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

[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
[/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.