The numbers do not come from a "former" employee. And there is no such thing as "Acura NA". Some European car companies use this nomenclature (e.g. BMW NA); I don't know whether they actually have one organization marketing cars to the United States, Canada, etc. Regardless, Honda's United States marketing organization is called American Honda American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Acura automobiles are sold by the Acura Division, a wholly owned subsidiary of this organization. Canadian marketing takes place by a separate organization, Honda of Canada.

 

Ken... riddle me this... according to the Group N homologation rules Honda should have produced more ITRs for the US shores.

 

What do the rules say, exactly?

 

Where does he work now? I can't find him. If he still works for them we should write him to ask exactly where the numbers come from and why other facts appear to cause concern over the numbers he gave.

I'm so sorry. I feel free to refer to (N)orth (A)merica. I know there is no such thing as a company calling itself Acura NA or Honda NA.

 

Hmm. Well, it seems to me that we should follow the sequence.

"They skipped a bunch." You presented that as a fact. What is the evidence of that, other than Mr Potter?

"No one claimed that the armrest numbers are assigned sequentially." What sense does it make not to assign them in order?

:thinking:

When I take that paragraph apart, it doesn't seem to mean anything.

Where does the press mention any number for any years? What's the press, anyway?

"All observable empirical evidence..." doesn't mean much at all in this case, although it certainly is a grand phrase to use, isn't it?

Sounds just wonderful.

Hmm. "When you account for the gaps in armrest numbers..." But you can't and haven't, and we can't, either.

Why does the sword come out whenever you discuss this? Why is it such a horribly important issue for you.

I think I've tried to give you credit, and I think I have tried in the previous post to give you and Mr Potter some credit and position, but it seems to me you're responding with an attack and with a bit of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

 

The person from whom I got the numbers for 2000 and 2001 still works at American Honda. The reason I don't give out his name is precisely so that he is not besieged by belligerent owners demanding that he provide additional proof of how the numbers are derived, just like you have just admitted attempting to do with poor Mr. Potter. That's not what he does for a living, and to pretend that corporations have hired people to respond to every stubborn a**hole on the internet who refuses to believe the company's information is not only totally insensitive, but also totally absurd.

It isn't. It's important to YOU - which is why you post endless, endless tirades (just like the one you posted above). I'm not going to waste any more time on your endless questioning or bellicose attitude. Maybe you should practice law for a living - it's a great career for anyone sufficiently arrogant and stubborn that they want to spend their time badgering and belittling people with endless questioning of absolutely no value.

 

3,000 identical units if the car is going to be in the SCCA affiliated events.

A manufacturer or team can continue to race a car that has ceased production, for a number of years after it has ceased production, but the FIA must have the documentation certifying homologation for the model of the car that is competing.

For the purposes of some series, homologation is allowed if a team can certify that a manufacturer's combined yearly output is for an identical car.

So you might be allowed to compete with a certain model if the manufacturer can produce documentation that certifies that, for example, (1)the combined model year run for 2000 and 2001 is an identical vehicle, and (2)the combined production for those two years totals 3000 or more individual units that have hit dealer showrooms.

A change to homologation rules in 1999 relative to national markets supposedly had something to do with the USDM ITR's return in the 2000 model year. Honda was not fond of the idea, because they actually as a manufacturer lost money on each individual ITR sold, because of the nature of the modifications and the fact that the ITR could not be put together on the normal Japanese Integra assembly line.

Homologation rules get lighter and tougher with the times and the automotive market climate. There's a rumour currently going around rally circles that Mitsubishi is going to have to certify a 25,000 unit run for an upcoming special that they want to have in the WRC.