Life without the VIN rule [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Knestis

01-04-2009, 12:12 PM

It came up in another thread that several of us are doing builds (or rebuilds) enabled by the VIN rule being rescinded. I know of three that I can think of off the top of my head:

** Jeremy Billiel - Rebuilding whacked Acura GSR from an RS chassis

** Jeff Underwood - ITB Honda from lesser model road donor

** Mike Uhlinger - Building a Honda Prelude VTEC out of an Si

If you are doing - or following - one of these builds, could you keep us updated here, so we can keep track of what the policy change is looking like in real life? I confess that I want to know partially because I badgered the ITAC for a couple of years before it happened so if it goes sideways, I want to know about it...

We've unearthed one unanticipated outcome of the rule change - that it's possible to turn a car that's technically too new to be listed in IT into one that matches a spec line. It doesn't buy any advantage that are not cheating, say by using a part off of a model year NOT included among spec-line-legal options, and we didn't think of it largely (I believe) because it's not actually a negative consequence, but it was a surprise when it came up and sometimes surprises suck.

Thanks!

K

Ed Funk

01-04-2009, 12:21 PM

[quote=Knestis;280229] and sometimes surprises suck

---and vice versa!:rolleyes:

aside frome the wise ass remarks, we're VINing an ITC '86 Civic into an ITB '86 Civic Si, so far looks like the biggest issue is going to be the wiring harness. Hondas have the engine management harness integrated into the main harness, unlike some German breeds. Probably going to have swap the entire harness from the donor car.

Rabbit07

01-04-2009, 01:37 PM

I like the rule for those of us crazy enough to build ITA Neons. This allows us to more easily switch between DOHC and SOHC variety. There were two door SOHC's built, but are very rare. It is much easier to find a two door DOHC and covert. That is if you wanted to?

robits325is

01-04-2009, 01:50 PM

Andy Bettencourt

01-04-2009, 02:36 PM

Is it legal to toggle back and forth from class to class with the same car? I might consider running my ITS E-46 323i in ITR as a 328i. The horsepower difference isn't much and the other differences arnt signifigant between the models - same brakes and same wheel size.

Not legal Rob - it's just not the car on the list. Kinda like me running my ITA car in ITS...it shouldn't win, but it would beat some guys.

Your ITS car running in ITR is a lesser version of what you would have if you did a 328 motor with more power than you have now and ran it at your 3000lbs ITS weight...100lbs over the 2900lb min weight for the E46 328i/is in ITR.

Technically not legal...but anyone who protested would be doing so in true weenie fashion, not because they thought that you had better equipment.

But then again, why raise the hair on anyones neck in ITR? Unless that's your goal! :eclipsee_steering:

ekim952522000

01-04-2009, 07:15 PM

I am actually quite happy with how easy it is to convert the prelude. So far the only thing's I have found, after researching all the part numbers is that I have to change are the front rotors and calipers, engine and transmission. all the wiring is even the same which makes it very nice.

R2 Racing

01-04-2009, 07:27 PM

I too have been thinking about coverting both of our ITC cars into ITB cars. The "5th gen DX to ITB" change would have to come through though. Then with the 3rd gen, the idea of never having to deal with a carbuerator ever again sounds pretty good.

Doc Bro

01-04-2009, 08:54 PM

Not legal Rob - it's just not the car on the list. Kinda like me running my ITA car in ITS...it shouldn't win, but it would beat some guys.

Your ITS car running in ITR is a lesser version of what you would have if you did a 328 motor with more power than you have now and ran it at your 3000lbs ITS weight...100lbs over the 2900lb min weight for the E46 328i/is in ITR.

Technically not legal...but anyone who protested would be doing so in true weenie fashion, not because they thought that you had better equipment.

But then again, why raise the hair on anyones neck in ITR? Unless that's your goal! :eclipsee_steering:

AB,

Can you clarify this post for me? I don't know if I understood what you're saying. Forgive me because I haven't checked the GCR to know what is and isn't classed. Is the e46 328 classed in ITR? If so then why can't Rob run both classes? Or were you just speaking from a what's competitive what isn't point of view? Sorry, maybe I'm just extra dense this evening....

R

JoshS

01-04-2009, 09:17 PM

AB,

Can you clarify this post for me? I don't know if I understood what you're saying. Forgive me because I haven't checked the GCR to know what is and isn't classed. Is the e46 328 classed in ITR? If so then why can't Rob run both classes? Or were you just speaking from a what's competitive what isn't point of view? Sorry, maybe I'm just extra dense this evening....

R
Rob, the E46 323i is in ITS, the E46 325i, 328i, and 330i are all classed in ITR. If his car isn't listed in ITR, it can't be raced in ITR.

Z3_GoCar

01-04-2009, 09:32 PM

Andy Bettencourt

01-04-2009, 09:32 PM

Rob, the E46 323i is in ITS, the E46 325i, 328i, and 330i are all classed in ITR. If his car isn't listed in ITR, it can't be raced in ITR.

Correct. Just like I can't race my car in ITS or ITR.

Andy Bettencourt

01-04-2009, 09:33 PM

Rob,

If you swap in an M52tuB28 then it's perfectly legal. If you plan to do this with the 2.5 liter motor that's already there, that's a horse of a different color.

Tough to 'toggle' when you have to swap motors...:D

Z3_GoCar

01-04-2009, 09:36 PM

Tough to 'toggle' when you have to swap motors...:D

Not for the Circle track boys, all we need is a 2x4 and a come-along, oh and a tree :D Maybe a spare wrecker.

Doc Bro

01-04-2009, 09:41 PM

Rob, the E46 323i is in ITS, the E46 325i, 328i, and 330i are all classed in ITR. If his car isn't listed in ITR, it can't be raced in ITR.

See this is what I don't understand. If Rob has an e46 chassis and we don't have a VIN rule why can't he toggle between classes? If he wants to swap engines to do so... then so be it. Isn't his "car" meaning chassis classed in ITR? As long as he's running an engine that came in an e46 what's the issue?

R

Jeremy Billiel

01-04-2009, 10:08 PM

Chip42

01-04-2009, 10:09 PM

our in-process ITA Civic EX (1996-2000) is a 2000 civic Si by VIN. wire harness is as easy swap, chassis is the same, lots of suspension parts are not, brakes are same front, drums on the rear, some hydro parts changes, etc... oh yeah, and the engine is a weeeee bit different ;). all in all not too bad, given the availability of parts and resources.

Knestis

01-04-2009, 10:10 PM

>> See this is what I don't understand. If Rob has an e46 chassis and we don't have a VIN rule why can't he toggle between classes? If he wants to swap engines to do so... then so be it. Isn't his "car" meaning chassis classed in ITR? As long as he's running an engine that came in an e46 what's the issue?

If every part of the resulting car as it should be for a BMW year/model on the ITR spec line, it could be "toggled." If it's just swapping in a different engine to build exactly what should be there, that's enough. If it takes more pieces, then it takes more pieces...

On the other hand, if even one piece of the unibody is different and you leave it, you're not legal.

K

Andy Bettencourt

01-04-2009, 10:13 PM

See this is what I don't understand. If Rob has an e46 chassis and we don't have a VIN rule why can't he toggle between classes? If he wants to swap engines to do so... then so be it. Isn't his "car" meaning chassis classed in ITR? As long as he's running an engine that came in an e46 what's the issue?

R

Our disconnect is what he means by 'toggle'. To me it means running both classes at one event, not swapping motors back and forth to run two classes...that would be a lot of work...

RexRacer19

01-04-2009, 10:35 PM

** Jeff Underwood - ITB Honda from lesser model road donor

If you are doing - or following - one of these builds, could you keep us updated here, so we can keep track of what the policy change is looking like in real life? I confess that I want to know partially because I badgered the ITAC for a couple of years before it happened so if it goes sideways, I want to know about it...

I started with a Civic STD and made it into a DX. There is a minimal amount of parts changing that needs to go on here. From a body standpoint, it only required the rear hatch to be changed from a non-wiper model to a wiper model (DX or Si). The engines on the two cars are identical except for two things...the camshaft and the stamping on the block (D15B1 for the STD and D15B2 for the DX). The ECUs are different but easy and cheap to find. The transmission had to be swapped from a 4-speed to a 5-speed. That is pretty much it.

There are quite a few Civic STD cars that are in ITC right now and I know of at least a couple that are considering making the switch to ITB. It is not so easy with many cars, but it gives racers some options to change classes or build a car for the class they want to be in with a tub that they may already have or can get for dirt cheap.

Doc Bro

01-04-2009, 11:32 PM

Our disconnect is what he means by 'toggle'. To me it means running both classes at one event, not swapping motors back and forth to run two classes...that would be a lot of work...

Gottcha...you were talking logistically, I was talking legality. I've seen Rob's crew in action. I think they can do it!!

R

JoshS

01-04-2009, 11:45 PM

same brakes and same wheel size.
Hey Rob,

The 323i has 286mm front brakes, the 328i has 300mm front brakes.

spnkzss

01-05-2009, 03:34 PM

I know of a few ITC CRX that will be making the FI Si swap to B. My Civic Std ITC car will eventually become a ITB Civic, just have stop spending the money on the A car.

Andy Bettencourt

01-05-2009, 04:03 PM

Everyone getting off the ITC bus? UNINTENDED - eh Kirk?

Ed Funk

01-05-2009, 04:13 PM

Only one of ours is going to become a B car, so we'll have an A, B, C. B may not be ready this season.

spnkzss

01-05-2009, 04:26 PM

Everyone getting off the ITC bus? UNINTENDED - eh Kirk?

Definitely not unforeseen.

Jeremy Billiel

01-05-2009, 04:28 PM

Definitely not unforeseen.

If anything I believe this is/could be the best thing for those few ITC racers left who no longer have anyone to run with. Now they can make a "change" and at least not be stuck with a worthless car that no one wants.

jjjanos

01-05-2009, 04:28 PM

Everyone getting off the ITC bus? UNINTENDED - eh Kirk?

ITC was a dead-man walking w/o the VIN rule. No new cars being classified except for fat VWs. No new cars being built for the US market that it makes sense to turn into an IT car. Heck, you can almost buy a ready to race ITB car for what the shell of the VW costs. 25+ year-old cars requiring body parts... I know of a couple of C cars that got parked because the last set of clean body panels were on the car.

With the VIN rule going away, there at least will be a few survivors that get the Jesus treatment.

CDS

01-05-2009, 04:31 PM

I know of a few ITC CRX that will be making the FI Si swap to B. My Civic Std ITC car will eventually become a ITB Civic, just have stop spending the money on the A car.
I'll probably make the swap to ITB with my CRX as well. Tired of fooling with weber carbs. How competitive is the 1st gen CRX in ITB?

Z3_GoCar

01-05-2009, 04:37 PM

If anything I believe this is/could be the best thing for those few ITC racers left who no longer have anyone to run with. Now they can make a "change" and at least not be stuck with a worthless car that no one wants.

ITC => Spec X 1/9 :D

spnkzss

01-05-2009, 04:51 PM

I'll probably make the swap to ITB with my CRX as well. Tired of fooling with weber carbs. How competitive is the 1st gen CRX in ITB?

I know when they were in ITA I saw a few make a fair showing. In today's ITA they would get their ass handed to them. I'm surprised actually that no one has built and run a no holds barred ITB Si yet. :shrug: I'm sure one of them next year should make a decent showing.

Ed Funk

01-05-2009, 06:04 PM

CRX Si is basically the same car as the Civic Si, there's at least one of those in the norteast that is very competitive in ITB. The car that we're VINing to B is a Civic.

chewy8000

01-05-2009, 06:46 PM

I'm sure a few ITC rabbits will be jumping to 1.8's and heading for B as well.

Knestis

01-05-2009, 07:29 PM

Everyone getting off the ITC bus? UNINTENDED - eh Kirk?

That was actually one of the desires people were expressing when we first started talking about it, to do exactly what we're seeing the Honda guys do. So, no - not unintended at all.

That said, I've long been an advocate for proactively listing some new ITC blood...

K

lateapex911

01-05-2009, 08:44 PM

That was actually one of the desires people were expressing when we first started talking about it, to do exactly what we're seeing the Honda guys do. So, no - not unintended at all.

That said, I've long been an advocate for proactively listing some new ITC blood...

K

Trouble is the blood bank has little to no C blood that is desirable...

jay05

01-05-2009, 10:02 PM

Since VW didn't make a GLI with a 1.8 until 84 I won't be able to take advantage of this rule. Correct?

MMiskoe

01-05-2009, 10:07 PM

This is a bit of thread highjack, but this thread is already poluted.

Seems that the VIN rule is getting us closer to dual classification. If the VIN rule appears to be a good thing, why not re-open the dual classification can of worms?

Take Rob's request to toggle his BMW back & forth. As an ITS car running in ITR he is at a known disadvantage for HP & brakes. As Andy said, he'll beat some, not all and anyone who protests him is doing so out on the weenie card. The advantage is more entries and cars that can run in more classes, therefore making the car more appealing. I'm not proposing cars to run down a class, just up. More cars in a race is a good thing, otherwise we're just doing time trials.

Matt

Andy Bettencourt

01-05-2009, 10:09 PM

That was actually one of the desires people were expressing when we first started talking about it, to do exactly what we're seeing the Honda guys do. So, no - not unintended at all.

That said, I've long been an advocate for proactively listing some new ITC blood...

K

The additions to ITB yes, but the 'shrinkage' of ITC? Did we just kill it?

JoshS

01-05-2009, 10:25 PM

Seems that the VIN rule is getting us closer to dual classification. If the VIN rule appears to be a good thing, why not re-open the dual classification can of worms?

No way, I (still) say.

On the one hand, I hear IT drivers arguing against including SMs and V8 in IT because "they already have a place to play." So apparently one place to play is enough. But then they want their own cars to have two places to play, just in IT? Can't have it both ways.

One listing is enough for every car in IT. If a REGION wants to get additional race entries, actively encourage drivers to double-enter in ITE or another class they create. That's what we do here in SFR and it works great. Lots of people take advantage. We have ITX, which includes anything that's ever been classed in SS (allowing IT suspension mods), plus SM, ITA, ITB, and ITC cars. And then for ITS and ITR cars, they are encouraged to dual-enter in ITE.

ekim952522000

01-05-2009, 11:02 PM

.............

Seems that the VIN rule is getting us closer to dual classification. If the VIN rule appears to be a good thing, why not re-open the dual classification can of worms?

................

My car already is?:shrug:

Knestis

01-06-2009, 09:38 AM

Since VW didn't make a GLI with a 1.8 until 84 I won't be able to take advantage of this rule. Correct?

If you can build an EXACT replica of the "target" car with what you have, you're good to go. I know I'm not answering your specific question but it's because I don't know my Jetti well enough to be able to say for sure what differences might exist...

And "what Andy said" about the dual classification question. If a region wants more entries, there are all kinds of options available.

K

Xian

01-06-2009, 11:07 AM

The additions to ITB yes, but the 'shrinkage' of ITC? Did we just kill it?

I think it's only helping along what was coming inevitably anyway...

spnkzss

01-06-2009, 11:18 AM

Out of curiosity, was ITD ever big and if so was a big deal mad eout of it pretty much dying?

tom91ita

01-06-2009, 12:56 PM

.... How competitive is the 1st gen CRX in ITB?

it's fair. you could be in the trophies. you need to qualify well since we still get walked some at the starts and on the straights.

not sure what great lakes tracks you have been to but mine runs 1:49's at Mid-Ohio with the keyhole chicane & 1:49's at Road Atlanta.

come to the IT spectacular at Mid-Ohio for the best competition "locally"

Gary L

01-06-2009, 01:01 PM

Out of curiosity, was ITD ever big and if so was a big deal mad eout of it pretty much dying?
I may be mistaken, but I don't think ITD was ever very popular, although it may have had some interest in certain geographical areas (east coast?). I'm pretty sure the class was never even recognized/organized in some SCCA divisions.

CDS

01-06-2009, 02:41 PM

it's fair. you could be in the trophies. you need to qualify well since we still get walked some at the starts and on the straights.

not sure what great lakes tracks you have been to but mine runs 1:49's at Mid-Ohio with the keyhole chicane & 1:49's at Road Atlanta.

come to the IT spectacular at Mid-Ohio for the best competition "locally"

Thanks for the info. I'm in Mississippi, and I've only run at Memphis and St. Louis so far. I'm going to try to get to Barber, Road Atlanta and Nashville this year if possible. Everything else is just too long of a tow to fit with my work schedule.

If I understand the rules correctly, to legally run my car in B, I have to make it an exact copy of an Si model, including any body trim parts that may have been Si-specific, correct? I need to study up on the differences between the various models.

shwah

01-06-2009, 03:56 PM

How competitive is the 1st gen CRX in ITB?

IMO this car has the potential to be an absolute front runner. But I don't know Hondas as well as ... um ... well the Honda guys.

lateapex911

01-06-2009, 04:34 PM

Tom, your times at Road Atlanta were impressive, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but you didn't get a lot of miles under your belt this year (and wasn't it your first time there?) and I know your tires, at least, weren't 10/10ths...

ddewhurst

01-06-2009, 05:03 PM

shwah

01-06-2009, 05:38 PM

Great thread. :birra:

***On the other hand, if even one piece of the unibody is different and you leave it, you're not legal.***

& everything else about the cars. BUT, no worry because I'm sure you all have the knowledge of ALL the different model cars. The fat lady ain't even started to sing.

Oh crap, it don't matter because no one in IT ever writes paper.:emgift:
You still don't get it Dave. If someone wants to cheat in this manner - they could do be doing so all along. Cheaters were not waiting for a rule to let them use an illegal body shell, or illegal parts. Competitors that don't know enough about a particular model to spot the difference are as in the dark now as they were then.

Policing the class does need to happen, and we the drivers are on the hook for that, but it has nothing to do with this rule.

Knestis

01-06-2009, 07:31 PM

It won't make any difference, Chris.

DD just liked to kick at anthills. His arguments don't have to be grounded in any substantive logic to do that.

K

lateapex911

01-06-2009, 08:16 PM

Oh crap, it don't matter because no one in IT ever writes paper.:emgift:

Be careful when using absolutes in your arguments, DD, because it's an easy way to not make your point.

Or, maybe you haven't been paying attention, but I've seen, and been a part of, some paper writing....and come to think of it, if I recall correctly, you have to.

ddewhurst

01-06-2009, 08:51 PM

I have had paper written towards me, but the paper didn't stick. ;)

ID some paper that stuck.

As the rules slip the ant hills get smaller.

WE have all read stuff on this site that wouldn't stand paper but no one writes the paper. ;) ;) ;)

Gregg

01-06-2009, 08:53 PM

D some paper that stuck.
Read the current FasTrack.

tom91ita

01-07-2009, 02:21 AM

Thanks for the info. I'm in Mississippi, and I've only run at Memphis and St. Louis so far. I'm going to try to get to Barber, Road Atlanta and Nashville this year if possible. Everything else is just too long of a tow to fit with my work schedule.

If I understand the rules correctly, to legally run my car in B, I have to make it an exact copy of an Si model, including any body trim parts that may have been Si-specific, correct? I need to study up on the differences between the various models.

at first glance, i saw "madison" and was thinking "WI" so the ARRC is likely a better place. the 84 crx is most like the 85 si with regards to headlights, etc. iirc. the 86-87 had heavier bumpers, etc. door panels, rocker panel covers, front rear bumpers of your 84 should be the same. instrumentation for the speedo and tach might be different?

but suspension wise, they were effectively the same. the biggest difference body wise was the SI sunroof and i know folks on here have talked about swapping roofs/skins but the section of the gcr escapes me. so that would be the one part you need to explore.

Knestis

01-07-2009, 09:05 AM

tom91ita

01-07-2009, 10:12 AM

i have read internet rumors about folks cutting off the crx si roof and installing a non-si roof and that was deemed acceptable. perhaps more socially than rules.

i won't protest you. just be glad to see another BEE!

spnkzss

01-07-2009, 10:26 AM

The sunroof fill rules are one of the potential sticking points for something like the CRX example. If (for example, I don't know) the ITA version of the Toyota Paseo (the rat motor) ONLY came with a sunroof, but the ITB (mouse motor) Paseo was a smooth top, one couldn't actually bring that no-sunroof lid with them to ITA - IF there were any structural differences (e.g., omission of extra bracing around the hole) that would result after the hole were skinned over by whatever means.

K

I have very mixed feelings about that. To the rule, that is correct and yes I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but, if I hurt my car bad enough that I need a new tub, I have a 1990 ITC Civic that is going to get an ITA transplant so that I can continue to race. Protest me and win, that's fine, but at least I will get to continue racing for a little while (until there are too many protests and they yank my license). :shrug:

tom91ita

01-07-2009, 10:40 AM

from 2009 GCR
Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed. All sunroofs maye replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

i think the language of "or replacement skin" is where the ambuiguity lies. a replacement skin is obviously not a "panel"

part of my curiousity is due to the itc crx for sale.....

ddewhurst

01-07-2009, 10:46 AM

***Read the current FasTrack.***

Gregg, IT paper.

There was some SM paper that stuck this past weekend at Moroso. Driver & owner, 6 months each & $250.00 each.

tom91ita

01-07-2009, 10:56 AM

***Read the current FasTrack.***

Gregg, IT paper.

.......

i think this is the IT paper Gregg was referring to:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25258

Xian

01-07-2009, 11:00 AM

i have read internet rumors about folks cutting off the crx si roof and installing a non-si roof and that was deemed acceptable. perhaps more socially than rules.

Yep. Socially acceptable to many but not to the letter of the rule, IMO.

Christian

CDS

01-07-2009, 11:19 AM

The roof could be a sticking point. Did all Si's come with a sunroof? Could you cut a sunroof into a non-Si roof and then fill it in? Seems kinda silly to have to do that.

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 11:37 AM

Yep. Socially acceptable to many but not to the letter of the rule, IMO.

Christian

Many people care about how their cars look as well as the pain it is to make the sunroof panel/plug fit properly. I have seen many cars cut the roof off and put on a non-sunroof skin.

If someone protested me for putting a non-sunroof skin on a sunroof car I would be very pissed. There is absolutely no advantage to doing this. You could say but its lighter! Nope.... Most sunroof cars have more meat around the sunroof to support the weight, but non sunroof cars have more bracing on the rest of the roof to keep the roof rigid. What's the difference in weight? I don't know, but not much if any at all....

Is it the intent of the rule? I don't know as I didn't write it, but reasonability must rule is club racing IMO.

R2 Racing

01-07-2009, 11:43 AM

This whole sunroof thing needs to be figured out real quick because there are several builds going on right now that are taking non-sunroof examples and building them as only sunroof having models. Me personally, as I've said before, I think the idea of that giving any sort of an advantage is a little rediculous. We're putting 8 point rollcages into these things - one little beam in the roof that's missing or whatever isn't going to make a lick of difference Plus, we're allowed to patch/plug the sunroof holes anyways. But with that being said, the rules are the rules.....so what do the rules say? Otherwise we're talking about taking a perfectly good non-sunroof roof, cutting it off, welding on a sunroof roof, and then patching that sunroof roof. I mean, I like banging me head against concrete walls as much as the other guy, but come on. And remember, isn't the point of this whole thing to build cars easier and cheaper by giving them more chassis to build it out of? If I have to go through that ordeal, I think I'd continue to just look/spend for the right chassis.

Either way, it's certainly not something I'd ever protest someone over. But again, the rules are the rules....so what do the rules say? I certainly don't know - I think there's enough grey area there to make a case for either.

jjjanos

01-07-2009, 11:55 AM

I have very mixed feelings about that. To the rule, that is correct and yes I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but, if I hurt my car bad enough that I need a new tub, I have a 1990 ITC Civic that is going to get an ITA transplant so that I can continue to race. Protest me and win, that's fine, but at least I will get to continue racing for a little while (until there are too many protests and they yank my license). :shrug:

from 2009 GCR [/size][/size]

i think the language of "or replacement skin" is where the ambuiguity lies. a replacement skin is obviously not a "panel"

part of my curiousity is due to the itc crx for sale.....

Buy it... buy it... buy it... buy it...

Yep. Socially acceptable to many but not to the letter of the rule, IMO.

Christian

The roof could be a sticking point. Did all Si's come with a sunroof? Could you cut a sunroof into a non-Si roof and then fill it in? Seems kinda silly to have to do that.

Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed provided the panel is securely retained. Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed. All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.
Complete replacement of the Si roof skin with a carb roof skin is permitted. That leaves the components and pieces inside the passenger compartment that would be attached to the roof simply because there is a sunroof.

A case can be made that the components of the panel include everything associated with the mounting of the sun roof - why is it there? For the sunroof. Therefore, those items are components of the sunroof. The list given in the text provides examples and is not an exclusive list. Thus, the Si roof is identical to the carb roof with the exception of those things that may be removed and those things which must be filled (the great big hole in the roof).

Writting paper on this would take a real a weenie. The Si already has to run a ton of ballast to make weight and the couple of pounds of component weight associated with the mounting brackets are tiny compared to the 175 pounds you have to add to the CRX to make the CRX Si weight. Removing these components isn't a competitive advantage; removing these components is keeping cars on the race track.

The bottom line is that its a crap shoot what the judicial process would rule.

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 12:28 PM

The bottom line is that its a crap shoot what the judicial process would rule.

While I agree on the weenie protest on this one, I think the outcome of any reasonable judicial process would have to be a non-compliant car.

If a shell is going to be turned into a car that is on a certain spec line...it has to be all or nothing. If they rule any other way, it opens the door for a huge amount of intorturation of the rules. It also sets a president (sp?) that it is OK to fudge the rules just a little as long as it is "harmless".

We all want to be the nice guy about stuff like this, and I am OK with that, but by doing that we open the door for folks to take advantage of that generosity. Then it comes to a head, and it is hard to cast stones because of your own skeletons. Then what?

dickita15

01-07-2009, 02:21 PM

I am thinking that using the non sunroof body is legal. It is legal to replace the roof panel on say a CRXsi with the roof panel from a non sunroof car. It says right in the rules you can replace in with a skin or panel. So you can replace the roof panel then the parts are the same as using the non si tub. Legal.

raffaelli

01-07-2009, 02:30 PM

Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed.

I can remove my sunroof.

All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

And choose not to replace it and have a hole in the roof?

JoshS

01-07-2009, 02:32 PM

It says you can replace the sunroof. To me, that's the moving part. It doesn't say you can replace any other parts of the roof sheet metal.

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 02:37 PM

It says you can replace the sunroof. To me, that's the moving part. It doesn't say you can replace any other parts of the roof sheet metal.

I have always read it that way too.

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 02:48 PM

All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

And choose not to replace it and have a hole in the roof?

The red word highlighted is in question. I read a skin as not a panel, not a sunroof plug, rather a roof skin.

spnkzss

01-07-2009, 02:52 PM

Is this another request for clarification or wait till the ARRC? :p

Edit: I don't think it would be legal as you remove supports.

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 02:59 PM

Is this another request for clarification or wait till the ARRC? :p

Edit: I don't think it would be legal as you remove supports.

No because before you can write paper I will kick you in the nuts :eek::eek::eek:

There is NO advantage to doing this other than its easier and looks better.

If there was a performance advantage then go for it.

Knestis

01-07-2009, 03:03 PM

Y'all are convincing me (as an individual) that the ITAC might reasonably revisit the wording of the sunroof rule in the context of this new reality. I am NOT a fan of trying to write around interpretive issues but the sum of the text relating to sunroofs seems to be a piece-meal thing, rather than anything that's particularly well thought out.

If you have enough anxiety about it to warrant it, you are always welcome to ask for a change BUT if you DO, make sure you ask for an actual change. Interpretations aren't within the ITAC's purview. Tell us which bits you think are problematic, propose a change, and provide a rationale.

K

Knestis

01-07-2009, 03:05 PM

...If there was a performance advantage then go for it.

That's not the standard that applies, Jeremy. You could conceivably cheat in a way that clearly makes you SLOWER, but still be found out of compliance.

K

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 03:07 PM

All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

raffaelli

01-07-2009, 03:12 PM

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 03:20 PM

My ITA CRX has a plug that I spent a fair amount of painful time with my manual rivet gun. But....

I think you can read this passage that you can pull of the sunroof and leave it open. If you do not leave it open, you can replace the entire panel (skin) from spot weld to spot weld since the skin is a continous roof piece as shown by Honda. I think the reference to the surrounding material is to prevent you from using a thin piece of CF.

Agreed 100%. If they did not intend for you to re-skin the roof, then why have skin in there at all?

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 03:22 PM

That's not the standard that applies, Jeremy. You could conceivably cheat in a way that clearly makes you SLOWER, but still be found out of compliance.

K

Fair enough Kirk, I typically draw the line in the sand where someone is "cheating" for an advantage or not. This is what would or would not cause me to throw paper. In this case with no advantage, it would be silly to throw paper IMO.

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 03:24 PM

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 03:29 PM

Agreed 100%. If they did not intend for you to re-skin the roof, then why have skin in there at all?

A panel could have complex shapes to it and flanges or locking mechanisms, etc. A skin is just a thin piece of sheet metal generally. They have different meanings. Look at the CRX sunroof for example. There is a panel that is bolted to the track assembly that could be bolted in place covering the factory opening. I have seen this done on a few cars. Or...you can make a skin to cover the hole from the outside.

Is this the next great argument in IT? :)

As mentioned before, people will probably be cool with it...but is that what we want to get started (continue)?

spnkzss

01-07-2009, 03:36 PM

Kirk - welcome to the post VIN-Rule world. You asked for it, you got it.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't think it is, and it doesn't matter what rule you change you are always going to have something like that.

Greg Amy

01-07-2009, 03:38 PM

Y'all are convincing me (as an individual) that the ITAC might reasonably revisit the wording of the sunroof rule in the context of this new reality.
If you do this, I encourage you to NOT make re-skinning the roof illegal, thus making many cars suddenly illegal under the "new paradigm".

Oh, and "good luck" with that one.

GA, who's really become a big fan of "the protest process" lately, versus a small group of smarty-pants rulesmakers actually thinking they can out-wit the group intelligence of the masses... :shrug:

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 03:38 PM

To remind everyone, the purpose of the removal of the VIN rule was to allow IDENTICAL chassis more options.

An non-roof car is not identical to a roof-car.

Kirk - welcome to the post VIN-Rule world. You asked for it, you got it.

Andy - If you read the rules that allow you to re-skin the roof than what is the difference between the two chassis?

ddewhurst

01-07-2009, 03:41 PM

Now I feel better because I been wrong at least once during 2009.:OLA:

But I'm sure you all got my point, ya just don't talk about site friends being illegal.

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 03:51 PM

Andy - If you read the rules that allow you to re-skin the roof than what is the difference between the two chassis?

Depends on your definition of 're-skin'. What you really mean is 're-roof'.

Greg Amy

01-07-2009, 03:53 PM

Depends on your definition of 're-skin'. What you really mean is 're-roof'.

Where's that rolling-on-the-floor-laughing icon...? :)

Oh, this one's gonna be fun, fun, fun.

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 04:05 PM

Where's that rolling-on-the-floor-laughing icon...? :)

Oh, this one's gonna be fun, fun, fun.

That is what I mean. We fought this one for a while because of potential uninteded issues. Here they come........

Most won't be satisfied until the rule is clarified...potentially creating more issues.

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 04:08 PM

That is what I mean. We fought this one for a while because of potential uninteded issues. Here they come........

Most won't be satisfied until the rule is clarified...potentially creating more issues.

Even if you want to call this "an issue", the greater good of getting more cars out there certainly out weighs a couple of sticking points. With that said, it will still be a very good rule.

If NOTHING else, it will give the ITC racers an option to make the move out of ITC and into ITB or ITA.

lateapex911

01-07-2009, 04:12 PM

Now I feel better because I been wrong at least once during 2009.:OLA:

But I'm sure you all got my point, ya just don't talk about site friends being illegal.

Well, one of those guys is on my "Facebook" friends list, and I had dinner with him in Atlanta...sometimes paper get written to find out what side of the rule the courts decide. Reasonable men may differ, and we've got plenty of reasonable men here....

ddewhurst

01-07-2009, 04:14 PM

What are the car manufacture part names for these items you folks are throwing around? If the car manufacture don't call the piece over your head a skin you calling the piece over your head a skin don't mean squat.

Near example I have is for a car door.

One may procure a "Shell Assy, Door" bare & procure a "Panel, Door Repair" which some of you might call a skin to attach over the shell assy, door. Point being the car manufacture don't call the outer panel a skin.:o If I had a manufacture catalog with roof parts I would check & see if the car manufacture calls the piece over your head a skin.

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 04:15 PM

Here is what I have from people already:

Is the skin just the thin sheet that is the externally appearing 'roof' or is it the whole top section that is the bracing and infrastrcuture?

Just askin'.

dickita15

01-07-2009, 04:16 PM

Greg Amy

01-07-2009, 04:16 PM

We fought this one for a while because of potential uninteded issues. Here they come...
Andy, what are these unintended issues you're so worried about? How does this rule allow someone to cheat where they couldn't before?

What - specific - "unintended" actions can you foresee under this new rule? Everything "unintended" I've seen offered in this topic is plainly and clearly cheating, and is easily seen and protested. Same as before. The difference? No VIN plates to transfer to the new chassis. But, the result is exactly the same.

Most won't be satisfied until the rule is clarified...potentially creating more issues.While I disagree with the "most won't be satisfied" part, I'll certainly agree that a "clarification" will result in, simply, different ways to cheat and/or bend the rules.

And I'm interested in hearing your interpretation of the intent of the words "panel or replacement skin". I'm inferring that you believe re-roofing the car was never intended nor allowed prior to 1/1/09; I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn I disagree. ;)

The very moment someone "gets away" with cheating that would have been stopped with the rules of 12/31/08 then you can tell me "I told you so". But I don't see it happening, and until then this is a big mountain out of a little molehill - GA

lateapex911

01-07-2009, 04:22 PM

We have separate issues here:

1- any spec line competing must be exactly as delivered from the factory, except as the rules allow.

2- Does the sunroof rule allow complete roof replacement?

The VIN rule is fine....even if #2 isn't as liberal as some might think, many subscribers will still be benefited.

The sunroof equipped roof might have extra bracing/stampings/gutters, and flanges that prepare the roof for the inclusion of a sunroof that are absent on a non sunroof version. These typically have weight. Interesting how some argue that it's inconsequential, when many chassis are prized donors for their "slicktop". In any case, the actual amount of the weight isn't important.

What is important is to determine the true meaning of the rule.

I've always thought that you could:

Remove the sunroof panel, and go race.
Bolt the stock panel in place. (I did this with my RX-7...2 screws and some star washers and I was done)
Make a "plug" that fits into the existing opening permanently,
Add thin panel (same thickness as roof material) and bond it to the perimeter of the opening, covering the opening.

I do not see the allowance of the replacement of the complete roof structure, unless an lesser optioned car shares the same spec line.

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 04:23 PM

Greg,

Unintended doesn't have to result in cheating. The shrinkage of ITC, this clarification on roof panels are just the start. I didn't think of them when we voted and I am sure we will uncover some more.

JoshS

01-07-2009, 04:31 PM

Well there is no definition in the glossary of panel but I interpret the roof panel to be a panel so
I see no reason why a car with a non sunroof roof panel would not be legal.
1 start with new non sunroof tub.
2 remove roof and replace with sunroof roof legal for the class.
3 remove sunroof roof and replace with non sunroof roof panel as allowed by rules.
Make sure all workmanship is of factory quality. We’re good. :happy204:

Again, I'm just not sure that the first part of step 3 is, as you put it, "allowed by the rules." It says you can replace the "sunroof", not the "sunroof roof."

I'll agree that the wording leaves room for interpretation though.

ekim952522000

01-07-2009, 04:38 PM

Question: If we are allowed to race with a open hole in the roof then why can't carbon fiber/fiberglass be used to fill it?

Jeremy Billiel

01-07-2009, 04:40 PM

Jake - The non-sunroof cars (Integras) are desired because you can then turn a regular old Integra into a Type R looking car. It has NOTHING to do with the weight and everything to do with ricers wanting to look cool. Put a Type R wing on an RS chassis and you have a Type R "looking" car. No other Integra ever came without a sunroof. The RS chassis is also VERY rare so the combination of items is what makes them desirable.

That's it... Nothing more/nothing less.

In the case of the RS chassis, the large benefit for me is that it already came without ABS so I do not have to do what I did on the prior chassis. That includes removing the brake lines to the ABS pump, wiring, putting in a new prop valve, etc...

Also being a non-sunroof car is a bonus as it looks better and is one less thing that I have to "plug up".

Greg Amy

01-07-2009, 04:44 PM

Unintended doesn't have to result in cheating. The shrinkage of ITC, this clarification on roof panels are just the start. I didn't think of them when we voted and I am sure we will uncover some more.
Eek, man. Both of those were on the forefront of *my* brain when I was writing my support for it. I expected that this would drag cars out of ITC into ITB, and that there would be arguments over the sunroof (though they're the exact same arguments as before 1/1/09; nothing's changed in that regard).

But, as I noted many, many, many times in the past, that VIN rule stopped nothing. I, for example, fully intended, had I wrecked the NX, to find a hardtop NX1600 and convert it to a 2000, and transfer over all the VIN plates and stampings. And, prior to rescind of the VIN rule, I had always planned to use a hard-top Integra to replace the wrecked GS-R (though I agree the action of actually having to follow-through on it was never "unintended" ;) ).

All this VIN rule did was save me the trouble of transferring over the plates.

We have separate issues here:
1- any spec line competing must be exactly as delivered from the factory, except as the rules allow.
I agree. To be legal it's got to be exactly as factory-delivered, except...

2- Does the sunroof rule allow complete roof replacement?Of course it does; always has. If you disagree, then you need to resolve exactly why the words "replacement skin" were used, versus simply stating "...sunroofs may be replaced with panel...of the same material as the original surrounding roof material."

"Replacement skin" clearly refers solely to the outer skin of the roof, or the roof panel, if you will. Always has been interpreted that way, from the get-go. - GA

JoshS

01-07-2009, 04:47 PM

Question: If we are allowed to race with a open hole in the roof then why can't carbon fiber/fiberglass be used to fill it?
I don't know the reason, but I can guess -- it's probably safety-related. What happens to these fill-in panels in the event of a rollover?

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 04:53 PM

"Replacement skin" clearly refers solely to the outer skin of the roof, or the roof panel, if you will. Always has been interpreted that way, from the get-go. - GA

Bold is mine

So you should have to use the new skin on top of the sunroof-equpped infrastructure?

Is the 'roof panel' different than the entire roof? Chopping the A and B pillars and popping the whole thing on?

Just trying to clarify what you are saying.

ekim952522000

01-07-2009, 04:55 PM

I don't know the reason, but I can guess -- it's probably safety-related. What happens to these fill-in panels in the event of a rollover?

Good point they probably would blow up and get lots of little fiberglass pieces everywhere.

Thanks again Josh

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 05:03 PM

Good point they probably would blow up and get lots of little fiberglass pieces everywhere.

Thanks again Josh

There might be some economy built into that rule as well. CF is a good bit more than sheet steel. It certainly was when the rule was written...

Greg Amy

01-07-2009, 05:09 PM

So you should have to use the new skin on top of the sunroof-equpped infrastructure?
Yup. Everything underneath has to be stock to be purely legal*. The rule has always been applied (I saw this done several times in the 80's to ITA Rabbit GTIs, which were RARE without sunroofs*) that all you can do is peel off the skin of the roof and replace it with a non-sunroof skin. - GA

*We're working off the assumption that the vehicle in question - whatever it is - is not available on the same spec line as a non-sunroof car, e.g., ITA CRX Si. The GTIs in question could, legally, replace all sunroof-relevant bracing with non-sunroof bracing, as the GTI was, theoretically anyway, available without a sunroof.

On edit: The requirement for metal of same material was purely intended in regards to parity of the rules and safety. They wanted to remove the sunroof and all mechanism for safety, as you don't want removable/slidable panels loose inside a wrecking car. But, you don't want to give those cars any performance advantage or disadvantage versus non-sunroof cars, so this was the best way to make them easily and cheaply as close to a non-sunroof car as possible.

Shit, I don't think carbon fiber was even INVENTED when these rules were written (;)), and certainly not within the mindset of SCCA Club Racing (you know, back when showing up with your car in a trailer was, like, showing off...?)

lateapex911

01-07-2009, 05:14 PM

I agree. To be legal it's got to be exactly as factory-delivered, except...

Of course it does; always has. If you disagree, then you need to resolve exactly why the words "replacement skin" were used, versus simply stating "...sunroofs may be replaced with panel...of the same material as the original surrounding roof material."

"Replacement skin" clearly refers solely to the outer skin of the roof, or the roof panel, if you will. Always has been interpreted that way, from the get-go. - GA

Right, but it appears some are suggesting that the entire roof assembly a pillar to C pillar is up for swapping. I don't read the rule that way at all. The guts and reinforcements that are different mustbe as delivered.

lateapex911

01-07-2009, 05:18 PM

Jake - The non-sunroof cars (Integras) are desired because you can then turn a regular old Integra into a Type R looking car. It has NOTHING to do with the weight and everything to do with ricers wanting to look cool. .......

Well, I've heard the term used when racers look at donors for racing, and it's been referred to on more than Integras. People often state the "Slicktop" is lighter. Regardless of the actual amount of weight, if there is a difference, it's a difference.

I know in the case of my RX-7 that swapping the entire roof out for a non sunroof version saves over 20 pounds. That's 20 pounds closer to minimum, or 20 pounds I can put where I need it. It all adds up.

Andy Bettencourt

01-07-2009, 05:18 PM

Yup. Everything underneath has to be stock to be purely legal*. The rule has always been applied (I saw this done several times in the 80's to ITA Rabbit GTIs, which were RARE without sunroofs*) that all you can do is peel off the skin of the roof and replace it with a non-sunroof skin. - GA

*We're working off the assumption that the vehicle in question - whatever it is - is not available on the same spec line as a non-sunroof car, e.g., ITA CRX Si. The GTIs in question could, legally, replace all sunroof-relevant bracing with non-sunroof bracing, as the GTI was, theoretically anyway, available without a sunroof.

On edit: The requirement for metal of same material was purely intended in regards to parity of the rules and safety. They wanted to remove the sunroof and all mechanism for safety, as you don't want removable/slidable panels loose inside a wrecking car. But, you don't want to give those cars any performance advantage or disadvantage versus non-sunroof cars, so this was the best way to make them easily and cheaply as close to a non-sunroof car as possible.

Shit, I don't think carbon fiber was even INVENTED when these rules were written (;)), and certainly not within the mindset of SCCA Club Racing (you know, back when showing up with your car in a trailer was, like, showing off...?)

Then we are 100% in agreement. Seems as if some of the Honda boys are not thinking the same way. Maybe I am misinterpreting this:

RUCK says: This whole sunroof thing needs to be figured out real quick because there are several builds going on right now that are taking non-sunroof examples and building them as only sunroof having models.

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 05:18 PM

Greg,

IF all the sunroof structure and bracing (that is part of the unibody) underneath is in place from the sunroof model car, then I would agree that just replacing the skin on the roof itself would be perfectly legal. I know that on Honda Civics and CRXs there is more bracing under a sunroof roof than a non-sunroof roof. At a minimum, it is "different". edit: While it is minimal, it might not be so much on other chassis, makes, or models.

It sounds like, from our discussions here that folks are talking about starting with a tub that is non-sunroof and making a car that fits a spec line where there should be a sunroof. From a performance standpoint, that should have no impact, really. But, it does not meet the letter of the rule. Are we gonna be cool with that?

jjjanos

01-07-2009, 05:19 PM

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

If you are plugging the hole, it's a panel - not a skin. That panel could be be the dimensions of the hole and fit in the hole or it could be larger and be mounted above/below the hole.

Check the wording:

"All sunroofs may be replaced with (either):
1. (a) panel or
2. (a) replacement skin"

I.e. the skin is not something in addition to what is there - it is an entire replacement.

It says you can replace the sunroof. To me, that's the moving part. It doesn't say you can replace any other parts of the roof sheet metal.

Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed provided the panel is securely retained.
If its there because of the sunroof and only the sunroof, it's a component of the sunroof.

What are the car manufacture part names for these items you folks are throwing around? If the car manufacture don't call the piece over your head a skin you calling the piece over your head a skin don't mean squat.

That's a dangerous distinction to make. If my manufacturer calls it an Engine management computer you can swap it out but if he calls it the Emissions Control Computer you cannot? What [b]they]/b] call it is irrelevant. The function needs to define what it is, not the name. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Here is what I have from people already:

Is the skin just the thin sheet that is the externally appearing 'roof' or is it the whole top section that is the bracing and infrastrcuture?

Just askin'.

That appears to be one question. IMO, the other is "what constitues a component of the sunroof?"

If one takes a strict reading of the examples given in the GCR - motors, cables, rails - as limits, then everyone with an electrically operated sunroof better have the wiring installed. You can remove the motor, but there is no allowance for wiring.

jjjanos

01-07-2009, 05:25 PM

Then we are 100% in agreement. Seems as if some of the Honda boys are not thinking the same way.

It all boils down to what constitues a component of the sunroof.

Let's say you are required to remove the warp drive and may remove its components. There is a bracket that the warp drive mounts to which mounts to the engine block. Only warp drive-equipped cars have that bracket. Is that bracket removable?

RexRacer19

01-07-2009, 05:31 PM

Good God, this place gives me a headache. They write a whole effing rule book, with a glossery, and still nobody can agree on what the words mean. :(

Tristan Smith

01-07-2009, 05:51 PM

Welcome to Improved Touring racing!!!!!!!

So for the sake of the arguement how does this differ for a t-top? How does one put panels in place that incorporate the window trim pieces on the original t-top panels? Usually the t-top panel has all the rubber seals, and trim that holds that rubber. Are you now required to somehow attach that to whatever "panel" you use to enclose the opening?

Thank god I found a slick top!

tom91ita

01-07-2009, 07:28 PM

...and we've got plenty of reasonable men here....

:):happy204::happy204::)

i don't know why i found this funny!

and i found out i am restricted to only four images, as well...(giles)

lateapex911

01-07-2009, 08:07 PM

:):happy204::happy204:

i don't know why i found this funny!

and i found out i am restricted to only four images, as well...(giles)

because you were supposed to... ;)

sarcasm rules!

ddewhurst

01-07-2009, 08:43 PM

***Quote:
Originally Posted by ddewhurst http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=280433#post280433)
What are the car manufacture part names for these items you folks are throwing around? If the car manufacture don't call the piece over your head a skin you calling the piece over your head a skin don't mean squat.

That's a dangerous distinction to make. If my manufacturer calls it an Engine management computer you can swap it out but if he calls it the Emissions Control Computer you cannot? What [b]they]/b] call it is irrelevant. The function needs to define what it is, not the name. A rose by any other name is still a rose.***

If you can find definition of the word "roof skin or skin" in the GCR glossary you have me convinced. If you can not find the definition of the word "roof skin" in the GCR glossary we'll need to use the car manufactures name for the for the piece that's over your head when sitting in the car.

K, 6 pages on one topic in a couple days with I'm sure many more topics to come in the future.:p

Xian

01-07-2009, 08:57 PM

Did all Si's come with a sunroof?

Yes.

Many people care about how their cars look as well as the pain it is to make the sunroof panel/plug fit properly. I have seen many cars cut the roof off and put on a non-sunroof skin.

The rules weren't written to necessarily make race car building less of a "pain". Additionally the aesthetics of a sunroof plug or cover don't enter into the rules.

If someone protested me for putting a non-sunroof skin on a sunroof car I would be very pissed. There is absolutely no advantage to doing this. You could say but its lighter! Nope.... Most sunroof cars have more meat around the sunroof to support the weight, but non sunroof cars have more bracing on the rest of the roof to keep the roof rigid. What's the difference in weight? I don't know, but not much if any at all....I don't buy this a bit. Different bracing around the rest of the roof on non-sunroof cars? Fo' real? Got any pics? Regardless it's different than the roof they car came with from the factory. Besides, if non-sunroof cars are heavier, then why did you pick one for the re-build?

Either way, it's certainly not something I'd ever protest someone over. But again, the rules are the rules....so what do the rules say? I certainly don't know - I think there's enough grey area there to make a case for either.

Agreed. I don't see this as something to protest over but it seems to be pretty clearly illegal to me. The allowance is to put a plug into the hole left by the sunroof OR run a skin over the hole. I really just don't read this as allowing the entire sunroof skin and associated sunroof bracketry to be removed and replaced with a roof from a different car not on the same spec line. I really just don't see what''s so hard about this.

Christian

Knestis

01-07-2009, 09:23 PM

To remind everyone, the purpose of the removal of the VIN rule was to allow IDENTICAL chassis more options.

An non-roof car is not identical to a roof-car.

Kirk - welcome to the post VIN-Rule world. You asked for it, you got it.

Yeah - the context is different. The members have always got the right to ask, and it seems to me that some of the ITAC members might think differently - and I don't speak for them...

...but if anyone asked ME for MY opinion on this, I'd say, "the rule is adequate as written." Nothing has changed in my mind and monkeying around with the language won't make the problem go away.

K

Knestis

01-07-2009, 09:25 PM

... GA, who's really become a big fan of "the protest process" lately, versus a small group of smarty-pants rulesmakers actually thinking they can out-wit the group intelligence of the masses... :shrug:

In terms of interpreting and enforcing the rules, I could NOT agree more.

K

JLawton

01-07-2009, 09:51 PM

No because before you can write paper I will kick you in the nuts :eek::eek:

.

Don't worry Jeremy, I don't think you would finish high enough for anyone to worry about it..........

:p

I don't think the intent of the rule is to allow a whole new roof to be put on...............

And that's a great yard stick: Would you be willing to gamble away a win at the ARRC because you are so sure it's legal?? I don't care if it's a weanie protest, you never know what another driver would do to gain another step on the podium....... :shrug:

tom91ita

01-08-2009, 12:35 AM

the issue of the wholesale roof replacement was here before the VIN rule. the VIN rule changes may have made it a larger issue because now it could result in an ITC crx si becoming an ITB car.

but let me ask the reverse and i will use my beloved crx si as an example. the standard civics and crx's from circa 85-91 did not have a factory sunroof. all the Si versions did.

now i know i saw the issue of the roof openings be "fixed" in either this forum or elsewhere where folks cut off a roof and welded a standard one on.

but if i cut the roof off a standard civic or crx and welded on a roof from an actual Si, would that be acceptable? it is not a correct VIN but would be a correct configuration, right?

dickita15

01-08-2009, 06:24 AM

but if i cut the roof off a standard civic or crx and welded on a roof from an actual Si, would that be acceptable? it is not a correct VIN but would be a correct configuration, right?

That is the whole crux of the issue. I say it is legal at the roof skin is a panel. I do agree if there are any extra reinforcements on the SI roof that that cannot be called removable sunroof bracketry you have to put them back in.

Gary L

01-08-2009, 07:41 AM

but if i cut the roof off a standard civic or crx and welded on a roof from an actual Si, would that be acceptable? it is not a correct VIN but would be a correct configuration, right?
Absolutely not.

I'm no Honda expert, but it appears the two cars in your example are not on the same spec line.

dickita15

01-08-2009, 07:55 AM

Gary L

01-08-2009, 09:19 AM

But Gary you are allowed to replace the SI sunroof with a panel or reskin it according to the rules. Why is reskining it with a non sunroof car roof panel not allowed?
This is not an update backdate question, it is a question about the method for doing the allowed removal of the sunroof.
This really has nothing to do with the VIN rule.
I agree it has nothing to do with the VIN rule. But it has everything to do with creating a model that never existed... a "standard" Civic with an SI roof panel. The weenie protestor writes something along the lines of "...structurally different than the original model, therefore illegal".

On edit: And this works the other direction, BTW... an SI with a "standard" roof panel. It's also a model that never existed from the factory.

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 10:08 AM

If this sunroof issue is really giving everyone such a heartburn (which boggles my mind), and you want to change the rule for the better, then change it to allow sunroof cars to run the non-sunroof roof, and vice versa. Don't mention anything about a sunroof or non-sunroof chassis, simply mention it's OK to graft over the entire roof (e.g., "panel or replacement roof" instead of "skin").

Yes, doing this now is clearly illegal; I don't see where there's any argument about that. But, it's really a non-issue, not worthy of such "weenie discussion" and is clearly and completely a separate issue unaffected by the VIN rule change.

Simple: make it legal, or protest it.

RexRacer19

01-08-2009, 10:27 AM

Greg,

It seems that we always get tripped up on the wording of the rules. Even if it gets changed, somebody somewhere will claim that it says/means something different.

Like I (and others) said, a weenie protest thing it would be. The only way that I would feel justified in protesting over something like that is, if I knew that not putting the sunroof "structure" under the roof saved like 25lbs or something. Otherwise, yes, it is silly.

The heartburn that I have over it is that it sort of sets up (continues?) a double standard. While this one may be innocent, while we publicly say "let it slide"...give people an inch and they will take a mile.

jjjanos

01-08-2009, 10:35 AM

Yes, doing this now is clearly illegal

NO - it is NOT clearly illegal.

I don't see where there's any argument about that.

Yes, there is an argument about that.

The GCR allows me to remove the components of the sunroof. The bracing in place for because of the sunroof, and for no other reason, is no different than the rest of the crap that is used to mount the sunroof. They are part of the sunroof system.

The intent of the rule might be that these components cannot be removed, but the wording of the rule allows their removal.

That is unless you are suggesting that the only components that can be removed are the motors, cables and rails - in which case all of the wiring for electrical sunroof motors better be in place because those would not be legally removable.

9.1.3.D.8.f needs modification. It needs subparts dealing with f.1 convertibles, f.2. t-tops, f.3 sunroofs.

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 11:04 AM

NO - it is NOT clearly illegal.
You will be shocked to read I disagree ;). While I understand your position, that's not that way it's been commonly interpreted since the beginnings of I.T. (I built my first one in 1985.)

But, if we want to accept it that way then I'm perfectly fine with it: it accomplishes the same end result as my proposal above to allow re-roofing, and it makes my existing project a whole sh*tboat easier...

But, if you really think you can re-write any existing rule such as to block said activity, you're fooling yourself(ves). The problem is not with the rule - it's clearly written in generally-accepted language. The actual root problem is with our tangential acceptance of tortured interpretations. We bitch-slapped that attitude down at this year's ARRC, and I am generally hopeful we'll continue in that regard (spherical bearing rules changes notwithstanding).

Always rember that no amount of rules re-writing will stop cheating as long as we subconsciously endorse tortured rules interpretations. - GA

nsuracer

01-08-2009, 11:24 AM

Good God, this place gives me a headache. They write a whole effing rule book, with a glossery, and still nobody can agree on what the words mean. :(

I'm with you Jeff.

Rule #1. It is easier to beat someone in the Tech Barn than on the racetrack.

Rule #2. SCCA is a member driven organization. The fact that we have a rule book that is larger than the King James Version is because we have a large number of members who are RULE BOOK RACERS. But that is ok because we are a member driven organization.

When I was running Mini Stock on circle track, our rules were 3 pages long and somehow we were able to muddle through.

I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror for protesting some bullshit infraction that had no performance advantage. I also refuse to field strip my engine for a Regional Race.....Any Regional Race. First pays the same as last. All we are racing for is personal satisfaction and a $6 trophy. Where I finish and where the official results say I finish....who cares. I know that I am legal and thats all that matters.

CDS

01-08-2009, 11:35 AM

Absolutely not.

I'm no Honda expert, but it appears the two cars in your example are not on the same spec line.
If you graft a sunroof roof (including all brackets, braces, etc.) onto a non-roof (i.e. non-Si) CRX, you have a chassis that is identical to an Si car except for the VIN. With the elimination of the VIN requirement, I think this is legal. The elimination of the VIN rule means that the chassis in its original configuration doesn't have to be on the same spec line as long as when you are done the car is identical in specs to others on the spec line you are building to. In other words, I can start with a standard CRX and do whatever is necessary to turn it into a CRX Si so long as when I am done it is completely identical to an Si from the factory.

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 11:54 AM

If you graft a sunroof roof (including all brackets, braces, etc.) onto a non-roof (i.e. non-Si) CRX, you have a chassis that is identical to an Si car except for the VIN. With the elimination of the VIN requirement, I think this is legal. The elimination of the VIN rule means that the chassis in its original configuration doesn't have to be on the same spec line as long as when you are done the car is identical in specs to others on the spec line you are building to. In other words, I can start with a standard CRX and do whatever is necessary to turn it into a CRX Si so long as when I am done it is completely identical to an Si from the factory.

And I think most agree with you. However, this is what people are now doing and proposing is legal:

Taking a non-sunroof car and using it as the core for a 'sunroof only' car. They are doing this under the interpretation that a 're-skin' is the same as a 're-roof' and they would end up with the same car in the end.

Others are saying it is illegal because you can't 're-roof' from a car that has a different roof (ie: no sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath) because you have created a car that never existed.

CDS

01-08-2009, 12:14 PM

And I think most agree with you. However, this is what people are now doing and proposing is legal:

Taking a non-sunroof car and using it as the core for a 'sunroof only' car. They are doing this under the interpretation that a 're-skin' is the same as a 're-roof' and they would end up with the same car in the end.

Others are saying it is illegal because you can't 're-roof' from a car that has a different roof (ie: no sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath) because you have created a car that never existed.
I'm in the camp that believes that a "reskin" is not the same as a "re-roof". I think you can peel the sheetmetal off a non-roof car and put it on a roof car, but the sunroof-specific bracing, ect. need to remain.

This is giving me second thoughts about converting my car. It certainly would be much easier to just swap the engine (actually just the head, I believe), wiring harness and associated FI components and call it an Si with the sunroof "reskinned", but I don't think this is in keeping with the spirit of the rules. I need to explore exactly what the differences are in the roof structure between the roof and non-roof cars. Maybe you could duplicate it without having to graft on an entire roof.

R2 Racing

01-08-2009, 12:29 PM

Others are saying it is illegal because you can't 're-roof' from a car that has a different roof (ie: no sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath) because you have created a car that never existed.
They also never made a XYZ that had Koni's on it either, but the rules, as written, allow for that specific modification. In that same context, I don't think it's a move to "create a car that never existed", but to make a modification that is allowed by the rules, as written. That modification is to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts, and then plugging the hole with a new skin. I think that's the basis for doing it. (edit - but is not necessarily my opinion on what can or cannot be done, but is my explanation for why some may feel it's legal)

Maybe the question is, in "to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts", does that include as Andy put it "sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath"? If it does, than I see no issue with swapping the entire roof. If I can legally (1) remove all of that stuff under the sunroof removal rule AND (2) put on a new skin under the hole plug rule, it will be the exact same thing.

***Just so there's no confusion about what's behind anything I say, because I've been here long enough to know that everyone likes to speculate about everyone elses "agenda", I am not currently or have any immediate plans to build a "sun roof having model" racecar out of a "non-sun roof having model" chassis. I have toyed with the idea of converting our ITC Civic S into an ITB Civic Si, but quite frankly, I have no need/desire to and I don't think my Dad would ever let me. He likes fiddling with those God-forsaken carbuerators for some reason. I think it has something to do with his oldness. I just think that this whole issue needs to be discussed, which we are.

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 12:40 PM

They also never made a XYZ that had Koni's on it either, but the rules, as written, allow for that specific modification. In that same context, I don't think it's a move to "create a car that never existed", but to make a modification that is allowed by the rules, as written. That modification is to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts, and then plugging the hole with a new skin. I think that's the basis for doing it. (edit - but is not necessarily my opinion on what can or cannot be done, but is my explanation for why some may feel it's legal)

Maybe the question is, in "to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts", does that include as Andy put it "sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath"? If it does, than I see no issue with swapping the entire roof. If I can legally (1) remove all of that stuff under the sunroof removal rule AND (2) put on a new skin under the hole plug rule, it will be the exact same thing.

***Just so there's no confusion about what's behind anything I say, because I've been here long enough to know that everyone likes to speculate about everyone elses "agenda", I am not currently or have any immediate plans to build a "sun roof having model" racecar out of a "non-sun roof having model" chassis. I have toyed with the idea of converting our ITC Civic S into an ITB Civic Si, but quite frankly, I have no need/desire to and I don't think my Dad would ever let me. He likes fiddling with those God-forsaken carbuerators for some reason. I think it has something to do with his oldness. I just think that this whole issue needs to be discussed, which we are.

BINGO!!!

Ruck has stated it exaclty. My thought has always been that if I can remove the sunroof and its "parts" and I can re-skin the car then there is NO difference between a non-sunroof car and a sunroof car.

I never in my wildest dream would think people would get stuck on this, but now I am curious. I am very tempted to remove the sunroof metal braces from the GSR and weigh them. I will weight them, but to Jeff's point prior, I am 100% convinced that the weight difference is not material, IF at all.

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 12:45 PM

He likes fiddling with those God-forsaken carbuerators for some reason. I think it has something to do with his oldness. I just think that this whole issue needs to be discussed, which we are.

Isn't that more of a family matter rather than something we should discuss on the IT forum...?

(Sorry, it was too easy. I couldn't resist...)

GA, who does all his own moto tune-ups and would love to make everybody go back to carbs, so that he could sit back and watch all the rice-kiddies go, 'uh...whaa...?')

Gary L

01-08-2009, 01:07 PM

If you graft a sunroof roof (including all brackets, braces, etc.) onto a non-roof (i.e. non-Si) CRX, you have a chassis that is identical to an Si car except for the VIN. With the elimination of the VIN requirement, I think this is legal. The elimination of the VIN rule means that the chassis in its original configuration doesn't have to be on the same spec line as long as when you are done the car is identical in specs to others on the spec line you are building to.
And I agree. But the disclaimer (in red, above) was not in Tom's question. He didn't say what he was building. But it's okay, 'cuz now that I go back and read it again, I'm not sure I understand his question, nor my answer. :blink:

I'm gonna go work on the Volvo. :eclipsee_steering:

P.S. If anyone thinks this Okie is gonna protest someone's roof skin, they've a long wait in store. I prefer to concentrate on the really good stuff... like missing windshield washer bottles.

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 01:10 PM

P.S. If anyone thinks this Okie is gonna protest someone's roof skin, they've a long wait in store. I prefer to concentrate on the really good stuff... like missing windshield washer bottles.

Gary - For haha's now I am very tempted to zip tie a WW bottle to the roof of the car.

Greg Krom

01-08-2009, 01:13 PM

Putting my Devils Advocate hat on...

How do we know that the CRX Si (or Integra GSR or Wombat GT...) was only available with a sunroof? Does the Factory Service Manual document that? Does the GCR?

The Factory Service Manual and GCR are the official sources of vehicle specifications, right? If neither of those sources document that the CRX Si was only available with a sunroof then for the sake of argument I would say "officially" it was available either with or without sunroof.

tom91ita

01-08-2009, 01:27 PM

Greg Krom

01-08-2009, 01:43 PM

the sunroof mechanism is in the FSM for the 85 crx si.

i bought my first FSM in 1985 after i picked up my 1985 crx si. the FSM was actually one for the civic which it shares its running gear and a thinner supplement for items only on the Si such as the fuel injection system and the sunroof, etc..

and if looking at factory sticker pricing sheets, it is listed as standard equipment.

Of course, the sunroof mechanism is in the FSM, just as it is in any vehicle that has one available as a factory option. But does it document the fact that the vehicle is not available w/o one?

I don't think window stickers are considered as official documentation.

Again, I'm playing devils advocate, I know from personal knowledge that the Si was only available with a sunroof, but personal knowledge is not supposed to mean anything its a matter of what can be documented.

jjjanos

01-08-2009, 01:50 PM

You will be shocked to read I disagree ;). While I understand your position, that's not that way it's been commonly interpreted since the beginnings of I.T. (I built my first one in 1985.)

I'm not shocked; I both understand and recognize how people interpret the rule; I also recognize that the rule, as written, can very easily and reasonably interpreted w/o intorturation to allow the removal of all components that are there because of the sunroof.

But, if you really think you can re-write any existing rule such as to block said activity, you're fooling yourself(ves).

Do not use a generic and catch-all phrase like "component". Either specifically list those items that can be removed and state so affirmatively (i.e. The following components -motors, cables, rails and wiring - may be removed...) or allow the removal of all items except a list (i.e. all sunroof components with the exception of those components welded to the chassis may be removed).

The problem is not with the rule - it's clearly written in generally-accepted language. The actual root problem is with our tangential acceptance of tortured interpretations.

Yes, it is clearly written in standard english. It does not, however, state what it intends to allow - the removal of all components except for those welded to the chassis.

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 01:51 PM

Again Jeremy, you want to 're-roof' not 're-skin'.

Let me ask you this: If you are allowed to remove the 'zoomba' from your car but the zoomba's bracket is welded to the body, do you tink you can remove the bracket too?

I believe 100% that "reskinning" a roof does not mean you can replace the whole thing from A-pillar to B-pillar.

If you were allowed to reskin a door, do you think you can replace the whole door? Especially with one that had more substantial innards?

The material weight difference is NOT THE ISSUE. It's about what is technically legal.

lateapex911

01-08-2009, 01:53 PM

Wow...did any of you read the rule??
JJAnos for one, suggest that the roof stampings are part of the "sunroof system"

The GCR allows me to remove the components of the sunroof. The bracing in place for because of the sunroof, and for no other reason, is no different than the rest of the crap that is used to mount the sunroof. They are part of the sunroof system.

Show me in the rule book where it allows the removal of the entire "sunroof system".

It says, and I quote:

Manual and electric sunroofs...shall be retained and run in the closed position. Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed...Now WHERE does the allowance to remove any roof structure that is different than a regular roof come from? Is a motor like a roof stamping? Is a cable like a roof stamping? No...not even close. It is clear that the writers were NOT talking about the internal roof assembly stampings when the drafted the rule.

Stampings that are holding and structuring the roof are part of the roof system. They might be preparing the roof for the inclusion of a sunroof, but they aint a component of the sunroof! Is the A pillar part of the windshield??? By your logic, it is, and if the windshield was allowed to be removed, you'd be modifying the A pillar too.

I can not for a second see ANY protest committee giving much weight to such an argument, and I'm sure that anyone eliminating those extra/different stampings would lose in a protest, and quickly.

If a car on your spec line was available without a sunroof, then saw the roof off at the A and B/C pillars, and have fun. Otherwise, it's got to match...exactly...what the car on the spec line was delivered from the factory with.

I'm of the mindset that this rule is fine as written.

Xian

01-08-2009, 02:52 PM

Let's say there's a Wombat 5000 that was only offered with a sunroof. It has 50lbs of reinforcement and locating bracketry for the sunroof. For those of you in favor of re-skinning a roof; are you saying that it would be completely legal for me to cut off the Wombat's roof and replace the entire thing with an aftermarket skin of equivalent thickness and not add back in the bracketry? Really? :shakes head:

Christian, who drove an Si car with a "skin" going over the outside of the sunroof hole.

CDS

01-08-2009, 02:53 PM

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 03:05 PM

This debate reminds me of one that was discussed a while back about what you can legally remove in connection with removing the passenger seat. The issue was removing the metal stamping welded to the floor to which the seat was attached. Was a consensus ever reached on that? (as if a consensus is ever reached on anything here :)). I think the question there, as here, is whether the part in question serves another function, such as supporting the floor/roof, or whether its sole purpose is to permit installation of the seat/roof.

For me, it's not what the MFG intended the piece to do. It's whether or not its part of the thing that can be removed, or part of the car.

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.

CDS

01-08-2009, 03:24 PM

For me, it's not what the MFG intended the piece to do. It's whether or not its part of the thing that can be removed, or part of the car.

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.
I agree with you if the rules only allow removal of part A. But the sunroof rule allows removal of components. What are the components?

lateapex911

01-08-2009, 03:25 PM

JeffYoung

01-08-2009, 03:28 PM

Every bit of it, the rules allow you to remove the entire a/c system.

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 03:35 PM

I agree with you if the rules only allow removal of part A. But the sunroof rule allows removal of components. What are the components?

Certainly NOT the ROOF. Oye!

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 03:36 PM

Here's another angle.

Your car came with AC. Other versions of the same model did not.

You get to remove the AC system. Up front, there are these items associated with the AC system that I'd like to get your opinion on:

1- The compressor
2- the belt for the compressor
3- the extra pulley for the compressor
4- the bracket for the compressor
5- The bolt that goes through the bracket and into a raised threaded boss on the engine block
6- The raised threaded boss on the engine block
7- the hoses to and from the compressor
8- the secondary wiring harness that connects the compressor to the mani harness.

Which items are you going to remove?

Answer: Everything that is not on the non-a/c car.

CDS

01-08-2009, 03:46 PM

Certainly NOT the ROOF. Oye!
Yes, but are the roof brackets/braces that are specific to the sunroof car considered "components" of the sunroof? I think the answer depends on what other functions they may serve.

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 03:51 PM

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay...
Ooooo, Andy. Slippery slope there, dude.

Why does the method of attachment have anything to do with whether something can be removed or not? Show me in the GCR/ITCS where method of attachment is addressed vis-a-vis IIDSYCTYC? Something either is, or is not, removable, and that decision is based solely on its function and intent, not how it's attached; nowhere in the rules does IIDSYCTYC have the limmit of "unless it's welded on".

Remember the Roffe Equilibirum: "if it says you can, you bloody well can."

Now, I'm not saying I specifically agree or disagree with the premise of what you're trying to say - I believe my position is clear as described above - but what you're experiencing is your internal expectations or assumptions of what the rules intend, based on the original concept of IT-racing-as-cheap-to-build. We've far surpassed that PollyAnna concept, even before we decided sphericals were legal (sorry, I love throwing that one in on occasion).

As JJANOS points out, what they actually say counts as much, if not more.

So, that said, the question remains: is the bracketry specific to the sunroof installation on a car removable under the "components" clause?

GA, who at about this time each year really begins hating the winter bench racing season...:shrug:

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 04:15 PM

Ooooo, Andy. Slippery slope there, dude.

Why does the method of attachment have anything to do with whether something can be removed or not? Show me in the GCR/ITCS where method of attachment is addressed vis-a-vis IIDSYCTYC? Something either is, or is not, removable, and that decision is based solely on its function and intent, not how it's attached; nowhere in the rules does IIDSYCTYC have the limmit of "unless it's welded on".

Remember the Roffe Equilibirum: "if it says you can, you bloody well can."

Now, I'm not saying I specifically agree or disagree with the premise of what you're trying to say - I believe my position is clear as described above - but what you're experiencing is your internal expectations or assumptions of what the rules intend, based on the original concept of IT-racing-as-cheap-to-build. We've far surpassed that PollyAnna concept, even before we decided sphericals were legal (sorry, I love throwing that one in on occasion).

As JJANOS points out, what they actually say counts as much, if not more.

So, that said, the question remains: is the bracketry specific to the sunroof installation on a car removable under the "components" clause?

GA, who at about this time each year really begins hating the winter bench racing season...:shrug:

It is a slippery slope, no doubt...but what I outlined is what I go by when I think about what can be removed. If its part of the car, it's part of the car. Usually it has no part number as it is part of the uni-body. Otherwise, everything that is connected in some way that may ACT as a bracket is now open for intorturtation.

Its a whole new world.

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 04:19 PM

So, that said, the question remains: is the bracketry specific to the sunroof installation on a car removable under the "components" clause?

Then we have to define bracketry. If it's bolted to the roof and it facilitates the operation and/or mounting of the sunroof, I say yes.

If it's a unique 'sub-structure' that strengthens the surrounding area and is in no way attached to the sunroof and its mechanism (usually spot welded in and not it's own part number)? I say no way.

tom91ita

01-08-2009, 04:23 PM

....If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.

but my understanding of seat mounting brackets they can be removed even if they are welded to the unibody, course most of understanding is from this forum and others.

2009 GCR = Factory seat tracks/brackets may be modified, reinforced, and/or removed to facilitate replacement mountings provided they perform no other function.

and this may be a stretch but when repairing the roof after a roll-over, you might cbnsider a non-sunroof roof to be okay per:

Body repair shall be performed using every reasonable effort to maintain stock body contours..

the non-sunroof and sunroof models have effectively the same contours.

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 04:47 PM

If its part of the car, it's part of the car. Usually it has no part number as it is part of the uni-body.
That's incorrect, Andy: EVERY part in the car, no matter how small a bracket it is, has a separate part number and line in the parts book.

No unibody chassis by any manufacturer has a view of the "body in white" with a single part number. Everything that makes up the unibody - from bracket, to nuts, to flanges, to whatever - has a separate and distinct part number...

GA

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 04:47 PM

CDS

01-08-2009, 04:50 PM

If it's a unique 'sub-structure' that strengthens the surrounding area and is in no way attached to the sunroof and its mechanism (usually spot welded in and not it's own part number)? I say no way.
Agreed. That's why I believe you can't just graft an entire non-roof roof onto a sun-roof car. The roof bracketry in the sunroof car is configured differently from the non-roof car (I presume, I haven't actually compared them), but the brackets still serve the purpose of reinforcing/strengthing the roof structure. They're more than just components of the sunroof system. If you were to remove them, you would have (presumably) less roof support, and less weight, than a non-roof car would have. And where do the rules permit you to add back the roof brackets that are unique to the non-roof car?

You will note that I'm arguing against my own interests, since I have a non-roof CRX that I would like to convert to ITB, but I just don't think the rules allow it unless I do the whole roof swap thing.

tom91ita

01-08-2009, 04:56 PM

what really grinds me about this whole thing is that i parted out a 86 crx si last summer and scrapped out the roof!

who knew it would be worth something to an ITC carguy? :)

RexRacer19

01-08-2009, 05:11 PM

Let's see if this image will post. The is from an OEM Honda Parts supplier. (Majestic Honda) It shows the roof "panel" from both the STD/DX (no sunroof) and Si (sunroof) models. It does not show what bracing might be included underneath each one. There seems to be a separate header panel shown for the no sunroof model, but that may be the same header for both.

I know that if I buy a hood, it comes with the reinforcement structure already bonded in place. Maybe this is the same? This is just one car from one Mfg. so, you can't make a blanket statement out of it.

http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/auto/jsp/mws/catimgs/13SH30_B4802.gif

JoshS

01-08-2009, 05:24 PM

For me, it's not what the MFG intended the piece to do. It's whether or not its part of the thing that can be removed, or part of the car.

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.
Just curious ... what if it's welded on but DOES have an individual part number?

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 05:26 PM

I know that if I buy a hood, it comes with the reinforcement structure already bonded in place. Maybe this is the same?
Below is an example from VW, the 1984 Rabbit.

If your assumption is correct, then that particular part is only available retail as a sub-assembly (manufacturers do things differently). But trust me: having worked "in the biz", I know that the manufacturer has a part number for each individual part within that sub-assembly.

Ergo, if we accept that each part is treated as a separate one, then we're back to my original question of a couple hours ago: where in the ITCS is the method of attachment of the part a controlling or restricting authority?

If we were to find at least one example of something that can be removed, but it's welded on, does that suffice for evidence to that end?

I offer that the fact something is welded on is irrelevant: if it says you can, then you bloody well can...

GA

Andy Bettencourt

01-08-2009, 06:18 PM

That's incorrect, Andy: EVERY part in the car, no matter how small a bracket it is, has a separate part number and line in the parts book.

No unibody chassis by any manufacturer has a view of the "body in white" with a single part number. Everything that makes up the unibody - from bracket, to nuts, to flanges, to whatever - has a separate and distinct part number...

GA

Not true for Mazda at least. There are parts that have 'names' but don't have individual replacement part numbers because they are part of a larger structure and come together as one unit.

lateapex911

01-08-2009, 06:41 PM

Everything its all part of the A/C System.

Jake would you also debate that the wiring harness, brake lines, ABS modules, ABS computers, etc can not ALL be removed? Because like the A/C rule it says anything related to the A/C system can be removed.

e. Air conditioning systems may be removed in whole or in part.

So, Jeremy and others, you are all grinding off the 1 1/2" boss that is cast into the engine block? Because IT is part of the Airconditioning system?

What if the model below that doesn't come with AC uses that boss to bolt on some other part, like alternator bracket??

The seat example is a great one, because it shows precedence.

The GCR has called out a part of the unibody that CAN be removed, even though it's a separate part that's spot welded on.

I see NO such comment in this case.

Knestis

01-08-2009, 07:12 PM

I'm tempted to search out the last couple versions of this same conversation but just don't have enough energy at this point.

I'll say it again - "the protest and appeal process." It is not possible to write self-enforcing rules.

Every case is different. We could write a "clarification" of the rule that accommodates the Rabbit and still not accommodate the Civic.

K

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 07:14 PM

Not true for Mazda at least.
Sooo....the rule is manufacturer-specific? As in, Rabbit drivers can do it but Mazda drivers can't? And the over-riding limitation here is the parts book (which I don't recall being listed in the ITCS as a limiting document)? Where in the GCR/ITCS is this written (as well as the "welding versus bolting" reference...?)

Andy, I'm not trying to beat up on you here, honest. If you truly believe this, then support it in the rules. Don't just offer why you believe something, support it with appropriate rules references.

I still believe what I believed before, but I'm kinda enjoying this discussion on multiple levels: first, it's a long overdue discussion; this has been one of those "skeletons in the closet" that most have ignored, but it's always been there. Second, it's yet another display of how rules can be uniquely read, interpreted, and applied. Third, it's yet another illustration that no matter how well you think you've written a rule, someone will find a hole; that the only way to avoid this is not through re-writing rules but through culture and lack of tolerance to such twisting.

We're WAAAY off the topic of the VIN rule, by the way... :shrug:

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 07:38 PM

OK I really hope to put this to bed. I have taken 2 pictures. One from the GSR and one from the RS chassis.

Comment #1 the side supports are simply bonded to the roof skin.
Comment #2 The Sunroof 1/16 steel frame is also bonded to the roof skin and only performs one function. To create a lip/"guide" for the sunroof glass to sit in. The sunroof itself is self contained and DOES NOT bolt to the sunroof bonded piece shown.
Comment #3 The steel sunroof "guide" when removed would be hard pressed to weigh one pound (if that).
Comment #4 Guides and sunroof harware are allowed to be removed.

Picture #1 Simple RS roof.
http://home.comcast.net/~jeremybilliel/GSR/RS_Sunroof.jpg[/URL]

Picture #2 GSR Sunroof car - I wish that I did not paint the roof as the color black is not a seperate panel of any kind.
http://home.comcast.net/~jeremybilliel/GSR/GSR_Sunroof.jpg[URL="http://home.comcast.net/~jeremybilliel/GSR/GSR_Sunroof.jpg"] (http://home.comcast.net/~jeremybilliel/GSR/RS_Sunroof.jpg)

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 07:43 PM

Not the best picture out there, but here is a picture of the sunroof assembly.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e306/phagotron/things%20to%20sell/CIMG5406.jpg

Knestis

01-08-2009, 09:13 PM

OK I really hope to put this to bed. ...

With respect, Jeremy - you can't.

This forum won't answer the question - we just issue opinions that don't matter.

The ITAC can't answer the question - it writes rules and doesn't enforce them.

You can only do what you are OK with, and ultimately - if the question EVER gets asked - only the protest-appeal process can truly put it to bed.

That's just how it works.

K

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 09:57 PM

With respect, Jeremy - you can't.

This forum won't answer the question - we just issue opinions that don't matter.

The ITAC can't answer the question - it writes rules and doesn't enforce them.

You can only do what you are OK with, and ultimately - if the question EVER gets asked - only the protest-appeal process can truly put it to bed.

That's just how it works.

K

Agreed 100% Kirk.

Jeremy Billiel

01-08-2009, 09:59 PM

Oh and to be clear there is no mythical 50 lbs of crap up there. I will give you 1 lb. Just as a reminder for this thread, I am going to zip tie a windshild washer bottle to the center cross support. Now if its a zip tie how is it attached? Is that removable? LOL....

RexRacer19

01-08-2009, 10:11 PM

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 10:23 PM

Stop encouraging the boy, "Rex"...

iambhooper

01-08-2009, 10:47 PM

Jeremy,

Are the side rails the same on the RS vs. the GSR. It looks like they are. As in...if there was a hole in the roof for it, could you bolt the sunroof assembly in place? If the answer is yes, then I feel fairly confident, in this case, that a protest would go in your favor. Having the smooth roof is just a nicer way of filling the hole. Again...just in this specific case. I was hoping that you would post those pictures.

thats how I would try to handle the problem, if I were doing a conversion. i understand the rule, and respect the rule. however, there are times to apply the spirit and times to apply the letter of the law.

you guys are making me dizzy!

hoop

RexRacer19

01-08-2009, 11:17 PM

Stop encouraging the boy, "Rex"...

So, what is it that you have been doing, tGA? :)

Greg Amy

01-08-2009, 11:24 PM

So, what is it that you have been doing, tGA? :)
"Poking" and "encouraging" are two distinctly different functions... ;)

Jeremy Billiel

01-09-2009, 07:44 AM

Jeremy,

Are the side rails the same on the RS vs. the GSR. It looks like they are. As in...if there was a hole in the roof for it, could you bolt the sunroof assembly in place? If the answer is yes, then I feel fairly confident, in this case, that a protest would go in your favor. Having the smooth roof is just a nicer way of filling the hole. Again...just in this specific case. I was hoping that you would post those pictures.

Yes the side rails appear to the the same along with the rear and front sections.

Andy Bettencourt

01-09-2009, 08:48 AM

Sooo....the rule is manufacturer-specific?

I am just telling you that what you stated as fact for all manufacturers isn't true.

My viewpoint is an interpretation of the rules. I don't believe you can remove something that is essentially part of the chassis even if it acts as a 'bracket'. If you can't order it, I think I could make the arguement it isn't really part of the assembly.

But, like you said, we are way off topic. I have said all along, those thoughts are what *I* use to determine what I can and can't remove.

Greg Amy

01-09-2009, 09:25 AM

My viewpoint is an interpretation of the rules. I don't believe you can remove something that is essentially part of the chassis even if it acts as a 'bracket'.
I hear ya. In regards to the sunroof, and completely separate from the VIN rule "problems", there's two issues here.

One, the "replacement skin" notation I think most of us agree on (Christian's and others' dissent noted): you can replace the entire top "skin" of the roof on a sunroof-equipped car, as long as it's only the sheet metal skin.

Two, the sunroof "components" issue, however, bears more dissent among the group: personally, I've been convinced via this topic that any part on the car that is unique to the sunroof-equipped car - including bracketry, bolted or welded - can be removed under the "components" notation* without resorting to intorturation. That does not, however, give the builder the option of ADDING non-sunroof components to the car and converting it into a true non-sunroof car (unless the non-sunroof car is also listed same-line.)

On the latter point, I hear the dissent, but I suggest it's not only supportable in a protest situation, but also within the spirit of the rules**. Components is components, no matter how they attach. - GA

* The 'components' notation reads "Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed...". It's clear that the listing of those specific items is an "e.g." or "for example", versus a limitation to just those items. If the intent were to limit it to just those items then there would be no need to write it as it was; they'd have simply written "Motors, cables, rails may be removed...".

**I see the "spirit" of the rules as intending to allow a sunroof-equipped car to be as close to the non-sunroof version as reasonably and economically possible, especially given "back then" there were situations where you could not - or didn't want to - use a non-sunroof chassis for the build, but didn't want the performance disadvantage and needed the additional safety.