ITAC News

[JeffYoung]

Yep. I think that is what the intent of the rule was originally, essentially as an "in spec line" work around the VIN rule.

Actually the coupe to convert "conversion" IS legal under your analysis becuase they are on the same spec line. I thought that was how you defined "model"?

So in your example you have to UD/BD the entire car to a specific year? No way. The UD/BD rule specifically allows individual items to be UD/BD'd amoungst cars on a spec line.



But your coupe to vert conversion is SPECIFICALLY illegal as those are different body types.

All I am doing is exactly what it says I can do.

And DON'T change the rule to meet what people are doing, clarify it with better wording should you think its need it, to mean what you WANT it to mean.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually the coupe to convert "conversion" IS legal under your analysis becuase they are on the same spec line. I thought that was how you defined "model"?

Wrong. Read the rule again.

UD/BDing is only permited between cars of the same make, model and body type...

Just because they are on the same spec line doesn't make a vert a coupe.

[JeffYoung]

No, I'm not. The rule is, like this whole rule, not very well written.

It says:

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating
of components is only permitted within cars of the same make,
model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and
engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It defines "make, model and body type" as what is listed on a single Improved Touring spec line.

What that means it that sedans, coupes, converts, etc. should not be listed on the same lines. But they are in many cases and when they are, arguably, you can update/ backdate.

Whole rule needs a clean up, and yes I think one of the things we need to look at in evaluating it is who people have interpreted it over time.

Wrong. Read the rule again.

UD/BDing is only permited between cars of the same make, model and body type...

Just because they are on the same spec line doesn't make a vert a coupe.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, I'm not. The rule is, like this whole rule, not very well written.

It says:

To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating
of components is only permitted within cars of the same make,
model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and
engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It defines "make, model and body type" as what is listed on a single Improved Touring spec line.

What that means it that sedans, coupes, converts, etc. should not be listed on the same lines. But they are in many cases and when they are, arguably, you can update/ backdate.

Whole rule needs a clean up, and yes I think one of the things we need to look at in evaluating it is who people have interpreted it over time.

I disagree with this interpretation 100%. It doesn't mean at all that they should be on seperate lines, it means what it says: You can only UD/BD within those parameters on the spec line. No interchanging vert stuff with coupe stuff or sedan stuff or anything that is not what you are presenting as your logbooked car.

RX-7 example: If the GTUs didn't come with the aluminum hood, no ITS car would be allowed to run it even though the vert had it.

[JeffYoung]

That wording defines make, model and body type by what is listed on the spec line. Putting coverts and coupes, or hatches and coupes, or 2+2s and non 2+2s on the same spec line causes a problem because THAT is what defines make/model/body type if you read that literally.

But that is what has been done.

I disagree with this interpretation 100%. It doesn't mean at all that they should be on seperate lines, it means what it says: You can only UD/BD within those parameters on the spec line. No interchanging vert stuff with coupe stuff or sedan stuff or anything that is not what you are presenting as your logbooked car.

RX-7 example: If the GTUs didn't come with the aluminum hood, no ITS car would be allowed to run it even though the vert had it.

[Chip42]

Jake,

take the AW11 MR2:
Later (87-89) rear brakes are larger, and bolt to the earlier suspension, but the later suspension doesn't bolt onto the earlier tubs due to revised rear engine room stampings and the associated changes to bolt locations. there were a lot of other changes along the line in these cars: bumper contours, tail lights, radiator mounting plane, front brake diameter and thickness, the position of the parking brake handle and many dashboard details, with 3 different types of rear wing (2 piece and no light, single piece with light in middle support, and single piece with LED in the wing) OR with none, the transmission was upgraded to a new PN, which was again upgraded to a new bellhousing, clutch diameter and flywheel, pistons, gudgeon pins, rods, and crank (just rod journal diam), computer, injectors, master cylinder, AFM, wiring harness routing, air filter location, evap system, added a drain plug to the gas tank,... hell they changed the orientation of the letters on the valve cover.

but it's all a MkI MR2. they all share a chassis code, an engine (with the same specs though different levels of revision), and a spec line, and to an uneducated observer are all but identical.

if I swap later brakes onto 85 car, I just made a combination of entities that never existed, by updating along the specline. legal?

if I swap the LED wing onto an 88 car, I just duplicated what is identical, otherwise, to an 89. I just updated an 88 to an 89 but did NOT make a combination that differs (aside from the VIN) from a car sold through a showroom. legal? (obviously)

what's right? and more importantly, why? the less obvious mid-model run changes are what can create "unique" cars. upgraded factory bolt ons are obviously under the intent of the rule, and if nothing else changes there's nothing else to say. but something else always does. so the rule is, under the strictest reading, rendered NEARLY useless.

[JeffYoung]

This is a good exercise.

Jake,

take the AW11 MR2:
Later (87-89) rear brakes are larger, and bolt to the earlier suspension, but the later suspension doesn't bolt onto the earlier tubs due to revised rear engine room stampings and the associated changes to bolt locations. there were a lot of other changes along the line in these cars: bumper contours, tail lights, radiator mounting plane, front brake diameter and thickness, the position of the parking brake handle and many dashboard details, the rear wing came in 3 different types (2 pice, no light, with light in middle support, and with LED in the wing) OR without the thing, the transmission was upgraded to a new PN, pistons, rods, and crank (just rod journal diam), computer, AFM, wiring harness routing, air filter location, evap system, added a drain plug to the gas tank,... hell they changed the orientation of the letters on the valve cover.

but it's all a MkI MR2. they all share a chassis code, an engine (though different generations), and a spec line, and to an uneducated observer are all but identical.

if I swap later brakes onto 85 car, I just made a combination of entities that never existed, by updating along the specline. legal?

if I swap the LED wing onto an 88 car, I just duplicated what is identical, otherwise, to an 89. I just updated an 88 to an 89 but did NOT make a combination that differs (aside from the VIN) from a car sold through a showroom. legal? (obviously)

what's right? and more importantly, why? the less obvious mid-model run changes are what can create "unique" cars. upgraded factory bolt ons are obviously under the intent of the rule, and if nothing else changes there's nothing else to say. but something else always does. so the rule is, under the strictest reading, rendered NEARLY useless.