Teach me about ITR 325's

[Andy Bettencourt]

We discussed that with respect to the rear shocks on the S2000. The general pricinciple, I believe, is that stock parts are always fine, but any changes made to the car under the ITCS allowances have to meet the specification of that allowance.

The wheel diameter rules do allow stock wheels, as far as I can tell. But the WIDTH rules are inflexible in that way, and probably violate the principle.

Good memory on the RR / S2000. Without my GCR handy though, IIRC, the wording of the rule is key. You MAY add aftermarket shocks...and if you do they have to be XXX.

I think the splitter wording just gives the paramters...it doesn't reference what you can do IF you add. I could be wrong but if that is right it's a subtle but importanat differnence.

99% of the cars in the ITCS allow stock wheels but IIRC, there is a Porcshe or two that came with 16's or 17's and the spec line limits them - the same for the RX-7. The infamous GTUs came with 16's that are specifically disallowed on the line.

IMHO, stock parts should always be legal.

[Doc Bro]

R,
Nobody that I've seen that uses the M Technic front "bumper cover" uses the black splitter piece because it sticks out to far for the rules.

R, I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here? "If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip. "

Dan,

We're saying the same thing.

R

[ekim952522000]

.....

IMHO, stock parts should always be legal.

I agree with this to me not allowing stock parts goes against my personally philosophy of what IT is. But I do think the wheel width needs to be limited regardless of what the stock size is, I am not worried about diameter.

[madrabbit15]

But it isn't a 'spoiler', it's a entire bumper cover.

I see the issues. I just think that a limited production 'model' is NOT ILLEGAL. The rules do NOT say that 'limited production items' are illegal as Derek broadly sweeps if I read his post right.

The question comes down to what you call the part. I'll call it a bumper cover that is legal to update - that came on a limited production car that is on the E36 325 spec lines in ITS and ITR.

Again, it has been said that this car has different suspension reinforcements than a plain old 325. If that is the case, then the car needs to be addressed.

I am merely useing "limited production items" so I do not have to keep quoting the GCR about spoilers, wings and such every time I talk about it. I am only referencing them for this debate, not a broad sweep. Should stock items be allowed in IT, yes, I believe they should be. However this clause in the GCR creates a definite question about this piece on an M-Tech, or possibly other cars.

I guess the question comes down to, is it a bumper cover, or a spoiler? Lets face it, the design of this bmw piece was to include a spoiler type bumper cover. If we are going to call it a bumper cover then, I guess it would be fine, but its still not following the spirit of the rules in my opinion. As this was a limited production thing. If we are going to use parts from an M-Tech, should it be on the spec line or not?

Derek

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we are going to use parts from an M-Tech, should it be on the spec line or not?

Derek

It doesn't have to be IMHO. It's a 92-95 325is. The ITCS does not neccesarily call out the trim level. Its fairly common for cars that share the same driveline and platform to encompass all trim levels, the 'best of breed' being the chosen one.

Again, if we want to expand the 'limited production' clause to actual trim levels and stock options, that is a whole 'nother story.

[dj10]

I guess the question comes down to, is it a bumper cover, or a spoiler? Lets face it, the design of this bmw piece was to include a spoiler type bumper cover. If we are going to call it a bumper cover then, I guess it would be fine, but its still not following the spirit of the rules in my opinion. As this was a limited production thing. If we are going to use parts from an M-Tech, should it be on the spec line or not?
Derek

From Realoem.com, FRONT BUMPER TRIM, M TECHNIC01Trim panel

If that's not a bumper cover I'll eat my hat!

[madrabbit15]

Front bumper cover it is......

So what is everyones thought on this? As long is the part is called a bumper cover and not a spoiler, we can use a limited production piece? Again, my intention this whole time was to understand myself.

Derek

[dj10]

Front bumper cover it is......

So what is everyones thought on this? As long is the part is called a bumper cover and not a spoiler, we can use a limited production piece? Again, my intention this whole time was to understand myself.

Derek

Can you run a M Technic in ITR? If you can, all other questions are irrelevant.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Front bumper cover it is......

So what is everyones thought on this? As long is the part is called a bumper cover and not a spoiler, we can use a limited production piece? Again, my intention this whole time was to understand myself.

Derek

There are two issues at play here. 1. A limited production PIECE - on its own, and 2. A limited production CAR that has unique pieces on it. In scenario #2, we have the MT 325is. Legal in IT because it's on the spec line - and all the cool little pieces that make it what it is. Scenario #1 is like the below example or the 'IMSA' rear spoiler on a 1st gen RX-7 (just quoting Mazda stuff, I am sure there are plenty of different examples from all makes). Dealer add-ons that were not part of a real package.

We have to agree on 'production'. For instance, Mazda sells this front bumper cover right out of it's network of parts departments:


It may be limited production, but it was not 'PRODUCTION'. Meaning, it was not a factory option as delivered to a dealer. This kind of piece (bumper cover in this case) should NOT be allowed in IT IMHO. It isn't now, nor should it ever (too bad too - it's a gorgeous piece). No car on the RX-8 spec line ever came with that BC as stock.

The MT 325is IS on the spec line and is it's own trim level. Limited production yes, but still as delivered from BMW to a dealer.

[Knestis]

From Realoem.com, FRONT BUMPER TRIM, M TECHNIC01Trim panel

If that's not a bumper cover I'll eat my hat!

...SO one can legally use the part labeled 1 but not the part labeled 23...?

K

[dj10]

...SO one can legally use the part labeled 1 but not the part labeled 23...?

K

Correct

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can't find any good pics of my E36 M3 so I can't verify the lower lip and it's legality (Lawton - quick look at yours?) but I will say this:

I do NOT think it's ok to take that lower lip off. Parts that are UD/BD are supposed to be done so as an assembly. Picking and choosing pieces and parts on that bumper cover I would say is illegal.

[Greg Amy]

If one is to accept that the M-Tech is a legal car for IT - and arguments here support that, given there's no restriction against limited production vehicles - then the car and all of its parts is legal as-is, regardless whether those parts would not meet subsequent IT rules otherwise.

If, however, you are arguing that the M-Tech bumper/spoiler is not legal for IT as-is, then you're arguing that the M-Tech vehicle itself is not legal for classification in IT...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the question is simple: do stock parts trump the ITCS or does the ITCS trump the stock stuff?

[seckerich]

Can't find any good pics of my E36 M3 so I can't verify the lower lip and it's legality (Lawton - quick look at yours?) but I will say this:

I do NOT think it's ok to take that lower lip off. Parts that are UD/BD are supposed to be done so as an assembly. Picking and choosing pieces and parts on that bumper cover I would say is illegal.

I believe the car was available with or without the extra lip. My late 98/early 99 had that bumper cover. At the end of a model run they are notorious for cleaning out the parts bin. If so it is legal either way, regardless of overhang if it is a stock piece. The precedent was set with the S2000 shock good or bad.

[Greg Amy]

So the question is simple: do stock parts trump the ITCS or does the ITCS trump the stock stuff?

I would suggest it's plainly clear that stock parts trump the ITCS at all times. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the ITCS to keep this in mind when they choose to classify vehicles of limited production.

- GA

[Doc Bro]

I raised this question a couple of seasons ago here and to the ITAC in regards to the Z3 wheels. It came with 7.5's, my arguement was specifically that it is a stock part. My how times have changed around here......

I think I'll get myself a ghost writer....it may increase my street cred....or is it that I'm just ahead of my time???

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I raised this question a couple of seasons ago here and to the ITAC in regards to the Z3 wheels. It came with 7.5's, my arguement was specifically that it is a stock part. My how times have changed around here......

I think I'll get myself a ghost writer....it may increase my street cred....or is it that I'm just ahead of my time???

R

You aren't the first Rob and you won't be the last. Porsche guys and RX-7 guys all want to know why they can't use stock wheel sizes...and probably the crux of Josh's proposal to lift all wheel restictions.

Wheels are a perfect example where stock parts do NOT trump the ITCS.

[Greg Amy]

Wheels are a perfect example where stock parts do NOT trump the ITCS.

Any others?


On edit: assuming there are other examples - none immediately come to mind - the responsibility is upon the rulesmakers to correct these via line items, if so desired. The assumption has, and hopefully always will be, "these are the only allowed modifications from stock", or known more colloquially, IIDSYCYC. The corollary to that is if it's on a stock car, and the rules don't explicitly say that you have to remove it, then you don't. As stated above, the wheels are a good example, as there is a specific and non-equivocal line item that says "maximum wheel widths are..."

However, the M-Tech stock front splitter - assuming it extends outwards beyond the body outline - is a perfect example of where this does not apply, because the appropriate section begins "An airdam may be added..." If one does not "add" an airdam, then one is free to completely ignore this section, a section which specifies limitations to an air dam but only if it is "added". Further, if an airdam is added below the existing factory M-Tech airdam, only that addition is subject to the subsequent limitations, which, ironically, would mean it could stick out flush with the "out-sticking" stock M-Tech splitter...

I really, really, really, really hope you ITAC guys are keeping this kinda stuff in mind as you're allowing in these limited production cars... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Any others?


On edit: assuming there are other examples - none immediately come to mind - the responsibility is upon the rulesmakers to correct these via line items, if so desired. The assumption has, and hopefully always will be, "these are the only allowed modifications from stock", or known more colloquially, IIDSYCYC. The corollary to that is if it's on a stock car, and the rules don't explicitly say that you have to remove it, then you don't. As stated above, the wheels are a good example, as there is a specific and non-equivocal line item that says "maximum wheel widths are..."

However, the M-Tech stock front splitter - assuming it extends outwards beyond the body outline - is a perfect example of where this does not apply, because the appropriate section begins "An airdam may be added..." If one does not "add" an airdam, then one is free to completely ignore this section, a section which specifies limitations to an air dam but only if it is "added". Further, if an airdam is added below the existing factory M-Tech airdam, only that addition is subject to the subsequent limitations, which, ironically, would mean it could stick out flush with the "out-sticking" stock M-Tech splitter...

I really, really, really, really hope you ITAC guys are keeping this kinda stuff in mind as you're allowing in these limited production cars... - GA

An excellent interpretation on the rules IMHO - except you quote something that is not there. It doesn't say that "an airdam may be added..." It says that "a front spoiler / airdam is PERMITTED. Then it goes on to give those limitations. I think reasonable people could argue this as grey in that if you are going to use one, it has to meet the spec in the ITCS - stock or not.

My only issue is that it would be really hard to know every limited production car on every spec line. I am sure there aren't many but I am sure that when the E36 325's were classed way back when, this car was not even considered because not many people even know it exists. Add to that you would have to know WHAT parts make it special and how they fit the rules. A tall order in a procative fashion.

It's an interesting case study for sure.