I spoke at length with Dick Shine this past weekend. He is aware of the issue at hand. He said that:

Point A, the 1.7L engine was delivered in Sciroccos in 1984, but not a hell of a lot of them. You had to actually request it or find a dealer trying to sleaze on on you without telling you there were better options.

Point B, the 1.7L was never delivered with the close-ratio gearbox in any car, any year, any time. Period.

So what we have here is a case of some documentation that was presented to the CRB that noted the 1.7L engine was available in 1984 and the close-ratio 'box was available in 1984, and the implication was made that they were available together as a package. However, there is no way someone presented to the SCCA proof that the two were delivered as a package, because - obviously - they weren't. The problem now becomes one of documentation to support that point: given that any changes must come from proving the prior positions incorrect, how does one prove a negative, that the close-ratio 'box was not available on the 1.7L engine? Virtually impossible, I suspect.

The only way this can reasonably be done is via protest. As is traditional in a protest situation, the proof of legality lies on the protestee to prove the car is legal, and the publication of the specs in the ITCS is not de facto proof of legality. Thus, in a protest situation the protestee must provide the supporting documentation. So, if you guys feel really strongly about this, I suggest you pony up the $25, write the paper, and get it resolved via the GCR-supported means. If the protestee cannot provide sufficient supporting documentation, then you guys have a basis for changes to the ITCS. Worst case, you lose $25.

Greg