81Scirocco
New member
I have an 81 Scirocco that has had an engine swap at some point in its life, (has a 1.6 now). Would this run in ITB or ITC?
ITB or ITC
- Thread starter 81Scirocco
- Start date
Bill Miller
New member
You'll have to swap a 1.7 back in it and run ITB. Those cars only came w/ 1.7's and you can't 'create' a car.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
81Scirocco
New member
Or run it as is in ITB?
Bill Miller
New member
Nope, the 1.6 motor is not spec'd for ITB. The way the car is, you can't really run it in any IT class. And legally, the only way you can run it is put the 1.7 in it and run it in ITB. Now, you could run it as a l-p GP car w/ the 1.7 or a l-p HP car w/ the 1.6, but you'll need a fuel cell and a fire system as well as having to remove the door glass, etc.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
Run with the 1.6? Reverse cheating...
We ran our Golf II rally car as in DSP at hillclimbs but wanted more competition the third year, so we put a 16v badge on it and leaked the rumor that we had changed the engine. The organizers put us in CSP (where the fun was) but we had to make sure that we nabbed a clueless guy to tech the car. The one we found WAS perfect - he couldn't tell that it wasn't a 16v but asked us probing questions about the braided lines in the FI system. "Are these legal? Hmm?"
Kirk
We ran our Golf II rally car as in DSP at hillclimbs but wanted more competition the third year, so we put a 16v badge on it and leaked the rumor that we had changed the engine. The organizers put us in CSP (where the fun was) but we had to make sure that we nabbed a clueless guy to tech the car. The one we found WAS perfect - he couldn't tell that it wasn't a 16v but asked us probing questions about the braided lines in the FI system. "Are these legal? Hmm?"
Kirk
Scirocco#28
New member
Wouldn't the 1.7 run as a 'c' car?
Steve
------------------
87 ITB Scirocco
www.geocities.com/highspeedconnectionracing
Steve
------------------
87 ITB Scirocco
www.geocities.com/highspeedconnectionracing
Bill Miller
New member
Nope, the 1.7 is classed in ITB.
Kirk, interesting thought, 'reverse cheating'. First off, it doesn't matter, cause it's the rule (is my ITRN hat on straight??). Second, I think it's generally accepted that you can make more power out of a VW 1.6 than you can out of a 1.7.
And here's another thing about weights. The Mk I Scirocco in ITC weighs 2040#. That's w/ either of the 1.5's or the 1.6. The Mk I Scirocco in ITB w/ the 1.7 weighs 2110#. The Mk II Scirocco in ITB w/ the 1.7 also weighs 2110#, yet the Mk II Scirocco in ITB w/ the 1.8 weighs 2270#!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
81Scirocco
New member
To further muddle this thread, the back of the logbook show the car to be 1.6 ITC 1980 Scirocco! However, the VIN says it is an 81.
Bill Miller
New member
Hmmmm, I wonder why that is? Can't speculate as to what happened there.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
OK, I can't help myself, I had to post. I believe this falls firmly into the "what the hell does it matter?" category. If the '81 chassis is the same as an '80, and it has the corect combination eng/tranny for an '80, and it has a logbook for ITC... No competetitive advantage due to the fact that it is an '81, right? So run it in ITC. Come up to Summit and beat me if you can. I certainly don't care what year chassis it is, all other things being equal... I know ITRN, flame away...
Gee, where to start?
How about the additional pages in the ITCS that would be required to define the word "same"?
How about (since you are suggesting that the current up- and back-date rule limitations should be canned) the mix-and-match concept being just super-duper until someone finds a combination of parts across years and models that does result in a "competition advantage" over your current ride?
How big is this ball of worms? Would you like the ITC Honda entrants to have their pick of shells, gearboxes and engines?
Remember that whatever rule gets written (or applied, since that can be a different thing), they need to work across the category and into the future...
Kirk
Bill Miller
New member
{takes off ITRN hat}I couldn't agree w/ you more. All the Mk I Scirocco tubs are the same, from '75 - '81. Most have long since returned to the earth. Same thing goes for the '83 - '84 Rabbits. There were 2-dr cars that were built that weren't GTI's, but you can use one of those tubs and make it a GTI because the VIN# has a digit that identifies what engine size it had. Didn't do that on the Golfs ('85 - '92), which I guess is one reason why you can run any year A2 Golf you want and throw all the GTI stuff in it. Because there's nothing in the VIN# that differentiates one from the other. Even though, the later cars came w/ Digifant FI instead of CIS-E.
Other than the 1.8 motor, and some bolt-on stuff (vented rotors, close-ratio tranny, etc.), there's nothing that differentiates an '84 1.7 Rabbit L (or LS) from an '84 GTI. In fact, if you had a stripped '84 2-dr Rabbit tub, w/o looking at the VIN#, there's no way to tell if the car was a GTI or not.
But, as Kirk said, them's the rules!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
Bill Miller
New member
Sorry Kirk, I guess I should have clarified that a bit more and said 'any gas 2dr w/ a stick'. Sorry about that.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
Hey Kirk and Bill:
These discussions are always fun, and also generally pointless. But anyway, I'm just suggesting that the update/backdate rule be generalized somewhat in situations where it makes sense and there is no particular competitive advantage. Or perhaps combine some models on the same line in the ITCS but specify the relevant things, like allow the '81 scricco tub with the 1.6 motor. How is that in principle different from allowing a '69 Volvo 142S that came with the B20B motor, carbs and 9:1 compression to use a '71 B20E motor that used fuel injection and had 10.5:1 compression? In both cases the car is running with a different motor than it had when it came off the showroom floor, but the idea is that since tubs are substantially the same it is essentially the same car.
I know the words "substantially" and "essentially" are imprecise, but the intent is clear. I believe the important thing is to adhere to the "spirit" of the rules: don't do things to your car that give you a competitive advantage in your class if it is not explicitly allowed. On the other hand, as in the scricco case above I personally have no problem with it for the car to run in ITC, and I would welcome the guy to race with me and comgratulate him if he beat me. C'mon, we're out here for fun, right?
These discussions are always fun, and also generally pointless. But anyway, I'm just suggesting that the update/backdate rule be generalized somewhat in situations where it makes sense and there is no particular competitive advantage. Or perhaps combine some models on the same line in the ITCS but specify the relevant things, like allow the '81 scricco tub with the 1.6 motor. How is that in principle different from allowing a '69 Volvo 142S that came with the B20B motor, carbs and 9:1 compression to use a '71 B20E motor that used fuel injection and had 10.5:1 compression? In both cases the car is running with a different motor than it had when it came off the showroom floor, but the idea is that since tubs are substantially the same it is essentially the same car.
I know the words "substantially" and "essentially" are imprecise, but the intent is clear. I believe the important thing is to adhere to the "spirit" of the rules: don't do things to your car that give you a competitive advantage in your class if it is not explicitly allowed. On the other hand, as in the scricco case above I personally have no problem with it for the car to run in ITC, and I would welcome the guy to race with me and comgratulate him if he beat me. C'mon, we're out here for fun, right?
Bill Miller
New member
Evan,
Maybe you missed the post where I said I agree w/ you (or whoever said essentially the same thing). I think it's dumb, but that's the way the rules are. Do I think it's fair that an '85 Golf can update itself the the more aerodynamic bumpers and the digifant motor (which means you can chip it!) of a '90 or '91 GTI yet I can't take an '84 Rabbit L 2dr and put all of the stuff from an '84 GTI in it and run it as a GTI? Hell no I don't think it's fair, but because of the VIN# rule, that's the way it is.
The CB has seen fit to say that all the A2 platform Golfs are the same car, even though some are 4dr, some came w/ rear drum brakes, and they came w/ a variety of engines, yet you can't swap parts between two different trim level cars of the same year because the VIN# differentiates them. Does that make sense? Hell no it doesn't make sense. But, I can see the same mentality that went into the ECU rule at work here. Since there's supposedly no way to tell the cars apart based on the VIN#, they figure there's nothing they can do to stop it. But that's not entirely true. I believe that all of the late A2 Golfs (90 - 92) came w/ digifant injection instead of CIS-E. Easy enough to differentiate the cars based on years. Note: I'm not an A2 guy, so I don't know if this is correct or not.
I'm sorry you think these discussions are pointless, but if they provide someone w/ some information they can use when contemplating the purchase of a car, then I don't think they're pointless.
I agree that the CB needs to review this and make some changes where it's appropriate.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
Maybe you missed the post where I said I agree w/ you (or whoever said essentially the same thing). I think it's dumb, but that's the way the rules are. Do I think it's fair that an '85 Golf can update itself the the more aerodynamic bumpers and the digifant motor (which means you can chip it!) of a '90 or '91 GTI yet I can't take an '84 Rabbit L 2dr and put all of the stuff from an '84 GTI in it and run it as a GTI? Hell no I don't think it's fair, but because of the VIN# rule, that's the way it is.
The CB has seen fit to say that all the A2 platform Golfs are the same car, even though some are 4dr, some came w/ rear drum brakes, and they came w/ a variety of engines, yet you can't swap parts between two different trim level cars of the same year because the VIN# differentiates them. Does that make sense? Hell no it doesn't make sense. But, I can see the same mentality that went into the ECU rule at work here. Since there's supposedly no way to tell the cars apart based on the VIN#, they figure there's nothing they can do to stop it. But that's not entirely true. I believe that all of the late A2 Golfs (90 - 92) came w/ digifant injection instead of CIS-E. Easy enough to differentiate the cars based on years. Note: I'm not an A2 guy, so I don't know if this is correct or not.
I'm sorry you think these discussions are pointless, but if they provide someone w/ some information they can use when contemplating the purchase of a car, then I don't think they're pointless.
I agree that the CB needs to review this and make some changes where it's appropriate.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
Hey Bill, I did see that you agree with me, I was just "saluting" you and Kirk as the most frequent expounders on this type of subject. So, yes, we are in agreement that the CB needs to do some work on these questions. I was saying that the discussions seem pointless in the sense that the CB doesn't ever actually seem to address these things... BTW, are you going to be at the Labor Day Double at Summit? We haven't met, I'm in the black/yellow ITC scirocco #46... Any other IT forum people who are there stop by, it would fun to associate some faces with "handles". That's assuming that anyone can find anyone once the Summit paddock is full of 14,000 racecars...
Ditto what Bill said. If a rule is stupid, it should be changed but, until that happens, everyone should be able to count on consistent application of the rules - stupid or otherwise.
It is unfortunate but not everyone adheres to your theory ("don't do things to your car that give you a competitive advantage in your class if it is not explicitly allowed"). Some seem to think that we should be allowed to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited and some just cheat, using any number of rationalizations to do so.
Given this, we are stuck with the rules as written.
K
It is unfortunate but not everyone adheres to your theory ("don't do things to your car that give you a competitive advantage in your class if it is not explicitly allowed"). Some seem to think that we should be allowed to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited and some just cheat, using any number of rationalizations to do so.
Given this, we are stuck with the rules as written.
K
Bill Miller
New member
Evan,
I'll be at Summit Point for the Labor Day double. We'll be paddocked back in the woods. Hopefully I'll have my car there, but I've got to find some way to get it there. Also, I need to get my physical redone so I can get my license renewed. That should happen next week. Car's pretty much ready, just have to pass the physical and get the car there. I'll make it a point to look you up. Always like talking to other VW racers.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608
I'll be at Summit Point for the Labor Day double. We'll be paddocked back in the woods. Hopefully I'll have my car there, but I've got to find some way to get it there. Also, I need to get my physical redone so I can get my license renewed. That should happen next week. Car's pretty much ready, just have to pass the physical and get the car there. I'll make it a point to look you up. Always like talking to other VW racers.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI
SCCA 279608