Dumb bodyshell rule

[Knestis]

I submitted a request that we be allowed to disable and remove central locking systems in IT and have been playing around with my biggest pet peeve about our rules - the dumb "you can't build a CRX Si out of a CRX HF shell" rule...

The problem is that there are several major sections of the ITCS that bear on this issue. A change is a bit like taking the sugar out of a can of Coke - the problem is pretty integrated into the rules.

Any suggestions about how this might be tackled? I don't think I want to submit completely revised text for the pertinent sections, as a proposed change. Nor do I want to be too vague. The "intent" - hah! - is to allow a person to build something that is identical to ITCS-eligible Model X out of a year/model/trim level not on the same spec line, but posessing an identical body shell. It should go without saying that a revised rule would in no way allow a car to be lighter or of a different resulting specification than the listed option...

The VIN number rule needs attention - or elimination - and the "create a model" text needs to be addressed. It might be enough to simply remove some of that text but obviously, I don't want to create a monster.

Ideas?

K

[dickita15]

Kirk. I would like a way to make this happen as it could make it easier and lower costs. If it can work you are the right guy to address the problem. I have a little concern as I have been told that in cars like the crx you use as an example the hf car has lots of part that are lighter than the si. I am not a hon duh guy so I may have been told wrong.

I know someone is going to say that we have a minumum weight so it does no matter but a lighter car can be brought up to weight with better distribution.

can this kind of rule change make builders lives easier without creating fankenstiens.

cha cha cha

[m glassburner]

With the ITACs ability to adjust weight and such . Someone who might create a "frankenstein" will only hurt those who play by the rules..in as much a couple of real fast cars could get the rest of those playing by the rules penalized or put another way...when the rest deserve a break they won't get it !!

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I think it's a good idea, and would work to craft up something that would facilitate this. The thing is, the VIN# rule really doesn't work. You've got cases now, where people can 'create' models, because the VIN #s don't differentiate them. The case I"m most familiar with, is the one of the Mk II Golf. You can take any model Golf, from the eligible years for ITB, and build it into a GTI. In fact, you can take an '87 or '88 'regular' Golf, and build an ITA 16v car out of it. All because there's no way to tell the original configuration of the chassis, based on the VIN#. However, if you want to build an ITB Rabbit GTI, you actually have to start w/ a GTI donor tub. You can't use an '83 or '84 Rabbit tub, because the VIN# differentiates the engine size. And other than the 1.8 engine and close-ratio tranny, the only thing that makes it a GTI, are a bunch of bolt-on parts. There is NO difference in the chassis, whatsoever.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by dickita15@Oct 29 2005, 06:34 AM
...a lighter car can be brought up to weight with better distribution.

[snapback]63961[/snapback]

I don't know if that's true or just a scary tale from someone that fears the idea, but it seems logical that it could happen, given the number of cars we're talking about.

But let's think about it: how significant of an advantage would this be? What are we talking about: 50 pounds from the roof to the chassis rail or from the nose to the tail? Less? More? Take the worst case possibility, then compare that possibility to the positives in changing the rule. Personally, if it means I give a competitor a 50-pound nose-to-tail advantage, I'm all for being able to use an alternate chassis to save money and increase the folks coming in.

Ignoring the possibility of that weight-shift advantage, what's the other concerns: primarily, that someone will build a Frankenstein using unapproved parts for the car as classed (e.g., using the HF tranny in the CRX Si in ITA)? OK, well if someone's gonna cheat like that, what keeps them from doing it now? I mean, if they're willing to use the HF tranny in an ITA CRX Si, they're probably doing it now; the VIN is irrelevant.

The next argument is going to be, "Well, how do we police it then?" My answer is, of course, "Well, how do we police it now? What's the difference?"

I firmly believe that positives of allowing this rule far outweigh any (virtually) insignificant negatives in terms of prep. Kirk, I'll have to review the rules when I get some time, but other than the "VIN requirement" clause that mandates the VIN match the classified car, what other rules must be addressed? We're not asking for any equipment changes, and the vehicle specs prety much summarize what car and equipment must be installed. Are you assuming we may have to add to that equipment list? I'd suggest instead that the VIN requirement rule be struck, and the 'shop manual' and 'installed equipment' verbiage be slightly strengthened (but not detailed; we should no try to micromanage it, thereby giving someone a noose to hang others with).

Greg

[Bill Miller]

Great idea Greg. I like the 'shop manual / installed equipment' idea.

[Catch22]

I don't think its as hard as it sounds on the surface. Just list the cars like they are listed in prod. Basically ignore trim level and list cars by year and model only. Classing would be determined by drive train (just like in prod) and trim level (Si, HF) would be ignored.

Engine size, gear ratios, and brake specs are already listed, so making a "Frankenstien" would be pretty hard.

As mentioned, I don't think the current rule really works anyway. From my understanding, the documentation is so sketchy on some cars that you couldn't enforce the rule if you wanted to.

And NO rule keeps people from cheating. The intent and spirit of this change would be clear. If someone uses it to cheat, they're probably cheating under the current rules.
JMO.

[Knestis]

Good input - thanks, all. So, here's a straw-man proposal, presented here with the original text of the two - I think - pertinent paragraphs of the ITCS for comparison...

Current:

To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a facotry shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so reqested at any technical inspection. If the factory shop manual is no longer available from the vehicle manufacturer, an aftermarket shop manual will be accepted with proof of non-availabiliyt from the vehicle manufacturer. The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determin the model and typ efor competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.


Proposed:

Replace those two paragraphs with...

In the event of any protest or Request for Action, proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee, as dictated by procedures in the GCR. It is the responsibility of these parties to have available documentation as might be necessary to demonstrate that the car in question conforms in all respects to the original specifications for a make/model/year of car included among those on the ITCS spec line indicated in its logbook, modified only as allowed by these rules.

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

The problem goes away - I think - not by creating a rule allowing someone to build a Rabbit GTI out of a diesel Rabbit shell, but by simply requiring that the resulting car adhere to all specifications for the GTI. If the shell is lighter/stiffer/whatever than that of a GTI, the car isn't legal.

Thoughts?

K

[Dave Zaslow]

Kirk,

I think that deleting:

The words 'originality and" from the first paragraph, and

"The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determin the model and typ efor competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required." ; and

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

is all that is necessary. The modified paragraph:

"To establish the configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so reqested at any technical inspection. If the factory shop manual is no longer available from the vehicle manufacturer, an aftermarket shop manual will be accepted with proof of non-availabiliy from the vehicle manufacturer. The proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee."

should allow one to do all of the changes needed to convert one type of model into another as long as it follows exactly the spec line of the ITCS. The rights and responsibilities of any protestor/protestee are well defined elsewhere in the GCR.

Adding the paragraph:

"In the event of any protest or Request for Action, proof of legality shall rest upon the protestor and/or protestee, as dictated by procedures in the GCR. It is the responsibility of these parties to have available documentation as might be necessary to demonstrate that the car in question conforms in all respects to the original specifications for a make/model/year of car included among those on the ITCS spec line indicated in its logbook, modified only as allowed by these rules."

seems to me to be already implicit in the "To establish the configuration...." paragraph.

One of the reasons I built the A3 was that I could not find a good Rabbit GTI shell within reasonable travel distance. I looked at lots of them, and it always seemed to be raining....


Dave Zaslow

[Catch22]

I agree with keeping it simple by just removing the requirement to match VIN numbers. I really don't understand what this rule's purpose was in the first place.

The ITCS spec line already lists the information you need. This is the information that determines the class and legality.

In other words, if you have an ITA CRX, what makes it an ITA CRX is...
Engine size
Head specs
tranny ratios
brake size
weight
88-91 CRX

All you have removed is the stipulation that it must be an "Si" CRX. Nothing else has changed.

That exact same chassis becomes an "HF" spec ITC car by changing everything except...
88-91 CRX

I could be oversimplfying this in my head, but I honestly can't see what the catch would be.

[Knestis]

The VIN requirement rule is REALLY old, like back to the beginning of the class, and makes more sense in the context of a ruleset - and mindset - that was WAY more like SS than what we currently see.

When I built my first IT car, we were required to keep the headliner and passenger front seat, we could only use a bolt-in rollcage (with maximum allowances for triangulation), there were no aftermarket LSDs available for anything, and we couldn't even picture the day we'd use "real racing springs."

K

[lateapex911]

Over the years, I think most of the new allowances (real racing springs, etc), have been positive, resulting in better racing cars that are reasonable on the wallet. Allowing real racing springs, as Kirk points out, eliminates having to get weird and hard to find custom springs. And allowing optimum camber maximizes tire life...both make for better racing and better finances.

To me, the VIN rule could go away and result in better racing (more cars available) and better finances.

But...the one thing that I worry about is if I am missing something...so, I think the rule should be re-written, then put out for member comment. Something interesitng might pop up.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 30 2005, 10:52 PM
...so, I think the rule should be re-written, then put out for member comment. Something interesitng might pop up.

[snapback]64057[/snapback]

That's the thing about "you ITAC guys"; I like how you're always open for input. I'm glad you realize that you're TOTALLY outnumbered, and that there's always something you might not consider (like, maybe, using a 6-foot piece of wiring as "a resistor"). That's the *ONE THING* about this idea that worries me: that there's *SOMETHING* I haven't considered that some smart-a*s might come up with to twist the rule into submission...

It's a good idea, we just need massive member input to make sure it's done correctly. - GA

[lateapex911]

LOL, Greg.....there IS actually "something" in the back of my mind....it's unlikely, but...

Ok, racer Bob is a guy who's not particularly obsessed with details...he wrecks his car big, goes and gets a new chassis, swaps some parts, slaps the cage into the new shell and shows up for the next race. he's rushed, and isn't a wizard with the welder, tech looks at the crunched car 'cuz it's in the logbook after the wreck, and they are VERY impressed. You can't even spot the trace of a wrinkle! THey sign off, and never check the VIN, ...'cuz it's not in the rules...and off the car goes, with all sorts of things that wouldn't pass an initial inspection.

Now, of course, as a tech guy you can say, well they have to check the cage and if it doens't have the number they will know, but if he used the same cage parts, it could slip through un-noticed.

As it stands, tech checks the VIN on reinspection, (They DO do that, right??), so they would pick up the fact that the entire chassis has been changed, and would then re-inspect the entire car, right?

And yes, the solution is to make sure tech looks more closely, but......it seems like we could lose a chack and balance here.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk has really hit on something. The IT of today has so little resemblence to the IT of 20 years ago, when it all started, it's not even funny. They really were little more than street cars w/ cages. For those of you that have been around long enough, think about how many IT cars you used to see, that had license plates on them. I remember plenty of cars that got driven to the track, in the late 80s and early 90s.

IT has evolved from a category of street cars w/ cages, to true, production-based, race cars. It's really time for an overhaul and re-write of some of the rules. They need to be brought more in line with the state of the category. As others have pointed out, the important specs are known and published. Engine displacement, fuel delivery, valve size, brake size and configuration, gear ratios, and weight. There's really not a whole lot left. You need the factory manual, to verify components, and if there's a supercede, you need that documentation as well. So much has been opened up in IT, it's time for the rest of the rules to be brought in line. I could care less if you use an HF or Si shell to build your car from. You want to build an ITC car from an Si shell, knock your socks off, just so long as it has all the stuff that the ITC car is supposed to have, and none of the stuff that it's not.

Some of this stuff is just flat out silly. For example, let's say Racer Bob, in Jake's example, happens to run a Rabbit GTI, in ITB. Now let's say the car gets wacked in the back. Not enough to require a new shell, but enough to require a new hatch. To be totally legal, but today's rules, Racer Bob has to go find a replacement Rabbit GTI hatch. He can't just use any Rabbit hatch, because only the GTI hatches came w/ the rear wiper. I suppose that he could instally a rear wiper on a non-GTI hatch, but is that really legal, by the letter of the current rules? Does anyone think that there is any advantage, other than being able to find the part, to running a standard Rabbit hatch, sans rear wiper, over running the GTI hatch, w/ the rear wiper?

The category has eveloved, the rules should too. I say that it's time for the VIN# requirement to go away.

[Knestis]

...SO, what is the (accepted as limited) consensus here, in terms of what the proposal should look like?

Putting a proposal out for member comment is NOT the same thing as having considered discourse about it. I'm reluctant to make it too much of a straw man, requiring tweaking and fiddling, because technically, the CRB just says "yes" or "no" to whatever I request. If it's flawed in any way - fundamental or not - it's potentially DOA.

I'm afraid that simply requesting that the VIN requirement be dropped is going to leave critics thinking that there's NO way that something that was intended isn't being lost in the change. That's why I added the text trying to address what the VIN and FSM requirements are theoretically trying to get at - that we are running what we claim to be running, and can demonstrate what it's supposed to be if asked.

BTW, while I think Jake's scenario is an interesting one - and certainly conceivable - it's hard to fathom that the VIN number rule is there in order to prevent that situation from happening. Do we really believe that any inspector that isn't going to look at the cage welds the first race back after a big crash, simply because a car already has a logbook, is going to look at the VIN numbers?

K

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 31 2005, 12:15 AM
...tech checks the VIN on reinspection, (They DO do that, right??)...

[snapback]64068[/snapback]

Absolutely. In fact, I had a VIN issue with one of our own IT.com folks at NHIS this year. Fortunately, I think we got it worked out. - GA

[MadFrog]

Kirk, you are my hero!
If there is anything I can do to help with this, just say the word.

Now, here's a question: are there any cars classed in IT that COULD benefit from a change in chassis?

I know the 88-91 Civic/CRX won't. The only difference between the chassis is the sun roof, which can be deleted legally anyway.
I think that in order to make a request for change bullet-proof, someone (some many) would have to look at all the vehicles classified and see if there is any that may have a different trim chassis that would give them an advantage if swapped (chassis bracing, slightly different suspension geometry, etc.)

??? or am I off in the weeds?

[turboICE]

Similar situation for Nissan S13 shells. 89-90 VIN numbered shells that are in good shape are becoming harder and harder to come by. A 91+ S13 is the identical shell but could not be developed to ITA spec under the current VIN rules. I would support reasonable rules to expand the exchange of identical shells.

Although theorectically wouldn't a matching 89-90 VIN for the door jamb and dash meet the requirement?

[88YB1]

Very interesting. I drive a Pontiac Fiero. The GCR spec line lists both the Formula and GT models for 1988. They have a different code in the vin, and the Formula is about 200 lb lighter. Since there is only one spec line in the ITCS does that mean I could put the fastback GT body panels on my Formula? ITCS trumps the GCR, and the vin statement being discussed is in the GCR. Just asking. Would make no sence doing this , but going the other way would be an advantage for the GT. Remove 200 lbs from the rear, then ballast back to minimum with weight up front.

Chuck