...wouldn't this be covered under the "Freedom and Information Act"?
No. FoI (Freedom of Information Act) applies to records held by various Federal government agencies, not to private/public corporations. BMW is fully within its rights to withhold this information as proprietary.
To the issue at hand:
Those documents that Josh linked to are fine example of what exactly one needs to support other-than-returning-to-factory specs mods/repairs. As a tech inspector and a competitor, I would accept those as reasonable proof of appropriate and legal repairs. As long as Rob's car is manufactured within the dates specified in that bulletin, he's golden to do this work. And, frankly, I'm OK with him doing in in advance as a "prepair"; after all, how can one prove that the parts were installed as a repair or not? The mod - as detailed in that "TSB" - is legal, regardless of when or why it was installed.
However, absent such a TSB, this repair is never legal. And, the TSB above does not cover the secondary outstanding issue at hand (and prior), that being the rear subframe tears on the E36, and E46s subsequent to 02/00.
Further, regardless of whether BMW is tight-lipped about this repair or not, the responsibility is on THE COMPETITOR to prove it's legal. If you get protested for such a repair, stating that "it's legal but BMW won't give me a copy of the bulletin" is wholly insufficient as supporting evidence. You WILL be found to be contrary to the regulations absent this proof.
I think Josh summarized the situation quite well:
- "All chassis/structural/electrical repair...shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions..."
- Such a procedure, on your [E46] car [built before 02/00, inclusive] would be in concurrence with factory procedures...
- But doing a similar thing on an E36, or reinforcing the trunk floor of a Z3 because they tear apart at the diff mount, wouldn't be legal without such a document.
Can anyone offer a better way to fix a torn subframe or a ripped out shock mount?
To the rules. Consult your workshop manual and technical service bulletins.
I can"t remember a weekend that Smarty wasnt under someones car welding for a case of Pabst.
True, and those repairs could very well be illegal. And, in fact, I've mentioned that to Bob a couple of times, making sure he understands he should do the minimum required to "repair" and not "reinforce."
But prevalence of a modification does not equate legality.
In the case of the E-36 subframe the cost to replace the floor pan would exceed the cost of some IT cars in their entirety.
That's unfortunate, but that's the rules. If you don't agree with them, work towards getting them changed. Maybe you can talk the CRB into a spec line allowance for such a repair kit? If your car is not included in the above TSB you could include it as supporting evidence of a significant problem with the car, and you might get an allowance.
As we've noted many, many, many times before on this board, you pick your cars ("warts and all" is what we say). Yes, it sucks to have to repair the chassis of your BMW annually (or more frequently), but it also sucks to have to replace your Rabbit front hubs every three races, and your 944 control arms every few races, and your Saturn and NX2000 rear wheel bearings every few races. Sure, those examples do tend to pale in comparison to what BMW drivers are facing, but the modifications you're suggesting to "fix" your issue(s) are no less illegal than installing Audi hubs, cast aluminum control arms, or illegal alternate replacement bearings, respectively.
Warts. We all got 'em, just in various levels...
GA
