Update/Backdate between body types

[Andy Bettencourt]

Lets say I build two Neons. Donor car #1 is a '95 2-door with a SOHC. Donor car #2 is a '95 4-door with a DOHC. Both cars are built exactly the same, and are 100% legal. I race that way for a while and then decide to swap the engines between the two cars (and adjust the weight accordingly). Now I've instantly got two illegal cars. Even though a Neon could be built with the exact same configuration and be perfectly legal.

Does that make any sense at all? [/b]

I would then submit that you spent your money foolishly because you bought cars that you couldn't make legal.

The 'rule' that it would be bending is an exemption from the VIN rule, of which no other car has.

Either way, I like your combination in a previous post. Write a letter.

 

[Knestis]

Okaaaay.

If we're going to use the multiple-cars-on-a-spec-line-with-different-engines option as an end-run around the explicated function of the VIN rule - which is PRECISELY what this is - what's the point of keeping the VIN rule again?

...I like your combination in a previous post. [/b]

Andy - from my corner, it's sounding like you are being inconsistent, if I'm reading your reponse to this idea correctly. It keeps coming back to the actual thing we're trying to accomplish with the VIN requirement - that we use only the parts should be on a given car ON that car.

As far as "tough chit - you should have purchased the right car" goes, isn't there some value in opening up supply, as one of only two factors that actually influence costs in this game? (The other of course being demand.)

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Okaaaay.

If we're going to use the multiple-cars-on-a-spec-line-with-different-engines option as an end-run around the explicated function of the VIN rule - which is PRECISELY what this is - what's the point of keeping the VIN rule again?



Andy - from my corner, it's sounding like you are being inconsistent, if I'm reading your reponse to this idea correctly. It keeps coming back to the actual thing we're trying to accomplish with the VIN requirement - that we use only the parts should be on a given car ON that car.

As far as "tough chit - you should have purchased the right car" goes, isn't there some value in opening up supply, as one of only two factors that actually influence costs in this game? (The other of course being demand.)

K [/b]

Kirk,

I am showing 'support' for an idea and encouraging that idea to be brought forward. I don't have to believe in it to encourage the process to be put underway.

This is not a hard rule to live with. And I submit again that from a competiive standpoint, it is MUCH to research a VIN decoder for a make/model that you are suspicious of than it is to be an expert in every little difference in chassis across a whole platform.

 

[Knestis]

...and once you go to the effort to decode that VIN, the ONLY thing you've proven is that the NUMBER is legal for IT racing - not that the shell that it's welded to is correct. That still requires knowing what you are looking at.

This whole requirement is a feel-good, look-like-we're-trying effort at non-enforcement. It's like taking off our shoes at the airport - completely symbolic and unsubstantial.

It's doing nothing to stop people from racing cars with illegally modified chassis, at the expense of some minority of entrants who could actually save money on rebuilds or initial constructions.

It's inconsistent with recent rule changes, like the allowance that we can use non-OE parts that are identical in specification to those that they replace...

...but most of all, it's simply nonsensical. If indeed I can replace every single individual sheetmetal part on the car with equivalent aftermarket parts one at a time, why can't I replace ALL of them at once?

This is beginning to sound like the argument held by some vintage racers and classic musclecar nuts - that the only part that REALLY matters is the plate, since it's the provenance or "soul" of the car. Or maybe the CoB just doesn't understand the difference between writing rules and enforcing them.

Seriously.

K

 

[Z3_GoCar]

I would then submit that you spent your money foolishly because you bought cars that you couldn't make legal.

The 'rule' that it would be bending is an exemption from the VIN rule, of which no other car has.

Either way, I like your combination in a previous post. Write a letter.
[/b]

Actually,

I can think of a couple of examples where spec line trumps the VIN rule already.....

If a car is classed with two different engines ( and there are many examples of this ) where the motor designation changed because of a design improvement. Say for example the 92 325 with the M-50 is speced with the later 93-97 325's with the M-52 all on the same spec line. So it's perfectly legal to swap in the M-52 into the M-50 car, creating a model that didn't exist. Furthemore, the VIN in the BMW specifies the motor used in that car, so now our '92 325 with a M-52 has a motor that doesn't match it's VIN number. So it's already possible and happening.

James

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

...and once you go to the effort to decode that VIN, the ONLY thing you've proven is that the NUMBER is legal for IT racing - not that the shell that it's welded to is correct. That still requires knowing what you are looking at.[/b]

As does enforcing every rule in the rulebook.

This whole requirement is a feel-good, look-like-we're-trying effort at non-enforcement. It's like taking off our shoes at the airport - completely symbolic and unsubstantial.[/b]

Tell that to the guy with explosives in his shoes. Think anyone does that anymore?

It's doing nothing to stop people from racing cars with illegally modified chassis, at the expense of some minority of entrants who could actually save money on rebuilds or initial constructions.[/b]

Kirk, then why have any rules? Is there nothing stopping ANYONE from illegally modifying their cars? I fail to see your point. If you are in the market for a donor that MAY serve as a spare tub one day, BUY THE RIGHT ONE.

This is beginning to sound like the argument held by some vintage racers and classic musclecar nuts - that the only part that REALLY matters is the plate, since it's the provenance or "soul" of the car. Or maybe the CoB just doesn't understand the difference between writing rules and enforcing them.

Seriously.

K [/b]

The funny thing is that the VIN rule is VERY enforceable. Everyone wants everything to be easy for themselves without concern for unintended concequences. Bah.

 

[Matt Rowe]

The funny thing is that the VIN rule is VERY enforceable. Everyone wants everything to be easy for themselves without concern for unintended concequences. Bah.
[/b]

Yes, it is very easy to demonstrate that there are two VINs on the car that match each other. But that in itself does nothing to insure the frame is legal. The same people who are likely to add that additional chassis brace to their XYZ model Q to a model P are just as likely to take a model P and modify the VIN. The point is that the VIN rule provides a fall sense of security. The only way to really insure legality is to know your competition and know the factory variations and their legality.

The only thing the VIN rule does is limit availability while duplicating the efforts of the "can't create a model" rule. Unless you can show a situation where the VIN rule prohibits something that the can't create a model rule wouldn't.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, it is very easy to demonstrate that there are two VINs on the car that match each other. But that in itself does nothing to insure the frame is legal. The same people who are likely to add that additional chassis brace to their XYZ model Q to a model P are just as likely to take a model P and modify the VIN. The point is that the VIN rule provides a fall sense of security. The only way to really insure legality is to know your competition and know the factory variations and their legality.

The only thing the VIN rule does is limit availability while duplicating the efforts of the "can't create a model" rule. Unless you can show a situation where the VIN rule prohibits something that the can't create a model rule wouldn't.

[/b]

So does any rule. Just because my inatke manifold looks stock doesn't mean I haven't cheated it up. Same for a HUGE amount of other items that really affect performance. What is the point?

The VIN rule insures that the car is what you say it is. Can you cheat it? Sure. Can you cheat any rule? Sure. Can you get caught if someone has the stones to protest you? Sure. Are there instances where you can cheat the VIN rule and not be caught? Sure. But there are just as many instances where you can get caught.

It's like washer bottles. Just have the right parts. It's NOT that hard.

If you simply run on "can't create a model that didn't exist", you would have to define 'exist' and be prepared for the torturers. The M3 chassis 'existed' didn't it?

 

[Matt Rowe]

So does any rule. Just because my inatke manifold looks stock doesn't mean I haven't cheated it up. Same for a HUGE amount of other items that really affect performance. What is the point?[/b]

The point is there is a rule that says you can't modify you're intake. Why make a rule that say the intake part number must be OEM. If the intake can't be modified the number doesn't matter, it will fit the car.

The VIN rule insures that the car is what you say it is. [/b]

No it doesn't.

If you simply run on "can't create a model that didn't exist", you would have to define 'exist' and be prepared for the torturers. The M3 chassis 'existed' didn't it?
[/b]

The models are defined in the spec line there is no need to create further documentation. Actually under the current rule there is more dependence on identifying the VIN numbering system for the particular vehicle which I'm sure tech doesn't know and is the obligation of the competitor to research. In your example the M3 chassis isn't on the spec line and therefore updates/backdates can't be used to make that model. Plus, I wonder if BMW has a M3 indentifier in the VIN, I don't know that and if I wanted to protest one I would first have to research BMW VIN numbers and then still have to research reinforcements and inspect the car to insure the M# modifications haven't been made. The presence of the VIN wouldn't prevent me from having to know what to look for and performing the effort.

Again, is there a situation that the "can't create a model" clause would allow that the VIN number rule prevents? If there isn't than the rule isn't do anything and only opens the door to misinterpretation.

 

[Knestis]

...The VIN rule insures that the car is what you say it is. [/b]

Look at what you just wrote. It's so out of character for you to chuck logic to the wind. The VIN rule ensures only that the VIN is what I say it is - nothing else.

It's like washer bottles. Just have the right parts. It's NOT that hard. ...[/b]

A $3000 car is just like a $5 part from the recycler's yard. Where were you on the "identical to OE parts" rule change when it happened? "Oh, suck it up you slobs and go to the dealer for your parts." I don't think so. It was decided that there was a net benefit in allowing us to purchase NAPA parts (your example from another thread, I think?) rather than throwing more money at the same pieces from the OE source - particularly as some bits are getting more and more scarce through the dealers. It was "NOT that hard" to just buy the right pieces but we changed the rule anyway. It's no accident that we don't require those pieces to have original manufacturers' stock part numbers: We require that the parts be of the correct specification to the car as presented for competition.

I'm just asking for the same logic to be applied to all of the parts. There's nothing mythical about a unibody - it's a bunch of pieces. I'm the KING of anxiety about unanticipated consequences - you know that - but there just can't be any in this case because the VIN rule doesn't have any substance. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the presence of the VIN rule - threat that someone will check the PLATE - is deterring people from doing something cheaty with their chassis? It just doesn't follow.

This is frustrating more at an academic level than in any practical way, although I HAVE seen opportunities to save myself a few thou on a shell slip away because of this dumb rule. Knowing my history Andy, which is more likely - that I'm arguing this for my OWN benefit or I'm arguing it because I think doing away with the VIN requirement would be good for the category?

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

(More long explanation deleted)

The rule change must provide more benefit than it creates issues. I just don't see it. Just like the washer bottle complaint, all I see is people wanting something that makes it easy without concern for unintended consiquenses. When this came up before, a few people immediately popped in whith examples of 'better' cars that could be created if the VIN number were to be gone. This rule makes it easier to cheat IMHO without providing any outweighing benefit.

I am done.

 

[Knestis]

When this came up before, a few people immediately popped in whith examples of 'better' cars that could be created if the VIN number were to be gone. ... [/b]

I'm getting old and my wife will tell you I forget things but I don't remember any of that part of the conversation. Was that in a public forum or examples shared with/among the ITAC or CRB members? Could you point me at those examples so if I am truly missing something, I can try to understand it?

Building a "better" car would require using "better" parts, by which you presumably mean "not actually allowed for that car." Unless we are talking about the 4 sq. in. of sheetmetal with the VIN number stamped on it, that's illegal now and would still be illegal if the number requirement weren't in place. Exactly as illegal, in fact. And not even the tiniest bit harder to police.

Sorry. It just doesn't make any sense.

Let me ask a different question: Is it legal to transplant a SOHC Neon VIN number into a DOHC Neon? I don't mean will the state or feds come after you but, would that be considered contrary to the ITCS?

K

 

[Bill Miller]

The 'rule' that it would be bending is an exemption from the VIN rule, of which no other car has.

[/b]

Not true Andy, look at the spec line for an ITB '85 - '91 VW Golf 8v. The Bilstein Cup cars are allowed, even though they have no VIN numbers or tags.

And I have to echo what Kirk says, the VIN tags do nothing more than show that you are racing the right VIN # for the car you say you're racing.

 

[lateapex911]

Not true Andy, look at the spec line for an ITB '85 - '91 VW Golf 8v. The Bilstein Cup cars are allowed, even though they have no VIN numbers or tags.

[/b]

Wow...never noticed that. Good point.

 

[Knestis]

Jake - is this just a "Kirk & Andy" thing? (Well, just Kirk since Andy is smart enough to not worry about it any more.) I know that the request last winter got turned down but I don't have any sense if this was a close call or a landslide nay, if there's any portion of the ITAC/CRB that's favorable on this issue, or if the fact that I included a request to scratch the "create a model" language in the interest of internal consistency might have given the powers-that-be a stick to hit me with...

K

 

[lateapex911]

Jake - is this just a "Kirk & Andy" thing? (Well, just Kirk since Andy is smart enough to not worry about it any more.) I know that the request last winter got turned down but I don't have any sense if this was a close call or a landslide nay, if there's any portion of the ITAC/CRB that's favorable on this issue, or if the fact that I included a request to scratch the "create a model" language in the interest of internal consistency might have given the powers-that-be a stick to hit me with...

K [/b]

Kirk- As I recall, the general feeling was of fear of unintended consequences, and the inevitable rules creep that might accompany the change.

Personally, it seems to me we've been around it a few times, and the unintended consequences haven't reared their heads, so my vote, which was a weak "For" last time is much more in the firm "for" camp now.

As to the ITAC, I think that it will be different this time around, as we've repleced two departed to the CRB members (see "ITAC News" thread...missed it last time , eh?) with three new guys.

I have no idea how the vote will fall this time!

 

[Matt Rowe]

I think that it will be different this time around, as we've replaced two departed to the CRB members (see "ITAC News" thread...missed it last time , eh?) with three new guys.[/b]

I've heard of rules creep, but isn't this rules maker creep?

All kidding aside, unintended consequences are a concern but we have been round and round on this issue several times. Even within this latest discussion I asked the question (twice) of what situation this is preventing that isn't already illegal and haven't gotten an answer. So it looks like now is the time to write letters and put this back up for discussion.

 

[lateapex911]

I've heard of rules creep, but isn't this rules maker creep?

. [/b]

You calling us creeps??

Actually, we got lots of good resumes, it was hard to pick just three. The ITAC was below it's max number, so we're really just getting it to full now.

And, I think there already is such a letter on the books for the next con call, so get your letters for or against in soon! (Well before next Monday so they can get posted in time)