Spec lines and variants of a car

[Chip42]

Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all? I've always read this rule to say that, for example, a late model induction could be attached to a early model long block in any year body from the spec line, so long as all parts are from that model and that specline. If the intention is otherwise, than the statement needs to be reworded - updating does not to me, and apparently many others, mean "newer but identical assembly," but "newer, different assembly used in later cars of the same trim and body style on this specline."

I would think that the same would apply to transmissions and bodywork. thoguh I would say in the case of the latter that the full model year's body should be together. I would agree that parts and assemblies specific to a certain body type would be allowed only with that body.

the VIN rule was, to me, a way to keep a car from being converted to a different model - i.e. a civic DX from becoming a Civic Si. I wasn't privy to any of the decisions revolving around removal of this rule, but I assumed it has more to do with the lack of differences when prepared to the ITCS.

[seckerich]

The rule does not say motor, trans, induction must all be updated as a group. It spells them all out individually for a reason would you not agree? Damn, is it winter already?

[Knestis]

Pardon my ignorance, but if update/backdate is not itself the intent - to allow later assemblies (update) from the specline to be used with older assemblies or in older cars or vice versa (backdate) - than what is the point of having that statement at all? I've always read this rule to say that, for example, a late model induction could be attached to a early model long block in any year body from the spec line, so long as all parts are from that model and that specline. ...

FWIW, this has always been my understanding. Absent any consensus, and recognizing the inherent contradiction between the statements in that clause...

...I've just ignored the problem. :026:

Seriously though, I've long felt that the ITAC controlled, through spec line listings, what latitude for swapping parts they thought was OK and what was a stretch too far. I took that to heart during deliberations while I was on the committee. I have maybe spent too much time looking at FIA rallying where cars are homologated to a set of specific parts, but I view the spec line as defining "model or type" and the prohibition against creating a one that doesn't exist simply a restatement that updating/backdating can create a "model or type" NOT defined by the spec line is NOT OKAY.
K

[JeffYoung]

Interesting thought. So your way around this is to say the word "model" in this definition:

Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies.

Means what is on the spec line? But aren't those the same thing, rendering the language surplusage?

Let me try to say that more clearly. We only allow updating and backdating amongst year models on the same spec line. That's sort of the general overarching rule. And if you define "model" in that last sentence to mean anything on the spec line, doesn't that mean that last sentence doesn't add anything?

I am still with Greg that the intent of the rule was to prevent you from creating something the factory didn't offer. On the other hand, it was to allow you to take an 83 model and put on stuff from later cars in order to make your 83 model identical to the newer car.

But I am ambivalent about this. I know we have some examples of Frankencars out there, and now that I think about it adding the slightly lighter coupe bumpers to my car was probably not legal under MY OWN interpretation of this rule, but would be under others, but I do think the rule should reflect what we really want it to mean. And if it is to allow "Frankencars" I think we need to change that last sentence.

FWIW, this has always been my understanding. Absent any consensus, and recognizing the inherent contradiction between the statements in that clause...

...I've just ignored the problem. :026:

Seriously though, I've long felt that the ITAC controlled, through spec line listings, what latitude for swapping parts they thought was OK and what was a stretch too far. I took that to heart during deliberations while I was on the committee. I have maybe spent too much time looking at FIA rallying where cars are homologated to a set of specific parts, but I view the spec line as defining "model or type" and the prohibition against creating a one that doesn't exist simply a restatement that updating/backdating can create a "model or type" NOT defined by the spec line is NOT OKAY.
K

[JoshS]

Since the terms "update" and "backdate" are time-oriented terms, in my opinion, the purpose of the whole allowance is to allow mixing & matching of parts between model years of a single "model/type" ... thus allowing one sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple years) but disallowing a different sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple models/types).

The wording is definitely gray though.

[Knestis]

Since the terms "update" and "backdate" are time-oriented terms, in my opinion, the purpose of the whole allowance is to allow mixing & matching of parts between model years of a single "model/type" ... thus allowing one sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple years) but disallowing a different sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple models/types).

The wording is definitely gray though.

This is a different way of saying what I meant. Thanks, J.

...doesn't that mean that last sentence doesn't add anything?

<adamsavage> Well, HERE'S your problem. </adamsavage>

There are plenty of places where the ITCS says, "You can do this - and by the way, you can't do this," simply restating, and sometimes BADLY, what it has already tried to say. We've fixed some of them but yeah, I kind of chocked that up to overclarificationism.

K

[Gary L]

As I believe has already been pointed out, some of this confusion is due to not having a definition of the terms "model" or "type", in the first place. But in some cases, the spec line descriptions are less than completely accurate, adding to the confusion. For instance, my car is spec'd as 142/144 2.0. Problem is, in the US market there were never just 142's or 144's. There was a "142S" sold from 69-72, and a "142E" sold from 71-74, the former with carbs and the latter with FI (of two types, BTW... D-Jet and K-Jet). Our spec line encompasses 1969-74, so all three induction variants are covered. It's probably a poster child for how not to classify a car.

Kirk - overclarificationism? Holy cow!

[quadzjr]

I don't know if it is the poster child but it sure is one of them. I think the 79-93 ITB mustang would be the poster child if there was one.

[Chip42]

But I am ambivalent about this. I know we have some examples of Frankencars out there, and now that I think about it adding the slightly lighter coupe bumpers to my car was probably not legal under MY OWN interpretation of this rule, but would be under others, but I do think the rule should reflect what we really want it to mean. And if it is to allow "Frankencars" I think we need to change that last sentence.

I'd say coupe only bumpers are specifically NOT allowed on a drop top due to the explicit limitation on intra-body style UD/BD.

but at this point, if the rule wording were to be "tightened" to reflect Greg's (not to single you out) version, there would suddenly be a lot of illegal cars out there.

to go the other way might open up some unforseen process breakers. this is likely a small number and fixable once the "prime" setup is discovered and measured.

[jumbojimbo]

....it was to allow you to take an 83 model and put on stuff from later cars in order to make your 83 model identical to the newer car...

I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense back in the days of VIN numbers. because if I presented an 83 vin numbered car, didn't it have to be an 83 car? Not an 83 VIN car but built to an 84 car.

Or are you saying that as long as my vin number fell anywhere within the years and models on the spec line I could build it up and present it as any year and model on the spec line? Again, back in VIN days, could you really present a 1983 VIN numbered car and register for an event as an 84?

[JoshS]

I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense back in the days of VIN numbers. because if I presented an 83 vin numbered car, didn't it have to be an 83 car? Not an 83 VIN car but built to an 84 car.

Or are you saying that as long as my vin number fell anywhere within the years and models on the spec line I could build it up and present it as any year and model on the spec line? Again, back in VIN days, could you really present a 1983 VIN numbered car and register for an event as an 84?

The VIN rule stated:

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes.

So it was used to determine the model and type, but not (explicitly) used to determine the year. So in my opinion, yes, you could present a car with an '83 VIN and register for an event as an '84.