The VIN Requirement Rule

[Greg Amy]

It's been proposed in the latest Fastrack that the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirement rule be deleted. What say you?

The main defense of the VIN rule centers on this thought:

It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another...[/b]

You're assuming the VIN provides an easy method of discerning the vehicle now.

We police it as we always do: inspecting the equipment appropriate for the car/class. If it's an ITA Integra, we make sure that they don't have a GS-R engine and trans in there, just as we do now. The VIN requirement doesn't change that, nor does it currently stop people who want to from cheating.

We have well-vetted this discussion in the past, and there are two distinct camps on this. Here's but a few.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6525
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12640
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=10012
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9788

I support the ditching the the VIN rule, for all the reasons I've described in these prior topics. What say you? - GA

[Knestis]

Hell, yeah. 'bout time.

K

[JeffYoung]

Ditch it. The "me" in me is happy that $100 TR7s are now fair game. The "us" in me just thinks that this ain't cheating, and it makes it a lot easier for folks to build cars, including oddballs.

More oddballs!

[Ed Funk]

:026: Hell yeah! Then, we would be able to put FI drive trains in our Hondas and move to ITB, thereby getting away from the SM's in New England and actually having a class to race with!

[Bill Miller]

The question is, why wait another year to do it??

[jlucas]

I agree, do it now. It doesn't change the level of competition for anybody. It will make it easier for people building cars. It just might increase entries and cross over from other series where it's already ok (For example, NASA Honda Challenge cars).

[spnkzss]

It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another - or is this covered elsewhere?
[/b]

The spec line of the car in class!? Specifies motor, trans, wheelbase, wheels, brakes, etc.

[BlueStreak]

The spec line of the car in class!? Specifies motor, trans, wheelbase, wheels, brakes, etc.
[/b]

DUH - Thanks! Sometimes I miss the obvious

It's been proposed in the latest Fastrack that the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirement rule be deleted. What say you?

The main defense of the VIN rule centers on this thought:

You're assuming the VIN provides an easy method of discerning the vehicle now.

[/b]

I wasn't trying to defend it, believe me, after the hell I went through rebuilding my car when an ordinary Rabbit shell would have been an easier move. I think the VIN rule needs to go, just wanted to be sure that we kill it properly. I've now been reminded that the spec line defines the important bits, so I would think we are good killing it by deleting paragraph 5 as is suggested.

Thanks
Eddie

[dickita15]

The spec line of the car in class!? Specifies motor, trans, wheelbase, wheels, brakes, etc.
[/b]

and it will still need to comply with the manual for the model listed on the spec line.

[shwah]

Sending my letter of support, with request for Jan. 2008 effective date. All of you that think this is a good idea need to write an email to the crb stating this (those of you that don't think it is a good idea should do the same..)

[RacerBill]

Squarely on the fence for this one. For Dodge Chargers, the VIN clearly identifies the common Dodge Charger from the Shelby Charger. With the VIN rule in place, there is a clear way to differentiate between the cars. Differences between the models include engine compression ratio, front brake size, minimum weight and maybe some other items.

Without the VIN rule, I could take my Shelby and say it's a plain Charger and run it at 2320lb instead of 2430. The only way to tell the difference would be to measure the compression ratio of the engine (9.0 stock vs 9.6 Shelby, 9.5 stock vs 10.1 for Shelby with the IT trim allowance) or look at the brakes, if you know what to look for.

On the other hand, without the VIN rule, I could roll the car up into a little ball, get any Charger body, put my Shelby stuff on it and call it a Shelby - a lot better solution that trying to find a Shelby in the bone yard.

As I said, I'm really on the fence with this one.

I can really see the points in favor of letting the VIN number go by the wayside. But I can't help but feel that we are making it harder to tell the upstanding builders/owners/drivers from those who might bend the rules at any opportunity. Might be different for other cars/models.

I remember when I first jumped over the fence, and a Tech inspector told me that they had no way of checking the compression ratio, so build it any way I wanted. FYI, I have not touched my engine, so keep your hands off!

Now, on to the ECU issue.... Oh, that's right, I don't have that stuff.

[spnkzss]

Without the VIN rule, I could take my Shelby and say it's a plain Charger and run it at 2320lb instead of 2430. The only way to tell the difference would be to measure the compression ratio of the engine (9.0 stock vs 9.6 Shelby, 9.5 stock vs 10.1 for Shelby with the IT trim allowance) or look at the brakes, if you know what to look for.

[/b]

I had that same thought, and I'm not singling YOU out, this is jsut a statement for the nay-sayers, what's preventing that now? You question it, you protest it. The VIN rule doesn't prevent that extra .6 compression.

[RacerBill]

Spanky: I'm not saying no. Just pointing out possible unintended consequences. Yes, someone could use a Shelby engine in a Charger today, but with a VIN tag, it would be a blatant misrepresentation.

I like the idea of being able to use a plenty available shell as opposed to a rare one, just for the VIN tags.

[spnkzss]

Spanky: I'm not saying no. Just pointing out possible unintended consequences. Yes, someone could use a Shelby engine in a Charger today, but with a VIN tag, it would be a blatant misrepresentation.

I like the idea of being able to use a plenty available shell as opposed to a rare one, just for the VIN tags.
[/b]

And I know your not. I have just heard that "type" of concern quite a bit in the last year or so. I just picked on your thread because you were the first to ask that same "type" of question

[jjjanos]

Spanky: I'm not saying no. Just pointing out possible unintended consequences. Yes, someone could use a Shelby engine in a Charger today, but with a VIN tag, it would be a blatant misrepresentation.

I like the idea of being able to use a plenty available shell as opposed to a rare one, just for the VIN tags.
[/b]

But even with a VIN rule, isn't that still a blatant misrepresentation? If the two cars are identical except for bolt on bits, then the only way to check, even with a VIN rule, is to look at whether the car has the 34-inch modulator on the dipthong or has a 28-inch modulator on the dipthong.

Either way, it's going to be easier to see if you've got clearly illegal parts, such as overly large brakes, then it will be see the VIN... primarily because anyone running a Model Q as a Model N won't let you get close enough to the car to check the VIN.

[Matt Rowe]

Bill,

The VIN rule never stopped anyone from dropping a high compression Shelby motor in a basic charger before. And I mean that literally. It happened before, it was just as illegal then and the only way to know is the same way you would have if the new rule is in place. You write paper and tear the guy down.

[dickita15]

Not to pile on but a case like the Charger is a perfect example of why the vin rule should go away. It just makes it easier and cheaper to retub a car. I am actually more worried about cars the Civic HF because I am not sure many people know all the differences between that and a SI

[shwah]

Someone that will blatantly cheat and run the wrong car, or motor, or whatever component in the wrong class was willing to do so with the old VIN rule too. I don't think we should be writing our rules for cheaters, but for racers.

None of these 'unintended consequences' are any different if you require a certain VIN or not.

[zracre]

My concern would be that some cars had options (sunroofs, more bracing etc) that others didn't. Yes it would be easier to get that HF or HX civic and make it into an IT whatever car starting with the lightest chassis possible. That doesnt seem fair to all that looked at that option but did not do it because of legality. We would also be creating cars that didnt ever exist!
On the other hand cars that are identical, just engine or tranny differences seem logical as certain model shells are becoming rare.

Tough call

[BlueStreak]

My concern would be that some cars had options (sunroofs, more bracing etc) that others didn't. Yes it would be easier to get that HF or HX civic and make it into an IT whatever car starting with the lightest chassis possible. That doesnt seem fair to all that looked at that option but did not do it because of legality. We would also be creating cars that didnt ever exist!
On the other hand cars that are identical, just engine or tranny differences seem logical as certain model shells are becoming rare.

Tough call
[/b]

Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a US market Honda with an SI badge that didn't have a factory sun/moon roof?