So when is a wing legal in IT?

[Chip42]

another interesting spoiler - the 1999-2000 Honda civic Si had a DI spoiler that was installed by default at the dealership - buyer could order a car with a delete. as most all of the cars have this, and it was not an "option" per se, how would you rule on this in ITS?

another - MkI MR2 (85-89) is allowed to run the aero kit (skirts, rear window fin, front spoiler) per the spec line. the aero kit did not exist in 1985/early 1986 but the spoiler alone was an option. could an 88 car (different nose, engine air inlet) run just the wing without the skirts or other parts of the kit? could an 85 car run the skirts and wing but not the window fin? I figure the front plastic spoiler is moot with a legal air dam installed.

MkII MR2s were VERY rare in the US without spoilers, but they happened. there was a "1990 MR2 coupe" in the UK with NO wing option.

[Greg Amy]

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

Ding! German word, "Fliegerabwehrkanonen", or 'airplane anti-cannon.' Allies shortened it to "flak".

I'm watching this debate, seems to be some reasonable explanations. I suspect we're victims of historical revision, if not outright desire to change the rules. Gotta wonder if there's some loopholes in there that I can take advantage of, that I've ignored in the past due to my "baggage"...

[JeffYoung]

Might be wrong as I have taken it for granted for a long time, but to me "offered for sale in the United States" would include any and all factory options that were "offered for sale." If you could check the box, pay your money and get it from the factory, for me anyway, the words (and what I understand the intent to be) of the rule are satisfied.

Interesting question though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

Tell us why you think you could. If there was no 328 M-Technic MODEL, then you can't. If the MT front bumper was a dealer installed OPTION, then you still can't. If the MT front bumper cover was a line-item option in the 328 during the spec-line year for your car, installed in Munchin, then I say yes...but bring your documentation...

[Daryl]

Gotta wonder if there's some loopholes in there that I can take advantage of, that I've ignored in the past due to my "baggage"...

Live by the sword, die by the sword so to speak. You ol'timers seem to have huge amounts of knowledge between them ears, at the same time it has been a long time since many of you have actually read the rule book

I am sure a look with a fresh set of eyes will result in some type of improved package....perhaps you shouldn't read it and just go with what you remember.

A few years ago I raced in FV, there were a couple of fast ol' farts who were racing FV when I was born (1968). That was a bunch of knowledge and accumulation of good heads, manifolds and carbs stacked in their favor. Thankfully, most of them picked up a rule book in some time. They weren't aware of a few subtle changes over the years...until the FV section of the rules received a total rewrite...

[Doc Bro]

Tell us why you think you could. If there was no 328 M-Technic MODEL, then you can't. If the MT front bumper was a dealer installed OPTION, then you still can't. If the MT front bumper cover was a line-item option in the 328 during the spec-line year for your car, installed in Munchin, then I say yes...but bring your documentation...

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have documentation of the car in the US, Japan, and Europe. So it definitely existed. The question is valid. How do I find out the answer? Was it a BMW option or a dealer installed option? Please help....

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have documentation of the car in the US, Japan, and Europe. So it definitely existed. The question is valid. How do I find out the answer? Was it a BMW option or a dealer installed option? Please help....

R

What you are saying doesn't make sense to me. It's a model like the 1994 325 version? If it is, you are good. If you are just saying you have documentation that an MT nose was available in the US, then point us to it so we can check it out. I do not believe you could ever order that as a factory option. TONS of dealer installed stuff for sure but factory? I doubt it. Hit the Bimmerforums and ask there.

[robits325is]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I have documentation of the car in the US, Japan, and Europe. So it definitely existed. The question is valid. How do I find out the answer? Was it a BMW option or a dealer installed option? Please help....

R

I have owned two and neither one had a trunk mounted wing.

[Doc Bro]

I have owned two and neither one had a trunk mounted wing.

Were they 328's?

AB I'm going to BMW directly to get the info.

R

[Knestis]

Another consideration: I see the term "available in the US" above. The "manual rack in a MkIII Golf" defense rests on a handful of Canadian-model Golfs of that generation - which did apparently come with manual racks - being sold new at a US dealer.

This is another of those things that I *remember* but may simply be an artifact of my 20-year-od assumptions: That we're supposed to be racing real US-model cars, and our spec lines assume that to be the case. If someone gray-markets a Euro or JDM-spec car stateside, it doesn't make it - and the parts that came on it - IT-legal. Right?

The Golf example falls down on its own merit, I think, because that car comes with a an engine that's not on the spec line (a 1.8), so an argument can be made that it (and any different part on it) are as illegal as would be, say, the VR6.

It's becoming clearer to me that with the VIN rule going away, it's going to be important that each of us are clear about what we are "declaring" our car to be.

K

[benspeed]

So perhaps I can review the Porsche 968 Club Sport as an option and run the gear that came from the factory? But drats - it was for sale in Europe and the UK - but several were apparetly sold by Paul Miller Porsche right here in Parsippany......hmmmm

[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.

[robits325is]

Were they 328's?

AB I'm going to BMW directly to get the info.

R

They only made the M-Technic in 1994 as a 325is.

[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.

[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].

[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