The VIN Requirement Rule

[shwah]

My concern would be that some cars had options (sunroofs, more bracing etc) that others didn't. Yes it would be easier to get that HF or HX civic and make it into an IT whatever car starting with the lightest chassis possible. That doesnt seem fair to all that looked at that option but did not do it because of legality. We would also be creating cars that didnt ever exist!
On the other hand cars that are identical, just engine or tranny differences seem logical as certain model shells are becoming rare.

Tough call
[/b]

If the shell is different than what was available for the car you are building - in any way - it is not legal to use. There are a LOT of cases of identical shells being used for different models, and for those cases it will not be legal to end up with any car that used that same shell. If there is different bracing or other structural differences then it would not be legal to 'change models' with the shell.

The cannot create a model rule has not been rescinded to my knowledge.

 

[lateapex911]

No, it has not.
And keep in mind.. that a shell is nothing more than stampings spot welded together. I myself have welded in new stampings, factory style. It's not that tough, so even if the Borgward GT (8,500 imported) has an extra stamping under the rear of the chassis that the Borgward ST (37 imported) is missing, that doesn't mean the shell can't be used if the classsed car is the ST. Just drill out the spot welds and remove the extra part, and weld up the holes in the shell. Poof! You now have a ST...go racing. With the VIN rule, that is impossible.

Worried about legality? Well, now you might look at a car, say an ITS Bergeaux 1000, and check the VIN. Yup, not the Bergeaux 1000 M model, it checks out. So you're happy. But under the chassis, the extra stamping the M model has has been welded in. Did the VIN help? Or hurt you in your quest to check the legality?

Point being that, some cars do have differences, but often, those differences can be mitigated more easily than finding a rare or expensive shell, and the VIN requiremnt really doesn't add any protection from cheating anyway.

The idea behind the rule change is to give more options to folks.

 

[pfcs49]

LOOK OUT!! Here come the TR8/fuel injected coupes (I thing there were 11 made). Yippee! phil

 

[spnkzss]

My concern would be that some cars had options (sunroofs, more bracing etc) that others didn't. Yes it would be easier to get that HF or HX civic and make it into an IT whatever car starting with the lightest chassis possible. That doesnt seem fair to all that looked at that option but did not do it because of legality. We would also be creating cars that didnt ever exist!
On the other hand cars that are identical, just engine or tranny differences seem logical as certain model shells are becoming rare.

Tough call
[/b]

My question to everybody that asks that (lightest chassis or more bracing) the weight is the weight for the class. I understand taht you can put the weight where you want to, but I don't think that is as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be. And the bracing thing, does it REALLY matter once the cage is installed? If you properly design a cage (which is legal) added bracing doesn't mean anything. In the case of some of the M3 suspension bracing versus non M3, if the non M3 car doesn't have ht ebracing then the bracing can't be there legally even if you were to use an M3 tub.

 

[CRXsi]

The argument of the HF CRX is kind of non relevant...how many guys running CRXsi's have removed their sunroof by cutting the roof off a DX or HF model and welding it onto their car? How is that any different than just putting an SI drivetrain into a HF? You can say the HF is lighter but that is taken away by the fact the car would have to run at minimum weight of an SI... What extra bracing is there in an SI that there isn't in a HF that would be of a performance advantage other than weight...again not an issue if it needs to meet SI weight. As someone else already pointed out... If a car has a decent cage how much factory bracing can be an advantage? If that cage was tabbed in to the body in legal manners doesn't that apply as well?

In my region (www.wcma.ca) we already do have the rule in question and there are several DX or CX Civics running in IT2 (same as ITA) with SI drivetrains.

I personally think by adopting this rule you will make racing cheaper for everyone because they can now build a car for whichever class they want to run in easier...if they decided to change classes it would also be easier. If they wreck their car it will be easier to rebuild it or retub it.

 

[Bob Roth]

Ditch the vin rule, as my dad says, if it doesn't make a difference, it doesn't make a difference. As long as the tub is the right type, for example 3 door hatch etc, who cares if it was a LX instead of a Si.

As for the fuel injected TR-8 example, if its allowed in the ITCS, who cares what the tub was as long as the car conforms to the rules. As it is, I am sure there are more than a couple of IT cars who's tub vin tags are about the only thing original anyway after clipping etc. Especially in the honda crowd, its a shame to see a good street tub unavailable for racing because its not of the right "vin" pedegree. IT is supposed to be cheap racing, after a bad wreck, its usually cheaper to get another tub and move the gear over than fixing the tub. If the same tub was used to make HX, LX, DX, and Si in the factory, why prevent a racer from using one for their car.

This is racing, not a Pebble Beach Concours. Before we obsess about whether the tubs are the original legal vin, if it in all other ways conforms to the ITCS, who cares..... Regulate things that matter. If the tub is right, even if was a AT, HF or whatever, as long as it makes minimum weight, has anybody shown it makes a bit of a difference!

 

[jjjanos]

First, ditch the VIN rule.

Second, make it effective 1January2008.

Let's take the case of the Hondas that have been bemoaned....

Near as I can tell, the designator "Model" is an optional designation and is made at the discretion and advantage of the manufacturer. Someone who works with assigning VINs, feel free to correct if I am wrong. So, the only reason a Civic EX, LX, DX and Si are different models is because Honda called them models.

Honda could have called it a Civic and given 4 options known as the EX, DX, LX and Si options and the VIN wouldn't even denote which car is which. In theory, the same MODEL could be listed in 4 different classes depending on whether it came equipped with 4 wheel drums, front discs, 4 wheel discs or the warp drive. The spec line would denote which class the car would run.

I'm not looking through the IT sheets to see if there are any cases where the same model car is classed in two different classes based on the bolt-on crap because it doesn't matter if this is actually done, what matters is that it could be done.

Besides, the VIN rule doesn't stop people from cross-breeding between "models." It just makes it more difficult.

 

[wcmcarlos]

I have a personal reason for wanting the vin rule ended.
Now I cannot put a SOHC engine into my NEON Coupe, which came with DOHC.
But many Neon Coupes were sold with the SOHC engine, without the rule, I can use the SOHC, and lose TWO HUNDRED ugly pounds!
Legal, as per spec line, without vin rule.
Carlos

 

[anrkii]

I cant say anything about other makes and models,
But on a first gen crx the important differences between the dx and si are as follows:
sunroof, which can be removed from the si anyway.
bumpers,
theres about 100 lbs diifference between the two models, some of it sunroof, the rest comes from the much more hefty SI bumper supports, and wheels
engine, trans gear ratios, and wiring
suspension and brakes are identical, other than different sway bars which is a non-issue.

So really on this particular car dropping the vin rule wouldnt cause any advantages or handicaps, it would simply make finding a donor car to build much easier. But the case may be different on other types of car.

But I can tell you one thing, as the "sporty" models of older IT eligible cars become much more rare and valuable a time goes on, fewer cars will be built or replaced when done for.

Dropping the vin rule will extend the life of our current batch of IT cars.

 

[Rabbit07]

No VIN!!!!! No VIN!!!!!! No VIN!!!!!!

Oh, did I say No VIN?

 

[robits325is]

I have a BMW E-46 323i ITS car right now - would this rule change allow me to convert to a ITR 328i or 330i by simply changing my engine?

 

[spnkzss]

I have a BMW E-46 323i ITS car right now - would this rule change allow me to convert to a ITR 328i or 330i by simply changing my engine?
[/b]

Assuming there are not other differences between the cars.

 

[R2 Racing]

So in your guys opinions, what's the ruling on sunroofs in respect to this issue? Lets take these two cars for example: an '85 Civic S & a '92 Civic CX. Both are currently classed in ITC, but lets be honest, ITC is a dying class. However, the '85 could easily be converted to an ITB Si and the '92 could easily be converted to an ITA Si. Quite handy since these cars are pretty plentiful in comparison to their "true" Si brothers. The chassis are completely identical except for that fact that no Civic Si's ever came without a sunroof. So if the VIN rule change went through, what would be the take on that? To be truely legal, would a person in this situation have to reskin their roof with an Si roof just to then have to plug the resulting hole?

I guess it kind of comes down to wether or not it's legal to take a sunroof having car and then reskin it with a non-sunroof having roof panel. I've heard some say "yes, it is" because you're allowed to plug/re-skin the hole anyways under the rule "All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material." However, I've also heard some say "no, it's not" because the rule book stats that any body repair "shall be in concurrance with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions". This means if say you rolled your car, you have to put a sunroof having roof panel back onto the car, because that's what was "factory" for that car.

What say you?

 

[lateapex911]

To be legal, the "Si" ( the non Si chassis which will be run as an Si in ITA) roof must have the sunroof internal structure...drains, different internal bracing, etc, and the sunroof, which could be bolted in, OR skinned over with the appropriate sheetmetal.

 

[Knestis]

Same answer here as in the Sandbox.

K

 

[BlueStreak]

I think anyone who uses the lack of factory channeling around a beautifully plugged sunroof hole as grounds for a protest on an otherwise legal car is a putz.

That said, if I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd say it was illegal. Then again, the reason for revising the VIN rule, in my opinion, was to make more shells viable as race cars. Why shouldn't the Honda guys get the same benefit as the rest of us?

Why shouldn't carb and CIS guys get the same benefit as the FI guys on the ECU rule ?

 

[lateapex911]

Hey, he asked if it were legal, or not. Its easy to see that it's not. Now, each person has to decide what they are willing to protest over.

But, I bet theres 10 pounds almost/or so of extra metal in the form of reinforcements and channeling on a car equipped with a sunroof vs one without, and it's hard to deny that an extra 10 pounds at the highest point of the car isn't a performance advantage.

 

[R2 Racing]

Then again, the reason for revising the VIN rule, in my opinion, was to make more shells viable as race cars.[/b]

Seriously. Talk about defeating the purpose. So in order to take advantage of this rule that's supposed to save mone and make it easier to build a car, I have to take my cheaper and more readily available chassis and buy a $300-$500 roof panel, hack out the perfectly good one, and install this one....that has a big hole in it.....that I can then plug.....

Interesting, as I know of several cars running out there who've done the opposite - replaced their sunroof having roof with a non-sunroof having roof. Kind of wondered if that was legal or not. Apparently not.

Has there ever been an official stance from Topeka on wether or not the "All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material." rule includes re-skinning the whole roof to plug the sunroof hole?



I'm just asking questions because issues like this are going to come up if the VIN rule change goes through. I've voiced before my slight apprehension to opening this thing up, because it will let out a can of worms. In the grand scheme of things and for the greater good of the class, yes, it has the potential to ultimately be a good thing. But issues like this are going to take away the advantage (lower cost with more options to build from) that's supposed to be being gained by opening this rule up.

 

[Knestis]

...Interesting, as I know of several cars running out there who've done the opposite - replaced their sunroof having roof with a non-sunroof having roof. Kind of wondered if that was legal or not. Apparently not. ...[/b]

Don't be comin' here, all pleading innocent.

This has been hashed out in the Sandbox and the points clarified. It's really not hard to figure out, under the current rules:

** If the make/model on the spec line that applies to you was available without a sunroof, you can update/backdate to eliminate it, by using whatever parts the factory provides. This has nada to do with the "plug your sunroof" rule.

** If you have a sunroof and the make/model on your spec line was not available WITHOUT one, then you may plug it per the applicable rule.

The change in the VIN rule WILL - HAVE - NO - IMPACT - ON - ANY - OF -THIS.

They are separate issues.

Red herrings abound.

When one builds a car, one does so to a particular spec line. You have to declare in your logbook what you have built, and you inherit all of the obligations and opportunities theretofore pertaining. (Hey Young - look what I wrote! Law school is next on my education to-do list.)

Now, if someone wanted to request that an allowance be added to re-roof/re-skin/whatever a car to eliminate sunroofs, as an addition to the current rule on that topic, they could do so.

K

 

[lateapex911]

Seriously. Talk about defeating the purpose.[/b]

In some cases, maybe that's true..but not in all cases. Just because it doesn't make life easy for everybody doesn't mean it's not a good thing.

So in order to take advantage of this rule that's supposed to save mone and make it easier to build a car, I have to take my cheaper and more readily available chassis and buy a $300-$500 roof panel, hack out the perfectly good one, and install this one....that has a big hole in it.....that I can then plug.....[/b]

In your specific case, yes. Or you might find a wrecked or rotted version in a junkyard that you could saw teh roof off...

Interesting, as I know of several cars running out there who've done the opposite - replaced their sunroof having roof with a non-sunroof having roof. Kind of wondered if that was legal or not. Apparently not.[/b]

Not unless both cars are on the spec line. Simple.

Has there ever been an official stance from Topeka on wether or not the "All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material." rule includes re-skinning the whole roof to plug the sunroof hole?[/b]

Doubtful, but it seems uneeded to me, the rule is pretty clear. And remember, their official stance is an "opinion", only the protest /appeal will get an answer, and even THAT's not precedent.

I'm just asking questions because issues like this are going to come up if the VIN rule change goes through. I've voiced before my slight apprehension to opening this thing up, because it will let out a can of worms. [/b]

Sounds like the can of words is already open, according to your above comment.