So when is a wing legal in IT?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm just starting that research. It was available in Europe. I need to find out about the US.

So I can run everything that came in the M tecnik package if it was available on my car?

AB I like the wing too!!

R

Yes but the MT was only in 1994 on the 325 (only 150 units IIRC). For a 328, you are stuck with any of the interations of front bumpers covering your year span on the spec line.

[Doc Bro]

Yes but the MT was only in 1994 on the 325 (only 150 units IIRC). For a 328, you are stuck with any of the interations of front bumpers covering your year span on the spec line.

OK, so this is where my confusion lies. (assume where talking 325 not 328). If I have an e36 325is 96 how can I run an MT bumper? Haven't I just created a car that didn't exist? Or is it the up/backdate? Or same spec line?

R

[Doc Bro]

Is this then legal?
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...58&hg=51&fg=15


It shows the 328is MT bumper.....so then I'm good right?

And then what about this?

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...23&hg=51&fg=95

If it was dealer installed no, but if it was an option yes?



R

[JoshS]

Is this then legal?
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...58&hg=51&fg=15


It shows the 328is MT bumper.....so then I'm good right?

And then what about this?

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts...23&hg=51&fg=95

If it was dealer installed no, but if it was an option yes?

Rob,

You still need to determine the factory-installed nature of both of those things. Lots of things available in the ETK (and therefore on realoem.com) were accessories installed or sold at the dealership, but not factory options.

[Doc Bro]

Rob,

You still need to determine the factory-installed nature of both of those things. Lots of things available in the ETK (and therefore on realoem.com) were accessories installed or sold at the dealership, but not factory options.

ETK? What's that?

I do believe the MAero Package may be dealer installed, but the MT Bumper not so sure. Do you have any ideas on how I could go about finding out that info??

Thanks,
R

[ed325its]

Rob,

The 325i/is production stopped with the '95 model year. Therefore, you can not have a '96 325is. However, with the vin rule deletion you can certainly state and validly claim you have an ITS/ITR '94 325is (or any year between '92 and '95). As to the links you provided I believe and maintain that the M-Technic parts are legal, but the M retro-fit kit is not as you could not purchase a 325 new from the manufacturer with the M-3 side skirts, rear valance, and wing.

[Greg Amy]

The rear spoiler was optional on both first- and second-gen MR2s.

Josh, you sure? When I was building the second-gen ITA car, everything I found indicated that the MR-2 rear spoiler was standard equipment (I actually wanted to remove it).

Note that, in reference to Gary's Fiero example, I'm clearly distinguishing between "standard equipment" (all cars were built with them and you could not get a car without) and "optional but common equipment" (someone, somewhere had to check a box to get the car built with it, and most did).

I'm still looking for good supporting info as to why options would be allowed...remember, IIDSYCYC...

The base assumption is that if a car is on the spec line, it includes all variations of the specific year(s) and model(s) listed "...as offered for sale in the United States"...

So your assumption is that options fall under the "offered for sale in the United States"? Options are "offered" and may be chosen to be selected. A stretch, but reasonable logic. I'd accept it as a currently-accepted explanation, but given my "baggage" of knowing what the original rules used to say, I'm not convinced that was the original intent.

Via update/backdate, everyone runs the 1971 142E engine, as it's the only one with 10.5 to 1 CR and the "good" head. But wait a minute... that was an optional engine during the 1971 model year...

Sorry, Gary, I don't buy that, as it's faulty logic vis-a-vis the current point at hand. You are not running an "optional" engine in your 1971 car, you're taking advantage of the clearly-legal update/backdate rules. Even if that engine was not offered as an option on the '71, you could still run it.

So, what other "options" are being run on cars today, presumably legally? I note your Fiero example, but we saw this past week that "it's been done this way for 11 years" doesn't cut it as a defense.

I'm still not thoroughly convinced that options are legal; I'd still like to see clear and convincing evidence where the ITCS allows options in lieu of IIDSYCYC. Do note, guys, I'm not trying to take away your options, I'm trying to figure out what caused us to assume they were acceptable (other than seeing someone else with it and assuming it was legal).

Convince me.

ETK? What's that?

It's a German acronym for a computer-based parts system, Elektronischer Teile Katalog (Electronic Parts Catalog). VW/Audi calls it ETKA, BMW calls it ETK.

GA

P.S. Non-sequitor quiz: Anyone know what "flak" came from? No fair Googling... <grin>

[JoshS]

Josh, you sure? When I was building the second-gen ITA car, everything I found indicated that the MR-2 rear spoiler was standard equipment (I actually wanted to remove it).

I'm certain that it was optional for non-turbos '91-'93. It was very rare to find one without. It's actually quite ugly without it, so I think most of the few cars that were sold that way ended up having one added post-sale. I believe it was actually a "spoiler-delete" option vs. a "spoiler-add" option, but it's been a long time.

I did the research when I had my '91 autocross car. I put together the info for this page, which is still floating around the internet years later: http://planet-torque.com/mk2/options.html

Unfortunately I sold that car in 1998 and no longer have any documentation to support the position. But I'm confident it exists and that I'm right about this. I'm a conservative guy with respect to the rules and this isn't the least bit gray in my mind.

EDIT: Greg, if you're curious, you might contact this seller and see why he thinks his car was wingless from the factory. He sounds like he might have documentation.

I'm still not thoroughly convinced that options are legal; I'd still like to see clear and convincing evidence where the ITCS allows options in lieu of IIDSYCYC. Do note, guys, I'm not trying to take away your options, I'm trying to figure out what caused us to assume they were acceptable (other than seeing someone else with it and assuming it was legal).

Convince me.

I'm with you there. The fact that the "base model with no options" wording from SS is missing from the ITCS is perhaps an indication of someone's intent, but it's not clear that the actual rules back that up.

[Z3_GoCar]

.....So, what other "options" are being run on cars today, presumably legally? I note your Fiero example, but we saw this past week that "it's been done this way for 11 years" doesn't cut it as a defense.

I'm still not thoroughly convinced that options are legal; I'd still like to see clear and convincing evidence where the ITCS allows options in lieu of IIDSYCYC. Do note, guys, I'm not trying to take away your options, I'm trying to figure out what caused us to assume they were acceptable (other than seeing someone else with it and assuming it was legal).

Convince me.


It's a German acronym for a computer-based parts system, Elektronischer Teile Katalog (Electronic Parts Catalog). VW/Audi calls it ETKA, BMW calls it ETK.

GA

P.S. Non-sequitor quiz: Anyone know what "flak" came from? No fair Googling... <grin>

Well Greg here's one option, but it's specifically called out in the rules, manual steering. A second might be running manual windows.

"flack" - F***ing Large Aircraft Killers, in WW1 was called "Ack-Ack."

[Knestis]

P.S. Non-sequitor quiz: Anyone know what "flak" came from? No fair Googling... <grin>

From whatever is German for "anti-aircraft fire." Flugzeugkriegsomedamnedthingie"

I've got a question - if the "option" was an entire body kit, you have to update/backdate the entire thing, right? Not just use the front lip spoiler and ditch the drag-inducing skirts and rear wing? (I'm thinking of the kit that was available on the Toyota Celica GTS.)

K

[Gary L]

I'm still looking for good supporting info as to why options would be allowed...remember, IIDSYCYC...

I have taken a critical look at how the old Volvo is listed, and have decided my "...142E was an optional engine" argument is moot. The spec line entry for model says simply "142". There is no letter following that number, so all US spec 142's would be part of the spec line - the 142S (base model), as well as the 142E (option).

But in any case, you're talking about what the intent may have been, I'm talking about what the rules say. I'm sticking by the "...as offered for sale in the United States" defense, WRT to optional equipment.

Having said all that, here's an interesting sidenote, keeping in mind that I wasn't involved with this class during it's formative years. Your recollection of earlier "base model only" wording might explain something that had been bothering me. Given today's ruleset, I didn't understand the ITCS entry in the "Notes" column for the Volvo's. In fact, I recently sent a letter to the CRB requesting the note be removed, since it made no sense given the update/backdate allowance and the recently stricken VIN rule. The note is a reference to "Bosch injection", with what appears to be the beginning model year and VIN (both incorrect, BTW) associated therewith.

With your revelation of a past "base model only" rule, I could now conclude that at some point, someone must have agreed with my "...142E was an optional engine" rationale, and added the note to cover the situation.

[Doc Bro]

OK, so this is where my confusion lies. (assume where talking 325 not 328). If I have an e36 325is 96 how can I run an MT bumper? Haven't I just created a car that didn't exist? Or is it the up/backdate? Or same spec line?

R

I'll repost this in reference to Kirk's last post.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll repost this in reference to Kirk's last post.

R

It's UD/BD beacuse the 325is and MT 325 are on the same spec line. What is confusing about this? The 1994 325MT was available in the US as a US model.

[Knestis]

You're a case in point, Rob. You aren't racing a particular year/make/model: You're racing a spec line.

It's pretty much always been that way but I think the VIN rule going away is going to shift our perspective just a little.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

You're a case in point, Rob. You aren't racing a particular year/make/model: You're racing a spec line.

It's pretty much always been that way but I think the VIN rule going away is going to shift our perspective just a little.

K

The classic case is the ITS RX-7. The top cars are 'built into' the 89-91 GTU model...most started out as any variety of versions of the 86-88 car that had smaller brakes, a different front nose, a different intake manifold, a different 5th gear ratio, 16 less horsepower etc...

[Doc Bro]

You're a case in point, Rob. You aren't racing a particular year/make/model: You're racing a spec line

K

But, to counterpoint this statement I thought the entirety of the VIN rule going away was that a car that didn't exist could not be "created". Hence the 96 325 M-Technic as an example.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

But, to counterpoint this statement I thought the entirety of the VIN rule going away was that a car that didn't exist could not be "created". Hence the 96 325 M-Technic as an example.

R

Rob, there was no E26 325 in 1996 so its not on the spec line. You can only create a model that is on your spec line. There was no 328 M-Technic so you can't 'create' one.

The purpose of the VIN rule going away was to facilitate easier chassis choices. Like using your 328 'shell' and creating a 325. Or taking a NX1600 and creating an NX2000. Technically not legal before, now will be.

You seem to want to take a characteristic from another spec line and use it as your own. Nope.

[Doc Bro]

Rob, there was no E26 325 in 1996 so its not on the spec line. You can only create a model that is on your spec line. There was no 328 M-Technic so you can't 'create' one.

You seem to want to take a characteristic from another spec line and use it as your own. Nope.

I used the wrong date, but still there was no 95 325 Mtecnic.....and there was no e26....so we're even!!

I'm not trying to do anything but understand.....don't infer my intentions. As evidenced by the number of opinions and interpretations here I'm not the only one who has some unanswered questions......

R

[Knestis]

Rescinding the VIN rule didn't change the situation re: "creating a model" at all. If the front end in question is standard on a car included in the spec line, it's legal for any car run by someone "declaring" their car to be represented BY that spec line.

K

EDIT - YUP. Key on Andy's point. You may have STARTED with parts from a '96 BMW but since (I take Andy at his word) there was no such thing as a '96 325, you have - and I use the word again - "declared" that you will be entering a [whatever the spec line says BMW 325].