Teach me about ITR 325's

[Greg Amy]

So the question is simple: do stock parts trump the ITCS or does the ITCS trump the stock stuff?

I would suggest it's plainly clear that stock parts trump the ITCS at all times. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the ITCS to keep this in mind when they choose to classify vehicles of limited production.

- GA

[Doc Bro]

I raised this question a couple of seasons ago here and to the ITAC in regards to the Z3 wheels. It came with 7.5's, my arguement was specifically that it is a stock part. My how times have changed around here......

I think I'll get myself a ghost writer....it may increase my street cred....or is it that I'm just ahead of my time???

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I raised this question a couple of seasons ago here and to the ITAC in regards to the Z3 wheels. It came with 7.5's, my arguement was specifically that it is a stock part. My how times have changed around here......

I think I'll get myself a ghost writer....it may increase my street cred....or is it that I'm just ahead of my time???

R

You aren't the first Rob and you won't be the last. Porsche guys and RX-7 guys all want to know why they can't use stock wheel sizes...and probably the crux of Josh's proposal to lift all wheel restictions.

Wheels are a perfect example where stock parts do NOT trump the ITCS.

[Greg Amy]

Wheels are a perfect example where stock parts do NOT trump the ITCS.

Any others?


On edit: assuming there are other examples - none immediately come to mind - the responsibility is upon the rulesmakers to correct these via line items, if so desired. The assumption has, and hopefully always will be, "these are the only allowed modifications from stock", or known more colloquially, IIDSYCYC. The corollary to that is if it's on a stock car, and the rules don't explicitly say that you have to remove it, then you don't. As stated above, the wheels are a good example, as there is a specific and non-equivocal line item that says "maximum wheel widths are..."

However, the M-Tech stock front splitter - assuming it extends outwards beyond the body outline - is a perfect example of where this does not apply, because the appropriate section begins "An airdam may be added..." If one does not "add" an airdam, then one is free to completely ignore this section, a section which specifies limitations to an air dam but only if it is "added". Further, if an airdam is added below the existing factory M-Tech airdam, only that addition is subject to the subsequent limitations, which, ironically, would mean it could stick out flush with the "out-sticking" stock M-Tech splitter...

I really, really, really, really hope you ITAC guys are keeping this kinda stuff in mind as you're allowing in these limited production cars... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Any others?


On edit: assuming there are other examples - none immediately come to mind - the responsibility is upon the rulesmakers to correct these via line items, if so desired. The assumption has, and hopefully always will be, "these are the only allowed modifications from stock", or known more colloquially, IIDSYCYC. The corollary to that is if it's on a stock car, and the rules don't explicitly say that you have to remove it, then you don't. As stated above, the wheels are a good example, as there is a specific and non-equivocal line item that says "maximum wheel widths are..."

However, the M-Tech stock front splitter - assuming it extends outwards beyond the body outline - is a perfect example of where this does not apply, because the appropriate section begins "An airdam may be added..." If one does not "add" an airdam, then one is free to completely ignore this section, a section which specifies limitations to an air dam but only if it is "added". Further, if an airdam is added below the existing factory M-Tech airdam, only that addition is subject to the subsequent limitations, which, ironically, would mean it could stick out flush with the "out-sticking" stock M-Tech splitter...

I really, really, really, really hope you ITAC guys are keeping this kinda stuff in mind as you're allowing in these limited production cars... - GA

An excellent interpretation on the rules IMHO - except you quote something that is not there. It doesn't say that "an airdam may be added..." It says that "a front spoiler / airdam is PERMITTED. Then it goes on to give those limitations. I think reasonable people could argue this as grey in that if you are going to use one, it has to meet the spec in the ITCS - stock or not.

My only issue is that it would be really hard to know every limited production car on every spec line. I am sure there aren't many but I am sure that when the E36 325's were classed way back when, this car was not even considered because not many people even know it exists. Add to that you would have to know WHAT parts make it special and how they fit the rules. A tall order in a procative fashion.

It's an interesting case study for sure.

[dickita15]

I think the easiest way to look at this is stock parts are legal on items that you MAY modify or substitute such as the s2000 shocks. All IT cars require some modification. You SHALL install safety equipment. You SHALL remove ABS. You SHALL secure sunroofs.

[Greg Amy]

It [actually] says that "a front spoiler / airdam is PERMITTED.

So is a stock left front fender...what are the restrictions on those? And, if it's intended to affect stock parts, why is it listed in the rules?

I think reasonable people could argue this as grey in that if you are going to use one, it has to meet the spec in the ITCS - stock or not.

IIDSYCTYC.

The Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, you bloody well CAN!"

New Amy Corollary: "If it doesn't say you have to change/remove/modify it, then you don't."

My only issue is that it would be really hard to know every limited production car on every spec line.

But that's your responsibility as a rulesmaker, Andy. If you're unsure, then label it "Tabled for Research". And if you subsequently find loopholes that weren't what you intended, it's your responsibility to change it.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that's your responsibility as a rulesmaker, Andy. If you're unsure, then label it "Tabled for Research". And if you subsequently find loopholes that weren't what you intended, it's your responsibility to change it.

GA

And you aren't telling us anything we don't know and do if we think its appropriate. We do all the things you expect - but it's easy to Monday-morning QB the MT issue. Most Bimmer people don't even know the car exists. And even knowing what we know, it's debateable if it should be delisted.

Like I have stated, the bigger issue is limited production cars, what defines them and how do we deal with them at classifiation.