Update/Backdate between body types
- Thread starter JoshS
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Other than a few ultra-rare cars, I don't see it as that difficult to build what you want to build from what are supposed to build it from.
The problem is the unknown and unintended concequenses it brings forth. I don't see a pressing need to change. Risk vs. Reward.
***Different subject - I am VERY interested in the interpretation that a manifold is an "assembly," in light of the fact that the rule says...
Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). (Emphasis added)***
Thanks K, ya saved me from going there.
Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing). (Emphasis added)***
Thanks K, ya saved me from going there.
I proposed it and it was turned down. It's another case of trying to enforce the rules in their writing, rather than in the tech shed. The only "risk" that has been suggested is that people will cheat, and use body parts (or a shell) that isn't identical to the ones that should be there. There is nothing in the rules to keep folks from doing exactly the same thing right now (e.g., the ITS e36's that have been advertised with the "M3 chassis improvement"), so allowing people to economize by increasing the supply of appropriate chassis would change nothing.
K
bldn10
New member
"I thought I did. Yes it is legal IMHO. ... Now the Jetta - it's on the spec line so I believe you can. Just like you can use the engine out of a 1991 RX-7 in your 1986. Never came with it but it is on the same spec line so the SCCA has deemed it 'updateable'. ... No?"
Andy, you are evidently of the first option I stated - that parts are freely interchangeable between all cars on a single line - and that explains your answer above. However, I don't think you can use the RX-7 as "proof" that that is what the rule means. The reason is because the RX-7 engines could be swapeed even under the more restrictive interpretation because you are simply updating between the same model and type on the same line.
The problem w/ the Jetta is that it is NOT the same type of car even though they are on the same line - one is a coupe and one is a sedan.
The part about not creating a car that never existed expressly refers to "model or type of car." So, there would be no problem putting RX-7 big brakes from a GXL on a base car - they are both the same model - FC3 RX-7, and are both coupes. You are NOT creating a new model or type of car - you are just messing w/ option packages.
But you could not take those brakes or anything off a convertible.
Guys, I think that is actually an internally consistent, logical interpretation that is rooted in the language of the rule itself. The harshness is tempered, as I said, by not getting hung up on e.g. where the big brakes came from if they are all the same. I don't care about the 325 guys swapping parts between 2 and 4-doors if the parts are the same anyway. But if the coupe had some special part that the sedan never did - I think that it is questionable that you could take that part off a coupe and put it on a sedan.
Josh is right - there is a lot of superfluous language in there if the rule is simply free up-backdating. Model and body type has to mean something.
FWIW my SpeedSource RX-7 is a hybrid w/ '87 S4 chassis that was completely stripped and rewired as an S5. Now that's a complete component!
Andy, you are evidently of the first option I stated - that parts are freely interchangeable between all cars on a single line - and that explains your answer above. However, I don't think you can use the RX-7 as "proof" that that is what the rule means. The reason is because the RX-7 engines could be swapeed even under the more restrictive interpretation because you are simply updating between the same model and type on the same line.
The problem w/ the Jetta is that it is NOT the same type of car even though they are on the same line - one is a coupe and one is a sedan.
The part about not creating a car that never existed expressly refers to "model or type of car." So, there would be no problem putting RX-7 big brakes from a GXL on a base car - they are both the same model - FC3 RX-7, and are both coupes. You are NOT creating a new model or type of car - you are just messing w/ option packages.
But you could not take those brakes or anything off a convertible. Guys, I think that is actually an internally consistent, logical interpretation that is rooted in the language of the rule itself. The harshness is tempered, as I said, by not getting hung up on e.g. where the big brakes came from if they are all the same. I don't care about the 325 guys swapping parts between 2 and 4-doors if the parts are the same anyway. But if the coupe had some special part that the sedan never did - I think that it is questionable that you could take that part off a coupe and put it on a sedan.
Josh is right - there is a lot of superfluous language in there if the rule is simply free up-backdating. Model and body type has to mean something.
FWIW my SpeedSource RX-7 is a hybrid w/ '87 S4 chassis that was completely stripped and rewired as an S5. Now that's a complete component!
JoshS
New member
My guess, and it's nothing more than that, is that the original intent was that each spec line would be completely specific -- everything on the same line would be the same model, type, engine size, etc. If a version of the same car appeared that was different on one of those specifications, it was expected that it would get its own line. With this in mind, the wording makes sense.
But that didn't happen as time passed, and now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines.
But that didn't happen as time passed, and now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines.
bldn10
New member
"now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines."
At the risk of taking devil's advocacy one step too far
, why does it not make sense? Does it truly not make sense or does it just not comport w/ our sensibility? We can't say that rules make no sense or are bad rules just because they yield results we don't like.
At the risk of taking devil's advocacy one step too far
, why does it not make sense? Does it truly not make sense or does it just not comport w/ our sensibility? We can't say that rules make no sense or are bad rules just because they yield results we don't like.
mlytle
New member
if the "m3 chassis improvement" is from using an e36 m3 chassis as a start and then building all of the e36 325 stuff into it, that would obviously be illegal in scca as the m3 is not on the same spec line. the vin won't match a 325. some of the body parts are interchangeable (same part number, e.g. hoods and trunks) between the m3 and the regular 325's, but the chassis isn't one of them.....
marshall
But "it's not legal because the VIN's don't match" misses what I think is the point we all care about.
Welding M3 rear suspension reinforcements into a 325 is currently illegal, even though the "VIN rule" isn't violated. Using an M3 chassis to build an ITS 325 is currently illegal because some of the parts that go into building that chassis are different.
Getting rid of the VIN requirement would change neither.
K
Welding M3 rear suspension reinforcements into a 325 is currently illegal, even though the "VIN rule" isn't violated. Using an M3 chassis to build an ITS 325 is currently illegal because some of the parts that go into building that chassis are different.
Getting rid of the VIN requirement would change neither.
...and that would continue to be the case absent the VIN requirement, as it should be. The chassis is just a bunch of parts and, as long as the parts that are there are the parts that SHOULD be there, life would be good.
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
To me, it boils down to this:
Less rules, more enforcement.
And that falls largely on OUR shoulders.
We can't complain about too many rules, if we're not willing to be part of that solution.
Less rules, more enforcement.
And that falls largely on OUR shoulders.
We can't complain about too many rules, if we're not willing to be part of that solution.
JoshS
New member
It truly doesn't make sense, at least not to my feeble mind."now the wording doesn't really make sense with respect to the existing spec lines."
At the risk of taking devil's advocacy one step too far
[/b]
Quoting again: "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."
What is the meaning of the last phrase, "as listed on a single IT spec line?" To me it implies that any spec line contains cars of only a single make, model, body type, and engine size. But we know that's not universally true. So if a spec line contains more than one of these things (i.e., in the ITB Jetta case, which contains more than one body type and more than one engine size, although the SPECS only have a single engine size), what are we to infer about this rule's wording about the right to update/backdate?
It's been a long time since I studied linguistics, but if someone could parse this up for me, it would be helpful!
My displeasure with the VIN requirement precludes me from using a perfectly good shell I currently have and forcing me to do to one of the following:
1) Buy another car with the appropriate VIN and build that
2) Buy a dash/door/inner fender from a car with an appropriate VIN and swap
3) Build what I have and take the chance that someone could protest my car for having an engine that does not match the VIN code.
And before you think this is some kind of rare car, I'm talking about a Dodge Neon. They are listed on seperate lines depending on it being a SOHC or DOHC. The body configuration doesn't matter, since the cars are identical, with the exception of engine. But the VIN rule means I cannot take a SOHC engine and put it in a DOHC body and race it using the SOHC spec line.
bldn10
New member
Josh, I already put forth an explanation and then stated that I think that explanation is logical, internally consistent, and effectuates all the language of the rule, not to mention the class philosophy. My question is where am I wrong? Perhaps your problem w/ this is that, as you stated, you draw an inference from the single line terminology. Put aside all inferrences and preconceived notions and just read the rule - doesn't it say what I think it does? The fact that different body types are on the same line is no big deal because the rule limits back-updating w/i body types. That language in effect puts each body type on a separate line. At least that's the way I see it.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
If you suspect an illegal setup, t is much easier to become an expert in VIN's than it is in becoming an expert in a variety of different models chassis differences. While the net/net may be the same, the road to discovery and enforcement becomes much longer.
Paul, if the chassis are identical and the VIN's don't call out the difference between the DOHC and SOHC, you are good to go. On the devil's advocate side, why should a rule be changed because you have the wrong chassis as a spare?
Paul, if the chassis are identical and the VIN's don't call out the difference between the DOHC and SOHC, you are good to go. On the devil's advocate side, why should a rule be changed because you have the wrong chassis as a spare?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I'm not on board with those points. First, if I know that there are extra brackets on an M3 (lets say) chassis that aren't on a standard E36 chassis, it's a simple matter to look and see. And no VIN decoding required.
Second, if the the chassis ARE the same, but the VIN DOES call out a difference, it's the ultimate victimless crime...theres not even a real crime being committed...just a paperwork issue.
Why should the rule be changed? To make finding appropriate chassis easier, and cheaper.
The downside? Cheaters will still cheat.
JoshS
New member
I'm okay with that, but you understand that this is inconsistent with common practices, right?
I still think it could be worded more clearly. I think maybe the intent was either to maintain separate lines (in which case there are extra words), or as you say, "in effect" put each body type (etc.) on a separate line, but in that case, the wording could be a lot clearer.
Josh - I think things would have been consistent with your view IF it were ALWAYS the case that any given spec line include only one "body type." That might have been the intent but again, in practice that's not how things are today.
Given that they are now mutually exclusive, given the choice between "same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size" and "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," the latter takes precedence.
K
Given that they are now mutually exclusive, given the choice between "same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size" and "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," the latter takes precedence.
K
bldn10
New member
"Given that they are now mutually exclusive, given the choice between "same make, model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and engine size" and "as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line," the latter takes precedence."
Guys, please forgive me for being lawyer-like and for importing universally-accepted principles of statuitory construction into these discussions, but I am a lawyer and do think these principles should prevail even in the SCCA.
If 2 provisions of a rule appear to be inconsistent, the proper way to approach it is to look for an interpretation that harmonizes both provisions and gives meaning to the whole. You do not look for inconsistencies and declare that it is one or the other. Only is there is NO reasonable interpretation do you get to that point. And, even then, statutory TEXT usually prevails over tables, illustrations, etc. Kirk, I don't know where you got the notion that the table takes precedence.
The interpretation I have put forth IMO harmonizes the text and the table. There is no problem reading the rule to say that "updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted
1. within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g. sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.),
2. and engine size
3. [AND] listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line."
I.e. all 3 requirements have to be met. Doesn't that make sense?
The Neon issue is like what I said re the 325 2 and 4-doors - if the shells for the SOHC and DOHC are the same, I personally don't care. However, it would be illegal. And do we know for sure that they are absolutely the same? I am not opposed to some relief for this type of situation; allowing use of available shells effectuates the class philosophy of "inexpensive" racing. But sometimes, as Andy suggested, administartive conerns may outweigh what otherwise makes good sense from the driver's perspective.
Guys, please forgive me for being lawyer-like and for importing universally-accepted principles of statuitory construction into these discussions, but I am a lawyer and do think these principles should prevail even in the SCCA.
If 2 provisions of a rule appear to be inconsistent, the proper way to approach it is to look for an interpretation that harmonizes both provisions and gives meaning to the whole. You do not look for inconsistencies and declare that it is one or the other. Only is there is NO reasonable interpretation do you get to that point. And, even then, statutory TEXT usually prevails over tables, illustrations, etc. Kirk, I don't know where you got the notion that the table takes precedence.
The interpretation I have put forth IMO harmonizes the text and the table. There is no problem reading the rule to say that "updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted
1. within cars of the same make, model, body type (e.g. sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.),
2. and engine size
3. [AND] listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line."
I.e. all 3 requirements have to be met. Doesn't that make sense?
The Neon issue is like what I said re the 325 2 and 4-doors - if the shells for the SOHC and DOHC are the same, I personally don't care. However, it would be illegal. And do we know for sure that they are absolutely the same? I am not opposed to some relief for this type of situation; allowing use of available shells effectuates the class philosophy of "inexpensive" racing. But sometimes, as Andy suggested, administartive conerns may outweigh what otherwise makes good sense from the driver's perspective.
The Neon bodies are identical; the problem lies in the fact that the VIN carries the engine code, so LEGALLY, I cannot just put my SOHC engine in my DOHC-coded car.
Removing the paragraph that states the VIN controls the configuration as raced would eliminate this. I don't know how many, if any, this would affect, but I can't believe the Neon is the only one. IMHO, the VIN rule is outdated, especially considering how many times cars get repaired and have body parts replaced. Besides, it's downright silly for racecars, even production based ones.