rear wiper "system" includes motor, right?

[tom91ita]

per May 2012 GCR update:




rear windshield wiper systems, cruise control systems, horns and the wiring associated wiring with any of these may be removed. Any holes left in the body must be covered or plugged.


so i can remove the entire motor, etc. and in the simplest form, tape over the resulting hole, correct?

motor support /mouting brackets would not be part of the system or would they?

tia, tom

[Knestis]

I've always been confident that if the [whatever] can be removed, then the bracket holding on the [whatever] can be removed. HOWEVER, I've limited that to bolt-on parts. My logic has been that this doesn't extend to cutting off welded on brackets. That's a very slippery slope.

K

[dickita15]

i could argue either side on the bracket debate and have. see making an RX7 make weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I've always been confident that if the [whatever] can be removed, then the bracket holding on the [whatever] can be removed. HOWEVER, I've limited that to bolt-on parts. My logic has been that this doesn't extend to cutting off welded on brackets. That's a very slippery slope.

K

I agree 100%.

[Greg Amy]

I've always been confident that if the [whatever] can be removed, then the bracket holding on the [whatever] can be removed. HOWEVER, I've limited that to bolt-on parts. My logic has been that this doesn't extend to cutting off welded on brackets. That's a very slippery slope.
Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, then you bloody well can!"

"System" is the described item and everything associated with it and its installation. The subsequent restricting words "bolt" and "-on" do not exist in the regulation.

Roffe wins.

GA

[Chip42]

other new rules mean you can pull the associated wiring completely out of the car as well.

and I agree with the bolted v welded brackets, unless safety equipment needs the real estate, welded brackets stay. and the safety stuff had better need the space.

[Greg Amy]

...welded brackets stay...
Why?

There's nothing in the regs that differentiates any specific method of attachment. In fact, many a mod has been made under the support of "attached" not having a defined meaning.

Roffe wins.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Debatable for sure and I disagree. Saying that a piece of the chassis (which is what a welded bracket really is) is part of the system is taking it too far IMHO. Then the 'mounting surface' of anything removable becomes defacto removable. This isn't the case.

To me, when in doubt, you look up the parts that comprise the 'system' in the service manual. If you can't order it and have it come in a box, I think we have crossed a line.

Attaching additional non-illegal 'parts' (like heat shields to headers or intakes) to a free item is different than removing everything a legally removable item attaches to...that would be EVERYTHING. Like a welded bracket on the inner fender, why stop at grinding off the bracket? Take the whole inner fender out because since the bracket was PART of the inner fender, who is to argue with what you are calling the 'system'?

Just pointing out that using that logic the entire car is basically now 'free' unless specifically illegal.

[Greg Amy]

Just pointing out that using that logic the entire car is basically now 'free' unless specifically illegal.
No, that logic is wrong; you're playing a lawyer's game of "reductio ad absurdum".

That "line" is clear: anything that is part and parcel of the allowable removed system is also allowed to be removed. In our specific example, removal of the rear windshield wiper "system" (key word, that) allows any part that is associated with the "rear windshield wiper system". That means motor, wiper arm, wiper, wiring, switches, brackets. Given there's no subsequent restriction as to method of attachment, welded brackets can be removed as well, right down to the spot welds that are used to attach those brackets to whatever structure they're attached to.

To "reductio ad absurdum" that because the welded brackets attach to something, that something can be removed is, well, absurdum. ;)

Here's a simple logical test. Point 1, if that windshield wiper mounting bracket was bolted onto the rear deck, would you not allow it to be removed? I suggest your answer is "yes". Point 2, do you agree that there is nothing in the regs that limits removal/addition of components based solely on the method of attachment of that component? I suggest your answer is "no". Ergo, that bracket may be removed up to, but not including, the panel to which it is attached.

If you can point out to me where in the GCR any rule allowance is limited based solely on method of attachment, I'll agree with you. Until then, it's all free to be removed.

GA

[tom91ita]

I will likely leave brackets in wiper is needed for another class. Another idea would be to compare a "base" model without this "system" to if brackets were on all cars regardless of if the "system" was installed.

And I think the brackets in the hatch will not be easy to access.

[JLawton]

Saying that a piece of the chassis (which is what a welded bracket really is) is part of the system is taking it too far IMHO. Then the 'mounting surface' of anything removable becomes defacto removable. This isn't the case.

.


Say, for example the wiper system has a bracket that's sole purpose is to hold the motor..... and that bracket is welded to hatch. The main and sole purpose of the hatch is not to hold the wiper it's to hold the glass, enclose the back, etc...... Two ver distinct purposes in my eyes. The bracket (it's sole purpose is to hold part of the wiper "system") can be removed but the hatch (which it's purpose as NOTHING to do with the wiper) can not. Seems black and white to me. "It can be removed as long as it doesn't serve another purpose".



.

[StephenB]

compare a "base" model without this "system" to if brackets were on all cars regardless of if the "system" was installed.



Bingo! that is how I have always interpreted it.

Stephen

[marka]

Howdy,



In our specific example, removal of the rear windshield wiper "system" (key word, that) allows any part that is associated with the "rear windshield wiper system". That means motor, wiper arm, wiper, wiring, switches, brackets. Given there's no subsequent restriction as to method of attachment, welded brackets can be removed as well, right down to the spot welds that are used to attach those brackets to whatever structure they're attached to.


My rear wiper is held to the car by the hatch. You just unbolt two hatch hinges and some support rods and it comes right off.

Mark

[Greg Amy]

My rear wiper is held to the car by the hatch. You just unbolt two hatch hinges and some support rods and it comes right off.
Reductio ad absurdum. Or, in Gulick parlance:

BZZZTTT! Error 404, logic not found.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, that logic is wrong; you're playing a lawyer's game of "reductio ad absurdum".

Do I have to know Latin to play the game? :)


That "line" is clear: anything that is part and parcel of the allowable removed system is also allowed to be removed. In our specific example, removal of the rear windshield wiper "system" (key word, that) allows any part that is associated with the "rear windshield wiper system". That means motor, wiper arm, wiper, wiring, switches, brackets. Given there's no subsequent restriction as to method of attachment, welded brackets can be removed as well, right down to the spot welds that are used to attach those brackets to whatever structure they're attached to.

While I agree with most of your premise, I disagree on the welded part. You could make an argurement that if the 'bracket' was welded to the rear hatch, it was part of the rear hatch, not the "rear windshield wiper system". Taking it further, you could just as well argue that since the 'system' was bolted to the hatch and the hatch was bolted to the chassis, the hatch is really the 'bracket'...so off with that too.


To "reductio ad absurdum" that because the welded brackets attach to something, that something can be removed is, well, absurdum. ;)

That's my point. If this argument is based on something attaching to something, then there has to be a defined 'base'. If you want to say that since it's not defined, then it's really not defined.


Here's a simple logical test. Point 1, if that windshield wiper mounting bracket was bolted onto the rear deck, would you not allow it to be removed? I suggest your answer is "yes". Point 2, do you agree that there is nothing in the regs that limits removal/addition of components based solely on the method of attachment of that component? I suggest your answer is "no". Ergo, that bracket may be removed up to, but not including, the panel to which it is attached.

And here is where I think the logic fails. What is your definition of 'bracket'? To me, what it's a permanent piece of is what defines it. What if, in your example, the panel the components attach to were simple encapsulated nuts inside the panel? To me, if it's part of the 'panel', it's a no-touch. And when something is welded as part of the chassis, to me it's part of it.

I guess my issue is that there is no definition of 'bracket'. Effectively, the entire chassis is a bracket.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Say, for example the wiper system has a bracket that's sole purpose is to hold the motor..... and that bracket is welded to hatch. The main and sole purpose of the hatch is not to hold the wiper it's to hold the glass, enclose the back, etc...... Two ver distinct purposes in my eyes. The bracket (it's sole purpose is to hold part of the wiper "system") can be removed but the hatch (which it's purpose as NOTHING to do with the wiper) can not. Seems black and white to me. "It can be removed as long as it doesn't serve another purpose".



.

How can the bracket be welded to the hatch and have a sole purpose of holding the motor- AND - the hatch have a sole purpose of holding glass, when it has a welded bracket that holds the motor? That's 2 purposes. The issue in my mind is that if the bracket is welded to the hatch, it's PART of the hatch, not part of the system.

But like minds will disagree. We need either 'bracket' or a further definition of 'attachment point' in the Glossary me thinks.

[Chip42]

my thought was only to make it easy to argue legallity. start cutting welds, get this argument. leave that stuff in, and no argument.

the fact that car A might have had the system as an option means nothing to me. In some cases examples exist both with and without chassis fixtures/brackets for the system (sunroof structure panels in a roof), or with chassis brackets/ fixtures weather with or witout the system (suroof storage rail setup in an MR2 frunk come to mind). in others, a car of the same model but a different trim and NOT classified the same (say, a EG civic DX vs an SI) might have and not have the system and hardware, but all of the examples of the model/trim as classified have such bracets, so there's no real IT-level correlation. the last version of the argument applies to single model cars where all examples have the debated bracketry.

just leave the stuff thats is welded or bonded by the OEM and remove the rest. no arguments.

[marka]

Howdy,


my thaught was only to make it easy to argue legallity. start cuttine welds, get this argument. leave that stuff in, and no argument.

Seems like that should be explicit somewhere in the rulebook. Welded brackets for a component/system allowed to be removed are part of the chassis, not part of the component/system.

Mark

[Greg Amy]

I love Latin. Makes me sound important, like I actually know something.


And here is where I think the logic fails. What is your definition of 'bracket'?
Something that is used to mount a component. Something that, were that specific component not installed, would not itself be installed.

A simple question, yet unanswered: where in the GCR is allowances/restrictions subsequently limited by method of attachment? Said differently, where in the GCR are allowances/restrictions limited only to those items fastened by hardware easily removed by hand tools (for example) and explicit exclude items that are fastened by welding?

Why do you hold something fastened by a weld to a different standard than something fastened by a bolt?

Answer that and this situation is resolved.

GA


P.S., we already had this argument, by the way, in regard to rear seat brackets and rear interior trim panels. We discussed it here and someone at the track got their nose out of joint because I removed the spot welds holding these brackets in my NX2000. I explained the rationale to them and offered that if they disagreed I'd be willing to front the $25 for the protest and walk them through it. After a brief discussion with a steward they declined to protest.

I'm willing to make that offer to anyone else interested in pursuing it.

[tom91ita]

One of the issues on brackets is that sometimes we specifically clarify that they can be removed like with seats.

Does that mean we can extrapolate and do it or not do it?

For the "not bracket" crowd, if a base crx without the rear wiper does NOT have a bracket, does that make it part of the wiper system?

[seckerich]

It is always funny to me that we discuss such useless crap as bolting or welding a bracket when we have a minimum weight. If you believe that 8 OZ up high is such a big advantage then carry on. Otherwise use some common sense and remove the allowed bracket and move on. Stupid to have all these sharp tabs sticking out everywhere in the car.

You might nit pick the rule and see it the way you want, but in the end it is irrelevant and makes IT look less attractive to future drivers. If the guy in the car next to me wins with one less bracket, I am OK with it. :023:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why do you hold something fastened by a weld to a different standard than something fastened by a bolt?

Answer that and this situation is resolved.

GA



Because I consider the 'bracket' fastened by the weld part of the chassis, not part of the 'system'.

And to Steve 2 things:

1. It's just interweb banter. None of this ACTUALLY applies to the tech shed in the real world, but I have had many people tell me that these useless debates actually 'teach' them how they should/could/would read the rulebook.

2. Let's talk about a 'super-diff' for my ITA Miata. :)

[Ron Earp]

It is always funny to me that we discuss such useless crap as bolting or welding a bracket when we have a minimum weight.

You might nit pick the rule and see it the way you want, but in the end it is irrelevant and makes IT look less attractive to future drivers. :

Right said.

[Greg Amy]

It is always funny to me that we discuss such useless crap as bolting or welding a bracket when we have a minimum weight....You might nit pick the rule and see it the way you want, but in the end it is irrelevant and makes IT look less attractive to future drivers.
You're looking at it completely wrong. It is BECAUSE of this nit-picking, and BECAUSE of this parsing and argumentation over the regs that Improved Touring is as attractive a class as it is today. It shows passion, it offers reasonable debates over the regs, and leads to clarity in regs that makes the category better.

And best of all, it demonstrates to competitors - especially new ones - that the Improved Touring community is damned serious about the regs, their meanings, and enforcement of the same.

Want people to not argue over the regs? Want us to all "just get along"? Then go race in a category where there are no serious regs, or even worse, where they are arbitrarily ignored, created, and/or enforced by fiat (see ChumpCar, LeMons, etc).

Despite the fact that Andy's wrong, this kind of debatatation is the lifeblood of Improved Touring. There's a reason the category's been around and as stable as it has been for over a quarter century....and that reason ain't "random".

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Despite the fact that Andy's wrong

Won't be the first time, or the last.

I really do feel there is a line that is being crossed when a permanent piece of the chassis is considered a removable bracket. It opens P's box.

[marka]

Howdy,

All I really want to know is... Can I use this bracket thing to justify me mounting my battery in the rear seat area where it belongs?

Mark

[preparedcivic]

Won't be the first time, or the last.

I really do feel there is a line that is being crossed when a permanent piece of the chassis is considered a removable bracket. It opens P's box.

So this apparently means I can hole-saw out weld nuts and swiss cheese up the unibody? :blink:

That's an ambitious intortutation, I'll say.

[shwah]

Howdy,

...

Mark

LOL.
Howdy /= *****
:happy204:

[seckerich]

You're looking at it completely wrong. It is BECAUSE of this nit-picking, and BECAUSE of this parsing and argumentation over the regs that Improved Touring is as attractive a class as it is today. It shows passion, it offers reasonable debates over the regs, and leads to clarity in regs that makes the category better.

And best of all, it demonstrates to competitors - especially new ones - that the Improved Touring community is damned serious about the regs, their meanings, and enforcement of the same.

Want people to not argue over the regs? Want us to all "just get along"? Then go race in a category where there are no serious regs, or even worse, where they are arbitrarily ignored, created, and/or enforced by fiat (see ChumpCar, LeMons, etc).

Despite the fact that Andy's wrong, this kind of debatatation is the lifeblood of Improved Touring. There's a reason the category's been around and as stable as it has been for over a quarter century....and that reason ain't "random".

GA


I could care less if you mental masturbate a rule to death on here. I have been around the catagory since the beginning and built and rebuilt more cars for IT than most. I just stated it was funny to watch. Please carry on. It is good reading on a slow Friday.

My point Andy is that many times these lead to rule clarifications of usless crap that further make IT look unattractive to outsiders. If you took every bracket on most cars (yes I have with an EP build) and ground them off and weighed them it would not add up to the weight of a gallon of gas. Hardly matters if it was bolted or welded, it is irrelevant. Especially when we have many cars classed at weights they could never make anyway.

[JeffYoung]

Question (and remote so don't have my GCR): does the rule on seat brackets specifically allow you to remove welded on brackets? I think it does, which would suggest that other areas of the rules that don't allow removal of welded on stuff, well, don't.

That said, I think there are good arguments on both sides of this one. I tend to lean towards Greg's interpretation because free means free.

[seckerich]

Rules allow modifications to the passenger area to accomodate safety items, no restriction on cutting brackets until someone saw the need to clarify what everyone was already doing. Try to get a 6' driver in a miata otherwise. Then we further allowed the tubes for the seat to be attached to cage and car and came to the conclusion these were not attachment points. Common sense had to be spelled out once again. It is truly amazing the catagory has survived this long without every simple item spelled out down to the spotweld/bolt. Just pointing out that it is not necessary to write into the rules "industry standard practices" as they call it in Grand Am rules.

[Knestis]

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

That's NOT an inconsequential mass of steel in the brackets you can see through the hatch of a Golf.

K

[seckerich]

And that bracket sits right where I could legally run a bar between the main hoop down tubes. Downside to it being gone? Just for conversation purposes, I agree it is currently illegal to remove unless the bar went across there. What possible advantage could it serve except rules creep? I would guess 5 pounds down low where it is needed anyway and weight could only be added back in a legal location or with more cage tubes that again would be higher than the removed bracket.

[Knestis]

...except that's the bracket that supported the seat, the seat may be removed, so by the logic argued here the bracket can be cut out - not because I want a cage element there (that would be fine) but because it's a "bracket."

Same goes for the boxes above he rear struts where the back seat belt retractors hung. Ditto the brackets (the metal with the holes in it) that supported the interior panels.

The car is overweight (enduro cell, etc.) so there's nothing but UP-side to them being cut out.

K

[lateapex911]

If the car didn't have an XYZ, there would BE no bracket, right?

In other words, if they sold the car and it didn't have a brake controller, there would be no bracket for a brake controller, right? Think about a model run that had ABS added halfway thru. one year has no bracket, the next one has a bracket and an ABS pump/controller/box/whatever.

Seems to me the brackets sole job is exclusive to the ABS system and can be removed, and whether it's held on with bubble gum or a spot weld, it matters not.

[seckerich]

...except that's the bracket that supported the seat, the seat may be removed, so by the logic argued here the bracket can be cut out - not because I want a cage element there (that would be fine) but because it's a "bracket."

Same goes for the boxes above he rear struts where the back seat belt retractors hung. Ditto the brackets (the metal with the holes in it) that supported the interior panels.

The car is overweight (enduro cell, etc.) so there's nothing but UP-side to them being cut out.

K

I see your point Kirk, and agree there is the point where it will be carried to the extreme. I still do not see the common sense downside in your car that the bracket that served no other purpose than to keep the rear seat level could not be removed. Especially in a car that is over its processed weight already. We have speaker mounts in the RX7 that are on top of the rear shock towers that we leave for the same reason.

[ShelbyRacer]

If the car didn't have an XYZ, there would BE no bracket, right?

In other words, if they sold the car and it didn't have a brake controller, there would be no bracket for a brake controller, right? Think about a model run that had ABS added halfway thru. one year has no bracket, the next one has a bracket and an ABS pump/controller/box/whatever.

Seems to me the brackets sole job is exclusive to the ABS system and can be removed, and whether it's held on with bubble gum or a spot weld, it matters not.

+1

The litmus test in my eyes has always been, if the bracket was not there in some iteration of the car without that option, then it was added as part of the "system" to support the option, and the attachment method is irrelevant. I'd also go though as far as to say that while you can drill out the spot welds to detach said bracket, you'd have to then fill them with metal, as a car without the bracket would be solid there. Same thing as choosing a body without the option. If, however, the bracket was there on every car that came off the line, it would stay, just as it would on any other car of that model (on that spec line), unless, you are allowed to remove it per the rules.

The ITCS specifically says the seats, hardware, and bracketry may be removed. I'd get rid of the damn thing, unless you want it for ballast. This also applies to spare tires, and other interior pieces, since it says "bracketry" or "attaching mechanisms" may be removed as well. At no point in the allowance is the method of attachment listed as a limiting factor.

I do love how the OP asked if he could remove a motor (an obvious allowance IMHO), and we've managed to devolve (or evolve?) into a discussion on bracketry. I would say that anyone who ever reads this forum has no excuse for thinking the rules and their interpretations haven't been discussed, even if an agreement has never been reached. The nice thing as that we seem to agree that these "grey areas" are not typically a basis for a protest, but more a point of discussion of philosophy. These threads are where I've learned the most about IT, and the participants in it. I think that's a good thing.

[lateapex911]

+1

The nice thing as that we seem to agree that these "grey areas" are not typically a basis for a protest, but more a point of discussion of philosophy. These threads are where I've learned the most about IT, and the participants in it. I think that's a good thing.

agreed

[EV]

You might nit pick the rule and see it the way you want, but in the end it is irrelevant and makes IT look less attractive to future drivers.

Yup, it's what drove me out of racing with SCCA... (IT rules set)

[Knestis]

Yup, it's what drove me out of racing with SCCA... (IT rules set)

What are you racing now, Bill, and how is it more attractive?

Kirk (who wonders about STL every once in a while)

[EV]

What are you racing now, Bill, and how is it more attractive?

Kirk (who wonders about STL every once in a while)
Almost scared to answer this one as it generally doesn't end well.

When I made my decision to move away from IT, ST wasn't around. My car was originally an SSC car, that was too old to race SS. I started an IT conversion, did an SCCA drivers school, raced a few races. I realized that my car wasn't legal due to some modifications allowed in SS, that weren't allowed in IT so I decided to race with NASA instead of undoing what seemed to work so well. Their PT rules allowed my specific mod and seemed to have less washer bottle type rules, and washer bottle type people.

Sure, it's not perfect, but the group I race with are good folks, who play well together, and seem to have more fun.

At least from my seat, IT seems to have a car d'jour that IS the car to have if you want to win. In PT, just about any car can win, it's all in what you do with the blank canvas you start with.

I still support SCCA as a worker, so I still see the politics in action (and am sometimes a victim of it). The NASA group I race with seems to have less if it from my perspective.

YMMV