Rules Nerd Help Requested

B

backformore

New member
I am building an ITS 2000 Civic Si. These cars were built in 99 and 00 as coupes with 1.6L DOHC and sunroofs. Obviously, the sunroof has to go.

No other Civics in those years had the DOHC engine. The Civic Si is the only Civic in those years classed in ITS.

The question is, can I get a 99 or 00 non Si Civic car without a sunroof and swap over my drive train and suspension ( different front arms and rear discs) and call it legal for ITS.

I have read and re-read the rules and can convince myself the answer is yes. Or no.

Opinions?

Thanks
 
That's a tough one which has actually been discussed here before, perhaps ad nauseam. A quick search should yield you the sunroof thread.
 
Sun roofs can be replaced wit a pane of the same material, isnt a roof from a non sunroof car the same material.

Just sayin,
 
There is no longer a VIN rule...correct.

Whose to say the non-sunroof wasn't a "perfect" fill job for a sunroof.

Alternatively, transplant the roof.
 
lemme understand the facts:
1: Only the Si is classed.
2: All Si's come with sunroofs.
Ergo, he may remove the sunroof and replace with a skin of the same material.

But, if he swaps the whole roof...then the gutters, brackets, etc go away, and he has created a model that doesn't exist.

(yes, I realize people make other cars -cough- rx-7s -cough- that are technically models that didn't exist, but IIRC there is some subtley to that situation. (or maybe not)
Either way, this seems to be a non starter except to replace the actual movable component with a lighter skin.
 
If Jake's "facts" are correct then I concur with his conclusion.

We had this discussion in regard to the '95 vintage Acura Integra GS-R. I used a hardtop RS to build an ITS car. But my situation was a little bit different: while it's true that the 2-dr GSR only came with a sunroof, the 4-dr was available as a hardtop. Since they're on the same line I was able to use the "4-dr roof assembly" a 2-dr donor. Yes, it created a model that didn't exist, but that ship sailed long ago with the acceptance of using the intake from one RX-7 onto the engine of another (or whatever that deal was) which created a model that didn't exist...

In your case, sounds like you're stuck with a roof plug.

- GA
 
Technically not legal since while the VIN rule is gone, you have to create a car that is exactly like the one on the spec line (or at least are supposed to, Greg and Jake are right about the RXs).

That said, it would take one hell of a nit picker to protest you for using a non-sunroof chassis that is otherwise identical.
 
I disagree. The rules specifically say you can remove all the components of the sunroof and replace it with metal of the same specifications as the surrounding metal. Nothing stops you from removing the folded down lips and rails and limits you to a certain size opening you cut out. You could legally remove 99.99 % of the original skin and be legal if it is replaced with a skin of the same thickness and material. I would use that tub in a second if all else is the same.
 
I wouldn't hesitate to use the non-sunroof tub. Your net result in using that tub will be exactly the same as if you'd taken a tub with sunroof and expertly welded the hole up. As long as there are no other differences in the chassis you won't have any problems. Legal motor, suspension, driveline, and cage - get your race on.
 
Thanks for all the replies. They pretty much agree with my interpretation. Since I have already done the not exactly pleasant task of removing sound deadening and tar on the Si, regardless of legality I would have to be a sadist to want to do all that again.
 
roof skins and support structures on civics come out pretty easily with a spot weld drill and some patience. the sunroof under-skin support panel in the Si / ES chassis is *much* larger and heavier than the non-sunroof coupe's single beam support.

I don't disagree with the legality of a full non-sunroof roof and structure swap, or the use of a solid roof chassis under VIN rule, though I can see where the argument is grey at best. I would NEVER EVER call someone out on it though. we did a full roof swap on an Si once. great car, it's now in the ATL area with a new owner.
 
seckerich said:
I disagree. The rules specifically say you can remove all the components of the sunroof and replace it with metal of the same specifications as the surrounding metal. Nothing stops you from removing the folded down lips and rails and limits you to a certain size opening you cut out. You could legally remove 99.99 % of the original skin and be legal if it is replaced with a skin of the same thickness and material. I would use that tub in a second if all else is the same.
Click to expand...

Heres what I read:

....Removable SUNROOF or T-Top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. All SUNROOFs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.
Click to expand...

Now that is the section of the rule that deals with removable sunroofs, which is what we are dealing with, right?

Nowhere do I see mention of anything BUT the SUNROOF. That is, the removable panel. So where does it allow any removal of other stuff, like the gutters and other reinforcement stampings???

I have no dog in this hunt, but am I reading the right rule??

Glossary defines Sunroof as:
A movable panel in the roof of a car which may normally be partially opened from withing the car
Click to expand...
 
From a Rules Nerd standpoint, I agree with Jake (and the others who've said you can't replace the whole roof).

This is one of those things where I'm not sure someone *would* protest it, but that doesn't change the fact that someone *could* protest it.

All the mass involved in the support structure is probably pretty substantial, and getting rid of all that stuff up so high can be a real quantifiable performance advantage. If you piss someone off enough when you beat them, any non-compliance can be an issue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top