New Fenders of Not ???

[Z3_GoCar]

Ok so calling all rule nerds!! I'm planning on buying a Z3 specifically for track useage, in other words it can't be street titled. It's a 4 cylinder car; BUT, it's got the wider 6 cylinder finders and bumper cover. So legely speaking, do I have to find some narrow fenders/bumper cover? Or can I get away with running the wide fenders/cover for now and look for another set for repairs? I know DE's won't mind but I need to get a log book for the car too. So looking for anyone's opinion, even if it's just BMW's suck

James

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Oct 20 2005, 09:13 PM
So legely speaking, do I have to find some narrow fenders/bumper cover?

[snapback]63114[/snapback]​

BMWs suck (just kidding. We're actually all jealous...)

Legally speaking, you cannot run any part on your car that is not the proper equpiment for the make, model, and engine size. So, yes, those fenders would be illegal. However, and I apologize if my assumptions are incorrect, are you looking first and foremost to get through your schools and get a license? In that case, no one gives a flying freak about the class legality of your car; we'll be primarily concerned that your car meets all safety requirements. Practically speaking, even when you get your license, no one's gonna really care until you start working your way up through the pack; you might have a competitor come up to you and nicely ask that you fix it for the next event.

I would advise you to build your car, build it as safe as possible, get through your licensing requirements, but put aside the necesary coin to replace the non-standard parts at your earliest convenience.

Greg Amy

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 20 2005, 06:26 PM
BMWs suck (just kidding. We're actually all jealous...)

Legally speaking, you cannot run any part on your car that is not the proper equpiment for the make, model, and engine size. So, yes, those fenders would be illegal. However, and I apologize if my assumptions are incorrect, are you looking first and foremost to get through your schools and get a license? In that case, no one gives a flying freak about the class legality of your car; we'll be primarily concerned that your car meets all safety requirements. Practically speaking, even when you get your license, no one's gonna really care until you start working your way up through the pack; you might have a competitor come up to you and nicely ask that you fix it for the next event.

I would advise you to build your car, build it as safe as possible, get through your licensing requirements, but put aside the necesary coin to replace the non-standard parts at your earliest convenience.

Greg Amy

[snapback]63115[/snapback]​

Hey Greg,

Nope you're right on target, as far as SCCA and W2W, I'm a total nubie. The car was actually going to be built for World Cup as a 2.8l but was never finished and it's serial number belongs to a 1.9l, thus the hybrid look. Cage is in it and I eventually hope to add a hard top although again I understand that's actually optional too, so DE's and licesensing even my first few races it'll probably be open top with hand restraints and a salvage yard motor. It'll be all about the steep learning curve

James

 

[Greg Amy]

Good, James, you're going to have a blast!

Your last post brings up another difficulty: the serial number. As silly as it sounds - and I'm one person of many that believe we should discuss changing this - IT requires two VIN on the car, and they must match the equipment installed in the car. So, for example, you cannot take a garden-variety VW Rabbit L (that would run in ITC), drop in all the correct equipment to turn it into a Rabbit GTi (and run it in IT. Despite the fact that the subsequent car would be identical in all ways to a GTi Rabbit, discernible *only* by the VIN, the rules specifically disallow this.

This presents an issue for you. Again, not a problem for schools, DEs, and such, but definitely a problem for when you start racing competitively. If you are protested on this manner, you would be found uncompliant to the rules. I don't have any specific suggestions for you, other than hooking up with a BMW-savvy builder and asking for advice. It's quite possible they could assist you in making the car compliant.

I wish we could change this rule, 'cause in 99.9% of the cases it's really wasteful and pointless. However, being the inventive creatures we are there's 0.01% of the time that we figure out that "this" chassis from "this" car is better, and putting in equipment from "that" car and running it in IT-whatever could be a competitive advantage. So, we're stuck.

Greg

 

[Knestis]

I'm not confident that (1 it would be even .01% possible to take advantage of that change in the rule, or (2) that there wouldn't be fairly straightforward ways to write a rule change that would make it work. I'd vote for putting a good think into this question as well, since we are making good headway on some other more pressing issues.

K

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 21 2005, 07:24 AM
I'm not confident that (1 it would be even .01% possible to take advantage of that change in the rule, or (2) that there wouldn't be fairly straightforward ways to write a rule change that would make it work. I'd vote for putting a good think into this question as well, since we are making good headway on some other more pressing issues.

K

[snapback]63139[/snapback]​

I imagine a letter from you, Kirk, might give the ITAC something to discuss.

It is a rule that we all "work around" so to speak, and I would be interested in learning of examples where droppping or modifying the rule could result in a car with an advantage.

 

[Greg Amy]

I can't think of an instance the cars I know (VW, Nissan, FWD Dodges) that would result in anything different than someone cheating and installing the parts on a car with an SCCA-valid VIN...

In other words, if they wanted to cheat that way, they could do it now. The VIN requirement doesn't change that or make it any harder...

 

[Catch22]

I agree with Greg and Kirk.

There may be a car out there that maybe using the "ITC" model chassis with the "ITA" model drive train might provide some advantage other than weight, but I can't think of one.
Suspension geometry maybe? This is typically very doubtful as long as you are staying within a generation run of a car, but there may be something out there.

The benefits however would be great. Especially in terms of cost and availability.

Take the good old 88-91 CRX Si for example. Good ones are getting harder and harder to find, so if I'm racing one now and I completely bend it, I have to find another Si in which to swap over my unbroken stuff.
Si's aren't easy to find these days, and if you find a good one, the owner wants to be compensated dearly for his prize.
What would be nice would be to have the freedom to use the CRX HF chassis. There are thousands of them out there for pennies (there was one on ebay for $60 last month. Thats sixty (not 600) dollars). The ONLY difference between this chassis and the Si is the lack of a sunroof (which solves another problem cheaply and safely... plugging the sunroof hole).
As long as the minimum weight is unchanged, what difference does it make?

In terms of Hondas, theres nothing out there that provides any advantage other than weight by using alternate trim level chassis. The differences were always the drive train, sunroof, power windows, and the interior trim.

When we wrote the Honda Challenge rules we allowed this. It just makes things simpler and easier on the competitors. The caveat we made (and yes, I know its a gray one) in the rules was that the use of an alternate chassis could not provide a performance advantage beyond what was already allowed in the rules in terms of modifications.
In other terms, You could use a 1991 CRX HF chassis with a CRX Si drivetrain and run it in the CRX Si class. The only difference in the chassis is the sunroof, and the rules allow you to remove and re-skin the sunroof in the Si. Therefore the HF chassis provides no performance advantage, its just cheaper and easier to deal with.

I hope that makes sense. It makes sense in my head.

 

[seamus88]

If would love to see this rule change. I drive 90 Civic Si and could be faced with that exact problem. I hope I never need to use this rule though I just dont know how to write rules, I can hardly understand them

 

[MMiskoe]

What about cars that get into racing through an event that makes them non-saleable as a street car? IE one that gets wrecked coming off the transporter, the manuf just writes off that VIN so it is not traceable, not able to ever have a title. How would you ever track a car like that to see what its original form was - the maker won't admit that it was ever made.

Besides. Who Cares? Has anyone ever seen a VIN checked? Most can be decoded, but only if you've got all the info from that maker. Most times, options that would move it from one class to another could be modified anyway.

Back to the original problem of fenders - be quiet about it, keep an eye out for the right ones, but as GA said, build it safe first, worry about it when you start winning. Doesn't sound like there is any advantage/disadvatange at stake. Eventually the car will need paint & you can change them then.

 

[Catch22]

Hondas are pretty easy to decode. Its right there in the FSM, which we all have with us at every race... Right?

Back to the fender question. What Greg said.
In 95% of cases the competition will notice but won't care until you get fast enough to be a threat. Unless you are the next coming of Senna, thats going to take some time.

For schools... It doesn't matter. Safety... Thats it.

So run it as is for now, and if anybody points it out to you just say "yeah, I know. I'm working on it." And don't run any wheel/tire combos that take advantage of the illegal fenders. Run the stuff that will fit under the "correct" fenders.
Somebody might decide to be an ass about it, but for the most part nobody is going to care. At least not yet

 

[manny]

i totaly agree with MMiskoe. build it safe, go to school, have fun racing.