Dumb bodyshell rule

[turboICE]

Originally posted by wrankin@Nov 2 2005, 04:17 PM
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?

[snapback]64340[/snapback]

Not sure - though I think if the wheelbase or track is differnent they definitely end up on differing lines.

As similar as the S13 & S14 ITS lines are the chasis are on seperate lines.

[Tom Donnelly]

How would this handle the Datsun 240z for example. The 240/260/280's are all on separate lines. And there are big differences in the 1970 - 1973 240z bodyshells. There's a weight savings in the early 240's but go find one. The 280's are heavier but slightly more prevalent. Why not allow any shell?

Tom

[Knestis]

Any car from a given spec line would still be required to have a body shell from a car on that spec line - or an identical one from another spec line.

The intent is to make it easier/less expensive to build cars that are already legal to make. I for one don't want to be associated with any rule change that makes it possible to actually build a currently eligible car with better pieces than are currently allowed. It's bad enough trying to find an aluminum hood for one's RX7 (or whatever). The existance of preferable unibodies would be a big leap in the wrong direction, I think.

K

[Tom Donnelly]

The intent wasn't to piece together a better car, all three types have different advantages and disadvantages. Like, if you build a 240 from a 280 shell, you'd have a heavier vehicle. I was looking at the expense of finding a sound 240 shell as they are getting harder and harder to find. And if you started replacing all the rusted panels, you'd be in territory similar to what Greg was describing. A pieced together "frankenstein" with the right VIN.

Tom

[Tyson]

so then, its up to the competitor (owner) to prove the chassis is the same. how?

and how does a fellow competitor challenge that the chassis are NOT the same?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis+Nov 2 2005, 04:45 PM-->

The intent is to make it easier/less expensive to build cars that are already legal to make. [/b]

Less expensive than what? A fully prepped E36 perhaps? OK, hold that response for a second....

I have a couple of points to consider.

1) The shell is probably the cheapest component of any build. I thought I got a honkin' deal on my 944 (and I did), but in the end it will won't make a noticeable change in my overall cost of building my car.

2) Back to cheaper than what.... Some shells will cost more than others anyway. So as some become more rare than their more pedestrian counterparts, does this really make a difference in the grand scheme of things? I'm somewhat at a loss to believe this.

Perhaps we could talk about shells that are almost impossible to find. Well, IMHO when they can no longer be found or parts can no longer be sourced, they should be put out to the IT pasture. It's truly a natural death.

Now, we can address Greg's example of building a car by cutting up two shells and rewelding them back to some Frankenstein that is impossible to tell it's illegal. Sure, this is certainly possible. But I'm sure even Greg will admit that before he spent that much time (or $$$ to his mechanic) to do this, he'd just save time and find an appopriate shell. Most of us would.

Again, I admit I may be Chicken Little expecting the sky to fall, but I'm having a hard time finding the argument compelling. My honest opinion, whether people agree or disagree and I'm only one voice on a vocal ITAC so I won't get the last word by any stretch.

<!--QuoteBegin-Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 04:45 PM
The existance of preferable unibodies would be a big leap in the wrong direction, I think.

Agreed. Will or can this happen? I don&#39;t think any of us have that well calibrated a crystal ball.

[Knestis]

I totally agree with your thesis about the cost of a shell vaporizing during the construction process, George. I&#39;m thinking more about people who have an investment in a "track car," or something built to a different organization&#39;s rules - they can transition to IT without having to take a huge hit starting over. Think too about the possibility of changing IT classes with the same shell, if one desires.

This won&#39;t be the rule change that revolutionizes the category but I contend that it has a good cost/benefit ratio - if one shares my sense that all of the situations cited as reasons for not doing it are already happening under the current rule. The change would make it easier to do the right thing without making it substantially easier to do the wrong thing, I think...

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 4 2005, 01:57 PM
I totally agree with your thesis about the cost of a shell vaporizing during the construction process, George. I&#39;m thinking more about people who have an investment in a "track car," or something built to a different organization&#39;s rules - they can transition to IT without having to take a huge hit starting over. Think too about the possibility of changing IT classes with the same shell, if one desires.

Good point. Certainly one worth considering.

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 4 2005, 01:57 PM
This won&#39;t be the rule change that revolutionizes the category but I contend that it has a good cost/benefit ratio - if one shares my sense that all of the situations cited as reasons for not doing it are already happening under the current rule. The change would make it easier to do the right thing without making it substantially easier to do the wrong thing, I think...

Yes! If they repeal the speed limits I&#39;ll never do the wrong thing again. :P

OK, I&#39;m officially being a smarty pants.

[944-spec#94]

well here is an odd wrinkle.

the 944 vs 944S.

Both are classed in ITS. There are a number of 944 cars built and racings.


Along comes the 944S into the class.

What is the difference. Well 8v vs 16v head, some fuel injectoion parts and some tranny ratios.

It would see very nice to be able to buy a 944S Motor & tranny and stuff it into you currnetly build 944 and race it as an S.

Seems very cool right... Funny thing is for 87 & 88 there is no difference in VIN numbers at all. So you can pull this off for 87 & 88 cars. What about the 86 that is the same, but an 86?

Or how about that 84 chassis which is the same except for the differnet dash?

[Bill Miller]

Well,

If there&#39;s no indicator in the VIN# that differentiates an &#39;87-&#39;88 944 from an &#39;87-&#39;88 944S, but all means, you can build either chassis, to either spec (per the rules). It&#39;s no different than being able to take an &#39;87-&#39;89 VW Golf (or Jetta) and build either an ITB 8v car, or an ITA 16v car out of it, regardless of how it came off the line, as there is no way (by the VIN#) to tell them apart, or tell what the original configuration was.

You cannot however, take an &#39;85 Golf, and build an ITA 16V car out of it, because there were no 16V Golfs produced in &#39;85 (at least for the US market, not sure about the rest of the world). Same would hold for the early 944 cars. Build an ITS 944 out of them, but not an ITS 944S.

[Knestis]

Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

[lateapex911]

We&#39;d be right where we are now...trying to understand clearly the differences and crawling under it measuring sheet metal thickness or finding extra stampings for reinforcement come protest time....

If protest time ever came.....

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 8 2005, 11:27 PM
Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

[snapback]64973[/snapback]

I&#39;m 99.99% sure they are exactly the same. I&#39;m nearly 100% certain the FSM does not list a separate chassis for the S.

Since there is no differentiation in the VIN and no differnece in the chassis, any 944 of the appropriate year could be built to 944S specs.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 9 2005, 12:27 AM
Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

[snapback]64973[/snapback]

It would leave it as an anomoly. Look at the ITB A2 VW example. You can take an &#39;85 4-dr Golf, and throw all the GTI bits on it, and run it as a legal car, because all the models between &#39;85 and &#39;92 are listed on the same spec line. And, by the letter of the rules, you could take an &#39;87-&#39;89 4-dr Golf, and build an ITA 16v car w/ it. Nothing in the VIN# that differentiates the cars. You&#39;d have to pull out docs that showed that a 4-dr never came w/ a 16v. BUT, you sure couldn&#39;t tell the cars apart by the VIN#.


-DISCLAIMER- The above example is purely for illustration purposes.

[Knestis]

by the letter of the rules, you could take an &#39;87-&#39;89 4-dr Golf, and build an ITA 16v car w/ it.

Ooh - I don&#39;t think so. The VIN is a clue or evidence - what we evaluator geeks call an indicator - of the specifications of a car, not in and of itself the aspect that defines legality. I don&#39;t think a 4-dr 16v Golf would be legal, just because it had the right numbers, if it didn&#39;t actually adhere to the published specifications for the car on that spec line - all of which had 2 doors in this example.

This is actually a great example of my point, re: VIN numbers and legality.

Remember, I said "pretend" we find out that the 944 and S are different, despite having the same VIN code on the subject...?

I THINK that the rules NERD answer says that, if the 944 has a different (say) rear suspension pick-up stamping than that on the S - which appears on a different spec line - then it would not be legal to use an S stamping on a plain 944, or vice-versa. Ditto for the Golf example. There were never any 4-door 16v&#39;s so it&#39;s not legal to race one. This regardless of the VIN number&#39;s inability to differentiate 944 from S, or 8v from 16v. Right?

Are we racing "cars" as defined by a set of physical attributes - sort of the current crux of matters vis-a-vis the ITAC&#39;s current philosophy on weights and classing - or are we racing VIN plates? It&#39;s not completely academic...

K

[Bill Miller]

Actually Kirk, to quote the ITCS: empahsis added

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

You&#39;re a language and semantics guy, determine is a tad stronger than indicate.


Again, I said by the letter of the rules, you could do this. I don&#39;t think it would stand up.

Interestingly enough, a few paragraphs up from that, it says:

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

That clause would seem to preclude creating the afore mentioned 4-dr GTI (8v ITB car), as they were not offered in all the years between &#39;85 and &#39;92. At one point in time, I believe it was &#39;87-&#39;88, a Golf GT model was offered, as a 4-dr, that had essentially all the 8v GTI bits on it, but not in &#39;85 or &#39;86. This was done at the time of the introduction of the 16v cars, and the &#39;GTI&#39; badge was reserved for them.

However, I don&#39;t think you would find many (any?) that would argue that you couldn&#39;t build an &#39;85 or &#39;86 4-dr Golf, to the specs listed in the ITCS (e.g. 10.5:1 motor, 4-wheel discs, close-ratio box, etc.)

Gotta admit, these academic excercises can be fun! :P

[Knestis]

Touche - I concede the point. Even more support for removing the clauses you cite, since in this instance they clearly appear to create a conflict internal to the ITCS.

K

[Ron Earp]

Seems there are very few cars that this issue actually affects. A VW, one or two Honduhs and the issues are well known - number of doors etc. Seems leaving it on a case by case or region by region basis is best. Serious rules nerd issue; seems most don&#39;t care if you "make" your ITA Civic from a HF car as long as all the right bits are there.

[944-spec#94]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 8 2005, 09:27 PM
Okay - riddle me this: What IF the chassis are not the same on a 944 and a 944S? I don&#39;t know but pretend that we find out that they are NOT the same, and that there&#39;s no differentiation in the VIN to tell which is which. Where would that leave this example?

K

[snapback]64973[/snapback]

Well to make thing more complicated. Take the standard 944. The 8valve car not the 944S. Are all the 83 - 88 cars on same spec line?

I&#39;d bet with 100% certainty that the tub of an 84 944 is slightly differenent from an 86 944. Now I&#39;d have to go over it with a fine tooth comb, bit am sure I could at least a few differences. Why.. in 1985 Porsche created new interior in the cars complete with a new dash as mid year release. Also in 86 Porsche released a turbo version. The turbo cars are Id&#39;ed by a differenent VIN, but much of the tub is the same if not all of it. I&#39;d bet there is less differnce in 1986 944 Turbo tub vs 1986 944 tub that between a 1984 944 tub. Now all those differences proabably are things that are not important. Mostly minor detail changes here and there. None of which would make any performance impact.

One I know for certain is sheet metal around the radiator. It was revised on the later 944 to make room for the intercooler on the turbo model. Porsche however made that change to all cars it produced turbo or not.

You example may however be the 85 vs 85.5 944. In the start of 85 Porsche made what is called the "early" 944 (same car as an 84). Some time during the year they make the "late" 944. This with the car with the revised dash (same as the car). Now from a VIN perspective I believe the only change was with respect to the actual number. IF all cars to XXX were "early" and after XXX were late. That is guess however as I never check to if Porsche produced those numbers. 99% of the time all you need to do is look inside the car at the Dash to see early vs late.

[Geo]

Hi Joe.

Early and late 944 tubs are indeed different.

Also, all 2.5 8v 944s are on the same spec line.

Again, I&#39;m 99.9% certain the 944 and 944S (of the same vintage) share the exact same tub.

So, for those unfamiliar with 944s:

1) As specifically allowed in the rules, since all 8v 944s are on the same spec line, assemblies may be updated/backdated at will among these cars.

2) If indeed the 944 and 944S (of the same vintage) share the same tub, the car may be built to either configuration without concern for violating the rules as long as it&#39;s PROPERLY configured (wiring harness, complete engine, complete gearbox, etc).

It&#39;s sort of an odd situation and not instantly clear, but this is the gist of it.