So when is a wing legal in IT?

[Gary L]

Only if it came from the factory as a no-option item...e.g., Acura Integra GS-R or Mazda RX-7 GTU....

If it was optional, it ain't legal. If it was dealer installed, it ain't legal. If it came on *all* cars regardless of trim....it's legal.

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. The word "optional" does not appear in 9.1.3.D.8. You can, therefore, run an optional factory installed wing/spoiler/air dam, so long as it was not "limited production". But BTW, that last term is not defined anywhere in the GCR, so it's essentially meaningless, IMO.

But in any case, "optional" and "limited production" would not necessarily mean the same thing. A case in point would be the Fiero GT, which could be had with an optional (RPO code D80, ~ $300) rear wing. Over 95% of the GT's built had this wing installed at the factory, so by even the wildest definition, it was not "limited production" IMO.

[ed325its]

I agree that factory options including wings, spoilers, etc are perfectly legal. (Not dealer installed). The Purpose of IT as described in 9.1.3.A. is very clear; "...cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to the manufacturer's specifications..." Therefore, if the option was provided by the manufacturer for any model on the spec line the parts are legal.

[Greg Amy]

So how do you know what option packages are on your spec line?

Monroney stickers, product brochures, research with owner's groups?

Care to offer us specifics on what you're trying to do? We might be able to help instead of talking generalities...

I'm gonna respectfully disagree. The word "optional" does not appear in 9.1.3.D.8. You can, therefore, run an optional factory installed wing/spoiler/air dam, so long as it was not "limited production". But BTW, that last term is not defined anywhere in the GCR, so it's essentially meaningless, IMO.

I don't think we disagree.

The rule specifically states:

Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited.

I'm reasonably confident that the purpose of the rule was to disallow factory aftermarket (dealer aftermarket) body kits such as what the first-gen RX-7 had that was very popular. That car had a full body kit (front air dam, side skirts, rear spoiler) available as an option from the dealer (it was never installed at the factory), and it was also sold through dealers afterward as an accessory kit.

I'm also confident it was NOT intended to disallow (intentional double negative there) items that were able to be checked off on the car order sheet; in other words, it does allow option codes like the second-gen RX7s GTU spoiler (and MANDATES use of rear spoilers that were not optional, like the ITS Acura GS-R's and the ITA Toyota MR-2's.)

And, the rules also allow installation of the above spoilers on a sister car if at least one of the models on your spec line had it.

Si?

[Doc Bro]

Care to offer us specifics on what you're trying to do?

No!!!

Specifically I'm trying to figure out 2 things;

1. Why some of the ITR e36's run an M3 bumper....my assumption is it's from the M-technic package which was a very short limited run package.

2. Why some of the ITA Miata's for example have a rear wing and others don't. I'm just trying to get my arms around the scope of the rule vis-a-vis option packages.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

No!!!

Specifically I'm trying to figure out 2 things;

1. Why some of the ITR e36's run an M3 bumper....my assumption is it's from the M-technic package which was a very short limited run package.

Correct. The MT was indeed a model and you could have built your E36 ITS/ITR car out of one. Legal.

2. Why some of the ITA Miata's for example have a rear wing and others don't. I'm just trying to get my arms around the scope of the rule vis-a-vis option packages.

R

Very few guys run the rear wing like I do. I just like it! It's the R-Model rear wing.

[ed325its]

OMG... I agree with Andy. (Hi Andy.)

Rob,
I know the M Technic was a model of the two door 2.5l E36. I do not know if that model continued with the engine change to the 2.8l (328is) in '96. You may have to do some research to see if the model applies to the 328i/is spec line.

[Doc Bro]

OMG... I agree with Andy. (Hi Andy.)

Rob,
I know the M Technic was a model of the two door 2.5l E36. I do not know if that model continued with the engine change to the 2.8l (328is) in '96. You may have to do some research to see if the model applies to the 328i/is spec line.

I'm just starting that research. It was available in Europe. I need to find out about the US.

So I can run everything that came in the M tecnik package if it was available on my car?

AB I like the wing too!!

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm just starting that research. It was available in Europe. I need to find out about the US.

So I can run everything that came in the M tecnik package if it was available on my car?

AB I like the wing too!!

R

Yes but the MT was only in 1994 on the 325 (only 150 units IIRC). For a 328, you are stuck with any of the interations of front bumpers covering your year span on the spec line.

[Gary L]

I don't think we disagree.

We're on the same page... I think.

I simply (and specifically) disagreed with your original statement...

If it was optional, it ain't legal.

...which is not always the case.

[Greg Amy]

I simply (and specifically) disagreed with your original statement...[If it was optional, it ain't legal.] ...which is not always the case.

What I intended by that statement was that if it was only available as an option, it's not legal...I'm trying to think of an example where a rear wing is allowed where it was purely an option...

Using the above examples, they're not "options." The RX-7 GTU had that rear wing standard, and since that model is legal in IT so is the rear wing. The Miata rear wing was standard on the R model; the BMW rear wing was standard on the M-Technic model. Both of those cars are legal in IT, thus those rear wings are legal in IT.

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

A good question. What if it was a simple line-item option? I think we have to look to the SOLO rules here. Dealer installed stuff is NOT legal. Port-installed and factory installed options are legal, whether they are part of a package or one-offs.

[ed325its]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

I have never seen an MT with any type of spoiler. But to fit it into this thread, if it did come with one, whatever it's design, it would be legal in IT on a 325is.

[dj10]

Just to add additional information on Greg's M-Technic example, to the best of my knowledge and research the MT model included a trunk lid lip spoiler, but not the M3 style wing.

For all you BMW E36 ITR cars please install the trunk lip lip spoiler.

[Gary L]

I stand by that statement, but conditionally; help me think of an example where a purely optional rear wing is allowed in IT? - GA

Go back and read my original post in this thread... the Fiero example. I'll bet there are others.

[JeffYoung]

First gen MR2 as well right? Even though most ordered it, wasn't the "aero package" or whatever it was called with the front air dam, skirts and wing (all from the factory) an option?

My read on the rule is pretty simple. If it came from the factory, either optional or not, it's legal. If the dealer put it on, it's not. Like Gary, I'm at a loss as to what the "limited production" language means or how we are supposed to interpret it.

[Greg Amy]

First gen MR2 as well right?

Correct. When it was in SSC the aero package was not allowed (see discussion below).

My read on the rule is pretty simple. If it came from the factory, either optional or not, it's legal.

Hmmm...

I re-read the class purpose and intent again, because I recall something from years ago that now appears to be missing: the "base model" language. Long ago, in a land far, far away, I seem to recall verbiage in the ITCS similar to what's in Showroom Stock and Touring specs today: that "the classified car shall be the base model with no options." Recall that IT was based as an offshoot from SS, and in fact I seem to recall the original rules stated that specifically. Now the ITCS only says "cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

Hmmm...

Well, if we agree on this, then that certainly gets the gears to turning...

Like Gary, I'm at a loss as to what the "limited production" language means or how we are supposed to interpret it.

Well, taken at face value, it's saying the Miata R, the RX-7 GTU, and the BMW M-Technic (as examples) are all not legal for IT, unless specifically listed.

I'm wondering if we need that "base model" verbiage back, and when/where it went away...did we ever collect copies of all prior ITCS back to the early 80's? Just curious.

GA

P.S., BUT! In the spirit of IIDSYCTYC, where can/do we infer that it's anything but the base model, and where can/do we infer options are allowed? What is the base assumption for IIDSYCTYC?

[JoshS]

... (and MANDATES use of rear spoilers that were not optional, like the ITS Acura GS-R's and the ITA Toyota MR-2's.)

Hey Greg,

The rear spoiler was optional on both first- and second-gen MR2s.

Josh