Dumb bodyshell rule

[Knestis]

I submitted a request that we be allowed to disable and remove central locking systems in IT and have been playing around with my biggest pet peeve about our rules - the dumb "you can't build a CRX Si out of a CRX HF shell" rule...

The problem is that there are several major sections of the ITCS that bear on this issue. A change is a bit like taking the sugar out of a can of Coke - the problem is pretty integrated into the rules.

Any suggestions about how this might be tackled? I don't think I want to submit completely revised text for the pertinent sections, as a proposed change. Nor do I want to be too vague. The "intent" - hah! - is to allow a person to build something that is identical to ITCS-eligible Model X out of a year/model/trim level not on the same spec line, but posessing an identical body shell. It should go without saying that a revised rule would in no way allow a car to be lighter or of a different resulting specification than the listed option...

The VIN number rule needs attention - or elimination - and the "create a model" text needs to be addressed. It might be enough to simply remove some of that text but obviously, I don't want to create a monster.

Ideas?

K

[dickita15]

Kirk. I would like a way to make this happen as it could make it easier and lower costs. If it can work you are the right guy to address the problem. I have a little concern as I have been told that in cars like the crx you use as an example the hf car has lots of part that are lighter than the si. I am not a hon duh guy so I may have been told wrong.

I know someone is going to say that we have a minumum weight so it does no matter but a lighter car can be brought up to weight with better distribution.

can this kind of rule change make builders lives easier without creating fankenstiens.

cha cha cha

[m glassburner]

With the ITACs ability to adjust weight and such . Someone who might create a "frankenstein" will only hurt those who play by the rules..in as much a couple of real fast cars could get the rest of those playing by the rules penalized :( or put another way...when the rest deserve a break they won't get it !! :bash_1_:

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I think it's a good idea, and would work to craft up something that would facilitate this. The thing is, the VIN# rule really doesn't work. You've got cases now, where people can 'create' models, because the VIN #s don't differentiate them. The case I"m most familiar with, is the one of the Mk II Golf. You can take any model Golf, from the eligible years for ITB, and build it into a GTI. In fact, you can take an '87 or '88 'regular' Golf, and build an ITA 16v car out of it. All because there's no way to tell the original configuration of the chassis, based on the VIN#. However, if you want to build an ITB Rabbit GTI, you actually have to start w/ a GTI donor tub. You can't use an '83 or '84 Rabbit tub, because the VIN# differentiates the engine size. And other than the 1.8 engine and close-ratio tranny, the only thing that makes it a GTI, are a bunch of bolt-on parts. There is NO difference in the chassis, whatsoever.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by dickita15@Oct 29 2005, 06:34 AM
...a lighter car can be brought up to weight with better distribution.
63961
I don't know if that's true or just a scary tale from someone that fears the idea, but it seems logical that it could happen, given the number of cars we're talking about.

But let's think about it: how significant of an advantage would this be? What are we talking about: 50 pounds from the roof to the chassis rail or from the nose to the tail? Less? More? Take the worst case possibility, then compare that possibility to the positives in changing the rule. Personally, if it means I give a competitor a 50-pound nose-to-tail advantage, I'm all for being able to use an alternate chassis to save money and increase the folks coming in.

Ignoring the possibility of that weight-shift advantage, what's the other concerns: primarily, that someone will build a Frankenstein using unapproved parts for the car as classed (e.g., using the HF tranny in the CRX Si in ITA)? OK, well if someone's gonna cheat like that, what keeps them from doing it now? I mean, if they're willing to use the HF tranny in an ITA CRX Si, they're probably doing it now; the VIN is irrelevant.

The next argument is going to be, "Well, how do we police it then?" My answer is, of course, "Well, how do we police it now? What's the difference?"

I firmly believe that positives of allowing this rule far outweigh any (virtually) insignificant negatives in terms of prep. Kirk, I'll have to review the rules when I get some time, but other than the "VIN requirement" clause that mandates the VIN match the classified car, what other rules must be addressed? We're not asking for any equipment changes, and the vehicle specs prety much summarize what car and equipment must be installed. Are you assuming we may have to add to that equipment list? I'd suggest instead that the VIN requirement rule be struck, and the 'shop manual' and 'installed equipment' verbiage be slightly strengthened (but not detailed; we should no try to micromanage it, thereby giving someone a noose to hang others with).

Greg

[Bill Miller]

Great idea Greg. I like the 'shop manual / installed equipment' idea.

[Catch22]

I don't think its as hard as it sounds on the surface. Just list the cars like they are listed in prod. Basically ignore trim level and list cars by year and model only. Classing would be determined by drive train (just like in prod) and trim level (Si, HF) would be ignored.

Engine size, gear ratios, and brake specs are already listed, so making a "Frankenstien" would be pretty hard.

As mentioned, I don't think the current rule really works anyway. From my understanding, the documentation is so sketchy on some cars that you couldn't enforce the rule if you wanted to.

And NO rule keeps people from cheating. The intent and spirit of this change would be clear. If someone uses it to cheat, they're probably cheating under the current rules.
JMO.

[Knestis]

Good input - thanks, all. So, here's a straw-man proposal, presented here with the original text of the two - I think - pertinent paragraphs of the ITCS for comparison...

Current:

To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a facotry shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so reqested at any technical inspection. If the factory shop manual is no longer available from the vehicle manufacturer, an aftermarket shop manual will be accepted with proof of non-availabiliyt from the vehicle manufacturer. The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determin the model and typ efor competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.


Proposed:

Replace those two paragraphs with...

In the event of any protest or Request for Action, proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee, as dictated by procedures in the GCR. It is the responsibility of these parties to have available documentation as might be necessary to demonstrate that the car in question conforms in all respects to the original specifications for a make/model/year of car included among those on the ITCS spec line indicated in its logbook, modified only as allowed by these rules.

And delete, Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

The problem goes away - I think - not by creating a rule allowing someone to build a Rabbit GTI out of a diesel Rabbit shell, but by simply requiring that the resulting car adhere to all specifications for the GTI. If the shell is lighter/stiffer/whatever than that of a GTI, the car isn't legal.

Thoughts?

K

[Dave Zaslow]

Kirk,

I think that deleting:

The words 'originality and" from the first paragraph, and

"The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determin the model and typ efor competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required." ; and

"Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies. "

is all that is necessary. The modified paragraph:

"To establish the configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so reqested at any technical inspection. If the factory shop manual is no longer available from the vehicle manufacturer, an aftermarket shop manual will be accepted with proof of non-availabiliy from the vehicle manufacturer. The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee."

should allow one to do all of the changes needed to convert one type of model into another as long as it follows exactly the spec line of the ITCS. The rights and responsibilities of any protestor/protestee are well defined elsewhere in the GCR.

Adding the paragraph:

"In the event of any protest or Request for Action, proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee, as dictated by procedures in the GCR. It is the responsibility of these parties to have available documentation as might be necessary to demonstrate that the car in question conforms in all respects to the original specifications for a make/model/year of car included among those on the ITCS spec line indicated in its logbook, modified only as allowed by these rules."

seems to me to be already implicit in the "To establish the configuration...." paragraph.

One of the reasons I built the A3 was that I could not find a good Rabbit GTI shell within reasonable travel distance. I looked at lots of them, and it always seemed to be raining....


Dave Zaslow

[Catch22]

I agree with keeping it simple by just removing the requirement to match VIN numbers. I really don't understand what this rule's purpose was in the first place.

The ITCS spec line already lists the information you need. This is the information that determines the class and legality.

In other words, if you have an ITA CRX, what makes it an ITA CRX is...
Engine size
Head specs
tranny ratios
brake size
weight
88-91 CRX

All you have removed is the stipulation that it must be an "Si" CRX. Nothing else has changed.

That exact same chassis becomes an "HF" spec ITC car by changing everything except...
88-91 CRX

I could be oversimplfying this in my head, but I honestly can't see what the catch would be.

[Knestis]

The VIN requirement rule is REALLY old, like back to the beginning of the class, and makes more sense in the context of a ruleset - and mindset - that was WAY more like SS than what we currently see.

When I built my first IT car, we were required to keep the headliner and passenger front seat, we could only use a bolt-in rollcage (with maximum allowances for triangulation), there were no aftermarket LSDs available for anything, and we couldn't even picture the day we'd use "real racing springs."

K

[lateapex911]

Over the years, I think most of the new allowances (real racing springs, etc), have been positive, resulting in better racing cars that are reasonable on the wallet. Allowing real racing springs, as Kirk points out, eliminates having to get weird and hard to find custom springs. And allowing optimum camber maximizes tire life...both make for better racing and better finances.

To me, the VIN rule could go away and result in better racing (more cars available) and better finances.

But...the one thing that I worry about is if I am missing something...so, I think the rule should be re-written, then put out for member comment. Something interesitng might pop up.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 30 2005, 10:52 PM
...so, I think the rule should be re-written, then put out for member comment. Something interesitng might pop up.

64057

That's the thing about "you ITAC guys"; I like how you're always open for input. I'm glad you realize that you're TOTALLY outnumbered, and that there's always something you might not consider (like, maybe, using a 6-foot piece of wiring as "a resistor"). That's the *ONE THING* about this idea that worries me: that there's *SOMETHING* I haven't considered that some smart-a*s ;) might come up with to twist the rule into submission...

It's a good idea, we just need massive member input to make sure it's done correctly. - GA

[lateapex911]

LOL, Greg.....there IS actually "something" in the back of my mind....it's unlikely, but...

Ok, racer Bob is a guy who's not particularly obsessed with details...he wrecks his car big, goes and gets a new chassis, swaps some parts, slaps the cage into the new shell and shows up for the next race. he's rushed, and isn't a wizard with the welder, tech looks at the crunched car 'cuz it's in the logbook after the wreck, and they are VERY impressed. You can't even spot the trace of a wrinkle! THey sign off, and never check the VIN, ...'cuz it's not in the rules...and off the car goes, with all sorts of things that wouldn't pass an initial inspection.

Now, of course, as a tech guy you can say, well they have to check the cage and if it doens't have the number they will know, but if he used the same cage parts, it could slip through un-noticed.

As it stands, tech checks the VIN on reinspection, (They DO do that, right??), so they would pick up the fact that the entire chassis has been changed, and would then re-inspect the entire car, right?

And yes, the solution is to make sure tech looks more closely, but......it seems like we could lose a chack and balance here.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk has really hit on something. The IT of today has so little resemblence to the IT of 20 years ago, when it all started, it's not even funny. They really were little more than street cars w/ cages. For those of you that have been around long enough, think about how many IT cars you used to see, that had license plates on them. I remember plenty of cars that got driven to the track, in the late 80s and early 90s.

IT has evolved from a category of street cars w/ cages, to true, production-based, race cars. It's really time for an overhaul and re-write of some of the rules. They need to be brought more in line with the state of the category. As others have pointed out, the important specs are known and published. Engine displacement, fuel delivery, valve size, brake size and configuration, gear ratios, and weight. There's really not a whole lot left. You need the factory manual, to verify components, and if there's a supercede, you need that documentation as well. So much has been opened up in IT, it's time for the rest of the rules to be brought in line. I could care less if you use an HF or Si shell to build your car from. You want to build an ITC car from an Si shell, knock your socks off, just so long as it has all the stuff that the ITC car is supposed to have, and none of the stuff that it's not.

Some of this stuff is just flat out silly. For example, let's say Racer Bob, in Jake's example, happens to run a Rabbit GTI, in ITB. Now let's say the car gets wacked in the back. Not enough to require a new shell, but enough to require a new hatch. To be totally legal, but today's rules, Racer Bob has to go find a replacement Rabbit GTI hatch. He can't just use any Rabbit hatch, because only the GTI hatches came w/ the rear wiper. I suppose that he could instally a rear wiper on a non-GTI hatch, but is that really legal, by the letter of the current rules? Does anyone think that there is any advantage, other than being able to find the part, to running a standard Rabbit hatch, sans rear wiper, over running the GTI hatch, w/ the rear wiper?

The category has eveloved, the rules should too. I say that it's time for the VIN# requirement to go away.

[Knestis]

...SO, what is the (accepted as limited) consensus here, in terms of what the proposal should look like?

Putting a proposal out for member comment is NOT the same thing as having considered discourse about it. I'm reluctant to make it too much of a straw man, requiring tweaking and fiddling, because technically, the CRB just says "yes" or "no" to whatever I request. If it's flawed in any way - fundamental or not - it's potentially DOA.

I'm afraid that simply requesting that the VIN requirement be dropped is going to leave critics thinking that there's NO way that something that was intended isn't being lost in the change. That's why I added the text trying to address what the VIN and FSM requirements are theoretically trying to get at - that we are running what we claim to be running, and can demonstrate what it's supposed to be if asked.

BTW, while I think Jake's scenario is an interesting one - and certainly conceivable - it's hard to fathom that the VIN number rule is there in order to prevent that situation from happening. Do we really believe that any inspector that isn't going to look at the cage welds the first race back after a big crash, simply because a car already has a logbook, is going to look at the VIN numbers?

K

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 12:15 AM
...tech checks the VIN on reinspection, (They DO do that, right??)...
64068
Absolutely. In fact, I had a VIN issue with one of our own IT.com folks at NHIS this year. Fortunately, I think we got it worked out. - GA

[MadFrog]

Kirk, you are my hero! :happy204:
If there is anything I can do to help with this, just say the word. :023:

Now, here's a question: are there any cars classed in IT that COULD benefit from a change in chassis?

I know the 88-91 Civic/CRX won't. The only difference between the chassis is the sun roof, which can be deleted legally anyway.
I think that in order to make a request for change bullet-proof, someone (some many) would have to look at all the vehicles classified and see if there is any that may have a different trim chassis that would give them an advantage if swapped (chassis bracing, slightly different suspension geometry, etc.)

??? or am I off in the weeds?

[turboICE]

Similar situation for Nissan S13 shells. 89-90 VIN numbered shells that are in good shape are becoming harder and harder to come by. A 91+ S13 is the identical shell but could not be developed to ITA spec under the current VIN rules. I would support reasonable rules to expand the exchange of identical shells.

Although theorectically wouldn't a matching 89-90 VIN for the door jamb and dash meet the requirement?

[88YB1]

Very interesting. I drive a Pontiac Fiero. The GCR spec line lists both the Formula and GT models for 1988. They have a different code in the vin, and the Formula is about 200 lb lighter. Since there is only one spec line in the ITCS does that mean I could put the fastback GT body panels on my Formula? ITCS trumps the GCR, and the vin statement being discussed is in the GCR. Just asking. Would make no sence doing this B) , but going the other way would be an advantage for the GT. Remove 200 lbs from the rear, then ballast back to minimum with weight up front.

Chuck

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by 88YB1@Oct 31 2005, 05:10 PM
Very interesting. I drive a Pontiac Fiero. The GCR spec line lists both the Formula and GT models for 1988. They have a different code in the vin, and the Formula is about 200 lb lighter. Since there is only one spec line in the ITCS does that mean I could put the fastback GT body panels on my Formula? ITCS trumps the GCR, and the vin statement being discussed is in the GCR. Just asking. Would make no sence doing this B) , but going the other way would be an advantage for the GT. Remove 200 lbs from the rear, then ballast back to minimum with weight up front.

Chuck

64116


I'm pretty sure the VIN# requirement is in the ITCS. No reason for it to be int eh GCR, as it is a category-specific issue.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by 88YB1@Oct 31 2005, 05:10 PM
...put the fastback GT body panels on my Formula?
64116


Yup. For example, the Mazda RX-7 guys all swap the good GTU (?) body parts onto the base models. Since they're on the same line, you can swap assemblies.

Of course, this is the antithesis of the point of this thread about swapping chassis, but there you are...

[Catch22]

In terms of the VIN after a crash question...

What about Production? They currently don't require a matching VIN.
So racer Bob does the same thing to his G Prod car and replaces it with another chassis. Currently totally legal in Prod, but he now has a car with a different VIN.

Besides, if you crash a chassis and replace it, aren't you supposed to get a new logbook?
New chassis and new cage = new logbook. Right?

[lateapex911]

Well, yes he is SUPPOSED to admit and get it checked out after a crash... but.....it is easier to run one by tech with no VIN to confirm things. The cage part with the stamping can easily be moved.

FYI, aren't VINS in THREE places on modern cars? The dash, the door, and a stamped VIN, usually on the firewall, which is the hardest to swap, as it requires cuttting out and welding into the new chassis. Tough to smooth both sides of the weld, as it's usually in a place with poor or impossible rear acess for tools.

Now, the point about the Fiero is excellent, as there is one, (of many I am sure), example of a case where you can benefit from allowable parts swapping.

So, why not the chassis too?

Lets think of some examples where the chassis is either not listed, or on a seperate line, and swapping would create a benefit. i've come up empty so far.

[dickita15]

in tech we have debated if you need a new logbook when you attach a new tub to your cage. it has come up a couple of times. I have always been told to error on the safe side and issue a new log book. in the cases I remember the driver did not care. I only wonder when you have a grandfather issue like an ERW cage.
by the way I do check VINs when I do an annual. one local its car has a different dash pad but when i checked the firewall it matched the log book.

kirk sorry for the topic drift. back to what the rule should be.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 07:10 PM
FYI, aren't VINS in THREE places on modern cars? The dash, the door, and a stamped VIN

64127

Yes but only two have to match in the rules right? Theorectically you could have matching door and dash VINs and pass tech?

This winter's project car fortunately has the stamped firewall and door VINs that match - but the dash VIN is long gone to who knows where.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 11:10 PM
... Lets think of some examples where the chassis is either not listed, or on a seperate line, and swapping would create a benefit. i've come up empty so far.

It's an interesting exercise (I've yet to come up with one, either) but the correct solution to the problem will make it moot point. If the donor chassis has, say, reinforced suspension pick-up points, it will be illegal if no make/model in the spec line of the "declared" car has them.

It makes no difference whatsoever if it provides some competitive advantage, as is the the case with any other consideration per the ITCS.

Talk to me, guys - ITAC'ers probably aren't weighing in because they know that they have to consider the request after the fact but the rest of you need to try to punch some holes in this suggestion...

K

[Greg Amy]

Scott, the logbook typically goes with the cage. For example, if you replace your Autopower bolt-in cage with a new fancy welded one, we can either issue a new logbook (but we usually re-stamp the numbers into the new cage). The logbooks for IT cars do list the VIN in the front page; I would expect that a change in VIN could/would get caught on re-inspection (I'd catch it) or during the next annual (ditto).

The IT rules specify at least two VIN (stampings or plates) are required. I would not, for example, reject a car that had one good under the hood (usually stamped on the firewall) and one good plate in the doorjamb, but had mis-matched VIN in other places, such as on replacement parts. The point of the VIN requirement is "to establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle", not to bust your balls.

Speaking as a competitor and not a Tech Inspector, I assure you with full disclosure that if I wrap my little NX2000 into a much rounder ball, I will purchase a non-T-top NX1600 and swap over the VIN plate and graft my VIN stamping under the hood. Yes, I am admitting I will cheat to the letter of the rules, but the result is totally and completely the same as if I had started with a non-T-top NX2000 (which are virtually unobtainable; I had to order mine new from the factory).

This rule is no longer necessary and should be stricken.

Greg

[charrbq]

When we crashed our "86 ITA Civic, the roll cage wasn't harmed, but the car was destroyed. We put the cage into our current ITC car. The old log book number was obliterated and the new number stamped when the log book was issued.

I do know of one case where a Civic was destroyed in a crash, but the cage was okay. The cage was removed, modified and mounted in a CRX. It was a legal cage, but had the old car's log book number. It, too, had the number obliterated and the new number stamped to match the new log book.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 31 2005, 06:34 PM
It's an interesting exercise (I've yet to come up with one, either) but the correct solution to the problem will make it moot point. If the donor chassis has, say, reinforced suspension pick-up points, it will be illegal if no make/model in the spec line of the "declared" car has them.

64132


Interestingly enough, your example fits the E36 BWM of all things. The M3 has reinforced suspension pick-up points in the rear. The 325i does not (at least from the factory). Of course, your logic is correct (if one accepts what you are proposing) that it would still be illegal for a "cobbled together" 325i because they didn't have the reinforcements from the factory.

[lateapex911]

Well, I guess the only issue is the:

Either-

Less than scrupulous competitior who knows the difference and takes advantage of the rule. He destroys the VIN, knowing it's not required, and wants to hide the evidence.

The ignorant competitor who gets an M3 chassis and (Yes, of course, why spend big $ on an M3 chassis...bear with me..) and builds an E36 ITS car, not knowing of the reinforcement issue. The VIN remains, and someone tips him of his mistake...gulp. A whole lotta work for nothing.

The flipside on the first point is a guy who's going to that will fake a VIN anyway, and the second guy needs to do more due diligence.

I'm just playing devils advocate here.....

[Catch22]

I simply can't come up with a reasonable objection to this.
I'm trying to punch holes in it and I can't.

[mlytle]

there are some lines of cars that would have to be watched out for if the vin rule was dropped. bmw's for instance. the e36 body styles all look identical from the outside, but the "m" models got some reinforcement and stiffening in key places that the regular 325's didn't. you can tell from the vin if it was built as an m3 or not. without the vin, wellll..

it would be nice to be able to "build" the car to a spec line though. bmw 318's are dirt cheap to buy. swap the drivetrain and you can "build" a 325. certainly opens up more racing options and potentially lowers some initial costs.

marshall

[Super7]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 04:15 AM
Now, of course, as a tech guy you can say, well they have to check the cage and if it doens't have the number they will know, but if he used the same cage parts, it could slip through un-noticed.


Or he builds a brand new cage and gets out his number stamps. :(

I have two sets downstairs in the shop.

I now of one ex-racer who tried this once, except he did it in ear shot of the tech chief.

Just because the cage has a number doesn't mean it was ever inspected. This is a good argument for KEEPING the VIN. (Only as a check of the car being the same as the one that went thru inspection and was issued a log book in the first place.)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Catch22@Oct 31 2005, 06:43 PM
In terms of the VIN after a crash question...

What about Production? They currently don't require a matching VIN.
So racer Bob does the same thing to his G Prod car and replaces it with another chassis. Currently totally legal in Prod, but he now has a car with a different VIN.

Besides, if you crash a chassis and replace it, aren't you supposed to get a new logbook?
New chassis and new cage = new logbook. Right?

64123


Not to muddy the discussion w/ Prod rules, but most of the places where the VIN # is, can legally be removed from a Prod car, and in some cases, removed from an IT car. For example, the older VWs (pre-'80 or '81) had the VIN# stamped on the p/s shock tower. The rule say that you can remove this, and add camber plates. You're now left w/ the dash tag, and a sticker on the door jamb (the only places I know of where the VIN# is located). I believe the ITCS says 'stampings or plates', so technically, the sticker doesn't fit the bill.

Given that the important specifications for a car, are already defined on the spec line, I think that it's time for the VIN# rule to go. That, coupled w/ the fact that there are loopholes for certain cars (see earlier post re: Mk II VW Golfs), only reinforces it. I also believe that this is a case of 'overall benefit vs. potential downside'. Just how likely is it that someone could gain a competitive advantage from dropping the VIN# rule vs. the ability to put more cars on the track? Not to mention that it would let people like Greg sleep better at night! :happy204: :023: :P

[Knestis]

Originally posted by mlytle@Nov 1 2005, 03:13 AM
... bmw 318's are dirt cheap to buy. swap the drivetrain and you can "build" a 325. certainly opens up more racing options and potentially lowers some initial costs. ...


Exactly.

Okay - watch out, ITAC since it's coming your way. I submitted exactly what Zaslow suggested on the previous page, deleting from ITCS p. 2...

** The words originality and from the first paragraph

** The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determin the model and typ efor competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.

** Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

Seabass et al. - you can do your part by supporting this to the ITAC, the CRB (through your representatives), and to the club racing office when comment time comes...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

- Is there really a problem finding correct original chassis' - or is this just to make things EASY? Might something a little HARDER to do benefit the majority?

- We have a hard enough time in this club policing ourselves - do we need to throw another hard-to-detect issue in the fire?

I understand the reasoning to do it, but there may be reasons NOT to.

As I play Devil's Advocate, I will ask this question (which the answer would be your reason for submitting the porposal):

Is there a PROBLEM that you are trying to SOLVE while POTENTIALLY creating grey areas in car prep?

AB

[Greg Amy]

I got to thinking about what I wrote last night, in regards to my desire to build a new car using an alternate chassis. Then, it pretty much hit me: I believe we can do this NOW and do it legally, the only difference being the cost and complexity of doing so.

So, here's what I'd do, step-by-step. Tell me where in this process I break the:

1. spirit of the rules, and
2. letter of the rules.

So I've got this Nissan NX2000 (or Rabbit GTi, or Honda CRX Si). I just rolled it into a little ball and it's obvious that it will not be cost-effective to repair it. However, say finding a valid replacement chassis is impossible, so suddenly it is cost-effective to rebuild it 'cause to replace it is infinitely expensive.

Looking for parts, I recognize that the same stuff can be pulled off a Nissan NX1600 (or Rabbit diesel LS, or Honda CRX HF) because it's the same parts. So, I go to the junkyard (uh, sorry, "auto salvage facility") and start pulling off removable parts from an NX1600 to install on my car. The two cars use the same panels.

Legal, right?

As I start to pull apart the 2k, I recognize that the roof is wrinkled. Further, the inner fenders and quarter panels are toast, too, so I go to the ASF and cut those from the 1600 to re-weld on my 2000. Remember, these are all the same parts.

Legal, right?

After I cut apart the 2k for those panels, I'm dismayed to find the floorpan and front clip is bent, too. Back to Joe's ASF for the identical floorpan and front clip from the NX1600 (again, same stuff).

Legal, right?

So at this point I'm ready to install the NX1600 parts back on "my NX2000" but as I sit there with the "car" on the rotisserie I'm simply staring at a firewall with a VIN stamping on it. Then it hits me: I can either completely dissect this NX1600 sitting over hyah, and re-weld all the parts onto this firewall hyah, or I can remove the firewall from the NX2000 hyah and weld it into the NX1600 hyah.

The end result is exactly the same. In fact, I can argue that the latter is more likely to be factory-correct than the former.

So let's go one step further: what's the magic in that firewall sitting on the rotisserie? Is it a sacred part simply because it has the VIN stamped onto it? What happens if I had damaged the firewall and needed a replacement part from Nissan? It's not going to come from the factory with my VIN stamped on it, and it's perfectly legal for me to replace it as a repair, so I can re-stamp that VIN back on it, right? Or, is there some rule that says you can't replace the firewall (trust me, there's not)?

So, if I can replace the firewall and restamp the VIN (or, simply graft the VIN stamping from my old firewall onto the replacement part), then how about I forego the trouble of dissecting the NX1600 and instead remove the piece of the firewall with the VIN stamped on it and graft it into the NX1600? That and the pop-rivited VIN plate on the dash panel make me totally legal for IT.

What is the difference? And, given any difference, how will you know that I did it one way or the other? Isn't the end result, technically and spiritually, the same thing?

If this bothers you, then just keep this in mind: I rescend my previous delcaration that I will cheat and use an NX1600 chassis. Instead, I declare that I am actually REPAIRING the NX2000 by dissecting an NX1600 and using the identical - legal - parts to repair the NX2000 appropriately.

As far as you know.

I'll write it again: This rule is no longer necessary and should be stricken.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

I like your example. It fits the arguement perfectly - becasue the car you drive can do that. I suppose (DA hat on again) that the issue is one where it involves cars that CAN gain advantages.

Having said that, I wouldn't want to be the one to find a replacement NX2000 WITHOUT T-Tops...yuck!

Like I said, it may be easier, but do the Pro's outweigh the Con's? If ya'll think so - WRITE IN! Make sure you state the PROBLEM before you propose a "solution'. A change for the sake of chage is rules creep.

AB

[turboICE]

The nissan S13 chasis was produced from 1989-1994 identically, but only came with the ITA SOHC engine in 1989-1990, from 1990-1994 it came with the ITS DOHC. The chasis is idenitcal throughout production - given the chasis' popularity with younger kids who think they can drift, yes it is really hard to find any shell without quarter panel damage less likely being limited to 1/3 of the production years for the chasis. Add to that finding one without a sunroof. Does it make it easier to build, yes. Does it make it cheaper to build, yes. Would it provide any competitive advantage beyond being easier and cheaper, no. Aren't those the correct answers to the idea behind IT rules?

[Knestis]

And Greg gets to the heart of the matter - again. I'm reminded of a guy in Seattle who found a set of original number plates from a Lotus 47 in the desk drawer of his shop...

This was during the psycho vintage racing days of the late '80s, when anything with provenance was going for out-of-sight prices. Seems that he had worked on (or raced himself?) this particular 47 back when it was new. The 47 was the race-special version of the Europa, with lots of goodies, and they had cheated it into a stock road racing class by putting plain-Jane Europa plates on it.

It ended its racing career in a big wrech at Seattle International Raceay (now Pacific Raceways), in which it was so damaged (it burned, I believe) that its carcass was simply pushed over the bank on the backside, down toward the railroad track.

Anyway, over beers one evening, the subject of this car - and how valuable it would have been if it had survived - came up. He reached into his desk and said (in essence), "You mean this car?"

Since one can buy every single part for pretty much any Lotus ever made, that's precisely what they did. Not a single additional piece of the original "car," beyond those plates, survived but to this day, someone has "Lotus 47 XXXXXX" and is loving it. I understand that they did go prospecting for the wreck and found some scrap metal, but none of it made it into the final build.

We DON'T CARE about provenance. We just care whether or not a car adheres to the specifications it's supposed to.

K

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I like your logic. I see it as a similar situation as to how people got around the threaded-body shock rule, prior to its change. You take a set of Penskes and have the threads turned off. You now have a non-threaded body shock, that meets the letter of the rules.

Lets look at the VIN# rule again. As I said earlier, I'm legall allowed to remove one of the two legal VIN# designations on a Rabbit (see camber plate reference). But I still have to maintain those 2 VIN# plates/stampings, to be compliant w/ the VIN# rule. Am I not allowed to take advantage of the camber plate rule, due to the location of the VIN# stamping? Or, can I simply relocate that VIN# stamping to some other place in the car?

Discuss.

To me, I see it as requiring additional expenditure, for no rational reason. I have to spend more money to find an actual Rabbit GTI shell, as opposed to being able to use any Rabbit shell, and putting the allowed GTI components on it. This is a case where the only thing that differentiates a Rabbit from a Rabbit GTI, are bolt-on components.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 11:42 AM
...the issue is one where it involves cars that CAN gain advantages.
64177

And there's the rub. One can block this idea in perpetuity if one played the "what if" card and made us all fraidy-scared of what someone "could" do. We're all worried that someone will find a loophole; our goal should be to make sure that any change in the rule does not change the philosophy to that possibilty.

Show me examples of where Kirk's suggestion won't work or will open the philosophy to that possibility. Absent that evidence, I can see no barrier to proceeding. Otherwise I'm gonna spend a lot of time rebuilding that NX2000.

As far as you know.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 1 2005, 12:13 PM
And there's the rub. One can block this idea in perpetuity if one played the "what if" card and made us all fraidy-scared of what someone "could" do. We're all worried that someone will find a loophole; our goal should be to make sure that any change in the rule does not change the philosophy to that possibilty.

Show me examples of where Kirk's suggestion won't work or will open the philosophy to that possibility. Absent that evidence, I can see no barrier to proceeding. Otherwise I'm gonna spend a lot of time rebuilding that NX2000.

As far as you know.

GA

64182


Agreed. I will let the experts here on the board who are familiar with their own chassis and situations to object with specifics. If someone knows of how they would be at a disadvantage if this rule were modified, speak up. If this is just blind fear, then it would seem to make sense.

I have 3 NX2000 chassis' here without T-Tops to sell you Mr. Amy, so we all know your car will be legal! :D

AB

[Banzai240]

So... I was thinking about this an how it could impact my current situation...

Essentially, my 240SX is a 1996 chassis... HOWEVER, when I purchased the car, it had all 1997-98 bodywork on it, which consists of the two front fenders, hood, and nose piece/headlights, etc... I'll have to go look, but I'm not sure my car even has vin-tags on it, or whether they match, because this was a "dollar car" from Nissan that was campaigned by a team in California in the World Challenge series during the late 90s...

Since the '95-98 cars are all listed on the same spec line, and updating/backdating are legal so long as it's done as an "assembly"... Wouldn't the replacement of the entire front bodywork assembly constitute an update/backdate under the rules? If so, then the vin-tag rule is now in conflict with the ITCS update/backdate rule, and the ITCS takes precedence, so I would have to say that I'm legal...

Any thoughts? I'm kind of assuming that this is the type of thing we are talking about here...

In the case of the M3 chassis under a 325... Since the M3 chassis isn't listed in the specs, it would not be a legal update/backdate...

[Greg Amy]

...this was a "dollar car" from Nissan that was campaigned by a team in California in the World Challenge...

It was a similar issue that we faced earlier this year. The manufaturers intentionally obliterate the VINs on these cars (they're usually worn out press or delivery-damaged cars) so that they will never be used on the street. Your resolution would be to find an appropriate car in the ASF and get those tags (typically door and dash, but I'd suggest cutting out the firewall one too just in case).


Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 03:18 PM
Since the '95-98 cars are all listed on the same spec line, and updating/backdating are legal so long as it's done as an "assembly"... Wouldn't the replacement of the entire front bodywork assembly constitute an update/backdate under the rules?

I would say "yes." However, you are technically in violation of the ITCS since you do (may) not have the required VINs (see above for solution).


Since the M3 chassis isn't listed in the specs, it would not be a legal update/backdate...

Correct. It's illegally-installed equipment, whether by action or inaction, and this proposal would not change that. - GA

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 1 2005, 11:44 AM
........ Aren't those the correct answers to the idea behind IT rules?

64178\




Yes.

[Tyson]

kirk et al,

what if i were to tell you that the HF and Si chassis are NOT the same?

for example,

rear suspension subframes are different part numbers.

http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/13SH20/012/3.jpg

#33

1990 Si = 65750-SH2-A01ZZ CROSSMEMBER, RR. FLOOR $132.30 $31.03
1990 HF = 65750-SH2-310ZZ CROSSMEMBER, RR. FLOOR $139.58 $32.74

whats the difference? i dont know. but its clearly called out as a different part number.

can it be switched? itd have to welded.

so how far does one consitute the "same" chassis?


ok, heres another example.

#26 (right side frame)
1990 Si = 65610-SH2-A33ZZ FRAME, R. RR. $258.40 $60.67
1990 HF = 65610-SH2-A93ZZ FRAME, R. RR. $258.40 $60.67

#17 floor pan
1990 Si = 65100-SH2-A51ZZ FLOOR, FR. $460.40 $108.00
1990 HF = 65100-SH2-A91ZZ FLOOR, FR. $460.40 $108.00

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tyson@Nov 1 2005, 06:21 PM
kirk et al,

what if i were to tell you that the HF and Si chassis are NOT the same?


64229


This is the concern for me. I know and understand what everyone has said here. But, there are over 300 lines in the ITCS. It's absolutely impossible to know everything about all these cars (multiple cars/years on many lines).

Greg is right that you can play "what if," but.... What if the rule goes through and someone finds an advantage in a particular model chassis for building up to a car in a different class? We'll look like idiots if to build the best car you have to get a chassis from one car and other parts from another. Can this or will this happen? I have NO idea. Maybe I'm Chicken Little worrying about the sky falling, but that worry is out there for me.

[Greg Amy]

Tyson, I think it would be important to know what those differences are. If it were a difference structure, then I suggest it would be illegal under our proposal. However, if the difference something as simple as a clip or hole for trim, I suggest that while it may be "technically" illegal, it's certainly within the spirit of the rules. I do recognize this can become a slippery slope.

The extreme example mentioned earlier was the 325 and M3: the M3 had significant stiffening in the chassis that the 325 did not get, thus, not legal under the proposal. Conversely, the chassis of the ITB 1984 Rabbit GTi and the 1984 Rabbit Diesel LS are identical (well, except for the crappy colors that the diesel typically came in...)

The burden of proof is on the competitor, and we would need to rely on the community within the competitors to self-police these things, just as we do now (e.g., it's expected the E36 community would put the nix on someone running the stiffer M3 chassis in ITS.)

Greg

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 1 2005, 09:40 PM

The burden of proof is on the competitor, and we would need to rely on the community within the competitors to self-police these things, just as we do now (e.g., it's expected the E36 community would put the nix on someone running the stiffer M3 chassis in ITS.)


64245


Just to go to the extreme here (really to test thinking), by saying the burden of proof is on the competitor are you saying someone could protest a shell and the competitor would have to prove what they have is legal? Actually, I'm sure that's NOT what you are saying, but with the above wording, how can this be avoided?

[Tyson]

are you guys talking about a change across the board?

or are you trying to argue specific models to allow chassis interchanging?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Tyson@Nov 1 2005, 11:21 PM
kirk et al, ... what if i were to tell you that the HF and Si chassis are NOT the same? ...


Easy - the HF part wouldn't be legal on the Si, and vice-versa.

Tyson - the rule change request was for the entire ITCS. I would never try to get specific allowances for individual cars. That is the SLIPPERIEST of slopes, to my mind.

I know from firsthand experience that a MkI diesel Golf and GTI chassis are NOT identical: The diesel car has a mounting hole in the firewall for a different fuel filter. That's the kind of thing Greg is describing. Shopping for a new hood for Pablo's rebuild, I learned that there are "early" ones and "late" ones, with different part numbers. The difference is the shape of the windshield squirter holes. Even being a rules NERD, I have a terribly difficult time feeling like that makes a difference, when we drill holes in body panels to run wires, mount transponders, or whatever all the time.

Geo - right or wrong, I think that in practice the burden of proof is already on the competitor, to a greater or lesser degree. That's why the FSM requirement rule was created.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 1 2005, 10:20 PM

Geo - right or wrong, I think that in practice the burden of proof is already on the competitor, to a greater or lesser degree. That's why the FSM requirement rule was created.


64250


Yes. Not to be a pest though, but I believe the VIN requirement satisfies the burden of proof that the chassis is proper. Of course, as Greg has shown, one can manipulate this scenario, but people are always finding ways to circumvent the rules. The question is, do we want to make it easier?

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 1 2005, 08:53 PM
Yes. Not to be a pest though, but I believe the VIN requirement satisfies the burden of proof that the chassis is proper. Of course, as Greg has shown, one can manipulate this scenario, but people are always finding ways to circumvent the rules. The question is, do we want to make it easier?

64254


I agree with Mr. Roffe, I might as well come out with what's happened over the past week. I'm purchasing a Z3 to race it's already got a cage in it and was going to be prepped for a 2.8l for World Cup Challenge. The guy selling me the car, and I both thought it was a 1.9l with 2.8l finders. The difference being .75" of track and wider more 930 like finders. Well I saw the VIN and grew concerned all indications were that it actually was a 2.8l car. Then I ran the VIN in Carfax, no history which isn't suprising for a pre-production car the 38th 2.8l Z3 by the VIN sequence, but Carfax even says it's a 2.8l. Removing the VIN requirement, I could put a 1.9 in it and narrow finders, but there might be something else about the car that gives me an edge. Even with the VIN requirement removed say I win a race, a very remote possibility my first couple of seasons, but then get protested because one of my competitors knows it was converted from a 2.8l. Now it's up to me to prove that the only differeces were parts that I replaced or mounting holes somewhere :bash_1_:

I'd rather not go through that or be a party to something so questionable. I'd rather wait untill the Uber-IT class is defined to race it. I can't say how attractive that conveting to a 4 cylinder is as I'd rather race the M44, I want a momentun car, but because of the dark cloud that would hang over me if I did, I'd rather live without. So Kirk, while I understand why you'd propose this change and I myself had hope for it, in the end it's one of the key factors that keeps every one honest and extraordinary measures have to be taken to circumvent it.

James

[Dave Zaslow]

James,

If you stripped the chassis down to a bare shell is there a difference?

If the track is wider, and it's not all in the wheel/tire size, then there are a lot of other bits that are different between the two cars. I don't think this discussion is saying that just swapping engines will make a legal car. What I think it is saying is that if two models share the same bare chassis, you could take all of the 1.9 parts and volt them to the 2.8 shell to creat a 1.9 car. If thicker sheetmetal is osed for cross braces or other panels it would be your duty to change them, if possible. If not possible then you could not swap the shells.

Certainly it is not unusual to have the 'hotter' model have additional stiffening to handle the added dynamic loading. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes it is virtually impossible to detect without a sawzall. There are probably many of these Invisible Technology cars out there now. Given that we put roll cages that stiffen the car beyond any manufacturers design, is this a meaningful difference? Most of the time we are looking for the lighter part from another model to reduce weight.

Perhaps we need to keep the VIN tags attached to the chassis to establish the basis of the shells. After that it would be the 'Competitors Parts Police' (ourselves) that would have to keep things equitable.

Dave Z


Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 2 2005, 01:51 AM
I agree with Mr. Roffe, I might as well come out with what's happened over the past week. I'm purchasing a Z3 to race it's already got a cage in it and was going to be prepped for a 2.8l for World Cup Challenge. The guy selling me the car, and I both thought it was a 1.9l with 2.8l finders. The difference being .75" of track and wider more 930 like finders. Well I saw the VIN and grew concerned all indications were that it actually was a 2.8l car. Then I ran the VIN in Carfax, no history which isn't suprising for a pre-production car the 38th 2.8l Z3 by the VIN sequence, but Carfax even says it's a 2.8l. Removing the VIN requirement, I could put a 1.9 in it and narrow finders, but there might be something else about the car that gives me an edge. Even with the VIN requirement removed say I win a race, a very remote possibility my first couple of seasons, but then get protested because one of my competitors knows it was converted from a 2.8l. Now it's up to me to prove that the only differeces were parts that I replaced or mounting holes somewhere :bash_1_:

I'd rather not go through that or be a party to something so questionable. I'd rather wait untill the Uber-IT class is defined to race it. I can't say how attractive that conveting to a 4 cylinder is as I'd rather race the M44, I want a momentun car, but because of the dark cloud that would hang over me if I did, I'd rather live without. So Kirk, while I understand why you'd propose this change and I myself had hope for it, in the end it's one of the key factors that keeps every one honest and extraordinary measures have to be taken to circumvent it.

James

64258

[Renaultfool]

For the most part you guys are making more sense than I have seen on this site for quite a while.

We are racing in IT because it is simple and cheap. If I want to rebuild my engine every weekend I would switch to GT or Production.
This is an entry level class. I don't believe that any of the drivers in this class could tell from the drivers seat if he had a cross brace that was .001 thinner or not. Our skill level is not that high, nor do our DOT tires connect up with the road in such a way that it would make any difference. Dave is right, torsional rigidity is primarly determined by the allowable cage we put in, if we do it right.
Do any of you think that they took torsional rigidy into account when they threw the cars into whatever IT bucket your car happens to be classed? No way, it was luck of the draw.
We need to modify the rules to make our lives simpler. Leave the basic drive train, engine/tranny internal componants, the same. The weight remains the same. Everything that defines what the car is for it's class remains the same.
The exact shell is not important as long as the total car weight and shape is the same.

Using the BMW argument as an example, does it really make sense to any of you to require these cars to maintain an unreinforced rear cross member that will fail under racing use, endangering that driver, or you? Do you need to wait for his car to break so that you can win? That isn't racing.

Here is another one. Do you need to wait for your competitor's 10" solid disk brake rotor to melt and his brakes fail, endangering his and your life so that you can win? Or does he have to buy $300 pads and replace his rotors every weekend so that his brakes won't fail during our short 30 minute racing session. Sure he could bolt on a vented 10" rotor that would have the same mechanical advantage in braking, and last a whole season using cheap NAPA pads, but then you would have to drive harder, right?
You see, most of the arguments against change that I see on this site are based on keeping the advantage your car happens to have now due to the current rules and choices of class.

We should specify the body shape, by model, drive train by model and size, internal drive train componants, brake size, wheel size, weight, and have at it. Nothing else really has that much effect, other than to raise costs and make it harder for someone else, if your chosen car has the lucky draw this season.

The day that we worry about windshield bottles and the like are long gone. I cannot find a faster wiring harness, nor can you.

I agree that it is about time we change some of the rediculous, restrictive, costly rules in an entry level class, to make it simpler and cheaper to participate. This discussion is on the right track. Keep thinking logically and we will get there.
Renaultfool

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 1 2005, 11:53 PM
Yes. Not to be a pest though, but I believe the VIN requirement satisfies the burden of proof that the chassis is proper. Of course, as Greg has shown, one can manipulate this scenario, but people are always finding ways to circumvent the rules. The question is, do we want to make it easier?

64254



I have an old Civic begging to go IT racing, but it's a Hondamatic and the VIN says so.

:(

[OTLimit]

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Nov 2 2005, 08:49 AM
Using the BMW argument as an example, does it really make sense to any of you to require these cars to maintain an unreinforced rear cross member that will fail under racing use, endangering that driver, or you? Do you need to wait for his car to break so that you can win? That isn't racing.

Here is another one. Do you need to wait for your competitor's 10" solid disk brake rotor to melt and his brakes fail, endangering his and your life so that you can win? Or does he have to buy $300 pads and replace his rotors every weekend so that his brakes won't fail during our short 30 minute racing session. Sure he could bolt on a vented 10" rotor that would have the same mechanical advantage in braking, and last a whole season using cheap NAPA pads, but then you would have to drive harder, right?

64290


Somehow I knew someone would throw out the old safety argument. :bash_1_: How many times do we have to discuss not driving over the limitations of your car?

Back to the topic at hand....

[wrankin]

Originally posted by oanglade@Nov 2 2005, 03:44 PM
I have an old Civic begging to go IT racing, but it's a Hondamatic and the VIN says so.

:(

64301


On a similar note - are there any instances where there are known chassis/tub differences between cars listed on the same line of the ITCS? I think someone hinted earlier that there are cars where this is the case. Given that fact, it would provide precedence for allowing these one-off chassis (models not allowed in the ITCS) to be used as a valid "replacement assembly".


I really hope that this change gets implemented. I have a *cough* personal *cough* interest in it. If it doesn't happen, then I probably will never have a car to race in IT. :(

[turboICE]

Originally posted by wrankin@Nov 2 2005, 04:17 PM
On a similar note - are there any instances where there are known chassis/tub differences between cars listed on the same line of the ITCS?
64340

Not sure - though I think if the wheelbase or track is differnent they definitely end up on differing lines.

As similar as the S13 & S14 ITS lines are the chasis are on seperate lines.

[Tom Donnelly]

How would this handle the Datsun 240z for example. The 240/260/280's are all on separate lines. And there are big differences in the 1970 - 1973 240z bodyshells. There's a weight savings in the early 240's but go find one. The 280's are heavier but slightly more prevalent. Why not allow any shell?

Tom

[Knestis]

Any car from a given spec line would still be required to have a body shell from a car on that spec line - or an identical one from another spec line.

The intent is to make it easier/less expensive to build cars that are already legal to make. I for one don't want to be associated with any rule change that makes it possible to actually build a currently eligible car with better pieces than are currently allowed. It's bad enough trying to find an aluminum hood for one's RX7 (or whatever). The existance of preferable unibodies would be a big leap in the wrong direction, I think.

K

[Tom Donnelly]

The intent wasn't to piece together a better car, all three types have different advantages and disadvantages. Like, if you build a 240 from a 280 shell, you'd have a heavier vehicle. I was looking at the expense of finding a sound 240 shell as they are getting harder and harder to find. And if you started replacing all the rusted panels, you'd be in territory similar to what Greg was describing. A pieced together "frankenstein" with the right VIN.

Tom

[Tyson]

so then, its up to the competitor (owner) to prove the chassis is the same. how?

and how does a fellow competitor challenge that the chassis are NOT the same?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis+Nov 2 2005, 04:45 PM-->
The intent is to make it easier/less expensive to build cars that are already legal to make. [/b]

Less expensive than what? A fully prepped E36 perhaps? OK, hold that response for a second....

I have a couple of points to consider.

1) The shell is probably the cheapest component of any build. I thought I got a honkin' deal on my 944 (and I did), but in the end it will won't make a noticeable change in my overall cost of building my car.

2) Back to cheaper than what.... Some shells will cost more than others anyway. So as some become more rare than their more pedestrian counterparts, does this really make a difference in the grand scheme of things? I'm somewhat at a loss to believe this.

Perhaps we could talk about shells that are almost impossible to find. Well, IMHO when they can no longer be found or parts can no longer be sourced, they should be put out to the IT pasture. It's truly a natural death.

Now, we can address Greg's example of building a car by cutting up two shells and rewelding them back to some Frankenstein that is impossible to tell it's illegal. Sure, this is certainly possible. But I'm sure even Greg will admit that before he spent that much time (or $$$ to his mechanic) to do this, he'd just save time and find an appopriate shell. Most of us would.

Again, I admit I may be Chicken Little expecting the sky to fall, but I'm having a hard time finding the argument compelling. My honest opinion, whether people agree or disagree and I'm only one voice on a vocal ITAC so I won't get the last word by any stretch.

<!--QuoteBegin-Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 04:45 PM
The existance of preferable unibodies would be a big leap in the wrong direction, I think.


Agreed. Will or can this happen? I don&#39;t think any of us have that well calibrated a crystal ball.

[Knestis]

I totally agree with your thesis about the cost of a shell vaporizing during the construction process, George. I&#39;m thinking more about people who have an investment in a "track car," or something built to a different organization&#39;s rules - they can transition to IT without having to take a huge hit starting over. Think too about the possibility of changing IT classes with the same shell, if one desires.

This won&#39;t be the rule change that revolutionizes the category but I contend that it has a good cost/benefit ratio - if one shares my sense that all of the situations cited as reasons for not doing it are already happening under the current rule. The change would make it easier to do the right thing without making it substantially easier to do the wrong thing, I think...

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 4 2005, 01:57 PM
I totally agree with your thesis about the cost of a shell vaporizing during the construction process, George. I&#39;m thinking more about people who have an investment in a "track car," or something built to a different organization&#39;s rules - they can transition to IT without having to take a huge hit starting over. Think too about the possibility of changing IT classes with the same shell, if one desires.


Good point. Certainly one worth considering.


Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 4 2005, 01:57 PM
This won&#39;t be the rule change that revolutionizes the category but I contend that it has a good cost/benefit ratio - if one shares my sense that all of the situations cited as reasons for not doing it are already happening under the current rule. The change would make it easier to do the right thing without making it substantially easier to do the wrong thing, I think...

Yes! If they repeal the speed limits I&#39;ll never do the wrong thing again. :P

OK, I&#39;m officially being a smarty pants. :D

[944-spec#94]

well here is an odd wrinkle.

the 944 vs 944S.

Both are classed in ITS. There are a number of 944 cars built and racings.


Along comes the 944S into the class.

What is the difference. Well 8v vs 16v head, some fuel injectoion parts and some tranny ratios.

It would see very nice to be able to buy a 944S Motor & tranny and stuff it into you currnetly build 944 and race it as an S.

Seems very cool right... Funny thing is for 87 & 88 there is no difference in VIN numbers at all. So you can pull this off for 87 & 88 cars. What about the 86 that is the same, but an 86?

Or how about that 84 chassis which is the same except for the differnet dash?

[Bill Miller]

Well,

If there&#39;s no indicator in the VIN# that differentiates an &#39;87-&#39;88 944 from an &#39;87-&#39;88 944S, but all means, you can build either chassis, to either spec (per the rules). It&#39;s no different than being able to take an &#39;87-&#39;89 VW Golf (or Jetta) and build either an ITB 8v car, or an ITA 16v car out of it, regardless of how it came off the line, as there is no way (by the VIN#) to tell them apart, or tell what the original configuration was.

You cannot however, take an &#39;85 Golf, and build an ITA 16V car out of it, because there were no 16V Golfs produced in &#39;85 (at least for the US market, not sure about the rest of the world). Same would hold for the early 944 cars. Build an ITS 944 out of them, but not an ITS 944S.

[Knestis]

Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

[lateapex911]

We&#39;d be right where we are now...trying to understand clearly the differences and crawling under it measuring sheet metal thickness or finding extra stampings for reinforcement come protest time....

If protest time ever came.....

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 8 2005, 11:27 PM
Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

64973


I&#39;m 99.99% sure they are exactly the same. I&#39;m nearly 100% certain the FSM does not list a separate chassis for the S.

Since there is no differentiation in the VIN and no differnece in the chassis, any 944 of the appropriate year could be built to 944S specs.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 9 2005, 12:27 AM
Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

64973


It would leave it as an anomoly. Look at the ITB A2 VW example. You can take an &#39;85 4-dr Golf, and throw all the GTI bits on it, and run it as a legal car, because all the models between &#39;85 and &#39;92 are listed on the same spec line. And, by the letter of the rules, you could take an &#39;87-&#39;89 4-dr Golf, and build an ITA 16v car w/ it. Nothing in the VIN# that differentiates the cars. You&#39;d have to pull out docs that showed that a 4-dr never came w/ a 16v. BUT, you sure couldn&#39;t tell the cars apart by the VIN#.


-DISCLAIMER- The above example is purely for illustration purposes.

[Knestis]

by the letter of the rules, you could take an &#39;87-&#39;89 4-dr Golf, and build an ITA 16v car w/ it.

Ooh - I don&#39;t think so. The VIN is a clue or evidence - what we evaluator geeks call an indicator - of the specifications of a car, not in and of itself the aspect that defines legality. I don&#39;t think a 4-dr 16v Golf would be legal, just because it had the right numbers, if it didn&#39;t actually adhere to the published specifications for the car on that spec line - all of which had 2 doors in this example.

This is actually a great example of my point, re: VIN numbers and legality.

Remember, I said "pretend" we find out that the 944 and S are different, despite having the same VIN code on the subject...?

I THINK that the rules NERD answer says that, if the 944 has a different (say) rear suspension pick-up stamping than that on the S - which appears on a different spec line - then it would not be legal to use an S stamping on a plain 944, or vice-versa. Ditto for the Golf example. There were never any 4-door 16v&#39;s so it&#39;s not legal to race one. This regardless of the VIN number&#39;s inability to differentiate 944 from S, or 8v from 16v. Right?

Are we racing "cars" as defined by a set of physical attributes - sort of the current crux of matters vis-a-vis the ITAC&#39;s current philosophy on weights and classing - or are we racing VIN plates? It&#39;s not completely academic...

K

[Bill Miller]

Actually Kirk, to quote the ITCS: empahsis added


The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes

You&#39;re a language and semantics guy, determine is a tad stronger than indicate.


Again, I said by the letter of the rules, you could do this. I don&#39;t think it would stand up.

Interestingly enough, a few paragraphs up from that, it says:

Additionally, it is not permitted to "create" a model or type of car, by updating or backdating assemblies.

That clause would seem to preclude creating the afore mentioned 4-dr GTI (8v ITB car), as they were not offered in all the years between &#39;85 and &#39;92. At one point in time, I believe it was &#39;87-&#39;88, a Golf GT model was offered, as a 4-dr, that had essentially all the 8v GTI bits on it, but not in &#39;85 or &#39;86. This was done at the time of the introduction of the 16v cars, and the &#39;GTI&#39; badge was reserved for them.

However, I don&#39;t think you would find many (any?) that would argue that you couldn&#39;t build an &#39;85 or &#39;86 4-dr Golf, to the specs listed in the ITCS (e.g. 10.5:1 motor, 4-wheel discs, close-ratio box, etc.)

Gotta admit, these academic excercises can be fun! :023: :P :happy204: :lol: B)

[Knestis]

Touche - I concede the point. Even more support for removing the clauses you cite, since in this instance they clearly appear to create a conflict internal to the ITCS.

K

[Ron Earp]

Seems there are very few cars that this issue actually affects. A VW, one or two Honduhs and the issues are well known - number of doors etc. Seems leaving it on a case by case or region by region basis is best. Serious rules nerd issue; seems most don&#39;t care if you "make" your ITA Civic from a HF car as long as all the right bits are there.

[944-spec#94]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 8 2005, 09:27 PM
Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

64973



Well to make thing more complicated. Take the standard 944. The 8valve car not the 944S. Are all the 83 - 88 cars on same spec line?

I&#39;d bet with 100% certainty that the tub of an 84 944 is slightly differenent from an 86 944. Now I&#39;d have to go over it with a fine tooth comb, bit am sure I could at least a few differences. Why.. in 1985 Porsche created new interior in the cars complete with a new dash as mid year release. Also in 86 Porsche released a turbo version. The turbo cars are Id&#39;ed by a differenent VIN, but much of the tub is the same if not all of it. I&#39;d bet there is less differnce in 1986 944 Turbo tub vs 1986 944 tub that between a 1984 944 tub. Now all those differences proabably are things that are not important. Mostly minor detail changes here and there. None of which would make any performance impact.

One I know for certain is sheet metal around the radiator. It was revised on the later 944 to make room for the intercooler on the turbo model. Porsche however made that change to all cars it produced turbo or not.

You example may however be the 85 vs 85.5 944. In the start of 85 Porsche made what is called the "early" 944 (same car as an 84). Some time during the year they make the "late" 944. This with the car with the revised dash (same as the car). Now from a VIN perspective I believe the only change was with respect to the actual number. IF all cars to XXX were "early" and after XXX were late. That is guess however as I never check to if Porsche produced those numbers. 99% of the time all you need to do is look inside the car at the Dash to see early vs late.

[Geo]

Hi Joe.

Early and late 944 tubs are indeed different.

Also, all 2.5 8v 944s are on the same spec line.

Again, I&#39;m 99.9% certain the 944 and 944S (of the same vintage) share the exact same tub.

So, for those unfamiliar with 944s:

1) As specifically allowed in the rules, since all 8v 944s are on the same spec line, assemblies may be updated/backdated at will among these cars.

2) If indeed the 944 and 944S (of the same vintage) share the same tub, the car may be built to either configuration without concern for violating the rules as long as it&#39;s PROPERLY configured (wiring harness, complete engine, complete gearbox, etc).

It&#39;s sort of an odd situation and not instantly clear, but this is the gist of it.

[Tristan Smith]

WOW, having read this whole thread, I am stunned to see many of you who were very opposed to "rules creep" in the last few years now endorse this proposal, or at least consider it. It seems to me that if you choose to race a particular car, it&#39;s scarcity should be a determining factor when you choose to build/race it. I have no dog in this hunt one way or another. But it seems to me that we are taking a giant step (rather than just "creeping along") in IT rule allowances.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Tristan Smith@Nov 11 2005, 08:41 PM
WOW, having read this whole thread, I am stunned to see many of you who were very opposed to "rules creep" in the last few years now endorse this proposal, or at least consider it. It seems to me that if you choose to race a particular car, it&#39;s scarcity should be a determining factor when you choose to build/race it. I have no dog in this hunt one way or another. But it seems to me that we are taking a giant step (rather than just "creeping along") in IT rule allowances.

65183


Ditto - I was surprised but pleasantly surprised. When I read the title of that topic I though "Ahhhhhh hell, here we go!". I figured it&#39;d end up sort of like the wiring harness argument that went off eariler into rules nerdom or a slugfest topic like "More weight for BMWs".

R

[MadFrog]

whatever happened to that proposal? Did Kirk send it off? I didn&#39;t see it pop up anywhere for membership input - or did I miss it?

thanks

[Knestis]

It went in - I think - on or about 28 December. Since it&#39;s not an actual email message, there&#39;s no real record of when it went out, and Bauer&#39;s reply doesn&#39;t indicate which request is which.

K

[Knestis]

Back from the dead...

March VastCrack - NOT RECOMMENDED 2. IT – Amend the ITCS to eliminate the “create a model” prohibition and “two VIN numbers requirement clauses (Knestis). Creating a non-existent model is inconsistent with the class philosophy.

That&#39;s what I get for trying for internal conisistency, trying to address both the VIN rule and what was repeatedly presented as the root issue (the &#39;create a model&#39; thing). Someone else needs to do the next request but, since the response is grounded in the &#39;model&#39; issue, just request that the VIN requirement clause go away.

The arguments against eliminating the DBR (at least those presented) are spurious and if we keep this in the daylight, more people will come to understand that it&#39;s based on flawed thinking and we can get it fixed.

K

[shwah]

I already replied to the CRB on the issue. Referenced their response to your request, and walked through the whole logic of why it changes nothing relative to creating a model.

[Andy Bettencourt]

&#39;Creating a model&#39; may be a bit to simplistic. The CRB is also talking about creating things that didn&#39;t exist. Take my Miata for example. The 1.6 cars are between 50-150lbs lighter than the 1.8 cars. Right now, I add 50lbs of ballast to make 2380 with 1-2 gallons of gas and my 200lb frame.

I could build a car that could then be as much as 200lbs under minumum. This would encourage hidden ballast and an almost perfectly balanced car that potentially would outperform it&#39;s &#39;normally built using a 1.8 chassis&#39; brother. Are there implications of horribly weighted FWD cars?

This small example is just one we know about. What about the ones we don&#39;t? The fear is the creation of the unknown.

Maybe the fear from unintended conciquenses is too great here but does the upside outweigh the unknown? Kirk doesn&#39;t think so, I am undecided. Who else?

[dickita15]

And here lies the problem. Kirk&#39;s position is that if the shells are identical the vin rule is dumb. Andy&#39;s Miata example uses a car that looks the same being from a different year there is a weight difference. In order to do away with the Vin requirement I think we need to determine what a identical shell is.

Would the problem be solved if the shell is the proper year according to the spec line even if the vin if for a different “model”. I would guess that would eliminate the evolutionary changes the the shell go through in different years.

[shwah]

Using a 1.6 shell for a 1.8 Miata is illegal whether the VIN rule exists or not because it is not the same shell. Therefore the argument that some cars have different shells for different driveline configurations has nothing to do with removing the VIN requirement. In that particular case you do in fact have to have the correct VIN simply because it is the ONLY body shell that is correct for that model.

However in the case of a VW 8v versus a VW 16v shell, they are identical other than VIN (in some years only). Therefore there is no defensible reason to require that you only use the identical shell that has a specific number stamped into it.

I have yet to see an argument show me how changing this rule makes any new allowance in terms of the actual resulting car and it&#39;s performance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Using a 1.6 shell for a 1.8 Miata is illegal whether the VIN rule exists or not because it is not the same shell. [/b]

Please explain the differences.

[Greg Amy]

Please explain the differences.[/b]
Taking a leap here, Andy, but your prior post implied there was a difference (that&#39;s certainly what I inferred). Dunno if that&#39;s what he&#39;s assuming as well.

You wrote "The 1.6 cars are between 50-150lbs lighter than the 1.8 cars." Can you explain why? Is it something inherent in the design, or something to do with the installed equipment? Can you legally make the 1.8 chassis the same weight as the 1.6 currently, but with more work? In other words, if we were to strip both cars down to "bodies in white", what would be the functional/technical/realistic difference?

If there is a difference, then the ITAC has a valid point (with, of course, keeping in mind Chris&#39; point of it being illegal anyway). Then again, if the only difference in this example is it takes more work to get there, but it&#39;s technically possible, then it&#39;s a moot point and logically invalid as supporting evidence towards the purpose of rejecting Kirk&#39;s request.

We&#39;ve asked this many, many times over the last Lord-knows-how-many-years when this topic comes up, and we&#39;ve yet to have someone bring up an example where allowing alternate base chassis will result in an illegal car (assuming one has the intent of remaining legal; if they don&#39;t, no amount of rules is gonna stop it and it&#39;s probably being done right now anyway). We&#39;ve talked VWs, Hondas, Nissans, Mazdas, ad nausea, and no one&#39;s come up with even one good example... - GA

[AntonioGG]

I can help Andy out a bit I think.

Differences that I know of between a 1.6 roller and 1.8 roller with stock pieces.

1) suspension arms. Earlier cars have less reinforcement (boxing) of the suspension arms.
2) Subframes. The newer subframes have integrated places to bolt in braces that were not stock on the 1.6 cars.
3) Bracing. The 1.8 cars came stock with a body to rear subframe brace
4) air bags. The 1.8 cars have a passenger airbag...even though we&#39;re allowed to remove them, the additional brackets needed for mounting may make a difference.
5) rear end. The 1.8 rear end is bigger (7" vs. 6")
6) brakes. The 1.8 has bigger brakes

OK...., AFAIK, 1, 2, 3 are non issues since IIRC, 1&2 new items supersede the old ones. I know for my car when I ordered a new front subframe it came with extra holes (even if it&#39;s a 94 which already has bracing), and a new upper control arm has extra bracing in there. #3, for example, in SM the bracing is allowed to be added to the early cars, not sure about IT (makes for an interesting topic for those that cross-over between SM and ITA).

If you took a 1990 body, took subframes, suspension, rear end, everything off and do the same with a 1997 version, I&#39;m not sure we&#39;d see a lot of difference in weight to be honest.

[lateapex911]

Well, actually, there should be NO difference (in weight) if the swap was to be legal, right? (Once the optional items like sound deadening were removed.)

IF the later cars have stamped and spot welded bits the earlier cars don&#39;t, then it&#39;s no good, unless those bits are readily removable....and removed.

All bodies in white are anyway is an assemblage of stampings. With enough drilling and spot weld removing, you can get them down to the raw stamped bits. If those bits are the same from one version to the next, the only "part" that is different is the VIN stamping. Seems silly (to me) that we have to jack up the VIN just to slide a new body under it. (I&#39;ve done it, but it sucked)

[AntonioGG]

Honestly, I don&#39;t know that there is any difference in the shells themselves. I&#39;ll have to double check this to be sure but I think if I order body pieces from Mazda, it will not matter for which year car they are. Maybe Andy knows this for sure.

[shwah]

Just to clarify what I am talking about - it is the body shell itself. Not including subframes/suspension components/braces or whatever else may bolt to that shell. Those other components can already be interchanged IF they are factory delivered on the car you are building. If the body shell is the same with the only difference being the digits of the VIN, IMO it is the same for our application.

I wonder if some that are wary of this idea are thinking about it as swapping drivetrains between different versions of a given model. What we are really talking about is swapping shells - with all other items (drivetrain, suspension, accessories, reinforcements, brakes, etc) being correct for the race car you are building.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Antonio got most of it. And he is right in that when you put the 1.6 stuff on the 1.8 car (94-97) the weights will be similar. HOWEVER, within the SM community, even amongst 1.6 owners, there is as much as a 50-75 lbs difference in weight. It remains inexplicable. The early 1990 chassis (chassis only) is the right one to have. Take that plus the net gains (about 25lbs) and you have 100 less pounds.

How does this play out in the myriad of Honda and VW applications we have listed in the ITCS? Would it be possible to create &#39;better&#39; cars than exist with the VIN rule followed?


IF the later cars have stamped and spot welded bits the earlier cars don&#39;t, then it&#39;s no good, unless those bits are readily removable....and removed.[/b]

And I assume everyone knows, down to this exacting detail, what came on, under and inside every iteration of every model of every car - right?

[Bill Miller]

Seems silly (to me) that we have to jack up the VIN just to slide a new body under it. (I&#39;ve done it, but it sucked)
[/b]
:blink:

[Greg Amy]

Would it be possible to create &#39;better&#39; cars than exist with the VIN rule followed?[/b]
The same exact question we&#39;ve asked a myriad of times over the years. No one has yet to come up with a reasonable example.

Your Miata example has come the closest. But, as baffling as it may seem, it implies to me that the chassis are the same and that the differences - perceived or otherwise - are likely in installed equipment. But it seems the chassis are more likely than not interchangeable.


And I assume everyone knows, down to this exacting detail, what came on, under and inside every iteration of every model of every car - right?[/b]
We each know about our own cars. But, what you&#39;re really asking is "...can all of us know all of the details of all cars, such that we would know when someone was cheating"?

The answer to that is, of course, "no". Certainly no more than we do about the mechanical equipment we&#39;re supposed to self-police. If a significant performance potential exists with a swapped chassis, we&#39;d have no way to identify it, and in fact someone could be using that right now. Therefore, the current VIN rule is totally unenforceable, even less so than the proposed change.

I&#39;ll be redundant and say it again: no one has come up with even one reasonable example of where this proposed rule would provide a performance advantage and encourage cheating. And, no one has come up with how we could stop that cheating if it were being done today. This resistance to such a change is clearly becoming nothing more than entrenched ideals of "the way things have always been done", sprinkled with a touch of "it will be used to create a model that didn&#39;t exist". Yet, no one can provide examples to support this case. They rely on the entrenched existence of the rule with no logical way to support it, deferring to fear and the unknown to resist change.

Let&#39;s let these ideals whither away and change the rule to benefit the category as a whole.

I&#39;ll say it again, loud and clear, for the fourth or fifth time publicly on this forum: if I wrap that little egg into a little rounder ball, I&#39;m going to replace that chassis with one from a easier-to-find hardtop Nissan NX1600. Well, actually, I&#39;m going to remove each piece of the 1600, one by one, and install them in the NX2000, one by one. They are the same parts. This replacement cycle will happen to such a degree that all the parts, except the VIN plate, will be replaced, one by one.

And that&#39;s legal to the rules. It may LOOK like I&#39;m taking all the 2000 mechanical parts out and installing them in a 1600 chassis, but I&#39;m ACTUALLY doing is taking used identical 1600 parts and installing them on the 2000. Including the roof, floor pan, firewall, frame rails, rear body section...etc.

I challenge you to prove otherwise...

[AntonioGG]

Antonio got most of it. And he is right in that when you put the 1.6 stuff on the 1.8 car (94-97) the weights will be similar. HOWEVER, within the SM community, even amongst 1.6 owners, there is as much as a 50-75 lbs difference in weight. It remains inexplicable. The early 1990 chassis (chassis only) is the right one to have. Take that plus the net gains (about 25lbs) and you have 100 less pounds.

[/b]

It is my theory that if you take the shell from the firewall back, and you replace the added bits and pieces from there forward with new pieces ordered from Mazda that you may get back that weight. I&#39;m talking about torque boxes, inner fenders/rails, radiator support, etc. There are other differences in the transmissions...even between 94 and 97 transmissions. I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever heard of anyone weighing just a pure shell with no powertrain in it. It may be a hassle but as a pure academic exercise, I may weigh a couple of shells.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We each know about our own cars. But, what you&#39;re really asking is "...can all of us know all of the details of all cars, such that we would know when someone was cheating"?

The answer to that is, of course, "no". Certainly no more than we do about the mechanical equipment we&#39;re supposed to self-police. If a significant performance potential exists with a swapped chassis, we&#39;d have no way to identify it, and in fact someone could be using that right now. Therefore, the current VIN rule is totally unenforceable, even less so than the proposed change.[/b]

Well, I see good arguements on both sides, however, since nobody can know or understand the unintended concequences of this, why do it? I am only familiar with Miata&#39;s and RX-7&#39;s. These are mainstream cars where tons of them are on track. What about the hundreds of iterations of Honda&#39;s and VW&#39;s? What about the weird and rare stuff?


I&#39;ll be redundant and say it again: no one has come up with even one reasonable example of where this proposed rule would provide a performance advantage and encourage cheating. And, no one has come up with how we could stop that cheating if it were being done today. This resistance to such a change is clearly becoming nothing more than entrenched ideals of "the way things have always been done", sprinkled with a touch of "it will be used to create a model that didn&#39;t exist". Yet, no one can provide examples to support this case. They rely on the entrenched existence of the rule with no logical way to support it, deferring to fear and the unknown to resist change.[/b]

Well I gave you my example, and that is just what I know about. The fear is of the unknown. Just because YOUR car fits the mold doesn&#39;t mean everyone elses does.


Let&#39;s let these ideals whither away and change the rule to benefit the category as a whole.[/b]

This isn&#39;t your fathers ITAC. PLENTY has been changed over the past 3 years or so. The group is open to change, trust me. The fear is unintended concequenses balanced against a benefit...and the majority of the committee isn&#39;t seeing the needed balance. (Understand I am speaking in general for the committee in this instance, not neccessarily for myself).

[Bill Miller]

What about the hundreds of iterations of Honda&#39;s and VW&#39;s? What about the weird and rare stuff?
[/b]

Andy,

I can&#39;t speak to the Hondas but I can tell you about the VWs. For any of the Westmorland Rabbits (&#39;81 - &#39;84), there&#39;s no difference between a 2-dr Rabbit and a Rabbit GTI chassis. The GTI was simply an option pkg. IIRC, it included the 1.8 engine, the 14x6 alloy wheels, the close-ratio trans, the vented front discs, front and rear sway bars, and the paint/trim bits. Sunroofs weren&#39;t manditory, colors were limited to black, white, red, and silver, A/C wasn&#39;t manditory, there was no power steering, and they came w/ either a blue or red velour interior w/ sport seats. The only other thing that I know they all came w/ was a rear wiper. Other than that, there&#39;s no difference between the shell (body in white) between them.

As far as the A2 chassis (&#39;85 - &#39;91), there&#39;s no difference between the 8v and 16v cars (and no way to tell them apart by VIN#).

[lateapex911]

:blink: [/b]

Well, maybe Bill is implying he doesn&#39;t like what I wrote. he&#39;s a bit cryptic these days, but perhaps some detail is important.

When I first started racing, I drove my car on the street, to and from races. no trailer, and yup, had an incident on the track that was rather destructive. I wanted to keep the car registered, but it made no sense to repair it. So I got another chassis, same year, and started moving things. The state never knew, and there was no gain or illegal aspect as far as the SCCA was concerned either. Same car, same spec line. No harm, no foul, as far as i know.

And what Greg is saying is the same thing..... it&#39;s all just parts. If they&#39;re the same, it&#39;s silly to treat them as a magical assemblege.

[Knestis]

Argh.

It shouldn&#39;t be necessary to demonstrate that there are no possible cases where someone can build themselves something that has an advantage, because to do so would be illegal.

Arguably, if one sources a Chinese fender that weighs significantly less than the OE parts, that fender is not legal - it is not an "exact equivalent of the original parts" (use of which is allowed by 9.1.3.C. If I learn that, for whatever freaky reason, the bodyshell of a Canadian diesel Golf weighs 50# less than the bodyshell of every US-market 2.0 Golf, I can&#39;t legally use it. It&#39;s not the same, either. To weigh less, some of the many parts that make up the bodyshell would have to weigh less. If they aren&#39;t the same as what was delivered on cars defined by the spec line under which I am racing, it freakin&#39; not legal. Not now, and not if the VIN requirement were dropped.

Why are we being put in the position of having to prove - a negative - that would be impossible to cheat if this rule got nixed, when the whole point is that cheaters should be caught by the enforcement process?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So tell me how we police this Kirk? If the Canadian version weighs 50lbs less, and only a select few know it, how the heck is it right to blindly allow it? Am I supposed to know the 1 quazillion chassis iterations of every car in my class?

The only thing that keeps most people fromt cheating is the fear of getting caught. Is the VIN stamp on the car not a proper window into the cars original origin? With the elimination of the VIN rule, don&#39;t we now have to just ASSUME everyones car is right without any way to actually check it? Can you cheat the VIN rule? Probably, but what is a better option?

Trust me when I say I understand your points. But the detractors will tell you the downside is worse than making it easier for a few rare cars.

[Bill Miller]

Well, maybe Bill is implying he doesn&#39;t like what I wrote. he&#39;s a bit cryptic these days, but perhaps some detail is important.

When I first started racing, I drove my car on the street, to and from races. no trailer, and yup, had an incident on the track that was rather destructive. I wanted to keep the car registered, but it made no sense to repair it. So I got another chassis, same year, and started moving things. The state never knew, and there was no gain or illegal aspect as far as the SCCA was concerned either. Same car, same spec line. No harm, no foul, as far as i know.

And what Greg is saying is the same thing..... it&#39;s all just parts. If they&#39;re the same, it&#39;s silly to treat them as a magical assemblege.
[/b]

I well and truly don&#39;t understand the logic behind this Jake. Why wouldn&#39;t you just register the new car? I imagine that there&#39;s more to this story than you&#39;re telling us. Did the new car not have a title? I can&#39;t believe you&#39;d swap the VIN tags on a car that you were going to register as a road car. The penalties for that are a bit worse than getting DQ&#39;d from an SCCA race. I also can&#39;t believe that you said, in just about so many words, that it&#39;s not cheating if you don&#39;t get caught (that comment has nothing to do w/ the SCCA). Maybe I&#39;m naive, but I&#39;m just not an "end justifies the means" guy.

[Greg Amy]

So tell me how we police this Kirk?[/b]
The same exact way we do now, Andy. The same way we keep someone from cheating and using the CN body today and swapping over the VIN plates.

Right?

The problem with that line of logic above, Andy, is that you&#39;re assuming the VIN rule is stopping someone from cheating by using that CN body today. That&#39;s illogical. If someone with the knowledge of this (theoretical) lighter CN Golf body is going to cheat, there&#39;s NO WAY that the VIN rule stops them, or even slows them down; they&#39;ll just simply swap VINs.

If someone&#39;s going to cheat, they&#39;re gonna cheat. I cannot fathom how some folks think that this VIN requirement deters cheating...I don&#39;t think it was ever intended to stop cheating, I believe it was to stop someone from "creating a model" that didn&#39;t exist. Yet, the detractors can provide no reasonable examples of where this can happen - legally - if the VIN requirement were dropped.

Andy, I understand your personal position on this issue; I&#39;m not debating you personally, I&#39;m simply pointing out the fallacy of the logic of your comments above. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

But without a VIN rule there is no RULE to fall back on to protest someone. If Kirk shows up with the hypothtical Canadian Golf chassis that is 50lbs lighter - and there is no VIN rule - tell me what you protest him on...and thnk about the basis for your proof.

[Greg Amy]

But without a VIN rule there is no RULE to fall back on to protest someone.[/b]
Of course there is, Andy: GCR 9.1.3.A, "...cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States..." and GCR 9.1.3.B, "...no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed..."

If the CN Golf is 50 pounds lighter, and that weight loss cannot be obtained legally with the US-spec chassis (e.g., less undercoating, less sound deadening, anything that can be legally removed from the US-spec chassis), then there&#39;s something about that car that is different from the US-spec model. Ergo, those particular parts would be illegal under 9.1.3.A and B.

And, you ask, how do we find it? The same way we find those lighter-weight CN parts that get installed on the US car today.

Simply removing the VIN requirement does not make the lighter CN-spec car legal. Nor does it make that illegal part more difficult to detect.

Parts is parts, man. That&#39;s all we&#39;re sayin&#39;.

[Knestis]

What Greg said.

The VIN rule makes complete sense to someone who thinks of the metal box that all of the parts bolt to as the "car" - and that the number plates are unitary to that metal box.

Maybe it&#39;s my rallying experience but a shell is, as Greg points out, just a part - an assembly perhaps, if one applies the same kind of thinking as we do to engines, transmissions, etc. Heck, with a rally car, the shell is a consummable albeit with a longer anticipated life than a set of rotors.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPG

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/build4.php

Look at the pictures of the Pablo II build. We had to excise and replace a floor pan with a part that we ordered across the desk at the local dealer. We even ordered a new seat mount crossmember for the passenger side, to NOT bolt a seat to. Looking at the ETKA catologue, we could build you a Golf III out of new pieces from scratch if you wanted one. Replacing the little piece of firewall with the stamping would have taken just a tiny portion of the time of the entire build.


Is the VIN stamp on the car not a proper window into the cars original origin?[/b]

So the answer is most emphatically "no." The VIN stamp is provenance ONLY of the source of the little piece of metal with the stamping on it. Checking the number confirms the source of the number - not the parts welded to it.

If you want another analogy, the VW ABA block (in the MkIIIs) has "2.0" cast into it. If I go look at the Yorks&#39; MkII Golf (they beat us the last two times we&#39;ve met at enduros) and don&#39;t see that casting, is it proof that they are running the required 1.8 liters of displacement?

Is it?

No. Because the 2.0 crank drops right into the 1.8 block with a little grindage here and there. I have to know my stuff and be willing to go through the protest process to find the Truth.

It&#39;s no different with body parts.


The only thing that keeps most people fromt cheating is the fear of getting caught.[/b]

I couldn&#39;t agree with this more but it&#39;s not the rules that "catch" people. It&#39;s enforcement.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys can quote rules all you want but there is no means of enforcement without the VIN rule. If you use the CN Golf, remove all identification - because it now doesn&#39;t have to exist - and you protest that person for an illegal chassis - how do you prove it one way or the other? It&#39;s a pure he-said / she-said battle in the protest room. At least with the VIN rule you have a basis for legality.

I realize I am debating two of the most logic-based members of the forum - and trust me, I would love to see this rule done away with - but I can&#39;t justify eliminating a rule that removes ALL grounds for proof that the core shell is what it is supposed to be. Yes, you can cheat it, but you can cheat almost every rule until someone catches you...doesn&#39;t the removal of the VR remove all possibility - or even CLUE that something is wrong?

[Greg Amy]

You guys can quote rules all you want but there is no means of enforcement without the VIN rule.[/b]
:icon of Greg thumping his head against a wall:

I&#39;m just about to give up. I really wish we were at the track/restaurant/bar so I can try to make you understand that this is incorrect. But, I&#39;ll give it one more try:


If you use the CN Golf, remove all identification - because it now doesn&#39;t have to exist...[/b]
Now what doesn&#39;t have to exist? The vehicle identification number? How does the existence of two matching vehicle identification numbers prove the legality of the chassis? How does an attached VIN prove that this car is a US-spec car and not a cheater CN-spec car?

Answer: it doesn&#39;t. all it proves is that this car has two matching VIN of *a* car that was built and shipped to the United States market. All it proves is that those who are following the rules bought the right chassis, and those who are cheating swapped over the VINs.

If your base assumption is that the mere existence of two matching US-spec VINs is de facto proof of legality, and you won&#39;t budge on that point, then we&#39;re done with discussion (and don&#39;t bother reading further).


... - and you protest that person for an illegal chassis - how do you prove it one way or the other?[/b]
For the third time: the same way you do now. I need you to answer this question, Andy, if nothing but to yourself: how do you prove today that Kirk&#39;s Golf chassis was derived from a US-spec automobile, and that it has all the correct parts, including those that make it 50 pounds heavier? How do you prove that it was not that 50-pound-lighter CN-spec Golf chassis that Kirk simply swapped over the VINs from Pablo the First?

I&#39;m going to let you answer that question first before I offer the answer (and illustrate resulting logical fallacy of the above arguments).

Until you answer that, we&#39;re again done.


At least with the VIN rule you have a basis for legality.[/b]
How? By what proof? You&#39;re telling me you believe that as long as any car has two matching US-spec VINs attached it&#39;s a legal car?


...I can&#39;t justify eliminating a rule that removes ALL grounds for proof that the core shell is what it is supposed to be.[/b]
Therein lies the rub: your base assumption is flawed. IF I agreed with that base premise, then I&#39;d most certainly agree with your conclusion. Problem is, I don&#39;t. I do not believe that the VIN provide even a shadow of proof of legality of chassis, my above NX1600/2000 example as a perfect illustration.


...doesn&#39;t the removal of the VR remove all possibility - or even CLUE that something is wrong?
[/b]

Not one whit. That VIN is a government tag for the purposes of serialization, and provides no more confidence of legality than the confidence towards the person building the car. And that&#39;s what this is all about... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I feel the same way Greg. What I am trying to say is that without the VR, there is no basis for proving the chassis legal. You CAN cheat it, yes - Kirk&#39;s car COULD be illegal yes.

The net/net is that there is NO WAY to tell if anyone is using a grey-market - illegal chassis - with or without the VIN rule. So you say lets make it easier for everyone by eliminating the rule that deters it - a rule that isn&#39;t perfect and that keeps honest people in line - but one that won&#39;t keep cheats from cheating.

So what is the solution? I HEAR everything you are saying - and I agree but I don&#39;t see the upside of removing a deterent when the result would be a 100% undetectable and unpolicable situation. YES - I understand you could do that now by tagging with the wrong VIN - but don&#39;t you see the dillemma?

Done.

[shwah]

But Andy - there are already rules separate from the VIN rule that will keep honest racers honest. Since the cheats will cheat anyway, the only effect the VIN rule has is to punish honest racers by not allowing them to use the exact same assembly of parts to build a given model based on a decoration that we call a VIN number.

Your logic is so flawed here, I just can&#39;t beleive you don&#39;t see it. I don&#39;t mean that as an attack - I just really cannot fathom how you can read the same words we are reading in this thread and still beleive that the VIN rule is necessary and serving a pupose to the IT racing community.

Having said that, I doubt that going around this circle again will make a difference in the conversation :dead_horse: . Hopefully others will read this discussion and form an opinion of whether this makes sense. Hopefully some of them are your fellow ITAC members and CRB members.

[Greg Amy]

...but don&#39;t you see the dillemma?[/b]
Honestly? No. At best I&#39;d agree with your statement:

"...a rule that isn&#39;t perfect and that keeps honest people in line..."

...with a correction: the only value I see in the VIN rule is that it &#39;keeps uninformed or ignorant people honest,&#39; those that honestly don&#39;t know the difference. But, so what? We deal with that all the time, folks bringing cars to the track that they thought were legal but weren&#39;t. Why handle these any differently? if we tried to make every rule ignorant-proof, we&#39;d not be able to build any cars...

I truly do not believe the VIN rule does anything to deter cheating, now or otherwise. At all. Cheating requires knowledge of the act and a motive to do it; a VIN does nothing to stop that. Nor does the VIN Rule make enforcement any less difficult: tech inspectors have no clue about the specifics of any vehicle, and the most likely persons to protest are those that know the cars well and what to look for. Thus, matching VIN are useless in this regard (except as a secondary club to hammer the cheater with, in addition to the illegal parts).

So where we stand is the existence of a truly self-destructive rule, flying directly in the face of the philosophy, held in place by unreasonable fear and, possibly, ignorance (or misunderstanding) of potential consequences...silly, really. - GA

[Knestis]

As long as the rules writers are trying to write their way around the fundamental challenges of a system that requires us to police ourselves, we&#39;re always going to be in this bind.

Rules don&#39;t enforce rules - protests enforce rules.

I&#39;m going to retract my earlier comment about pursuing this change any further. Screw it. It would - to use Andy&#39;s term, net-net, be of value to a lot of IT entrants (and potential entrants who will otherwise face just one more barrier to entry). However, I&#39;m put in a position of not being able to make any headway in this case with logic, so will go back into my shell. On this and other rules questions, we&#39;ll just do whatever we need to do, to further our own interests.

Why do I keep touching the damn stove?

K

[BlueStreak]

Knestis - don&#39;t give up, some of us REALLY need this rule to change. It is getting harder to find A1 GTI shells that aren&#39;t junk. Ask me how I know :(

So here is a further question:

I need to buy a new radiator/core support for my Rabbit GTI. They are no longer manufactured by any aftermarket company (square headlights have a unique core support).

Which is legal and which is not, and what is the difference between the following:

Am I breaking the rules if I cut a core support out of a non-GTI 80-84 square headlight Rabbit and put it in my Rabbit GTI?

Am I breaking the rules if I cut the entire body shell off of the VIN(s) and attach a new body shell to the VIN(s)?

And one other item. I can&#39;t find a square headlight radiator/core support, but I can buy round headlight core supports all day. If you were running ITB, and somehow, miraculously, I beat you, would you protest me for having the wrong radiator core support and headlights/grille arrangement?

[shwah]

Eddie,

I don&#39;t see any problem with sourcing the same component from a different model. You could also get control arms from a 1981 Rabbit to replace your GTI ones legally because they are the same.

The round headlight core support would be a no-no in my book. Silly or not they were not offered on the GTI. They may have a slight weight difference between the two setups, be even if not rules are rules, and should be followed. I would not protest you myself, but that is because I would beat you. :P (tongue firmly in cheek - Eddie and I had a GREAT race together last year in Memphis - he crossed the line before me on Saturday, and I on Sunday)

[lateapex911]

I well and truly don&#39;t understand the logic behind this Jake. Why wouldn&#39;t you just register the new car? I imagine that there&#39;s more to this story than you&#39;re telling us. Did the new car not have a title? I can&#39;t believe you&#39;d swap the VIN tags on a car that you were going to register as a road car. The penalties for that are a bit worse than getting DQ&#39;d from an SCCA race. I also can&#39;t believe that you said, in just about so many words, that it&#39;s not cheating if you don&#39;t get caught (that comment has nothing to do w/ the SCCA). Maybe I&#39;m naive, but I&#39;m just not an "end justifies the means" guy. [/b]

Bill, have you EVER driven a car that might have had issues meeting some of the arcane state requirements? Maybe you&#39;ve driven a car that had handbrake isses? Or who knows what....

It was an old chassis that I got, and swapped my good parts into. It didn&#39;t freaken run when I got it...brakes all frozen, etc. race car....and it would need to be SEEn by state inspectors (10 yrs old)...sorry, but maybe I am the ONLY guy in the world that hates going to the DMV and dealing with the ninety layers of BS, but, driving a race car down to get inspected was the LAST thing I wanted to waste 4 hours of my life on, esp when the final call rests with the judgement of the (grumpy) inspector. How is this so hard to grasp?

[lateapex911]

So tell me how we police this Kirk? If the Canadian version weighs 50lbs less, and only a select few know it, how the heck is it right to blindly allow it? Am I supposed to know the 1 quazillion chassis iterations of every car in my class?

The only thing that keeps most people fromt cheating is the fear of getting caught. Is the VIN stamp on the car not a proper window into the cars original origin? With the elimination of the VIN rule, don&#39;t we now have to just ASSUME everyones car is right without any way to actually check it? Can you cheat the VIN rule? Probably, but what is a better option?

Trust me when I say I understand your points. But the detractors will tell you the downside is worse than making it easier for a few rare cars.

[/b]

Andy, usually we are in lock step with each other on most every issue. But I differ on this one.

If I was in that camp, I&#39;d have ported my car a long time ago, because I KNOW nobodys gonna go after a porting protest. It takes SO little, (to make a little more power) parts are hard to come by in the case of a protest to prove that I&#39;m illegal, so in the rare chance I was protested, I might win...and on and on.

And I can name 20 other guys off the top of my head that would vomit a little in their mouth if they got wind that they were thought of as cheaters.

Now, lets talk about the guys who DO cheat.

Look at them...you think they are bothered by a VIN rule? Heck how about the guy (In the NE... ITA car) who had his valve cover off in the paddock, and the cam was labled ...and it wasn&#39;t Honda tag! Or how about the guys cutting holes in their radiator wall/support with torches for cold air (you&#39;ve seen them at impound no doubt), or guys (and I love this) who are offereing to make solid engine mounts for others, while in impound! Cheaters will cheat...they don&#39;t give a rats ass about rules ...they will just do it. Heck, they are probably already chassis out there right NOW that ARE lighter than the proper version (or stronger or whatever) and have the "correct" VIN number on them. It&#39;s pretty darn easy, and I&#39;m not dumb enough to think it&#39;s not being done.

Point being that legal people are going to follow the rules, and cheaters will not. And when they decide to cheat, they&#39;ll do what want.

Is it hard to police? You bet. Just as hard as it is for me to have a CLUE whether some Golf out there is using the right trans ratios....or if some Honda has the right compression ratio.

But forcing people to run the right 2" x3" bit of metal with the "correct" VIN number stamped doesn&#39;t strike me as an effective method of making racing better. I think it makes it harder for the good guys and doesn&#39;t slow down the bad guys one bit.

[Bill Miller]

Knestis - don&#39;t give up, some of us REALLY need this rule to change. It is getting harder to find A1 GTI shells that aren&#39;t junk. Ask me how I know :(

So here is a further question:

I need to buy a new radiator/core support for my Rabbit GTI. They are no longer manufactured by any aftermarket company (square headlights have a unique core support).

Which is legal and which is not, and what is the difference between the following:

Am I breaking the rules if I cut a core support out of a non-GTI 80-84 square headlight Rabbit and put it in my Rabbit GTI?

Am I breaking the rules if I cut the entire body shell off of the VIN(s) and attach a new body shell to the VIN(s)?

And one other item. I can&#39;t find a square headlight radiator/core support, but I can buy round headlight core supports all day. If you were running ITB, and somehow, miraculously, I beat you, would you protest me for having the wrong radiator core support and headlights/grille arrangement?
[/b]


Eddie,

I don&#39;t think there is any question of legality if you use a core support from any Westmorland Rabbit. In fact, if I look in ETKA, I would be willing to bet that there&#39;s no difference in the p/n between the two cars. And you don&#39;t have to cut the body away from the VIN#, all you need to do is swap the dash tag and the door jamb tag and you&#39;re done. Be interesting to see if they actually have part numbers listed for those items.

Andy,

I can&#39;t say anything else that Kirk, Greg, Chris, etc. haven&#39;t said. The VIN rule doesn&#39;t stop anyone from cheating. And to make matters even worse, there are already exceptions in the GCR that don&#39;t require a VIN tag. Look at the ITB VW Golf listing. It says Golf Cup cars are eligible if they&#39;re prepared to the IT specs. Those cars came over w/o any VIN stampings as they were only for racing purposes. Bodies in white if you will. How do you know if they&#39;re identical to a US-spec road-going Golf? You don&#39;t.

Jake,

Swapping VIN tags around on road cars is a pretty major no-no. Think chop-shop. I knew a guy that did it years ago. He was an MG guy, and somebody had given him a car. The car had been sitting for several years, had no title, and efforts to obtain one were futile. Being an MG guy, he had a stack of titles from cars he&#39;d previously had that had gone to the junk yard (those old British cars tended to rust a bit). So he took the VIN tag from a shell that he was junking, and swapped it over to the car that he was given, and went to DMV and registered it. To make a long story short, he got caught a couple of years later. Cost him a bunch of money w/ a lawyer to stay out of jail, and as it was, he ended up w/ a felony record. State DMV depts. don&#39;t have much of a sense of humor when it comes to that kind of thing. Not to mention that there are things known as C-VINs on cars. These are confidential VIN stampings that are supposedly only known to law enforcement agencies, and are used in locating stolen vehicles that have been run through chop shops. I don&#39;t know if every car has them, but I have a friend who&#39;s been a body guy for years, and he has seen them. I could care less if you do it on a race car, but doing it on a street car (or a car that you register for driving on the street) is a risky proposition. Will you get caught? Probably not, but that&#39;s not a chance I&#39;d want to take, especially after what happened to my friend.

[Knestis]

Knestis - don&#39;t give up, some of us REALLY need this rule to change. It is getting harder to find A1 GTI shells that aren&#39;t junk. ...[/b]
Sorry. I&#39;ve been working to make IT a better place to race since that MkI GTI was brand new and I guess I just don&#39;t have it in me to joust at these windmills anymore. I keep promising that each time I get sucked into one of these stupid deals, it will be the last time but this really takes the cake.

It is a dumb rule with benefit:cost ratio that is so close to zero as to be immeasurable. I care about it partially JUST BECAUSE it&#39;s so silly, partially because it is completely at odds with a newer rule that makes sense (the allowance to use equivalent parts from non-factory suppliers - where did you come down on that issue again, Andy?), and partially because, as Bill points out, NC kind of frowns on the chop shop thing and I like to be able to license my race car for the street. But hey, I&#39;ll do whatever I think the system will tolerate at this point, rather than what is "Right." Way to go rules - you sure made me follow you.

Tag - you&#39;re it, BlueStreak. Write your letters but note that you&#39;ve already been told that they&#39;re going to get denied regardless. No request was solicited for member input on that question, remember so your only bet is to hope that ITAC member turnover shifts what seems to be the prevailing position on this one. Logic ain&#39;t going to.

And Andy (et al.) - do NOT take this as some kind of blanket condemnation of the ITAC, its members, or its recent work. Miracles have happened but note that the last time I felt this strongly about the rules, it was about the wacky idea of actually using a "formula" to establish race weights in IT - propegated by myself, a certain Miller guy, and a few other goofballs who got shouted down every time it was suggested. Maybe we aren&#39;t idiots.

K

[Bill Miller]

Hey Bluestreak, I meant to mention that I&#39;ve got a solid core support from an &#39;84 GTI that I&#39;d be happy to work out a deal w/ you on. I&#39;ve also got a couple of solid fenders to go w/ it. Shoot me an email at millerwj_at_yahoo_dot_com

[lateapex911]

..........Miracles have happened but note that the last time I felt this strongly about the rules, it was about the wacky idea of actually using a "formula" to establish race weights in IT - propegated by myself, a certain Miller guy, and a few other goofballs who got shouted down every time it was suggested. Maybe we aren&#39;t idiots.

K [/b]

And keep in mind that some of those goofballs actually are behind the curtain now.

Sometimes things take time. it&#39;s frustrating, I know.

[BlueStreak]

Bill - you&#39;ve got mail :)