So when is a wing legal in IT?

[Doc Bro]

As the title states; When is a wing or spoiler or lip...whatever you call it- legal? How do you know what option packages are on your spec line in other words?

I have two cars both are (seem) totally stock. One has a rear spoiler one doesn't.......

R

[Greg Amy]

Only if it came from the factory as a no-option item...e.g., Acura Integra GS-R or Mazda RX-7 GTU....

If it was optional, it ain't legal. If it was dealer installed, it ain't legal. If it came on *all* cars regardless of trim....it's legal.

(Personally, I'd love the option to NOT run the GS-R rear wing in ITS, 'cause I know it's all-show, no-go, as most factory "option" wings are....)

[shwah]

Note - it does not have to be a factory item on every car on the spec line, just one car on the spec line. One model on the spec line must have always had them, from the factory, at least one year. e.g. 85-92 VW Golf/GTI - all GTIs had a rear hatch spoiler, so all cars on the spec line can run one - all 85-86 GTIs had rear disk brakes, so all cars on the spec line can run them.

[Greg Amy]

Note - it does not have to be a factory item on every car on the spec line, just one car on the spec line.
Si, Senor. That's what I actually meant vis-a-vis "all" cars. I as thinking in terms of updating/backdating (e.g., *all* GTUs came with that rear wing, thus anyone in ITS can update/backdate to the GTU specs...)

Although, I stand by the opinion that "factory" rear wings create FAR more drag than they create downforce....but, knock yerself out, they look pimpy and all...

[Chip42]

Si, Senor. That's what I actually meant vis-a-vis "all" cars. I as thinking in terms of updating/backdating (e.g., *all* GTUs came with that rear wing, thus anyone in ITS can update/backdate to the GTU specs...)

Although, I stand by the opinion that "factory" rear wings create FAR more drag than they create downforce....but, knock yerself out, they look pimpy and all...

one place that you will find a "good" wing is the AW11 MR2 - it actually lowered the Cd of the car by ~0.01 - that pickup truck bed is a big drag-inducer and the wing helps to build a high press. zone in that area. it is legal, too, per the spec line. I am sure a few others like this exist.

[Doc Bro]

So how do you know what option packages are on your spec line?

R

[Gary L]

Only if it came from the factory as a no-option item...e.g., Acura Integra GS-R or Mazda RX-7 GTU....

If it was optional, it ain't legal. If it was dealer installed, it ain't legal. If it came on *all* cars regardless of trim....it's legal.
I'm gonna respectfully disagree. The word "optional" does not appear in 9.1.3.D.8. You can, therefore, run an optional factory installed wing/spoiler/air dam, so long as it was not "limited production". But BTW, that last term is not defined anywhere in the GCR, so it's essentially meaningless, IMO.

But in any case, "optional" and "limited production" would not necessarily mean the same thing. A case in point would be the Fiero GT, which could be had with an optional (RPO code D80, ~ $300) rear wing. Over 95% of the GT's built had this wing installed at the factory, so by even the wildest definition, it was not "limited production" IMO.

[ed325its]

I agree that factory options including wings, spoilers, etc are perfectly legal. (Not dealer installed). The Purpose of IT as described in 9.1.3.A. is very clear; "...cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to the manufacturer's specifications..." Therefore, if the option was provided by the manufacturer for any model on the spec line the parts are legal.

[Greg Amy]

So how do you know what option packages are on your spec line?
Monroney stickers, product brochures, research with owner's groups?

Care to offer us specifics on what you're trying to do? We might be able to help instead of talking generalities...


I'm gonna respectfully disagree. The word "optional" does not appear in 9.1.3.D.8. You can, therefore, run an optional factory installed wing/spoiler/air dam, so long as it was not "limited production". But BTW, that last term is not defined anywhere in the GCR, so it's essentially meaningless, IMO.
I don't think we disagree.

The rule specifically states:

Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited.
I'm reasonably confident that the purpose of the rule was to disallow factory aftermarket (dealer aftermarket) body kits such as what the first-gen RX-7 had that was very popular. That car had a full body kit (front air dam, side skirts, rear spoiler) available as an option from the dealer (it was never installed at the factory), and it was also sold through dealers afterward as an accessory kit.

I'm also confident it was NOT intended to disallow (intentional double negative there) items that were able to be checked off on the car order sheet; in other words, it does allow option codes like the second-gen RX7s GTU spoiler (and MANDATES use of rear spoilers that were not optional, like the ITS Acura GS-R's and the ITA Toyota MR-2's.)

And, the rules also allow installation of the above spoilers on a sister car if at least one of the models on your spec line had it.

Si?

[Doc Bro]

Care to offer us specifics on what you're trying to do?

No!!!:D

Specifically I'm trying to figure out 2 things;

1. Why some of the ITR e36's run an M3 bumper....my assumption is it's from the M-technic package which was a very short limited run package.

2. Why some of the ITA Miata's for example have a rear wing and others don't. I'm just trying to get my arms around the scope of the rule vis-a-vis option packages.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

No!!!:D

Specifically I'm trying to figure out 2 things;

1. Why some of the ITR e36's run an M3 bumper....my assumption is it's from the M-technic package which was a very short limited run package.
Correct. The MT was indeed a model and you could have built your E36 ITS/ITR car out of one. Legal.


2. Why some of the ITA Miata's for example have a rear wing and others don't. I'm just trying to get my arms around the scope of the rule vis-a-vis option packages.

R
Very few guys run the rear wing like I do. I just like it! It's the R-Model rear wing.

[Gary L]

I don't think we disagree.
We're on the same page... I think. :)

I simply (and specifically) disagreed with your original statement...



If it was optional, it ain't legal.

...which is not always the case.

[ed325its]

OMG... I agree with Andy. (Hi Andy.)

Rob,
I know the M Technic was a model of the two door 2.5l E36. I do not know if that model continued with the engine change to the 2.8l (328is) in '96. You may have to do some research to see if the model applies to the 328i/is spec line.

[Greg Amy]

I simply (and specifically) disagreed with your original statement....] ...which is not always the case.
What I intended by that statement was that if it was only available as an option, it's not legal...I'm trying to think of an example where a rear wing is allowed where it was purely an option...

Using the above examples, they're not "options." The RX-7 GTU had that rear wing standard, and since that model is legal in IT so is the rear wing. The Miata rear wing was standard on the R model; the BMW rear wing was standard on the M-Technic model. Both of those cars are legal in IT, thus those rear wings are legal in IT.

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

A good question. What if it was a simple line-item option? I think we have to look to the SOLO rules here. Dealer installed stuff is NOT legal. Port-installed and factory installed options are legal, whether they are part of a package or one-offs.

[ed325its]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

[Gary L]

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA
Go back and read my original post in this thread... the Fiero example. I'll bet there are others.

[JeffYoung]

First gen MR2 as well right? Even though most ordered it, wasn't the "aero package" or whatever it was called with the front air dam, skirts and wing (all from the factory) an option?

My read on the rule is pretty simple. If it came from the factory, either optional or not, it's legal. If the dealer put it on, it's not. Like Gary, I'm at a loss as to what the "limited production" language means or how we are supposed to interpret it.

[Doc Bro]

OMG... I agree with Andy. (Hi Andy.)

Rob,
I know the M Technic was a model of the two door 2.5l E36. I do not know if that model continued with the engine change to the 2.8l (328is) in '96. You may have to do some research to see if the model applies to the 328i/is spec line.


I'm just starting that research. It was available in Europe. I need to find out about the US.

So I can run everything that came in the M tecnik package if it was available on my car?

AB I like the wing too!!

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

I have never seen an MT with any type of spoiler. But to fit it into this thread, if it did come with one, whatever it's design, it would be legal in IT on a 325is.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm just starting that research. It was available in Europe. I need to find out about the US.

So I can run everything that came in the M tecnik package if it was available on my car?

AB I like the wing too!!

R

Yes but the MT was only in 1994 on the 325 (only 150 units IIRC). For a 328, you are stuck with any of the interations of front bumpers covering your year span on the spec line.

[Greg Amy]

First gen MR2 as well right?
Correct. When it was in SSC the aero package was not allowed (see discussion below).


My read on the rule is pretty simple. If it came from the factory, either optional or not, it's legal.
Hmmm...

I re-read the class purpose and intent again, because I recall something from years ago that now appears to be missing: the "base model" language. Long ago, in a land far, far away, I seem to recall verbiage in the ITCS similar to what's in Showroom Stock and Touring specs today: that "the classified car shall be the base model with no options." Recall that IT was based as an offshoot from SS, and in fact I seem to recall the original rules stated that specifically. Now the ITCS only says "cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

Hmmm...

Well, if we agree on this, then that certainly gets the gears to turning...


Like Gary, I'm at a loss as to what the "limited production" language means or how we are supposed to interpret it.
Well, taken at face value, it's saying the Miata R, the RX-7 GTU, and the BMW M-Technic (as examples) are all not legal for IT, unless specifically listed.

I'm wondering if we need that "base model" verbiage back, and when/where it went away...did we ever collect copies of all prior ITCS back to the early 80's? Just curious.

GA

P.S., BUT! In the spirit of IIDSYCTYC, where can/do we infer that it's anything but the base model, and where can/do we infer options are allowed? What is the base assumption for IIDSYCTYC?

[Doc Bro]

Yes but the MT was only in 1994 on the 325 (only 150 units IIRC). For a 328, you are stuck with any of the interations of front bumpers covering your year span on the spec line.


OK, so this is where my confusion lies. (assume where talking 325 not 328). If I have an e36 325is 96 how can I run an MT bumper? Haven't I just created a car that didn't exist? Or is it the up/backdate? Or same spec line?

R

[Doc Bro]

Is this then legal?
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=BG13&mospid=47485&btnr=51_2758&hg=51&fg=15


It shows the 328is MT bumper.....so then I'm good right?

And then what about this?

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=BG13&mospid=47485&btnr=51_4523&hg=51&fg=95

If it was dealer installed no, but if it was an option yes?



R

[JoshS]

... (and MANDATES use of rear spoilers that were not optional, like the ITS Acura GS-R's and the ITA Toyota MR-2's.)

Hey Greg,

The rear spoiler was optional on both first- and second-gen MR2s.

Josh

[JoshS]

Is this then legal?
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=BG13&mospid=47485&btnr=51_2758&hg=51&fg=15


It shows the 328is MT bumper.....so then I'm good right?

And then what about this?

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=BG13&mospid=47485&btnr=51_4523&hg=51&fg=95

If it was dealer installed no, but if it was an option yes?

Rob,

You still need to determine the factory-installed nature of both of those things. Lots of things available in the ETK (and therefore on realoem.com) were accessories installed or sold at the dealership, but not factory options.

[Gary L]

In the spirit of IIDSYCTYC, where can/do we infer that it's anything but the base model, and where can/do we infer options are allowed? What is the base assumption for IIDSYCTYC?
The base assumption is that if a car is on the spec line, it includes all variations of the specific year(s) and model(s) listed "...as offered for sale in the United States", with no other limitations, unless specifically prohibited in the "Notes" column, or otherwise prohibited by the rules (e.g. "limited production" wings).

An example: the Volvo I race is listed in the ITCS as the '69-74 142/144 2.0. That line entry would therefore include the 1969 thru 1971 142S (carb'd), and the 1971 thru 1974 142E (injected). Via update/backdate, everyone runs the 1971 142E engine, as it's the only one with 10.5 to 1 CR and the "good" head. But wait a minute... that was an optional engine during the 1971 model year, so you're saying we can't legally use it???? I'll repeat myself here... I'll bet there are others. :)

[Doc Bro]

Rob,

You still need to determine the factory-installed nature of both of those things. Lots of things available in the ETK (and therefore on realoem.com) were accessories installed or sold at the dealership, but not factory options.


ETK? What's that?

I do believe the MAero Package may be dealer installed, but the MT Bumper not so sure. Do you have any ideas on how I could go about finding out that info??

Thanks,
R

[ed325its]

Rob,

The 325i/is production stopped with the '95 model year. Therefore, you can not have a '96 325is. However, with the vin rule deletion you can certainly state and validly claim you have an ITS/ITR '94 325is (or any year between '92 and '95). As to the links you provided I believe and maintain that the M-Technic parts are legal, but the M retro-fit kit is not as you could not purchase a 325 new from the manufacturer with the M-3 side skirts, rear valance, and wing.

[Greg Amy]

The rear spoiler was optional on both first- and second-gen MR2s.
Josh, you sure? When I was building the second-gen ITA car, everything I found indicated that the MR-2 rear spoiler was standard equipment (I actually wanted to remove it).

Note that, in reference to Gary's Fiero example, I'm clearly distinguishing between "standard equipment" (all cars were built with them and you could not get a car without) and "optional but common equipment" (someone, somewhere had to check a box to get the car built with it, and most did).

I'm still looking for good supporting info as to why options would be allowed...remember, IIDSYCYC...


The base assumption is that if a car is on the spec line, it includes all variations of the specific year(s) and model(s) listed "...as offered for sale in the United States"...
So your assumption is that options fall under the "offered for sale in the United States"? Options are "offered" and may be chosen to be selected. A stretch, but reasonable logic. I'd accept it as a currently-accepted explanation, but given my "baggage" of knowing what the original rules used to say, I'm not convinced that was the original intent.


Via update/backdate, everyone runs the 1971 142E engine, as it's the only one with 10.5 to 1 CR and the "good" head. But wait a minute... that was an optional engine during the 1971 model year...Sorry, Gary, I don't buy that, as it's faulty logic vis-a-vis the current point at hand. You are not running an "optional" engine in your 1971 car, you're taking advantage of the clearly-legal update/backdate rules. Even if that engine was not offered as an option on the '71, you could still run it.

So, what other "options" are being run on cars today, presumably legally? I note your Fiero example, but we saw this past week that "it's been done this way for 11 years" doesn't cut it as a defense.

I'm still not thoroughly convinced that options are legal; I'd still like to see clear and convincing evidence where the ITCS allows options in lieu of IIDSYCYC. Do note, guys, I'm not trying to take away your options, I'm trying to figure out what caused us to assume they were acceptable (other than seeing someone else with it and assuming it was legal).

Convince me.


ETK? What's that?
It's a German acronym for a computer-based parts system, Elektronischer Teile Katalog (Electronic Parts Catalog). VW/Audi calls it ETKA, BMW calls it ETK.

GA

P.S. Non-sequitor quiz: Anyone know what "flak" came from? No fair Googling... <grin>

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, taken at face value, it's saying the Miata R, the RX-7 GTU, and the BMW M-Technic (as examples) are all not legal for IT, unless specifically listed.



Of those cars, only the MT BMW would be considered limited production. Why? Mazda never limited the production of the R-model Miatas or the GTU RX-7's. It was just a model that few people were drawn to...enthusiasts, not the general buying public. Hence not 'many' were built...but anyone could order one at anytime.

Now the MT 325 was only produced in a 150 qty run. THAT is limited production IMHO.

[JoshS]

Josh, you sure? When I was building the second-gen ITA car, everything I found indicated that the MR-2 rear spoiler was standard equipment (I actually wanted to remove it).

I'm certain that it was optional for non-turbos '91-'93. It was very rare to find one without. It's actually quite ugly without it, so I think most of the few cars that were sold that way ended up having one added post-sale. I believe it was actually a "spoiler-delete" option vs. a "spoiler-add" option, but it's been a long time.

I did the research when I had my '91 autocross car. I put together the info for this page, which is still floating around the internet years later: http://planet-torque.com/mk2/options.html

Unfortunately I sold that car in 1998 and no longer have any documentation to support the position. But I'm confident it exists and that I'm right about this. I'm a conservative guy with respect to the rules and this isn't the least bit gray in my mind.

EDIT: Greg, if you're curious, you might contact this seller (http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=610883) and see why he thinks his car was wingless from the factory. He sounds like he might have documentation.


I'm still not thoroughly convinced that options are legal; I'd still like to see clear and convincing evidence where the ITCS allows options in lieu of IIDSYCYC. Do note, guys, I'm not trying to take away your options, I'm trying to figure out what caused us to assume they were acceptable (other than seeing someone else with it and assuming it was legal).

Convince me.

I'm with you there. The fact that the "base model with no options" wording from SS is missing from the ITCS is perhaps an indication of someone's intent, but it's not clear that the actual rules back that up.

[JoshS]

Of those cars, only the MT BMW would be considered limited production. Why? Mazda never limited the production of the R-model Miatas or the GTU RX-7's. It was just a model that few people were drawn to...enthusiasts, not the general buying public. Hence not 'many' were built...but anyone could order one at anytime.

Now the MT 325 was only produced in a 150 qty run. THAT is limited production IMHO.

Can you draw a line? How do you know if something was specifically limited to only a few buyers, or if it was generally available but had little interest?

There were less than 1000 BMW Z3 2.8 Coupes sold in the US over 16 months of production (both years had short production cycles though.) Is that a problem?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can you draw a line? How do you know if something was specifically limited to only a few buyers, or if it was generally available but had little interest?

There were less than 1000 BMW Z3 2.8 Coupes sold in the US over 16 months of production (both years had short production cycles though.) Is that a problem?

Not a problem for me! I ask myself this: Did the mfg limit the number of cars available to th epublic - or did the public limit the number that the manufacturer built due to a low demand? To me, there is a difference. And as you know in Solo, that 1000 car per year bogey is what is used for manufacturers limiting production.

To Greg's question: I think this falls under the 'if it says you can, then you can' thought process. If you tell me I can run a 1999 Humpmobile, and I have one that is loaded with factory options, how is it NOT a 1999 Humpmobile?

[JoshS]

And as you know in Solo, that 1000 car per year bogey is what is used for manufacturers limiting production.

Yes, but only for catch-all classifications. If a car is explicitly listed, it doesn't matter how many were built. That's how Sipe legally ran his Z3 Coupe 2.8 in AS in 1999, and for that matter, that's how Bill Sanford legally ran his goofy TVR 3000S or whatever it was in CS.

Since IT doesn't have catch-all classifications, there's not much need for that sort of distinction.

[Z3_GoCar]

.....So, what other "options" are being run on cars today, presumably legally? I note your Fiero example, but we saw this past week that "it's been done this way for 11 years" doesn't cut it as a defense.

I'm still not thoroughly convinced that options are legal; I'd still like to see clear and convincing evidence where the ITCS allows options in lieu of IIDSYCYC. Do note, guys, I'm not trying to take away your options, I'm trying to figure out what caused us to assume they were acceptable (other than seeing someone else with it and assuming it was legal).

Convince me.


It's a German acronym for a computer-based parts system, Elektronischer Teile Katalog (Electronic Parts Catalog). VW/Audi calls it ETKA, BMW calls it ETK.

GA

P.S. Non-sequitor quiz: Anyone know what "flak" came from? No fair Googling... <grin>

Well Greg here's one option, but it's specifically called out in the rules, manual steering. A second might be running manual windows.

"flack" - F***ing Large Aircraft Killers, in WW1 was called "Ack-Ack."

[Knestis]

P.S. Non-sequitor quiz: Anyone know what "flak" came from? No fair Googling... <grin>

From whatever is German for "anti-aircraft fire." Flugzeugkriegsomedamnedthingie"

I've got a question - if the "option" was an entire body kit, you have to update/backdate the entire thing, right? Not just use the front lip spoiler and ditch the drag-inducing skirts and rear wing? (I'm thinking of the kit that was available on the Toyota Celica GTS.)

K

[Gary L]

I'm still looking for good supporting info as to why options would be allowed...remember, IIDSYCYC...
I have taken a critical look at how the old Volvo is listed, and have decided my "...142E was an optional engine" argument is moot. The spec line entry for model says simply "142". There is no letter following that number, so all US spec 142's would be part of the spec line - the 142S (base model), as well as the 142E (option).

But in any case, you're talking about what the intent may have been, I'm talking about what the rules say. I'm sticking by the "...as offered for sale in the United States" defense, WRT to optional equipment. :)

Having said all that, here's an interesting sidenote, keeping in mind that I wasn't involved with this class during it's formative years. Your recollection of earlier "base model only" wording might explain something that had been bothering me. Given today's ruleset, I didn't understand the ITCS entry in the "Notes" column for the Volvo's. In fact, I recently sent a letter to the CRB requesting the note be removed, since it made no sense given the update/backdate allowance and the recently stricken VIN rule. The note is a reference to "Bosch injection", with what appears to be the beginning model year and VIN (both incorrect, BTW) associated therewith.

With your revelation of a past "base model only" rule, I could now conclude that at some point, someone must have agreed with my "...142E was an optional engine" rationale, and added the note to cover the situation.

[Doc Bro]

So can I run the M tecnic front bumper??:)
R

[Knestis]

BTW, the original PROPOSED '85 rules don't include any "base model" kind of language, but like Greg I remember something like that as well.

K

[Chip42]

another interesting spoiler - the 1999-2000 Honda civic Si had a DI spoiler that was installed by default at the dealership - buyer could order a car with a delete. as most all of the cars have this, and it was not an "option" per se, how would you rule on this in ITS?

another - MkI MR2 (85-89) is allowed to run the aero kit (skirts, rear window fin, front spoiler) per the spec line. the aero kit did not exist in 1985/early 1986 but the spoiler alone was an option. could an 88 car (different nose, engine air inlet) run just the wing without the skirts or other parts of the kit? could an 85 car run the skirts and wing but not the window fin? I figure the front plastic spoiler is moot with a legal air dam installed.

MkII MR2s were VERY rare in the US without spoilers, but they happened. there was a "1990 MR2 coupe" in the UK with NO wing option.

[Greg Amy]

From whatever is German for "anti-aircraft fire." Flugzeugkriegsomedamnedthingie"

Ding! German word, "Fliegerabwehrkanonen", or 'airplane anti-cannon.' Allies shortened it to "flak".

I'm watching this debate, seems to be some reasonable explanations. I suspect we're victims of historical revision, if not outright desire to change the rules. Gotta wonder if there's some loopholes in there that I can take advantage of, that I've ignored in the past due to my "baggage"... ;)

[JeffYoung]

Might be wrong as I have taken it for granted for a long time, but to me "offered for sale in the United States" would include any and all factory options that were "offered for sale." If you could check the box, pay your money and get it from the factory, for me anyway, the words (and what I understand the intent to be) of the rule are satisfied.

Interesting question though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So can I run the M tecnic front bumper??:)
R

Tell us why you think you could. If there was no 328 M-Technic MODEL, then you can't. If the MT front bumper was a dealer installed OPTION, then you still can't. If the MT front bumper cover was a line-item option in the 328 during the spec-line year for your car, installed in Munchin, then I say yes...but bring your documentation...

[Daryl]

Gotta wonder if there's some loopholes in there that I can take advantage of, that I've ignored in the past due to my "baggage"... ;)

:D Live by the sword, die by the sword so to speak. You ol'timers seem to have huge amounts of knowledge between them ears, at the same time it has been a long time since many of you have actually read the rule book :D

I am sure a look with a fresh set of eyes will result in some type of improved package....perhaps you shouldn't read it and just go with what you remember.

A few years ago I raced in FV, there were a couple of fast ol' farts who were racing FV when I was born (1968). That was a bunch of knowledge and accumulation of good heads, manifolds and carbs stacked in their favor. Thankfully, most of them picked up a rule book in some time. They weren't aware of a few subtle changes over the years...until the FV section of the rules received a total rewrite...

[Doc Bro]

Tell us why you think you could. If there was no 328 M-Technic MODEL, then you can't. If the MT front bumper was a dealer installed OPTION, then you still can't. If the MT front bumper cover was a line-item option in the 328 during the spec-line year for your car, installed in Munchin, then I say yes...but bring your documentation...


That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have documentation of the car in the US, Japan, and Europe. So it definitely existed. The question is valid. How do I find out the answer? Was it a BMW option or a dealer installed option? Please help....

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have documentation of the car in the US, Japan, and Europe. So it definitely existed. The question is valid. How do I find out the answer? Was it a BMW option or a dealer installed option? Please help....

R

What you are saying doesn't make sense to me. It's a model like the 1994 325 version? If it is, you are good. If you are just saying you have documentation that an MT nose was available in the US, then point us to it so we can check it out. I do not believe you could ever order that as a factory option. TONS of dealer installed stuff for sure but factory? I doubt it. Hit the Bimmerforums and ask there.

[robits325is]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have documentation of the car in the US, Japan, and Europe. So it definitely existed. The question is valid. How do I find out the answer? Was it a BMW option or a dealer installed option? Please help....

R

I have owned two and neither one had a trunk mounted wing.

[Doc Bro]

I have owned two and neither one had a trunk mounted wing.


Were they 328's?

AB I'm going to BMW directly to get the info.

R

[Knestis]

Another consideration: I see the term "available in the US" above. The "manual rack in a MkIII Golf" defense rests on a handful of Canadian-model Golfs of that generation - which did apparently come with manual racks - being sold new at a US dealer.

This is another of those things that I *remember* but may simply be an artifact of my 20-year-od assumptions: That we're supposed to be racing real US-model cars, and our spec lines assume that to be the case. If someone gray-markets a Euro or JDM-spec car stateside, it doesn't make it - and the parts that came on it - IT-legal. Right?

The Golf example falls down on its own merit, I think, because that car comes with a an engine that's not on the spec line (a 1.8), so an argument can be made that it (and any different part on it) are as illegal as would be, say, the VR6.

It's becoming clearer to me that with the VIN rule going away, it's going to be important that each of us are clear about what we are "declaring" our car to be.

K

[benspeed]

So perhaps I can review the Porsche 968 Club Sport as an option and run the gear that came from the factory? But drats - it was for sale in Europe and the UK - but several were apparetly sold by Paul Miller Porsche right here in Parsippany......hmmmm

[Doc Bro]

OK, so this is where my confusion lies. (assume where talking 325 not 328). If I have an e36 325is 96 how can I run an MT bumper? Haven't I just created a car that didn't exist? Or is it the up/backdate? Or same spec line?

R


I'll repost this in reference to Kirk's last post.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll repost this in reference to Kirk's last post.

R

It's UD/BD beacuse the 325is and MT 325 are on the same spec line. What is confusing about this? The 1994 325MT was available in the US as a US model.

[robits325is]

Were they 328's?

AB I'm going to BMW directly to get the info.

R

They only made the M-Technic in 1994 as a 325is.

[Knestis]

You're a case in point, Rob. You aren't racing a particular year/make/model: You're racing a spec line.

It's pretty much always been that way but I think the VIN rule going away is going to shift our perspective just a little.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

You're a case in point, Rob. You aren't racing a particular year/make/model: You're racing a spec line.

It's pretty much always been that way but I think the VIN rule going away is going to shift our perspective just a little.

K

The classic case is the ITS RX-7. The top cars are 'built into' the 89-91 GTU model...most started out as any variety of versions of the 86-88 car that had smaller brakes, a different front nose, a different intake manifold, a different 5th gear ratio, 16 less horsepower etc...

[Doc Bro]

You're a case in point, Rob. You aren't racing a particular year/make/model: You're racing a spec line

K


But, to counterpoint this statement I thought the entirety of the VIN rule going away was that a car that didn't exist could not be "created". Hence the 96 325 M-Technic as an example.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

But, to counterpoint this statement I thought the entirety of the VIN rule going away was that a car that didn't exist could not be "created". Hence the 96 325 M-Technic as an example.

R

Rob, there was no E26 325 in 1996 so its not on the spec line. You can only create a model that is on your spec line. There was no 328 M-Technic so you can't 'create' one.

The purpose of the VIN rule going away was to facilitate easier chassis choices. Like using your 328 'shell' and creating a 325. Or taking a NX1600 and creating an NX2000. Technically not legal before, now will be.

You seem to want to take a characteristic from another spec line and use it as your own. Nope.

[Knestis]

Rescinding the VIN rule didn't change the situation re: "creating a model" at all. If the front end in question is standard on a car included in the spec line, it's legal for any car run by someone "declaring" their car to be represented BY that spec line.

K

EDIT - YUP. Key on Andy's point. You may have STARTED with parts from a '96 BMW but since (I take Andy at his word) there was no such thing as a '96 325, you have - and I use the word again - "declared" that you will be entering a [whatever the spec line says BMW 325].

[Doc Bro]

Rob, there was no E26 325 in 1996 so its not on the spec line. You can only create a model that is on your spec line. There was no 328 M-Technic so you can't 'create' one.

You seem to want to take a characteristic from another spec line and use it as your own. Nope.


I used the wrong date, but still there was no 95 325 Mtecnic.....and there was no e26....so we're even!!

I'm not trying to do anything but understand.....don't infer my intentions. As evidenced by the number of opinions and interpretations here I'm not the only one who has some unanswered questions......

R

[robits325is]

I used the wrong date, but still there was no 95 325 Mtecnic.....and there was no e26....so we're even!!

I'm not trying to do anything but understand.....don't infer my intentions. As evidenced by the number of opinions and interpretations here I'm not the only one who has some unanswered questions......

R
The last E-36 328 Coupes produced in 1999 had the M3 moldings and Luxury Bumpers (M3 bumpers without the black lip spoiler) These parts were on cars that had the Sport Package.

[Doc Bro]

The last E-36 328 Coupes produced in 1999 had the M3 moldings and Luxury Bumpers (M3 bumpers without the black lip spoiler) These parts were on cars that had the Sport Package.



http://www.sellitnowmotors.com/classifieds/user_images/cars/cars.2931.1.jpg

Like this. 99 328 is sport package;

or this;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BMW-3-Series-IS-1999-BMW-328is-328-SPORT-M-Package-Auto-Coupe-Black_W0QQitemZ200287518452QQihZ010QQcategoryZ6007 QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

So the M3 bumpers and side trim can be run on a 96 328is using the same spec line arguements (as the 99 328 is sport package) already mentioned above....so there's really no need to look into the M technic package.

Si?

ps Thanks Rob

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the M3 bumpers and side trim can be run on a 96 328is using the same spec line arguements (as the 99 328 is sport package) already mentioned above....so there's really no need to look into the M technic package.

Si?

ps Thanks Rob

R

Yup. Although the M3 luxury front bumper is different than the regular M3 unit.

All you are doing is updating and backdating front bumper assemblies for a car with multiple years on it's spec line. No VIN rule application here.

To apply the VIN rule removal to your situation: Like Dave Maynard is doing - taking a 325 and turing it into a 328. Before the recinded rule - illegal. In 2009, legal.

But again, since there was no 328 M-technic in the US, you have nothing to update - backdate to in order to get THAT SPECIFIC front bumper.

[Doc Bro]

Yup. Although the M3 luxury front bumper is different than the regular M3 unit.

All you are doing is updating and backdating front bumper assemblies for a car with multiple years on it's spec line. No VIN rule application here.

To apply the VIN rule removal to your situation: Like Dave Maynard is doing - taking a 325 and turing it into a 328. Before the recinded rule - illegal. In 2009, legal.

But again, since there was no 328 M-technic in the US, you have nothing to update - backdate to in order to get THAT SPECIFIC front bumper.



Ahhhh yes but aren't splitters allowed? Why can't I use the BMW splitter (lip) that came on the M3 bumper?

Devil's advocate mode off

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ahhhh yes but aren't splitters allowed? Why can't I use the BMW splitter (lip) that came on the M3 bumper?

Devil's advocate mode off

R

You can, provided it meets the ITCS rules for splitters. The difference is in the 'mouth' of the grill. Slats for the luxo, honeycomb for the standard IIRC.

[Knestis]

...and you can't remove the whatever "splitter" or lip came on the bumper skin, in order to install the one that came on the M3.

I've had dozen or more VW fans tell me I should just use the VR6 lip spoiler, or any of the many aftermarket options, but they all fit only when the stock one is removed. And there's no allowance for that.

K

[shwah]

...and you can't remove the whatever "splitter" or lip came on the bumper skin, in order to install the one that came on the M3.

I've had dozen or more VW fans tell me I should just use the VR6 lip spoiler, or any of the many aftermarket options, but they all fit only when the stock one is removed. And there's no allowance for that.

K
Yeah - that one caught me out. I'm changing it, but its a bad rule IMO. There is no sense in creating an allowance for 'open front spoiler' (within stated constraints), yet not allowing it to replace any exsiting front spoiler. Looks like an oversight to me that only serves to make it more difficult to execute the allowance.

You guys get my letter on that yet?:024:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah - that one caught me out. I'm changing it, but its a bad rule IMO. There is no sense in creating an allowance for 'open front spoiler' (within stated constraints), yet not allowing it to replace any exsiting front spoiler. Looks like an oversight to me that only serves to make it more difficult to execute the allowance.

You guys get my letter on that yet?:024:

Technically, spoilers and splitters aren't free. You are allowed to ADD a spoiler or splitter to what you have. Subtle but important difference. Otherwise some intorturetation would occur about what could be removed, how much, why and when...etc. In this case, I agree that adding or changing any language could cause problems.

You can - and should however - UD/BD to the front bumper assembly that best suits your needs, from your spec line. Those needs could be cooling, aero, style, ease of additional mods, etc.

[Greg Amy]

Technically, spoilers and splitters aren't free. You are allowed to ADD a spoiler or splitter to what you have. Subtle but important difference.
+1

A repost from a few years ago here (which I re-posted in the Sandbox last week...)

Splitters were never "allowed" in IT; show me where they're explicitly addressed? We had this conversation on this forum a year or so ago, but splitters showing up in I.T. were as a result of the evolution of cars in the 70s and 80s from those with detached metal bumpers to those in the 90s incorporating integral bumper covers. Within the confines of your typical IT-legal car back when the rules were written, splitters were virtually impossible to make (and not thought of; I don't think I saw one on a pro race car until maybe early 90s in WTCC or BTCC?).

Enter the integral bumper cover and now you've scads of horizontal space to mess with behind the vertical nose, coupled to graphic examples in Pro racing to emulate and - voila! - splitters show up in Improved Touring.

...

The air dam/spoiler has historically been viewed as a drag-reduction item, not a downforce-producing (or lift-decreasing) device. We didn't have complex computer flow modeling 25 years ago, all we had was seat-of-the-pants, "hey I'm going 5 miles per hour faster into the bridge at Road Atlanta" type of testing. You'll notice in that article that the affect on drag reduction (mostly from reducing under-body turbulence) far outweighs its affect on downforce, and that is typically supported by the seat-of-the-pants-wind-tunnel testing.

Given its drag reduction value, there had to be limits, and those limits were set (generally speaking) at no lower than the bottom of the wheel (so a flat tire does not cause it to drag), no higher than 4 inches above the center of the hubs (so that you cannot use it to reduce cooling drag), no farther back than the front of the wheel openings (so that you cannot use it to reduce wheel opening drag), and within the outer confines of the body outline (so you can't use it to produce downforce with extended winglets). Of course, think of the cars we had "back then": most of them were blunt front cars with protruding bumpers (think Pinto, Capri, Rabbit, Scirocco, Civic, TR-7, etc). Most of these cars did not have integrated bumpers and if you followed the rules it would be VERY difficult to construct any type of aerodynamic downforce given the horizontal restrictions and protruding bumpers excluded.

Today that's not the case; most cars are shipped with enclosed integrated bumper assemblies and it's perfectly legal to the rules to attach something under that cover. You mount an air dam under the nose of your Z3 and you'll have a good 4 to 6 inches of forward horizontal space to work with before you hit the tip of the nose. That can be a big advantage (especially for FWD cars).

Geo's favorite slogan is "if it says you can, you bloody well can." While there are no allowances to install a splitter, there are insufficient restrictions on the air dam to disallow one. Who's to say that this piece is a "not specifically allowed" aerodynamic device or actually a specifically-allowed air dam part? Absent those restrictions, the "openness" of the air dam rule pretty much allows you to do whatever you want within those physical boundaries.

So, it's not that the SCCA is specifically allowing a splitter and thus frontal downforce; I'm of the opinion that it was not even considered at the time the rule was written simply because "they" could not have foreseen the design of current vehicles... - GA

[shwah]

Technically, spoilers and splitters aren't free. You are allowed to ADD a spoiler or splitter to what you have. Subtle but important difference. Otherwise some intorturetation would occur about what could be removed, how much, why and when...etc. In this case, I agree that adding or changing any language could cause problems.

You can - and should however - UD/BD to the front bumper assembly that best suits your needs, from your spec line. Those needs could be cooling, aero, style, ease of additional mods, etc.

I understand and agree how the rule is written. I just don't agree that it is a good rule. Please let me know what undesireable result we would have if the rule allowed the 'addition of an air dam, or replacement of original equipment air dam'. The intorturation can't get around the limitations on creating new openings, etc. AND any car that has no air dam from the factory can come up with thouse intortuations right now. What is allowed in an airdam is clearly defined, and those words have stood the test of time. Allowing addition or replacement won't change that, it will just change the fact that folks are installing new airdams, and designing them so that they can be mounted in front of, and render completely functionless, any oem air dam.

For update/backdate - it's funny. For one version of a front bumper on my car, it is a separate bumper with a fascia, which was delivered at times with no air dam at all. The other has an integrated bumper design like the Golf 3, which always includes an air dam. In that case we have to do exactly what Kirk is doing - run the little stock one, or design an additional one, but don't do something sensible and mount it to the stock mounting points (like I did), design it to mount in front of that to the bumpe surface.

It's not a valid argument, but this is a dumb rule IMO.

[Greg Amy]

Please let me know what undesireable result we would have if the rule allowed the 'addition of an air dam, or replacement of original equipment air dam'. The intorturation can't get around the limitations on creating new openings...
Not true. Being able to remove parts that would otherwise exist behind an added-on spoiler would SIGNIFICANTLY enhance the ability for ducting air to brakes, coolers, radiators, etc.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=199413&postcount=44

In addition, being able to remove those parts will SIGNIFICANTLY improve the ability to make spoilers/splitters/airdams, etc. I can assure you that were I able to remove the front valence on the Integra I'd have a BTCC-like front airdam/splitter on that thing, toute-suite...

This isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

GA

[Chip42]

completely agree that the rules as written do not allow for the removal of any of the factory front aero bits (lip spoilers, etc) as covered by Greg A and Kurt.

an observation:

ITS RX-7s often use the GTU wing and some version of a splitter, many of which bolt or otherwise attach to the bottom of the factory bumper cover. didn't the GTU model also had a lip spoiler attached to the bottom of the front bumper? I cannot tell if pre-1989/non GTU models had such an appendage.

should an RX-7 running the GTU rear spoiler be required to have the GTU front spoiler and an air dam that does not bolt on in its place(replace it)? or are the GTU aero parts independently allowed? from my observations, this ruling could make a lot of those ITS cars illegal. that's a pretty well understood and thus strongly self policing group - so I'm probably missing something but if I'm not...

thoughts?

[Andy Bettencourt]

completely agree that the rules as written do not allow for the removal of any of the factory front aero bits (lip spoilers, etc) as covered by Greg A and Kurt.

an observation:

ITS RX-7s often use the GTU wing and some version of a splitter, many of which bolt or otherwise attach to the bottom of the factory bumper cover. didn't the GTU model also had a lip spoiler attached to the bottom of the front bumper? from what I can tell, pre-1989/non GTU models had no such appendage.

should an RX-7 running the GTU rear spoiler be required to have the GTU front spoiler and an air dam that does not bolt on in its place(replace it)? or are the GTU aero parts independently allowed? from my observations, this ruling could make a lot of those ITS cars illegal.

thoughts?

Just so you know, the rear spoiler you see on most ITS RX-7's came on the GXL as well. The actual lower spoiler came on the Turbo and the GTUs and was VERY rare. Check this link to the S5 model line up.

[Chip42]

Just so you know, the rear spoiler you see on most ITS RX-7's came on the GXL as well. The actual lower spoiler came on the Turbo and the GTUs and was VERY rare. Check this link to the S5 model line up.

well ok then. glad I'm wrong.

for clarification, though - the allowed factory aero parts (any car) can be UD/BD as a group only, correct? i.e. a specific factory wing and side skirt (rocker trim) combo package would allow the use of the entire package or just the wing only (skirts removed per ITCS D.8.k) but not the skirts alone. correct?

[shwah]

Not true. Being able to remove parts that would otherwise exist behind an added-on spoiler would SIGNIFICANTLY enhance the ability for ducting air to brakes, coolers, radiators, etc.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=199413&postcount=44

In addition, being able to remove those parts will SIGNIFICANTLY improve the ability to make spoilers/splitters/airdams, etc. I can assure you that were I able to remove the front valence on the Integra I'd have a BTCC-like front airdam/splitter on that thing, toute-suite...

This isn't a slippery slope, it's a cliff.

GA
But you are allowed to add holes/ducts to the oem parts to facilitate brake cooling anyhow. What new gain is being had here?
You can build a BTTC front air dam now too, you just have to mount it on top of the oem stuff.
Yes it will get easier to build the parts. No it will not enable some additional performance enhancement.

Do you guys seriously think that the logic in allowing a non-stock air dam, but requiring the retention of a now non functionaly stock air dam is sound, and somehow acting as a performance limitation?

edit - looking at the linked post - maybe another poorly written rule. The intent is clearly (to me) to allow brake ducting up to 3" diameter. I guess another letter should be written. Honestly - in my case it makes no sense to go to a larger duct, as space to get the duct to the brakes is limited, and I don't seem to need anything more for my brake package, so I never gave that topic as much of a critical read as you have. I am sure that there are other cases - like the Triumph - that desperately need as much brake cooling as they can get, so I understand the potential performance ramification.

[Greg Amy]

...the allowed factory aero parts (any car) can be UD/BD as a group only, correct?
Here's where we get into yet another historical original intent versus current practice. The rule states, specifically,
Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). No interchange of parts between assemblies is permitted, and all parts of an assembly shall be as originally produced for that assembly (such parts may, however, be coated, painted or plated). Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.
I'm not confident the rules were originally intended to apply to anything but mechanical assemblies (as illustrated by the examples offered). Regardless of what you do, however, it's important to note the "not permitted to “create” a model" limitation.

I see the UD/BD rules as nothing more than an early variant of the new no-VIN rule. I use as a basis for deciding legality the example of bringing in somene intimately familiar with the make/model: aside from the VIN, they should not be able to determine that the car and its assemblies did not come that way from the factory. - GA

[Greg Amy]

But you are allowed to add holes/ducts to the oem parts to facilitate brake cooling anyhow. What new gain is being had here?
If you cut into factory parts you're limited to 3" diameter.


You can build a BTTC front air dam now too, you just have to mount it on top of the oem stuff.But with the factory stuff there I am limited in horizontal placement and extension. With the OEM stuff gone I can set the air dam back a foot or so, make a very large and effective horizontal splitter, add upturns for downforce well within the vertical outline of the body, and clearly and directly divert large volumes of high pressure air to the brakes (a distinct advantage on this car).


Do you...seriously think that the logic in allowing a non-stock air dam, but requiring the retention of a now non functionaly stock air dam is sound, and somehow acting as a performance limitation?Yes.

[shwah]

If you cut into factory parts you're limited to 3" diameter.
Agreed. Another area that is not adequately defined. My opinion is that the intent of the rules were to allow max 3" brake ducting. In which case this becomes a non-issue. Currently it is not a very sensible section of the rule set.



But with the factory stuff there I am limited in horizontal placement and extension. With the OEM stuff gone I can set the air dam back a foot or so, make a very large and effective horizontal splitter, add upturns for downforce well within the vertical outline of the body, and clearly and directly divert large volumes of high pressure air to the brakes (a distinct advantage on this car).
Of couse any splitter element that has a coresponding surface facing the ground rather than the sky has limited effectiveness anyhow. Any increased pressure realized will work on both surfaces, though more effectively on the horizontal surface. Not to mention that you can still do this with the stock peice in place, make the allowed air dam such that it has a vertical plane lower than, and further back than the stock item, creating a larger horizontal plane on the splitter.
Sorry I forgot which car 'this car' is, but would like to see some data showing how much more air 'large volumes' afforded by not having to keep the oem air dam are, vs the alternative - due to pressure increases. Heck a measurement of the pressure increase itself would be telling in how little impact this will actually have.
All of the above considers that we 'fix' the brake cooling duct rule to specify 3" diameter in all cases.



Yes.
We disagree. Especially when considering how many cars are not impacted by this odd restriction. We should certainly see some, or at least one, example of the advantages you cite being developed at some point over the past 3 decades, yet I don't believe we have.

[shwah]

I guess a good analogy for the way I see this rule is, allowing the use of any air cleaner, but requiring that you also retain and route air through any stock air cleaner, or allowing the use of any radiator, but requiring it be mounted in front of or behind any existing radiator. Sure there may be a performance advantage of the 'real' rules over these alternateives, but the rules also make sense.

Not to be confused with allowing use of other air/fuel measurement/metering vis a vi aftermarket ecu, MAP sensor, and other allowances, but requiring air to flow through the stock, possibly no longer utilized air measurement device - because potential flow restrictions of the stock device are germane to the power potential of the car as classed. I am not aware of any input to the classification process based on aero or downforce efficiency - or really even brakes/brake cooling. (although maybe that is why the Scirocco was classified heavier than its chassis mates in all classifications back in the olden days - but that is another topic for another time)

[Greg Amy]

We should certainly see some, or at least one, example of the advantages you cite being developed at some point over the past 3 decades, yet I don't believe we have.
BTCC 2006 (note: BTCC also has a "vertical outline" rule...):

http://www.btccpages.com/gallery/d/2039-3/ct1.jpg

BTCC, 2007:

http://www.btccpages.com/gallery/d/4791-3/Giovanardi_leads_Plato.jpg
http://www.btccpages.com/gallery/d/4776-3/Menu.jpg

BTCC 2009 (pre-season testing):

http://www.btccpages.com/gallery/d/8269-3/David+Pinkney+Team+Dynamics+Honda+Civic+Donington+ Park+Nov+2008+2.jpg

[shwah]

I do not advocate altering the profile of the integrated bumper as shown in your examples. Only that a stock - separate - removable air dam be legally replaced by one that meets the IT rule, rather than covered by one.
You could do what is shown in these photos now below any existing stock body work, whether that be an integrated bumper, or a facia. I still don't see evidence of a legitimate performance gain by making the rule logical.

[Greg Amy]

I do not advocate altering the profile of the integrated bumper as shown in your examples. Only that a stock - separate - removable air dam be legally replaced by one that meets the IT rule, rather than covered by one.

How are ya gonna do that, when most cars these days have integral bumpers?

And, trust me, whether you "advocate" it or not, change the rules and someone will take advantage of it. I certainly will.


You could do what is shown in these photos now below any existing stock body work, whether that be an integrated bumper, or a facia.My Integra, for example, has about 3-4 inches from the bottom of the stock nose - which is pretty much even with the vertical outline of the car - to the bottom of the wheels. Kinda difficult to make that into anything resembling the possibilities, were I allowed to remove it.


I still don't see evidence of a legitimate performance gain by making the rule logical.Then we're at an impasse. But one thing I'm pretty confident of, whether you can imagine this potential or not the rule will never be changed as you propose. So, it's best to let it go and find a way to take advantage of the rule(s) as-is.

:shrug:

[shwah]

How are ya gonna do that, when most cars these days have integral bumpers?

And, trust me, whether you "advocate" it or not, change the rules and someone will take advantage of it. I certainly will.

My Integra, for example, has about 3-4 inches from the bottom of the stock nose - which is pretty much even with the vertical outline of the car - to the bottom of the wheels. Kinda difficult to make that into anything resembling the possibilities, were I allowed to remove it.

Then we're at an impasse. But one thing I'm pretty confident of, whether you can imagine this potential or not the rule will never be changed as you propose. So, it's best to let it go and find a way to take advantage of the rule(s) as-is.

:shrug:
I don't see how allowing someone to remove a stock air dam when installing an allowed airdam somehow also gives allowance to modify the bumper cover itself. What rule would possibly allow that?

Maybe we are talking about two different things - I would not be OK with cutting away any of the stock material, or replacing the bumper cover with an alternate one. I do think that if the car has an oem air dam that is a separate part, which is attached to the bumper cover, or fascia, or frame or whatever, we should be able to remove it if we install an IT spec air dam - which has a defined geometry today, which has not resulted in the outcomes you speculate, which does not allow for additional openings beyond those defined (possbily poorly) for brake cooling.

[shwah]

But one thing I'm pretty confident of, whether you can imagine this potential or not the rule will never be changed as you propose. So, it's best to let it go and find a way to take advantage of the rule(s) as-is.

:shrug:
I'll make sure to run any other rule questions by you in the future to find out what will happen, so I don't have to waste my time and those actually responsible for the rules...:rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

I don't see how allowing someone to remove a stock air dam when installing an allowed airdam somehow also gives allowance to modify the bumper cover itself. What rule would possibly allow that?...I do think that if the car has an oem air dam that is a separate part, which is attached to the bumper cover, or fascia, or frame or whatever, we should be able to remove it if we install an IT spec air dam...
Well, the problem then arises - in the same vein as the CAI debate - how do you rectify situations where different cars with different designs have different opportunities? Whereas my Integra is a pretty much a single-piece bumper fascia extending nearly to the ground (and thus cannot take advantage), other cars have "air dams" that extend all the way up to nearly at (or above) the radiator and can be removed, giving TONS of space, vertically and horizontally, to let their imaginations roam...then we get into specific make/model definitions of what an "iar dam" actually is, with some manufacturers' parts books calling them spoilers, some calling them fascias, some calling them air dams, some calling them valences...

The Pandora's Box possibilities are endless...open a small slot, and a train gets run through it. Thus my reference to it being a slippery cliff.

Then, one has to take that trip down Memory Lane once again, and go back to the original philosophy of the class to rectify this idea against the intent of the class...and it doesn't follow.

Just sayin' I think it's not a good idea, when taken in the context of all this. - GA

On edit: In reference to your last comment, you certainly don't need MY approval, Chris, I'm not in any way part of the rules process. Hell, it's hard enough trying to get those rules-making rat bastards to listen to me, let along take what I say seriously... :)

[shwah]

Just poking fun at stating your opinion as a fact about whether the rules would be improved.

Pandora's box is there and open right now simply by allowing non stock airdams at all. Asking to remove stock air dams won't change what can already be done.

[Knestis]

I have to agree w/Greg. While I can see Chris's point, it's kind of based on an operational definition of "air dam" that applies to his car. It applies to mine, too and it would be a heck of a lot simpler if I could remove that "lip" and start with a nice, horizontal surface. There are lots of perfectly reasonable aftermarket parts that poke right in there, or I could take advantage of the flat surface for mounting something we made.

But we've got to write the rules for all eventualities and even with a raft of new definitions in the gloassary, it would still be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Someone with a unitary bumpercoverairdam could remove the entire thing and replace it with a featherlight carbon part that looked nothint like the stock piece.

K

[JeffYoung]

Basically, all 2nd Gen RX7s if I understand things correctly.
I agree as well. Lots of potential for trouble here if we allow a replacement.

Someone with a unitary bumpercoverairdam could remove the entire thing and replace it with a featherlight carbon part that looked nothint like the stock piece.

K

[shwah]

But we've got to write the rules for all eventualities and even with a raft of new definitions in the gloassary, it would still be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
OK. I go back to the small bumper and have every one of those eventualities available to me. What exactly are you preventing from happening again?


Someone with a unitary bumpercoverairdam could remove the entire thing and replace it with a featherlight carbon part that looked nothint like the stock piece.
K
You mean we can't tell the difference between an air dam and a bumper cover? If we can tell the difference between a drain hole and and air intake, we should be able to figure this one out.

Then of course there are the existing geometry limitations to consider - not more than 4" above wheel center would take pretty much any bumper cover replacement off the table regardless.

The argument to not be allowed to remove 'removable' air dams is like the argument to not allow ECU replacement. There are cars racing with us right now that have all the latitude you are afraid of, thus no pandora-ness can be claimed.

[Knestis]

...and you (and I) have exactly the same opportunities under the current rule. It's just easier for some models than for others. That's how it works.

I totally understand your position, Chris but a conservative approach (i.e., leave it alone) is the best answer for the ITAC, unless some really compelling argument can be made for the health of the entire category.

K

[shwah]

So the reason to force retention of the stock air dam is that it will open pandoras box with unique interpretations of the rule, but when faced with the fact that the very situation you are citing exists right now (and has since air dams were allowed), suddenly it's just easier for some than others?

That's a pretty poor piece of justification of your position right there. Changing tune mid stream.

The allowance you are scared of exists already. If that is not acceptable, then take away the air dam allowance. Stock configuration only. Give me one good reason that we should have them on IT cars. And if you give me the - well the horse is out of the barn line - then give me one good reason to require 2 air dams, other than 'well then some cars can make a different shaped air dam than they have right now, just like those other cars that already have that ability.'

Now that I think about it - seriously, I don't see one compelling argument to have them.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Chris,

As long as I can't mount an aftermarket rear spoiler, I won't be mounting an air dam or splitter. The reason is high speed balance: more high speed grip at the front means high speed oversteer. So I've got all that realestate to add one, but can't use it because of rear air flow issues.

[Gary L]

Hey Chris,

As long as I can't mount an aftermarket rear spoiler, I won't be mounting an air dam or splitter. The reason is high speed balance: more high speed grip at the front means high speed oversteer. So I've got all that realestate to add one, but can't use it because of rear air flow issues.
Man, I feel your pain... the 142 would just be such a handful with more front downforce. And I shudder to think about how bad it would be without the rear diffuser that was installed on all 142's from the factory. (Admit it... I'll bet you thought those were spare tire wells hanging down in the back, didn't ya?) :o

Aerodynamic discussions always leave me chuckling. Almost as much fun to read as the "short shifter" threads.

Merry Christmas :114:

[Knestis]

So the reason to force retention of the stock air dam is that it will open pandoras box with unique interpretations of the rule, but when faced with the fact that the very situation you are citing exists right now (and has since air dams were allowed), suddenly it's just easier for some than others?

That's a pretty poor piece of justification of your position right there. Changing tune mid stream. ...

Sorry you feel that way, Chris. I'm pretty confident that the rationale has been consistent, even if I didn't do a great job of explaining it consisntently.

Some things are always going to be easier for some than for others. I know some of you think ITAC members sound like broken records on stuff like this but we simply can't use that reality as rationale to try to make each thing equally easy for everyone. If we did, everyone who struggles with their specific make-model challenges would use the same rationale to "fix" their inequity, and we'd be obligated to do it: If it's right for airdams, it's right for unobtainable windshields being replaced with Lexan, etc., etc., etc.

One thing for sure, though: Leaving the rule the way it absolutely prevents any new wrenches in the works. We'll have all of the issues we currently have but none more. And unless we KNOW that the new rule will be better - and we can't - the potential downside risk isn't warranted.

Kirk (who gets to go to Portillos for lunch today and thinks Chris might recognize the value of that) :)

[shwah]

Kirk,

I absolutely see the value in that lunch. Enjoy!

To be clear, this is more about something not being logical at all, more than what I can or can't do. Like I stated, I have run the small bumper setup, and was preparing to build a mold for a uberlight super effective airdam splitter for that car to replace the temporary pile that I tore up at IT Fest.
Which was this ugly thing:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd262/chois_photos/CIMG2052.jpg

I actually think I can do something very close to the illustrations that Greg gave, without the non-IT legal bumper modifications.

Something like this:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd262/chois_photos/CIMG0648.jpg

I stumbled on a free big bumper setup, and put it on the car to see how that would look, and see how it would work and made an air dam for that to run at the ARRC.

Like this:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd262/chois_photos/CIMG2701.jpg

I didn't leave the stock peice on, but as stated can modify the setup pretty easily to do so. I'm acutally not convinced whether I will stick with that bumper or go back to the small bumper.

It's not about whether it is easy for me or anyone else to perform the allowed addition of an air dam, it's about the dumb idea of leaving the previous oem unit mounted to the car doing nothing, behind that air dam. I really try to be pretty open minded and ready to just say 'well we don't agree' on these discussions, but I really honestly can't believe the lack of willingness to think about or consider my argument and why I am making it. I do see this as a knee jerk reaction. It's a shame, because it leaves a dumb rule unchanged, but it won't have much impact on my own prep or plans.

[Knestis]

I totally understand why you think it's silly, Chris. I share my personal opinion not in any effort to convince you that you're wrong but to share what I personally think: That there are a lot of IT racers out there, many of whom have at least one of our rules they think is completely nuts, and "it's stupid" isn't enough of a reason FOR ME to support a change.

Remember that I'm just one guy on the ITAC. I *think* that there are other members who act based at least in part because they share that perspective but write your letter and it will get considered - they all do.

K

[Flyinglizard]

Chris, both of those are really nice. Where is the splitter?? It looks as though you have at least room for a 1in splitter.
Both are too low tho. well under the wheel rim,IMHo, eyeball opinion.
Any air kept from under the car is a good thing,lowers the under hood pressure, wait, that lowers my HP...
The front fender plastic inners helps also. MM

[Flyinglizard]

PS the small bumper is better, as is the small window doors.
Jetta is way better.Smaller doors, smallbumber, more ass . all good. MM

[jimmyc]

But with the factory stuff there I am limited in horizontal placement and extension. With the OEM stuff gone I can set the air dam back a foot or so, make a very large and effective horizontal splitter, add upturns for downforce well within the vertical outline of the body, and clearly and directly divert large volumes of high pressure air to the brakes (a distinct advantage on this car).

interesting...

So the 92-95 civic SI/EX (as they come with a factory installed lip) is screwed in the splitter design arena. But the 92-95 civic DX/CX (no factory installed lip) get to reap the benefits of a well designed splitter.

The ITA integra (94-01) and ITS integra 94-01 get have a good splitter while the 97-01 ITR integra ITR doesn't.

[dj10]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

For all you BMW E36 ITR cars please install the trunk lip lip spoiler.:D

[Knestis]

interesting...

So the 92-95 civic SI/EX (as they come with a factory installed lip) is screwed in the splitter design arena. But the 92-95 civic DX/CX (no factory installed lip) get to reap the benefits of a well designed splitter.

The ITA integra (94-01) and ITS integra 94-01 get have a good splitter while the 97-01 ITR integra ITR doesn't.

Actually, the net result is that they all have exactly the same opportunity under the current rule - just like all of the other cars in the category. They just have to arrive at it from a different place.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Only if it came from the factory as a no-option item...e.g., Acura Integra GS-R or Mazda RX-7 GTU....

If it was optional, it ain't legal. If it was dealer installed, it ain't legal. If it came on *all* cars regardless of trim....it's legal.

(Personally, I'd love the option to NOT run the GS-R rear wing in ITS, 'cause I know it's all-show, no-go, as most factory "option" wings are....)

Greg,

I know you're allowed to take "side moldings" off, but what if that side moldings extend around to the front and back?:rolleyes:

[jimmyc]

Actually, the net result is that they all have exactly the same opportunity under the current rule - just like all of the other cars in the category. They just have to arrive at it from a different place.

K

I'd disagree, with those cars you can't get the effectiveness with the OE lip.

The lip is in the way

[Knestis]

You can get exactly the same "effectiveness" - at least to the degree that can be measured. It just might be more difficult.

Look - I'd personally LOVE to be able to remove the stock lip on the Golf. It would open up a range of aftermarket parts that attach to the stock location and - like with the non-lip'd Hondas - I'd have an easier time attaching something built from scratch...

K

[shwah]

Kirk - thanks, and I do in fact understand. I just never found 'that rule' that bugged me enough to not understand how others don't see it the same way before. Now I have. Just because I don't understand how you can't see it the same doesn't mean you have to.


Chris, both of those are really nice. Where is the splitter?? It looks as though you have at least room for a 1in splitter.
Both are too low tho. well under the wheel rim,IMHo, eyeball opinion.
Any air kept from under the car is a good thing,lowers the under hood pressure, wait, that lowers my HP...
The front fender plastic inners helps also. MM


Because both of these were Saturday afternoon projects to try something new. Like I said - take a look at the Rabbit. That is where I am headed with my setup, with a tray back to the wheel well openings that includes a diffuser. In the end I may end up deciding the direction based on other factors, like standing on a scale with both setups in hand, to see if the deletion of the facia panel with the big bumper makes up for the added weight of the setup. I already know that the big bumper has a negative impact on airflow over the oil cooler/radiator, which may suggest a bit less drag.

(BTW - Both are less than 1/4 inch above the rim - though the small bumper one ended the weekend 1/4 high on one side and 1/4 low on the other - it is just the perspective of the picture that makes the 2nd one look too low. Obviously the orange car has no restriction in that area.)

[shwah]

....but write your letter and it will get considered - they all do.

K

Did that before this conversation started. Hopefully you guys will see it next time you get together.

[shwah]

Any air kept from under the car is a good thing,lowers the under hood pressure, wait, that lowers my HP...

Underhood pressure is not intake pressure on these cars. I use the stock headlight 'scoop' intake point. Using the stock fender well intake point should also have a bit of pressure to it, since the fenders are not vented at all.

[Knestis]

I can confirm that your request has worked its way to the ITAC board for consideration, Chris. Thanks for doing that! The GOOD news is that it's something we can look at as a distinct issue, unlike all of the weight specification requests that are hung up waiting on bigger process or procedure questions.

K

[jimmyc]

You can get exactly the same "effectiveness" - at least to the degree that can be measured. It just might be more difficult.
.

K

No you can't. Have you looked at these OE 'lips' up close, and inspected how to build a airdamn/spliter on one?

Maybe you can on your golf, great for you, but the models i listed can't.

The models listed must have the air damn set back to get any splitter blade, with the OE lip and the restriction on the height of the airdam/splitter, the lip keeps you from being able to do what you can with the lip removed.

Sure you could build a air damn over the OE lip, but then you have no spliter blade, you can still put the splitter there but it isn't much of one.

Greg Amy has posted a good link that describes what a good effective airdam/spliter, i haven't seen too many good examples of spliters in IT...

Here is a great one for the 92-95 civic and wont be as effective with the OEM lip in place.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u113/KIWIJEFF/EGGenII.jpg

[JoshS]

Any car with a one-piece front bumper that comes close to the ground has the same limitation. You can't look at just Hondas.

It's pretty hard to get a real splitter out of this car (forgive the dirt, it hasn't been washed since the last enduro.)

[Knestis]

I'm sorry, Jimmy - it sounds like you want a particular design that the rules are going to make difficult to the point of being impossible, equating "how it looks" (e.g., the depth of the splitter blade) with "effectiveness."

But that was probably a poor choice of words on my part, so I'll take it back, since any suggestions here about what's effective and what's not are just guesses, absent any data.

Suffice to say that whatever the rule, there will always be some cars that are better suited in some respects, and others who end up stuck with a design challenge or compromise. Whatever the rule, we all have the same opportunity.

Sorry for overstating my case.

K

[jimmyc]

Any car with a one-piece front bumper that comes close to the ground has the same limitation. You can't look at just Hondas.

It's pretty hard to get a real splitter out of this car (forgive the dirt, it hasn't been washed since the last enduro.)

It looks like you could do the same thing as the car posted above.

[jimmyc]

I'm sorry, Jimmy - it sounds like you want a particular design that the rules are going to make difficult to the point of being impossible, equating "how it looks" (e.g., the depth of the splitter blade) with "effectiveness."


K


Again read the article that greg has posted it talks all about effectiveness.

If you do some research you will see that what is pictured is a effective splitter design. And you can't do it on those cars with the OE lip.


I have no problem that the rules are written the way the are, i was simply stating that leaving the lip on does change things.

I was thinking out loud...