Life without the VIN rule

[Xian]

i have read internet rumors about folks cutting off the crx si roof and installing a non-si roof and that was deemed acceptable. perhaps more socially than rules.

Yep. Socially acceptable to many but not to the letter of the rule, IMO.

Christian

[CDS]

The roof could be a sticking point. Did all Si's come with a sunroof? Could you cut a sunroof into a non-Si roof and then fill it in? Seems kinda silly to have to do that.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Yep. Socially acceptable to many but not to the letter of the rule, IMO.

Christian

Many people care about how their cars look as well as the pain it is to make the sunroof panel/plug fit properly. I have seen many cars cut the roof off and put on a non-sunroof skin.

If someone protested me for putting a non-sunroof skin on a sunroof car I would be very pissed. There is absolutely no advantage to doing this. You could say but its lighter! Nope.... Most sunroof cars have more meat around the sunroof to support the weight, but non sunroof cars have more bracing on the rest of the roof to keep the roof rigid. What's the difference in weight? I don't know, but not much if any at all....

Is it the intent of the rule? I don't know as I didn't write it, but reasonability must rule is club racing IMO.

[R2 Racing]

This whole sunroof thing needs to be figured out real quick because there are several builds going on right now that are taking non-sunroof examples and building them as only sunroof having models. Me personally, as I've said before, I think the idea of that giving any sort of an advantage is a little rediculous. We're putting 8 point rollcages into these things - one little beam in the roof that's missing or whatever isn't going to make a lick of difference Plus, we're allowed to patch/plug the sunroof holes anyways. But with that being said, the rules are the rules.....so what do the rules say? Otherwise we're talking about taking a perfectly good non-sunroof roof, cutting it off, welding on a sunroof roof, and then patching that sunroof roof. I mean, I like banging me head against concrete walls as much as the other guy, but come on. And remember, isn't the point of this whole thing to build cars easier and cheaper by giving them more chassis to build it out of? If I have to go through that ordeal, I think I'd continue to just look/spend for the right chassis.

Either way, it's certainly not something I'd ever protest someone over. But again, the rules are the rules....so what do the rules say? I certainly don't know - I think there's enough grey area there to make a case for either.

[jjjanos]

I have very mixed feelings about that. To the rule, that is correct and yes I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere, but, if I hurt my car bad enough that I need a new tub, I have a 1990 ITC Civic that is going to get an ITA transplant so that I can continue to race. Protest me and win, that's fine, but at least I will get to continue racing for a little while (until there are too many protests and they yank my license).

from 2009 GCR [/size][/size]

i think the language of "or replacement skin" is where the ambuiguity lies. a replacement skin is obviously not a "panel"

part of my curiousity is due to the itc crx for sale.....

Buy it... buy it... buy it... buy it...

Yep. Socially acceptable to many but not to the letter of the rule, IMO.

Christian

The roof could be a sticking point. Did all Si's come with a sunroof? Could you cut a sunroof into a non-Si roof and then fill it in? Seems kinda silly to have to do that.

Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed provided the panel is securely retained. Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed. All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

Complete replacement of the Si roof skin with a carb roof skin is permitted. That leaves the components and pieces inside the passenger compartment that would be attached to the roof simply because there is a sunroof.

A case can be made that the components of the panel include everything associated with the mounting of the sun roof - why is it there? For the sunroof. Therefore, those items are components of the sunroof. The list given in the text provides examples and is not an exclusive list. Thus, the Si roof is identical to the carb roof with the exception of those things that may be removed and those things which must be filled (the great big hole in the roof).

Writting paper on this would take a real a weenie. The Si already has to run a ton of ballast to make weight and the couple of pounds of component weight associated with the mounting brackets are tiny compared to the 175 pounds you have to add to the CRX to make the CRX Si weight. Removing these components isn't a competitive advantage; removing these components is keeping cars on the race track.

The bottom line is that its a crap shoot what the judicial process would rule.

[RexRacer19]

The bottom line is that its a crap shoot what the judicial process would rule.

While I agree on the weenie protest on this one, I think the outcome of any reasonable judicial process would have to be a non-compliant car.

If a shell is going to be turned into a car that is on a certain spec line...it has to be all or nothing. If they rule any other way, it opens the door for a huge amount of intorturation of the rules. It also sets a president (sp?) that it is OK to fudge the rules just a little as long as it is "harmless".

We all want to be the nice guy about stuff like this, and I am OK with that, but by doing that we open the door for folks to take advantage of that generosity. Then it comes to a head, and it is hard to cast stones because of your own skeletons. Then what?

[dickita15]

I am thinking that using the non sunroof body is legal. It is legal to replace the roof panel on say a CRXsi with the roof panel from a non sunroof car. It says right in the rules you can replace in with a skin or panel. So you can replace the roof panel then the parts are the same as using the non si tub. Legal.

[raffaelli]

Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed.

I can remove my sunroof.




All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

And choose not to replace it and have a hole in the roof?

[JoshS]

It says you can replace the sunroof. To me, that's the moving part. It doesn't say you can replace any other parts of the roof sheet metal.

[RexRacer19]

It says you can replace the sunroof. To me, that's the moving part. It doesn't say you can replace any other parts of the roof sheet metal.

I have always read it that way too.

[Jeremy Billiel]

All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

And choose not to replace it and have a hole in the roof?

The red word highlighted is in question. I read a skin as not a panel, not a sunroof plug, rather a roof skin.

[spnkzss]

Is this another request for clarification or wait till the ARRC?

Edit: I don't think it would be legal as you remove supports.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Is this another request for clarification or wait till the ARRC?

Edit: I don't think it would be legal as you remove supports.

No because before you can write paper I will kick you in the nuts :eek::eek::eek:

There is NO advantage to doing this other than its easier and looks better.

If there was a performance advantage then go for it.

[Knestis]

Y'all are convincing me (as an individual) that the ITAC might reasonably revisit the wording of the sunroof rule in the context of this new reality. I am NOT a fan of trying to write around interpretive issues but the sum of the text relating to sunroofs seems to be a piece-meal thing, rather than anything that's particularly well thought out.

If you have enough anxiety about it to warrant it, you are always welcome to ask for a change BUT if you DO, make sure you ask for an actual change. Interpretations aren't within the ITAC's purview. Tell us which bits you think are problematic, propose a change, and provide a rationale.

K

[Knestis]

...If there was a performance advantage then go for it.

That's not the standard that applies, Jeremy. You could conceivably cheat in a way that clearly makes you SLOWER, but still be found out of compliance.

K

[RexRacer19]

All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material.

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

[raffaelli]

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

My ITA CRX has a plug that I spent a fair amount of painful time with my manual rivet gun. But....


I think you can read this passage that you can pull of the sunroof and leave it open. If you do not leave it open, you can replace the entire panel (skin) from spot weld to spot weld since the skin is a continous roof piece as shown by Honda. I think the reference to the surrounding material is to prevent you from using a thin piece of CF.

[Jeremy Billiel]

My ITA CRX has a plug that I spent a fair amount of painful time with my manual rivet gun. But....


I think you can read this passage that you can pull of the sunroof and leave it open. If you do not leave it open, you can replace the entire panel (skin) from spot weld to spot weld since the skin is a continous roof piece as shown by Honda. I think the reference to the surrounding material is to prevent you from using a thin piece of CF.

Agreed 100%. If they did not intend for you to re-skin the roof, then why have skin in there at all?

[Jeremy Billiel]

That's not the standard that applies, Jeremy. You could conceivably cheat in a way that clearly makes you SLOWER, but still be found out of compliance.

K

Fair enough Kirk, I typically draw the line in the sand where someone is "cheating" for an advantage or not. This is what would or would not cause me to throw paper. In this case with no advantage, it would be silly to throw paper IMO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To remind everyone, the purpose of the removal of the VIN rule was to allow IDENTICAL chassis more options.

An non-roof car is not identical to a roof-car.

Kirk - welcome to the post VIN-Rule world. You asked for it, you got it.