The VIN Requirement Rule

[Greg Amy]

It's been proposed in the latest Fastrack that the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirement rule be deleted. What say you?

The main defense of the VIN rule centers on this thought:


It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another...[/b]
You're assuming the VIN provides an easy method of discerning the vehicle now.

We police it as we always do: inspecting the equipment appropriate for the car/class. If it's an ITA Integra, we make sure that they don't have a GS-R engine and trans in there, just as we do now. The VIN requirement doesn't change that, nor does it currently stop people who want to from cheating.

We have well-vetted this discussion in the past, and there are two distinct camps on this. Here's but a few.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6525 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6525)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12640 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12640)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=10012 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10012)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9788 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9788)

I support the ditching the the VIN rule, for all the reasons I've described in these prior topics. What say you? - GA

[Knestis]

Hell, yeah. 'bout time.

K

[JeffYoung]

Ditch it. The "me" in me is happy that $100 TR7s are now fair game. The "us" in me just thinks that this ain't cheating, and it makes it a lot easier for folks to build cars, including oddballs.

More oddballs!

[Ed Funk]

:026: Hell yeah! Then, we would be able to put FI drive trains in our Hondas and move to ITB, thereby getting away from the SM's in New England and actually having a class to race with! :birra:

[Bill Miller]

The question is, why wait another year to do it??

[jlucas]

I agree, do it now. It doesn't change the level of competition for anybody. It will make it easier for people building cars. It just might increase entries and cross over from other series where it's already ok (For example, NASA Honda Challenge cars).

[spnkzss]

It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another - or is this covered elsewhere?
[/b]

The spec line of the car in class!? Specifies motor, trans, wheelbase, wheels, brakes, etc.

[BlueStreak]

The spec line of the car in class!? Specifies motor, trans, wheelbase, wheels, brakes, etc.
[/b]

DUH - Thanks! Sometimes I miss the obvious :rolleyes:



It's been proposed in the latest Fastrack that the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirement rule be deleted. What say you?

The main defense of the VIN rule centers on this thought:

You're assuming the VIN provides an easy method of discerning the vehicle now.

[/b]


I wasn't trying to defend it, believe me, after the hell I went through rebuilding my car when an ordinary Rabbit shell would have been an easier move. I think the VIN rule needs to go, just wanted to be sure that we kill it properly. I've now been reminded that the spec line defines the important bits, so I would think we are good killing it by deleting paragraph 5 as is suggested.

Thanks
Eddie

[dickita15]

The spec line of the car in class!? Specifies motor, trans, wheelbase, wheels, brakes, etc.
[/b]

and it will still need to comply with the manual for the model listed on the spec line.

[shwah]

Sending my letter of support, with request for Jan. 2008 effective date. All of you that think this is a good idea need to write an email to the crb stating this (those of you that don't think it is a good idea should do the same..)

[RacerBill]

Squarely on the fence for this one. For Dodge Chargers, the VIN clearly identifies the common Dodge Charger from the Shelby Charger. With the VIN rule in place, there is a clear way to differentiate between the cars. Differences between the models include engine compression ratio, front brake size, minimum weight and maybe some other items.

Without the VIN rule, I could take my Shelby and say it's a plain Charger and run it at 2320lb instead of 2430. The only way to tell the difference would be to measure the compression ratio of the engine (9.0 stock vs 9.6 Shelby, 9.5 stock vs 10.1 for Shelby with the IT trim allowance) or look at the brakes, if you know what to look for.

On the other hand, without the VIN rule, I could roll the car up into a little ball, get any Charger body, put my Shelby stuff on it and call it a Shelby - a lot better solution that trying to find a Shelby in the bone yard.

As I said, I'm really on the fence with this one.

I can really see the points in favor of letting the VIN number go by the wayside. But I can't help but feel that we are making it harder to tell the upstanding builders/owners/drivers from those who might bend the rules at any opportunity. Might be different for other cars/models.

I remember when I first jumped over the fence, and a Tech inspector told me that they had no way of checking the compression ratio, so build it any way I wanted. FYI, I have not touched my engine, so keep your hands off!

Now, on to the ECU issue.... Oh, that's right, I don't have that stuff.

[spnkzss]

Without the VIN rule, I could take my Shelby and say it's a plain Charger and run it at 2320lb instead of 2430. The only way to tell the difference would be to measure the compression ratio of the engine (9.0 stock vs 9.6 Shelby, 9.5 stock vs 10.1 for Shelby with the IT trim allowance) or look at the brakes, if you know what to look for.

[/b]

I had that same thought, and I'm not singling YOU out, this is jsut a statement for the nay-sayers, what's preventing that now? You question it, you protest it. The VIN rule doesn't prevent that extra .6 compression.

[RacerBill]

Spanky: I'm not saying no. Just pointing out possible unintended consequences. Yes, someone could use a Shelby engine in a Charger today, but with a VIN tag, it would be a blatant misrepresentation.

I like the idea of being able to use a plenty available shell as opposed to a rare one, just for the VIN tags.

[spnkzss]

Spanky: I'm not saying no. Just pointing out possible unintended consequences. Yes, someone could use a Shelby engine in a Charger today, but with a VIN tag, it would be a blatant misrepresentation.

I like the idea of being able to use a plenty available shell as opposed to a rare one, just for the VIN tags.
[/b]

And I know your not. I have just heard that "type" of concern quite a bit in the last year or so. I just picked on your thread because you were the first to ask that same "type" of question :)

[jjjanos]

Spanky: I'm not saying no. Just pointing out possible unintended consequences. Yes, someone could use a Shelby engine in a Charger today, but with a VIN tag, it would be a blatant misrepresentation.

I like the idea of being able to use a plenty available shell as opposed to a rare one, just for the VIN tags.
[/b]

But even with a VIN rule, isn't that still a blatant misrepresentation? If the two cars are identical except for bolt on bits, then the only way to check, even with a VIN rule, is to look at whether the car has the 34-inch modulator on the dipthong or has a 28-inch modulator on the dipthong.

Either way, it's going to be easier to see if you've got clearly illegal parts, such as overly large brakes, then it will be see the VIN... primarily because anyone running a Model Q as a Model N won't let you get close enough to the car to check the VIN.

[Matt Rowe]

Bill,

The VIN rule never stopped anyone from dropping a high compression Shelby motor in a basic charger before. And I mean that literally. It happened before, it was just as illegal then and the only way to know is the same way you would have if the new rule is in place. You write paper and tear the guy down.

[dickita15]

Not to pile on but a case like the Charger is a perfect example of why the vin rule should go away. It just makes it easier and cheaper to retub a car. I am actually more worried about cars the Civic HF because I am not sure many people know all the differences between that and a SI

[shwah]

Someone that will blatantly cheat and run the wrong car, or motor, or whatever component in the wrong class was willing to do so with the old VIN rule too. I don't think we should be writing our rules for cheaters, but for racers.

None of these 'unintended consequences' are any different if you require a certain VIN or not.

[zracre]

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

Tough call

[BlueStreak]

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

Tough call
[/b]

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a US market Honda with an SI badge that didn't have a factory sun/moon roof?

[shwah]

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

Tough call
[/b]

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

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

[lateapex911]

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

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

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

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

[pfcs49]

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

[spnkzss]

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

Tough call
[/b]

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

[CRXsi]

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

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

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

[Bob Roth]

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

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

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

[jjjanos]

First, ditch the VIN rule.

Second, make it effective 1January2008.

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

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

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

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

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

[wcmcarlos]

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

[anrkii]

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

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

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

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

[Rabbit07]

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

Oh, did I say No VIN?

[robits325is]

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

[spnkzss]

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

Assuming there are not other differences between the cars.

[R2 Racing]

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

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

What say you?

[lateapex911]

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

[Knestis]

Same answer here as in the Sandbox. :)

K

[BlueStreak]

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

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

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

[lateapex911]

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

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

[R2 Racing]

Then again, the reason for revising the VIN rule, in my opinion, was to make more shells viable as race cars.[/b]
Seriously. Talk about defeating the purpose. So in order to take advantage of this rule that's supposed to save mone and make it easier to build a car, I have to take my cheaper and more readily available chassis and buy a $300-$500 roof panel, hack out the perfectly good one, and install this one....that has a big hole in it.....that I can then plug.....

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

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



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

[Knestis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are separate issues.

Red herrings abound.

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

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

K

[lateapex911]

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

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


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

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


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



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

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



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

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

[iambhooper]

I'm in favor of doing away with the VIN rule. I would love the opportunity to cheaply upvert (wd?) my ITC ride into an ITB car... :blink: I'm already out qualifying several of those cars on the grid :eclipsee_steering: only to be passed later in the race.

As for adding a sunroof, only to deleat it later... that's wasted money and effort. If the car makes weight, does it matter? In fact, if the high centered additional weight is the concern, then a stipulation to add weight up high could be added.

Nontheless, going and racing ITB would only add about $1500 expense to my already built car... vs building a new one for $7000 or so.

[Knestis]

Come, come to the dark side Hoop. Joooiiin ussss.

K

[iambhooper]

Father?

[Knestis]

Dunno. What's your mom's name?

K

[Greg Amy]

:happy204:

[jjjanos]

Dunno. What's your mom's name?[/b]

Like you would remember.

[iambhooper]

have we realy gone too far? quoting star wars, how nerdy can we get?

the price on the conversion is now $800 for a donor car. that's cheap!

[wrankin]

Hey Hoop! I still have Mike's old RX7 shell available (that may be legal soon) if you are still interested in ITS!

:D

-bill

[trhoppe]

So if this happens, are there any cars in ITC that cannot put in a new motor and go play in ITB?

-Tom
who is "just asking"

[Rud]

The Datsun 510s that all run ITC out here are stuck. :P

[iambhooper]

Hey Hoop! I still have Mike's old RX7 shell available (that may be legal soon) if you are still interested in ITS!

:D

-bill
[/b]

I have possible project car. something a lot less expensive than the RX7.



So if this happens, are there any cars in ITC that cannot put in a new motor and go play in ITB?

-Tom
who is "just asking"
[/b]

Well, they killed off ITD many moons before I came along, so the precident has been somewhat established. This would be a great way to kill off a class that is limited in its ability to add new cars to the mix.

[Knestis]

ITD was never a nationally recognized Regional-only class (i.e., it was never in the GCR/ITCS). It happened in some regions, however.

The revised VIN rule was certainly never envisioned by the noisiest guy who bugged the CRB about it (me) to hasten ITC to its demise. If it helps some C entrants convert their cars to B to pursue their own interests - faster car, bigger field, whatever - that's cool though.

K

[lateapex911]

When the ITAC discussed this, the possibility of using this rule to "off" ITC NEVER came up.

[iambhooper]

ITD predated my involvement... I didn't know it was like ITT, regional only. As for "offing" ITC, I'm not looking for that, just the opportunity to run with more of the guys I'm already running with. That's all. Heck, If need be, maybe I should start a whole flee of rental ITC rides, so I can get some contingency funds :D I understand my old Fiat is fixed and available.


hoop

[iambhooper]

So where does the discusion now stand? I got the feeling from the Honda thread that the board is going forward with this. Is that the case? Do I need to start searching for a FI setup for my honda? :D

Thanks!
hoop

[Knestis]

It was listed in Fastrack as under consideration. If you haven't already done so, write your letter of support. Until they finally act, it's not certain however and even then, it's a New For 2009! kind of thing. Actual rule changes don't go into effect until the next GCR comes out and it can't be handled by a technical bulletin or errors and omissions.

K

[iambhooper]

It was listed in Fastrack as under consideration. If you haven't already done so, write your letter of support. Until they finally act, it's not certain however and even then, it's a New For 2009! kind of thing. Actual rule changes don't go into effect until the next GCR comes out and it can't be handled by a technical bulletin or errors and omissions.

K

I haven't read the fast track yet. I'll read it and send in a letter of support.

It would be nice to plan ahead for '09 :D

thanks!
hoop

[pgipson]

Bringing this back to see where it stands and to ask a question.

I have a 91 Miata that I was thinking about turning into an ITA car. But I was wondering if I could build it as a 94 with the 1.8 and bigger brakes, and more weight assuming the VIN is ignored?

[Knestis]

I don't know about Miatae but if all of the parts on the car you end up with are identical to what they would have been, had you started with a '94 1.8, then yes. If any of the parts - body elements, frame bits, suspension brackets, etc. - are different, then no.

K

[mom'sZ]

One post from all the way back on page two by Bill and this most recent one from pgipson strike me as something that maybe everyone should consider about this rule change. I think making it easier for racers to retub a bent car is a good idea because it could save a guy a few bucks. Being able to take a less desirable model and use it to be in a more desirable class also strike me as a good idea. But... it also occurs to me that if it is common knowledge that a certain 'model' car is a superior starting point for a racecar, what is to stop every competitor from making the conversion? Not that it's a bad thing, but could become something that has to be done to be competitive. For instance, say Bill has a Shelby. He states the only difference is a compression bump and bigger front brakes. I'm not familiar with these cars but say for the 110 lbs. difference it turns out the half point of compression and the bigger brakes clearly makes a better race car. Say for instance it is hard to make min. weight with the Charger anyhow. Then every guy with a regular Charger is wanting to convert his to a Shelby. The engines are the same except the pistons (I'm guessing) but to convert the brakes you need the rare Shelby brake backing plates. (hypothetical situation) Shelby backing plates suddenly become very desirable (read expensive). A guy is racing his 'Shelby' and gets hit in the front wheel area breaking his only Shelby backing plate. The car is then side lined until he can find a new one or convert back to a regular Charger. Again... this is a purely hypothetical scenario.
OK... on to pgipson's question. 1.8 miatas turn out to be better racecars at there weight then a 1.6. (or visa versa) Bill's car is somewhat rarer and not many guys race them anyhow, but there are tons of Miatas. Suddenly if you have a earlier 1.6, you are an also ran. Prices for 1.6 cars plunge, can't give them away. Prices for the conversion parts skyrocket. Guys with 1.6s have to pay or be relegated to the back of the pack. A rule designed to make racing cheaper and easier now makes some cars obsolete and others more expensive.
Sorry for the long winded post. These are hypothetic scenarios, so don't consider what I'm saying in a model specific way. Consider that for instance, with the above situation is there a point listing the Shelby and regular Charger on separate spec lines? Same with the 1.6 and 1.8 Miatas? Does this do a disservice to the guy who found a rare model and committed it to racing? Maybe I'm just rambling here, but unintended consequences seem possible.
Andrew Rowe

[trhoppe]

While you make some good points, you have to consider the fact that in current day, the guy with the 1.6 and the guy with the regular Charger all all kinds of f'ed.

They can't do anything. Their cars are steaming piles of non-competitiveness.

Once the VIN rule hits, yea, it might cost a few bucks to make their car competitive, but they CAN do that. If the "brake backing plates" are that hard to find, imagine trying to find a WHOLE Shelby that can be made into a race car. That will be 1000x more expensive.

-Tom

[mom'sZ]

I asked that my comments not be considered in a model specific way but...

... you have to consider the fact that in current day, the guy with the 1.6 and the guy with the regular Charger all all kinds of f'ed. They can't do anything. Their cars are steaming piles of non-competitiveness...
If this is the case for these two models, do they not need to be considered for another shot at the 'process'? In other words, do we just accept that 1.6s and Chargers are not competative or do we look at why and try to adjust them using the 'process' to allow them to be competative? Or adjust the process to take into consideration what went wrong? Maybe in the process making the 'process' better?
If all Chargers are 'all kinds of f'ed', is there a point in listing them on seperate spec lines? Why not list them on the same spec line, therefore allowing update/backdate and eliminating the need for the rule change?
Edit to add my name... Andrew Rowe

[iambhooper]

I asked that my comments not be considered in a model specific way but...

If all Chargers are 'all kinds of f'ed', is there a point in listing them on seperate spec lines? Why not list them on the same spec line, therefore allowing update/backdate and eliminating the need for the rule change?
Edit to add my name... Andrew Rowe

If that was the case, then you wouldn't have the "same" car in different classes, like my CRX. The DX, carbed version is listed in ITC. The Fuel Injected SI version is in ITB. If they were on the same spec, then they wouldn't be in different classes.

On the other hand, a friend races a V6 Fiero in ITA... If the 4cyl car (ITB) was on the same spec line as the v6, he would have a limetless supply of parts tubs as other than the motor, they are identical!

hoop

[RacerBill]

Did I hear my name taken in vain? (smiley). Actually, the point that I was making is that with the VIN plate requirement removed, then how can you tell the difference between a Dodge Charger and a Dodge Shelby Charger? Other than the different nose plastic, the only differences are compression (9.0 for the Dodge and 9.6 for the Shelby) and the front brakes (228mm for the Dodge and 256mm for the Shelby). So, it would be very easy to take a Shelby, change the nose and call it a plain Dodge. As far as making weight, the first time I went across the scales after preping the car, I was under by about 20 lbs, and I had made NO effort to lighten the car. The car is now 30 lbs over.

And as far as being competitive, while the Shelby struggled in ITA, the plain Charger ran at the front of the pack at Summit Point just a couple of years ago. Tho Omni was up there, too, if I remember right. Now I don't know the preparation of Matt Green's ITB Charger, and I suspect it was VERY well developed.

I do not know if this type of situation exists for any other cars, but I wouldn't be surprised.

But, even with the unintended consequences, I think that removing the VIN requirement is a good idea. It would be much easier for me to rebuild my car if I didn't have to find a body with a Shelby VIN plate.

[Greg Amy]

...with the VIN plate requirement removed, then how can you tell the difference between a Dodge Charger and a Dodge Shelby Charger?
That's one of the fallacies regarding the VIN rule in the first place. I'll turn that question back around on you now, Bill: how can you tell now *with* the VIN rule?

...different nose plastic...Which can be legally installed in a regular Charger with the current air dam rule...

...compression (9.0 for the Dodge and 9.6 for the Shelby)...which "can" be done now to a regular Charger if you want to cheat; the VIN rule doesn't stop that...

...and the front brakes (228mm for the Dodge and 256mm for the Shelby)Easily visible through the wheels.

So, it would be very easy to take a Shelby, change the nose and call it a plain Dodge.And, today, it's very easy to cheat, increasing the plain Dodge's power to Shelby levels and go undetected. Even with a VIN rule in place.

My point is, many folks oppose the elimination of the VIN rule because they believe it deters cheating. Of course, it doesn't. If someone is going to cheat, they're going to cheat, and having a VIN describing what's *supposed* to be inside the engine doesn't physically stop someone from cheating...and, as you noted, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to build specific, less plentiful, cars. - GA

[RacerBill]

"That's one of the fallacies regarding the VIN rule in the first place. I'll turn that question back around on you now, Bill: how can you tell now *with* the VIN rule?"

Well, that question came to mind when I was building my car, and took the sill plate off to clean up rust, and took the whole dash out to install the cage...... What would stop me from putting matching VIN plates from a plain Charger, other than I would probably not be able to live with my self?

"Easily visible through the wheels."

Since I don't ever remember seeing the smaller disks, but I suppose that it is up to me to become familiar with the different setups.

Greg: I think you missed the last part of my last post. While I was pointing out some possible unintended consequences, I am firmly in favor of eliminating the VIN plate requirement.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

I think Greg's point is that it's not really an unintended consequence. How is it different - in reality - if you ran your Shelby as a Charger OR you ran a Charger with an illegal Shelby motor?

This rule doesn't give you any additional leeway. You cheat if you want to cheat.

[jjjanos]

You cheat if you want to cheat.

Is that permission to do so via an excatherdra statement? Fire up the nitro boys, we done got told we can cheat if we want to.

:):):)

[RacerBill]

Bill,

I think Greg's point is that it's not really an unintended consequence. How is it different - in reality - if you ran your Shelby as a Charger OR you ran a Charger with an illegal Shelby motor?

This rule doesn't give you any additional leeway. You cheat if you want to cheat.

Agreed! Maybe I used the term 'unintended consequence' incorrectly. In any event, let's get rid of the VIN plate requirement!

And if you continue to argue on a point we agree on, you'll be cut off the list for the Graeter's party, Friday night at the IT Fest!:D (Ask Ray about Graeters).

[0100]

Get rid of the stupid rule.

[ShelbyRacer]

And as far as being competitive, while the Shelby struggled in ITA, the plain Charger ran at the front of the pack at Summit Point just a couple of years ago. Tho Omni was up there, too, if I remember right. Now I don't know the preparation of Matt Green's ITB Charger, and I suspect it was VERY well developed.




Well, it wasn't my car for one thing :) In fact I was in no way affiliated with that car, but I have seen it once or twice (literally), and it was nicely done and well driven.

As for the rule, KILL IT! There are at least two of us on here with Neons that would like ability to swap between SOHC and DOHC, just to make a point if nothing else. That not withstanding, it's a Stupid Rule (TM) and as mentioned does nothing to help compliance issues and actually probably makes it more of a pain as Jake mentioned.

Oh, and as for killing ITC in the process, think about this- if you had a car and all the requisite components to make the swap, why not keep all the stuff so you can go back and forth (as mentioned above with the Neon)? I for one know that if I couldn't be competitive in a class, but had the opportunity to reconfigure the same chassis easily for another class, I might consider it, both in the downward and upward directions...

Since there seems to be no arguement in this thread, I'm heading over to the "should IT be a National class" thread... Just what are you smokin if you support that initiative? :D

[spnkzss]

Dead as of 1/1/09.

October Fastrack (http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08/08-fastrack-oct.pdf)

[Greg Amy]

Good riddance.

HOWEVER, it is now incumbent upon us to ensure this rule change is not abused. We can be our own worst enemy...

[raffaelli]

This past weekend, a buddy of mine bought a CRX HF which had CRX Si engine, brakes and suspension swapped in. I’d call the car some kind of hybrid now since it is not TOTALLY an Si. This VIN number thing gonna allow this kind of monster to be created?

[Greg Amy]

This VIN number thing gonna allow this kind of monster to be created?
As long as ALL equipment - except for the VIN - is the same as the Si, then yes.

[spnkzss]

This past weekend, a buddy of mine bought a CRX HF which had CRX Si engine, brakes and suspension swapped in. I’d call the car some kind of hybrid now since it is not TOTALLY an Si. This VIN number thing gonna allow this kind of monster to be created?

Pretty sure not. If I remember correctly there are a lot of pieces that are different with the HF that make it quite a bit lighter. If you found a list of all those things and were able to unbolt them and replace them with Si parts, the answer is yes.

[quadzjr]

Isn't the tank in the HF smaller than the SI. I know it is in my cx.

[trhoppe]

Isn't the tank in the HF smaller than the SI. I know it is in my cx.
Does that really matter since you can put in a fuel cell?

-Tom

[Tom Donnelly]

So, what about a 240z,260z,280z where the spec line is different but the body is essentially the same? Could one legally turn a 260 or 280 into a 240? Both are heavier but sometimes alot cheaper.

I think I already know the answer but reading through the Dodge / Charger / Shelby stuff left me confused.

[shwah]

NO.

If the body were exactly the same, then yes.

The VIN rule being gone does not allow one single additional item or change to any IT car of any make in any class. It just says that the VIN number does not have to match anymore. Everything else still has to be exactly as stock, unless modified as allowed by the ITCS and GCR.

[Greg Amy]

So, what about a 240z,260z,280z where the spec line is different but the body is essentially the same?
What Chris said.

Tom, here's the litmus test: if you were to take a 260z body and "build" a 240z race car, strip all labels and VIN, and a Datsun afficianado were to pore over your car and be completely unable to determine that the car started life as a 260z, then it's legal.

But, if the afficianado can go "aha! That bracket (or panel, or whatever) never came on the 240z! This is a 260z" then it's illegal.

It's really that simple: you cannot create a model that didn't exist before. But you can use another body to replicate one that did. - GA

[Xian]

Does that really matter since you can put in a fuel cell?

-Tom

I think it matters and would still not be legal IMO... there's no allowance to replace a stock tank with a different size "stock style" tank. Same way there's no allowance to change the stock fuel pick-up point on the stock tank to cut down on fuel starve issues.

Go to a fuel cell within the rules and you're good to go :D

[Knestis]

Short answer is that the chassis is a part - or assembly of parts - that have all got to be exactly as required for the car on the spec line of your choice.

The only unintended consequence that's surfaced it's head with the change is that it's now possible to build a legal IT car from an example of a car that's technically not old enough. Of course, the resulting car's got to conform to the older specs but it's something that hadn't come up in conversation until late in the game.

K

[JeffYoung]

I don't see a problem with that, do you? The resulting "car" will be exactly like (or should be) the one that is actually on the spec line and of "legal" age.

[Knestis]

Right, Jeff - not a big issue. I just don't like surprises.

K

[RacerBill]

Yes, I am in favor of getting rid of the VIN rule - the pluses far outnumber the minuses, in number and potential unintended consequences.

Letter to CRB will be forthcomming!

[Greg Amy]

Letter to CRB will be forthcomming!
No need, Bill, it's already a done deal. See October Fastrack. - GA

[x-ring]

No need, Bill, it's already a done deal. See October Fastrack. - GA

Maybe he was going to send a letter thanking them? :happy204:

[EBSNASCAR]

So if I understand this right. I can take my ITB '79 Ford Mustang and put a '93 Mustang VIN on it. And in nine years when the '79 become vintage I can still race the '79 Mustang as a '93 Mustang?

[Knestis]

If the resulting car is EXACTLY to the specification of the car on spec line you essentially "declare" as applying to your car, yes. If even ONE thing is different between the some part of the body shell, then no.

K

[Sandro]

what about for example the early rabbits (ITC) and the rabbit GTI (ITB), if you swapped everything from an 83 or 84 GTI into the ITC(engine, fuel distributor, brakes etc) you could then run it in ITB correct?

But then the ITC rabbit has the round headlights and smaller taillights, so would those need to be changed inorder to be 100% legal in ITB?

[JoshS]

But then the ITC rabbit has the round headlights and smaller taillights, so would those need to be changed inorder to be 100% legal in ITB?
You got it!

[Bill Miller]

Short answer is that the chassis is a part - or assembly of parts - that have all got to be exactly as required for the car on the spec line of your choice.

The only unintended consequence that's surfaced it's head with the change is that it's now possible to build a legal IT car from an example of a car that's technically not old enough. Of course, the resulting car's got to conform to the older specs but it's something that hadn't come up in conversation until late in the game.

K

Kirk,

I've got to hand it to you, you sure have a knack for coming up w/ things. I have to say, as long and as hard as I've advocated for the non-VIN# requirement in IT, that's one scenario that had never occurred to me. Nicely done!

And Sandro, Josh is correct, you can't take an early chassis and run it as a later car, unless you make it EXACTLY the same.

BTW, I'm glad to see this one finally go by the boards. And for the record, I remember folks lobbying for the AW11 MR2 to go to ITB way back in the mid-90's when I first started racing one.

[Knestis]

My point Bill, is that I did NOT think about it...! One of the ITAC'ers twigged to it - Josh, I think. He's the clever one.

K

[Knestis]

what about for example the early rabbits (ITC) and the rabbit GTI (ITB), if you swapped everything from an 83 or 84 GTI into the ITC(engine, fuel distributor, brakes etc) you could then run it in ITB correct?

But then the ITC rabbit has the round headlights and smaller taillights, so would those need to be changed inorder to be 100% legal in ITB?

Core support. Rear wiper. Trim is different I think but since it can come off, just do that.

Don't use a diesel Rabbit shell though. It has a hole in the firewall for mounting a part the gas Golfs don't have, so the shell is different.

KIDDING.

I think... :shrug:

K

[JoshS]

My point Bill, is that I did NOT think about it...! One of the ITAC'ers twigged to it - Josh, I think. He's the clever one.
I don't know if it makes me clever, but yeah, I think I get the "credit" for that one.