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...
Bookmarks