Life without the VIN rule

[JoshS]

Question: If we are allowed to race with a open hole in the roof then why can't carbon fiber/fiberglass be used to fill it?

I don't know the reason, but I can guess -- it's probably safety-related. What happens to these fill-in panels in the event of a rollover?

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Replacement skin" clearly refers solely to the outer skin of the roof, or the roof panel, if you will. Always has been interpreted that way, from the get-go. - GA

Bold is mine

So you should have to use the new skin on top of the sunroof-equpped infrastructure?

Is the 'roof panel' different than the entire roof? Chopping the A and B pillars and popping the whole thing on?

Just trying to clarify what you are saying.

[ekim952522000]

I don't know the reason, but I can guess -- it's probably safety-related. What happens to these fill-in panels in the event of a rollover?

Good point they probably would blow up and get lots of little fiberglass pieces everywhere.

Thanks again Josh

[RexRacer19]

Good point they probably would blow up and get lots of little fiberglass pieces everywhere.

Thanks again Josh

There might be some economy built into that rule as well. CF is a good bit more than sheet steel. It certainly was when the rule was written...

[Greg Amy]

So you should have to use the new skin on top of the sunroof-equpped infrastructure?

Yup. Everything underneath has to be stock to be purely legal*. The rule has always been applied (I saw this done several times in the 80's to ITA Rabbit GTIs, which were RARE without sunroofs*) that all you can do is peel off the skin of the roof and replace it with a non-sunroof skin. - GA

*We're working off the assumption that the vehicle in question - whatever it is - is not available on the same spec line as a non-sunroof car, e.g., ITA CRX Si. The GTIs in question could, legally, replace all sunroof-relevant bracing with non-sunroof bracing, as the GTI was, theoretically anyway, available without a sunroof.

On edit: The requirement for metal of same material was purely intended in regards to parity of the rules and safety. They wanted to remove the sunroof and all mechanism for safety, as you don't want removable/slidable panels loose inside a wrecking car. But, you don't want to give those cars any performance advantage or disadvantage versus non-sunroof cars, so this was the best way to make them easily and cheaply as close to a non-sunroof car as possible.

Shit, I don't think carbon fiber was even INVENTED when these rules were written (), and certainly not within the mindset of SCCA Club Racing (you know, back when showing up with your car in a trailer was, like, showing off...?)

[lateapex911]

I agree. To be legal it's got to be exactly as factory-delivered, except...

Of course it does; always has. If you disagree, then you need to resolve exactly why the words "replacement skin" were used, versus simply stating "...sunroofs may be replaced with panel...of the same material as the original surrounding roof material."

"Replacement skin" clearly refers solely to the outer skin of the roof, or the roof panel, if you will. Always has been interpreted that way, from the get-go. - GA

Right, but it appears some are suggesting that the entire roof assembly a pillar to C pillar is up for swapping. I don't read the rule that way at all. The guts and reinforcements that are different mustbe as delivered.

[lateapex911]

Jake - The non-sunroof cars (Integras) are desired because you can then turn a regular old Integra into a Type R looking car. It has NOTHING to do with the weight and everything to do with ricers wanting to look cool. .......

Well, I've heard the term used when racers look at donors for racing, and it's been referred to on more than Integras. People often state the "Slicktop" is lighter. Regardless of the actual amount of weight, if there is a difference, it's a difference.

I know in the case of my RX-7 that swapping the entire roof out for a non sunroof version saves over 20 pounds. That's 20 pounds closer to minimum, or 20 pounds I can put where I need it. It all adds up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yup. Everything underneath has to be stock to be purely legal*. The rule has always been applied (I saw this done several times in the 80's to ITA Rabbit GTIs, which were RARE without sunroofs*) that all you can do is peel off the skin of the roof and replace it with a non-sunroof skin. - GA

*We're working off the assumption that the vehicle in question - whatever it is - is not available on the same spec line as a non-sunroof car, e.g., ITA CRX Si. The GTIs in question could, legally, replace all sunroof-relevant bracing with non-sunroof bracing, as the GTI was, theoretically anyway, available without a sunroof.

On edit: The requirement for metal of same material was purely intended in regards to parity of the rules and safety. They wanted to remove the sunroof and all mechanism for safety, as you don't want removable/slidable panels loose inside a wrecking car. But, you don't want to give those cars any performance advantage or disadvantage versus non-sunroof cars, so this was the best way to make them easily and cheaply as close to a non-sunroof car as possible.

Shit, I don't think carbon fiber was even INVENTED when these rules were written (), and certainly not within the mindset of SCCA Club Racing (you know, back when showing up with your car in a trailer was, like, showing off...?)

Then we are 100% in agreement. Seems as if some of the Honda boys are not thinking the same way. Maybe I am misinterpreting this:

RUCK says: This whole sunroof thing needs to be figured out real quick because there are several builds going on right now that are taking non-sunroof examples and building them as only sunroof having models.

[RexRacer19]

Greg,

IF all the sunroof structure and bracing (that is part of the unibody) underneath is in place from the sunroof model car, then I would agree that just replacing the skin on the roof itself would be perfectly legal. I know that on Honda Civics and CRXs there is more bracing under a sunroof roof than a non-sunroof roof. At a minimum, it is "different". edit: While it is minimal, it might not be so much on other chassis, makes, or models.

It sounds like, from our discussions here that folks are talking about starting with a tub that is non-sunroof and making a car that fits a spec line where there should be a sunroof. From a performance standpoint, that should have no impact, really. But, it does not meet the letter of the rule. Are we gonna be cool with that?

[jjjanos]

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

But it sort of implies that you are only plugging the hole...since it referenced the surrounding roof material in the same sentence. If they intended for you to specifically be able to replace (re-skin) the whole roof panel, don't you think they would have made that clear in the text.

If you are plugging the hole, it's a panel - not a skin. That panel could be be the dimensions of the hole and fit in the hole or it could be larger and be mounted above/below the hole.

Check the wording:

"All sunroofs may be replaced with (either):
1. (a) panel or
2. (a) replacement skin"

I.e. the skin is not something in addition to what is there - it is an entire replacement.

It says you can replace the sunroof. To me, that's the moving part. It doesn't say you can replace any other parts of the roof sheet metal.

Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed provided the panel is securely retained.

If its there because of the sunroof and only the sunroof, it's a component of the sunroof.

What are the car manufacture part names for these items you folks are throwing around? If the car manufacture don't call the piece over your head a skin you calling the piece over your head a skin don't mean squat.

That's a dangerous distinction to make. If my manufacturer calls it an Engine management computer you can swap it out but if he calls it the Emissions Control Computer you cannot? What [b]they]/b] call it is irrelevant. The function needs to define what it is, not the name. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Here is what I have from people already:

Is the skin just the thin sheet that is the externally appearing 'roof' or is it the whole top section that is the bracing and infrastrcuture?

Just askin'.

That appears to be one question. IMO, the other is "what constitues a component of the sunroof?"

If one takes a strict reading of the examples given in the GCR - motors, cables, rails - as limits, then everyone with an electrically operated sunroof better have the wiring installed. You can remove the motor, but there is no allowance for wiring.

[jjjanos]

Then we are 100% in agreement. Seems as if some of the Honda boys are not thinking the same way.

It all boils down to what constitues a component of the sunroof.

Let's say you are required to remove the warp drive and may remove its components. There is a bracket that the warp drive mounts to which mounts to the engine block. Only warp drive-equipped cars have that bracket. Is that bracket removable?

[RexRacer19]

Good God, this place gives me a headache. They write a whole effing rule book, with a glossery, and still nobody can agree on what the words mean.

[Tristan Smith]

Welcome to Improved Touring racing!!!!!!!

So for the sake of the arguement how does this differ for a t-top? How does one put panels in place that incorporate the window trim pieces on the original t-top panels? Usually the t-top panel has all the rubber seals, and trim that holds that rubber. Are you now required to somehow attach that to whatever "panel" you use to enclose the opening?

Thank god I found a slick top!

[tom91ita]

...and we've got plenty of reasonable men here....

i don't know why i found this funny!

and i found out i am restricted to only four images, as well...(giles)

[lateapex911]

i don't know why i found this funny!

and i found out i am restricted to only four images, as well...(giles)

because you were supposed to...

sarcasm rules!

[ddewhurst]

***Quote:
Originally Posted by ddewhurst
What are the car manufacture part names for these items you folks are throwing around? If the car manufacture don't call the piece over your head a skin you calling the piece over your head a skin don't mean squat.

That's a dangerous distinction to make. If my manufacturer calls it an Engine management computer you can swap it out but if he calls it the Emissions Control Computer you cannot? What [b]they]/b] call it is irrelevant. The function needs to define what it is, not the name. A rose by any other name is still a rose.***

If you can find definition of the word "roof skin or skin" in the GCR glossary you have me convinced. If you can not find the definition of the word "roof skin" in the GCR glossary we'll need to use the car manufactures name for the for the piece that's over your head when sitting in the car.

K, 6 pages on one topic in a couple days with I'm sure many more topics to come in the future.

[Xian]

Did all Si's come with a sunroof?

Yes.

Many people care about how their cars look as well as the pain it is to make the sunroof panel/plug fit properly. I have seen many cars cut the roof off and put on a non-sunroof skin.

The rules weren't written to necessarily make race car building less of a "pain". Additionally the aesthetics of a sunroof plug or cover don't enter into the rules.

If someone protested me for putting a non-sunroof skin on a sunroof car I would be very pissed. There is absolutely no advantage to doing this. You could say but its lighter! Nope.... Most sunroof cars have more meat around the sunroof to support the weight, but non sunroof cars have more bracing on the rest of the roof to keep the roof rigid. What's the difference in weight? I don't know, but not much if any at all....

I don't buy this a bit. Different bracing around the rest of the roof on non-sunroof cars? Fo' real? Got any pics? Regardless it's different than the roof they car came with from the factory. Besides, if non-sunroof cars are heavier, then why did you pick one for the re-build?

Either way, it's certainly not something I'd ever protest someone over. But again, the rules are the rules....so what do the rules say? I certainly don't know - I think there's enough grey area there to make a case for either.

Agreed. I don't see this as something to protest over but it seems to be pretty clearly illegal to me. The allowance is to put a plug into the hole left by the sunroof OR run a skin over the hole. I really just don't read this as allowing the entire sunroof skin and associated sunroof bracketry to be removed and replaced with a roof from a different car not on the same spec line. I really just don't see what''s so hard about this.

Christian

[Knestis]

To remind everyone, the purpose of the removal of the VIN rule was to allow IDENTICAL chassis more options.

An non-roof car is not identical to a roof-car.

Kirk - welcome to the post VIN-Rule world. You asked for it, you got it.

Yeah - the context is different. The members have always got the right to ask, and it seems to me that some of the ITAC members might think differently - and I don't speak for them...

...but if anyone asked ME for MY opinion on this, I'd say, "the rule is adequate as written." Nothing has changed in my mind and monkeying around with the language won't make the problem go away.

K

[Knestis]

... GA, who's really become a big fan of "the protest process" lately, versus a small group of smarty-pants rulesmakers actually thinking they can out-wit the group intelligence of the masses...

In terms of interpreting and enforcing the rules, I could NOT agree more.

K

[JLawton]

No because before you can write paper I will kick you in the nuts :eek::eek:

.

Don't worry Jeremy, I don't think you would finish high enough for anyone to worry about it..........




I don't think the intent of the rule is to allow a whole new roof to be put on...............

And that's a great yard stick: Would you be willing to gamble away a win at the ARRC because you are so sure it's legal?? I don't care if it's a weanie protest, you never know what another driver would do to gain another step on the podium.......