Spec lines and variants of a car

[Ron Earp]

What's the deal with a variation of a car, say a convertible version of a car, and its classification in IT? Does it need its own spec line?

For example, in ITS the second generation RX7 came in a convertible variant. Can the convertible variant run based on the fact the RX7 is classed? Can specialized parts from the convertible RX7 be used in a coupe build?

[tim240z]

What's the deal with a variation of a car, say a convertible version of a car, and its classification in IT? Does it need its own spec line?

For example, in ITS the second generation RX7 came in a convertible variant. Can the convertible variant run based on the fact the RX7 is classed? Can specialized parts from the convertible RX7 be used in a coupe build?

Find something on a drop top mustang you like? :P

[Ron Earp]

Find something on a drop top mustang you like? :P

No, but trying to assess if I should start to look!

I thought that the RX7 guys that built the best cars used something from a convertible but I'm probably wrong about that. My old Jensen Healey was only a "roadster" so there was nothing to consider there. And the 260Z, well, only coupes so no choices.

[Chip42]

if its the same car, generally, and has a hardtop avaialble for the convertable, then I think it's OK (like the TR8) but if the drop top version is somehow different, form the IT perspective, I'd say it demands a seperate classification.

as for convertable specific bits and pieces, say something like lower chassis braces or tie bars, I don't know how I feel about allowing those onto the tin top cousins as it lies outside of the additional suspension braces that are spelled out in the rules. certainly a greyish area.

[Knestis]

As I mentioned elsewhere here, I think this is an important function of the ITAC's initial listing of any car, determining its spec line - or lines. It's an important consideration that once a spec line is established, we are granted freedom to up- and back-date (and cross-date?) among any years, trim levels, etc. that appear on it. The ITAC's listings need to made with that outcome in mind.

Some of the real issues have been chased our (e.g., the '92-95 Civic variants in A) but i suspect there are some oddities still to be addressed.

K

[dickita15]

In your RX7 example the one part they steal from convertibles is the aluminum hood but my understanding is that part is only legal because it also came on a rare hardtop model the GTU.

[Ron Earp]

I haven't turned up anything worth messing with or pressing the issue over. There are some subframe connectors specific to convertibles but they aren't that good and the cage would negate some of that need. I saw some lore that the convertibles came with a three point strut bar, now that would have been nice, but found out that's incorrect.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In your RX7 example the one part they steal from convertibles is the aluminum hood but my understanding is that part is only legal because it also came on a rare hardtop model the GTU.

Yes, the GTUs. 1000 produced in 1989, 100 in 1990.

[mossaidis]

Some of the real issues have been chased our (e.g., the '92-95 Civic variants in A) but i suspect there are some oddities still to be addressed.

please clarify... what oddities? like EX vs Si? Thanks, Mickey

[CRallo]

IIRC, per the rules, if said vehicle is available in non-convertible form, than the convertible version is not eligible for classification.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What's the deal with a variation of a car, say a convertible version of a car, and its classification in IT? Does it need its own spec line?

For example, in ITS the second generation RX7 came in a convertible variant. Can the convertible variant run based on the fact the RX7 is classed? Can specialized parts from the convertible RX7 be used in a coupe build?

No, they can not, it's not grey either. The rules state the car has to have the same body type in order to UD/BD.