Teach me about ITR 325's

[Knestis]

Topic, schmopic.



K

[JoshS]

I think you mean 325ci (325i - Sedan). That is the model I like as well. 2,800lbs might be tough though.

I'd pick the Z4 2.5i over the 325Ci. Same suspension design, same engine. Smaller chassis, lower CG, etc etc. Not sure about aero though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd pick the Z4 2.5i over the 325Ci. Same suspension design, same engine. Smaller chassis, lower CG, etc etc. Not sure about aero though.

But you loves your Z's! I loves my Coupes...

[madrabbit15]

Building a e46 325 now. I should have it on track by memorial day. I will let you guys know how light I get it. It is going to be close. After a miata, I like my sedans, room is alway nice.

Derek

[Eagle7]

From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ergo, it is permissible to "update" to match the specs of a "superior" car, but you cannot create a car with a combination of equipment that the factory never delivered. What you describe above would be illegal.

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

If you think that's best for the category in pursuit of simplicity, I can understand. But, I respectively disagree: being forced to upgrade the lesser-expensive, easily-obtainable model to more-rare, more-expensive specs is most assuredly not "simpler" for anyone except the rulesmakers... - GA

Ouch. If I understand you correctly, virtually all the S4s (86-88) are illegal. The S4 has a different front bumper cover and different body side-molding than the S5 (89-91). I think you are saying the S5 engine (and any other S5-only parts) can't be used with the S4 body, because that combo never came from the factory. That would be earth-shaking.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob and team at AutoTechnic have some E46 323's in ITS. I am assuming the weight of a E46 325 would be the same. 2800 is really 2600-2620 without driver...would be cool...

[seckerich]

Ouch. If I understand you correctly, virtually all the S4s (86-88) are illegal. The S4 has a different front bumper cover and different body side-molding than the S5 (89-91). I think you are saying the S5 engine (and any other S5-only parts) can't be used with the S4 body, because that combo never came from the factory. That would be earth-shaking.

Actually no. Side molding can be removed so that is a moot point. The bumper covers should be changed as a pair to bring the tub up to 89-91 spec. You are not allowed to create a model, just bring that tub to match the desired years spec. Nothing earth shattering.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The RX-7 seems to be unusual as far as spec lines go. So many models and a pair of engine outputs. If I read correctly, Kirk is saying the the spec line defines the model - and agree because 99% of the spec lines are singular models. In order to be fair to this car, it would make sense to break them out.

So I am sure there are Franken RX-7's out there that started as early cars and were updated to later cars by assembly. From an on-track performance standpoint, they can't perform any better than the 89-91 GTUs because all the good parts are on that car.

[Knestis]

OKAY - Riddle me this, Batman...

IF substantially different parts (e.g., bumpers) define one model as distinct from another model, AND we can't put SOME of the parts from one model on another model without creating a model that never existed, THEN why even have the update/backdate rule that defines "assemblies" as the basis for updating/backdating...?

The only allowance for updating/backdating consistent with the assumptions being presented here would require updating/backdating ANY AND ALL parts/assemblies that are different, or none at all. And THAT wouldn't have been legal under the VIN rule restriction, since the VIN defines a model because it's year-specific.

Hmmm?

Kirk (who's increasingly baffled by the great inconsistencies here, between what he thought he understood and what is being presented here)

[Greg Amy]

Since you probably know my answer(s), let me turn that around on you instead: If you CAN create a model that never existed vis-a-vis bumpers, other bodywork, fuel injection systems, combination of any/all of these and more etc, then why add the further restriction of "can't create a model" to the rules?

I think at this point I can safely infer you disagree with me. That's fine, though it does in a way seem out of character (making me humorously ask: "Hey! ITAC! Who is this guy and what did you do with Kirk Knestis???") But all I'm doing is pointing out the rules for what they're saying, just like you and I always do. I suggest the onus is not on me to support the rules as they're written, but for you to try and illustrate why they don't apply as written...

GA

[Gary L]

OKAY - Riddle me this, Batman...

IF substantially different parts (e.g., bumpers) define one model as distinct from another model, AND we can't put SOME of the parts from one model on another model without creating a model that never existed, THEN why even have the update/backdate rule that defines "assemblies" as the basis for updating/backdating...?

The only allowance for updating/backdating consistent with the assumptions being presented here would require updating/backdating ANY AND ALL parts/assemblies that are different, or none at all. And THAT wouldn't have been legal under the VIN rule restriction, since the VIN defines a model because it's year-specific.

Hmmm?

Kirk (who's increasingly baffled by the great inconsistencies here, between what he thought he understood and what is being presented here)

We don't (didn't) need the VIN rule to ascribe year-specificity. Even with the VIN rule gone, you still must at some point, declare what "model" you've built, to include the year. Why? Because for starters, we could otherwise build cars that are older than 1968, or newer than current MY+4. Secondly, we could otherwise present a bogus factory shop manual, which is clearly year-specific IAW 9.1.3.C:

To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so requested at any technical inspection.

[dickita15]

I have got to admit I really have no idea what a model is in this context. There is nothing in the glossary. When speaking of Mazdas, the RX7 is a model as is the Miata or the RX3. Is the definition really finer than that? Can someone give a good example of creating a model? Are there cases where there is more than one model on a spec line now?
My 79 rx7 has 81-85 front sheetmetal and bumper as they are more plentiful and a couple of pounds lighter. Did I create a model? If so why is there even a update backdate provision?

[Knestis]

Dude - I honestly DON'T even THINK I know the answer in this case. Yeah, the rules say what they say, but WHAT they say is dependent on how we define "model." I know what I've generally understood to this point - that "model" is defined by "spec line" - but I'm calling my own interpretations into question.

Interestingly, a quick trip in the Wayback Machine to the very first IT rules...

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

...shows that:

"Updating and backdating of engine, drive train, and brakes is permitted within the same make/model/engine size of car."

No reference to "assemblies," and no evidence of a prohibition against creating a model. Both of those clauses got added later to "clarify" the rule, so were certainly not among the Founding Fathers' first assumptions.

I don't think we can know with much confidence how those various pieces of the rules are supposed to reconcile among themselves at this point.

K

[Gary L]

I know one thing; having read all this, I'm glad that of all the old 142's out there that I could have bought, I ended up with one in which the engine (ummm... make that THE engine, a 71 B20E) happens to match the year model of the chassis.

[seckerich]

This one could go the distance on mental masturbation!!

[Greg Amy]

I have got to admit I really have no idea what a model is in this context.

I concur.

Is it just "Mazda RX-7"? If so, and that "model" encompasses all that an "RX-7" can be, how it is even POSSIBLE to "create" a model, short of putting in a Chevy 350ci? And, absent that Chevy engine, why have the line about allowing updating/backdating, and restricting "creation of a model", since as long as you use RX-7 parts it's impossible to "create" a model?

Interestingly, a quick trip in the Wayback Machine to the very first IT rules...

You're right: I totally forgot about that old verbiage.

My answer to your initial quesiton would have been "think of it in context of when the rules were written; i.e., bodies were rarely changed, and really the only difference between the various 'models' of 1972-1979 Borgwards as the S model that had the 1.6L and carbs and 4-speed, and the SX model that had the 1.8L, fuel injection and the close-ratio 5-speed."

Given the old verbiage, I'd suggest the original intent was so that you could not create an S+, which was the carb'd engine (and much lower classified weight) with the SX's close-ratio box, for example.

Today that clear line is no longer there; we've got the RX-7 that had two different gearboxes, two different sets of brakes, two different compression ratios, two different hoods, two different 5th gears, rear wing or no rear wing, and so forth. Only a Mazda enthusiast would even begin to understand what S4 versus S5 is all about. In the context of that original rule, I'd suggest my original premise stands, and that's my baseline.

However, we now have that new verbiage. Was that a clarification, or was it a rule change? Did it happen as a Fastrack proposal (i.e., rule change) or did it happen on a Tech Bulletin (i.e., clarification without change of rule). When did it happen? I think the answer to those questions will go a long way to interpreting its intent, as well as framing my position going forward...

GA

[Doc Bro]

It's interesting to see how this thread has morphed into the same discussion as the "so when is a wing legal in IT" thread I started several months ago. Given the uncertainty of the topic, and the fact that the topic can carry pages worth of discussion, I think it would be a good time to start to clean up this rule.

R

[juliancates]

So, I'm a noob, so please forgive the noobish questions. Since I'm currently building an ITS/R 325is, this is a timely thread.

Question: is the 1994 M-Technic 325is part of the spec line or not? I've been told that it is. Given the ability to "update/backdate", would you not be able to use the M3 style bumpers that came on this model? Going back to the subframe reinforcements, if they came on this model, wouldn't you be able to update/backdate and add them?

[Spinnetti]

So, I'm a noob, so please forgive the noobish questions. Since I'm currently building an ITS/R 325is, this is a timely thread.

Question: is the 1994 M-Technic 325is part of the spec line or not? I've been told that it is. Given the ability to "update/backdate", would you not be able to use the M3 style bumpers that came on this model? Going back to the subframe reinforcements, if they came on this model, wouldn't you be able to update/backdate and add them?

I'm in a similar boat! I see a M-Technic for sale with possibilities... is it legal for ITS/ITR (without swapping parts)?

[JoshS]

So, I'm a noob, so please forgive the noobish questions. Since I'm currently building an ITS/R 325is, this is a timely thread.

Question: is the 1994 M-Technic 325is part of the spec line or not? I've been told that it is. Given the ability to "update/backdate", would you not be able to use the M3 style bumpers that came on this model? Going back to the subframe reinforcements, if they came on this model, wouldn't you be able to update/backdate and add them?

Yes, it would seem to be part of the spec line, and therefore, you can use its parts.

As far as the subframe mount reinforcements, as we discussed earlier in the thread, in my opinion you need to have some sort of proof that the M-Technic came with them. I haven't seen anyone produce that sort of documentation yet.