Looking for 020 final drives

[Bill Miller]

Sorry but a mistake in the spec line does not trump a written rule in the ITCS. If it says you can, you can, regardless of any missing information elsewhere in the good book. It doesn't just say you can, it says you have to run a stock gear set, and that is what it would be. So, I submit that the rule is not omitted from the ITCS and is quite clear, but the 'cheat sheet' at the end of the book has an omission.

Agreed that it may have to go to appeal to be resolved if a protest occured, but the better solution is correction via errors and omissions. From what I can tell my 86 GTI came with the listed 2nd, but I would bet that plenty of cars are out there with the 1.94 and don't know it.

I will pull together some documentation and send it off.

Looking at the spec line more closely they also have errors in the brakes. Rear disk is 227mm not 244mm, rear drum may also be 180mm drum as this was delivered until the late 80s. I expect that this is not uncommon and similar items are in error throughout the list. That does not change the rules.
[/b]

I agree Chris, they should fix it. But I disagree w/ you about a spec line not trumping a 'general rule' in the ITCS. It does in fact trump the 'general rule'. You look to the general rules first, and then you look to the spec line. There are cases where the spec line countermands the general rule.

In this case, it's an E&O thing, but it would have to be resolved through appeal and a subsequent rule change.

Kirk,

Did you get my IM?

[Eric Parham]

The question of E&O versus spec line is actually very interesting, and does not seem to have a clear or easy answer. In this case, there are really at least 4 different 1-5 gearsets that are theoretically legal for the ITB A2 Golf. One of the others used to be listed (the one with the 1.03 4th), but fell off the end of the spec line at some point. There are at least 2 for the ITB A1 Rabbit GTI (0.89 or 0.91 5th). Many other cars have similar original gearsets that are not currently listed on their spec lines.

My approach has always been to send the comp board the specs for any car I intended to run so that they could simply correct or supplement the spec line, or tell me why not. I'll call that the "A" approach.

The approach of many others has been different, and for various reasons. Some feel that they've discovered a legal spec that gives them an advantage over those with the same type of car who don't know about it. I think I have an ethical dilemma with that reasoning (or maybe it's just my ego), but I do understand it. Others, including at least one past member of the ITAC, have told me not to bother getting alternate specs listed because it just ruffles the feathers of the folks who drive other types of cars in the same class, whether or not those others subscribe to the same approach. I'll call the approach of not requesting a literal spec line allowance (whether intentionally or out of ignorance) the "B" approach.

I have been told several times that it's legal if it can be supported with "proper" documentation, and there's no actual requirement to have it listed on the spec line. The definition of "proper" may depend on the ever-changing direction of the wind, but I guess that's the chance you take if you subscribe to the "B" approach. If we were to say that only the "A" approach is acceptable, what of the folks who might be running the missing spec but original parts and don't even realize they fall into the "B" approach category?

EDIT: I'm not totally against forcing the "A" approach. Unfortunately, I think the only way to do so would be to penalize the driver EVEN IF s/he has documentation that is deemed "proper" and EVEN IF a subsequent rule change is effected via E&O. I've never seen it happen that way and don't expect it in the future.