View Full Version : Ruling on BMW Bumper cover
I had my front bumper cover trashed @ Summit a couple of weeks ago on my 325I, my question is, can I replace it with the 325is M technic bumper cover and stay legal?
Thanks, or maybe not. :D
Andy Bettencourt
10-12-2007, 10:16 AM
Dan,
IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line. For those of us who know that car and how the bodywork was a precursor to the first E36 M3's, it will make sense. For those who may not, bring some documentation on the M-Technic to have in your stash. Do it!
Dan,
IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line. For those of us who know that car and how the bodywork was a precursor to the first E36 M3's, it will make sense. For those who may not, bring some documentation on the M-Technic to have in your stash. Do it!
[/b]
Thanks for the response Andy, I can copy some documentation online and bring with me to the ARRC, just in case. I'll also have the ETK on my computer, if anyone else needs it, again, just in case.
buldogge
10-12-2007, 10:48 AM
Hey Andy... On a similar note:
Why wouldn't 17" wheels also be legal for the E36 325...as they appeared on the '94 M-Technics as well...???
Hmmm...
Dan,
IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line. For those of us who know that car and how the bodywork was a precursor to the first E36 M3's, it will make sense. For those who may not, bring some documentation on the M-Technic to have in your stash. Do it!
[/b]
robits325is
10-12-2007, 11:33 AM
How about the M3 rockers and rear diffuser too?
cchandler
10-12-2007, 12:02 PM
Hey Andy... On a similar note:
Why wouldn't 17" wheels also be legal for the E36 325...as they appeared on the '94 M-Technics as well...???
Hmmm...
[/b]
Spec line?
How about the M3 rockers and rear diffuser too? [/b]
Interesting........If you totaled your rockers, I guess you could.
Greg Amy
10-12-2007, 03:43 PM
IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line.[/b]
If true, then anything on that car is legal for other 325 cars, including 17" wheels. Ergo, 17s can be allowed via the Errors and Omissions process.
Or, the club needs to clearly - and quickly - de-list the M-Technic car from eligibility.
mlytle
10-12-2007, 04:01 PM
17's are already legal on the car in ITR. in ITS, the spec line specifically limits the wheel size already to 16.
the m-technic was not a different car. it was a 325is with an m3 body kit (minus the decorative rear wing), m3 mirrors and different interior fabric. it even says "325is" on the rear decklid.
rear diffuser? decorative and i think it weighs more than stock bumper cover.
rockers? why? they are a bolt on plastic part that adds weight and lowers the min ride height measuring point. not good.
front bumper cover? i don't see it any advantage besides that it looks nicer. it is not any lower in front than the normal 325 cover, just different shape. same brake duct size. same foglights. it is actually harder to put a lower air dam on than the normal bumper cover due to the shape.
only issue, if you want to call it one, is that the m-technic also came with the screw on front bumper lip/splitter. it extends beyond what is allowed by IT rules....so you just take it off.
marshall
ITR 325 with m-technic front bumper cover. not for performance...it was all the junk yard had last year when i crunched the front and needed a replacement fast!
Andy Bettencourt
10-12-2007, 04:20 PM
If true, then anything on that car is legal for other 325 cars, including 17" wheels. Ergo, 17s can be allowed via the Errors and Omissions process.
Or, the club needs to clearly - and quickly - de-list the M-Technic car from eligibility.
[/b]
Legal in all except what is specified - like the max wheel diameter of 16", no? The spec line trumps.
Greg Amy
10-12-2007, 04:27 PM
The spec line trumps.[/b]
Negative: the spec line describes, as in what the wheel size was on the car. That wheel size spec in the ITCS was never intended as a manual adjustment for what's stock on the car, or something that's anything but objective workshop data.
Either the M-Technic model is legal, along with all its standard equipment, or it's not; just as we allow the rear decklid spoilers on RX-7 GTUs and Miata Ms...
JoshS
10-12-2007, 04:35 PM
Greg is right. The book doesn't have a blanket statement that says that the vehicle must match all attributes on the spec line. Instead, it has a bunch of individual paragraphs that refer to the spec line. For example, the rule that refers to the wheel size column says:
"Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller
than listed on their spec line. All [other] cars shall
retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for
their make, model, and type."
I bracketed out the word "other" because it's not relevant to this conversation. Bottom line is, the car can't run anything SMALLER than listed on the spec line, *and* it must ("shall") use the wheel diameter fitted as OE.
If the car is claimed to be an M-Technic "model", then it MUST run 17".
On the other hand ... is the M-Technic a model? I don't think so, it was an option. Did IT ever have a clause (like SS and T) that says that only the base model of a vehicle can be used? If it did, and was later struck, then that deletion causes this rule to be somewhat in conflict.
Andy Bettencourt
10-12-2007, 04:51 PM
Negative: the spec line describes, as in what the wheel size was on the car. That wheel size spec in the ITCS was never intended as a manual adjustment for what's stock on the car, or something that's anything but objective workshop data.
Either the M-Technic model is legal, along with all its standard equipment, or it's not; just as we allow the rear decklid spoilers on RX-7 GTUs and Miata Ms... [/b]
Not sure what you are saying on the RX-7's because the spoilers could come on GXL's, GTU's, GTUs's, etc - but I agree with you on the 'describes' piece. I say 'trumps' because to me it 'describes' what you can use. Semantics but I am definately wrong on that.
For sure the classification needs to be cleaned up.
I would think that (just like in the 2nd gen RX-7 listing WRT 16") you could just add "17" wheel not allowed" in the notes.
Greg is right. The book doesn't have a blanket statement that says that the vehicle must match all attributes on the spec line. Instead, it has a bunch of individual paragraphs that refer to the spec line. For example, the rule that refers to the wheel size column says:
"Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller
than listed on their spec line. All [other] cars shall
retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for
their make, model, and type."
I bracketed out the word "other" because it's not relevant to this conversation. Bottom line is, the car can't run anything SMALLER than listed on the spec line, *and* it must ("shall") use the wheel diameter fitted as OE.
If the car is claimed to be an M-Technic "model", then it MUST run 17".
On the other hand ... is the M-Technic a model? I don't think so, it was an option. Did IT ever have a clause (like SS and T) that says that only the base model of a vehicle can be used? If it did, and was later struck, then that deletion causes this rule to be somewhat in conflict.
[/b]
Remember, I'm in ITR and I do use 17" wheels.
mlytle
10-12-2007, 05:31 PM
Negative: the spec line describes, as in what the wheel size was on the car. That wheel size spec in the ITCS was never intended as a manual adjustment for what's stock on the car, or something that's anything but objective workshop data.
Either the M-Technic model is legal, along with all its standard equipment, or it's not; just as we allow the rear decklid spoilers on RX-7 GTUs and Miata Ms...
[/b]
rear decklid spoiler was NOT part of the m-technic option.
Greg Amy
10-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Not sure what you are saying on the RX-7's because the spoilers could come on GXL's, GTU's, GTUs's...[/b]
Equipment that was optional (or not available?) on the base models but standard on other 'approved' models. In other words, not all RX-7s and Miatas came with the rear decklid spoiler as standard, but we allow them on all cars because those items were standard on allowed vehicles (same spec line).
In that same light, if the M-Technic is an allowed model (a la RX-7 GTU), then all of its standard equipment is allowed (a la 17" wheels).
I would think that (just like in the 2nd gen RX-7 listing WRT 16") you could just add "17" wheel not allowed" in the notes.[/b]
If that's what we prefer to do (not making a statement one way or the other) then I agree. Is that a new precedent or, for example, does the RX-7 GTU comes standard with 17" wheels and we intentionally disallowed them with that line? - GA
Andy Bettencourt
10-12-2007, 05:48 PM
If that's what we prefer to do (not making a statement one way or the other) then I agree. Is that a new precedent or, for example, does the RX-7 GTU comes standard with 17" wheels and we intentionally disallowed them with that line? - GA
[/b]
16" wheels came on some models but are specifically disallowed in the notes section.
Greg Amy
10-12-2007, 05:49 PM
16" wheels came on some models but are specifically disallowed in the notes section.[/b]
Just out of curiosity (and not germane to the conversation at hand), why?
Andy Bettencourt
10-12-2007, 05:56 PM
Just out of curiosity (and not germane to the conversation at hand), why?
[/b]
Who knows.
lateapex911
10-12-2007, 06:20 PM
Probably because, 20 years ago, those 16" wheels were wild state of the art things that everybody thought would be uber expensive to run, so to protect us from ourselves, they made them verbotten....
greendot
10-12-2007, 08:32 PM
Just out of curiosity (and not germane to the conversation at hand), why?
[/b]
This may shed some light. Back around 1993 or so when I first started racing a 2nd gen RX-7 I asked Bob Burns about using the 16" GTUs wheel (it was not listed as an exclusion at the time). He said something similar to the other statement about latest technology and that so many racers were already invested in 15" wheels.
Lo and behold, the following year that 16" wheel exclusion appeared in the spec line for the RX-7's.
Coincidence?
GKR_17
10-18-2007, 02:32 PM
If the car is claimed to be an M-Technic "model", then it MUST run 17".
[/b]
Not true. Every car on the spec line can run any stock size, so if the 17's are legit, then every E36 325 can run them, and every M technic can run 15's. Of course the stock 17's are probaly wider than 7"...
The M-technic also has the M3 suspension doesn't it? So the lower x-brace would be legal as well?
Not true. Every car on the spec line can run any stock size, so if the 17's are legit, then every E36 325 can run them, and every M technic can run 15's. Of course the stock 17's are probaly wider than 7"...
The M-technic also has the M3 suspension doesn't it? So the lower x-brace would be legal as well? [/b]
Do you know for sure that the M- Technic had the X- Brace? If so then it should be right?
GKR_17
10-18-2007, 10:34 PM
Just connecting the dots... I read the M-technic has the M3 suspension, and as I understand the M3 has the x-brace (as well as the convertibles, but the drop top is not included on the spec line).
JeffYoung
10-18-2007, 10:42 PM
If this stuff was a factory option on a BMW sold here in the US, then it clearly is legal. What is the debate here?
Z3_GoCar
10-18-2007, 11:01 PM
The x-brace comes on the M-3 light-weight, and later the Z3 roadster. But as I understand it not on the M-tech. Thus the ruling that the x-brace isn't prepared legal on the e-36 325 and 328.
James
mlytle
10-19-2007, 08:30 PM
The M-technic also has the M3 suspension doesn't it? So the lower x-brace would be legal as well?
[/b]
no! the m-technic did not have the m3 suspension or brakes.
no, it did not come with the x-brace either. only the e36 convertibles and m3 lightweight came with the x-brace. it was not an option either. it is just a bmw part that fits the chassis. it is not legal in IT.
Z3_GoCar
10-20-2007, 07:34 PM
The x-brace is legal in ITA and ITR on the Z3 roadster as they came with it from the factory.
robits325is
10-20-2007, 08:24 PM
The x-brace is legal in ITA and ITR on the Z3 roadster as they came with it from the factory.
[/b]
As well as the E-46 in ITS
mlytle
10-21-2007, 07:12 PM
my post was only refering to the e36.......x-brace not legal on e36 in either class.
Z3_GoCar
10-21-2007, 11:53 PM
my post was only refering to the e36.......x-brace not legal on e36 in either class.
[/b]
What?? Now the Z3's not an e-36??
GKR_17
10-22-2007, 12:22 AM
What?? Now the Z3's not an e-36??
[/b]
Actually it's an "E36/7" isn't it, or is that just the coupe?
JeffYoung
10-22-2007, 12:22 AM
It's not right? Didn't it have its own designation? E36/38 or something like that?
JoshS
10-22-2007, 12:39 AM
E36/5 was the 318ti, E36/7 was the Z3 roadster, and E36/8 was the Z3 Coupe.
The /7 and /8 have the x-brace.
Z3_GoCar
10-22-2007, 12:45 AM
Actually it's an "E36/7" isn't it, or is that just the coupe?
[/b]
That stands for e-36 variant 7 which is the roadster, the coupe's are e-36 variant 8. So the Z3 variants are e-36's along with the tii hatch-back's. I believe that the coupe's (two door) and sedan's (four door) are both different variants too, along with the estate and convertible's.
James
mlytle
10-22-2007, 08:25 PM
What?? Now the Z3's not an e-36??
[/b]
its a half breed....e36 in the front half, e30 in the back half. it's just not right....;)
real e36's don't have semi-trailing arm rear suspensions.....:D
e36/7 designation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.