Update/Backdate between body types

[Knestis]

...Kirk, I don't know where you got the notion that the table takes precedence. [/b]

Sorry - I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that LOGICALLY, the ITCS spec line standard takes precedence. I meant that in practice, that has been the case for as long as I can remember having conversations like this. I think it's only because that's where the actual detail information lives.

K

[Greg Krom]

The Neon bodies are identical; the problem lies in the fact that the VIN carries the engine code, so LEGALLY, I cannot just put my SOHC engine in my DOHC-coded car.

Removing the paragraph that states the VIN controls the configuration as raced would eliminate this. I don't know how many, if any, this would affect, but I can't believe the Neon is the only one. IMHO, the VIN rule is outdated, especially considering how many times cars get repaired and have body parts replaced. Besides, it's downright silly for racecars, even production based ones.
[/b]

The real question relative to the Neon is why are the DOHC and the SOHC listed on separate spec lines at all? All '95-'99 Neons chassis are identical. The SOHC and DOHC engines were both available throughout the life cycle of the vehicle in both 2-door and 4-door configurations. Why restrict the update/backdate ability of the Neon's by listing the two engines on separate spec lines?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The real question relative to the Neon is why are the DOHC and the SOHC listed on separate spec lines at all? All '95-'99 Neons chassis are identical. The SOHC and DOHC engines were both available throughout the life cycle of the vehicle in both 2-door and 4-door configurations. Why restrict the update/backdate ability of the Neon's by listing the two engines on separate spec lines? [/b]

Because one has a 132hp SOHC and one has a 150hp DOHC. Are you proposing that all Neon's should weigh the same? And at what weight and why?

[Greg Krom]

Because one has a 132hp SOHC and one has a 150hp DOHC. Are you proposing that all Neon's should weigh the same? And at what weight and why?
[/b]

That's not at all what I'm proposing. I am proposing that all '95-'99 Neons - 2-door, 4-door, SOHC or DOHC - be listed under a single spec line with any differences spelled out. This would allow us to run either engine in any chassis.

What does a separate spec line solve that a simple note under weight - "DOHC = 2650 lbs, SOHC = 2450 lbs" wouldn't solve?

[Knestis]

The primary "spec" that historically defines a spec line is the weight. That's the only attribute that SCCA varies, since all the rest come with the car.

K

[Greg Krom]

A quick scan of the spec book finds 6 or 7 examples of other vehicles that list multiple weights under the same spec line. Several others that list multiple valve sizes, brake sizes or other specifications.

Why can't the Neon be the same?

[Andy Bettencourt]

A quick scan of the spec book finds 6 or 7 examples of other vehicles that list multiple weights under the same spec line. Several others that list multiple valve sizes, brake sizes or other specifications.

Why can't the Neon be the same? [/b]

In the ITCS?

[Greg Krom]

In the ITCS?
[/b]

Yup.

[PSherm]

A quick scan of the spec book finds 6 or 7 examples of other vehicles that list multiple weights under the same spec line. Several others that list multiple valve sizes, brake sizes or other specifications.

Why can't the Neon be the same?
[/b]

Boy howdy! That would solve the problem! :026:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am looking at my 2006 and 2007 GCR's. Help me find an example of one car with multiple weights listed on the same spec line. Remember, we are talking the ITCS here, not any other categories.

[Greg Krom]

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.2(78-80) 2430(CP) 2490(H

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.4(81-82) 2470(CP) 2510(H

ITB Triumph TR-7 2.0(76-81) 2440(CP) 2420(Conv.)

ITC Nissan Sentra / B11 1.5(82-83) 1980(SD) 2100(H

ITC Nissan Sentra / B12 1.6(83-86) 1980(SD)2100(H

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.2(78-80) 2430(CP) 2490(H

ITB Toyota Celica II 2.4(81-82) 2470(CP) 2510(H

ITB Triumph TR-7 2.0(76-81) 2440(CP) 2420(Conv.)

ITC Nissan Sentra / B11 1.5(82-83) 1980(SD) 2100(H

ITC Nissan Sentra / B12 1.6(83-86) 1980(SD)2100(H [/b]

But I fail to see how this is apples to apples. These cars are identical except for body style. There is no precident for your request.

As for it being a good idea or not, write it up and send it in! And to add - those listings are very old. New classifications would not seperate between body styles - example - 240SX in ITA.

[Knestis]

Holy Yikes.

Look what you learn..? Different weights for different body styles of cars with the same drivetrains is completely inconsistent with the new way of doing things.

That said, I don't necessarily think that having different weights for the SAME body style with DIFFERENT drivetrains on one spec line is equally messed up. And it does provide some instances of relief from the VIN rule restriction.

Hmmm.

Or we could set the stupid VIN rule free and do what is going to have to be done to put both Neons on one spec line, for example - figure out if the chassis ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT. Until there's confirmation that they are not, putting the SOHC and DOHC cars on the same spec line introduces arguably greater chances that the dreaded "unforeseen circumstances of making a model" will rear their ugly heads, than would fixing the bigger problem. And if it can be done for two cars in the same class, it can be done for cars in different classes that share identical body parts.

No - I'm not going to set it free.

K

EDIT - the more I think about it, the more these examples are powerful evidence that at least some of the folks making IT rules, at some point in history, were using stock weights as a basis for race weights (less = less, more = more) and quite literally not caring about performance as an outcome. Very interesting.

[Greg Krom]

There are also examples of vehicles listing multiple engines (albeit at the same weight) on the same spec line - ITC Rabbit, ITC Scirocco, ITC Fiat 124 Coupe, ITC 124 Spider, ITB Audi 5+5, ITB Audi Coupe, ITA Mercury Capri.

On the other hand, I have not found a single example of another car like the Neon, where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines. There may be examples that I've missed, but I haven't found them yet.

In the case of the Neon, the separate spec lines are really for the engines only. All of the chassis options - 2-door, 4-door and ACR are spelled out in both spec lines. Throughout the lifespan on the first generation Neon, both engines were available in both 2-door and 4-door chassis and in every trim/option package level. The only limitations were on those cars purchase with the ACR option package - the ACR package in a 2-door came with a DOHC engine and in a 4-door the ACR option package came with a SOHC.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

The way you read the UD/BD, do you think you could build an "ACR" 2-door SOHC for ITA?

I do. Start with a SOHC coupe and UD/BD all the ACR stuff you want (hubs, steering rack, front and rear bumper covers, etc). I realize this doesn't cure the 'I have the wrong chassis as a donor" issue but it sure allows for some nice combinations.

[Greg Krom]

Greg,

The way you read the UD/BD, do you think you could build an "ACR" 2-door SOHC for ITA?

I do. Start with a SOHC coupe and UD/BD all the ACR stuff you want (hubs, steering rack, front and rear bumper covers, etc).
[/b]

Yes. However, I cannot legally put a SOHC engine into an original 2-Door ACR. At least as I interpret the rules.

See where it's kinda messed up?

Right now, in my garage I have got an ex-SSB Neon Coupe with a blown DOHC motor. It's got a nice welded-in cage, nice seat, etc and could easily be converted into a nice ITA car by dropping a SOHC engine into it - I don't want anything to do with the DOHC engine's unreliability. Instead I have to go find a different donor chassis and swap out everything, except the engine, to do arrive at the same car "legally".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes. However, I cannot legally put a SOHC engine into an original 2-Door ACR. At least as I interpret the rules.

See where it's kinda messed up? [/b]

I agree with your interpretation. I disagree that it's messed up from a 10,000 foot view. Like you said, you can't find any other examples where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines. Why should a rule be created for one car? How would you write the spec lines? I am not for eliminating the VIN rule at this time but would be interested n how you would solve this 'problem' without messing with a class-wide rule...

[Greg Krom]

I would follow the same pattern as all of other spec lines that have multiple listings

Chrysler Neon, (2 & 4 door) including ACR. (95-99)
Engine type - 4 Cyl SOHC or 4 Cyl DOHC.
Bore & Stroke/Displacement - 87.5 x 83.0 1995
Valves - (I) 33.0(E) 28.09 (SOHC), (I) 34.8(E) 30.59 (DOHC)
Comp Ratio - 9.8 (SOHC), 9.6 (DOHC)
Wheelbase - 104.0
Wheel Dia - 14
Gear Ratios - 3.54, 2.12, 1.36, 1.03, 0.81
Brakes - (F) 257 x 20Disc® 257 x 9Disc
Weight - 2450 (SOHC), 2650 (DOHC)

I don't see it as a rule change at all. What rule is it that you feel would be changed by this spec line?

Playing devils advocate, couldn't it be argued that listing them on separate spec lines goes against the rules by "creating a model that doesn't exist"? There is no such model as a Chrysler Neon SOHC or Chrysler Neon DOHC. There is a Chrysler Neon. The Neon was available in a variety of trim packages and with your choice of two different engines, a 2.0 SOHC or a 2.0 DOHC. As it turns out, the Neon with either of those engines fits into the performance parameters of the ITA class. There should be a single listing for the vehicle model, part of that listing should be any configurations that fit within the parameters of that class.

[Greg Krom]

I agree with your interpretation. I disagree that it's messed up from a 10,000 foot view. Like you said, you can't find any other examples where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines. Why should a rule be created for one car? How would you write the spec lines? I am not for eliminating the VIN rule at this time but would be interested n how you would solve this 'problem' without messing with a class-wide rule...
[/b]

Lets say I build two Neons. Donor car #1 is a '95 2-door with a SOHC. Donor car #2 is a '95 4-door with a DOHC. Both cars are built exactly the same, and are 100% legal. I race that way for a while and then decide to swap the engines between the two cars (and adjust the weight accordingly). Now I've instantly got two illegal cars. Even though a Neon could be built with the exact same configuration and be perfectly legal.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Greg Krom]

Like you said, you can't find any other examples where identical chassis with 2 engine choices, in the same class are listed on multiple spec lines.
[/b]

But I did find several cars that have multiple engine choices, in the same class listed on SINGLE spec lines. What is the justification for the Neon to have multiple spec lines when every other example is on a single spec line?

Why should a rule be created for one car? How would you write the spec lines? I am not for eliminating the VIN rule at this time but would be interested n how you would solve this 'problem' without messing with a class-wide rule...
[/b]

Easy, I would solve the problem by giving the Neon a single spec line in ITA.