Life without the VIN rule

[tom91ita]

the issue of the wholesale roof replacement was here before the VIN rule. the VIN rule changes may have made it a larger issue because now it could result in an ITC crx si becoming an ITB car.

but let me ask the reverse and i will use my beloved crx si as an example. the standard civics and crx's from circa 85-91 did not have a factory sunroof. all the Si versions did.

now i know i saw the issue of the roof openings be "fixed" in either this forum or elsewhere where folks cut off a roof and welded a standard one on.

but if i cut the roof off a standard civic or crx and welded on a roof from an actual Si, would that be acceptable? it is not a correct VIN but would be a correct configuration, right?

[dickita15]

but if i cut the roof off a standard civic or crx and welded on a roof from an actual Si, would that be acceptable? it is not a correct VIN but would be a correct configuration, right?

That is the whole crux of the issue. I say it is legal at the roof skin is a panel. I do agree if there are any extra reinforcements on the SI roof that that cannot be called removable sunroof bracketry you have to put them back in.

[Gary L]

but if i cut the roof off a standard civic or crx and welded on a roof from an actual Si, would that be acceptable? it is not a correct VIN but would be a correct configuration, right?

Absolutely not.

I'm no Honda expert, but it appears the two cars in your example are not on the same spec line.

[dickita15]

But Gary you are allowed to replace the SI sunroof with a panel or reskin it according to the rules. Why is reskining it with a non sunroof car roof panel not allowed?
This is not an update backdate question, it is a question about the method for doing the allowed removal of the sunroof.
This really has nothing to do with the VIN rule.

[Gary L]

But Gary you are allowed to replace the SI sunroof with a panel or reskin it according to the rules. Why is reskining it with a non sunroof car roof panel not allowed?
This is not an update backdate question, it is a question about the method for doing the allowed removal of the sunroof.
This really has nothing to do with the VIN rule.

I agree it has nothing to do with the VIN rule. But it has everything to do with creating a model that never existed... a "standard" Civic with an SI roof panel. The weenie protestor writes something along the lines of "...structurally different than the original model, therefore illegal".

On edit: And this works the other direction, BTW... an SI with a "standard" roof panel. It's also a model that never existed from the factory.

[Greg Amy]

If this sunroof issue is really giving everyone such a heartburn (which boggles my mind), and you want to change the rule for the better, then change it to allow sunroof cars to run the non-sunroof roof, and vice versa. Don't mention anything about a sunroof or non-sunroof chassis, simply mention it's OK to graft over the entire roof (e.g., "panel or replacement roof" instead of "skin").

Yes, doing this now is clearly illegal; I don't see where there's any argument about that. But, it's really a non-issue, not worthy of such "weenie discussion" and is clearly and completely a separate issue unaffected by the VIN rule change.

Simple: make it legal, or protest it.

[RexRacer19]

Greg,

It seems that we always get tripped up on the wording of the rules. Even if it gets changed, somebody somewhere will claim that it says/means something different.

Like I (and others) said, a weenie protest thing it would be. The only way that I would feel justified in protesting over something like that is, if I knew that not putting the sunroof "structure" under the roof saved like 25lbs or something. Otherwise, yes, it is silly.

The heartburn that I have over it is that it sort of sets up (continues?) a double standard. While this one may be innocent, while we publicly say "let it slide"...give people an inch and they will take a mile.

[jjjanos]

[quote=Greg Amy;280514]Yes, doing this now is clearly illegal[/quote]

NO - it is NOT clearly illegal.

I don't see where there's any argument about that.

Yes, there is an argument about that.

The GCR allows me to remove the components of the sunroof. The bracing in place for because of the sunroof, and for no other reason, is no different than the rest of the crap that is used to mount the sunroof. They are part of the sunroof system.

The intent of the rule might be that these components cannot be removed, but the wording of the rule allows their removal.

That is unless you are suggesting that the only components that can be removed are the motors, cables and rails - in which case all of the wiring for electrical sunroof motors better be in place because those would not be legally removable.

9.1.3.D.8.f needs modification. It needs subparts dealing with f.1 convertibles, f.2. t-tops, f.3 sunroofs.

[Greg Amy]

NO - it is NOT clearly illegal.

You will be shocked to read I disagree . While I understand your position, that's not that way it's been commonly interpreted since the beginnings of I.T. (I built my first one in 1985.)

But, if we want to accept it that way then I'm perfectly fine with it: it accomplishes the same end result as my proposal above to allow re-roofing, and it makes my existing project a whole sh*tboat easier...

But, if you really think you can re-write any existing rule such as to block said activity, you're fooling yourself(ves). The problem is not with the rule - it's clearly written in generally-accepted language. The actual root problem is with our tangential acceptance of tortured interpretations. We bitch-slapped that attitude down at this year's ARRC, and I am generally hopeful we'll continue in that regard (spherical bearing rules changes notwithstanding).

Always rember that no amount of rules re-writing will stop cheating as long as we subconsciously endorse tortured rules interpretations. - GA

[nsuracer]

Good God, this place gives me a headache. They write a whole effing rule book, with a glossery, and still nobody can agree on what the words mean.

I'm with you Jeff.

Rule #1. It is easier to beat someone in the Tech Barn than on the racetrack.

Rule #2. SCCA is a member driven organization. The fact that we have a rule book that is larger than the King James Version is because we have a large number of members who are RULE BOOK RACERS. But that is ok because we are a member driven organization.

When I was running Mini Stock on circle track, our rules were 3 pages long and somehow we were able to muddle through.

I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror for protesting some bullshit infraction that had no performance advantage. I also refuse to field strip my engine for a Regional Race.....Any Regional Race. First pays the same as last. All we are racing for is personal satisfaction and a $6 trophy. Where I finish and where the official results say I finish....who cares. I know that I am legal and thats all that matters.

[CDS]

Absolutely not.

I'm no Honda expert, but it appears the two cars in your example are not on the same spec line.

If you graft a sunroof roof (including all brackets, braces, etc.) onto a non-roof (i.e. non-Si) CRX, you have a chassis that is identical to an Si car except for the VIN. With the elimination of the VIN requirement, I think this is legal. The elimination of the VIN rule means that the chassis in its original configuration doesn't have to be on the same spec line as long as when you are done the car is identical in specs to others on the spec line you are building to. In other words, I can start with a standard CRX and do whatever is necessary to turn it into a CRX Si so long as when I am done it is completely identical to an Si from the factory.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you graft a sunroof roof (including all brackets, braces, etc.) onto a non-roof (i.e. non-Si) CRX, you have a chassis that is identical to an Si car except for the VIN. With the elimination of the VIN requirement, I think this is legal. The elimination of the VIN rule means that the chassis in its original configuration doesn't have to be on the same spec line as long as when you are done the car is identical in specs to others on the spec line you are building to. In other words, I can start with a standard CRX and do whatever is necessary to turn it into a CRX Si so long as when I am done it is completely identical to an Si from the factory.

And I think most agree with you. However, this is what people are now doing and proposing is legal:

Taking a non-sunroof car and using it as the core for a 'sunroof only' car. They are doing this under the interpretation that a 're-skin' is the same as a 're-roof' and they would end up with the same car in the end.

Others are saying it is illegal because you can't 're-roof' from a car that has a different roof (ie: no sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath) because you have created a car that never existed.

[CDS]

And I think most agree with you. However, this is what people are now doing and proposing is legal:

Taking a non-sunroof car and using it as the core for a 'sunroof only' car. They are doing this under the interpretation that a 're-skin' is the same as a 're-roof' and they would end up with the same car in the end.

Others are saying it is illegal because you can't 're-roof' from a car that has a different roof (ie: no sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath) because you have created a car that never existed.

I'm in the camp that believes that a "reskin" is not the same as a "re-roof". I think you can peel the sheetmetal off a non-roof car and put it on a roof car, but the sunroof-specific bracing, ect. need to remain.

This is giving me second thoughts about converting my car. It certainly would be much easier to just swap the engine (actually just the head, I believe), wiring harness and associated FI components and call it an Si with the sunroof "reskinned", but I don't think this is in keeping with the spirit of the rules. I need to explore exactly what the differences are in the roof structure between the roof and non-roof cars. Maybe you could duplicate it without having to graft on an entire roof.

[R2 Racing]

Others are saying it is illegal because you can't 're-roof' from a car that has a different roof (ie: no sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath) because you have created a car that never existed.

They also never made a XYZ that had Koni's on it either, but the rules, as written, allow for that specific modification. In that same context, I don't think it's a move to "create a car that never existed", but to make a modification that is allowed by the rules, as written. That modification is to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts, and then plugging the hole with a new skin. I think that's the basis for doing it. (edit - but is not necessarily my opinion on what can or cannot be done, but is my explanation for why some may feel it's legal)

Maybe the question is, in "to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts", does that include as Andy put it "sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath"? If it does, than I see no issue with swapping the entire roof. If I can legally (1) remove all of that stuff under the sunroof removal rule AND (2) put on a new skin under the hole plug rule, it will be the exact same thing.


***Just so there's no confusion about what's behind anything I say, because I've been here long enough to know that everyone likes to speculate about everyone elses "agenda", I am not currently or have any immediate plans to build a "sun roof having model" racecar out of a "non-sun roof having model" chassis. I have toyed with the idea of converting our ITC Civic S into an ITB Civic Si, but quite frankly, I have no need/desire to and I don't think my Dad would ever let me. He likes fiddling with those God-forsaken carbuerators for some reason. I think it has something to do with his oldness. I just think that this whole issue needs to be discussed, which we are.

[Jeremy Billiel]

They also never made a XYZ that had Koni's on it either, but the rules, as written, allow for that specific modification. In that same context, I don't think it's a move to "create a car that never existed", but to make a modification that is allowed by the rules, as written. That modification is to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts, and then plugging the hole with a new skin. I think that's the basis for doing it. (edit - but is not necessarily my opinion on what can or cannot be done, but is my explanation for why some may feel it's legal)

Maybe the question is, in "to remove a sunroof and all of it's associated pieces and parts", does that include as Andy put it "sunroof bracing and infrastructure underneath"? If it does, than I see no issue with swapping the entire roof. If I can legally (1) remove all of that stuff under the sunroof removal rule AND (2) put on a new skin under the hole plug rule, it will be the exact same thing.


***Just so there's no confusion about what's behind anything I say, because I've been here long enough to know that everyone likes to speculate about everyone elses "agenda", I am not currently or have any immediate plans to build a "sun roof having model" racecar out of a "non-sun roof having model" chassis. I have toyed with the idea of converting our ITC Civic S into an ITB Civic Si, but quite frankly, I have no need/desire to and I don't think my Dad would ever let me. He likes fiddling with those God-forsaken carbuerators for some reason. I think it has something to do with his oldness. I just think that this whole issue needs to be discussed, which we are.

BINGO!!!

Ruck has stated it exaclty. My thought has always been that if I can remove the sunroof and its "parts" and I can re-skin the car then there is NO difference between a non-sunroof car and a sunroof car.

I never in my wildest dream would think people would get stuck on this, but now I am curious. I am very tempted to remove the sunroof metal braces from the GSR and weigh them. I will weight them, but to Jeff's point prior, I am 100% convinced that the weight difference is not material, IF at all.

[Greg Amy]

He likes fiddling with those God-forsaken carbuerators for some reason. I think it has something to do with his oldness. I just think that this whole issue needs to be discussed, which we are.

Isn't that more of a family matter rather than something we should discuss on the IT forum...?

(Sorry, it was too easy. I couldn't resist...)

GA, who does all his own moto tune-ups and would love to make everybody go back to carbs, so that he could sit back and watch all the rice-kiddies go, 'uh...whaa...?')

[Gary L]

If you graft a sunroof roof (including all brackets, braces, etc.) onto a non-roof (i.e. non-Si) CRX, you have a chassis that is identical to an Si car except for the VIN. With the elimination of the VIN requirement, I think this is legal. The elimination of the VIN rule means that the chassis in its original configuration doesn't have to be on the same spec line as long as when you are done the car is identical in specs to others on the spec line you are building to.

And I agree. But the disclaimer (in red, above) was not in Tom's question. He didn't say what he was building. But it's okay, 'cuz now that I go back and read it again, I'm not sure I understand his question, nor my answer.

I'm gonna go work on the Volvo.

P.S. If anyone thinks this Okie is gonna protest someone's roof skin, they've a long wait in store. I prefer to concentrate on the really good stuff... like missing windshield washer bottles.

[Jeremy Billiel]

P.S. If anyone thinks this Okie is gonna protest someone's roof skin, they've a long wait in store. I prefer to concentrate on the really good stuff... like missing windshield washer bottles.

Gary - For haha's now I am very tempted to zip tie a WW bottle to the roof of the car.

[Greg Krom]

Putting my Devils Advocate hat on...

How do we know that the CRX Si (or Integra GSR or Wombat GT...) was only available with a sunroof? Does the Factory Service Manual document that? Does the GCR?

The Factory Service Manual and GCR are the official sources of vehicle specifications, right? If neither of those sources document that the CRX Si was only available with a sunroof then for the sake of argument I would say "officially" it was available either with or without sunroof.

[tom91ita]

the sunroof mechanism is in the FSM for the 85 crx si.

i bought my first FSM in 1985 after i picked up my 1985 crx si. the FSM was actually one for the civic which it shares its running gear and a thinner supplement for items only on the Si such as the fuel injection system and the sunroof, etc..

and if looking at factory sticker pricing sheets, it is listed as standard equipment.