Car Eligibility Rule Clarification

[Fi3555]

I need some help in determining just what ITCS 17.1.4.C means as far as update/backdate phrases. My question is can you take (for example) a 1987 VW Golf that came with a 16v engine/trans. (hence ITA) and
install a 8v engine/trans. and make this an ITB car provided everything else meets ITCS spec ? I'm sure there are many other examples of this in other makes and models swap. Is this what substitution the ITCS is referring to ? (complete assemblies)
I also see reference to the VIN as determining " model and type for competition purposes". The VIN will also show engine size,trans type and a bunch more. Any insight will be much appreciated !

Tim

[Eric Parham]

Mmm, this looks like a cozy hornets nest. Because of the VIN restriction, the general consensus is that you can only do it if the VIN fails to differentiate between the two engine types. Don't know about all cars, but some years and models of VW did differentiate and others did not. You'd have to do the research on the 87 GTI to know whether you'd end up with a fully compliant race car, including VIN letter code for engine type.

Now, all of that assumes that the engine letter code within the VIN is actually part of the VIN. Since the VIN stamping on the firewall does not even include the engine code (I think there's just a filler character there), one could argue that only the number portion of the VIN ("Vehicle Identification NUMBER") is the VIN, and that the letters (which are included with other VIN labels but not the firewall stamping) are superfluous. YMMV. Does anyone know if the check digit accounts for the letters, or just the real numbers/digits of the VIN?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The VIN is the whole number. Every RMV in the country recognizes all the charaters as the complete VIN. Otherwise there would be duplicates all over the place. Since 1981 the Fed GVMT has mandated a 17 digit VIN system. Please put that to bed.

As was stated, the VIN will tell all. If you are going to 'backdate' your chassis, the VIN must not include a digit from the 'wrong' engine or from the 'wrong' year (if the engine were not produced at the same time) or signify any options or trim packages that which would prove you have violated the VIN rule.

Many have debated here the 'intellegence' of this rule, but it still is a rule.

Having said all that, there still may be VIN's that don't tell you what you want to know.

VW VIN decoder (http://www.driversfound.com/gak/vininfo.htm)

[Eric Parham]

The VIN is the whole number. Every RMV in the country recognizes all the charaters as the complete VIN. Otherwise there would be duplicates all over the place. Since 1981 the Fed GVMT has mandated a 17 digit VIN system. Please put that to bed. [/b]
Done :)


As was stated, the VIN will tell all. If you are going to 'backdate' your chassis, the VIN must not include a digit from the 'wrong' engine or from the 'wrong' year (if the engine were not produced at the same time) or signify any options or trim packages that which would prove you have violated the VIN rule.[/b]
Well, perhaps the VIN should tell all, but it really does not in many cases.



Many have debated here the 'intellegence' of this rule, but it still is a rule.[/b]
Agreed.



Having said all that, there still may be VIN's that don't tell you what you want to know.
[/b]
Yes, some give the same code letter for two or more engine types that are on different ITCS lines and/or classes.



VW VIN decoder (http://www.driversfound.com/gak/vininfo.htm)
[/b]
That particular "decoder" has more errors than a beer soaked baseball game. Please don't use it as gospel. It is marginally accurate for VWs produced in Pennsylvania from 81-88, but way off for German, Mexican and Brazilian production. My bet is that it's also going to be incorrect for the 1987 Golf 1.8L engines (since it often takes VW an extra year to differentiate new engine offerings and that was the first year for the 16V GTI), but the only way to confirm is going to be to check several VINs from actual examples.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That particular "decoder" has more errors than a beer soaked baseball game. Please don't use it as gospel.
[/b]

Which is inherent to the web!

The point is that, like you said, one digit may signify more than one engine and one digit may signify more than one trim level etc. Become an expert for your car and you will know what you can do.

[Fi3555]

Let me throw another wrench in the works. GM cars have a VIN digit to signify the type transmission. Does that mean one can't convert an auto. to a 5 speed and be a legal IT car ? Other types of cars don't give trhat much info. I see much gray area in the rules of IT !

Tim

[Eric Parham]

Pretty good wrench! Auto trans is permitted, but only if you're lucky enough to need a waiver. Thus, the auto-equipped car would be on the same spec line with the manual-equipped car. Therefore, I'd argue that interchange is allowable since they're on the same spec line regardless of the fact that the VIN happens to tell what came originally in a particular example.

[JoshS]

I agree with Eric that it would be legal, but don't think that Eric has the right reason why.

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

So the only thing important from the VIN is the model and type. Very few cars include the transmission as part of the model, unless some particular model wasn't available with a manual transmission, I suppose.

[Eric Parham]

Good points. "Model" and especially "type" are rather vague in the current rules. "Model" used to be used by almost all manufacturers with a rather broad connotation, but seems to include more detail as time goes on. 95% of the time, I would call the "model" whatever the manufacturer plastered on the rear end in the way of lettering (whether or not it's determinable from the VIN). A few do specify/advertise the transmission there. "Type" is even more vague. I used to read that as meaning only body type (e.g., sedan, coupe, wagon, vertible, pick-up, etc.), but others have argued that "type" is whatever is listed on a single ITCS line, particularly with respect to engine specs. Following that reasoning, those same people might disagree with your argument since the listed "type" seems to only include the manual specs (compare to the 8-valve engine example).

[lateapex911]

Here's where I get lost.

Why?

Why is this rule so important?? I've never REALLY understood it.

The biggest single issue I see has been pointed out (again) here in this thread already..the rule doesn't apply to all models equally. Heck it doesn't apply to the SAME model equally, year to year.

It seems that if you work it out, SOME years of the Wonbat Zombie CAN be swapped chassis-wise, yet the very next year can not, even though every last nut, bolt and spot weld is the same, just because the VIN method changed for that year, on that model with that manufacturer.

To me, this ends up with a disparity across the board, and while sometimes i think that there are good reasons to keep a rule, even though it's not entirely fair to everybody, on this one I need to see the light.

Reasons NOT to get rid of it:
- It keeps someone from using a GTI chassis with it's extra reinforcement for a Golf racer. (IF they even have extra reinforcement, just trying to make a point here...)
Counterpoint. Does anyone actually run the codes? Ever? Can your competitor actually ever SEE the codes?? Are we using a ruke to help "police" the class? If so, we've been down that road before.

Thats all I can think of.

What am I missing here?

[Fi3555]

My concern is building a car from a shell and having it's VIN not relating to the legal engine, trans. or other heritage. Then having some weasel protest me for one letter in the VIN that signifies the car came with an auto. or different engine. All that time and money down the tubes out of a technicality.
I've made a call to "the powers that be" and am waiting for a response. I'll let you know.

Tim

[Bill Miller]

This is one of those rules that I've been 'on' for years. It really makes no sense.

In the case you mentioned, w/ the '87 Golf, there is no way to tell a 16v car from an 8v car, by the VIN#. You can swap the motors around, convert from CIS-E to Digifant injection, etc. and be legal w/in the rules. But, in the case of say an '83 or '84 Rabbit, you can't swap the 1.7 and the wide-ratio trans out for a 1.8 and the close-ratio trans, and make a Rabbit GTI out of it. The only other differences are the vented front rotors on the GTI, and the 14" wheels. There's no additional supports, thicker sheet metal, additional welds, nothing else (that you couldn't already remove) that differentiates the two cars.

[BlueStreak]

OK, I'll bite. How is it that you can get away with it in an 87 but not an 84?

[WillM]

This is the part I don't understand:


The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.
[/b]
Are the factory/OEM VIN STICKERS considered a plate or stamping?
The VIN numbers have to match the spec line, but not each other, right?
Does this open a loophole where a chassis that exists on two separate spec lines could be configured for either spec line, as long as two of the VIN plates/stampings/stickers correspond to the 'new' spec line?

[Knestis]

Now that I've accepted creep, getting this rule changed is my first quest. Resubmission of previous requests is on its way.

K

[Eric Parham]

Are the factory/OEM VIN STICKERS considered a plate or stamping?[/b]
I would consider them flexible plates :)


The VIN numbers have to match the spec line, but not each other, right?[/b]
That's always been my interpretation, but someone recently claimed that they all had to match each other. At a minimum, I would say that even if they're different, that currently they must each correspond to the correct ITCS spec line.


Does this open a loophole where a chassis that exists on two separate spec lines could be configured for either spec line, as long as two of the VIN plates/stampings/stickers correspond to the 'new' spec line?[/b]
See above. Also, the loophole has always been there, but only for some makes/models/years as Jake described.

[Eric Parham]

Now that I've accepted creep, getting this rule changed is my first quest. Resubmission of previous requests is on its way.[/b]
I don't remember if the Production classes ever restricted VIN numbers, but they certainly have not for quite some time. Now that it's no longer practical (I didn't say impossible) to have a street-registered IT car, I don't see any reason to keep this rule either. I vote to ditch it. The only grey area would then be if certain trim levels received better chassis reinforcement. I'm very familiar with VWs, and can tell you that the only structural reinforcement was on Cabriolets when compared with Rabbits (presumably to make up for the lack of roof). Some VWs and Fords that I've seen had bolt-on stuff like subframe connectors or lower stressbars, but those could easily be removed to fit the rules. If there are cases with other cars where there's a significant difference between the original body and the car classed, then the body is simply non-compliant for that class no matter whether the VIN matches or not, IMHO.

[GKR_17]

If there are cases with other cars where there's a significant difference between the original body and the car classed, then the body is simply non-compliant for that class no matter whether the VIN matches or not,
[/b]

There's the problem. It is a lot simpler to make everyone stay with the true chassis for any given vehicle, than it is to sort out any differences there may be. If you want to run a GTI then start with a GTI.

I know of a guy who says he's converting his ITS Acura over to ITR. Legal? Probably not. Will I protest? Almost certainly not. Though I did check the VINs on several cars at the ARRC a few years ago out of curiosity.

[Fi3555]

Production cars 20 or so years ago used to be limited to VIN in some respect. A good example of was a ruling that the Yenko Stinger Corvair had to have been blessed by Don Yenko himself. No copies of a Yenko were allowed to compete. Today most Prod or GT cars are mere silhouettes of the actual car. (rules creep)
But this sure makes racing more affordable. The same goes for IT. Finding the right body/drivetrain combos
is much harder to do than just putting one together that meets the ITCS specs. The VIN belongs only in the SS classes. My opinion .

Tim

[Eric Parham]

There's the problem. It is a lot simpler to make everyone stay with the true chassis for any given vehicle, than it is to sort out any differences there may be. If you want to run a GTI then start with a GTI.

I know of a guy who says he's converting his ITS Acura over to ITR. Legal? Probably not. Will I protest? Almost certainly not. Though I did check the VINs on several cars at the ARRC a few years ago out of curiosity.
[/b]

Agree that it's simpler, but is it better?

The way it is now, some folks who ball up their cars find themselves in the situation where they really have to use a different trim body due to availability and/or cost. If they're unlucky enough to run a car with VIN differentiation, then they may have to sell their souls to achieve VIN compliance. This obviously isn't the goal.

I've also spotted IT cars with non-compliant structure but correct VINs. Most of the structural reinforcement weld panels are available through dealers for crash or rust repair. Anyone who's hellbent on cheating will find a way regardless of the VIN rule, and then just hide behind the "correct VIN" fascade.

It's not the cheaters, but the budget conscious and/or rare model drivers that are hurt by this rule. It would be better for true compliance to be on the lookout for the actual non-compliant portions than to rely on VINs, IMHO. It would also be better for cost-containment and encouraging competition to nix the VIN rule.

[Bill Miller]

OK, I'll bite. How is it that you can get away with it in an 87 but not an 84?
[/b]

Because w/ the Rabbits there's a digit in the VIN# that differentiates between a 1.5/1.6/1.7 and a 1.8. There's nothing in the '87 VIN# that differentiates between an 8v and a 16v (both 1.8 motors). That's why.

And not all A2 Golfs came as GTI's either (w/ all the GTI goodies like rear discs and a close-ratio box), yet you can build any one of those cars into a GTI. You could even build a 4-dr version, if you were so inclined.

[Knestis]

Went in last night...

* * *

Summary of Request

To amend the ITCS to eliminate the “create a model” prohibition and “two VIN numbers” requirement clauses.

Details of Request

It is respectfully requested that ITCS 17.1.4.C is changed in the following respects:

Amend ITCS p. 2, par. 1, by striking the following sentence:

…be coated, painted or plated). <strike>Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies</strike>. Parts or assemblies…

Delete ITCS p. 2, par. 4:

<strike>The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required</strike>.

Intent and Rationale

The intent of this change is to allow entrants to build or repair IT cars using body or chassis parts—including entire unibody shells—which are otherwise identical to the parts they replace, from trim levels or models of cars not included on their ITCS spec line.

This change is based on the logical application of the “stock replacement parts” rule (GCR, 9.1.3.C, p. 294) to body components. If I use a part or assembly from a car not on my spec line, that is otherwise the same as that from a car that is listed, then the source of that part is not an issue. If I use a part or assembly that is not of the correct specifications defined for my spec line, then it is illegal regardless of its source.

It is immaterial that, in the absence of the above clauses, someone might attempt to use a unibody shell or chassis component different from those found on cars included on their applicable spec line: Any such use would be illegal regardless of whether the above clauses are included in the ITCS.

Further, it is no more difficult to police the legality of a chassis, body, or unibody shell—each being just an assembly of parts—than it is to do so for many other components. The checking of visible VIN plates is not an inspection of the legality of any part of an IT car and should not be thought of as such.

[tnord]

:wacko:

why do i feel like this is a rule looking for a problem?

soooooooo, i can convert my 1.6L miata into a 1.8 now?? :blink:

[shwah]

If the unibody is identical, you could replace your bent 1.6 unibody with one from a 1.8, regardless of possible VIN number differences, and end up with a legal 1.6 car. You could also install ALL systems/parts that are unique to the 1.8 car and &#39;create&#39; a 1.8 car using a 1.6 shell. In the end it would be the same thing as going out and buying a 1.8 car and swapping over the compatible suspension/cage/seat/ whatever parts from you 1.6, and that is the point of this conversation.

If there is any difference between the two &#39;body assemblies&#39;, then no. If you somehow ended up with something different than a 1.6 or 1.8 car - some sort of hybrid - it would not fit the IT ruleset already, as it would contain &#39;modifications&#39; not allowed by the ITCS.

I say all of this not knowing a thing about Miata model/chassis lineage, just assuming at some point the same car became available with a different engine/trans/rear end or other bolt on items.

I like this. It is logical, and removes a barrier to running a given car/shell in a class legaly and fairly.

[tnord]

what i fear is the ability to now create a model that didn&#39;t exist from the factory. a model that is in some way faster in IT trim than any option originally offered. i&#39;m no good with r00ls, but it seems to me that we just created an infinite possibility for combinations of parts amongst models of cars, and in no way can reasonably classify them all. i fear the clever people are going to find an overdog combination somewhere.

[Crack Monkey]

what i fear is the ability to now create a model that didn&#39;t exist from the factory. a model that is in some way faster in IT trim than any option originally offered. i&#39;m no good with r00ls, but it seems to me that we just created an infinite possibility for combinations of parts amongst models of cars, and in no way can reasonably classify them all. i fear the clever people are going to find an overdog combination somewhere.
[/b]

But, people already create 4-door &#39;87 GTIs. That to me, seems even worse than using a 94 (1.8) Miata tub for what will be raced as a 91 (1.6) car

[tnord]

But, people already create 4-door &#39;87 GTIs. That to me, seems even worse than using a 94 (1.8) Miata tub for what will be raced as a 91 (1.6) car
[/b]

i don&#39;t know about the VW stuff, but here&#39;s a specific example of what i&#39;m talking about.....

if i swap a 1.8L into my 1.6L tub (or do i have to swap my 1.8 tub with a 1.6? whatever :blink: ) i end up with smaller/lighter (but still good enough) brake rotors at each corner. this creates an advantage for the &#39;hybrid&#39; car that didn&#39;t exist when the respective models were classed. find some specific make/model combination that you can find just the right advantage and you may have yourself an overdog.

or am i not reading this rule change right?

[MattP]

Yes, you&#39;re reading it wrong. Only the body shell will be allowed to be replaced (or substituted, same thing) and only if it&#39;s identical. You&#39;d have to swap over the 1.8L brakes and any other parts specific to the 1.8L cars.

Here&#39;s my question:

Would it still be illegal to use a non-sunroof CRX shell that is otherwise identical for a CRX Si ITA car?

[tnord]

Yes, you&#39;re reading it wrong. Only the body shell will be allowed to be replaced (or substituted, same thing) and only if it&#39;s identical. You&#39;d have to swap over the 1.8L brakes and any other parts specific to the 1.8L cars.
[/b]

why? show me where it says i must completely convert everything? the "may not create a model" option was crossed out.

[Gary L]

Travis - ya missed it. I think. :blink:



If you use the 1.8 engine, you have to use the 1.8 brakes (and everything else 1.8 specific) with it. You just used the tub... the sheetmetal. Period.

[MattP]

why? show me where it says i must completely convert everything? the "may not create a model" option was crossed out.
[/b]


Good point, I missed that part. I think you need to leave that line in, even if the VIN requirement is dropped. I don&#39;t think Kirk&#39;s intent (judging from his intent paragraph) is to allow that type of hybrid, but taking that line out seems to allow them.

[shwah]

Yeah I think we are in agreement of the intent here. The challenge as always will be rule words that describe that intent and nothing more/less.

[GKR_17]

Ok, lets say I claim the 1999 E36 M3 tub is the same as the standard ITS or ITA E36 versions. Now you&#39;ll have to prove there are differences at a protest (not an easy task, especially if you don&#39;t run the same car). Just because Bubba Joe says there are no differences in the tub doesn&#39;t make it true. If it&#39;s too hard to find the right tub, maybe you should build a different car.

Grafton

[lateapex911]

Flip that around Grafton,...

.... what if there are differences in tub A, the correct tub, and tub B, the incorrrect tub. Tub B has two extra sheetmetal gussets spotwelded at the factory to stiffen a weak area around the rear subframe area.

Now, a competitor went to the dealer, bought the parts and spotwelded them on his Tub A, and he&#39;s now a cheating bastard, LOL.

What do you do?

Well, according to the logic, nothing, because there is no knowledge, due to no research.

Same result, no?

Except he&#39;s going to draw less attention because his numbers match....

[Knestis]

It&#39;s a hell of a lot easier to find the M3 reinforcements than it is to find illegal gearbox internals. And the bond is a bunch less.

It&#39;s not legal to make that change under the current rules and the only true disincentive to doing so is someone filing a protest. Rules and their enforcement are two entirely different things. Trying to make the rules enforce themselves, or serve as a proxy for actual enforcement, is a lost cause.

This one rule does not define how your car has to be, Travis - it&#39;s got to conform to the spec line for the class, year, make, model written in your logbook. Expecting a change to the current rule all by itself to be a loophole-proof statement isn&#39;t realistic at all.

With respect, you gotta read those rools before you have room to get TOO critical of proposed changes.


...Would it still be illegal to use a non-sunroof CRX shell that is otherwise identical for a CRX Si ITA car?[/b]
Is it legal to reskin your sunroof Si with the roof sheetmetal intended for the non-sunroof model? Sure.

The issue here is partly (I think) that many of us forget that the body is just a collection of parts (with part numbers, available from the dealer and in the aftermarket). It might be my rallying background but when I reconstituted Pablo after the roll, the primary thing I did was replace the "assembly" of sheetmetal parts.

I put that word in quotes because there&#39;s probably a functional consideration there, in terms of how it can be up- and back-dated, since "assembly" figures largely in that rule.

If the "create a model" verbage doesn&#39;t come out, it becomes logically impossible to replace an identical the body shell across models.** Frankly, i don&#39;t know if that clause currently accomplishes what it was intended (or anything, for that matter), but it puts the revised rule in a bind.

K

** EDIT - added italics. It will quite obviously be illegal ot replace a body shell with one different than that defined for your spec line, just as it is now.

[tnord]

This one rule does not define how your car has to be, Travis - it&#39;s got to conform to the spec line for the class, year, make, model written in your logbook. Expecting a change to the current rule all by itself to be a loophole-proof statement isn&#39;t realistic at all.

With respect, you gotta read those rools before you have room to get TOO critical of proposed changes.
Is it legal to reskin your sunroof Si with the roof sheetmetal intended for the non-sunroof model? Sure.
[/b]

i make no illusions about being well versed or even having a strong understanding of the ruleset. what i&#39;m good at is copying what others are doing. i am the common IT racer. i read the rules probably once or twice when i built the car, and haven&#39;t really looked at them beyond that.

i&#39;ll continue to think about it, but it seems as though that "spec-line" thing has it covered in regards to my desire to create my own hybrid model mismatching parts.

[BlueStreak]

The Civic SI roof issue is an interesting point. Was it possible to order a Civic SI without a sunroof? If it was NOT possible, would the re-skin still be legal?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Civic SI roof issue is an interesting point. Was it possible to order a Civic SI without a sunroof? If it was NOT possible, would the re-skin still be legal? [/b]

"Manual and electric sunroofs, original or aftermarket, where the panel is not normally removable shall be retained and run in the closed position. Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed provided the panel is securely retained. Removable sunroof or T-top may be retained if bolted or welded in, or removed completely. Glass sunroofs must be removed. All sunroofs may be replaced with panel or replacement skin of the same material as the original surrounding roof material."</span>

[ITABoy]

I'm trying to figure out what happened on this question and to the proposal. Reading the 2009 ITCS I see that all mention of serial numbers for IT has been dropped, leading one to conclude that an IT log book doesn't even have to declare a serial number any longer.

If I'm not mistaken, this allows the builder to mix tubs/chassis and complete drive trains so long as the tub/chassis are identical for the two drive trains in question. The entrant then would simply declare that he has one engine(and matching drive train) or the other and be classified on that basis. Obviously the resulting car would have to meet all the matching specifications, including weight.

Is this correct, or am I missing something.

[lateapex911]

Correct. (Not sure what tech inspectors will make you do at log booking time. I bet that it will vary depending on the tech you deal with.)

[ITABoy]

I though that was the bottom line, but I must say that the entire mess is now firmly in the quicksand because such a change runs afoul of this other rule, 9.1.3.C which says in part, "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." (Caps added for emphasis.)

It seems to me that the mix/match approach runs afoul of this rule specifically. What a mess.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I though that was the bottom line, but I must say that the entire mess is now firmly in the quicksand because such a change runs afoul of this other rule, 9.1.3.C which says in part, "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." (Caps added for emphasis.)

It seems to me that the mix/match approach runs afoul of this rule specifically. What a mess.

Do you have an example of how one can be legal while conflicting the other? Look at the lack of VIN as 'match and match' not mix and match.

[ITABoy]

I'm sorry Andy, but I'm a little dense sometimes and I don't follow your line of reasoning. Be a little more specific on "migrating" an identical tub between a 1.8L and a 1.6L. Can it be done or not?

[Greg Amy]

..."migrating" an identical tub between a 1.8L and a 1.6L. Can it be done or not?
Yes, as long as all parts on the end project match the specs of the original. - GA

[Gary L]

I'm sorry Andy, but I'm a little dense sometimes and I don't follow your line of reasoning. Be a little more specific on "migrating" an identical tub between a 1.8L and a 1.6L. Can it be done or not?
Think of it this way... lacking a VIN requirement, the tub becomes just another part. If it is identical to the tub it's replacing, it's legal.

[ITABoy]

I can easily see the logic in thinking of it that way, but I'm a bit concerned about what any particular tech inspector may or may not do. It would be a real bummer to go through all the effort to migrate a tub between years and then find out that the tech inspectors won't accept it on the basis of the VIN year. Someone might well cite the ITCS rule I mention above. It is an interesting question to contemplate.

[Knestis]

Think of it this way... lacking a VIN requirement, the tub becomes just another part. If it is identical to the tub it's replacing, it's legal.

Eggs-actly. The update-backdate rule doesn't even bear on the question.

The tech inspector issue is real regardless of the issue you are concerned about.

K

[ITABoy]

The computer ate my lat post so here goes again. I gave this subject a few days rest to think about what you helpful folks have said, but I'm still trying to figure out the practical consequences of the lack of a VIN requirement in Improved Touring. So my approach is this. I'm going to make a comment of the general problem as I see it, then I'm going to ask some more specific questions.

COMMENT: The lack of a VIN on a car means that there is no physical proof at all as to which "specification line" the car is to be placed. The result is that the "specification line" must then rest simply on the declaration of the car owner, and on the shop manual that he furnishes as a reference. O.K. by me, great in fact, but I can't see the tech folks being very happy about this, and a rogue tech inspector is gonna want a VIN.

Questions:
1. Since there is no VIN requirement, does this mean that I can simply remove all the VIN plates and tags and make a simple declaration of the "specification line?" Is this being done? Has someone successfully done this?

2. A safer course, strategy wise, would be to remove all the old VINs and "update" a couple, or maybe just the one on the dash, to give the techs something to make them happy. Is this a reasonable approach, or fraught with lots of problems?

In my case, I wouldn't be doing this to gain any competitive advantage because I'm kinda mid pack guy anyway and would do an honest update of the entire drive train and weight, but the cost savings on the roll cage and early tub is considerable. I suspect other "migrators/updaters" have also been driven by such considerations. Many of us shadetree types are struggling to just stay in the game. The upgrade I'm proposing makes me slightly more competitive and keeps me in the game.

[Greg Amy]

The lack of a VIN on a car means that there is no physical proof at all as to which "specification line" the car is to be placed.Correct.

The result is that the "specification line" must then rest simply on the declaration of the car owner, and on the shop manual that he furnishes as a reference.Correct.

...but I can't see the tech folks being very happy about this, and a rogue tech inspector is gonna want a VIN.Then you protest him/her. And you'll win.

It's really, really simple: VINs are no longer needed. It's incumbent upon the competitor - and his/her fellow competitors - to ensure legality through a peer-evaluated and -enforced process. This is no different than review and/or enforcement of any other rule in the GCR.

Don't make it any more difficult than you have to.

GA, license tech inspector...

[dickita15]

Boy
The vin Number was really giving you a false sense of security. It really did not give you more of a guarantee of legality. Anything someone can do without a VIN they can do with.
We here are IT focused while a tech inspector deals with very different small rules on different categories. It is actually likely that some inspector will ask about a vin number whereupon you will helpfully point out the rule change and everyone will go away happy.
SM’s require 2 vins matching year of the car. I was inspecting cars and that was on the list. I came across a car that had different Vins on the dash pad and firewall and the one on the door was gone from bodywork. Common problem, the dash pad was replaced form another car. Upon further research the rule says that two vins have to match the year but does not say they have to me the same vin. Fortunately the dash pad was from the same year car but I am sure the driver was sweating bullets while we worked it out.
Point is if you have a question from a tech inspector it is not the end of the world, it is part of the game to work through the rules with them to figure it out.
By the way it is customary on this board to put your name in the signature line. It gives you more gravitas. Also keeps us from calling you boy. :)

[ITB RCZ]

Hey guys.
I am in the middle of building a 91 golf 1.8 8v for ITB; I am a little confused by the wheel size rule. 2009 book P.338 (9.1.3-7.a.1.) sounds like we could use 15” but on P.370 says 13/14? Does anyone know what the biggest wheel this car can use is?

[Greg Amy]

15x6 for ITB.

Note 9.3# Kosei K1-TS 14x6 wheels are $120 each...and 14" Hoosiers are cheaper than 15" Hoosiers...just sayin'...and you're welcome...

[Bill Miller]

Yep, you can run a 15x6 wheel on that car and be legal.

[ITB RCZ]

Thanks guys.