Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
This is really the crux of it. It's NOT class dependent. Set it at 25% and do the work it takes to prove it is 30%, if it is. Simple.
ITAC News
- Thread starter JeffYoung
- Start date
This is really the crux of it. It's NOT class dependent. Set it at 25% and do the work it takes to prove it is 30%, if it is. Simple.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
As was discussed, only one real opinion thinks there is an issue. Simplify the wording if you have to but you may not. A model is a CAR, not a trim or option package. Miata, Mustang, S2000, CRX, Civic, etc are MODELS.
You put bumpers from a 1986 RX-7 on a 1991, you haven't created a model, you have simply backdated a piece that is allowed per the rules because the cars are on the same spec line.
a real problem is the lack of an agreed definition of "model" in the GCR or amongst a random sampling of members. thus the difference of oppinions. I don't like rules that can be read to mean contradictory things by different people, especially when those people are intelligent, experienced, understand the topic, and honestly not trying to find a loophole to exploit.
that's the situation that seems to exist with the "make a model" language, and even thoough the reading is unbalanced in favor of the more liberal reading to which you subscribe, extrapolating the number of forum participants to the number of active members means thatthere are stilla few hundred people in the opposite camp. agree upon the intention, wether it is historically consistant or not, and move forward with everyone on the same page.
FWIW andy, I read it as you do, though I read "model" in this case as spec line, due to cases where the trim level IS alone on a spec line and has unique equipment not found on other trims of the same "model" in other trims. ex: Civic Si (any of them).
that's the situation that seems to exist with the "make a model" language, and even thoough the reading is unbalanced in favor of the more liberal reading to which you subscribe, extrapolating the number of forum participants to the number of active members means thatthere are stilla few hundred people in the opposite camp. agree upon the intention, wether it is historically consistant or not, and move forward with everyone on the same page.
FWIW andy, I read it as you do, though I read "model" in this case as spec line, due to cases where the trim level IS alone on a spec line and has unique equipment not found on other trims of the same "model" in other trims. ex: Civic Si (any of them).
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And this will be the trouble if they want to change the rule I guess. SOME spec lines have trim levels - typically when that trim level includes an engine of unique design. Two good examples that exemplify the differences:
Honda CRX: Most trim levels have their own spec line because Honda had different engines by trim level. HF, DX, Si, and on and on. Updating and backdating is VERY limited.
Mazda RX-7: All of the trim levels from a given year all used the same engine. Updating and backdating is almost a free-for-all.
JeffYoung
New member
I agree with Chip, but I think a reasonable person could look at that rule and say the "don't create a model" language means you can't build something that wasn' sold off the showroom floor.
But more and more I think that language (the "don't create a model") is a vestige of pre-VIN rule days.
We will most likely be sending a proposal to eliminate the "create a model" language around for member comment in a few months.
But more and more I think that language (the "don't create a model") is a vestige of pre-VIN rule days.
We will most likely be sending a proposal to eliminate the "create a model" language around for member comment in a few months.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And the reason I disagree with this line of thinking is because if you run that thought process through it's natural progression, the UD/BD rule is TOTALLY useless. Why tell me I can interchange parts within cars on my spec line and then tell me that if it wasn't as delivered it was illegal?
Makes zero sense.
Nope, I get it. The same logic works for an unclassified car that is being considered for ITA or ITB. When the ITAC calculates the process weight of the car, the IT-trim better be the same damn number. If a stock 115-HP with no dyno data, multi-valve, FWD car is being considered for ITA or ITB, then the following sets of weights are the only ones on the table:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT
versus
115 x 1.3 x 14 x .98 = 2050 (ITA)
115 x 1.3 x 17 x .98 = 2490 (IT
THIS cannot be the two weights being considered:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT
And that's when the car being considered is a total blank slate.
I don't give a damn what the process says. The same motor cannot have 2 different IT-trim HPs. End of story.
If would be classified at 2050 as an ITA car and cannot get to that weight, then the car is a 2490 ITB car. Period. End of story. Cue the house lights.
That's 100 pounds of weight. If 100 pounds isn't important, then round the weigts to the nearest 100 pound increment...
It is important.
JeffYoung
New member
I disagree. It doesn't render the rule useless. It allows an 85 Civic Sux to run the "bigger" brakes from an 87 Civic Sux so long as nothing else on the tub changed and those cars were on the same spec line. With the VIN rule, this would have normally been technically illegal.
The VIN rule's place in all of this should not be overlooked. It would have technically prevented you from putting pieces from an 87 Civic Sux on an identical bodied 85 Civic Sux -- but the update/backdate rule created an exception for that so long as you were not creating a new model that was never sold off the showroom floor.
Kirk can chime in here, but what you are proposing seems to be pretty contrary to the original intent of IT when the rule was written, by allowing "Frankenstein" models that never came from the factory floor.
All of that said, but I think the correct approach is to fix the rule to comply with what people are doing, since that interpretation/approach (yours) is just as reasonable.
The VIN rule's place in all of this should not be overlooked. It would have technically prevented you from putting pieces from an 87 Civic Sux on an identical bodied 85 Civic Sux -- but the update/backdate rule created an exception for that so long as you were not creating a new model that was never sold off the showroom floor.
Kirk can chime in here, but what you are proposing seems to be pretty contrary to the original intent of IT when the rule was written, by allowing "Frankenstein" models that never came from the factory floor.
All of that said, but I think the correct approach is to fix the rule to comply with what people are doing, since that interpretation/approach (yours) is just as reasonable.
JeffYoung
New member
We could do this forever......
Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?
Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?
Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.
Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?
Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?
Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.
Nope, I get it. The same logic works for an unclassified car that is being considered for ITA or ITB. When the ITAC calculates the process weight of the car, the IT-trim better be the same damn number. If a stock 115-HP with no dyno data, multi-valve, FWD car is being considered for ITA or ITB, then the following sets of weights are the only ones on the table:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT
versus
115 x 1.3 x 14 x .98 = 2050 (ITA)
115 x 1.3 x 17 x .98 = 2490 (IT
THIS cannot be the two weights being considered:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT
And that's when the car being considered is a total blank slate.
I don't give a damn what the process says. The same motor cannot have 2 different IT-trim HPs. End of story.
If would be classified at 2050 as an ITA car and cannot get to that weight, then the car is a 2490 ITB car. Period. End of story. Cue the house lights.
That's 100 pounds of weight. If 100 pounds isn't important, then round the weigts to the nearest 100 pound increment...
It is important.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Jeff - if your defination of a 'frankenstein' model is one that was never delivered off the showroom floor, how do you think the UD/BD rule can be legally used? If you use your 'as delivered', EACH CAR needs to be 100% correct for it's model year, without any updating or backdating.
I see no way a car can be AD and have UD/BD. Impossible. The rule SAYS you can swap assemblies bewteen cars on the spec line. It just plain says so. It says NOTHING about not permiting freak trim mix-ups. A MODEL is very simple guys. You aren't changing an RX-7 to an RX-8 or a Miata.
In your thought process, can you take a 1991 RX7 and put the 1986 (different style) front bumper cover on?
If you say no, I wonder why the UD/BD doesn't apply. You haven't created a new model.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.
Why not put all new B cars with muti-valves at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not all cars with 5 lugs in ITB at 40%? Stupid examples yes, but the point is you are creating a MUCH harder road to a correct classification for no good reason. If you think some MV cars in ITB make 30%, then class them there using the dyno and power data that supports the hypothosis. Don't artifically handicap SOME of the cars then ask them to prove otherwise.
JeffYoung
New member
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And I responded. That car never came with those brakes, so no-go as an 'off the showroom floor' example. That is a car that 'never existed'....no?
How about my bumper cover example?
JeffYoung
New member
I could say I didn't create anything Andy, and that I'm trying to deal with the legacy of a problem that has its genesis in discussions from a long time ago.
But what is most important to me right now is not to fuck up ITB. We classed some cars in B at 30% default. Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.
Changing the default now could have an impact on the overall competitive balance of the class.
We are looking at all of ITB to try to clean this up. I'm not sure how it will turn out, but the primary consideration will be to make sure we don't screw up what is now a very competitive class.
But what is most important to me right now is not to fuck up ITB. We classed some cars in B at 30% default. Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.
Changing the default now could have an impact on the overall competitive balance of the class.
We are looking at all of ITB to try to clean this up. I'm not sure how it will turn out, but the primary consideration will be to make sure we don't screw up what is now a very competitive class.
JeffYoung
New member
It did come with those brakes. As an 87 model. The rule allows you to put them on your 85 so long as the rest of the 85 is identical to the 87. The VIN rule would have prevented that. Update/backdate allows it. Your "new" car is technically an 85, but is identical to the 87 model and no different from what came off the show room floor.
Your RX7 example would be illegal under this line of thinking. Just like my use of coupe bumpers on my convert (coupe bumpers are lighter). I "always" read the rule like you do, but the fallacy with your position is that you come up with a tortured definition of model to evade the clear language in the rule. "Model" can't mean RX8 v. Miata. That's silly almost. No updating/backdating could turn an RX8 into a Miata.
I'm convinced that the "no new model" language means what I think it means, but it is contrary to how we have all intepreted the rule, and how it should be intrepreted post-VIN rule.
We are working on something for membership comment on that.
Your RX7 example would be illegal under this line of thinking. Just like my use of coupe bumpers on my convert (coupe bumpers are lighter). I "always" read the rule like you do, but the fallacy with your position is that you come up with a tortured definition of model to evade the clear language in the rule. "Model" can't mean RX8 v. Miata. That's silly almost. No updating/backdating could turn an RX8 into a Miata.
I'm convinced that the "no new model" language means what I think it means, but it is contrary to how we have all intepreted the rule, and how it should be intrepreted post-VIN rule.
We are working on something for membership comment on that.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So in your example you have to UD/BD the entire car to a specific year? No way. The UD/BD rule specifically allows individual items to be UD/BD'd amoungst cars on a spec line.
But your coupe to vert conversion is SPECIFICALLY illegal as those are different body types.
All I am doing is exactly what it says I can do.
And DON'T change the rule to meet what people are doing, clarify it with better wording should you think its need it, to mean what you WANT it to mean.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Because you classed them at a higher 'opening' weight as the rest of the class. Of course you aren't seeing an effect on the class, they are too heavy.
mossaidis
New member
I am NOT reading this entire thread now, I am work...(don't read the thread mickey, don't read the thread).
here is an example I can provide that DOES work under the current rules. 92-95 Honda Civic Si all came with 9.3" rotors. The 94 came with ABS and 10.2" rotors, larger knuckles, ABS modulator, larger MC and larger booster. I can UD my 92 si with the 94 ABS package less the stuff the rules allow me to change and bingo... i made a IT legal 94 Civic Si MODEL that included the ABS option.
here is an example I can provide that DOES work under the current rules. 92-95 Honda Civic Si all came with 9.3" rotors. The 94 came with ABS and 10.2" rotors, larger knuckles, ABS modulator, larger MC and larger booster. I can UD my 92 si with the 94 ABS package less the stuff the rules allow me to change and bingo... i made a IT legal 94 Civic Si MODEL that included the ABS option.
JeffYoung
New member
Yep. I think that is what the intent of the rule was originally, essentially as an "in spec line" work around the VIN rule.
Actually the coupe to convert "conversion" IS legal under your analysis becuase they are on the same spec line. I thought that was how you defined "model"?
Actually the coupe to convert "conversion" IS legal under your analysis becuase they are on the same spec line. I thought that was how you defined "model"?