Like has been said, it may not perform that illegal function, but as soon as allow this type of thing, people take advantage of it. 6 point cage with 2 optional front tubes...max. Mounting to the cage HAS been bounced. Find another way.
[/b]
Well with a black and white view like this we all better plan on making lots of changes to our cars:
Any fire system mounted to the cage with a trigger mounted elswhere is now an illegal attachement point.
Any window net that uses the cage and body as mounting points is now an illegal attachement point.
Any kill switch that is mounted to the cage is now an illegal attachment point.
Any radio system that includes wires tied to the cage and any other part of the car is now an illegal attachment point.
Any driver cooling duct that is tied to the cage at any point is now an illegal attachment point.
I guess we need to revisit 'tight fit' cages. I can argue in engineering terms that an interference fit main hoop is using an accepted method of attaching two items.
Where would you like to draw the line of reinforcing/attaching or not?
Of course those are retarded examples, but so is saying that a peice of fiberglass or aluminum that is manfactured to a specific standard (if FIA certified) for a specific purpose of supporting and restraining the driver is a cage attachement point.
The potential illegal function is providing a roll cage attaching point, or reinforcing the chassis. Attaching a seat to a cage does not consititue a roll cage mounting point by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore the only available illegal function is chassis reinforcement. Sometimes we do have to rely on common sense, and subjective interpretation. Our process is set up this way, and our tech inspectors/ SOMs are capable of making a decision like this. However, sending mixed signals like this thread does is a sure way to promote conflicting rulings on the matter. Hence this having been bounced. Cars have been bounced for other legal modifications in the past as well...