Spec lines and variants of a car

[Ron Earp]

What's the deal with a variation of a car, say a convertible version of a car, and its classification in IT? Does it need its own spec line?

For example, in ITS the second generation RX7 came in a convertible variant. Can the convertible variant run based on the fact the RX7 is classed? Can specialized parts from the convertible RX7 be used in a coupe build?

[tim240z]

What's the deal with a variation of a car, say a convertible version of a car, and its classification in IT? Does it need its own spec line?

For example, in ITS the second generation RX7 came in a convertible variant. Can the convertible variant run based on the fact the RX7 is classed? Can specialized parts from the convertible RX7 be used in a coupe build?

Find something on a drop top mustang you like? :P

[Ron Earp]

Find something on a drop top mustang you like? :P

No, but trying to assess if I should start to look!

I thought that the RX7 guys that built the best cars used something from a convertible but I'm probably wrong about that. My old Jensen Healey was only a "roadster" so there was nothing to consider there. And the 260Z, well, only coupes so no choices.

[Chip42]

if its the same car, generally, and has a hardtop avaialble for the convertable, then I think it's OK (like the TR8) but if the drop top version is somehow different, form the IT perspective, I'd say it demands a seperate classification.

as for convertable specific bits and pieces, say something like lower chassis braces or tie bars, I don't know how I feel about allowing those onto the tin top cousins as it lies outside of the additional suspension braces that are spelled out in the rules. certainly a greyish area.

[Knestis]

As I mentioned elsewhere here, I think this is an important function of the ITAC's initial listing of any car, determining its spec line - or lines. It's an important consideration that once a spec line is established, we are granted freedom to up- and back-date (and cross-date?) among any years, trim levels, etc. that appear on it. The ITAC's listings need to made with that outcome in mind.

Some of the real issues have been chased our (e.g., the '92-95 Civic variants in A) but i suspect there are some oddities still to be addressed.

K

[dickita15]

In your RX7 example the one part they steal from convertibles is the aluminum hood but my understanding is that part is only legal because it also came on a rare hardtop model the GTU.

[Ron Earp]

I haven't turned up anything worth messing with or pressing the issue over. There are some subframe connectors specific to convertibles but they aren't that good and the cage would negate some of that need. I saw some lore that the convertibles came with a three point strut bar, now that would have been nice, but found out that's incorrect.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In your RX7 example the one part they steal from convertibles is the aluminum hood but my understanding is that part is only legal because it also came on a rare hardtop model the GTU.

Yes, the GTUs. 1000 produced in 1989, 100 in 1990.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What's the deal with a variation of a car, say a convertible version of a car, and its classification in IT? Does it need its own spec line?

For example, in ITS the second generation RX7 came in a convertible variant. Can the convertible variant run based on the fact the RX7 is classed? Can specialized parts from the convertible RX7 be used in a coupe build?

No, they can not, it's not grey either. The rules state the car has to have the same body type in order to UD/BD.

[mossaidis]

Some of the real issues have been chased our (e.g., the '92-95 Civic variants in A) but i suspect there are some oddities still to be addressed.


please clarify... what oddities? like EX vs Si? Thanks, Mickey

[CRallo]

IIRC, per the rules, if said vehicle is available in non-convertible form, than the convertible version is not eligible for classification.

[JoshS]

IIRC, per the rules, if said vehicle is available in non-convertible form, than the convertible version is not eligible for classification.

YDRC, but you were close.

From 9.1.3.D.8.f: Convertible model cars are permitted if they were only available as convertibles (e.g. MG Midget), or if the convertible model is specifically allowed on the vehicle spec line.

[StephenB]

how do you guys/gals research to see if an item was a factory or dealer option? just curious what others do... I know the sandbox has a similar thread.

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

how do you guys/gals research to see if an item was a factory or dealer option? just curious what others do... I know the sandbox has a similar thread.

Stephen

Stephen,

I put these things into 3 catagories:

Factory: Ordered as a full brochure model or trim level and delivered to the dealer with all the equipment on it

Port Installed: Ordered as a full brochure model or trim level and delivered with all the equipment on it but some bits of that full model or trim package 'finished' as it comes off the boat.

Dealer option: Usually found in an 'Accessories' catalogue that can be installed prior to the new owner picking the car up, covered under warranty and rolled into the total price - but it's not a real trim package that you can order.

In your case, the Mazdaspeed stuff is NOT legal. I know you want that front facia that the GA guys run...I would too. :)

[Ron Earp]

how do you guys/gals research to see if an item was a factory or dealer option? just curious what others do... I know the sandbox has a similar thread.

Stephen

I bought NOS Mustang brochures off Ebay for the 94-98 model years. Then I called Ford's Racing group and talked to them about what was available "back in the day" from the factory, either as legal IT options or as illegal IT parts offered via Ford racing.

I ended up taking to a fellow who has worked at Ford Racing for 20+ years and gave me the inside scoop on what Ford had planned for the 3.8L V6 but ultimately failed in doing. The idea was they could offer a base Mustang with a low specific output V6 that could be hopped up easily out of their catalog. They produced heads, intake, cams, etc. and an aluminum blocks for the motors (*EDIT - ALL ILLEGAL FOR IT*). In the end the demand never materialized because strippers living in trailers don't need fancy heads or cams for their hooptie, so the V6 program died off.

Ebay can be your friend for the brochures and other long gone informational literature. I scored some NOS factory Ford manuals there too for $25, a great deal.

[JeffYoung]

On the convert, it works two ways:

1. If the car only came as a convert, then putting it on the spec line means you can run the convert.

2. If it came as a coupe and a covert, then you have to have the convert added to the spec line to run it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I bought NOS Mustang brochures off Ebay for the 94-98 model years. Then I called Ford's Racing group and talked to them about what was available "back in the day" from the factory.

I ended up taking to a fellow who has worked at Ford Racing for 20+ years and gave me the inside scoop on what Ford had planned for the 3.8L V6 but ultimately failed in doing. The idea was they could offer a base Mustang with a low specific output V6 that could be hopped up easily out of their catalog. They produced heads, intake, cams, etc. and an aluminum blocks for the motors. In the end the demand never materialized because strippers living in trailers don't need fancy heads or cams for their hooptie, so the V6 program died off.

Ebay can be your friend for the brochures and other long gone informational literature. I scored some NOS factory Ford manuals there too for $25, a great deal.

Still not enough information here Ron. Yes, the Ford Racing catalogue is a 'Ford' document, but if those hop-ups were not installed in Michigan and sent in a box to be installed at the dealer, they would be a no-go...

[JeffYoung]

I don't think he is saying that they are legal, just that they were available from the factory.

The basic rule remains that the car had to come off of the production line for sale in the uS with the part on it for it to be legal.


Still not enough information here Ron. Yes, the Ford Racing catalogue is a 'Ford' document, but if those hop-ups were not installed in Michigan and sent in a box to be installed at the dealer, they would be a no-go...

[Ron Earp]

Still not enough information here Ron. Yes, the Ford Racing catalogue is a 'Ford' document, but if those hop-ups were not installed in Michigan and sent in a box to be installed at the dealer, they would be a no-go...

Whoa there. No, I'm not saying that stuff is legal, of course it isn't legal. I'm just relating a bit of my experience talking with the guys at Ford. Helpful bunch. Also learned about the factory V6 road race car that Griggs ran for a bit (or tried to run) and some other stuff.

I've done a lot of research and the information I have for a 10/10th build involves production lots/years for blocks, heads, intake castings, and so on. All legal 94-98 parts but there are slight advantages to using say one year over another for reliability or performance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whoa there. No, I'm not saying that stuff is legal, of course it isn't legal. I'm just relating a bit of my experience talking with the guys at Ford. Helpful bunch. Also learned about the factory V6 road race car that Griggs ran for a bit (or tried to run) and some other stuff.

I've done a lot of research and the information I have for a 10/10th build involves production lots/years for blocks, heads, intake castings, and so on. All legal 94-98 parts but there are slight advantages to using say one year over another for reliability or performance.

My bad. Just not sure how it was germain to the topic if it was known illegal - even if they did produce - hense my response.

[Ron Earp]

My bad. Just not sure how it was germain to the topic if it was known illegal - even if they did produce.

Maybe I should have started that story with "As an aside for the Ford nerds..."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe I should have started that story with "As an aside for the Ford nerds..."

It was the wording. People who are grey on this topic read 'available from the factory' and it sends their heads spinning.

[CRallo]

Thanks for the correction Josh! I def came away from that with the wrong idea... I read the GCR three times before I ever even came to an SCCA event three years ago. Its probably time to read it again...

Regarding brochures and options and such... Some of the manufacturers have all the old stuff available online. GM has a whole "heritage" website that is incredible!!!!! It was there that I found the info to prove that the 305 ITR Camaro/Firebird was classified using the wrong horsepower. (No offense :p) This was something that I "knew" but didn't have the hard evidence to show those in charge. I now currently have a letter in the works...

Also, said brochures and info are available elsewhere on the web. For example, the regional 240sxONE club that I'm a member of has all the 24sx0 stuff posted on their website in pdf form.

[quadzjr]

A discusssion that I started having with Jeff at this weeks race got me thinking.. in the UP/BD rule are you allowed to use any combination of parts within the spec'ed class per UP/BD(heads cams/gear ratios/etc..)? or is it whole assemblies (long block/tranmissions/etc)? I.E. If you had a car classed from 1995-2000. Could you use the 2000 chassis, a 97 block, 95 intake and air monitoring controls, a 98' camshaft and crank, and the 96' cylinder head, gear raios 3-4-5 from the 99' and 1-2 from 98'?

your creation would of never existed on the street but would be legal :shrug: according to UP/BD. I think I brought this up before, but I do not remember the answer, sorry for my ignorace.

[Greg Amy]

GCR 9.1.3.C, "Specifications"


To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line. Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). No interchange of parts between assemblies is permitted, and all parts of an assembly shall be as originally produced for that assembly (such parts may, however, be coated, painted or plated). Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

[Gary L]

...which answers the question. But in some cases, you can certainly still legally create a combination that never existed from the factory. My Volvo would be an example, being listed as 1969-1974 on one spec line. This means I can put the SU or Stromberg carb induction assembly (from 1969-72) on a fuel injected long block assembly (from 1971-74). The compression ratio of the US-spec carb engines was 9.3:1, but the 1971 FI engine was 10.5:1 with bigger intake valves. I'm not saying this is necessarily the thing to do, just that there is a fair amount of latitude in this area.

[JeffYoung]

See, I wonder about that based on that last sentence Greg quoted. I agree with you that is the common perception amongst the membership, but I think the last sentence was designed to prevent you from assembling something that never came off the factory floor.


...which answers the question. But in some cases, you can certainly still legally create a combination that never existed from the factory. My Volvo would be an example, being listed as 1969-1974 on one spec line. This means I can put the SU or Stromberg carb induction assembly (from 1969-72) on a fuel injected long block assembly (from 1971-74). The compression ratio of the US-spec carb engines was 9.3:1, but the 1971 FI engine was 10.5:1 with bigger intake valves. I'm not saying this is necessarily the thing to do, just that there is a fair amount of latitude in this area.

[Greg Amy]

But in some cases, you can certainly still legally create a combination that never existed from the factory.
No, you absolutely cannot; it's specifically disallowed. Just because the culture of IT has tolerated it does not make it legal.

Yes, I've been aware of this for some time. No, I have not protested it, I've simply brought it to the attention of the competitors (a.k.a., the preferred ITS RX-7 variants/Frankensteins), who've responded with "but we're all doing it!"

GA

[Gary L]

No, you absolutely cannot; it's specifically disallowed. Just because the culture of IT has tolerated it does not make it legal.
GA

IT culture is not part of it, or at least not in my mind. It can certainly be argued that it is specifically allowed, by everything in that paragraph that precedes the last sentence. Maybe we need a re-write.

[quadzjr]

that answers my question.. so if the spec'ed specline had two chassis variants with two different engine variations. So to run one engine variation you would have to also run that variation of the chassis to prevent from creating a model.

[Z3_GoCar]

Let's use the ITR Z3 2.8 liter as an example, where the '97-'98 version was only avalible as a roadster, while the coupe was introduced late '98 as a '99 model year. The roadster then can use either of the 2.8 liter motors, while the coupe can only use the later motor.

Now here's a new wrinkle, what about sourcing parts from different models? Say the my head shares the same part number as out of a M3, or better yet an 525 sedan? Say I call up factory part number:

Part 11121703637 (Cylinder Head With Bearing Ledges)

I get:


E34: Details on E34 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11121703637&showus=1&showeur=&series=E34)
E34 525i Sedan
E34 525i Touring

E36: Details on E36 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11121703637&showus=1&showeur=&series=E36)
E36 323i Coupe
E36 323i Convertible
E36 328i Coupe
E36 328i Convertible
E36 328i Sedan
E36 M3 Sedan
E36 M3 Coupe
E36 M3 Convertible

E39: Details on E39 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11121703637&showus=1&showeur=&series=E39)
E39 528i Sedan
Z3: Details on Z3 (http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11121703637&showus=1&showeur=&series=Z3)
Z3 Z3 2.8 Roadster
Z3 Z3 M Coupe
Z3 Z3 M Roadster

Then to further complicate matters, the first listing is from a different motor, which is not only smaller it's also a previous generation. So if I follow the part numbers I could also wind up with a frakenstein from two different generations.

[Gary L]

But you can't swap heads... just long blocks.

[Z3_GoCar]

So if you crack a head you have to either repair it, or replace the whole longblock...

[Lael Cleland]

I think "Swap" means putting engines in cars that never came with them... Like a big 2.0 Honda engine in a civic.. Or a 1.8vw head on a 2.0L.. never came that way..

You can replace a broken head with an exact equivalent.. Same valves sizes/cam/lifters etc.

[JoshS]

Then to further complicate matters, the first listing is from a different motor, which is not only smaller it's also a previous generation. So if I follow the part numbers I could also wind up with a frakenstein from two different generations.

You made this argument a few weeks ago. It made no sense then and it still makes no sense now.

If you take a head from an E34 525i for your Z3 2.8, you'll still have something IDENTICAL to the one that you started with. You aren't making anything a frankenstein at all.

The bottom end of the engine that's in my Z3 came out of a 328i So what? It's exactly the same thing. There's no frankenstein involved.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Josh, this is a second variation on that theme. Last time it was about the crankshafts from multiple generations that share the same part number, this time it's swapping the head between different generations.

[JeffYoung]

But Josh is right. If these parts are identical, then there is no issue.

Are you saying they are not identical?


Hey Josh, this is a second variation on that theme. Last time it was about the crankshafts from multiple generations that share the same part number, this time it's swapping the head between different generations.

[Lael Cleland]

If they are the same they are the same... Cams may be different threw the years due to changes in emissions.

[seckerich]

No, you absolutely cannot; it's specifically disallowed. Just because the culture of IT has tolerated it does not make it legal.

Yes, I've been aware of this for some time. No, I have not protested it, I've simply brought it to the attention of the competitors (a.k.a., the preferred ITS RX-7 variants/Frankensteins), who've responded with "but we're all doing it!"

GA

Not sure what "Frankensteins" you are talking about Geg, we use the entire longblock and induction off the later car that is the same body style as all cars listed on the spec line. I would call that SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by the paragraph quoted. Cue George now. Even more so now that the vin rule is gone. Now if we mix in some turbo parts it crosses the line but there is no model we create that did not exist from the factory.

[Greg Amy]

Not sure what "Frankensteins" you are talking about...
So there's no mix of S4/S5 parts in any RX-7? No advantageous combo of parts that was not otherwise available from Mazda off the factory line?

So someone can actually find, on a used car lot somewhere, that exact combination of long"block", intake, induction, fuel injection, and engine management (except as allowed otherwise by the ITCS) as everyone is running in their ITS RX7s?

Remember:


...it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

Ergo, if Mazda did not deliver that combo, it's not legal.

GA

[dickita15]

Well what is the definition of model or type? If I have an intake that was only made in 1979 and rear brakes that only came on 83-85 did I create a model? I do not think so.

[Greg Amy]

Well what is the definition of model or type? If I have an intake that was only made in 1979 and rear brakes that only came on 83-85 did I create a model? I do not think so.
Of course you did, Dick. You created a model of RX-7 with performance that the manufacturer never delivered from its factory.

That rule has existed in the IT regs for probably decades, and its purpose was to allow competitors to "upmarket" their car to match the specs of a higher-line model (that's on the same spec line). It was never intended to be able to create an aggregate ("frankenstein") model that provides greater performance than any other standalone factory-line model.

If you disagree, then what do you think is the purpose for that rule? If you disagree, and we're not following that intent, then simply make the moves to make that rule go away, because otherwise it's really doing absolutely nothing (and don't forget to adjust the IT "process" to account for that improved aggregate performance...)

Simply food for thought.

GA

[JeffYoung]

I have to agree with Greg.

The intent was for you to be able to take your 83 model whatever that came with carbs, and update it to the 84 model that was identical to the 83 except it had fuel injection.

Your 83 model then effectively became identical to the 84, and was no different than what was sold off the showroom floor in 84.

But if your 83 carb model also had a better gearbox that was discountinued in 84, what the rule was designed to prevent -- in my opinion -- was using the 83 gearbox with the 84 fuel injected motor.

That would create a car that you never could have bought off the showroom floor in 83, or in 84.

I don't know enough about the RX7s to say what exactly is going on with them. I've heard Andy say that essentially what every fast ITS RX7 is is a GTUs, and i have no reason to doubt him. If that is the case, then they are legal.

[dickita15]

While I respect there are limits on updating/backdating I have never thought they were anything like you are describing. Rereading the section the only thing I see you hanging your hat on in this argument is “it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies”
Words matter and I do not see it saying that you cannot combine the best attributes of the various years on the spec line to build the best car. It says you cannot create a model. The model in my example is a RX7. It says you cannot create a type. The type is a two seater coupe I guess. There is no definition in the GCR that refines the meaning.
Oh and Greg, I am jealous that you are able to divine the intent of this old rule, the rest of us have to read and interpret it.

[Greg Amy]

...the only thing I see you hanging your hat on in this argument is “it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies”
Correct.

Oh and Greg, I am jealous that you are able to divine the intent of this old rule, the rest of us have to read and interpret it.Well, I do have the advantage of having been involved in Improved Touring since its inception...

But, again, I ask (rhetorically, if necessary): if you do not believe that sentence is to be interpreted as I describe, then what do you think it means? Because, honestly, I cannot "divine" any other intent...

If you think that sentence does nothing - or if we want it to do nothing - then simply send in a request to delete it.

GA

[Eagle7]

I have to agree with Greg.

The intent was for you to be able to take your 83 model whatever that came with carbs, and update it to the 84 model that was identical to the 83 except it had fuel injection.

Your 83 model then effectively became identical to the 84, and was no different than what was sold off the showroom floor in 84.

But if your 83 carb model also had a better gearbox that was discountinued in 84, what the rule was designed to prevent -- in my opinion -- was using the 83 gearbox with the 84 fuel injected motor.

That would create a car that you never could have bought off the showroom floor in 83, or in 84.

I don't know enough about the RX7s to say what exactly is going on with them. I've heard Andy say that essentially what every fast ITS RX7 is is a GTUs, and i have no reason to doubt him. If that is the case, then they are legal.
The 86-88 ITS RX-7 had 146 HP, while the 89-91 had 160 HP. The 89-91 also has some cosmetic differences in bumper covers and body panels. I think you're saying I can't run the 89-91 engine in my 86 without changing the body cosmetics.

[seckerich]

So there's no mix of S4/S5 parts in any RX-7? No advantageous combo of parts that was not otherwise available from Mazda off the factory line?

So someone can actually find, on a used car lot somewhere, that exact combination of long"block", intake, induction, fuel injection, and engine management (except as allowed otherwise by the ITCS) as everyone is running in their ITS RX7s?

Remember:



Ergo, if Mazda did not deliver that combo, it's not legal.

GA

In a word, yes. My car and all the ones I have worked on are 89-91 spec all the way and it is the fastest setup and the process weight was set for the high side of the power of that car.

Now I will play your word game. If the rule states that the motor, trans, induction must be updated as a complete assembly then they are different from the later/earlier original so were never delivered from the factory that way. They are specifically different because they may not interchange parts, but were allowed to be changed as entire assemblies. Until the vin rule all of these parts were illegal if we use your assumption because the XYZ motor does not match the vin. But the rules say we can install that longblock. I call that cut and dry that the assemblies could be matched. How do you explain it?

[RacerBill]

In a word, yes. My car and all the ones I have worked on are 89-91 spec all the way and it is the fastest setup and the process weight was set for the high side of the power of that car.

Now I will play your word game. If the rule states that the motor, trans, induction must be updated as a complete assembly then they are different from the later/earlier original so were never delivered from the factory that way. They are specifically different because they may not interchange parts, but were allowed to be changed as entire assemblies. Until the vin rule all of these parts were illegal if we use your assumption because the XYZ motor does not match the vin. But the rules say we can install that longblock. I call that cut and dry that the assemblies could be matched. How do you explain it?

I agree with Steve. I believe that the intent of the rule was to allow us to use a 1984 motor in a 1983 car. Just to use an example, if I could find a 1984 Shelby Charger, I would want to use that engine since it is rated at 110hp as opposed to 107 for the 1983 (nobody can explain why the difference since all the components and dimentions were the same). But the rules do not say that if I use the 84 engine, then I need to use an 84 transmission.

Are there any examples of the kind of differences proposed here (carb and fuel injection on the same spec line). I would think that this much of a difference would warrant unique spec lines in the ITCS - we do see a lot of that ie in ITR. Ford Mustang (99-04) vs Ford Mustang (05-06).

I really don't think that there are the issues that we are arguing about. I believe that the spec lines take care of these potential issues. If they don't, we need to update the spec lines.

And I do agree that the rule should not allow the creating of outlandish, off the wall models.

[Ron Earp]

I can see both sides of it.

My take on it was I was not allowed to mix and match parts to make something that didn't exist. My original question is on the Mustang and convertibles, so I'll use that car as my example.

94-98 Mustangs are all on the same spec line.

However, while gross specs like horsepower, wheelbase, brakes, etc. didn't change during those years some other little things did. 94-95 cars have a different rod ratio than 96-98 cars. 96-98 cars have changed with heads and blocks/block sealing than 94-95 cars. 96-98 cars used a slightly different valvetrain parameter. 94-95 cars do not have the same cam as the 96-98 cars.

So I could not build a motor like this:

*94-95 crank and rods
*96-98 block
*96-98 heads/valve train
*94-95 cam

as Ford never delivered such an engine in a Mustang during the 94-98 model run.

[seckerich]

I can see both sides of it.

My take on it was I was not allowed to mix and match parts to make something that didn't exist. My original question is on the Mustang and convertibles, so I'll use that car as my example.

94-98 Mustangs are all on the same spec line.

However, while gross specs like horsepower, wheelbase, brakes, etc. didn't change during those years some other little things did. 94-95 cars have a different rod ratio than 96-98 cars. 96-98 cars have changed with heads and blocks/block sealing than 94-95 cars. 96-98 cars used a slightly different valvetrain parameter. 94-95 cars do not have the same cam as the 96-98 cars.

So I could not build a motor like this:

*94-95 crank and rods
*96-98 block
*96-98 heads/valve train
*94-95 cam

as Ford never delivered such an engine in a Mustang during the 94-98 model run.

And the definition of "longblock" stops all those variables and allows you to run any of those as a package, no changing parts like cams. Induction may be swapped but no rule allows you to modify the stock induction to fit if not a bolt on.

[Greg Amy]

Until the vin rule all of these parts were illegal if we use your assumption...
Incorrect. Even when the VIN rule was in effect, you could change matching assemblies to that of another car on the spec line, regardless of the engine code in the VIN. That is a specific allowance in the rules.

What I am referring to is a sentence that specifically disallows creating a combination of parts that was never, ever made available from the factory. Using today's vernacular, you are not allowed to create a "Frankenstein" car.


...if I could find a 1984 Shelby Charger, I would want to use that engine since it is rated at 110hp as opposed to 107...But the rules do not say that if I use the 84 engine, then I need to use an 84 transmission.
Is there a difference between the transaxles? If so, then rules do specifically say you are not allowed to create that combination. You can't just pick one of those rules in lieu of all others, you have to take them both in context and in consideration of all other allowances/restrictions.


I can see both sides of it.
Ding.

And yet, I ask once again: if not what I'm describing, what other plausible way can you interpret (e.g., "divine") that sentence? No one has yet to offer a reasonable alternative suggestion. I'm open to alternate thoughts.

Change the rules to delete that sentence that's been there from the get go (that we've apparently been choosing to ignore). Or follow it, matters not to me. But in the end, if you allow competitors to ignore that rule, you're effectively saying we can pick and choose which rules we want to follow.

GA

[dickita15]

Change the rules to delete that sentence that's been there from the get go (that we've apparently been choosing to ignore). Or follow it, matters not to me. But in the end, if you allow competitors to ignore that rule, you're effectively saying we can pick and choose which rules we want to follow.

GA

Now climb back down here, no one is saying to ignore the rule. I have seen plenty of folks do the motor part mix and match like Jeff was saying and of course that is illegal and I have called people out on it, but saying you cannot create a model is not the same as saying you cannot create a Frankenstein.

[Greg Amy]

...but saying you cannot create a model is not the same as saying you cannot create a Frankenstein.
I'm becoming redundant - and repeating myself, too - but then what does that sentence mean to you?

Short of a reasonable alternate "divination" of that sentence we're at an impasse: I say it means "x", you say it doesn't. But yet no one has offered an alternative to "x" other than "no it doesn't". It's almost like this sentence has been invisible for two decades, and we're suddenly seeing it (which, trust me, has happened to me more than once).

Those words means something; it's up to you to figure it out. Or change it.

GA

[Chip42]

Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all? I've always read this rule to say that, for example, a late model induction could be attached to a early model long block in any year body from the spec line, so long as all parts are from that model and that specline. If the intention is otherwise, than the statement needs to be reworded - updating does not to me, and apparently many others, mean "newer but identical assembly," but "newer, different assembly used in later cars of the same trim and body style on this specline."

I would think that the same would apply to transmissions and bodywork. thoguh I would say in the case of the latter that the full model year's body should be together. I would agree that parts and assemblies specific to a certain body type would be allowed only with that body.

the VIN rule was, to me, a way to keep a car from being converted to a different model - i.e. a civic DX from becoming a Civic Si. I wasn't privy to any of the decisions revolving around removal of this rule, but I assumed it has more to do with the lack of differences when prepared to the ITCS.

[seckerich]

The rule does not say motor, trans, induction must all be updated as a group. It spells them all out individually for a reason would you not agree? Damn, is it winter already? :dead_horse:

[jumbojimbo]

...I'm becoming redundant - and repeating myself, too - but then what does that sentence mean to you? ...GA

The explanation I have seen (probably here) is that the wording was intended to keep people from using coupe bodywork on hatchback cars and other similar "MODEL" or "TYPE" combinations. Hence the workds "MODEL" and "TYPE".

IE, 84-86 Civic DX can use anything from any 84-86 DX civic (IE, headlight assemblies) but you can't start putting HF parts on it (lighter bumper) and you can't use coupe parts on your hatchback (fenders that almost fit).

Not that I know jack, but there are other explanations that make as much sense that it is ok to update/backdate but you can't update/backdate.

[Knestis]

Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all? I've always read this rule to say that, for example, a late model induction could be attached to a early model long block in any year body from the spec line, so long as all parts are from that model and that specline. ...

FWIW, this has always been my understanding. Absent any consensus, and recognizing the inherent contradiction between the statements in that clause...

...I've just ignored the problem. :026:

Seriously though, I've long felt that the ITAC controlled, through spec line listings, what latitude for swapping parts they thought was OK and what was a stretch too far. I took that to heart during deliberations while I was on the committee. I have maybe spent too much time looking at FIA rallying where cars are homologated to a set of specific parts, but I view the spec line as defining "model or type" and the prohibition against creating a one that doesn't exist simply a restatement that updating/backdating can create a "model or type" NOT defined by the spec line is NOT OKAY.
K

[JeffYoung]

Interesting thought. So your way around this is to say the word "model" in this definition:

Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

Means what is on the spec line? But aren't those the same thing, rendering the language surplusage?

Let me try to say that more clearly. We only allow updating and backdating amongst year models on the same spec line. That's sort of the general overarching rule. And if you define "model" in that last sentence to mean anything on the spec line, doesn't that mean that last sentence doesn't add anything?

I am still with Greg that the intent of the rule was to prevent you from creating something the factory didn't offer. On the other hand, it was to allow you to take an 83 model and put on stuff from later cars in order to make your 83 model identical to the newer car.

But I am ambivalent about this. I know we have some examples of Frankencars out there, and now that I think about it adding the slightly lighter coupe bumpers to my car was probably not legal under MY OWN interpretation of this rule, but would be under others, but I do think the rule should reflect what we really want it to mean. And if it is to allow "Frankencars" I think we need to change that last sentence.



FWIW, this has always been my understanding. Absent any consensus, and recognizing the inherent contradiction between the statements in that clause...

...I've just ignored the problem. :026:

Seriously though, I've long felt that the ITAC controlled, through spec line listings, what latitude for swapping parts they thought was OK and what was a stretch too far. I took that to heart during deliberations while I was on the committee. I have maybe spent too much time looking at FIA rallying where cars are homologated to a set of specific parts, but I view the spec line as defining "model or type" and the prohibition against creating a one that doesn't exist simply a restatement that updating/backdating can create a "model or type" NOT defined by the spec line is NOT OKAY.
K

[JoshS]

Since the terms "update" and "backdate" are time-oriented terms, in my opinion, the purpose of the whole allowance is to allow mixing & matching of parts between model years of a single "model/type" ... thus allowing one sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple years) but disallowing a different sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple models/types).

The wording is definitely gray though.

[Chip42]

But I am ambivalent about this. I know we have some examples of Frankencars out there, and now that I think about it adding the slightly lighter coupe bumpers to my car was probably not legal under MY OWN interpretation of this rule, but would be under others, but I do think the rule should reflect what we really want it to mean. And if it is to allow "Frankencars" I think we need to change that last sentence.

I'd say coupe only bumpers are specifically NOT allowed on a drop top due to the explicit limitation on intra-body style UD/BD.

but at this point, if the rule wording were to be "tightened" to reflect Greg's (not to single you out) version, there would suddenly be a lot of illegal cars out there.

to go the other way might open up some unforseen process breakers. this is likely a small number and fixable once the "prime" setup is discovered and measured.

[jumbojimbo]

....it was to allow you to take an 83 model and put on stuff from later cars in order to make your 83 model identical to the newer car...

I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense back in the days of VIN numbers. because if I presented an 83 vin numbered car, didn't it have to be an 83 car? Not an 83 VIN car but built to an 84 car.

Or are you saying that as long as my vin number fell anywhere within the years and models on the spec line I could build it up and present it as any year and model on the spec line? Again, back in VIN days, could you really present a 1983 VIN numbered car and register for an event as an 84?

[JoshS]

I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense back in the days of VIN numbers. because if I presented an 83 vin numbered car, didn't it have to be an 83 car? Not an 83 VIN car but built to an 84 car.

Or are you saying that as long as my vin number fell anywhere within the years and models on the spec line I could build it up and present it as any year and model on the spec line? Again, back in VIN days, could you really present a 1983 VIN numbered car and register for an event as an 84?

The VIN rule stated:

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes.

So it was used to determine the model and type, but not (explicitly) used to determine the year. So in my opinion, yes, you could present a car with an '83 VIN and register for an event as an '84.

[Knestis]

Since the terms "update" and "backdate" are time-oriented terms, in my opinion, the purpose of the whole allowance is to allow mixing & matching of parts between model years of a single "model/type" ... thus allowing one sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple years) but disallowing a different sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple models/types).

The wording is definitely gray though.

This is a different way of saying what I meant. Thanks, J.


...doesn't that mean that last sentence doesn't add anything?

<adamsavage> Well, HERE'S your problem. </adamsavage>

There are plenty of places where the ITCS says, "You can do this - and by the way, you can't do this," simply restating, and sometimes BADLY, what it has already tried to say. We've fixed some of them but yeah, I kind of chocked that up to overclarificationism.

K

[Gary L]

As I believe has already been pointed out, some of this confusion is due to not having a definition of the terms "model" or "type", in the first place. But in some cases, the spec line descriptions are less than completely accurate, adding to the confusion. For instance, my car is spec'd as 142/144 2.0. Problem is, in the US market there were never just 142's or 144's. There was a "142S" sold from 69-72, and a "142E" sold from 71-74, the former with carbs and the latter with FI (of two types, BTW... D-Jet and K-Jet). Our spec line encompasses 1969-74, so all three induction variants are covered. It's probably a poster child for how not to classify a car.

Kirk - overclarificationism? Holy cow!

[quadzjr]

I don't know if it is the poster child but it sure is one of them. I think the 79-93 ITB mustang would be the poster child if there was one.

[JeffYoung]

This thing does turn on the definition of model -- I think you guys are right about that. And that term is undefined.

So I revise my opinion...lol....it sure looks to me like the intent was for Greg to be right, which was you couldn't build something, even using the same stuff off the spec line, that didn't come from the showroom floor as that -- sold on the showroom floor -- defined model.

But the more I think about it, it seems plausible the idea was to prevent there from being a hatchback with coupe brakes, etc....meaning anything on the spec line is fair game since the spec line defines "model."

This is something that we should sort out. It impacts at a lot of cars.

[Rud]

FWIW, here's how the Solo Street Prepared rules talk about update/backdate:




Equipment and/or specifications may be exchanged between different
years and models of a vehicle if (a) the item is standard on the
year/model from which it was taken, and (b) the years/ models are
listed on the same line of Appendix A (Street Prepared Classes). The
updated/backdated part or the part to which it is to be attached may
not be altered, modified, machined or otherwise changed to facilitate
the updating/backdating allowance. Standard factory installation
methods, locations, and confi gurations are allowed. The updating
and/or backdating of engines, transmissions, transaxles, and/or unibodies

must be done as a unit; component parts of these units may
not be interchanged.

-----------------------

When I read the "model/type" sentence in the IT rules, I interpret that to mean that I can't use update/backdate to build myself an '84 Borgward Convertible if no such animal existed.

[Rud]

Here's the Solo definition of "model," while I'm at it.




12.3 MODEL

A group of cars of a given make which have virtually identical bodies
and chassis but are readily distinguished from other models of the same
make by virtue of a major difference in body appearance and/or chassis
design. The names by which the manufacturer designates these
groups have no bearing on this defi nition even though two groups may
be designated identically.


(Before someone gets their knicker in a knot: yes, I realize that the Solo rules have nothing to do with the IT rules; I am posting these snippets as food for thought as people consider interpretation and/or re-writing the IT UD/BD section.)

[jumbojimbo]

Dang, I agree with Jeff Young twice in one day on two different boards. Creepy.

Jeff, think about this for your car, by Greg's definition (year matters) is there any way your car could ever be legal? Even off the showroom floor?

How can you have any idea which parts actually belong on your car from year to year? Even the manufacturer didn't know what parts they were putting on it from day to day. I know the TR7 isn't as bad as the TR6, but you know they changed parts and assemblies mid-year, some documented, some not. Some intentionally, some just because they had extras or ran out of others.

[lateapex911]

So, as it stands, you can take a 1989 Bumblebee Sprint, and if all are on the same spec line (which covers the 87 to 91s), you can use the 88 transmission which has better ratios, the 90 injection system which made better midreange torque and power, and the 91 hood and bumper which were lighter and more aero.

Those parts come from Bumplebee Sprint, GTs, STs and RTs.
But none were found on the same car, ever.

To me, that's making a model, as I see the model as being defined by the last two letters. heck the dealer charged more for the GTs than it did for the GLs....and the equipment was different. That is, to my eye, a "model"

But, yea the ITAC and the CRB before it, has considered that rule differently and classed accordingly.

As it stands, it's all about if they got it right at the start with the classing

[Eagle7]

So, as it stands, you can take a 1989 Bumblebee Sprint, and if all are on the same spec line (which covers the 87 to 91s), you can use the 88 transmission which has better ratios, the 90 injection system which made better midreange torque and power, and the 91 hood and bumper which were lighter and more aero.
None of which are used to set the weight of the car, so relative to the classification process, there is no performance advantage.

[quadzjr]

correct none are used during classing. The reason why is that during classing they only know stock hp, once you start swaping injection that changes the baseline in which they have to work with. Thusly it will be classed wrong, or the ITAC woudl have to know about this combination to determine the % gain expected.

Also having a lighter body work and a better tansmission is a performance gain, however that is beyond the current process.

[JeffYoung]

See what happens when you actually pay attention to what I'm saying rather than scream "f#$%ing douchebag?" lol....

TR7s/8s didn't really change that much, at least not like a 6. Only major change was the switchover from the 4 speed and Austin Marine rear end to the 5 speed and SD1 rear end (on the 7). Like mentioned above, the coupe bumpers are lighter than the converts.

For the 8, you got slightly bigger rotors, callipers, battery in the trunk, new subframe and V8. Everything else the same.

The only hard things to track down are cam specs really, so I run the most conservative of the "possible" cams to be safe. There is a later "fuel injection" cam that came on the Rover SD1s that PROBABLY came in my car in 81, but I've not confirmed it and that's really the only hard part to pin down on a yearly basis.

But I'm not sure Greg is saying that the model designation applies by year. He's saying something more basic that I agree with, still. And that is you can't use update/backdate to create something that was never available on the showroom floor.

At the same time, if the majority of membership thinks the rule should be interpreted differently, I think it's a grey enough area that we follow membership's wishes on it.


Dang, I agree with Jeff Young twice in one day on two different boards. Creepy.

Jeff, think about this for your car, by Greg's definition (year matters) is there any way your car could ever be legal? Even off the showroom floor?

How can you have any idea which parts actually belong on your car from year to year? Even the manufacturer didn't know what parts they were putting on it from day to day. I know the TR7 isn't as bad as the TR6, but you know they changed parts and assemblies mid-year, some documented, some not. Some intentionally, some just because they had extras or ran out of others.

[seckerich]

None of which are used to set the weight of the car, so relative to the classification process, there is no performance advantage.

And since we all know what car is referred to lets clear it up. All the really cool stuff for the second gen RX7 came out on ONE CAR (Model) the GTUs and the legal gear ratios are listed in the ITCS so that is a red herring. It was the best of everything and delivered that way from the factory. It was also used as the bogey for ITS power to weight so it is classed with the highest level build already.

Other models may vary, consult your manufacturer for details.:p

[Chip42]

if you put a 100% GTU equivalent RX7 together with a single exception (say a steel hood) would that car be legal?

if not then the UD/BD rule is overly restrictive in my mind and needs to be seriously rethaught.

this reading would make the following illegal as I undertsand it:
a later set of gears, replaced as a complete transmission asssebly, used in an older body where minor changes happened over the model run (79 RX7)

use of updated front brakes that accompanied a revised rear suspension geometry that DOES NOT bolt on to the earlier car and thus cannot be updated, though the revised brakes (rotor, caliper bracket, caliper - which is just a wider verison of the original to accomodate the wider rotor) DO bolt on to the earlier cars without other modifications and these are the brakes specified on the specline. (AW11 MR2)

others abound, I am sure.

[Rud]

So, as it stands, you can take a 1989 Bumblebee Sprint, and if all are on the same spec line (which covers the 87 to 91s), you can use the 88 transmission which has better ratios, the 90 injection system which made better midreange torque and power, and the 91 hood and bumper which were lighter and more aero.

Those parts come from Bumplebee Sprint, GTs, STs and RTs.
But none were found on the same car, ever.

To me, that's making a model, as I see the model as being defined by the last two letters. heck the dealer charged more for the GTs than it did for the GLs....and the equipment was different. That is, to my eye, a "model"

It looks to me like you're defining "model" as "trim line," which somewhat makes sense, since a lot of cars in IT are classed by trim line rather than model (Si/non-Si Civics, for example). However, your definition would basically eliminate the update/backdate allowance, though, wouldn't it?

It seems to me (as an outsider, looking to eventually get into the category), that adopting the Solo wording would be unambiguous: "Frankenstein" cars are explicitly legal, as long as the pieces come off cars in the same spec line and don't require modification to fit.

[dickita15]

I have been thinking about Greg’s questions about the purpose of the model/type line in the rules and its original intent and I wonder if back in the day spec lines might have more variety within them. I think now update backdate is very much considered when deciding what goes on one spec line but it is possible that was not the case long ago and far away.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you took an S5 RX7 and put S4 bumpers on it, you didn't create a model, you just BD'd legally. You can do that with any damn 'assembly' you choose, per the ITCS.

Make: Mazda
Model: RX7
Trim/Package: GTUs

[Chip42]

If you took an S5 RX7 and put S4 bumpers on it, you didn't create a model, you just BD'd legally. You can do that with any damn 'assembly' you choose, per the ITCS.

Make: Mazda
Model: RX7
Trim/Package: GTUs

I'd agree. but apparently others would not. A rule that is understood so differently to so many intelligent, reasonable people is a rule that needs to be rewritten or clarified with governing definitions. we can all sit here and say what we think or "know" or believe or feel that it means, but it comes down to interpretation and only about 5% of the IT paddock of any given race is ON this forum (at best) so it won't do any good for us to do so even if we miracle ourselves a consensus. this needs to be an ITAC/CRB request.

oh look, letter #5434


9.1.3.C, Paragraph 2:
"To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdatingof components is only permitted within cars of the same make,model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), andengine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a completeassembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system,differential/axle housing). No interchange of parts between assembliesis permitted, and all parts of an assembly shall be as originally producedfor that assembly (such parts may, however, be coated, painted orplated). Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type ofcar by updating or backdating assemblies. Parts or assemblies which themanufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particularmodel which supersede or replace original parts or assemblies arepermitted. Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must besupplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numberslisted on that particular model’s specification line."

has been variously interpreted and needs clarification. Assemblies, as defined, are at times updated through a model run on the same make/model/body type/engine size from a given specline, and the use of such an assembly with other assemblies could result in a configuration never offered for sale.

the question is if this comingled "best of the breed" is permitted assuming it satisfies all of the requirements for make/model/body type/engine size from a given specline, or if such a combination results in the "creation of a model or type of car", or where the line is between these readings.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd agree. but apparently others would not. A rule that is understood so differently to so many intelligent, reasonable people is a rule that needs to be rewritten or clarified with governing definitions. we can all sit here and say what we think or "know" or believe or feel that it means, but it comes down to interpretation and only about 5% of the IT paddock of any given race is ON this forum (at best) so it won't do any good for us to do so even if we miracle ourselves a consensus. this needs to be an ITAC/CRB request.

oh look, letter #5434

I disagree. If you look at the IT paddocks across the country, I'd say they agree with the common interpretation.

It's not about people cheating to make their cars faster, it's about legally interchanging parts within their spec line.

Under this intorturtation, all UD/BD is illegal because NO car that wasn't as delivered for it's model year or 100% converted to another trim level wouldn't meet the thought process... Actually rendering the rule moot, no?

If there is some combination of parts that EXCEED the IT-performance envelope of the top car on the spec line, then the cars need to be on separate spec lines.

The RX7 is a great example of a spec line that 'works' but can be both confusing AND could easily be broken out into 2 lines (IT'S and ITA).

[Chip42]

Under this intorturtation, all UD/BD is illegal because NO car that wasn't as delivered for it's model year or 100% converted to another trim level wouldn't meet the thought process... Actually rendering the rule moot, no?

I'm on record agreeing with that:


Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all?

The letter is in response to some of the seasoned vets DISAGREEING with the common interpretation - and I think that the rule needs to be tightened up to clarify the changing paradigm to the vets, or to clarify the intent to the masses who read it as we do.

I suspect, and hope, that the interpretation will open, not tighten, with the caveat that some speclines will need to break apart. how many depends on where the line between UD/BD and a new model is determined to be.

[Knestis]

What Andy said.

The ITAC can completely control the make/model-level implications by the judicious use of spec lines. No need to go all clarificationy on the situation.

K

[Chip42]

What Andy said.

The ITAC can completely control the make/model-level implications by the judicious use of spec lines. No need to go all clarificationy on the situation.

K

if it is clarified then it's easier to book keep in the long run, as most speclines will not be affected. a sof right now we have significant disagreement between a number of "go to" people. yeah, the bulk of memeber ship I know of read it as Andy and myself, but a rule that isn't clear should be fixed. it can only help.