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.

[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?

[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]

... (and MANDATES use of rear spoilers that were not optional, like the ITS Acura GS-R's and the ITA Toyota MR-2's.)

Hey Greg,

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

Josh

[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.

[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.

[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>

[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]

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.

[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?

[JoshS]

And as you know in Solo, that 1000 car per year bogey is what is used for manufacturers limiting production.

Yes, but only for catch-all classifications. If a car is explicitly listed, it doesn't matter how many were built. That's how Sipe legally ran his Z3 Coupe 2.8 in AS in 1999, and for that matter, that's how Bill Sanford legally ran his goofy TVR 3000S or whatever it was in CS.

Since IT doesn't have catch-all classifications, there's not much need for that sort of distinction.

[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]

So can I run the M tecnic front bumper??
R

[Knestis]

BTW, the original PROPOSED '85 rules don't include any "base model" kind of language, but like Greg I remember something like that as well.

K