Update/Backdate between body types

[JoshS]

Quoting 9.1.3.C: "To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line."

Okay, so if this didn't say "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," then this would be very clear. It would mean that you simply cannot, ever, exchange parts from one body type into another.

But add that clause, and I get confused. What if a single spec line includes more than one body type (as most do?)

[Bill Miller]

Quoting 9.1.3.C: "To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line."

Okay, so if this didn't say "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," then this would be very clear. It would mean that you simply cannot, ever, exchange parts from one body type into another.

But add that clause, and I get confused. What if a single spec line includes more than one body type (as most do?)
[/b]

I don't know if I'd say that 'most' do. I know of a couple examples, but most (all?) differ in 2-dr vs. 4-dr versions. Regardless, if they're on the same spec line, you can update/backdate, given the other restrictions (complete assembly, etc.)

[JoshS]

Fair enough, let's say "many" instead of "most." I can find LOTS of examples of listed cars that came in 2-door or 4-door, but there's no distinction presented in the listings. Same for sedan/hatch, or coupe/convertible, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what, in practical application, would be confusing? Are you saying that you would TRY and use a sedan front door on a 2-door? If it would fit (which I doubt), you could. If not, why would you?

[tnord]

i bet the front 1/3 of many of these vehicles could transfer across body types.

[bldn10]

Well, let me throw a wrench in and let's see where it goes.

It could simply mean that parts off any cars on a single spec line are completely interchangeable. However, since this section of rule is only talking about backdating/updating - meaning putting parts from an earlier or later model car on yours - not about general substitution of parts. Read in that context, the reference to a single spec line could be simply to the model years on a single line, not body types, and the restriction to same body type would still be in effect. I.e. you can put a tranny from an '87 or '89 coupe in your '88 coupe but not in a sedan or convert. The rule goes on to say that you can't "create" a model car that never existed - so, e.g. if sedans never came w/ a 5-speed, you can't take a 5-speed out of a coupe (of any model year) and put it in a sedan even if the coupe and sedan are on the same line. But if sedans didn't have 5-speeds until a certain listed year, you can update your older car, that did not come w/ a 5-speed, w/ a tranny from a later sedan (but not a coupe). However, if the 5-speed that came in coupes and later sedans is exactly the same, I don't think anyone is going to quibble about where it came from. I have not even considered the ramifications of this interpretation - I'm just reading the rule.

[JoshS]

I'm thinking along the lines of what Bill said.

Here's a scenario. Not a real car in the example.

Let's say that a car listed was available for only 2 years, 1995 and 1996. Same engine specs, same transmission ratios, same brakes. The spec line doesn't say anything about body types, it just lists this model and the years, '95-'96. The '95 was available only in a 4-door. In '96, a 2-door was introduced, but all '96 cars of either body style had a lousy emissions-choking intake manifold that didsn't work nearly as well as the '95.

If you have a '96 2-door, can you use the intake manifold from a '95? 2-doors were never available with that intake manifold. I think it's clear that if you have a '96 4-door, you can use either manifold.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you have a '96 2-door, can you use the intake manifold from a '95? 2-doors were never available with that intake manifold. I think it's clear that if you have a '96 4-door, you can use either manifold. [/b]

And you would be right IMHO. Happens all the time.

[PSherm]

Except I thought you can only update/backdate complete assemblies??? No "creating" a model?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except I thought you can only update/backdate complete assemblies??? No "creating" a model? [/b]

And what complete assembly would you be referring to? The intake manifold 'assembly' is a very common upgrade to 86-88 RX-7's in ITS. You can't create a model (VIN requirement rule) but you sure as shootin can update backdate as allowed.

[JoshS]

Andy, I don't think you answered my question. Can someone use the '95 intake manifold on a '96 2-door? They are different body styles, but on the same spec line.

BTW, this came up because someone asked on the scca.com forums about whether or not a 2-door Jetta was legal in ITB. I was about to say, "Yes, but you can't use the good motor from a GLI, because the 2-door never came with that motor", but now I'm not so sure.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I thought I did. Yes it is legal IMHO.

Now the Jetta - it's on the spec line so I believe you can. Just like you can use the engine out of a 1991 RX-7 in your 1986. Never came with it but it is on the same spec line so the SCCA has deemed it 'updateable'.

No?

[JoshS]

I guess I agree, but I wonder why the words I quoted at the top of this thread mention body type (and really, all of those other things?) Why doesnt' it simply say, "update/backdate is allowed within models on the same spec line" or something better worded?

[Knestis]

Not going to strap on my NERD badge but this discussion did surface an inconsistency. The ITCS lists

Volkswagen Jetta/ GL / GLI (85-91) - 4 Cyl SOHC - 81.0 x 86.4 1780

Problem is, the '91 GLI had the 2.0 16v rather than the 1.8 SOHC engine. I don't think anyone ever intended that the big motor could run in B at 2280 - not that it wouldn't be kick-ass or anything... :)

I think the problem described here is a result of the additive nature of how the GCR/ITCS gets updated.

Different subject - I am VERY interested in the interpretation that a manifold is an "assembly," in light of the fact that the rule says...

Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). (Emphasis added)

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Different subject - I am VERY interested in the interpretation that a manifold is an "assembly," in light of the fact that the rule says...

Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). (Emphasis added)

K
[/b]

Well as it applies to the RX-7:

I say intake manifold but what I really mean is induction system - as is defined in the GCR. The whole thing on these cars can be transferred.

[Knestis]

...so manifold casting, TB, sensors, injectors, harness, etc. The whole shootin' match...? That's more in line with what I've always thought.

Thanks

K

[MMiskoe]

Anytime you update/backdate you create a model that didn't exist.

Take for example the 2nd gen RX7. Unless I am mistaken, the car was never built w/ the big brakes and maual steering rack.

GXL = big brakes & adjustable shocks + power windows, power steering & sunroof.

SE = little brakes + power windows, power steering & sunroof

Base = little brakes + manual windows & steering.

So when you swap the manual rack into a car w/ big brakes you just created a model that never existed.

Even if I am wrong about what Mazda did offer, lets asuume for argument's sake that I am right. Can you put the manual rack w/ the big brakes? Not w/o creating a model that didn't exist.

I agree that if there is a better component from one year to another, you could swap that, hence the '91 13B motor is the one to have. But at what point do you stop w/ the "component"? If they changed the wire harness to support the new motor, do you have to swap that too? I would expect you do.

Matt

[dickita15]

what exactly is the definition of "create a model that didn't exist."

[Bill Miller]

Not going to strap on my NERD badge but this discussion did surface an inconsistency. The ITCS lists

Volkswagen Jetta/ GL / GLI (85-91) - 4 Cyl SOHC - 81.0 x 86.4 1780

Problem is, the '91 GLI had the 2.0 16v rather than the 1.8 SOHC engine. I don't think anyone ever intended that the big motor could run in B at 2280 - not that it wouldn't be kick-ass or anything... :)

I think the problem described here is a result of the additive nature of how the GCR/ITCS gets updated.

Different subject - I am VERY interested in the interpretation that a manifold is an "assembly," in light of the fact that the rule says...

Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). (Emphasis added)

K
[/b]


Different issue Kirk. You're talking about something that should be corrected through E&O, just like the 1.7 Rabbit / Scirocco w/ the close-ratio tranny. If you look at the spec line, I believe it says SOHC. But, what your anecdote does point out is that there are many entries in the ITCS (and other category specs) w/ incorrect information. See what happens when you don't wear your rules NERD hat for a while? :P :birra:



what exactly is the definition of "create a model that didn't exist."
[/b]


Dick,

I believe what that means, is that you can't use items that did not come on one version of the car(s) that are listed on the spec line. And no, that doesn't mean that since an '85 RX7 came w/ both a 12A and a 13B, that you can interchange them, those are explicitly on different spec lines (in different classes).

In actuality, you do 'create a model' when you build a configuration that didn't come from the factory. Like the A2 2-dr Jetta w/ the high-comp motor, close-ratio box, and rear disc brakes. But, the spec line lets you do that.

[Knestis]

...all of which makes the VIN requirement all the more silly.

K

[charrbq]

It's all good as long as you leave the speakers in the doors! :blink: :D :P

[PSherm]

...all of which makes the VIN requirement all the more silly.

K
[/b]

No kidding! There's a requirement I would love to see go away!

How about it, members of the ITAC/CRB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

No kidding! There's a requirement I would love to see go away!

How about it, members of the ITAC/CRB?
[/b]

Other than a few ultra-rare cars, I don't see it as that difficult to build what you want to build from what are supposed to build it from.

The problem is the unknown and unintended concequenses it brings forth. I don't see a pressing need to change. Risk vs. Reward.

[ddewhurst]

***Different subject - I am VERY interested in the interpretation that a manifold is an "assembly," in light of the fact that the rule says...

Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). (Emphasis added)***

Thanks K, ya saved me from going there. :023:

[Knestis]

No kidding! There's a requirement I would love to see go away!

How about it, members of the ITAC/CRB?
[/b]

I proposed it and it was turned down. It's another case of trying to enforce the rules in their writing, rather than in the tech shed. The only "risk" that has been suggested is that people will cheat, and use body parts (or a shell) that isn't identical to the ones that should be there. There is nothing in the rules to keep folks from doing exactly the same thing right now (e.g., the ITS e36's that have been advertised with the "M3 chassis improvement"), so allowing people to economize by increasing the supply of appropriate chassis would change nothing.

K

[bldn10]

"I thought I did. Yes it is legal IMHO. ... Now the Jetta - it's on the spec line so I believe you can. Just like you can use the engine out of a 1991 RX-7 in your 1986. Never came with it but it is on the same spec line so the SCCA has deemed it 'updateable'. ... No?"

Andy, you are evidently of the first option I stated - that parts are freely interchangeable between all cars on a single line - and that explains your answer above. However, I don't think you can use the RX-7 as "proof" that that is what the rule means. The reason is because the RX-7 engines could be swapeed even under the more restrictive interpretation because you are simply updating between the same model and type on the same line.

The problem w/ the Jetta is that it is NOT the same type of car even though they are on the same line - one is a coupe and one is a sedan.

The part about not creating a car that never existed expressly refers to "model or type of car." So, there would be no problem putting RX-7 big brakes from a GXL on a base car - they are both the same model - FC3 RX-7, and are both coupes. You are NOT creating a new model or type of car - you are just messing w/ option packages. :D But you could not take those brakes or anything off a convertible.

Guys, I think that is actually an internally consistent, logical interpretation that is rooted in the language of the rule itself. The harshness is tempered, as I said, by not getting hung up on e.g. where the big brakes came from if they are all the same. I don't care about the 325 guys swapping parts between 2 and 4-doors if the parts are the same anyway. But if the coupe had some special part that the sedan never did - I think that it is questionable that you could take that part off a coupe and put it on a sedan.

Josh is right - there is a lot of superfluous language in there if the rule is simply free up-backdating. Model and body type has to mean something.

FWIW my SpeedSource RX-7 is a hybrid w/ '87 S4 chassis that was completely stripped and rewired as an S5. Now that's a complete component!

[JoshS]

My guess, and it's nothing more than that, is that the original intent was that each spec line would be completely specific -- everything on the same line would be the same model, type, engine size, etc. If a version of the same car appeared that was different on one of those specifications, it was expected that it would get its own line. With this in mind, the wording makes sense.

But that didn't happen as time passed, and now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines.

[bldn10]

"now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines."

At the risk of taking devil's advocacy one step too far :dead_horse: , why does it not make sense? Does it truly not make sense or does it just not comport w/ our sensibility? We can't say that rules make no sense or are bad rules just because they yield results we don't like.

[mlytle]

I proposed it and it was turned down. It's another case of trying to enforce the rules in their writing, rather than in the tech shed. The only "risk" that has been suggested is that people will cheat, and use body parts (or a shell) that isn't identical to the ones that should be there. There is nothing in the rules to keep folks from doing exactly the same thing right now (e.g., the ITS e36's that have been advertised with the "M3 chassis improvement"), so allowing people to economize by increasing the supply of appropriate chassis would change nothing.

K
[/b]

if the "m3 chassis improvement" is from using an e36 m3 chassis as a start and then building all of the e36 325 stuff into it, that would obviously be illegal in scca as the m3 is not on the same spec line. the vin won't match a 325. some of the body parts are interchangeable (same part number, e.g. hoods and trunks) between the m3 and the regular 325's, but the chassis isn't one of them.....

marshall

[Knestis]

But "it's not legal because the VIN's don't match" misses what I think is the point we all care about.

Welding M3 rear suspension reinforcements into a 325 is currently illegal, even though the "VIN rule" isn't violated. Using an M3 chassis to build an ITS 325 is currently illegal because some of the parts that go into building that chassis are different.

Getting rid of the VIN requirement would change neither.


some of the body parts are interchangeable (same part number, e.g. hoods and trunks) between the m3 and the regular 325's[/b]
...and that would continue to be the case absent the VIN requirement, as it should be. The chassis is just a bunch of parts and, as long as the parts that are there are the parts that SHOULD be there, life would be good.

K

[lateapex911]

To me, it boils down to this:

Less rules, more enforcement.

And that falls largely on OUR shoulders.

We can't complain about too many rules, if we're not willing to be part of that solution.

[JoshS]

"now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines."

At the risk of taking devil's advocacy one step too far :dead_horse: , why does it not make sense? Does it truly not make sense or does it just not comport w/ our sensibility? We can't say that rules make no sense or are bad rules just because they yield results we don't like.
[/b]
It truly doesn't make sense, at least not to my feeble mind.

Quoting again: "To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line."

What is the meaning of the last phrase, "as listed on a single IT spec line?" To me it implies that any spec line contains cars of only a single make, model, body type, and engine size. But we know that's not universally true. So if a spec line contains more than one of these things (i.e., in the ITB Jetta case, which contains more than one body type and more than one engine size, although the SPECS only have a single engine size), what are we to infer about this rule's wording about the right to update/backdate?

It's been a long time since I studied linguistics, but if someone could parse this up for me, it would be helpful!

[PSherm]

Other than a few ultra-rare cars, I don't see it as that difficult to build what you want to build from what are supposed to build it from.

The problem is the unknown and unintended concequenses it brings forth. I don't see a pressing need to change. Risk vs. Reward.
[/b]

My displeasure with the VIN requirement precludes me from using a perfectly good shell I currently have and forcing me to do to one of the following:

1) Buy another car with the appropriate VIN and build that
2) Buy a dash/door/inner fender from a car with an appropriate VIN and swap
3) Build what I have and take the chance that someone could protest my car for having an engine that does not match the VIN code.

And before you think this is some kind of rare car, I'm talking about a Dodge Neon. They are listed on seperate lines depending on it being a SOHC or DOHC. The body configuration doesn't matter, since the cars are identical, with the exception of engine. But the VIN rule means I cannot take a SOHC engine and put it in a DOHC body and race it using the SOHC spec line.

[bldn10]

Josh, I already put forth an explanation and then stated that I think that explanation is logical, internally consistent, and effectuates all the language of the rule, not to mention the class philosophy. My question is where am I wrong? Perhaps your problem w/ this is that, as you stated, you draw an inference from the single line terminology. Put aside all inferrences and preconceived notions and just read the rule - doesn't it say what I think it does? The fact that different body types are on the same line is no big deal because the rule limits back-updating w/i body types. That language in effect puts each body type on a separate line. At least that's the way I see it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you suspect an illegal setup, t is much easier to become an expert in VIN's than it is in becoming an expert in a variety of different models chassis differences. While the net/net may be the same, the road to discovery and enforcement becomes much longer.

Paul, if the chassis are identical and the VIN's don't call out the difference between the DOHC and SOHC, you are good to go. On the devil's advocate side, why should a rule be changed because you have the wrong chassis as a spare?

[lateapex911]

If you suspect an illegal setup, t is much easier to become an expert in VIN's than it is in becoming an expert in a variety of different models chassis differences. While the net/net may be the same, the road to discovery and enforcement becomes much longer.

Paul, if the chassis are identical and the VIN's don't call out the difference between the DOHC and SOHC, you are good to go. On the devil's advocate side, why should a rule be changed because you have the wrong chassis as a spare?

[/b]

I'm not on board with those points. First, if I know that there are extra brackets on an M3 (lets say) chassis that aren't on a standard E36 chassis, it's a simple matter to look and see. And no VIN decoding required.

Second, if the the chassis ARE the same, but the VIN DOES call out a difference, it's the ultimate victimless crime...theres not even a real crime being committed...just a paperwork issue.

Why should the rule be changed? To make finding appropriate chassis easier, and cheaper.

The downside? Cheaters will still cheat.

[JoshS]

Josh, I already put forth an explanation and then stated that I think that explanation is logical, internally consistent, and effectuates all the language of the rule, not to mention the class philosophy. My question is where am I wrong? Perhaps your problem w/ this is that, as you stated, you draw an inference from the single line terminology. Put aside all inferrences and preconceived notions and just read the rule - doesn't it say what I think it does? The fact that different body types are on the same line is no big deal because the rule limits back-updating w/i body types. That language in effect puts each body type on a separate line. At least that's the way I see it.
[/b]
I'm okay with that, but you understand that this is inconsistent with common practices, right?

I still think it could be worded more clearly. I think maybe the intent was either to maintain separate lines (in which case there are extra words), or as you say, "in effect" put each body type (etc.) on a separate line, but in that case, the wording could be a lot clearer.

[Knestis]

Josh - I think things would have been consistent with your view IF it were ALWAYS the case that any given spec line include only one "body type." That might have been the intent but again, in practice that's not how things are today.

Given that they are now mutually exclusive, given the choice between "same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size" and "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," the latter takes precedence.

K

[bldn10]

"Given that they are now mutually exclusive, given the choice between "same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size" and "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," the latter takes precedence."

Guys, please forgive me for being lawyer-like and for importing universally-accepted principles of statuitory construction into these discussions, but I am a lawyer and do think these principles should prevail even in the SCCA.

If 2 provisions of a rule appear to be inconsistent, the proper way to approach it is to look for an interpretation that harmonizes both provisions and gives meaning to the whole. You do not look for inconsistencies and declare that it is one or the other. Only is there is NO reasonable interpretation do you get to that point. And, even then, statutory TEXT usually prevails over tables, illustrations, etc. Kirk, I don't know where you got the notion that the table takes precedence.

The interpretation I have put forth IMO harmonizes the text and the table. There is no problem reading the rule to say that "updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted
1. within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g. sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.),
2. and engine size
3. [AND] listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line."

I.e. all 3 requirements have to be met. Doesn't that make sense?

The Neon issue is like what I said re the 325 2 and 4-doors - if the shells for the SOHC and DOHC are the same, I personally don't care. However, it would be illegal. And do we know for sure that they are absolutely the same? I am not opposed to some relief for this type of situation; allowing use of available shells effectuates the class philosophy of "inexpensive" racing. But sometimes, as Andy suggested, administartive conerns may outweigh what otherwise makes good sense from the driver's perspective.

[PSherm]

The Neon issue is like what I said re the 325 2 and 4-doors - if the shells for the SOHC and DOHC are the same, I personally don't care. However, it would be illegal. And do we know for sure that they are absolutely the same? I am not opposed to some relief for this type of situation; allowing use of available shells effectuates the class philosophy of "inexpensive" racing. But sometimes, as Andy suggested, administartive conerns may outweigh what otherwise makes good sense from the driver's perspective.
[/b]

The Neon bodies are identical; the problem lies in the fact that the VIN carries the engine code, so LEGALLY, I cannot just put my SOHC engine in my DOHC-coded car. :018: :mad1:

Removing the paragraph that states the VIN controls the configuration as raced would eliminate this. I don't know how many, if any, this would affect, but I can't believe the Neon is the only one. IMHO, the VIN rule is outdated, especially considering how many times cars get repaired and have body parts replaced. Besides, it's downright silly for racecars, even production based ones.

[Knestis]

...Kirk, I don't know where you got the notion that the table takes precedence. [/b]

Sorry - I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that LOGICALLY, the ITCS spec line standard takes precedence. I meant that in practice, that has been the case for as long as I can remember having conversations like this. I think it's only because that's where the actual detail information lives.

K

[Greg Krom]

The Neon bodies are identical; the problem lies in the fact that the VIN carries the engine code, so LEGALLY, I cannot just put my SOHC engine in my DOHC-coded car. :018: :mad1:

Removing the paragraph that states the VIN controls the configuration as raced would eliminate this. I don't know how many, if any, this would affect, but I can't believe the Neon is the only one. IMHO, the VIN rule is outdated, especially considering how many times cars get repaired and have body parts replaced. Besides, it's downright silly for racecars, even production based ones.
[/b]

The real question relative to the Neon is why are the DOHC and the SOHC listed on separate spec lines at all? All '95-'99 Neons chassis are identical. The SOHC and DOHC engines were both available throughout the life cycle of the vehicle in both 2-door and 4-door configurations. Why restrict the update/backdate ability of the Neon's by listing the two engines on separate spec lines?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The real question relative to the Neon is why are the DOHC and the SOHC listed on separate spec lines at all? All '95-'99 Neons chassis are identical. The SOHC and DOHC engines were both available throughout the life cycle of the vehicle in both 2-door and 4-door configurations. Why restrict the update/backdate ability of the Neon's by listing the two engines on separate spec lines? [/b]

Because one has a 132hp SOHC and one has a 150hp DOHC. Are you proposing that all Neon's should weigh the same? And at what weight and why?

[Greg Krom]

Because one has a 132hp SOHC and one has a 150hp DOHC. Are you proposing that all Neon's should weigh the same? And at what weight and why?
[/b]

That's not at all what I'm proposing. I am proposing that all '95-'99 Neons - 2-door, 4-door, SOHC or DOHC - be listed under a single spec line with any differences spelled out. This would allow us to run either engine in any chassis.

What does a separate spec line solve that a simple note under weight - "DOHC = 2650 lbs, SOHC = 2450 lbs" wouldn't solve?

[Knestis]

The primary "spec" that historically defines a spec line is the weight. That's the only attribute that SCCA varies, since all the rest come with the car.

K

[Greg Krom]

A quick scan of the spec book finds 6 or 7 examples of other vehicles that list multiple weights under the same spec line. Several others that list multiple valve sizes, brake sizes or other specifications.

Why can't the Neon be the same?

[Andy Bettencourt]

A quick scan of the spec book finds 6 or 7 examples of other vehicles that list multiple weights under the same spec line. Several others that list multiple valve sizes, brake sizes or other specifications.

Why can't the Neon be the same? [/b]

In the ITCS?

[Greg Krom]

In the ITCS?
[/b]

Yup.

[PSherm]

A quick scan of the spec book finds 6 or 7 examples of other vehicles that list multiple weights under the same spec line. Several others that list multiple valve sizes, brake sizes or other specifications.

Why can't the Neon be the same?
[/b]

Boy howdy! That would solve the problem! :026:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am looking at my 2006 and 2007 GCR's. Help me find an example of one car with multiple weights listed on the same spec line. Remember, we are talking the ITCS here, not any other categories.

[Greg Krom]

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.2(78-80) 2430(CP) 2490(HB)

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.4(81-82) 2470(CP) 2510(HB)

ITB Triumph TR-7 2.0(76-81) 2440(CP) 2420(Conv.)

ITC Nissan Sentra / B11 1.5(82-83) 1980(SD) 2100(HB)

ITC Nissan Sentra / B12 1.6(83-86) 1980(SD)2100(HB)

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.2(78-80) 2430(CP) 2490(HB)

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.4(81-82) 2470(CP) 2510(HB)

ITB Triumph TR-7 2.0(76-81) 2440(CP) 2420(Conv.)

ITC Nissan Sentra / B11 1.5(82-83) 1980(SD) 2100(HB)

ITC Nissan Sentra / B12 1.6(83-86) 1980(SD)2100(HB) [/b]

But I fail to see how this is apples to apples. These cars are identical except for body style. There is no precident for your request.

As for it being a good idea or not, write it up and send it in! And to add - those listings are very old. New classifications would not seperate between body styles - example - 240SX in ITA.

[Knestis]

Holy Yikes.

Look what you learn..? Different weights for different body styles of cars with the same drivetrains is completely inconsistent with the new way of doing things.

That said, I don't necessarily think that having different weights for the SAME body style with DIFFERENT drivetrains on one spec line is equally messed up. And it does provide some instances of relief from the VIN rule restriction.

Hmmm.

Or we could set the stupid VIN rule free and do what is going to have to be done to put both Neons on one spec line, for example - figure out if the chassis ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT. Until there's confirmation that they are not, putting the SOHC and DOHC cars on the same spec line introduces arguably greater chances that the dreaded "unforeseen circumstances of making a model" will rear their ugly heads, than would fixing the bigger problem. And if it can be done for two cars in the same class, it can be done for cars in different classes that share identical body parts.

No - I'm not going to set it free.

K

EDIT - the more I think about it, the more these examples are powerful evidence that at least some of the folks making IT rules, at some point in history, were using stock weights as a basis for race weights (less = less, more = more) and quite literally not caring about performance as an outcome. Very interesting.

[Greg Krom]

There are also examples of vehicles listing multiple engines (albeit at the same weight) on the same spec line - ITC Rabbit, ITC Scirocco, ITC Fiat 124 Coupe, ITC 124 Spider, ITB Audi 5+5, ITB Audi Coupe, ITA Mercury Capri.

On the other hand, I have not found a single example of another car like the Neon, where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines. There may be examples that I've missed, but I haven't found them yet.

In the case of the Neon, the separate spec lines are really for the engines only. All of the chassis options - 2-door, 4-door and ACR are spelled out in both spec lines. Throughout the lifespan on the first generation Neon, both engines were available in both 2-door and 4-door chassis and in every trim/option package level. The only limitations were on those cars purchase with the ACR option package - the ACR package in a 2-door came with a DOHC engine and in a 4-door the ACR option package came with a SOHC.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

The way you read the UD/BD, do you think you could build an "ACR" 2-door SOHC for ITA?

I do. Start with a SOHC coupe and UD/BD all the ACR stuff you want (hubs, steering rack, front and rear bumper covers, etc). I realize this doesn't cure the 'I have the wrong chassis as a donor" issue but it sure allows for some nice combinations.

[Greg Krom]

Greg,

The way you read the UD/BD, do you think you could build an "ACR" 2-door SOHC for ITA?

I do. Start with a SOHC coupe and UD/BD all the ACR stuff you want (hubs, steering rack, front and rear bumper covers, etc).
[/b]

Yes. However, I cannot legally put a SOHC engine into an original 2-Door ACR. At least as I interpret the rules.

See where it's kinda messed up?

Right now, in my garage I have got an ex-SSB Neon Coupe with a blown DOHC motor. It's got a nice welded-in cage, nice seat, etc and could easily be converted into a nice ITA car by dropping a SOHC engine into it - I don't want anything to do with the DOHC engine's unreliability. Instead I have to go find a different donor chassis and swap out everything, except the engine, to do arrive at the same car "legally".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes. However, I cannot legally put a SOHC engine into an original 2-Door ACR. At least as I interpret the rules.

See where it's kinda messed up? [/b]

I agree with your interpretation. I disagree that it's messed up from a 10,000 foot view. Like you said, you can't find any other examples where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines. Why should a rule be created for one car? How would you write the spec lines? I am not for eliminating the VIN rule at this time but would be interested n how you would solve this 'problem' without messing with a class-wide rule...

[Greg Krom]

I would follow the same pattern as all of other spec lines that have multiple listings

Chrysler Neon, (2 & 4 door) including ACR. (95-99)
Engine type - 4 Cyl SOHC or 4 Cyl DOHC.
Bore & Stroke/Displacement - 87.5 x 83.0 1995
Valves - (I) 33.0(E) 28.09 (SOHC), (I) 34.8(E) 30.59 (DOHC)
Comp Ratio - 9.8 (SOHC), 9.6 (DOHC)
Wheelbase - 104.0
Wheel Dia - 14
Gear Ratios - 3.54, 2.12, 1.36, 1.03, 0.81
Brakes - (F) 257 x 20Disc® 257 x 9Disc
Weight - 2450 (SOHC), 2650 (DOHC)

I don't see it as a rule change at all. What rule is it that you feel would be changed by this spec line?

Playing devils advocate, couldn't it be argued that listing them on separate spec lines goes against the rules by "creating a model that doesn't exist"? There is no such model as a Chrysler Neon SOHC or Chrysler Neon DOHC. There is a Chrysler Neon. The Neon was available in a variety of trim packages and with your choice of two different engines, a 2.0 SOHC or a 2.0 DOHC. As it turns out, the Neon with either of those engines fits into the performance parameters of the ITA class. There should be a single listing for the vehicle model, part of that listing should be any configurations that fit within the parameters of that class.

[Greg Krom]

I agree with your interpretation. I disagree that it's messed up from a 10,000 foot view. Like you said, you can't find any other examples where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines. Why should a rule be created for one car? How would you write the spec lines? I am not for eliminating the VIN rule at this time but would be interested n how you would solve this 'problem' without messing with a class-wide rule...
[/b]

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

Does that make any sense at all?

[Greg Krom]

Like you said, you can't find any other examples where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines.
[/b]

But I did find several cars that have multiple engine choices, in the same class listed on SINGLE spec lines. What is the justification for the Neon to have multiple spec lines when every other example is on a single spec line?



Why should a rule be created for one car? How would you write the spec lines? I am not for eliminating the VIN rule at this time but would be interested n how you would solve this 'problem' without messing with a class-wide rule...
[/b]

Easy, I would solve the problem by giving the Neon a single spec line in ITA.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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

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

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

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

[Knestis]

Okaaaay.

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


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

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

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

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Okaaaay.

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



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

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

K [/b]

Kirk,

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

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

[Knestis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

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

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

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

Actually,

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

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

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

As does enforcing every rule in the rulebook.


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

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


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

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


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

Seriously.

K [/b]

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

[Matt Rowe]

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

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

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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

[/b]

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rowe]

So does any rule. Just because my inatke manifold looks stock doesn't mean I haven't cheated it up. Same for a HUGE amount of other items that really affect performance. What is the point?[/b]
The point is there is a rule that says you can't modify you're intake. Why make a rule that say the intake part number must be OEM. If the intake can't be modified the number doesn't matter, it will fit the car.


The VIN rule insures that the car is what you say it is. [/b]
No it doesn't.


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

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

[Knestis]

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


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

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

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

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

(More long explanation deleted)

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

I am done.

[Knestis]

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

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

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

Sorry. It just doesn't make any sense.

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

K

[Bill Miller]

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

[/b]


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

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

[lateapex911]

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

[/b]

Wow...never noticed that. Good point.

[Knestis]

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

K

[lateapex911]

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

K [/b]

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rowe]

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

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

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

[lateapex911]

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

. [/b]

You calling us creeps?? ;)

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

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