Car Eligibility Rule Clarification

[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.