PDA

View Full Version : New Classifications



charrbq
08-15-2005, 03:35 PM
Looks like ITC may have a mix up at the front this year for the ARRC. Since the later model Sciroccos have been moved down from B to C with big engines and no change in weight, they are going to be fast. At least the one seen racing at Atlanta surely was. Some drivers have changed to faster body styles and some have just gotten faster...some haven't. At the double SARRC in Daytona, a certain 4 time ARRC ITC champion broke the lap record my three seconds. I suppose that would be no big deal, but he already had the former record. Should be another interesting race. ;)

Catch22
08-15-2005, 08:33 PM
If everyone shows up that has said they will be there, some very good drivers in very good cars are going to finish as low as 8th to 10th in ITC.

There are now three very fast Sciroccos roaming about, the usual Southeast suspects in CRXs (including a former champ in a new car), and a certain guy from up around Mid Ohio that is rumoured to be making his first ARRC appearance since qualifying at a sub 51 a couple of years ago.

If the barn burner from 2 weeks ago was the preview I think it was, everyone will want a spot on a fence (or in an ITC car) during this years ARRC race.

Scott, praying for dry weather since I do not have the wet experience to even remotely compete with these guys in the rain.

charrbq
08-16-2005, 11:34 AM
Only the slow guys (like me) wish for rain. But the affore mentioned 4 time champ finished second at the ARRC in years past in a torential down pour. Of course, a couple of years later, a ran storm caught the the field by surprise and took out almost all of them in one turn...not pretty. :unsure:

Bildon
08-17-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by charrbq@Aug 16 2005, 11:34 AM
a couple of years later, a ran storm caught the the field by surprise and took out almost all of them in one turn...not pretty. :unsure:

58488


:(

http://www.bildon.com/racing/racecars/ITC%...t/atl_crash.cfm (http://www.bildon.com/racing/racecars/ITC%5FRabbit/atl_crash.cfm)

charrbq
08-18-2005, 07:53 PM
That was the wreck! His car is to the far left, facing upstream. Boke the steering rack and all for corners except for the right rear window. Broken collar bone and fractured ribs on the driver. Much better than others and much, much better than it could've been. Thanks for the picture.

Banzai240
08-19-2005, 09:43 PM
You guys be sure to keep us informed (the ITAC) about those VWs...

Anyone seen a New Beetle show up yet??? B)

charrbq
08-20-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 01:43 AM
You guys be sure to keep us informed (the ITAC) about those VWs...

Anyone seen a New Beetle show up yet??? B)

58681

I'm not too concerned about the New Beetle, although, I've heard the Turbo Diesel is a sleeper (lol). But the same VW I ran against in Atlanta just romped and stomped my favorite 4 time ARRC champion in Carolina...both days. He (the VW) had the fastest lap in the Atlanta SARRC and the ECR, although he won neither. When he past my ailing car in qualifying, he was running with the ITA cars. I understand they are coming out of the woodwork. Might not be a bad thing for the class to add more cars, but not a good thing to have an absolute dominate model. :unsure:

madrabbit15
08-20-2005, 03:29 PM
Chris,

Just to add my two cents. I had had the track record at kershaw in ITB in my rabbit GTI. I know that track very well and I have always been fast there. If you look at past times at kershaw, in ITC I was not running that incredibly fast. For whatever reason that 4 time champ was running really, really slow. A fast itc CRX should be running 2:00 or less at that track because it is bascially an autocross.

As for Road Atlanta, both the older scirocco and the newer civics had more straightline speed than I did. I was all over them in the turns but down the straights I could not even catch either of them in the draft. I think it will be a very interesting ARRC. It will probably be the best race of the ARRC.

I will be the first one to admit that my car is very fast, It has all the developement of the my last four years with an A1 in ITB as well as all of the legal tricks and know how of BSI racing. (Thanks STU!) Not to mention how much money I have thrown at it this year. If it wasnt competitive I would be more than disappointed.

I think the scirocco II is just what VW needed in ITC to keep up with that 2nd gerernation civic. Those are the fast cars to watch and I think they are just starting to be developed. If I wasnt knee deep in VW stuff, that would be the car I would choose to build for ITC.

I think this year at the ARRC there will be several of those fast Hondas. With the list of people who are saying they are coming anyone of us will be lucky to finish in the top 5. I cant wait!

Derek Ketchie
ITC #15 VW Scirocco

racer14itc
08-20-2005, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by charrbq@Aug 20 2005, 05:50 PM
I'm not too concerned about the New Beetle, although, I've heard the Turbo Diesel is a sleeper (lol). But the same VW I ran against in Atlanta just romped and stomped my favorite 4 time ARRC champion in Carolina...both days. He (the VW) had the fastest lap in the Atlanta SARRC and the ECR, although he won neither. When he past my ailing car in qualifying, he was running with the ITA cars. I understand they are coming out of the woodwork. Might not be a bad thing for the class to add more cars, but not a good thing to have an absolute dominate model. :unsure:

58705


The 1.7 Scirocco II is definitely the VW to have in ITC. The 1.6 Scirocco is so overmatched now. The 1.7 has 8% more displacement than the 1.6, which will lead to a proportional increase in hp. It gets the GTI gearbox, which I would make an educated guess is worth 1-2 seconds a lap depending on the track. And if it got the GTI gearbox, did it get the vented rotors? All for a 70 lbs weight penalty. The Scirocco I 1.7 is in ITC at the same weight as the Scirocco II 1.7 but doesn't get the GTi gearbox so it'd be pointless to build one.

And Charrbq, Derek's right about Gareth's times at Kershaw. I ran 2:00's in my 1.6 Scirocco several years ago at Kerhsaw and the tires are even better now, so a really good ITC car should be running in the 59's at Kershaw now.

MC

:eclipsee_steering:

madrabbit15
08-20-2005, 11:22 PM
Mark is correct in that the gti gearbox is a plus. I do have to correct him in that the 1.7 engine has yet to make as much hp at the 1.6. The engine geometry is horrible. The power band is much lower and very hard to use effectively. Overall the 1.6 is a better motor and produces more hp, because of the better combination of rod length and stroke. The gearbox really just makes up for that. At atlanta a few weeks ago, the 1.6 had a little more straight line speed than I did, atleast thats how it seemed from my prospective. It will def be a race in November.

R2 Racing
08-21-2005, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 20 2005, 02:29 PM
With the list of people who are saying they are coming anyone of us will be lucky to finish in the top 5. I cant wait!

58711


You're absolutely right. If everyone shows up in ITC who's being rumored to, there's going to be at least 8 cars who could go home with the 1st place trophy. :smilie_pokal:

charrbq
08-21-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by racer14itc@Aug 20 2005, 09:22 PM
The 1.7 Scirocco II is definitely the VW to have in ITC. The 1.6 Scirocco is so overmatched now. The 1.7 has 8% more displacement than the 1.6, which will lead to a proportional increase in hp. It gets the GTI gearbox, which I would make an educated guess is worth 1-2 seconds a lap depending on the track. And if it got the GTI gearbox, did it get the vented rotors? All for a 70 lbs weight penalty. The Scirocco I 1.7 is in ITC at the same weight as the Scirocco II 1.7 but doesn't get the GTi gearbox so it'd be pointless to build one.

And Charrbq, Derek's right about Gareth's times at Kershaw. I ran 2:00's in my 1.6 Scirocco several years ago at Kerhsaw and the tires are even better now, so a really good ITC car should be running in the 59's at Kershaw now.

MC

:eclipsee_steering:

58712

Found out that Rebstock's gear box shot craps during the race, and he was having to hold it in gear. Course was too tight to maintain momentum in any gear. No wonder he was a sled! It wil be fixed by the ARRC, and the engine will be fresh.
Derek...you were slower than Chuck in the straights at Atlanta? He's fast, but cheese-louise, so are you and Scott!

Bill Miller
08-21-2005, 05:26 PM
Mark,

Derek's right, the 1.7 is way under-square. I've yet to hear of one that comes close to a 1.6 in terms of power.

As far as the GTI gearbox being allowed, I'm not convinced that it should be. I know they're both listed on the spec line, but I've also never seen anything that documents an '84 Scirocco II w/ a 1.7 It's pretty easy to tell from the VIN#, as there's an engine displacement digit. I've also never seen anything that documents an '83 Scirocco II w/ a 1.7, but I could see where some of the early production date cars could have gotten them. Still haven't seen any documentation that supports it though.

/edit/ Preliminary research indicates that the '83 cars were indeed offered w/ the 1.7 until mid-way through the model year, when the Wolfsburg edition was released. The Wolfsburg had the 1.8 motor that was used in the '83 Rabbit GTI, coupled to the close ratio tanny. The close ratio tranny was only offered w/ the 1.8 motor. For 1984, all the cars had the 1.8 motor w/ the close ratio trans.

I'm waiting for a reply from someone w/ '83 and '84 product literature.

I hope there aren't too many people spending money to put close ratio boxes into these cars, or even more importantly, building '84 cars for ITC.

racer14itc
08-21-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 21 2005, 09:26 PM
Mark,

Derek's right, the 1.7 is way under-square. I've yet to hear of one that comes close to a 1.6 in terms of power.

As far as the GTI gearbox being allowed, I'm not convinced that it should be. I know they're both listed on the spec line, but I've also never seen anything that documents an '84 Scirocco II w/ a 1.7 It's pretty easy to tell from the VIN#, as there's an engine displacement digit. I've also never seen anything that documents an '83 Scirocco II w/ a 1.7, but I could see where some of the early production date cars could have gotten them. Still haven't seen any documentation that supports it though.

/edit/ Preliminary research indicates that the '83 cars were indeed offered w/ the 1.7 until mid-way through the model year, when the Wolfsburg edition was released. The Wolfsburg had the 1.8 motor that was used in the '83 Rabbit GTI, coupled to the close ratio tanny. The close ratio tranny was only offered w/ the 1.8 motor. For 1984, all the cars had the 1.8 motor w/ the close ratio trans.

I'm waiting for a reply from someone w/ '83 and '84 product literature.

I hope there aren't too many people spending money to put close ratio boxes into these cars, or even more importantly, building '84 cars for ITC.

58746


It's probably because no one bothered to build to the limit of the IT rules yet. It's only 86.4mm x 80.5mm, not exactly tractor territory. In fact my dad (who builds racing engines for a living) says the longer stroke of the 1.7 will help fill the cylinders better than a 1.6, given the same valve sizes. The thing to watch out for is going over the allowed compression ratio (8.7 including the 0.5 point) because the .040 overbore will bump the compression ratio right up there, given the longer stroke and corresponding increase in the "V1" (cylinder volume). Any milling of the head will affect the compression ratio quickly.

Back in the early days of IT my dad raced a 1.6 ITB Rabbit. Built a to the letter of the rules 1.6 for it (in fact I used that same motor in my ITC Scirocco with quite of bit of success). The rules allowed update/backdating, so he built a to the letter 1715cc motor. Went a second a lap faster at Lime Rock, no other changes. There, now you've heard of an example of a 1.7 going faster than a 1.6. ;)

As far as allowing the GTI gearbox, it's on the spec line now and I would seriously doubt the comp board would rescind it at this point. So I'd say it's a safe bet to build a GTi box for a 1.7 Scirocco.

Once Derek gets the injection tuned properly on the 1.7 and finds the optimal shift points on the motor, he'll do just fine. :smilie_pokal:

MC

madrabbit15
08-21-2005, 07:42 PM
Bill,

The gearbox was added to the spec line some years back when some of the original factory michofiche was sent to THE COMMITTEE as proof. The gentleman who provided the microfiche was up in the northeast somewhere, his name escapes me at this point. I corresponded with him some years back to verify this fact. He made several attempts to email and fax me the proof, but it never came through clear. I never found a copy of the correct microfiche for sale anywhere. I do trust the the folks who added it to the spec line some years back only added it because they were convinced by the microfiche that the gentleman had sent them, but I know you dont exactly have faith in the powers that be. As far the 84 1.7, I have seen many of them, My car is not one, but I have seen more 84 1.7s than I have seen 84 1.8s. In 83 and 84 the only 1.8s were wolfburg models all the others were the 1.7. I guess we can argue about this stuff all day.


Derek

Bill Miller
08-21-2005, 09:10 PM
Derek,

I've been involved w/ watercooled VW's for over 20 years. I have yet to see, or hear of an '84 w/ a 1.7 (until now). As I said, I'm trying to get copies of the '83 and '84 product literature. Show me a VIN# for an '84 Scirocco that show it has a 1.7, and I'll admit I was wrong.

And this is starting to sound like the G-grind cam in the 1.6 cars (and I guess the 1.7 cars). Why in the world is the supporting evidence not kept in the SCCA archives? Claims about some guy w/ microfiche that can't be found are fine, but they're hardly proof. As far as my position on the credibility of the powers that be, there are enough examples from the past, that show that it is not entirely misplaced.

Mark,

It really doesn't matter how long it's been on the spec line, if the car never came that way, it's an error that needs to be corrected. Otherwise it is in direct violation of the "can't create a model" rule. It's the old story, if you make decisions on information that may not be correct, you can't blame somebody if the information gets corrected, and the results of your decision become invalid. Oh, and they pulled the 10:1 hydraulic lifter motors out of the ITB 1.8 Scirocco spec line. And it's not like a ton of these cars have been built, so it's not like you're going to cost a bunch of people a bunch of money. Not to mention that there are other cases where things have been pulled, once they were allowed (e.g. engine coatings, RR shocks, etc.)

And c'mon Mark, anecdotal accounts should be taken at face value as fact? As everyone always says about compring things, were all the conditions equal? I'm sure your dad builds fine motors, but dyno charts of one vs. the other, ideally done on the same day, would certainly be better.

Catch22
08-21-2005, 11:21 PM
Well, I was in the middle (literally) of that Road Atlanta race and was also in the middle (literally again) of the lead pack at last years ARRC.
My first impression of Derek's car is that it is indeed very fast, but not *too* fast. There were places where I had nothing for him and other places where he had nothing for me. He seems to jump off of corners much better than Chuck (1.6 Scirocco) and I (91 Civic), but we both seem to have him covered up on the top end. I can outbrake everybody, but my 4 speed gearing is so awful that it often gains me nothing to kick ass under braking.
Meanwhile, the good old 84-87 Hondas continue to be right there. Doing nothing incredibly stellar, and doing nothing badly.
In the end, everything seems to balance right out and you end up with one hell of a race.

And yes, Derek did bust the fastest race lap, but it was kind of an outlyer. If you look at everyone in the top 5 laps as a whole, they are almost identical (1:52s). And that covers a 1.6 Scirocco, a 1.7 Scirocco, a 91 Civic 4 speed, and two first gen CRXs. Chuck was actually the slowest of the top 5 in fast lap, but won the race.
And for the ARRC, it looks like we'll be adding (at a minimum) another Civic 4 speed, another 1.6 scirocco, and a couple more CRXen (including that guy from louisiana).
That race should quite simply be insane.
I can't wait!!!

charrbq
08-22-2005, 01:07 PM
Apparently no one got the message that ITC was a class for old, ought of date cars that was slowly fading into obscurity. Good thing, it's been some of the best racing for the last several years.

Bill Miller
08-22-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 21 2005, 11:42 PM
Bill,

The gearbox was added to the spec line some years back when some of the original factory michofiche was sent to THE COMMITTEE as proof. The gentleman who provided the microfiche was up in the northeast somewhere, his name escapes me at this point. I corresponded with him some years back to verify this fact. He made several attempts to email and fax me the proof, but it never came through clear. I never found a copy of the correct microfiche for sale anywhere. I do trust the the folks who added it to the spec line some years back only added it because they were convinced by the microfiche that the gentleman had sent them, but I know you dont exactly have faith in the powers that be. As far the 84 1.7, I have seen many of them, My car is not one, but I have seen more 84 1.7s than I have seen 84 1.8s. In 83 and 84 the only 1.8s were wolfburg models all the others were the 1.7. I guess we can argue about this stuff all day.
Derek

58752


Derek,

I just looked at an '84 Scirocco sales brochure. There is no mention in there of a 1.7 engine being offered. The only engine offered is the 1.8 JH motor that makes 90 hp and 100 lb-ft torque. I've also seen the '83 Scirocco Wolfsburg brochure, which also only lists the 1.8 and the close-ratio tranny. I'm still trying to find an early '83 brochure that shows the 1.7 cars, and the transmission ratios that came w/ it.

/edit/ The '83 brochure that I looked at that listed the car w/ the 1.7 motor, listed it w/ the wide ratio transmission.

/edit2/

Derek,


Poke around in the History section on www.driversfound.com, they have most of the Scirocco brochures scanned in. You'll see that there is no mention of a 1.7 in the '84 literature.

Bill Miller
08-26-2005, 08:23 AM
Update.

Checked the official VW parts catalog for the '84 Scirocco. The only engine listed is the 1.8. Also, none of the major 1.7 engine parts (e.g. pistons, valves), are listed. I'll cross-check the p/n for the cams w/ the 1.7 and 1.8 cams from an '84 Rabbit and '84 Rabbit GTI.

The sales brochure for the '83 Wolfsburg Edition clearly indicates that the close ratio trans was part of this special edition's equipment. Were it available on the 1.7 cars, why would it be called out as a specific feature of the Wolfsburg package?

madrabbit15
08-26-2005, 09:55 AM
Bill,

Eric Parham (sp?) was the man name who provided the documentation the THE COMMITTEE. All '84 cars had two winshield wipers. Guess what, his car was an 1984 scirocco with dual windshield wipers and a 1.7 engine with the vin to prove it. The wide ratio gear box was was discontinued halfway through 1983 on sciroccos. That means that any 1.7 cars in 1984 had that close ratio gearbox. Eric sent the documentation on his car along with the documentation of the on the production of the gearbox to THE COMMITTEE. All of this info was on the original dealer micro fiche. Oh and one other thing, if no cars were built in 1984 then why is it listed in the bentley manual? You of all people should know that VW is probably the worst company when it comes to documenting all of the parts that came on different cars. This is why Eric's vin # was crossed with the transaxle microfiche for the decision. I hope this clears some of it up. I will refrain from furthur posts as this documentation has already been provided and it will just become an arguement between you and myself.

Derek

Catch22
08-26-2005, 10:44 AM
C'mon Derek, just admit that your car doesn't exist so we can move on.

Scott, who says "Yellow Scirocco? What yellow Scirocco? I didn't see a yellow Scirocco."

:P

racer14itc
08-26-2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 26 2005, 02:44 PM
C'mon Derek, just admit that your car doesn't exist so we can move on.

Scott, who says "Yellow Scirocco? What yellow Scirocco? I didn't see a yellow Scirocco."

:P

59054


Scott,

I know you're just kidding, but you guys just keep harassing Derek about racing a car that is perfectly legit according to the current ITCS. I'm THIS close to convincing him to come run in GP where he won't be hassled like this!!! :023:

MC

Bill Miller
08-26-2005, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 26 2005, 01:55 PM
Bill,

Eric Parham (sp?) was the man name who provided the documentation the THE COMMITTEE. All '84 cars had two winshield wipers. Guess what, his car was an 1984 scirocco with dual windshield wipers and a 1.7 engine with the vin to prove it. The wide ratio gear box was was discontinued halfway through 1983 on sciroccos. That means that any 1.7 cars in 1984 had that close ratio gearbox. Eric sent the documentation on his car along with the documentation of the on the production of the gearbox to THE COMMITTEE. All of this info was on the original dealer micro fiche. Oh and one other thing, if no cars were built in 1984 then why is it listed in the bentley manual? You of all people should know that VW is probably the worst company when it comes to documenting all of the parts that came on different cars. This is why Eric's vin # was crossed with the transaxle microfiche for the decision. I hope this clears some of it up. I will refrain from furthur posts as this documentation has already been provided and it will just become an arguement between you and myself.

Derek

59050


Derek,

I know Eric, and will talk w/ him. Until know, you hadn't mentioned who did it. And, if you read my earlier post, I said that I would gladly admit that I was wrong, if someone showed me a VIN tag that indicated an '84 Scirocco w/ a 1.7. If the documentation is out there, that's great, and the cars should be allowed to run that way. As I said, this is the first I've heard of an '84 w/ a 1.7. And since the documentation was sent in, and verified, it should be on file. I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of the microfiche in question, but you yourself said that you've been unable to find it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about w.r.t. the Bentley. I looked through mine, and didn't see anything about an '84 w/ a 1.7. I didn't say there were no Scirocco built in '84. But, since we're on the subject of the Bentley, anyone that's used one for any length of time, knows that there are plenty of errors in there as well.

As far as the wide ratio box being 'discontinued' in the Sciroccos mid '83, I assume you are referring to the Wolfsburg cars. That's a special edition car, and just because they used the close ratio box on them, doesn't mean that they stuck them in any '84 1.7 cars that were produced. The wide ratio box was certainly used in plenty of '84 Rabbits, so it was still around. Talk to Mark, I'm sure he can help you w/ your logic on this one.

The VW parts catalog (ETKA) does not list anything other than a 1.8 for an '84 Scirocco.

Not sure why you think this will turn into an arguement. This is what's usually referred to as debate. People w/ different position on an issue provide supporting evidence in defense of their position.

Catch22
08-26-2005, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by racer14itc@Aug 26 2005, 03:09 PM
Scott,

I know you're just kidding, but you guys just keep harassing Derek about racing a car that is perfectly legit according to the current PCS. I'm THIS close to convincing him to come run in GP where he won't be hassled like this!!! :023:

MC

59056



As long as we keep having races like we're having, he'd be crazy to go to GP. Hell, Chuck has 3 race cars( EP, ITA and ITC) and openly admits he has been having the most fun and best races in that old ITC car.

As far as legality... I don't care.
I know rules are rules, and I *think* everyone I'm racing with is following them including me. But if there is a little nitpicky documentation thing missing from something somewhere... I don't care. As long as nobody has a car that is seriously whipping everybody's asses and nobody stands a chance in hell to beat it unless it breaks... I don't care.
From what I've seen every frontrunning ITC car in the SEDIV is so close in lap times (the top 5 cars in last months Road Atlanta race turned fast laps all within 1 second of each other, same thing at last years ARRC) that the competition is more balanced than F1 could ever dream of.
And given that all of these guys are trying to win the ARRC, where it pays to be legal, I'm guessing everybody is legal (at least beyond picking nits :rolleyes: )

racer14itc
08-26-2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 26 2005, 05:02 PM
As long as we keep having races like we're having, he'd be crazy to go to GP. Hell, Chuck has 3 race cars( EP, ITA and ITC) and openly admits he has been having the most fun and best races in that old ITC car.

As far as legality... I don't care.
I know rules are rules, and I *think* everyone I'm racing with is following them including me. But if there is a little nitpicky documentation thing missing from something somewhere... I don't care. As long as nobody has a car that is seriously whipping everybody's asses and nobody stands a chance in hell to beat it unless it breaks... I don't care.
From what I've seen every frontrunning ITC car in the SEDIV is so close in lap times (the top 5 cars in last months Road Atlanta race turned fast laps all within 1 second of each other, same thing at last years ARRC) that the competition is more balanced than F1 could ever dream of.
And given that all of these guys are trying to win the ARRC, where it pays to be legal, I'm guessing everybody is legal (at least beyond picking nits :rolleyes: )

59064


Scott, you KNOW you'd love to bolt some slicks on the ol' sled, pop in a cam and see what you could do in GP!! :cavallo: Whatever you do, do NOT take Blake's car for a ride around Road Atlanta. It'll ruin you for the ITC car. :eclipsee_steering:

I do miss racing with Vesa, Will, Jinx, and the rest of the ITC gang sometimes. But adding 50 hp and taking 100+ lbs off the Scirocco really transforms the car. I can't imagine that Chuck would admit that the ITC Scirocco is as fun to drive as the EP BMW!!

MC

madrabbit15
08-26-2005, 01:38 PM
With the new 12:1 rule for 1.8 in GP, Mark is probably a whole lot closer than he thinks :D But, and there is a but, I just havent seen where there is a lot of wheel to wheel racing in Prod. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me Mark, as I have not been to a national in a long time. Enduros and Double weekends are a plus too, there are not too many double weekends in Nationals from what I can see. I guess the major thing is $$ when comparing what my full prepped IT 1.7 cost and what I think it would cost for a 12:1 1.8 prepped to the extent of the rules. But going fast is always appealing. :023:

Derek

Greg Amy
08-26-2005, 01:43 PM
Can somebody summarize for me the issue here; I'm not quite clear? I worked as a salesman and a parts guy at a VW dealership '83-'86.

The base '83 Scirocco came with a 1.7, and it was only delivered with the wide-ratio 'box.

The '83 Wolfsburg Sciroccos were all delivered with Rabbit GTi equipment, 1.8L JH and close-ratio 'box.

All '84 Sciroccos were delivered with the JH or PL 1.8L engine and close-ratio.

No 1.7s were ever delivered with the close-ratio 'boxes in any A1 car that I can recall. In fact, the cloze-ratio box only went into the Rabbit GTi and the above Sciroccos.

Unless there's been an E&O correction this year, the '05 ITCS is incorrect; the '84 Scirocco and its associated close-ratio 'box belong in ITB. If, however, the ITAC/CRB chooses not to correct this, you've got a problem: you will never be able to find an '84 Scirocco with a 1.7, and that's the only engine listed. Show me an '84 with anything other than a "C" (I think it is) engine VIN code and I'll buy you your favorite six-pack.

However, to the letter of the rules, you *can* run the (supposed-to-be-illegal) close-ratio box, even though it never came with the 1.7 car... - GA

(On edit: I'd be the first to admit the VW was/is absolutely horrible on documentation, and they commonly installed available equipment on whatever they had on hand, esepcially at the end of model years. However, that was usually in regards to trim items, switches, wiring harness, and such. but entire drivetrain components?? I'd be simply *amazed* to hear that VW installed 1.7s in 1984 Sciroccos and/or close-ratio boxes on 1.7s in '83. The whole purspoe of the Wolfsburg was to transition the production line to the 1984 1.8L/close-ratio setup; why deliver it otherwise? Never heard of it, and I was there at the time...) but, like I said, your favorite six-pack if you can prove it...GregA, no dog in this fight...

racer14itc
08-26-2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 26 2005, 05:38 PM
With the new 12:1 rule for 1.8 in GP, Mark is probably a whole lot closer than he thinks :D But, and there is a but, I just havent seen where there is a lot of wheel to wheel racing in Prod. I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me Mark, as I have not been to a national in a long time. Enduros and Double weekends are a plus too, there are not too many double weekends in Nationals from what I can see. I guess the major thing is $$ when comparing what my full prepped IT 1.7 cost and what I think it would cost for a 12:1 1.8 prepped to the extent of the rules. But going fast is always appealing. :023:

Derek

59066


Derek,

There is wheel to wheel racing, but the prod guys aren't prone to fender banging. :bash_1_:

FWIW, the motor I used at VIR (ran 2:18's) and am taking to the Runoffs cost me less than $2000. B) Got the short block on Ebay (former Super Vee engine in pieces) for $600! So if you do your homework you can race in prod economically as well. :023:

There are double SARRCs as well, so that's a possibility. There isn't as close competition in regional prod fields, but the really serious prod guys are running nationals and the Runoffs. The competition at the Runoffs in GP is every bit as fierce as the ARRC!

If it's track time you're after, then ITC is definitely the way to go. You can run pump gas, prod cars have to run race gas (there are few exceptions: rotaries) @ $6.00/gal. That could get expensive if you ran enduros! Not to mention that slicks don't last as long as "hard" DOT race tires like Toyos.

I'll keep working on you, we need more FAST VW's in GP! :smilie_pokal:

MC

Bill Miller
08-26-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 26 2005, 05:43 PM
Can somebody summarize for me the issue here; I'm not quite clear? I worked as a salesman and a parts guy at a VW dealership '83-'86.

The base '83 Scirocco came with a 1.7, and it was only delivered with the wide-ratio 'box.

The '83 Wolfsburg Sciroccos were all delivered with Rabbit GTi equipment, 1.8L JH and close-ratio 'box.

All '84 Sciroccos were delivered with the JH or PL 1.8L engine and close-ratio.

No 1.7s were ever delivered with the close-ratio 'boxes in any A1 car that I can recall. In fact, the cloze-ratio box only went into the Rabbit GTi and the above Sciroccos.

Unless there's been an E&O correction this year, the '05 ITCS is incorrect; the '84 Scirocco and its associated close-ratio 'box belong in ITB. If, however, the ITAC/CRB chooses not to correct this, you've got a problem: you will never be able to find an '84 Scirocco with a 1.7, and that's the only engine listed. Show me an '84 with anything other than a "C" (I think it is) engine VIN code and I'll buy you your favorite six-pack.

However, to the letter of the rules, you *can* run the (supposed-to-be-illegal) close-ratio box, even though it never came with the 1.7 car... - GA

(On edit: I'd be the first to admit the VW was/is absolutely horrible on documentation, and they commonly installed available equipment on whatever they had on hand, esepcially at the end of model years. However, that was usually in regards to trim items, switches, wiring harness, and such. but entire drivetrain components?? I'd be simply *amazed* to hear that VW installed 1.7s in 1984 Sciroccos and/or close-ratio boxes on 1.7s in '83. The whole purspoe of the Wolfsburg was to transition the production line to the 1984 1.8L/close-ratio setup; why deliver it otherwise? Never heard of it, and I was there at the time...) but, like I said, your favorite six-pack if you can prove it...GregA, no dog in this fight...

59067



Don't confuse them w/ facts Greg! :happy204: :023:

Banzai240
08-26-2005, 03:24 PM
I find it really ODD that this is only NOW becomming an issue... The spec line is exactly like it was in the 2004 ITCS when the car was in ITB...

The CRB/ITAC has received this issue as an official letter now, and we will be looking into it...

If any of you have any further information, then please send it to Jeremy or John at the SCCA tech department so they can get it to us...

The ITAC will recommend the appropriate action based on the data we have available...

Bill Miller
08-26-2005, 03:47 PM
Darin,

I brought this up a few years ago. But the reason it hasn't been a major issue, is because no one was building the cars, since they had no chance of being competitive in ITB.

charrbq
08-26-2005, 08:42 PM
To understand why Chuck enjoys the ITC car more than the EP you must first understand Chuck. First, he's crazy. Second, he loves to have fun. For him, EP is dead serious, ITC is fun. He's stated that he enjoys racing the guys he races with in IT more than production. I don't think he was under the influence at the time, but I can't always tell. :D

Catch22
08-26-2005, 09:50 PM
Oh, I realize that my car would be wayyyyyy fun 150lbs lighter with a close ratio box and on slicks. Thats at least 4 seconds a lap before I even start talking horsepower.

But, as I discovered a couple of weeks ago driving a Type R powered Civic around Road Atlanta... Its not just going fast in a fast car that pushes my buttons, its impossibly close and well fought racing. The Prod guys do have their fun, no doubt about that, but I haven't seen any prod racing anywhere near what Derek, Chuck, Vesa, and I were doing last month or what 5 or 6 of us were doing last year at the ARRC.
And I still don't have a scratch on my car, so we're doing it clean.

In short, fast cars are fun.
3 wide into turn 1 is funner
5 lead changes per lap, multiple times, is funnerer.

And... I have to share the car with a significant other, so we have to keep enduros and doubles in the equation. And racing prod in a SARRC isn't even an option, most of the time we're faster than those guys in ITC trim (sorry, but its true).
:unsure:

Bill Miller
08-26-2005, 10:11 PM
More info from the VW parts system (ETKA)

Scirocco engine codes:

EN (1.7) 8/80 - 7/83
JH (1.8) 1/83 - 7/87
PL (1.8 16v) 2/86 - 7/89

No other engine codes are listed for Sciroccos between 8/80 and 7/89

Scirocco Transmission codes

FN (wide ratio) 8/81 - 7/83
2H (close ratio) 1/83 - 7/83)
4K (close ratio) 8/83 - 6/84
9A (close ratio) 7/84 - 7/84
AGB (close ratio) 2/86 - 7/89


No other 5M transmission codes are listed for Sciroccos between 8/81 and 7/89

Model year ends in July of the model year (i.e. production for the new model year starts in August of the previous calendar year).

You will notice a 1.8 engine and a close ratio trans (2H) being offered from 1/83 to 7/83. This is consistent w/ the literature on the Wolfsburg Edition car.

This is factory documentation, and there is nothing to support a 1.7 engine past the '83 model year, or a close ratio trans with a 1.7 engine. I know that it looks like the 9A was only offered for 1 month, but it was at the end of the '84 model year, so subsequent models w/ that transmission are not relevant to this discussion.



The wide ratio gear box was was discontinued halfway through 1983 on sciroccos


FN (wide ratio) 8/81 - 7/83

Not according to the VW parts database.

BTW, here are some screen shots from the VW parts database

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/jettncab/Misc/Rocco1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/jettncab/Misc/Rocco2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/jettncab/Misc/Rocco3.jpg

Catch22
08-26-2005, 10:26 PM
OK, assuming all this is true, what does one do when a car that never existed is listed in the rules?

If it was in the rulebook, and I built one, I'd be pretty damned pissed if someone came back and said "Ooops... We goofed. Your car isn't legal."
:bash_1_:

charrbq
08-27-2005, 12:18 AM
Look at ITS for the specs on Mercedes. :119:

lateapex911
08-27-2005, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 26 2005, 10:26 PM
OK, assuming all this is true, what does one do when a car that never existed is listed in the rules?

If it was in the rulebook, and I built one, I'd be pretty damned pissed if someone came back and said "Ooops... We goofed. Your car isn't legal."
:bash_1_:

59088


If I were considering it....I wouldn't make a move at this point. This one has a bad feeling associated with it...

Bill Miller
08-27-2005, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 27 2005, 02:26 AM
OK, assuming all this is true, what does one do when a car that never existed is listed in the rules?

If it was in the rulebook, and I built one, I'd be pretty damned pissed if someone came back and said "Ooops... We goofed. Your car isn't legal."
:bash_1_:

59088



Well, most people that build cars, know a little bit about them before hand. If you make decisions based on questionable information, that's on you. And read FasTrack, specs are changed in the E&O section on a regular basis. And as far as "Opps, you're car is illegal", just look back a few years when they pulled the 10:1 HT motor w/ hydraulic lifters, out of the 8v ITB Sciroccos.

And while you may be pissed, think about how many of your competitors will be pissed that you get a significant competitive advantage because a mistake wouldn't be corrected. Mark Coffin figures that the close ratio box is worth 1-2 seconds a lap, over the wide ratio box. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a pretty significant advantage.

At the very least, if the close ratio box was delivered in a 1.7 Mk II Scirocco, it should probably get some lead over the Mk 1 1.7 w/ the wide ratio.

madrabbit15
08-27-2005, 09:40 AM
Banzai240,

Who can I talk to and find out if you guys still have the original documention that allowed this transaxle? Since it was submitted to SCCA for the change, should you guys not still have that? Or, does it need to be dug up again?


Derek

Banzai240
08-27-2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 27 2005, 01:40 PM
Banzai240,

Who can I talk to and find out if you guys still have the original documention that allowed this transaxle? Since it was submitted to SCCA for the change, should you guys not still have that? Or, does it need to be dug up again?
Derek

59105


You can talk to Jeremy at SCCA Tech... everything would have come through him... or at least that department...

The ITAC has never seen anything related to this (since I've been here anyhow), and with the move from Denver, a lot of documentation is no longer available...

Again... this sounds like "G-Grind Cams" all over again, which SUCKS!

madrabbit15
08-27-2005, 12:00 PM
Darin,

This documentation was sent to denver for approval and WAS APPROVED (which is why it was added) 3-4 years ago. So what you are telling me is that, you guys may have lost it now and it may be recended after I have this shinny car in my garage? :bash_1_: Not to mention the money I have put into it this year? No wonder Bill doesnt like you guys.............


Derek

Banzai240
08-27-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 27 2005, 04:00 PM
Darin,

This documentation was sent to denver for approval and WAS APPROVED (which is why it was added) 3-4 years ago. So what you are telling me is that, you guys may have lost it now and it may be recended after I have this shinny car in my garage? :bash_1_: Not to mention the money I have put into it this year? No wonder Bill doesnt like you guys.............
Derek

59110



Hey Derek... .... ... No, I won't go there....

NO, that is NOT what I am saying... what I SAID is that the current ITAC has NEVER seen any documentation of this nature, which would make sense since we've only been around for a couple of years.... and we've never had cause to look for it... Would make it pretty tough for us to have lost it now, wouldn't it... :rolleyes:

AND, I also said that IF you want to find out if the SCCA still has it, you need to contact Jeremy or John at SCCA Tech... I also said that some documentation is no longer available since the move from Denver... There was nothing in there about THIS piece of documentation being lost... Since this is the first I've heard of it, I would have no idea if it is or isn't, or even if it existed in the first place...

Your spin doesn't reflect anything I said... so how about paying attention to the text..

Also, how about finding out the facts before you start attacking...


Again, just like the G-Grind cam... I don't give a rip if it was approved... There is WAY more official information available that refutes it's existance than supports it, and, in fact, the slight amount of information that does is so obscure, it's questionable as to whether it can be considered official... This sounds like exactly the same deal...

Speaking offiically, since this is now an official matter that must be researched and reconsidered, the ITAC will take whatever the appropriate action is in resolving this... If that means you need to provide the information again, then so be it...

madrabbit15
08-27-2005, 01:53 PM
Darin,

No one is spinning anything here. Notice I used the word "MAY" regarding the loss of documents. Ya, I appologize I might be a litte UNSETTLED right now when docs where sent to Denver and were approved which is why it was added to the GCR in the first place, and now there is even a POSSIBILTY that it MIGHT be changed after a car has been built and a lot of my money has been spent. I think anyone would be a little concerned if they were in my position right now. Surely you can appreciate that. I will contact Jeremy or John and find what needs to be or can be done.


Thanks,

Derek

Banzai240
08-27-2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 27 2005, 05:53 PM
I think anyone would be a little concerned if they were in my position right now. Surely you can appreciate that. I will contact Jeremy or John and find what needs to be or can be done.

59115


Derek,

I appreciate your position, but attacking the ITAC isn't going to solve anything...

As for being unsettled, if the car was actually made, then I don't think you should be worrying... If you put together a combination that has never existed (like a 240SX with 295mm brakes.... Hey, it was on the spec line for two years until I brought it to the attention of the CRB and provided factory spec sheets showing the correct sizes for each of the years...), then you KNEW what you were doing and that it was not legal... was against the IT rules and the intent of IT... and that the spec line was in error...

If you build a car like that, then you're taking your chances... You guys ALL know that alternate tranmissions are not allowed, and that the specs are prone to an occasional error...

NOW, since you provided information that got this ADDED to the specs... and this wasn't a case of this being put on the spec line inadvertantly during classification, Then I think that actually bodes well for this being OK... We'll have to see...

Again, since this is now officially a problem, we'll deal with it as we do every other issue... as fairly as we can... In the meantime, go race and let us worry about the specs... The most you can do about it at this point is to provide any information that might support this...

Bill Miller
08-27-2005, 08:39 PM
I have a 2000 GCR, and it was in there, so it was added at least 5 years ago.

Derek,

Don't put words in my mouth. And don't make it seem that I "don't like" someone. I've already proven you wrong on a couple of counts. I'm sorry if you don't like that. As I've said, and Darin reiterated, if you build a car based on questionable specs, you are on your own. And think how the guys w/ the HT motors in the ITB Sciroccos felt. You're essentially looking at having to use a different trans. That's about a $600 hit, at most. And you can probably sell the one you have to someone in ITB. So, it's not like you're going to be out a ton of money. Now, if you built the car, because you thought you had an advantage, based on those questionable specs, well, I've already made my case on that one.

charrbq
08-27-2005, 11:32 PM
Derek,
Let me apologize if I started or stirred up a pot that I didn't know existed. I'm a Honda guy...racer, builder, lover, etc. Of course I look at any other car with caution. Frankly, I consider Scott to be a great friend and competitor, but I'd just as soon both of you guys with you new fangled fuel injection were in another class away from us guys with crappy carbs! lol Fact is, you're not really faster than anyone else in the class. You just came onto the scene in a scary way...real fast "out of the box".
From what I've witnessed, every car has an advantage and a disadvantage. My carb, your weight. Even Gary has the slippery CRX, but I have the better handling Civic. Many of us forget how the Hondas came along and made the 510's, Corolla's, Rabbits, etc. virtually obsolete.
That said, everyone searches for an advantage. Some find a legal one and others try to pass one off as legal, knowing it really may not be. I'm not making accusations, we have enough spoiled brats in racing, but if someone is playing the dark side of the gray area, then they deserve to get burned.
Your arguments that you have supplied the necessary info to the "powers" shouldn't be worth schredding your robe about. What's happening is the best thing...you've made the comp board, etc. look at your stuff. If you've given them everything you've said, then they will validate you and everyone else will have to live with it.
Best of luck to you. Of course, I hope we whoop your ass at the ARRC. You are, however, invited to gumbo, jambalaya, etc. Come early, it goes faster than your car.

:023:

Knestis
08-28-2005, 09:48 AM
I am NOT taking sides on this one but it could be a case study in what does't work in the Club Racing rules process. (Also, not picking on the ITAC, here.)

** Racers who want a car classified submit its specs in the first place - urban legend, wishful thinking, and downright sneakiness get injected from the outset: "Yeah - I heard that few of the last of these came with the big front brakes from the next generation." Note here that Derek is NOT the one who requested that the 1.7 2nd-gen Scirocco with the tight box be classified.

** (The ITAC has been interposed here, which is a good thing - checking among themselves and others to see if there's anything that seems goofy.)

** Pre-ITAC (as was the case with this Scirooco, it sounds like), the CRB placed the car in a class. My sense is that they didn't look very hard at what they were signing off (no surprise, they're busy), given some of the wacky stuff that gets into the ITCS that doesn't look like typos. "Yeah, yeah, yeah - whatever."

** Ah, yes - those typos. There doesn't appear to be enough critical, pre-publication reading of the ITCS. Perhaps because folks figure that problems can be chased out through E&O? I like the ones that transpose "in" in for "mm." "Hmm - that 5th-gear ratio doesn't exist so I can obviously use whichever one I want."

** If a car is classified such that it has only a snowball's chance of being competitive (like this car in ITB, a bunch of Hondas in S), nobody every builds one. The rules get enshrined by history. "It's been in the book for years, so it must be right."

** When a car gets MOVED - since this is a relateively new phenomenon :P - it just gets moved as whole cloth. "Now, if they would just move those Toyotas to B, dagnabbit."

Through all of this, racers are racers. If they see something in the specs that they think is hurting their competitiveness, they will fight to get it changed. Equally, if they see something that seems funny but gives them an advantage, 8 of 10 will smile and nod, and not lift a finger to correct it.

Derek and his dad have been doing this for a while so it's not a surprise that his car is competitive. It would also not be a suprise that if - and I say IF - they have been handed a "gimme" by the system, then they would take full advantage.

K

Catch22
08-28-2005, 07:19 PM
First off, the competitive side of me would love to see an crappy gearbox in Dereks car. But I have to admit that if he was forced to do this it would bother me.

The whole "You probably knew you were building a car that never existed" argument doesn't fly with me because it assumes a person bought a complete stock vehicle and turned it into a race car.
Now, how often does this happen?
And how often does it happen that an IT car is built from a chassis that came from x, a motor that came from xx, and a tranny that came from y?
Well, ALOT of Hondas are built this way because they are plentiful in junkyards and back yards everywhere. Its just cheaper to do it like this.

Now, take my car for example. I got a 91 civic standard, dropped in a D15B1 motor (the "standard" motor), and bolted up a 4 speed from an 88 Civic. I did all of this because it matches up to what THE RULE BOOK says I can do.
I'm assuming Derek has done the same thing, and now theres a possibility that the rulebook is wrong.
That really sucks if you are Derek.

Now, I know I won't have this problem because the Honda documentation is pretty clear. But as already mentioned in this thread the VW stuff can be a mess (I dunno first hand, I'm a Honda guy). I can see how this could become shitty.

Banzai240
08-28-2005, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 28 2005, 11:19 PM
I did all of this because it matches up to what THE RULE BOOK says I can do.
I'm assuming Derek has done the same thing, and now theres a possibility that the rulebook is wrong.
That really sucks if you are Derek.

59150


Damn... I KNEW I should have found some 295mm front brakes for my 240SX... The darn rules said I could.... :rolleyes:

In all seriousness... NOWHERE in the rulebook does it say that you can CREATE a model, OR use an alternate transmission, etc...

As rare as this transmission/engine combo sounds at this point, only a concious effort could have brought them together, so I don't buy the ignorance scenario you present here...

Either way, if the car was actually made, then there isn't a problem...

Catch22
08-28-2005, 07:31 PM
I did not "create" a model by putting an 88 drivetrain in a 91 car. I did a legal up/back date. The rulebook says what I did is legal.

And if we can't count on being legal by following whats written in the rules...

Banzai240
08-28-2005, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 28 2005, 11:31 PM
And if we can't count on being legal by following whats written in the rules...

59152


I agree... However, we are not really talking about the "rules" here, but rather a spec line... I know it may be a matter of semantics, but it is clear in the rules that creating a model is not legal...

Look, I am as sorry this is an issue as the next guy, but it is, so let's deal with it the best we can... I don't KNOW if this car existed, or if this is even a problem... So until we have all the facts in front of us, let's not bicker too much about it... It doesn't help anyone...

Personally, I don't know Derek at all, but I don't want to go making enemies over speculation... If he winds up pissed at me, I'd rather have it be over something more substantial...

charrbq
08-28-2005, 10:08 PM
Scott,
We've been told by Pruett and company that it a car is listed in the ITCS as a certain model built within a set number of years, that any items built for those cars within those parameters is legal. As confusing as that statement sounds, that doesn't mean you use a cam from one head in a different head if it's more cool...that's covered in the rules in a different area. But if your car is listed on one line as 88-91, and it is, all the goodies built for that car with in those years can be used. If a transmission is more pro, you can use it.
I'm covered by '84-87 as is the CRX. The CRX can be an HF or whatever as it is listed as a blanket Honda CRX 1.5 just like yours and my car can either be HB or Sedan. If you got a trnsmission form one year model, an engine from another, and put it in a chassis from another year, as long as the some of the parts was not taken from a model or year not listed...you're cool. That said, there are specific rules that forbid certain things from taking place, but as long as you don't violate those rules, no foul.
That's what we were told by the official guru of that moment in time.
That being said, you know your car's illegal...you're too damn fast! HeHe ;)

Catch22
08-28-2005, 10:54 PM
I understand Darin, if the car is incorrectly listed you guys MUST correct it. But that is an extremely unfortunate situation.
I guess if that happens Coffin will get his wish and us SE ITC guys will be short one fast and clean driver.
I hate that.


That being said, you know your car's illegal...you're too damn fast! HeHe

And yet I keep finishing behind your guy. Therefore he must be MORE illegal than me :rolleyes:

Bill Miller
08-28-2005, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 28 2005, 11:19 PM
First off, the competitive side of me would love to see an crappy gearbox in Dereks car. But I have to admit that if he was forced to do this it would bother me.

The whole "You probably knew you were building a car that never existed" argument doesn't fly with me because it assumes a person bought a complete stock vehicle and turned it into a race car.

59150


Scott,

Did it bother you when the ITB Mk II Scirocco 1.8 8v's lost the HT engine w/ the hydraulic lifters?

And, it doesn't matter if you bought the car whole or not. If you're building a race car, you need to do your homework and find out what came in the car. Anybody that's been in this game for any amount of time, should know better than to depend on the ITCS as the only source of information. Go look at the specs for a '91-'92 Saab 900 16v in ITA. Tell me how you'd build that car!

And not to muddy the issue, but do you think it's fair that the same car, w/ the same motor/suspension/brakes, should get to weigh the same, if it runs a close-ratio box vs. a wide-ratio one, especially in this day and age of a classification process that takes various factors into account when setting specs?

Catch22
08-28-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 29 2005, 03:07 AM
but do you think it's fair

"Fair" is not the question and has nothing to do with my point.
And I don't know a damned thing about Saabs or VWs, so I guess I'd be SOL if I were a newcomer building a VW and relying on my big fat rulebook to build my car.

When its all said and done, see Kirks post above.

Banzai240
08-28-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Catch22@Aug 29 2005, 03:33 AM
When its all said and done, see Kirks post above.

59170



I think I'll deal with all this by taking off for the rest of the week and hanging out in Seaside, Oregon at the beach...

ENJOY the week, boys! Make sure you post something interesting for me to read when I get back! ;)

charrbq
08-29-2005, 10:04 PM
No Scott, that's just the natural order of things. :D

Catch22
08-29-2005, 11:22 PM
Well, we'll just see if we can shake up mother nature a bit in a couple of months.
B)

zracre
08-29-2005, 11:50 PM
All this ITC talk is making me want to build a car....hmmmmm lets see what can be done for a small budget racer...try to keep under 5 grand.......less tire wear and brake useage hmmm :P

charrbq
08-30-2005, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by zracre@Aug 30 2005, 03:50 AM
All this ITC talk is making me want to build a car....hmmmmm lets see what can be done for a small budget racer...try to keep under 5 grand.......less tire wear and brake useage hmmm :P

59259

Evan, I can make you such a deal! Trailer stays with me. I've got almost as much invested in that as the car. :lol:

madrabbit15
08-31-2005, 10:20 AM
I do not have a problem running whatever gear box I am suppose to. That has never been the issue here. I do not really like how some people have referenced the fact that I purposefully did something wrong. When we built the car their were two transmissions listed in the GCR. One was going to be extremely expensive and hard to comeby the r&p needed and the other was going to be a simple use of a stock r&p. SO....I chose the easier one. Actually the r&p needed to make the wideratio box anywhere close to competitive is not even available or made anymore. I knew that docs had been presented to scca that put that trans in the GCR, so why would I doubt that it was legal? (Please note that I was not the one who got that gearbox added to the GCR.) Well now I guess I should question anything. I think I have found the correct r&p to make it work, but I have to tell you it is going to cost more than most ITC cars cost starting out. (I am not saying I shouldnt have to spend money to race competitively.) But I have to have that r&p right? That or waste a new car that would not have been built in the first place if I new I had to use that gearbox. I hope by some means that the close ratio box is found to have come in my car, but based on the evidence I have seen so far, I question that. I am not a book worm nor do I have access to all of the microfiche and crazy vw documents that I have seen for this car recently, those that are over 20 years old. I do not think one should have to go dig through 20 year old factory microfiche before one chooses a race car. Thats plain silly.

Final Thoughts........

I think the current system needs to revised in some form or fashion. My situation is an example of this. I think much greater care needs to be spent before specs are put in the GCR, because it is our rule book right? I like to spend my time racing, not building a library of 20year old specs to decide on a car or not. I also do not like people assuming things about me and the reasons for which I have done things when they do not know me at all. For me, thats all this situation has done, that and possible cause me to spend a boat load.


Derek Ketchie

Catch22
08-31-2005, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 31 2005, 02:20 PM
I do not think one should have to go dig through 20 year old factory microfiche before one chooses a race car. Thats plain silly.



Me neither.
I would not protest Derek for using the close ratio box, even if it is found to not have originally come in the car. He built what the rulebook said he could build, and I'm OK with that. IMO as long as that gearbox is on his spec line, he's legal and has done NOTHING wrong.

I think when we start accusing drivers of cheating because they didn't research what the rules said they can do we're starting to roll down one of Kirk's slippery slopes.
If the rules are mistaken, fine, fix them. And Derek has to buy/build a new transmission (which he has apparently already done). But don't insinuate he was trying to get one over on anybody.

This is, of course, all my very humble opinion.

PS - Just for clarification, I'm not a "buddy" of Derek's. I've met him exactly once and raced against him exactly once (a great one BTW).

zracre
08-31-2005, 06:26 PM
I think the gearbox is a non issue until someone changes it...It says its legal...it IS legal.