Manual/power steering swap?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Really? It seems pretty specific to me.

"...updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type."

To be obvious:

A Porsche and a Mazda are different Makes.
A 944 and a 944S are different Models.
A sedan and a coupe are different Body types

So obviously a Porsche and a Mazda won't be on the same spec line but sedans and coupes and station wagons are often.

 

[JeffYoung]

I actually agree with the concept of not being allowed to build a model that doesn't exist, but this language makes me think Earl is correct:

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It suggests that all models on a spec line are treated as having the same make/model/body type when that probably is not technically the case.

I think a strict reading of the rule would allow you to use any component on a car so long as that part came on a car at some point during the years listed on the spec line.

The error or issue is like Kirk pointed out, in making mistakes in putting cars with dissimilar characteristics on the same line.

Interesting, that's exactly where I interpret it as saying that all cars on the same line may be updated/backdated - see the part I underlined. Josh, where did the ruling you refer to about your car come from? A protest/appeal, or compliance review?

 

[JoshS]

The error or issue is like Kirk pointed out, in making mistakes in putting cars with dissimilar characteristics on the same line.

It's a reasonable statement, but I still disagree.

There are two ways to approach this in the big picture:

1) Only list things together on a spec line that for which you intend to allow parts exchanges. If you don't want parts exchange, split out the spec lines, even though they otherwise have the same specs and weight.

2) Allow things with common specs and weight to share a spec line, but be specific about which things that share a spec line can exchange parts with each other.

Both are perfectly valid strategies, what we're arguing about is which one is embodied in the ITCS. And I say it's #2. The biggest problem with #1, if we want to disallow "making a model," would be that we'd have a LOT more spec lines than we have now, and if the weight is supposed to change for everything that shares specs, we have a lot more lines to update and therefore a lot more margin for error when editing. So if I was starting from scratch, I'd pick #2 anyway.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I actually agree with the concept of not being allowed to build a model that doesn't exist, but this language makes me think Earl is correct:

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It suggests that all models on a spec line are treated as having the same make/model/body type when that probably is not technically the case.

I think a strict reading of the rule would allow you to use any component on a car so long as that part came on a car at some point during the years listed on the spec line.

The error or issue is like Kirk pointed out, in making mistakes in putting cars with dissimilar characteristics on the same line.

I disagree. It says in summation: You can UD/BD ONLY when the car you are UD/BDing from on a single spec line is the same make, model, engine size and BODY TYPE of the car you are UD/BDing to.

 

[JeffYoung]

It kinda sorta says that, but the ultimate test seems to me to be "on the same spec line."

A better use of the word "and" in two places and I would agree with you 100%.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It kinda sorta says that, but the ultimate test seems to me to be "on the same spec line."

A better use of the word "and" in two places and I would agree with you 100%.

So if I told you this, what would you say?

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

If you take out the other words (which only adds constraints to this, do you think it still reads per your interpretation?

 

[Chip42]

tracking #1278

sent a request for clarification of intent to the CRB. Josh, Jeff, etc.. you guys can sort this out on an upcoming Monday.

I didn't claim a side, but FWIW I prefer the restrictions of body type and trim, even to the point where we exclude available combinations if seen as necessary. this is IT, not prod. if we start to allow make a model within a trim level, the next step would be something like a ford escort LX-E wagon, which never existed in any form, ever.

while we're on the topic of crap speclines:

- ITA 01-03 mazda protege ES/LX. specline only shows the "5-lug" 4 wheel disc arrangement that the ES has, but the LS ONLY came with 4 bolt hubs, smaller disks, rear drums. same motor (FS-DE 2.0L)in both. and the 02-03 Protege5 is not classified, when it's the same, mechanically, as an ES.

-ITA 2002-2005 civic Si, bore and stroke are from the audi coupe quatro classified in the same issue of fastrack. the audi shows the dims from the honda.

-92-95 Civic DX is classified in ITA and ITB. similarly the Del Sol S should wind up with the same classification as the 92-95 DX, and LX should be added.

- ITA Civic Del Sol Si is listed at 2330 while its engine mates the 92-95 civic Si and EX are 2305. the Si was recently fixed.

I could go on... anyone else?

 

[erlrich]

Josh, I totally agree with your assessment, I just tend to lean toward #1 as the preferred strategy. For what it's worth, I never considered the "To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring..." line as being the question; to me that clearly meant any car on a spec line could use any assembly from any other car on the same spec line. The sentence that muddied the waters IMO, was the one that reads "Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type...", bringing up the question of when you have actually created a new model/type of car.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

to me that clearly meant any car on a spec line could use any assembly from any other car on the same spec line.

Which is true - but then you have to add in the parameters. Any car can swap with any car on the spec line as long as its the same make, model, body type and has the same sized engine.

 

[quadzjr]

So if I am reading thhis right Andy, Josh, and Chip believe that you are only allowed to UP/BD within body style within spec line which is in my line of thinking.

If you allow UP/BD within a spec line only and no reguard to body. That means a if I were to build an ITB mustang (spec line from 79-93).

I could take a 93 notchback, install a carburated 2.3L, with a 4speed tranny, and a 6 7/8" rear end?

or take a 79 hatch, intall a multiport EFI engine with the 5speed tranny, and the common 7.5" rear?

They are all within the same spec line...

 

[erlrich]

So if I am reading thhis right Andy, Josh, and Chip believe that you are only allowed to UP/BD within body style within spec line which is in my line of thinking.

If you allow UP/BD within a spec line only and no reguard to body. That means a if I were to build an ITB mustang (spec line from 79-93).

I could take a 93 notchback, install a carburated 2.3L, with a 4speed tranny, and a 6 7/8" rear end?

or take a 79 hatch, intall a multiport EFI engine with the 5speed tranny, and the common 7.5" rear?

They are all within the same spec line...

IMO if both engines have the same bore, stroke, and displacement as listed on the spec line, both tranny's gear ratios are listed on the spec line, and both rear ends were available in those years - yes.

In fact I was just about to pose two philisophical questions to Josh & Andy along those same lines:

1. What about different years of the same model (only one body type) on the same spec line, when certain options were only available on certain years? Are all years allowed to share the optional items? E.g. the '96-'02 Camaro in ITR, where the '96-'97 cars came with drum rear brakes (let's ignore for the sake of discussion that disc brakes were optional for those years), but the '98-'02 came with 4-wheel discs. Would the '96-'97 be allowed to update?

2. What about the case where there are different body styles that are not listed on the spec line - e.g. the ITA 240SX, which was available as a coupe or hatchback, but is only listed as "Nissan 240SX" on the spec line? Would those two body types be prohibited from sharing assemblies unique to one or the other?

 

[JoshS]

1. What about different years of the same model (only one body type) on the same spec line, when certain options were only available on certain years? Are all years allowed to share the optional items? E.g. the '96-'02 Camaro in ITR, where the '96-'97 cars came with drum rear brakes (let's ignore for the sake of discussion that disc brakes were optional for those years), but the '98-'02 came with 4-wheel discs. Would the '96-'97 be allowed to update?

Absolutely. This is the very point of update/backdate, to take the best from each model year of the same model.

2. What about the case where there are different body styles that are not listed on the spec line - e.g. the ITA 240SX, which was available as a coupe or hatchback, but is only listed as "Nissan 240SX" on the spec line? Would those two body types be prohibited from shared assemblies unique to one or the other?

Yup, that's the point of the restriction.

 

[quadzjr]

If it were me I would make a seperate spec line for each car. in the camaro example I would make the drum only version say 25-50lbs lighter than the disc version. That would make the current ITCS explode.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Earl, I agree with Josh on both counts.

 

[TomL]

At this point, I have to ask - why is the body type restriction included in the first place? What purpose (other than "that's what the rule says" ) is supposed to be accomplished by NOT allowing UD/BD between body types? As in Quad's example, we allow you to swap engines, trans, rear axles, carbs to injection (or vice versa) between a '79 and a '93 Mustang basically without restriction. But if there is an item (say power steering) that came on a hatchback but not a notchback, the definition #2 makes putting PS in a notchback illegal. Again, what purpose does that serve? If a make/model/body type is on the same spec line, it sort of by definition "the same car". Why should we (in this example) get hung up on hatch vs. notch?

 

[Chip42]

the IT classifications, by process from what I understand (and also noting that there are a lot of non-processed cars around still) relies ONLY on factory HP plus expected gain with modifiers for FWD, REAR mid engined, etc... (see any's post below).

the mustang classification is a major anomaly, but does identify the oddness of the classification process.

I say classify anything that meets the requirements of 1) available for sale in the US, 2) manual trans, and 3) requested by a member, in any body or trim level of the subject make, model, and years that uses that motor and manual trans. just tell me clearly if I can use a GT grill on an LX-E sedan (stoopid), or manual steering on a EG civic DX coupe (real question), or disk brakes on the rear of a 3dr accord LXi (stretch), and please brake out the big changes like compression increases (miata does but not RX7), switches to EFI from carbs (mustang), etc... and lets start talking about removing the really dumb rules like keeping power steering (touring allows removing of pump, IMPROVED touring does not) as any argument to keep PS based on affect on published HP hold no water in the face of NEW spec lines with it as an option or only in certain body styles. it is the only engine-powered, unnecessary accessory not allowed to be removed (keep the rack, dump the pump).

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is to not be able to create something 'better' than was available. Only to create the 'best of breed' and nothing more.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

the IT classifications, by process from what I understand (and also noting that there are a lot of non-processed cars around still) relies ONLY on factory HP with modifiers for FWD, REAR mid engined, and strut adders of ±50lbs each.

Not true. Current ITAC can explain what the current Process is but the base number is the stock HP and that number is multiplied by an estimated % gain when prepped to the limit per IT allowances. The HP number that is 'put through' the Process is the estimated crank power number in IT prep.

Struts have no adders, double wishbones do.
FWD adders use a % that varies by class.
Excessive torque also has an adder.

Other stuff you missed I am sure.

 

[Chip42]

Not true.

fixed - but the point remains. stock, advertised HP is used as the BASE number. expected gains are sometimes bang on and others (toyota 4A-GE) way off. I screwed up adders, mea culpa. maybe if the ITAC were required to publish the current "process" and the CRB held to follow it, the confusion regarding the hocus pocus in adders and the expected gain (from what I have read: +30% in all cases -at least in ITB- due to DOHC 4 valves/cyl, please!) would be better understood.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Process is a tool used by the ITAC to get to a weight that is recommended to the CRB. They can set whatever weight they please.