rear wiper "system" includes motor, right?

[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.

[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?

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

[shwah]

Howdy,

...

Mark

LOL.
Howdy /= *****

[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]

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)