Ruling on BMW Bumper cover

[dj10]

I had my front bumper cover trashed @ Summit a couple of weeks ago on my 325I, my question is, can I replace it with the 325is M technic bumper cover and stay legal?

Thanks, or maybe not.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dan,

IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line. For those of us who know that car and how the bodywork was a precursor to the first E36 M3's, it will make sense. For those who may not, bring some documentation on the M-Technic to have in your stash. Do it!

[dj10]

Dan,

IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line. For those of us who know that car and how the bodywork was a precursor to the first E36 M3's, it will make sense. For those who may not, bring some documentation on the M-Technic to have in your stash. Do it!

[/b]

Thanks for the response Andy, I can copy some documentation online and bring with me to the ARRC, just in case. I'll also have the ETK on my computer, if anyone else needs it, again, just in case.

[buldogge]

Hey Andy... On a similar note:

Why wouldn't 17" wheels also be legal for the E36 325...as they appeared on the '94 M-Technics as well...???

Hmmm...

Dan,

IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line. For those of us who know that car and how the bodywork was a precursor to the first E36 M3's, it will make sense. For those who may not, bring some documentation on the M-Technic to have in your stash. Do it!
[/b]

[robits325is]

How about the M3 rockers and rear diffuser too?

[cchandler]

Hey Andy... On a similar note:

Why wouldn't 17" wheels also be legal for the E36 325...as they appeared on the '94 M-Technics as well...???

Hmmm...
[/b]

Spec line?

[dj10]

How about the M3 rockers and rear diffuser too? [/b]

Interesting........If you totaled your rockers, I guess you could.

[Greg Amy]

IMHO the 325is M-Technic is just as legal as any other 325 on that spec line.[/b]

If true, then anything on that car is legal for other 325 cars, including 17" wheels. Ergo, 17s can be allowed via the Errors and Omissions process.

Or, the club needs to clearly - and quickly - de-list the M-Technic car from eligibility.

[mlytle]

17's are already legal on the car in ITR. in ITS, the spec line specifically limits the wheel size already to 16.

the m-technic was not a different car. it was a 325is with an m3 body kit (minus the decorative rear wing), m3 mirrors and different interior fabric. it even says "325is" on the rear decklid.

rear diffuser? decorative and i think it weighs more than stock bumper cover.
rockers? why? they are a bolt on plastic part that adds weight and lowers the min ride height measuring point. not good.
front bumper cover? i don't see it any advantage besides that it looks nicer. it is not any lower in front than the normal 325 cover, just different shape. same brake duct size. same foglights. it is actually harder to put a lower air dam on than the normal bumper cover due to the shape.

only issue, if you want to call it one, is that the m-technic also came with the screw on front bumper lip/splitter. it extends beyond what is allowed by IT rules....so you just take it off.

marshall
ITR 325 with m-technic front bumper cover. not for performance...it was all the junk yard had last year when i crunched the front and needed a replacement fast!

[Andy Bettencourt]

If true, then anything on that car is legal for other 325 cars, including 17" wheels. Ergo, 17s can be allowed via the Errors and Omissions process.

Or, the club needs to clearly - and quickly - de-list the M-Technic car from eligibility.
[/b]

Legal in all except what is specified - like the max wheel diameter of 16", no? The spec line trumps.

[Greg Amy]

The spec line trumps.[/b]

Negative: the spec line describes, as in what the wheel size was on the car. That wheel size spec in the ITCS was never intended as a manual adjustment for what's stock on the car, or something that's anything but objective workshop data.

Either the M-Technic model is legal, along with all its standard equipment, or it's not; just as we allow the rear decklid spoilers on RX-7 GTUs and Miata Ms...

[JoshS]

Greg is right. The book doesn't have a blanket statement that says that the vehicle must match all attributes on the spec line. Instead, it has a bunch of individual paragraphs that refer to the spec line. For example, the rule that refers to the wheel size column says:

"Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller
than listed on their spec line. All [other] cars shall
retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for
their make, model, and type."

I bracketed out the word "other" because it's not relevant to this conversation. Bottom line is, the car can't run anything SMALLER than listed on the spec line, *and* it must ("shall") use the wheel diameter fitted as OE.

If the car is claimed to be an M-Technic "model", then it MUST run 17".

On the other hand ... is the M-Technic a model? I don't think so, it was an option. Did IT ever have a clause (like SS and T) that says that only the base model of a vehicle can be used? If it did, and was later struck, then that deletion causes this rule to be somewhat in conflict.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Negative: the spec line describes, as in what the wheel size was on the car. That wheel size spec in the ITCS was never intended as a manual adjustment for what's stock on the car, or something that's anything but objective workshop data.

Either the M-Technic model is legal, along with all its standard equipment, or it's not; just as we allow the rear decklid spoilers on RX-7 GTUs and Miata Ms... [/b]

Not sure what you are saying on the RX-7's because the spoilers could come on GXL's, GTU's, GTUs's, etc - but I agree with you on the 'describes' piece. I say 'trumps' because to me it 'describes' what you can use. Semantics but I am definately wrong on that.

For sure the classification needs to be cleaned up.

I would think that (just like in the 2nd gen RX-7 listing WRT 16") you could just add "17" wheel not allowed" in the notes.

[dj10]

Greg is right. The book doesn't have a blanket statement that says that the vehicle must match all attributes on the spec line. Instead, it has a bunch of individual paragraphs that refer to the spec line. For example, the rule that refers to the wheel size column says:

"Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller
than listed on their spec line. All [other] cars shall
retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for
their make, model, and type."

I bracketed out the word "other" because it's not relevant to this conversation. Bottom line is, the car can't run anything SMALLER than listed on the spec line, *and* it must ("shall") use the wheel diameter fitted as OE.

If the car is claimed to be an M-Technic "model", then it MUST run 17".

On the other hand ... is the M-Technic a model? I don't think so, it was an option. Did IT ever have a clause (like SS and T) that says that only the base model of a vehicle can be used? If it did, and was later struck, then that deletion causes this rule to be somewhat in conflict.
[/b]

Remember, I'm in ITR and I do use 17" wheels.

[mlytle]

Negative: the spec line describes, as in what the wheel size was on the car. That wheel size spec in the ITCS was never intended as a manual adjustment for what's stock on the car, or something that's anything but objective workshop data.

Either the M-Technic model is legal, along with all its standard equipment, or it's not; just as we allow the rear decklid spoilers on RX-7 GTUs and Miata Ms...
[/b]

rear decklid spoiler was NOT part of the m-technic option.

[Greg Amy]

Not sure what you are saying on the RX-7's because the spoilers could come on GXL's, GTU's, GTUs's...[/b]

Equipment that was optional (or not available?) on the base models but standard on other 'approved' models. In other words, not all RX-7s and Miatas came with the rear decklid spoiler as standard, but we allow them on all cars because those items were standard on allowed vehicles (same spec line).

In that same light, if the M-Technic is an allowed model (a la RX-7 GTU), then all of its standard equipment is allowed (a la 17" wheels).

I would think that (just like in the 2nd gen RX-7 listing WRT 16") you could just add "17" wheel not allowed" in the notes.[/b]

If that's what we prefer to do (not making a statement one way or the other) then I agree. Is that a new precedent or, for example, does the RX-7 GTU comes standard with 17" wheels and we intentionally disallowed them with that line? - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

If that's what we prefer to do (not making a statement one way or the other) then I agree. Is that a new precedent or, for example, does the RX-7 GTU comes standard with 17" wheels and we intentionally disallowed them with that line? - GA
[/b]

16" wheels came on some models but are specifically disallowed in the notes section.

[Greg Amy]

16" wheels came on some models but are specifically disallowed in the notes section.[/b]

Just out of curiosity (and not germane to the conversation at hand), why?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just out of curiosity (and not germane to the conversation at hand), why?
[/b]

Who knows.

[lateapex911]

Probably because, 20 years ago, those 16" wheels were wild state of the art things that everybody thought would be uber expensive to run, so to protect us from ourselves, they made them verbotten....