Welded seat rails

[Commy]

I have to contend with a few rust spots on the floor board of my ITB VW. They are in both corners were the seat rails are mounted to the rocker box. I don't think it is that big of a deal to remove the driver's side rail because I am going to need a way to fab up a mount for the seat. If I am wrong about this, let me know. The passenger side is a bit more difficult for me to understand. Do I have to remount the rails when I am done fixing the rust spots? Can I remove the two front seat guides that contain the locking pins? I ask this because they are a part of the seat mounting and have no structural meaning to the chasie. It would be a lot easier if they had simply bolted these to the car instead of welding them, but it is what it is.

Here is an image to give you an idea of what I am talking about, and also what happens when you take a northern car and try and convert it to an IT car.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn150/CommyDC/FloorHole.jpg

[lateapex911]

Well, you know my stance on this, but to get the ball rolling, I'll give it to you anyway. (I know you're looking for opinions, and just want to do what's right)

I think that you are free and clear on the drivers side, but I see no such allowance on the pass side. IMO, the rail and such must remain.

[Spinnetti]

Cut off rails, fix rust, weld back on... its just repair.... What's the issue there?

(PS, too much of my 20's was spent welding rusted out Northern Swiss cheese Rabbits and Sciroccos!)

[Gary L]

I think that you are free and clear on the drivers side, but I see no such allowance on the pass side. IMO, the rail and such must remain.

I disagree... the rails can be tossed, IMO. From page 339 of the GCR (9.1.3.D.9.e):



e. Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.


Why wouldn't the front passenger seat rails be part of the attaching hardware and bracketry? Or am I misunderstanding the question?

[JeffYoung]

I agree. Looks like a bracket to me.

[Knestis]

Fair question but I'm of the opinion that the point at which one is cutting, one is removing body structure. Otherwise, where do we stop?

Admittedly, this is a conservative position but take a look at how much metal touches where the rear sit perches...

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/cage03.jpg

If one suggests that those ratcheted rails can go, then the bits that support the rear seat latches (top of strut) can go too, right? And the "shelf" that supports the front of the rear seat ? And the floor where the back of the seat sits? And any piece of the pillars, roof, floor, and inner bulkheads that include threaded bosses for visors or belts.

The question, once the cutting begins, is where to stop.

It's been a while since I shared this (very good, IMO) example of how these things go wrong: Back in the TransAm of the '70s, some clever person wrote a rule that suspension pieces (like A-arms) could be "lightened" and "reinforced." Some even more clever bloke decided that meant he could "lighten" an arm down to nothing, and reinforce the resulting airspace with whatever tubes and plates he wanted...

K

[JeffYoung]

Good points.

I guess again this is one of those areas where there is some subjectivity. To me, it would be clear what I could and couldn't do. I could remove that rail on the floor and be perfectly fine. It's the bracket that holds the seat in. Could I remove the tab on the strut tower? Sure, I guess I could but that is starting to stretch it. Beyond that, I don't see anything that is performing a "sole function" of seat bracket.

Thoughts?

[Commy]

I know I asked this at another site, so bear with me Kirk and the rest that have already read this.

As I stated above, if it was simply bolted to the car, it is not an issue. This is welded to the rocker box. Please note the "to" statement. Things like the sunvisor and seat belt mounting locations as well as the lower rear seat base are a part of the roof, floor and pillar structure and serve a duel purpose. This is were I see the point of where you can say the line is drawn.

I would also like to state that I am going to just put them back in and not worry about it. I am also not looking to see what I can "get away with" in the gray areas, just looking for a better understanding to how things work in the system.

[Knestis]

Welcome to the wild world of IT rules interpretations!

>> ...Thoughts?

It's a steep slope...?

K

[StephenB]

I know I asked this at another site, so bear with me Kirk and the rest that have already read this.

As I stated above, if it was simply bolted to the car, it is not an issue. This is welded to the rocker box. Please note the "to" statement. Things like the sunvisor and seat belt mounting locations as well as the lower rear seat base are a part of the roof, floor and pillar structure and serve a duel purpose. This is were I see the point of where you can say the line is drawn.

I would also like to state that I am going to just put them back in and not worry about it. I am also not looking to see what I can "get away with" in the gray areas, just looking for a better understanding to how things work in the system.

I think they can be removed for exactly what you stated here. The front seat rails are fastened (YES Welded but still fastened) to the structure of the car. They are not a modified part of the structure that serves a dual purpose. The bits that support the rear seat latches (top of strut),the "shelf" that supports the front of the rear seat, the floor where the back of the seat sits? And any piece of the pillars, roof, floor, and inner bulkheads that include threaded bosses for visors or belts all appear to be part of the structure that serves a dual purpose to also hold in the seat, accesories and all mounting brackets that are allowed to be removed. If you where saying the rocer could be removed because it holds the seat bracket than I would think you were off your rocker and stretching the rules similar to the examples that I listed that serve a dual purpose.

To me this is black and white. They are fastened to the structure, they are a mounting device that serves only to mount the seat and has no other purpose. It therefor can go.

Just my 2 cents :)
Stephen
ITB Audi Coupe

[Knestis]

Hmm. The "dual purpose" criteria actually resonates for me.

So you're saying, if the [insert description here] serves ONLY to support the seat, visor, belt, whatever then it's fair game. If it does anything else, it's not...? That might be an operative description that works.

K

[Ron Earp]

Chop that rusted stuff out of your floor, repair it without re-enforcing anything, and move on with your build. If anything the seat rail would add a bit of structural integrity to the floor pan and I'd probably keep it, but I can't imagine that anyone is going to give you grief if it gets torched.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, quoting myself, but that was exactly my thought. If the piece in question is ONLY a bracket, but welded in, it can come out. If doing something else too, then it stays.

Plus, like ron said, if it is a stiffening device, and "low" in the car, why would you want to take it out?



Good points.

I guess again this is one of those areas where there is some subjectivity. To me, it would be clear what I could and couldn't do. I could remove that rail on the floor and be perfectly fine. It's the bracket that holds the seat in. Could I remove the tab on the strut tower? Sure, I guess I could but that is starting to stretch it. Beyond that, I don't see anything that is performing a "sole function" of seat bracket.

Thoughts?

[Knestis]

...because we're still overweight and if anything, Kevin's Jetta is going to be harder to get down to the minimum.

I can picture probably 12-15 pounds that can come out in an afternoon with this interpretation.

Is that where we want to go? How about the even more liberal interpretation that the "brackets" that hold on other parts that may be removed can go, too - even absent the specific language included in the seat clause?

K

[JeffYoung]

Hmmm...no, I'd think you need specific allowance to take other bracketry and stuff out. But then the question becomes, if they rules say you can take "X" out, is "X" defined to include that bracket or hardware by which it is attached?

[joeg]

Take it out and leave it out. You need to remove that seat bracket to properly fix the rot.

[Commy]

Take it out and leave it out. You need to remove that seat bracket to properly fix the rot.

You better believe these are coming out so I can fix the rot. I am now on the fence as to if I am going to reinstall the passenger side brackets. They could add strength to the repair (I do not think they will add much strength to the whole length), but it is weight. I am also considering this because it is something that uses a spot weld for an attachment instead of a nut and/or bolt. Also, to tell you the truth, the front seat guide really does get in the way of moving around the front passenger seat compartment. I would hate to have to make an emergency exit out that side and get caught on the stupid thing. I guess I will have to look at it and decide what I think I should do.

And trust me, I have no illusions that this car will EVER make minimum weight. If it does, I might pass out on the spot. If I do, would someone please wake me and tell me it was not a dream?

[Gary L]

I am also considering this because it is something that uses a spot weld for an attachment instead of a nut and/or bolt.

The rule does not qualify the removal by saying "...unless it's welded to the body." The rule specifically states it may be removed, with no qualifiers, no conditions attached.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think they can be removed for exactly what you stated here. The front seat rails are fastened (YES Welded but still fastened) to the structure of the car. They are not a modified part of the structure that serves a dual purpose. The bits that support the rear seat latches (top of strut),the "shelf" that supports the front of the rear seat, the floor where the back of the seat sits? And any piece of the pillars, roof, floor, and inner bulkheads that include threaded bosses for visors or belts all appear to be part of the structure that serves a dual purpose to also hold in the seat, accesories and all mounting brackets that are allowed to be removed. If you where saying the rocer could be removed because it holds the seat bracket than I would think you were off your rocker and stretching the rules similar to the examples that I listed that serve a dual purpose.

To me this is black and white. They are fastened to the structure, they are a mounting device that serves only to mount the seat and has no other purpose. It therefor can go.

Just my 2 cents :)
Stephen
ITB Audi Coupe

From the GCR Technical glossery:

Fasteners - Any mechanism which serves no other purpose than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc).

If a 'bracket' is welded in place, it is part of the car IMHO and can not be removed. Of course this only applies to the passenger side as the drivers side stock stuff is allowed to be removed to facilitate the racing seat.

[Knestis]

Okay - here's two better (and different) views of another piece.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/itcockpit2.jpg

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/itrear.jpg

You're telling me that I can remove the vertical piece that runs the full width of where the back seat used to mount, right? The parapet wall lookin' thingie. Yeah - that bracket right there...

K

[JeffYoung]

Andy, the key word in rule Gary cited is not "fastener" but rather "bracketry." Bracketry (or even "bracket") is not defined in the GCR.

I would argue and believe that any piece whose sole purpose is to hold in the passenger seat can be removed. How it is attached to the car (whether it be by nut, bolt or spot weld) is irrelevant.

Kirk, yes, I suppose this is an aggressive interpretation of the rules and I probably personally would not do it, but if that parapet wall thingie is only their to attach the seats -- in my view it COULD come out.

[StephenB]

Kirk,

Is this piece you are talking about a Bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Does it serve any other purpose other than to perform as a bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Is it fastened to the chasis of the car to maintain a fixed position using a bolt, nut, screw, or any other type of fastening system which would allow someone to prove that it is not something other than a bracket.

If you answered yes to these questions then it is spelled out very clearly in the ITCS on page 339 section 9.E. that you can remove them and save the weight! :026:


So the catch that everyone is pondering... Is a weld a form of fastening something together or is it then a part of the chasis. If we all agreed that welding was a form of fastening 2 things together then I Think that everyone would agree that in section 9.E. it says bracketry may be removed.

We know that welding something joins 2 peices of metals together but the real question is that different then fastening 2 things together? Since the Definition of a weld (Noun)is A metal joint formed by softening with heat and fusing or hammering together and in a (Verb) is to Join together by heating, as of metals.... then you decide the rest based on Websters fine knowledge and the 1 definition we can use from the GCR.

Definition of a Joint as a Noun: Junction by which parts or objects are joined together.
Definition of a Joint as a Verb (Join): To fasten with a joint
Definition of Fasten (verb): Cause to be firmly attached
Definition of Fastened (Adj.):Firmly closed or secured
Definition of a Fastener(s)(Noun): Restraint that attaches to something or holds something in place
In the GCR it lists: Fasteners - Any mechanism which serves no other purpose than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc). The key word here being ETC.
Definition of Attached (ADJ.): Fastened together


So we could go on and on but to me it seems as though a weld securly joins by creating a joint (Same as Fastened from webster) 2 metal pieces (in this case a bracket to the chasis of the car) to hold it firmly in place so that it maintains a fixed position.

If you want SCCA clear answer you could right a check to SCCA for $250 bucks for clarification... Or create lots of headaches, paperwork, appeals and hearings and protest someone for $25 :rolleyes:

This turned out way more involved than I had ever planned but if I say something I had to back it up :( I hope I haven't completly bored you and I hope that I saved a bunch of German makes a bunch of weight! :smilie_pokal:

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good reasonable debate. I just think anything that is welded is part of the car and is not a 'bracket'. Fasteners are mechanical. Everything is a bracket for everything under this read.

[Ed Funk]

Kirk,

Is this piece you are talking about a Bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Does it serve any other purpose other than to perform as a bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Is it fastened to the chasis of the car to maintain a fixed position using a bolt, nut, screw, or any other type of fastening system which would allow someone to prove that it is not something other than a bracket.

If you answered yes to these questions then it is spelled out very clearly in the ITCS on page 339 section 9.E. that you can remove them and save the weight!


So the catch that everyone is pondering... Is a weld a form of fastening something together or is it then a part of the chasis. If we all agreed that welding was a form of fastening 2 things together then I Think that everyone would agree that in section 9.E. it says bracketry may be removed.

We know that welding something joins 2 peices of metals together but the real question is that different then fastening 2 things together? Since the Definition of a weld (Noun)is A metal joint formed by softening with heat and fusing or hammering together and in a (Verb) is to Join together by heating, as of metals.... then you decide the rest based on Websters fine knowledge and the 1 definition we can use from the GCR.

Definition of a Joint as a Noun: Junction by which parts or objects are joined together.
Definition of a Joint as a Verb (Join): To fasten with a joint
Definition of Fasten (verb): Cause to be firmly attached
Definition of Fastened (Adj.):Firmly closed or secured
Definition of a Fastener(s)(Noun): Restraint that attaches to something or holds something in place
In the GCR it lists: Fasteners - Any mechanism which serves no other purpose than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc). The key word here being ETC.
Definition of Attached (ADJ.): Fastened together


So we could go on and on but to me it seems as though a weld securly joins by creating a joint (Same as Fastened from webster) 2 metal pieces (in this case a bracket to the chasis of the car) to hold it firmly in place so that it maintains a fixed position.

If you want SCCA clear answer you could right a check to SCCA for $250 bucks for clarification... Or create lots of headaches, paperwork, appeals and hearings and protest someone for $25 :rolleyes:

This turned out way more involved than I had ever planned but if I say something I had to back it up I hope I haven't completly bored you and I hope that I saved a bunch of German makes a bunch of weight! :smilie_pokal:

Stephen
:happy204:I am impressed, I didn't think there was anyone under 40 that knew what a dictionary was, not to mention how to use one. To use a phrase from my generation, "Right on!", Stephen! Or was that "Right Arm!"?

As always, the GCR should help us eschew obsfuscation!:cool:

[Gary L]

This is getting off track. The method of fastening is totally irrelevant and immaterial, as there are no limitations whatsoever in 9.e. to that end. You can remove it quite simply because it is part of the seat attaching hardware and bracketry... it was put there by the factory to attach the seat to the car, period. The notched rail (and yes, the "parapet wall" device in the back) both fit the description perfectly. They are, very precisely, "attaching hardware".

If the car had been designed with no passenger seat, would the factory have put the rail there anyway? I think not. It is, therefore... attaching hardware.

WRT to "fastening" - So I'm preparing my Acme Zoomboy GT for ITB, and I can't find anyone that makes racing header for it. But I want to get rid of the catalytic converter, as clearly allowed by the ITCS. Oops! The factory welded the damned thing to the header pipe, which I'm going to keep. So I guess the converter has to stay on the car, because it's welded to something? I don't think so. Again, there were no limitations as to how it's fastened. It simply states you may remove it, so it's outta here!

[Knestis]

My thinking is influenced by the time I spent pondering the VIN number rule. My argument was always that a "chassis" or unibody is actually an assembly of multiple pieces, pretty much any of which can be ordered from a parts desk or aftermarket supplier (while they are in production, that is). The fact that they are are stamped steel sheet, most people never disassemble them, and they are welded together rather than bolted doesn't change any of that, so all logic for the VIN being attached to something we think of as "a car" falls apart...

So for me, the fact that something is welded rather than bolted is immaterial, if I'm being consistent. I'm just trying to reconcile what attributes define "bracketry" and how to figure out where a bracket ends and another piece of "the car" begins.

FWIW, I'm to a place where I think a case can be made for Kevin's specific suggestion - that he can remove that particular stamped piece of steel. I'm not sure I like where it goes but I don't think it's inconsistent with the current rules. And I guess the same probably goes for...

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPGhttp://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPGhttp://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPG

...the crosswise bit that we replaced when we rebuilt Pablo's floor (above), and for the bit I was referencing earlier. We could benefit from this, no question, but the issue is that it's not something that's easy to undo if the IT world decides it doesn't like it.

K

[JeffYoung]

Agree, good reasonable debate.

As Gary said, method of fastening is immaterial. If the GCR says it comes out, it can come out regardless of how it is fastened to the car.

Kirk on that cross piece, again, I wouldn't take it out because it is "low weight" but it looks like its sole purpose is to hold the front of the passenger seat up. Bracket, so out it comes -- if you want.

I agree with you the "sole purpose" analysis might get a bit murky in places but such is the nature of rules that have to apply to 100+ makes and models of cars.

[Knestis]

We're still about 50 pounds overweight so even "low" weight is an issue, all other things being equal...

K

[dickita15]

This is a good debate. I like the dual function perspective. You may or may not remember I built a new Rx7 last year. I was trying to prove that the new weight was unattainable so I went thru the book and I do not believe I cheated but I definitely pushed some gray areas. I know that on any given court I may or may not be proven right depending on what the stewards had for breakfast.
The Rx7 comes with a Watts link that we routinely replace with a panhard rod. While on the rotisserie I ground off the frame about 9 pounds of bracket that was used for the stock Watts link.

[Knestis]

Audience says...

K

[itracer]

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPGhttp://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPGhttp://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/floornew.JPG


This is a tough one. I would remove the bracket on top of the "U" shaped piece, but there is no way to say if that "U" is reinforcement of the body/floor or only for the seat. If the later, than why not just make a taller bracket?

As for the original question, I believe that it is OK to remove. Rear seat rail? -- I'll have to think about that one before I remove it from my A3 under construction. :024:

[Gary L]

Jason - I agree 100% on the inverted "U" channel removal, or lack thereof. First, if it were there only to support the seat, it probably would not have been the size and shape it is. Secondly, even if it came from the factory with a metal tag riveted to it that says "This is a seat bracket", I'd leave it in for structural purposes, weight be damned. :)

Dick - IMO, there is a fundamental difference between what I'm arguing and your Watts link example. The seat removal rule specifically allows the removal of attaching hardware and bracketry. The paragraph that allows a Panhard rod to be substituted for a Watts link contains no such verbiage. I'm not necessarily condemning your actions here, I just don't think it's an apples and apples example.

[dickita15]

Gary, I understand it is different. I just think it is a natural discussion of similar principals. By the way I agree with you and Jason on the front seat cross bar. The rear seat “bracket” I don’t know enough about to have a solid opinion.

[Knestis]

That front seat bracket - both the little nubbin on top and the box-section cross piece - was all one part number at the VW parts desk. Does that matter?

I also removed the whole thing on the driver's side to mount the seat. Does that matter?

Point is however, this is precisely the basis of my concerns. Would that crossmember be there if the car had come without a passenger seat? We don't know.

K

[Gary L]

That front seat bracket - both the little nubbin on top and the box-section cross piece - was all one part number at the VW parts desk. Does that matter?

I also removed the whole thing on the driver's side to mount the seat. Does that matter?

Point is however, this is precisely the basis of my concerns. Would that crossmember be there if the car had come without a passenger seat? We don't know.

K

I don't think VW decisions on how to package spare parts has anything to do with the rule in question - it doesn't matter. In fact, here's my opinion - the "nubbin" can go, as it is clearly seat bracketry or attaching hardware. The box cross section, not so much... sorry, but it has to stay. But like I said earlier, I'd have left that particular piece in place, regardless.

Your driver's side decision doesn't matter either, but this time because the wording is different. For starters, the driver's side allowance contains the words "...to facilitate replacement mountings....", making it an altogether different situation. That is not to say however, that I would automatically agree the driver's side box section can legally be removed. It's a separate discussion. :)

As an aside, I just noticed there is obvious redundancy within the "Dirver/Passenger Compartment - Trunk" section. Paragraph 9.a says (referring to all but the driver's seat) "All other seats may be removed." Then, on the same page is 9.e., which says the same thing, but this time with maybe a little too much detail?

[Knestis]

I gotta say Gary, that you are pretty sure about some things that frankly just aren't that cut and dried in my view - and I daresay that they seem a little arbitrary as presented to this point.

Let's accept that the nubbin in question is clearly outta here - since it attaches directly to the seat, we probably have consensus that it's a bracket. But drawing a bright line between it and the rest of the seat mount is certitude over logic.

On the "pro" cut-it-out side, we've got...

1. It's all one piece in the VW parts book - we enforce a lot of rules based on the "stockness" of a part in IT, defined pretty much exclusively by the specifications of the original part, defined by the part number. There are cases where you can remove a stock part but not modify it. We allow replacement of stock parts as long as they are the equivalent of those they replace.

2. It's job is to connect the seat to the chassis, making it by definition a bracket. That is, unless you are suggesting that simply because it adds strength to other pieces, that it's not ONLY a bracket. Any bit that welds to any other bit is strengthening the structure. Removing that nubbin makes the cross piece weaker - that it does so in such a small amount as to be immeasurable makes it just a matter of degree. HOW MUCH support does that cross piece have to provide in order to qualify as structure - as something other than a bracket? From an engineering standpoint, it only makes sense to mount the seat to the tunnel and rocker, rather than to a flat piece of floor sheetmetal, and that appears to be what VW did.

On the "con" you-can't-cut-it-out side, we've got... What, again? :)

K

[JeffYoung]

Have to agree with Kirk. That thing, very thin stamped steel it looks like, appears to me to be there only to support the seat. Think of it this way. If the seat was not there, would the bracket be? I doubt it.

Gray area, but unavoidable in this context.

[StephenB]

That front seat bracket - both the little nubbin on top and the box-section cross piece - was all one part number at the VW parts desk. Does that matter?

K

My vote is that it can go especially since it is the same part number. If it wasn't the same part Number I may say it has to stay based on my ignorance of what the cross member actually does. (I am not an engineer by any means!) Since it is the same part number I guess I would have to ask what is the description of the part number?

This digs into an important thing that I never thought of... part numbers/ descriptions should be a contributing factor to the decision on what would be a "Bracket" and therfor removable. I am usually going to beleive the manufacturer if they say it is a bracket or not.

Stephen

[Gary L]

Kirk - Arbitrary indeed. Sorta like the guy that decided sound deadening material could be removed (and not replaced, BTW) because it interfered with paint prep? :)

Back to the subject at hand. Seriously... what does VW call that part - the box section complete with nubbin? Do they actually call that assembly a "seat support"? If so, I might be inclined to reverse my position on the box section piece. Recall, I said "...not so much", relative to my opiinion on the exact function of the box section, and I meant that. I just didn't know - it was a gray area IMO, so I said it had to stay.

[dickita15]

I have got to say I don’t like using parts book description to determine if it can be removed. It may be unavoidable but it seems pretty arbitrary. If one company says that is a seat support and another says it is a bulkhead stiffener should that be the determining factor.
Some Miata guys are having to change their cages because on the optional forward foot protection bars they attach to a piece that the factory calls something other than firewall even though there installation are the same as what we do in IT.

[Knestis]

Kirk - Arbitrary indeed. Sorta like the guy that decided sound deadening material could be removed (and not replaced, BTW) because it interfered with paint prep? :)


LOL - Touche. But that's not an issue of "arbitrary." I didn't draw an imaginary distinction between one kind of undercoating and another. There are at least three on a MkIII Golf, by the way.

I totally understand that there are always multiple interpretations - that reasonable people may differ - on rules issues but my biggest concern with this on continues to be where the line IS on this one. I think I'm getting my personal definition clarified but that's just me.

I looked and can't find the printed copy of the parts fiche that showed the repair bits we got. I see Dick's concern but I'm not sure what the most reasonable/equitable solution is to this question, short of letting nature take its course and leave it to the whims of the stewards - should it ever come to that.

K

[Commy]

Not trying to add fuel to the fire, but were in the GCR does it state anything about the part numbers and there legality? If there is, please let me know, because this would greatly change my opinion. From the way that I look at it, and with a little better idea of the parts world, the reason that the two are one part number is because of convenience of production. I mean, look at the removable firewall that VW put in the A3.

Now, I would not remove the channel that holds the front seat lock (the "nub" if you will). And YES, it would be there if there was not a seat there from the factory. If you look at the car from both sides, the underside has a removable cross member. With this, and the two seat boxes, you end up with a full width cross structure.

[Greg Amy]

And YES, it would be there if there was not a seat there from the factory. If you look at the car from both sides, the underside has a removable cross member. With this, and the two seat boxes, you end up with a full width cross structure.
Or, was that structure designed with the full knowledge that a seat box structure was going to be placed there...?

Following is a screen shot from the official factory parts "manual", the ETKA, the same thing your local stealership uses to look up parts. The piece in questions is labeled, not so ironically, "seat support"... :shrug:

http://www.kakashiracing.com/temp/gtib.jpg

[Gary L]

Greg kind of stole my thunder here, but...

I asked earlier if VW called the box section a seat support. Then I got curious... what do the Swedish guys call a similar device in the ubiquitous 142 Volvo? First, look at the pic:

http://bluebrickracing.mysite.com/images/seat_support.jpg

Not clearly evident in this photo of my ITB 142 is the fact that the "box section" is actually 3 pieces... a "right", a "center", and a "left", the first two being shown in the pic (the "center" piece straddles the driveshaft tunnel). So we have the adjectives, what's the noun for all 3 pieces, according to the 142 parts catalog?

You guessed it... all three are called gol-danged SEAT SUPPORTS!

Now - everybody that thinks I would even consider removing these (even if the car were overweight, which it ain't), hold up your hand. :D

[Knestis]

...and to remind everyone that I'm NOT arguing a specific position here, remember that I actually put in a NEW ONE. :D

K

EDIT for Kevin - there's no particular language in the GCR/ITCS about part numbers. I think it's just kind of where we end up if we talk about which "parts" are legal, how updating/backdating works, etc.

[Commy]

Or, was that structure designed with the full knowledge that a seat box structure was going to be placed there...?

Following is a screen shot from the official factory parts "manual", the ETKA, the same thing your local stealership uses to look up parts. The piece in questions is labeled, not so ironically, "seat support"... :shrug:

http://www.kakashiracing.com/temp/gtib.jpg

Everyone please note number 18 on the ETKA system- Bracket for Seat. This means they are two different items. Gas meet fire.

[mom'sZ]

This is just my opinion, but as a former collision technician with a fair amount of knowlegde about unibody structures, I would never cut out those welded in seat mounts and if tasked with repairing rust underneath one requiring removing it, would replace it. This is because in my mind there is no doubt they provide a certain amount of structural strength.

[lateapex911]

In the case of Kirk's cross car box section, in no way would I consider that fair game. I think the item is very likely designed by the factory to serve multiple purposes, ...to position the seat dohickey, to stiffen the structure, to attenuate and control NVH, and maybe even to disperse loads in a crash.

Of course, we don't know, but it's gray enough that it is reasonable to think it serves multiple purposes.

Now, i don't know the answer to the original intent, but...

read these two statements:

Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.

Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors, seat belts, and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed.


Read it aloud if you have to.

In the first case, the lack of comma between the "seat belts" and the attaching ...bracketry" part means that only the seatbelt brackets etc, may be removed. However, when the comma is present, the meaning is changed.

Guess which one is in the GCR?

[Gary L]

Interesting... I actually already took a look at that aspect. I'm no English language expert, but I thought that in order for it to mean what you're implying, it would had to have been written...

"Front passenger seat, rear seat back, rear seat bottom cushion(s), sun visors *and* seat belts and their attaching hardware and bracketry may be removed."

In any case, I personally think the intent was not the way it reads above. But that could just be my certitude thing hanging out again.:p

[Greg Amy]

However, when the comma is present, the meaning is changed.
I think you're reaching on that point, Jakey. Are you implying that the attaching hardware and bracketry for the front passenger seat, rear seat deck, rear seat bottom cushion(s), and sun visors is not legal to remove? That only those as they apply to seat belts is legal to remove? Because [comma] that's what you're sayin'...

Parsing commas, in this case, is silly and counterproductive. It's no more a factor than the oft-debated English issue of separating commas between the first, second and third (or, is that "first, second, and third"?) items in a sentence... - GA

[lateapex911]

Josh? What say you?

[Commy]

So does this mean that we can all throw papers at every car that does not the factory seat brackets bolted in their car? :D

[JoshS]

Josh? What say you?Since you asked ...

It's clear to me that the "attaching hardware and bracketry" for any of the items listed can be removed, not just the attachments for seat belts.

But as far as Kirk's question of the welded-in lateral bar that seems to exist primarily to support the so-called "nubbin" ... I'd personally take a conservative approach there, and leave it in. It strikes me as a structural part of the unibody, but I can't prove that it is or isn't.

I tend to think that the ruleset was written with a "bolt-on" mindset ... if these attachment mechanisms can be easily removed with hand tools, then they are free to go. If they require grinders, welders, etc, to remove and/or replace, that's beyond the means of the average backyard mechanic and not really in what I perceive to be the IT philosophy. But that's just one man's opinion.

[Commy]

I tend to think that the ruleset was written with a "bolt-on" mindset ... if these attachment mechanisms can be easily removed with hand tools, then they are free to go. If they require grinders, welders, etc, to remove and/or replace, that's beyond the means of the average backyard mechanic and not really in what I perceive to be the IT philosophy. But that's just one man's opinion.

Cough: Rollcage :Cough

[JoshS]

Cough: Rollcage :CoughI fully understand, but an exception does not invalidate the basic philosophy.

[lateapex911]

Well, I agree that the writers probably intended things like bolt on seat tracks to be removed....and that the comma/no comma thing was just not noticed as an issue.

It appears the OP posters part is not dual function..., unlike Kirk's crosscar box section...

If i were writing the rules, I'd be in the opinion that it could go.

[Commy]

Well, here is what I am going to do. I am going to remove the rails and the front bracket (not the whole structure) for the front seat. I will keep them in a box that I take with me to the track, along with a tube of JB weld. If a steward is going to make an issue out of it, and my argument does not work, I will just put it back.

As to the philosophy of IT being a hand tool, backyard mechanic ideal, that has been beaten to a bloody pulp a long time ago. Welded cages, bored, ported and blue printed engines, frame and structural repairs, and even sound and undercoating removal all require much more than a backyard mechanic and a set of hand tools. Also when you factor in that a lot of the cars, if not most, have professionally built cages and motors, it dilutes it even more. Of course, this is just my opinion and anyone is more than welcome to disagree with it.

[Knestis]

Cough: Rollcage :Cough

LOL - Dude. When IT was new, the Showroom Stock rules on which the category was based REQUIRED bolt-in rollcages. I installed three of them in my driveway with a hand drill, hammer, socket set, and a dozen 3/8" bits. We had a welded-in cage built for our second ESCORT series car (an MX6 Turbo that was REALLY fun to drive!) and we actually cheated to make it look like a bolt-in, with nicely spaced bolts poking through the welded plate, so we wouldn't get grief when a renter wanted to run a club race.

I think Josh has a great point, putting things in historical context. The whole philosophy of the class started out with a "bolt on" mindset - I really like that. While Kevin's right that this is a bygone era, it's helpful to remember when we're looking at academic questions.

K