Dumb bodyshell rule

[Knestis]

And Greg gets to the heart of the matter - again. I'm reminded of a guy in Seattle who found a set of original number plates from a Lotus 47 in the desk drawer of his shop...

This was during the psycho vintage racing days of the late '80s, when anything with provenance was going for out-of-sight prices. Seems that he had worked on (or raced himself?) this particular 47 back when it was new. The 47 was the race-special version of the Europa, with lots of goodies, and they had cheated it into a stock road racing class by putting plain-Jane Europa plates on it.

It ended its racing career in a big wrech at Seattle International Raceay (now Pacific Raceways), in which it was so damaged (it burned, I believe) that its carcass was simply pushed over the bank on the backside, down toward the railroad track.

Anyway, over beers one evening, the subject of this car - and how valuable it would have been if it had survived - came up. He reached into his desk and said (in essence), "You mean this car?"

Since one can buy every single part for pretty much any Lotus ever made, that's precisely what they did. Not a single additional piece of the original "car," beyond those plates, survived but to this day, someone has "Lotus 47 XXXXXX" and is loving it. I understand that they did go prospecting for the wreck and found some scrap metal, but none of it made it into the final build.

We DON'T CARE about provenance. We just care whether or not a car adheres to the specifications it's supposed to.

K

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I like your logic. I see it as a similar situation as to how people got around the threaded-body shock rule, prior to its change. You take a set of Penskes and have the threads turned off. You now have a non-threaded body shock, that meets the letter of the rules.

Lets look at the VIN# rule again. As I said earlier, I'm legall allowed to remove one of the two legal VIN# designations on a Rabbit (see camber plate reference). But I still have to maintain those 2 VIN# plates/stampings, to be compliant w/ the VIN# rule. Am I not allowed to take advantage of the camber plate rule, due to the location of the VIN# stamping? Or, can I simply relocate that VIN# stamping to some other place in the car?

Discuss.

To me, I see it as requiring additional expenditure, for no rational reason. I have to spend more money to find an actual Rabbit GTI shell, as opposed to being able to use any Rabbit shell, and putting the allowed GTI components on it. This is a case where the only thing that differentiates a Rabbit from a Rabbit GTI, are bolt-on components.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 11:42 AM
...the issue is one where it involves cars that CAN gain advantages.

[snapback]64177[/snapback]

And there's the rub. One can block this idea in perpetuity if one played the "what if" card and made us all fraidy-scared of what someone "could" do. We're all worried that someone will find a loophole; our goal should be to make sure that any change in the rule does not change the philosophy to that possibilty.

Show me examples of where Kirk's suggestion won't work or will open the philosophy to that possibility. Absent that evidence, I can see no barrier to proceeding. Otherwise I'm gonna spend a lot of time rebuilding that NX2000.

As far as you know.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 1 2005, 12:13 PM
And there's the rub. One can block this idea in perpetuity if one played the "what if" card and made us all fraidy-scared of what someone "could" do. We're all worried that someone will find a loophole; our goal should be to make sure that any change in the rule does not change the philosophy to that possibilty.

Show me examples of where Kirk's suggestion won't work or will open the philosophy to that possibility. Absent that evidence, I can see no barrier to proceeding. Otherwise I'm gonna spend a lot of time rebuilding that NX2000.

As far as you know.

GA

[snapback]64182[/snapback]

Agreed. I will let the experts here on the board who are familiar with their own chassis and situations to object with specifics. If someone knows of how they would be at a disadvantage if this rule were modified, speak up. If this is just blind fear, then it would seem to make sense.

I have 3 NX2000 chassis' here without T-Tops to sell you Mr. Amy, so we all know your car will be legal!

AB

[Banzai240]

So... I was thinking about this an how it could impact my current situation...

Essentially, my 240SX is a 1996 chassis... HOWEVER, when I purchased the car, it had all 1997-98 bodywork on it, which consists of the two front fenders, hood, and nose piece/headlights, etc... I'll have to go look, but I'm not sure my car even has vin-tags on it, or whether they match, because this was a "dollar car" from Nissan that was campaigned by a team in California in the World Challenge series during the late 90s...

Since the '95-98 cars are all listed on the same spec line, and updating/backdating are legal so long as it's done as an "assembly"... Wouldn't the replacement of the entire front bodywork assembly constitute an update/backdate under the rules? If so, then the vin-tag rule is now in conflict with the ITCS update/backdate rule, and the ITCS takes precedence, so I would have to say that I'm legal...

Any thoughts? I'm kind of assuming that this is the type of thing we are talking about here...

In the case of the M3 chassis under a 325... Since the M3 chassis isn't listed in the specs, it would not be a legal update/backdate...

[Greg Amy]

...this was a "dollar car" from Nissan that was campaigned by a team in California in the World Challenge...

It was a similar issue that we faced earlier this year. The manufaturers intentionally obliterate the VINs on these cars (they're usually worn out press or delivery-damaged cars) so that they will never be used on the street. Your resolution would be to find an appropriate car in the ASF and get those tags (typically door and dash, but I'd suggest cutting out the firewall one too just in case).

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 03:18 PM
Since the '95-98 cars are all listed on the same spec line, and updating/backdating are legal so long as it's done as an "assembly"... Wouldn't the replacement of the entire front bodywork assembly constitute an update/backdate under the rules?

I would say "yes." However, you are technically in violation of the ITCS since you do (may) not have the required VINs (see above for solution).

Since the M3 chassis isn't listed in the specs, it would not be a legal update/backdate...

Correct. It's illegally-installed equipment, whether by action or inaction, and this proposal would not change that. - GA

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by turboICE@Nov 1 2005, 11:44 AM
........ Aren't those the correct answers to the idea behind IT rules?

[snapback]64178[/snapback]

\

Yes.

[Tyson]

kirk et al,

what if i were to tell you that the HF and Si chassis are NOT the same?

for example,

rear suspension subframes are different part numbers.



#33

1990 Si = 65750-SH2-A01ZZ CROSSMEMBER, RR. FLOOR $132.30 $31.03
1990 HF = 65750-SH2-310ZZ CROSSMEMBER, RR. FLOOR $139.58 $32.74

whats the difference? i dont know. but its clearly called out as a different part number.

can it be switched? itd have to welded.

so how far does one consitute the "same" chassis?


ok, heres another example.

#26 (right side frame)
1990 Si = 65610-SH2-A33ZZ FRAME, R. RR. $258.40 $60.67
1990 HF = 65610-SH2-A93ZZ FRAME, R. RR. $258.40 $60.67

#17 floor pan
1990 Si = 65100-SH2-A51ZZ FLOOR, FR. $460.40 $108.00
1990 HF = 65100-SH2-A91ZZ FLOOR, FR. $460.40 $108.00

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tyson@Nov 1 2005, 06:21 PM
kirk et al,

what if i were to tell you that the HF and Si chassis are NOT the same?

[snapback]64229[/snapback]

This is the concern for me. I know and understand what everyone has said here. But, there are over 300 lines in the ITCS. It's absolutely impossible to know everything about all these cars (multiple cars/years on many lines).

Greg is right that you can play "what if," but.... What if the rule goes through and someone finds an advantage in a particular model chassis for building up to a car in a different class? We'll look like idiots if to build the best car you have to get a chassis from one car and other parts from another. Can this or will this happen? I have NO idea. Maybe I'm Chicken Little worrying about the sky falling, but that worry is out there for me.

[Greg Amy]

Tyson, I think it would be important to know what those differences are. If it were a difference structure, then I suggest it would be illegal under our proposal. However, if the difference something as simple as a clip or hole for trim, I suggest that while it may be "technically" illegal, it's certainly within the spirit of the rules. I do recognize this can become a slippery slope.

The extreme example mentioned earlier was the 325 and M3: the M3 had significant stiffening in the chassis that the 325 did not get, thus, not legal under the proposal. Conversely, the chassis of the ITB 1984 Rabbit GTi and the 1984 Rabbit Diesel LS are identical (well, except for the crappy colors that the diesel typically came in...)

The burden of proof is on the competitor, and we would need to rely on the community within the competitors to self-police these things, just as we do now (e.g., it's expected the E36 community would put the nix on someone running the stiffer M3 chassis in ITS.)

Greg

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 1 2005, 09:40 PM

The burden of proof is on the competitor, and we would need to rely on the community within the competitors to self-police these things, just as we do now (e.g., it's expected the E36 community would put the nix on someone running the stiffer M3 chassis in ITS.)

[snapback]64245[/snapback]

Just to go to the extreme here (really to test thinking), by saying the burden of proof is on the competitor are you saying someone could protest a shell and the competitor would have to prove what they have is legal? Actually, I'm sure that's NOT what you are saying, but with the above wording, how can this be avoided?

[Tyson]

are you guys talking about a change across the board?

or are you trying to argue specific models to allow chassis interchanging?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Tyson@Nov 1 2005, 11:21 PM
kirk et al, ... what if i were to tell you that the HF and Si chassis are NOT the same? ...

Easy - the HF part wouldn't be legal on the Si, and vice-versa.

Tyson - the rule change request was for the entire ITCS. I would never try to get specific allowances for individual cars. That is the SLIPPERIEST of slopes, to my mind.

I know from firsthand experience that a MkI diesel Golf and GTI chassis are NOT identical: The diesel car has a mounting hole in the firewall for a different fuel filter. That's the kind of thing Greg is describing. Shopping for a new hood for Pablo's rebuild, I learned that there are "early" ones and "late" ones, with different part numbers. The difference is the shape of the windshield squirter holes. Even being a rules NERD, I have a terribly difficult time feeling like that makes a difference, when we drill holes in body panels to run wires, mount transponders, or whatever all the time.

Geo - right or wrong, I think that in practice the burden of proof is already on the competitor, to a greater or lesser degree. That's why the FSM requirement rule was created.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 1 2005, 10:20 PM

Geo - right or wrong, I think that in practice the burden of proof is already on the competitor, to a greater or lesser degree. That's why the FSM requirement rule was created.

[snapback]64250[/snapback]

Yes. Not to be a pest though, but I believe the VIN requirement satisfies the burden of proof that the chassis is proper. Of course, as Greg has shown, one can manipulate this scenario, but people are always finding ways to circumvent the rules. The question is, do we want to make it easier?

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 1 2005, 08:53 PM
Yes. Not to be a pest though, but I believe the VIN requirement satisfies the burden of proof that the chassis is proper. Of course, as Greg has shown, one can manipulate this scenario, but people are always finding ways to circumvent the rules. The question is, do we want to make it easier?

[snapback]64254[/snapback]

I agree with Mr. Roffe, I might as well come out with what's happened over the past week. I'm purchasing a Z3 to race it's already got a cage in it and was going to be prepped for a 2.8l for World Cup Challenge. The guy selling me the car, and I both thought it was a 1.9l with 2.8l finders. The difference being .75" of track and wider more 930 like finders. Well I saw the VIN and grew concerned all indications were that it actually was a 2.8l car. Then I ran the VIN in Carfax, no history which isn't suprising for a pre-production car the 38th 2.8l Z3 by the VIN sequence, but Carfax even says it's a 2.8l. Removing the VIN requirement, I could put a 1.9 in it and narrow finders, but there might be something else about the car that gives me an edge. Even with the VIN requirement removed say I win a race, a very remote possibility my first couple of seasons, but then get protested because one of my competitors knows it was converted from a 2.8l. Now it's up to me to prove that the only differeces were parts that I replaced or mounting holes somewhere

I'd rather not go through that or be a party to something so questionable. I'd rather wait untill the Uber-IT class is defined to race it. I can't say how attractive that conveting to a 4 cylinder is as I'd rather race the M44, I want a momentun car, but because of the dark cloud that would hang over me if I did, I'd rather live without. So Kirk, while I understand why you'd propose this change and I myself had hope for it, in the end it's one of the key factors that keeps every one honest and extraordinary measures have to be taken to circumvent it.

James

[Dave Zaslow]

James,

If you stripped the chassis down to a bare shell is there a difference?

If the track is wider, and it's not all in the wheel/tire size, then there are a lot of other bits that are different between the two cars. I don't think this discussion is saying that just swapping engines will make a legal car. What I think it is saying is that if two models share the same bare chassis, you could take all of the 1.9 parts and volt them to the 2.8 shell to creat a 1.9 car. If thicker sheetmetal is osed for cross braces or other panels it would be your duty to change them, if possible. If not possible then you could not swap the shells.

Certainly it is not unusual to have the 'hotter' model have additional stiffening to handle the added dynamic loading. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes it is virtually impossible to detect without a sawzall. There are probably many of these Invisible Technology cars out there now. Given that we put roll cages that stiffen the car beyond any manufacturers design, is this a meaningful difference? Most of the time we are looking for the lighter part from another model to reduce weight.

Perhaps we need to keep the VIN tags attached to the chassis to establish the basis of the shells. After that it would be the 'Competitors Parts Police' (ourselves) that would have to keep things equitable.

Dave Z

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 2 2005, 01:51 AM
I agree with Mr. Roffe, I might as well come out with what's happened over the past week. I'm purchasing a Z3 to race it's already got a cage in it and was going to be prepped for a 2.8l for World Cup Challenge. The guy selling me the car, and I both thought it was a 1.9l with 2.8l finders. The difference being .75" of track and wider more 930 like finders. Well I saw the VIN and grew concerned all indications were that it actually was a 2.8l car. Then I ran the VIN in Carfax, no history which isn't suprising for a pre-production car the 38th 2.8l Z3 by the VIN sequence, but Carfax even says it's a 2.8l. Removing the VIN requirement, I could put a 1.9 in it and narrow finders, but there might be something else about the car that gives me an edge. Even with the VIN requirement removed say I win a race, a very remote possibility my first couple of seasons, but then get protested because one of my competitors knows it was converted from a 2.8l. Now it's up to me to prove that the only differeces were parts that I replaced or mounting holes somewhere

I'd rather not go through that or be a party to something so questionable. I'd rather wait untill the Uber-IT class is defined to race it. I can't say how attractive that conveting to a 4 cylinder is as I'd rather race the M44, I want a momentun car, but because of the dark cloud that would hang over me if I did, I'd rather live without. So Kirk, while I understand why you'd propose this change and I myself had hope for it, in the end it's one of the key factors that keeps every one honest and extraordinary measures have to be taken to circumvent it.

James

[snapback]64258[/snapback]

[Renaultfool]

For the most part you guys are making more sense than I have seen on this site for quite a while.

We are racing in IT because it is simple and cheap. If I want to rebuild my engine every weekend I would switch to GT or Production.
This is an entry level class. I don't believe that any of the drivers in this class could tell from the drivers seat if he had a cross brace that was .001 thinner or not. Our skill level is not that high, nor do our DOT tires connect up with the road in such a way that it would make any difference. Dave is right, torsional rigidity is primarly determined by the allowable cage we put in, if we do it right.
Do any of you think that they took torsional rigidy into account when they threw the cars into whatever IT bucket your car happens to be classed? No way, it was luck of the draw.
We need to modify the rules to make our lives simpler. Leave the basic drive train, engine/tranny internal componants, the same. The weight remains the same. Everything that defines what the car is for it's class remains the same.
The exact shell is not important as long as the total car weight and shape is the same.

Using the BMW argument as an example, does it really make sense to any of you to require these cars to maintain an unreinforced rear cross member that will fail under racing use, endangering that driver, or you? Do you need to wait for his car to break so that you can win? That isn't racing.

Here is another one. Do you need to wait for your competitor's 10" solid disk brake rotor to melt and his brakes fail, endangering his and your life so that you can win? Or does he have to buy $300 pads and replace his rotors every weekend so that his brakes won't fail during our short 30 minute racing session. Sure he could bolt on a vented 10" rotor that would have the same mechanical advantage in braking, and last a whole season using cheap NAPA pads, but then you would have to drive harder, right?
You see, most of the arguments against change that I see on this site are based on keeping the advantage your car happens to have now due to the current rules and choices of class.

We should specify the body shape, by model, drive train by model and size, internal drive train componants, brake size, wheel size, weight, and have at it. Nothing else really has that much effect, other than to raise costs and make it harder for someone else, if your chosen car has the lucky draw this season.

The day that we worry about windshield bottles and the like are long gone. I cannot find a faster wiring harness, nor can you.

I agree that it is about time we change some of the rediculous, restrictive, costly rules in an entry level class, to make it simpler and cheaper to participate. This discussion is on the right track. Keep thinking logically and we will get there.
Renaultfool

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 1 2005, 11:53 PM
Yes. Not to be a pest though, but I believe the VIN requirement satisfies the burden of proof that the chassis is proper. Of course, as Greg has shown, one can manipulate this scenario, but people are always finding ways to circumvent the rules. The question is, do we want to make it easier?

[snapback]64254[/snapback]

I have an old Civic begging to go IT racing, but it's a Hondamatic and the VIN says so.

[OTLimit]

Originally posted by Renaultfool@Nov 2 2005, 08:49 AM
Using the BMW argument as an example, does it really make sense to any of you to require these cars to maintain an unreinforced rear cross member that will fail under racing use, endangering that driver, or you? Do you need to wait for his car to break so that you can win? That isn't racing.

Here is another one. Do you need to wait for your competitor's 10" solid disk brake rotor to melt and his brakes fail, endangering his and your life so that you can win? Or does he have to buy $300 pads and replace his rotors every weekend so that his brakes won't fail during our short 30 minute racing session. Sure he could bolt on a vented 10" rotor that would have the same mechanical advantage in braking, and last a whole season using cheap NAPA pads, but then you would have to drive harder, right?

[snapback]64290[/snapback]

Somehow I knew someone would throw out the old safety argument. How many times do we have to discuss not driving over the limitations of your car?

Back to the topic at hand....

[wrankin]

Originally posted by oanglade@Nov 2 2005, 03:44 PM
I have an old Civic begging to go IT racing, but it's a Hondamatic and the VIN says so.

[snapback]64301[/snapback]

On a similar note - are there any instances where there are known chassis/tub differences between cars listed on the same line of the ITCS? I think someone hinted earlier that there are cars where this is the case. Given that fact, it would provide precedence for allowing these one-off chassis (models not allowed in the ITCS) to be used as a valid "replacement assembly".


I really hope that this change gets implemented. I have a *cough* personal *cough* interest in it. If it doesn't happen, then I probably will never have a car to race in IT.