Welded seat rails

[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"...

[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:



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.

[Knestis]

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

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"...

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.

[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?

[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 :Cough

I 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