The VIN Requirement Rule

While you make some good points, you have to consider the fact that in current day, the guy with the 1.6 and the guy with the regular Charger all all kinds of f'ed.

They can't do anything. Their cars are steaming piles of non-competitiveness.

Once the VIN rule hits, yea, it might cost a few bucks to make their car competitive, but they CAN do that. If the "brake backing plates" are that hard to find, imagine trying to find a WHOLE Shelby that can be made into a race car. That will be 1000x more expensive.

-Tom
 
I asked that my comments not be considered in a model specific way but...
trhoppe said:
... you have to consider the fact that in current day, the guy with the 1.6 and the guy with the regular Charger all all kinds of f'ed. They can't do anything. Their cars are steaming piles of non-competitiveness...
Click to expand...
If this is the case for these two models, do they not need to be considered for another shot at the 'process'? In other words, do we just accept that 1.6s and Chargers are not competative or do we look at why and try to adjust them using the 'process' to allow them to be competative? Or adjust the process to take into consideration what went wrong? Maybe in the process making the 'process' better?
If all Chargers are 'all kinds of f'ed', is there a point in listing them on seperate spec lines? Why not list them on the same spec line, therefore allowing update/backdate and eliminating the need for the rule change?
Edit to add my name... Andrew Rowe
 
mom'sZ said:
I asked that my comments not be considered in a model specific way but...

If all Chargers are 'all kinds of f'ed', is there a point in listing them on seperate spec lines? Why not list them on the same spec line, therefore allowing update/backdate and eliminating the need for the rule change?
Edit to add my name... Andrew Rowe
Click to expand...

If that was the case, then you wouldn't have the "same" car in different classes, like my CRX. The DX, carbed version is listed in ITC. The Fuel Injected SI version is in ITB. If they were on the same spec, then they wouldn't be in different classes.

On the other hand, a friend races a V6 Fiero in ITA... If the 4cyl car (ITB) was on the same spec line as the v6, he would have a limetless supply of parts tubs as other than the motor, they are identical!

hoop
 
Did I hear my name taken in vain? (smiley). Actually, the point that I was making is that with the VIN plate requirement removed, then how can you tell the difference between a Dodge Charger and a Dodge Shelby Charger? Other than the different nose plastic, the only differences are compression (9.0 for the Dodge and 9.6 for the Shelby) and the front brakes (228mm for the Dodge and 256mm for the Shelby). So, it would be very easy to take a Shelby, change the nose and call it a plain Dodge. As far as making weight, the first time I went across the scales after preping the car, I was under by about 20 lbs, and I had made NO effort to lighten the car. The car is now 30 lbs over.

And as far as being competitive, while the Shelby struggled in ITA, the plain Charger ran at the front of the pack at Summit Point just a couple of years ago. Tho Omni was up there, too, if I remember right. Now I don't know the preparation of Matt Green's ITB Charger, and I suspect it was VERY well developed.

I do not know if this type of situation exists for any other cars, but I wouldn't be surprised.

But, even with the unintended consequences, I think that removing the VIN requirement is a good idea. It would be much easier for me to rebuild my car if I didn't have to find a body with a Shelby VIN plate.
 
RacerBill said:
...with the VIN plate requirement removed, then how can you tell the difference between a Dodge Charger and a Dodge Shelby Charger?
Click to expand...
That's one of the fallacies regarding the VIN rule in the first place. I'll turn that question back around on you now, Bill: how can you tell now *with* the VIN rule?
...different nose plastic...
Click to expand...
Which can be legally installed in a regular Charger with the current air dam rule...
...compression (9.0 for the Dodge and 9.6 for the Shelby)
Click to expand...
...which "can" be done now to a regular Charger if you want to cheat; the VIN rule doesn't stop that...
...and the front brakes (228mm for the Dodge and 256mm for the Shelby)
Click to expand...
Easily visible through the wheels.
So, it would be very easy to take a Shelby, change the nose and call it a plain Dodge.
Click to expand...
And, today, it's very easy to cheat, increasing the plain Dodge's power to Shelby levels and go undetected. Even with a VIN rule in place.

My point is, many folks oppose the elimination of the VIN rule because they believe it deters cheating. Of course, it doesn't. If someone is going to cheat, they're going to cheat, and having a VIN describing what's *supposed* to be inside the engine doesn't physically stop someone from cheating...and, as you noted, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to build specific, less plentiful, cars. - GA
 
"That's one of the fallacies regarding the VIN rule in the first place. I'll turn that question back around on you now, Bill: how can you tell now *with* the VIN rule?"

Well, that question came to mind when I was building my car, and took the sill plate off to clean up rust, and took the whole dash out to install the cage...... What would stop me from putting matching VIN plates from a plain Charger, other than I would probably not be able to live with my self?

"Easily visible through the wheels."

Since I don't ever remember seeing the smaller disks, but I suppose that it is up to me to become familiar with the different setups.

Greg: I think you missed the last part of my last post. While I was pointing out some possible unintended consequences, I am firmly in favor of eliminating the VIN plate requirement.
 
Bill,

I think Greg's point is that it's not really an unintended consequence. How is it different - in reality - if you ran your Shelby as a Charger OR you ran a Charger with an illegal Shelby motor?

This rule doesn't give you any additional leeway. You cheat if you want to cheat.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Bill,

I think Greg's point is that it's not really an unintended consequence. How is it different - in reality - if you ran your Shelby as a Charger OR you ran a Charger with an illegal Shelby motor?

This rule doesn't give you any additional leeway. You cheat if you want to cheat.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Maybe I used the term 'unintended consequence' incorrectly. In any event, let's get rid of the VIN plate requirement!

And if you continue to argue on a point we agree on, you'll be cut off the list for the Graeter's party, Friday night at the IT Fest!:D (Ask Ray about Graeters).
 
RacerBill said:
And as far as being competitive, while the Shelby struggled in ITA, the plain Charger ran at the front of the pack at Summit Point just a couple of years ago. Tho Omni was up there, too, if I remember right. Now I don't know the preparation of Matt Green's ITB Charger, and I suspect it was VERY well developed.
Click to expand...


Well, it wasn't my car for one thing :) In fact I was in no way affiliated with that car, but I have seen it once or twice (literally), and it was nicely done and well driven.

As for the rule, KILL IT! There are at least two of us on here with Neons that would like ability to swap between SOHC and DOHC, just to make a point if nothing else. That not withstanding, it's a Stupid Rule (TM) and as mentioned does nothing to help compliance issues and actually probably makes it more of a pain as Jake mentioned.

Oh, and as for killing ITC in the process, think about this- if you had a car and all the requisite components to make the swap, why not keep all the stuff so you can go back and forth (as mentioned above with the Neon)? I for one know that if I couldn't be competitive in a class, but had the opportunity to reconfigure the same chassis easily for another class, I might consider it, both in the downward and upward directions...

Since there seems to be no arguement in this thread, I'm heading over to the "should IT be a National class" thread... Just what are you smokin if you support that initiative? :D
 
Good riddance.

HOWEVER, it is now incumbent upon us to ensure this rule change is not abused. We can be our own worst enemy...
 
This past weekend, a buddy of mine bought a CRX HF which had CRX Si engine, brakes and suspension swapped in. I’d call the car some kind of hybrid now since it is not TOTALLY an Si. This VIN number thing gonna allow this kind of monster to be created?
 
raffaelli said:
This past weekend, a buddy of mine bought a CRX HF which had CRX Si engine, brakes and suspension swapped in. I’d call the car some kind of hybrid now since it is not TOTALLY an Si. This VIN number thing gonna allow this kind of monster to be created?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure not. If I remember correctly there are a lot of pieces that are different with the HF that make it quite a bit lighter. If you found a list of all those things and were able to unbolt them and replace them with Si parts, the answer is yes.
 
So, what about a 240z,260z,280z where the spec line is different but the body is essentially the same? Could one legally turn a 260 or 280 into a 240? Both are heavier but sometimes alot cheaper.

I think I already know the answer but reading through the Dodge / Charger / Shelby stuff left me confused.
 
NO.

If the body were exactly the same, then yes.

The VIN rule being gone does not allow one single additional item or change to any IT car of any make in any class. It just says that the VIN number does not have to match anymore. Everything else still has to be exactly as stock, unless modified as allowed by the ITCS and GCR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top