September fastrack
- Thread starter dickita15
- Start date
..............
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Let me rephrase for Greg: If it doesn't TRANSFER without modification to the part or the recipient, it can't be UD/BD'd.
If someone wanted to transfer the front end of an 88 to an 85-87, all the more power to them. IMHO, it would be cost and time prohibitive. You could probably recage to an 88 and transfer your parts faster and cheaper. In the end, if done legally, all you have is an 88.
If someone wanted to transfer the front end of an 88 to an 85-87, all the more power to them. IMHO, it would be cost and time prohibitive. You could probably recage to an 88 and transfer your parts faster and cheaper. In the end, if done legally, all you have is an 88.
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
Since when did cost and time have anything to do w/ it. Greg's got it pretty much nailed, you put the cars on the same spec line, you can update/backdate to your heart's content. You guys are worried about the subframe swap, why not just swap the whole clip? If the cars are on the same spec line, tell me I can't do that. Sometimes you have to think outside the box.
And the way I read the rules, update/backdate trumps modification for comp. advantage. If you're allowed to update/backdate, you're allowed to update/backdate. Where the heck is George when you need him?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bill,
I realize you aren't on here very much anymore but you really have to read the posts better if you are going to weigh in. Where did I say that costs had anything to do with it? I simply pointed out that a swap like that would be semi-foolish if you take into account time and money. It's still up to each individual, obviously.
Who is worried about the subframe swap? If you do it, it just becomes an 88. I just don't understand the problem. And remember - it isn't allowed to 'create' a model by updating/backdating. Says it right there in the UD/BD section. So there most certainly could be instances where it would be illegal - but unlikely given the similarities of all cars that share spec lines, this one included.
benspeed
New member
I think Andy has the right read on this particular car, especially since he owned three. There are no inherent advantages to swapping clips, sub-frames or whatever beyond the performance of the '88 chassis. The best you can hope for is an '88 chassis. If there was a proven advantage beyond the '88 chassis by swapping clips and creating a "new model" that performed better than the '88, then I think a problem would be presented. I have done extensive research on this. Swapping the front is pointless - no difference in performance (folks who have done the work might debate that claim but who wants to admit they pissed away time and money - show me a time sheet). The rear bump steer issue with these cars was mitigated by a new rear subframe on the '88. That update is worth it and falls into permitted update/backdate in my opinion and others if I understand Greg's position correctly. Greg is a respected tech official and I tend to take my direction from guys with the certifications. Before I contemplate doing anything like this you can be assured I will seek clear direction from several respected club officials. I also need to experience a problem with bump steer before I will consider this.
The letter posted by Andy was submitted by me - the most significant benefit of the change is the ventilated brake rotors - no peformance advantage but more braking longevity during racing equally commensurate with an '88.
The open ECU rule should have a significant performance improvement for these cars based on some of the dyno work and struggles we've been having. With that said, I am going the chip burning route for the moment. I don't want to be one of the guys several years back who bought remote resevoir shocks only to have them outlawed the following year. The ECU rule change is something I'm going to watch before I drop my $$ unless somebody can give some strong assurances on the rule's survival.
The letter posted by Andy was submitted by me - the most significant benefit of the change is the ventilated brake rotors - no peformance advantage but more braking longevity during racing equally commensurate with an '88.
The open ECU rule should have a significant performance improvement for these cars based on some of the dyno work and struggles we've been having. With that said, I am going the chip burning route for the moment. I don't want to be one of the guys several years back who bought remote resevoir shocks only to have them outlawed the following year. The ECU rule change is something I'm going to watch before I drop my $$ unless somebody can give some strong assurances on the rule's survival.
Gary L
New member
Fieros. I know I'm going to be sorry... but one last time, I'm going to weigh in on this subject. (Having been the first to throw the BS flag a month or two back when this first came up.)
And FWIW, I've owned a few Fieros myself, so I'm not shooting in the dark. Here's the chain of events involved in legally changing the brakes on an '84-87 Fiero to those from an '88... which was the only reason for putting the early and late cars on the same spec line, right? If someone finds a hole in this sequence, I'll gladly step back, but I believe the following is 100% correct.
- The brakes from the '88 won't bolt to the early front suspension without modification of the calipers or suspension upright, or both. The '88 suspension assembly was a complete redesign with zero parts commonality to the early cars; including the hubs, the rotors, the calipers, the uprights, the a-arms, and even the suspension pickup points.
- Okay then, let's change the entire front suspension assembly, crossmember and all. Oops! The '88 spaceframe was changed to accomodate the new crossmember, so to stay legal (no modifications, remember?) we'll have to literally cut (this is NOT a bolt-on subframe) the entire front end off an '88 and weld it to our '87. Now there... that didn't take long, did it?
- Uh-oh. We've now got our vented brakes and better calipers on the front end, but we've just "...created a model", because the back end of the car is still carrying the '87 engine cradle, suspension, and brakes. But Hey! We've got this '88 cradle laying around, which includes the struts and brakes, and...
- Oh, no! You guessed 'er, Chester... they changed the rear spaceframe components as well (with relocated strut towers, among other things), so the only way to keep the car IT legal is to cut the entire rear end off an '88, etc, etc.
Yessir... combining these two cars onto the same spec line makes all kinds of sense.
As I said back in July, this is bad precedent, as they really are two different cars from an IT ruleset perspective. And this has nothing to do with any alleged performance enhancing combinations that may or may not be possible. IMO (and it's just that... an opinion) there is just a lot of potential here, unintentional as it may be, to create an IT compliance monster that will negatively influence other classification decisions over the long haul.
And FWIW, I've owned a few Fieros myself, so I'm not shooting in the dark. Here's the chain of events involved in legally changing the brakes on an '84-87 Fiero to those from an '88... which was the only reason for putting the early and late cars on the same spec line, right? If someone finds a hole in this sequence, I'll gladly step back, but I believe the following is 100% correct.
- The brakes from the '88 won't bolt to the early front suspension without modification of the calipers or suspension upright, or both. The '88 suspension assembly was a complete redesign with zero parts commonality to the early cars; including the hubs, the rotors, the calipers, the uprights, the a-arms, and even the suspension pickup points.
- Okay then, let's change the entire front suspension assembly, crossmember and all. Oops! The '88 spaceframe was changed to accomodate the new crossmember, so to stay legal (no modifications, remember?) we'll have to literally cut (this is NOT a bolt-on subframe) the entire front end off an '88 and weld it to our '87. Now there... that didn't take long, did it?
- Uh-oh. We've now got our vented brakes and better calipers on the front end, but we've just "...created a model", because the back end of the car is still carrying the '87 engine cradle, suspension, and brakes. But Hey! We've got this '88 cradle laying around, which includes the struts and brakes, and...
- Oh, no! You guessed 'er, Chester... they changed the rear spaceframe components as well (with relocated strut towers, among other things), so the only way to keep the car IT legal is to cut the entire rear end off an '88, etc, etc.
Yessir... combining these two cars onto the same spec line makes all kinds of sense.
As I said back in July, this is bad precedent, as they really are two different cars from an IT ruleset perspective. And this has nothing to do with any alleged performance enhancing combinations that may or may not be possible. IMO (and it's just that... an opinion) there is just a lot of potential here, unintentional as it may be, to create an IT compliance monster that will negatively influence other classification decisions over the long haul.
Bill, at least you don't get totally ignored. THEY don't like what some people (me) say therefore they don't respond.
Then there is the spec window for weight, but 100 pounds that is one thing for a car that has torque & it's all together another thing for a car with a rotor motor/no torque. My guess is that spec 100 pound window will do the same thing to the ITA Miata if the Miata is at the heavy end.
Which end of the spec 100 pound window is the ITA Miata at?
Then there is the spec window for weight, but 100 pounds that is one thing for a car that has torque & it's all together another thing for a car with a rotor motor/no torque. My guess is that spec 100 pound window will do the same thing to the ITA Miata if the Miata is at the heavy end.
Which end of the spec 100 pound window is the ITA Miata at?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Both the 1.6 and 1.8's are spot on their process weights (previous debate on the later 1.8 aside). Actually, the 1.6L Miata was 50lbs on the light side of it's spec weight (2205) but was adjusted up to it's exact spec weight of 2255 in an effort to proactively quell the people who's black helicopters have bumper stickers that claim it's the Mazda Car Club of America. It wasn't consistant with what we did but it was a 'reverse' political move in an effort to keep the peace.
Why do you bring up that car?
you have the lack of class to question the integrity of someone that you obviously don't even know.
[/b]
While I am done with debating this issue, I do want to publicly apologize to Chris. That was w/o class, I was a bit pissed, and I'm sorry. FYI, several people have told me that you have said things like "the MR2 will move to B over my dead body". Hearsay can be wrong as we all know with the telephone game when we were in elementary school. And we at least pretend that we are grownups.
I say move the MR2 into B, unless the driver is named Jake, move those to S at current weight.
[/b]
Deseved! LOL. At least if I go to ITS give me a spec weight of 1800lbs!!
If I ever do meet you I owe you a beer (or two).
benspeed
New member
Per the rules, ITA Fieros are on the same spec line in the GCR - no misinterpreting that. The brake rotors are listed - no debate there. They all run at the same weight and they can exhange parts. All the lawyering of the rules won't change that fact. Check page GCR - 334 
For those who enjoy a little "lawyering":
Calling out the rule on page GCR - 312:
"8. No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension component or mounting point is permitted."
My argument is that the mounting point(s) for the suspension apply to the cars on the same spec line.
Refer to page GCR 305 section C - The argument presented that creation of a new "model" fails. A new model would be different than an '88 chassis or an '87 and the argument presented fails to make that case.
Parts are allowed to be updated and backdated as complete assemblies. When examining the rule the intent is that if the new "model" would achieve an advantage, it should not be permitted. Otherwise why would the rule exist? Anybody making the case that a new "model" with the intent of advantage will occur, cannot support this position with any evidence other than supposition or opinion. If the argument is presented that if backdating occurs, the car is now "different" and therefore a new "model", remember ANY updating or backdating of assemblies would then fall into that interpretation. Intent must be recognized and it is not the intent to prevent updating or backdating if no advantage occurs. In fact it is permitted because no advantage is gained.
I am VERY confident of the fact that these cars are on the same spec line and cannot achieve any advantage through updating or backdating beyond the best model year, being the '88, and that any protest would be chucked.
PS - Wasn't there supposed to be a vote this August on the ECU rule? Any news on that front?
For those who enjoy a little "lawyering":
Calling out the rule on page GCR - 312:
"8. No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension component or mounting point is permitted."
My argument is that the mounting point(s) for the suspension apply to the cars on the same spec line.
Refer to page GCR 305 section C - The argument presented that creation of a new "model" fails. A new model would be different than an '88 chassis or an '87 and the argument presented fails to make that case.
Parts are allowed to be updated and backdated as complete assemblies. When examining the rule the intent is that if the new "model" would achieve an advantage, it should not be permitted. Otherwise why would the rule exist? Anybody making the case that a new "model" with the intent of advantage will occur, cannot support this position with any evidence other than supposition or opinion. If the argument is presented that if backdating occurs, the car is now "different" and therefore a new "model", remember ANY updating or backdating of assemblies would then fall into that interpretation. Intent must be recognized and it is not the intent to prevent updating or backdating if no advantage occurs. In fact it is permitted because no advantage is gained.
I am VERY confident of the fact that these cars are on the same spec line and cannot achieve any advantage through updating or backdating beyond the best model year, being the '88, and that any protest would be chucked.
PS - Wasn't there supposed to be a vote this August on the ECU rule? Any news on that front?
I learn new things all the time, which is pretty cool.
I'm afraid Benspeed, that the question is not 'what is OK now that all of these Fieri are on the same spec line?' but instead, is 'Should they be on the same spec line in the first place?'
While I don't know (honestly) if the "can't make a model" rule holds up in this instance any better than in some other commonly accepted examples (mix and match 2nd gen RX7s), if they are substantially different chassis, between which bolt-on parts don't mix and match, I have a hard time seeing that they should be.
The counterfactual might be the MkII and MkIII Golfs - they have LOTS of parts in common but are NOT on the same line.
I also don't give a hoot about performance differences (despite the fact that I completely disagree with the contention that bigger vented brakes aren't an advantage - let's ask Mr. Young about that). I just think it's a dangerous precedent.
K
I'm afraid Benspeed, that the question is not 'what is OK now that all of these Fieri are on the same spec line?' but instead, is 'Should they be on the same spec line in the first place?'
While I don't know (honestly) if the "can't make a model" rule holds up in this instance any better than in some other commonly accepted examples (mix and match 2nd gen RX7s), if they are substantially different chassis, between which bolt-on parts don't mix and match, I have a hard time seeing that they should be.
The counterfactual might be the MkII and MkIII Golfs - they have LOTS of parts in common but are NOT on the same line.
I also don't give a hoot about performance differences (despite the fact that I completely disagree with the contention that bigger vented brakes aren't an advantage - let's ask Mr. Young about that). I just think it's a dangerous precedent.
K
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
What you said was that it would be 'cost and time prohibitive'. To me, that's saying that costs have something to do with it.
And no Andy, it doesn't "just become an '88" when you swap the subframe over. There's that pesky little rule about VIN #s. And if you want to trot out the "can't create a model" clause, and strictly apply it, then none of the update/backdate stuff would be legal. What you do w/ update/backdate is take parts from one version or model and put them on another version or model that didn't come with them. If you put stuff on a version or model that didn't come on that version or model, haven't you just created a model? Where do you draw the line?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It most certainly wouldn't be optimal for that car, sure.
Not in classing Bill. It was a value judgement - but one for an owner/builder to decide.
The VIN# rule is moot if a car is on the same spec line, no?
Bill Miller
New member
I don't know Andy, is it? You're the one that brought up the "can't create a model" issue. If an '87 Fiero didn't come w/ the front cross member, etc. and you put it on (which I believe is legal under update/backdate), how does that constitute creating a model? Update/backdate pretty much creates a model, by definition.
And as far as build costs not playing a factor in classing, I seem to recall that being one of the reasons why the New Beetle went to ITC rather than ITB, because it would be very costly to get it to the ITB spec weight, if it were even possible.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Nope.