretical) lighter CN Golf body is going to cheat, there's NO WAY that the VIN rule stops them, or even slows them down; they'll just simply swap VINs.

If someone's going to cheat, they're gonna cheat. I cannot fathom how some folks think that this VIN requirement deters cheating...I don't think it was ever intended to stop cheating, I believe it was to stop someone from "creating a model" that didn't exist. Yet, the detractors can provide no reasonable examples of where this can happen - legally - if the VIN requirement were dropped.

Andy, I understand your personal position on this issue; I'm not debating you personally, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of the logic of your comments above. - GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

But without a VIN rule there is no RULE to fall back on to protest someone. If Kirk shows up with the hypothtical Canadian Golf chassis that is 50lbs lighter - and there is no VIN rule - tell me what you protest him on...and thnk about the basis for your proof.

 

[Greg Amy]

But without a VIN rule there is no RULE to fall back on to protest someone.[/b]

Of course there is, Andy: GCR 9.1.3.A, "...cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States..." and GCR 9.1.3.B, "...no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed..."

If the CN Golf is 50 pounds lighter, and that weight loss cannot be obtained legally with the US-spec chassis (e.g., less undercoating, less sound deadening, anything that can be legally removed from the US-spec chassis), then there's something about that car that is different from the US-spec model. Ergo, those particular parts would be illegal under 9.1.3.A and B.

And, you ask, how do we find it? The same way we find those lighter-weight CN parts that get installed on the US car today.

Simply removing the VIN requirement does not make the lighter CN-spec car legal. Nor does it make that illegal part more difficult to detect.

Parts is parts, man. That's all we're sayin'.

 

[Knestis]

What Greg said.

The VIN rule makes complete sense to someone who thinks of the metal box that all of the parts bolt to as the "car" - and that the number plates are unitary to that metal box.

Maybe it's my rallying experience but a shell is, as Greg points out, just a part - an assembly perhaps, if one applies the same kind of thinking as we do to engines, transmissions, etc. Heck, with a rally car, the shell is a consummable albeit with a longer anticipated life than a set of rotors.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/build4.php

Look at the pictures of the Pablo II build. We had to excise and replace a floor pan with a part that we ordered across the desk at the local dealer. We even ordered a new seat mount crossmember for the passenger side, to NOT bolt a seat to. Looking at the ETKA catologue, we could build you a Golf III out of new pieces from scratch if you wanted one. Replacing the little piece of firewall with the stamping would have taken just a tiny portion of the time of the entire build.

Is the VIN stamp on the car not a proper window into the cars original origin?[/b]

So the answer is most emphatically "no." The VIN stamp is provenance ONLY of the source of the little piece of metal with the stamping on it. Checking the number confirms the source of the number - not the parts welded to it.

If you want another analogy, the VW ABA block (in the MkIIIs) has "2.0" cast into it. If I go look at the Yorks' MkII Golf (they beat us the last two times we've met at enduros) and don't see that casting, is it proof that they are running the required 1.8 liters of displacement?

Is it?

No. Because the 2.0 crank drops right into the 1.8 block with a little grindage here and there. I have to know my stuff and be willing to go through the protest process to find the Truth.

It's no different with body parts.

The only thing that keeps most people fromt cheating is the fear of getting caught.[/b]

I couldn't agree with this more but it's not the rules that "catch" people. It's enforcement.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys can quote rules all you want but there is no means of enforcement without the VIN rule. If you use the CN Golf, remove all identification - because it now doesn't have to exist - and you protest that person for an illegal chassis - how do you prove it one way or the other? It's a pure he-said / she-said battle in the protest room. At least with the VIN rule you have a basis for legality.

I realize I am debating two of the most logic-based members of the forum - and trust me, I would love to see this rule done away with - but I can't justify eliminating a rule that removes ALL grounds for proof that the core shell is what it is supposed to be. Yes, you can cheat it, but you can cheat almost every rule until someone catches you...doesn't the removal of the VR remove all possibility - or even CLUE that something is wrong?

 

[Greg Amy]

You guys can quote rules all you want but there is no means of enforcement without the VIN rule.[/b]

:icon of Greg thumping his head against a wall:

I'm just about to give up. I really wish we were at the track/restaurant/bar so I can try to make you understand that this is incorrect. But, I'll give it one more try:

If you use the CN Golf, remove all identification - because it now doesn't have to exist...[/b]

Now what doesn't have to exist? The vehicle identification number? How does the existence of two matching vehicle identification numbers prove the legality of the chassis? How does an attached VIN prove that this car is a US-spec car and not a cheater CN-spec car?

Answer: it doesn't. all it proves is that this car has two matching VIN of *a* car that was built and shipped to the United States market. All it proves is that those who are following the rules bought the right chassis, and those who are cheating swapped over the VINs.

If your base assumption is that the mere existence of two matching US-spec VINs is de facto proof of legality, and you won't budge on that point, then we're done with discussion (and don't bother reading further).

... - and you protest that person for an illegal chassis - how do you prove it one way or the other?[/b]

For the third time: the same way you do now. I need you to answer this question, Andy, if nothing but to yourself: how do you prove today that Kirk's Golf chassis was derived from a US-spec automobile, and that it has all the correct parts, including those that make it 50 pounds heavier? How do you prove that it was not that 50-pound-lighter CN-spec Golf chassis that Kirk simply swapped over the VINs from Pablo the First?

I'm going to let you answer that question first before I offer the answer (and illustrate resulting logical fallacy of the above arguments).

Until you answer that, we're again done.

At least with the VIN rule you have a basis for legality.[/b]

How? By what proof? You're telling me you believe that as long as any car has two matching US-spec VINs attached it's a legal car?

...I can't justify eliminating a rule that removes ALL grounds for proof that the core shell is what it is supposed to be.[/b]

Therein lies the rub: your base assumption is flawed. IF I agreed with that base premise, then I'd most certainly agree with your conclusion. Problem is, I don't. I do not believe that the VIN provide even a shadow of proof of legality of chassis, my above NX1600/2000 example as a perfect illustration.

...doesn't the removal of the VR remove all possibility - or even CLUE that something is wrong?
[/b]

Not one whit. That VIN is a government tag for the purposes of serialization, and provides no more confidence of legality than the confidence towards the person building the car. And that's what this is all about... - GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I feel the same way Greg. What I am trying to say is that without the VR, there is no basis for proving the chassis legal. You CAN cheat it, yes - Kirk's car COULD be illegal yes.

The net/net is that there is NO WAY to tell if anyone is using a grey-market - illegal chassis - with or without the VIN rule. So you say lets make it easier for everyone by eliminating the rule that deters it - a rule that isn't perfect and that keeps honest people in line - but one that won't keep cheats from cheating.

So what is the solution? I HEAR everything you are saying - and I agree but I don't see the upside of removing a deterent when the result would be a 100% undetectable and unpolicable situation. YES - I understand you could do that now by tagging with the wrong VIN - but don't you see the dillemma?

Done.

 

[shwah]

But Andy - there are already rules separate from the VIN rule that will keep honest racers honest. Since the cheats will cheat anyway, the only effect the VIN rule has is to punish honest racers by not allowing them to use the exact same assembly of parts to build a given model based on a decoration that we call a VIN number.

Your logic is so flawed here, I just can't beleive you don't see it. I don't mean that as an attack - I just really cannot fathom how you can read the same words we are reading in this thread and still beleive that the VIN rule is necessary and serving a pupose to the IT racing community.

Having said that, I doubt that going around this circle again will make a difference in the conversation . Hopefully others will read this discussion and form an opinion of whether this makes sense. Hopefully some of them are your fellow ITAC members and CRB members.

 

[Greg Amy]

...but don't you see the dillemma?[/b]

Honestly? No. At best I'd agree with your statement:

"...a rule that isn't perfect and that keeps honest people in line..."

...with a correction: the only value I see in the VIN rule is that it 'keeps uninformed or ignorant people honest,' those that honestly don't know the difference. But, so what? We deal with that all the time, folks bringing cars to the track that they thought were legal but weren't. Why handle these any differently? if we tried to make every rule ignorant-proof, we'd not be able to build any cars...

I truly do not believe the VIN rule does anything to deter cheating, now or otherwise. At all. Cheating requires knowledge of the act and a motive to do it; a VIN does nothing to stop that. Nor does the VIN Rule make enforcement any less difficult: tech inspectors have no clue about the specifics of any vehicle, and the most likely persons to protest are those that know the cars well and what to look for. Thus, matching VIN are useless in this regard (except as a secondary club to hammer the cheater with, in addition to the illegal parts).

So where we stand is the existence of a truly self-destructive rule, flying directly in the face of the philosophy, held in place by unreasonable fear and, possibly, ignorance (or misunderstanding) of potential consequences...silly, really. - GA

 

[Knestis]

As long as the rules writers are trying to write their way around the fundamental challenges of a system that requires us to police ourselves, we're always going to be in this bind.

Rules don't enforce rules - protests enforce rules.

I'm going to retract my earlier comment about pursuing this change any further. Screw it. It would - to use Andy's term, net-net, be of value to a lot of IT entrants (and potential entrants who will otherwise face just one more barrier to entry). However, I'm put in a position of not being able to make any headway in this case with logic, so will go back into my shell. On this and other rules questions, we'll just do whatever we need to do, to further our own interests.

Why do I keep touching the damn stove?

K

 

[BlueStreak]

Knestis - don't give up, some of us REALLY need this rule to change. It is getting harder to find A1 GTI shells that aren't junk. Ask me how I know

So here is a further question:

I need to buy a new radiator/core support for my Rabbit GTI. They are no longer manufactured by any aftermarket company (square headlights have a unique core support).

Which is legal and which is not, and what is the difference between the following:

Am I breaking the rules if I cut a core support out of a non-GTI 80-84 square headlight Rabbit and put it in my Rabbit GTI?

Am I breaking the rules if I cut the entire body shell off of the VIN(s) and attach a new body shell to the VIN(s)?

And one other item. I can't find a square headlight radiator/core support, but I can buy round headlight core supports all day. If you were running ITB, and somehow, miraculously, I beat you, would you protest me for having the wrong radiator core support and headlights/grille arrangement?

 

[shwah]

Eddie,

I don't see any problem with sourcing the same component from a different model. You could also get control arms from a 1981 Rabbit to replace your GTI ones legally because they are the same.

The round headlight core support would be a no-no in my book. Silly or not they were not offered on the GTI. They may have a slight weight difference between the two setups, be even if not rules are rules, and should be followed. I would not protest you myself, but that is because I would beat you. (tongue firmly in cheek - Eddie and I had a GREAT race together last year in Memphis - he crossed the line before me on Saturday, and I on Sunday)

 

[lateapex911]

I well and truly don't understand the logic behind this Jake. Why wouldn't you just register the new car? I imagine that there's more to this story than you're telling us. Did the new car not have a title? I can't believe you'd swap the VIN tags on a car that you were going to register as a road car. The penalties for that are a bit worse than getting DQ'd from an SCCA race. I also can't believe that you said, in just about so many words, that it's not cheating if you don't get caught (that comment has nothing to do w/ the SCCA). Maybe I'm naive, but I'm just not an "end justifies the means" guy. [/b]

Bill, have you EVER driven a car that might have had issues meeting some of the arcane state requirements? Maybe you've driven a car that had handbrake isses? Or who knows what....

It was an old chassis that I got, and swapped my good parts into. It didn't freaken run when I got it...brakes all frozen, etc. race car....and it would need to be SEEn by state inspectors (10 yrs old)...sorry, but maybe I am the ONLY guy in the world that hates going to the DMV and dealing with the ninety layers of BS, but, driving a race car down to get inspected was the LAST thing I wanted to waste 4 hours of my life on, esp when the final call rests with the judgement of the (grumpy) inspector. How is this so hard to grasp?

 

[lateapex911]

So tell me how we police this Kirk? If the Canadian version weighs 50lbs less, and only a select few know it, how the heck is it right to blindly allow it? Am I supposed to know the 1 quazillion chassis iterations of every car in my class?

The only thing that keeps most people fromt cheating is the fear of getting caught. Is the VIN stamp on the car not a proper window into the cars original origin? With the elimination of the VIN rule, don't we now have to just ASSUME everyones car is right without any way to actually check it? Can you cheat the VIN rule? Probably, but what is a better option?

Trust me when I say I understand your points. But the detractors will tell you the downside is worse than making it easier for a few rare cars.

[/b]

Andy, usually we are in lock step with each other on most every issue. But I differ on this one.

If I was in that camp, I'd have ported my car a long time ago, because I KNOW nobodys gonna go after a porting protest. It takes SO little, (to make a little more power) parts are hard to come by in the case of a protest to prove that I'm illegal, so in the rare chance I was protested, I might win...and on and on.

And I can name 20 other guys off the top of my head that would vomit a little in their mouth if they got wind that they were thought of as cheaters.

Now, lets talk about the guys who DO cheat.

Look at them...you think they are bothered by a VIN rule? Heck how about the guy (In the NE... ITA car) who had his valve cover off in the paddock, and the cam was labled ...and it wasn't Honda tag! Or how about the guys cutting holes in their radiator wall/support with torches for cold air (you've seen them at impound no doubt), or guys (and I love this) who are offereing to make solid engine mounts for others, while in impound! Cheaters will cheat...they don't give a rats ass about rules ...they will just do it. Heck, they are probably already chassis out there right NOW that ARE lighter than the proper version (or stronger or whatever) and have the "correct" VIN number on them. It's pretty darn easy, and I'm not dumb enough to think it's not being done.

Point being that legal people are going to follow the rules, and cheaters will not. And when they decide to cheat, they'll do what want.

Is it hard to police? You bet. Just as hard as it is for me to have a CLUE whether some Golf out there is using the right trans ratios....or if some Honda has the right compression ratio.

But forcing people to run the right 2" x3" bit of metal with the "correct" VIN number stamped doesn't strike me as an effective method of making racing better. I think it makes it harder for the good guys and doesn't slow down the bad guys one bit.

 

[Bill Miller]

Knestis - don't give up, some of us REALLY need this rule to change. It is getting harder to find A1 GTI shells that aren't junk. Ask me how I know

So here is a further question:

I need to buy a new radiator/core support for my Rabbit GTI. They are no longer manufactured by any aftermarket company (square headlights have a unique core support).

Which is legal and which is not, and what is the difference between the following:

Am I breaking the rules if I cut a core support out of a non-GTI 80-84 square headlight Rabbit and put it in my Rabbit GTI?

Am I breaking the rules if I cut the entire body shell off of the VIN(s) and attach a new body shell to the VIN(s)?

And one other item. I can't find a square headlight radiator/core support, but I can buy round headlight core supports all day. If you were running ITB, and somehow, miraculously, I beat you, would you protest me for having the wrong radiator core support and headlights/grille arrangement?
[/b]

Eddie,

I don't think there is any question of legality if you use a core support from any Westmorland Rabbit. In fact, if I look in ETKA, I would be willing to bet that there's no difference in the p/n between the two cars. And you don't have to cut the body away from the VIN#, all you need to do is swap the dash tag and the door jamb tag and you're done. Be interesting to see if they actually have part numbers listed for those items.

Andy,

I can't say anything else that Kirk, Greg, Chris, etc. haven't said. The VIN rule doesn't stop anyone from cheating. And to make matters even worse, there are already exceptions in the GCR that don't require a VIN tag. Look at the ITB VW Golf listing. It says Golf Cup cars are eligible if they're prepared to the IT specs. Those cars came over w/o any VIN stampings as they were only for racing purposes. Bodies in white if you will. How do you know if they're identical to a US-spec road-going Golf? You don't.

Jake,

Swapping VIN tags around on road cars is a pretty major no-no. Think chop-shop. I knew a guy that did it years ago. He was an MG guy, and somebody had given him a car. The car had been sitting for several years, had no title, and efforts to obtain one were futile. Being an MG guy, he had a stack of titles from cars he'd previously had that had gone to the junk yard (those old British cars tended to rust a bit). So he took the VIN tag from a shell that he was junking, and swapped it over to the car that he was given, and went to DMV and registered it. To make a long story short, he got caught a couple of years later. Cost him a bunch of money w/ a lawyer to stay out of jail, and as it was, he ended up w/ a felony record. State DMV depts. don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to that kind of thing. Not to mention that there are things known as C-VINs on cars. These are confidential VIN stampings that are supposedly only known to law enforcement agencies, and are used in locating stolen vehicles that have been run through chop shops. I don't know if every car has them, but I have a friend who's been a body guy for years, and he has seen them. I could care less if you do it on a race car, but doing it on a street car (or a car that you register for driving on the street) is a risky proposition. Will you get caught? Probably not, but that's not a chance I'd want to take, especially after what happened to my friend.