Originally Posted by
Greg Amy
Ooooo, Andy. Slippery slope there, dude.
Why does the method of attachment have anything to do with whether something can be removed or not? Show me in the GCR/ITCS where method of attachment is addressed vis-a-vis IIDSYCTYC? Something either is, or is not, removable, and that decision is based solely on its function and intent, not how it's attached; nowhere in the rules does IIDSYCTYC have the limmit of "unless it's welded on".
Remember the Roffe Equilibirum: "if it says you can, you bloody well can."
Now, I'm not saying I specifically agree or disagree with the premise of what you're trying to say - I believe my position is clear as described above - but what you're experiencing is your internal expectations or assumptions of what the rules intend, based on the original concept of IT-racing-as-cheap-to-build. We've far surpassed that PollyAnna concept, even before we decided sphericals were legal (sorry, I love throwing that one in on occasion).
As JJANOS points out, what they actually say counts as much, if not more.
So, that said, the question remains: is the bracketry specific to the sunroof installation on a car removable under the "components" clause?
GA, who at about this time each year really begins hating the winter bench racing season...:shrug: