So when is a wing legal in IT?

[Greg Amy]

I simply (and specifically) disagreed with your original statement...[If it was optional, it ain't legal.] ...which is not always the case.

What I intended by that statement was that if it was only available as an option, it's not legal...I'm trying to think of an example where a rear wing is allowed where it was purely an option...

Using the above examples, they're not "options." The RX-7 GTU had that rear wing standard, and since that model is legal in IT so is the rear wing. The Miata rear wing was standard on the R model; the BMW rear wing was standard on the M-Technic model. Both of those cars are legal in IT, thus those rear wings are legal in IT.

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

A good question. What if it was a simple line-item option? I think we have to look to the SOLO rules here. Dealer installed stuff is NOT legal. Port-installed and factory installed options are legal, whether they are part of a package or one-offs.

[ed325its]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

I have never seen an MT with any type of spoiler. But to fit it into this thread, if it did come with one, whatever it's design, it would be legal in IT on a 325is.

[dj10]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

For all you BMW E36 ITR cars please install the trunk lip lip spoiler.

[Gary L]

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

Go back and read my original post in this thread... the Fiero example. I'll bet there are others.

[JeffYoung]

First gen MR2 as well right? Even though most ordered it, wasn't the "aero package" or whatever it was called with the front air dam, skirts and wing (all from the factory) an option?

My read on the rule is pretty simple. If it came from the factory, either optional or not, it's legal. If the dealer put it on, it's not. Like Gary, I'm at a loss as to what the "limited production" language means or how we are supposed to interpret it.

[Greg Amy]

First gen MR2 as well right?

Correct. When it was in SSC the aero package was not allowed (see discussion below).

My read on the rule is pretty simple. If it came from the factory, either optional or not, it's legal.

Hmmm...

I re-read the class purpose and intent again, because I recall something from years ago that now appears to be missing: the "base model" language. Long ago, in a land far, far away, I seem to recall verbiage in the ITCS similar to what's in Showroom Stock and Touring specs today: that "the classified car shall be the base model with no options." Recall that IT was based as an offshoot from SS, and in fact I seem to recall the original rules stated that specifically. Now the ITCS only says "cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

Hmmm...

Well, if we agree on this, then that certainly gets the gears to turning...

Like Gary, I'm at a loss as to what the "limited production" language means or how we are supposed to interpret it.

Well, taken at face value, it's saying the Miata R, the RX-7 GTU, and the BMW M-Technic (as examples) are all not legal for IT, unless specifically listed.

I'm wondering if we need that "base model" verbiage back, and when/where it went away...did we ever collect copies of all prior ITCS back to the early 80's? Just curious.

GA

P.S., BUT! In the spirit of IIDSYCTYC, where can/do we infer that it's anything but the base model, and where can/do we infer options are allowed? What is the base assumption for IIDSYCTYC?

[Gary L]

In the spirit of IIDSYCTYC, where can/do we infer that it's anything but the base model, and where can/do we infer options are allowed? What is the base assumption for IIDSYCTYC?

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", with no other limitations, unless specifically prohibited in the "Notes" column, or otherwise prohibited by the rules (e.g. "limited production" wings).

An example: the Volvo I race is listed in the ITCS as the '69-74 142/144 2.0. That line entry would therefore include the 1969 thru 1971 142S (carb'd), and the 1971 thru 1974 142E (injected). 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, so you're saying we can't legally use it???? I'll repeat myself here... I'll bet there are others.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, taken at face value, it's saying the Miata R, the RX-7 GTU, and the BMW M-Technic (as examples) are all not legal for IT, unless specifically listed.

Of those cars, only the MT BMW would be considered limited production. Why? Mazda never limited the production of the R-model Miatas or the GTU RX-7's. It was just a model that few people were drawn to...enthusiasts, not the general buying public. Hence not 'many' were built...but anyone could order one at anytime.

Now the MT 325 was only produced in a 150 qty run. THAT is limited production IMHO.

[JoshS]

Of those cars, only the MT BMW would be considered limited production. Why? Mazda never limited the production of the R-model Miatas or the GTU RX-7's. It was just a model that few people were drawn to...enthusiasts, not the general buying public. Hence not 'many' were built...but anyone could order one at anytime.

Now the MT 325 was only produced in a 150 qty run. THAT is limited production IMHO.

Can you draw a line? How do you know if something was specifically limited to only a few buyers, or if it was generally available but had little interest?

There were less than 1000 BMW Z3 2.8 Coupes sold in the US over 16 months of production (both years had short production cycles though.) Is that a problem?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can you draw a line? How do you know if something was specifically limited to only a few buyers, or if it was generally available but had little interest?

There were less than 1000 BMW Z3 2.8 Coupes sold in the US over 16 months of production (both years had short production cycles though.) Is that a problem?

Not a problem for me! I ask myself this: Did the mfg limit the number of cars available to th epublic - or did the public limit the number that the manufacturer built due to a low demand? To me, there is a difference. And as you know in Solo, that 1000 car per year bogey is what is used for manufacturers limiting production.

To Greg's question: I think this falls under the 'if it says you can, then you can' thought process. If you tell me I can run a 1999 Humpmobile, and I have one that is loaded with factory options, how is it NOT a 1999 Humpmobile?