Life without the VIN rule

[Greg Krom]

the sunroof mechanism is in the FSM for the 85 crx si.

i bought my first FSM in 1985 after i picked up my 1985 crx si. the FSM was actually one for the civic which it shares its running gear and a thinner supplement for items only on the Si such as the fuel injection system and the sunroof, etc..

and if looking at factory sticker pricing sheets, it is listed as standard equipment.

Of course, the sunroof mechanism is in the FSM, just as it is in any vehicle that has one available as a factory option. But does it document the fact that the vehicle is not available w/o one?

I don't think window stickers are considered as official documentation.

Again, I'm playing devils advocate, I know from personal knowledge that the Si was only available with a sunroof, but personal knowledge is not supposed to mean anything its a matter of what can be documented.

 

[jjjanos]

You will be shocked to read I disagree . While I understand your position, that's not that way it's been commonly interpreted since the beginnings of I.T. (I built my first one in 1985.)

I'm not shocked; I both understand and recognize how people interpret the rule; I also recognize that the rule, as written, can very easily and reasonably interpreted w/o intorturation to allow the removal of all components that are there because of the sunroof.

But, if you really think you can re-write any existing rule such as to block said activity, you're fooling yourself(ves).

Do not use a generic and catch-all phrase like "component". Either specifically list those items that can be removed and state so affirmatively (i.e. The following components -motors, cables, rails and wiring - may be removed...) or allow the removal of all items except a list (i.e. all sunroof components with the exception of those components welded to the chassis may be removed).

The problem is not with the rule - it's clearly written in generally-accepted language. The actual root problem is with our tangential acceptance of tortured interpretations.

Yes, it is clearly written in standard english. It does not, however, state what it intends to allow - the removal of all components except for those welded to the chassis.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again Jeremy, you want to 're-roof' not 're-skin'.

Let me ask you this: If you are allowed to remove the 'zoomba' from your car but the zoomba's bracket is welded to the body, do you tink you can remove the bracket too?

I believe 100% that "reskinning" a roof does not mean you can replace the whole thing from A-pillar to B-pillar.

If you were allowed to reskin a door, do you think you can replace the whole door? Especially with one that had more substantial innards?

The material weight difference is NOT THE ISSUE. It's about what is technically legal.

 

[lateapex911]

Wow...did any of you read the rule??
JJAnos for one, suggest that the roof stampings are part of the "sunroof system"

The GCR allows me to remove the components of the sunroof. The bracing in place for because of the sunroof, and for no other reason, is no different than the rest of the crap that is used to mount the sunroof. They are part of the sunroof system.

Show me in the rule book where it allows the removal of the entire "sunroof system".

It says, and I quote:

Manual and electric sunroofs...shall be retained and run in the closed position. Components (motors, cables, rails) may be removed...

Now WHERE does the allowance to remove any roof structure that is different than a regular roof come from? Is a motor like a roof stamping? Is a cable like a roof stamping? No...not even close. It is clear that the writers were NOT talking about the internal roof assembly stampings when the drafted the rule.

Stampings that are holding and structuring the roof are part of the roof system. They might be preparing the roof for the inclusion of a sunroof, but they aint a component of the sunroof! Is the A pillar part of the windshield??? By your logic, it is, and if the windshield was allowed to be removed, you'd be modifying the A pillar too.

I can not for a second see ANY protest committee giving much weight to such an argument, and I'm sure that anyone eliminating those extra/different stampings would lose in a protest, and quickly.

If a car on your spec line was available without a sunroof, then saw the roof off at the A and B/C pillars, and have fun. Otherwise, it's got to match...exactly...what the car on the spec line was delivered from the factory with.

I'm of the mindset that this rule is fine as written.

 

[Xian]

Let's say there's a Wombat 5000 that was only offered with a sunroof. It has 50lbs of reinforcement and locating bracketry for the sunroof. For those of you in favor of re-skinning a roof; are you saying that it would be completely legal for me to cut off the Wombat's roof and replace the entire thing with an aftermarket skin of equivalent thickness and not add back in the bracketry? Really? :shakes head:

Christian, who drove an Si car with a "skin" going over the outside of the sunroof hole.

 

[CDS]

This debate reminds me of one that was discussed a while back about what you can legally remove in connection with removing the passenger seat. The issue was removing the metal stamping welded to the floor to which the seat was attached. Was a consensus ever reached on that? (as if a consensus is ever reached on anything here ). I think the question there, as here, is whether the part in question serves another function, such as supporting the floor/roof, or whether its sole purpose is to permit installation of the seat/roof.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

This debate reminds me of one that was discussed a while back about what you can legally remove in connection with removing the passenger seat. The issue was removing the metal stamping welded to the floor to which the seat was attached. Was a consensus ever reached on that? (as if a consensus is ever reached on anything here ). I think the question there, as here, is whether the part in question serves another function, such as supporting the floor/roof, or whether its sole purpose is to permit installation of the seat/roof.

For me, it's not what the MFG intended the piece to do. It's whether or not its part of the thing that can be removed, or part of the car.

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.

 

[CDS]

For me, it's not what the MFG intended the piece to do. It's whether or not its part of the thing that can be removed, or part of the car.

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.

I agree with you if the rules only allow removal of part A. But the sunroof rule allows removal of components. What are the components?

 

[lateapex911]

Here's another angle.

Your car came with AC. Other versions of the same model did not.

You get to remove the AC system. Up front, there are these items associated with the AC system that I'd like to get your opinion on:

1- The compressor
2- the belt for the compressor
3- the extra pulley for the compressor
4- the bracket for the compressor
5- The bolt that goes through the bracket and into a raised threaded boss on the engine block
6- The raised threaded boss on the engine block
7- the hoses to and from the compressor
8- the secondary wiring harness that connects the compressor to the mani harness.

Which items are you going to remove?

 

[JeffYoung]

Every bit of it, the rules allow you to remove the entire a/c system.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with you if the rules only allow removal of part A. But the sunroof rule allows removal of components. What are the components?

Certainly NOT the ROOF. Oye!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here's another angle.

Your car came with AC. Other versions of the same model did not.

You get to remove the AC system. Up front, there are these items associated with the AC system that I'd like to get your opinion on:

1- The compressor
2- the belt for the compressor
3- the extra pulley for the compressor
4- the bracket for the compressor
5- The bolt that goes through the bracket and into a raised threaded boss on the engine block
6- The raised threaded boss on the engine block
7- the hoses to and from the compressor
8- the secondary wiring harness that connects the compressor to the mani harness.

Which items are you going to remove?

Answer: Everything that is not on the non-a/c car.

 

[CDS]

Certainly NOT the ROOF. Oye!

Yes, but are the roof brackets/braces that are specific to the sunroof car considered "components" of the sunroof? I think the answer depends on what other functions they may serve.

 

[Greg Amy]

If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay...

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...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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...

It is a slippery slope, no doubt...but what I outlined is what I go by when I think about what can be removed. If its part of the car, it's part of the car. Usually it has no part number as it is part of the uni-body. Otherwise, everything that is connected in some way that may ACT as a bracket is now open for intorturtation.

Its a whole new world.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, that said, the question remains: is the bracketry specific to the sunroof installation on a car removable under the "components" clause?

Then we have to define bracketry. If it's bolted to the roof and it facilitates the operation and/or mounting of the sunroof, I say yes.

If it's a unique 'sub-structure' that strengthens the surrounding area and is in no way attached to the sunroof and its mechanism (usually spot welded in and not it's own part number)? I say no way.

 

[tom91ita]

....If part A can be removed, and parts A's bracket is bolted on, I think it can be removed (provided it serves no other purpose). If it is welded on, it has to stay as it is part of the car and proabably has no individual part number.

but my understanding of seat mounting brackets they can be removed even if they are welded to the unibody, course most of understanding is from this forum and others.

2009 GCR = Factory seat tracks/brackets may be modified, reinforced, and/or removed to facilitate replacement mountings provided they perform no other function.

and this may be a stretch but when repairing the roof after a roll-over, you might cbnsider a non-sunroof roof to be okay per:

Body repair shall be performed using every reasonable effort to maintain stock body contours..

the non-sunroof and sunroof models have effectively the same contours.

 

[Greg Amy]

If its part of the car, it's part of the car. Usually it has no part number as it is part of the uni-body.

That's incorrect, Andy: EVERY part in the car, no matter how small a bracket it is, has a separate part number and line in the parts book.

No unibody chassis by any manufacturer has a view of the "body in white" with a single part number. Everything that makes up the unibody - from bracket, to nuts, to flanges, to whatever - has a separate and distinct part number...

GA

 

[Jeremy Billiel]

Here's another angle.

Your car came with AC. Other versions of the same model did not.

You get to remove the AC system. Up front, there are these items associated with the AC system that I'd like to get your opinion on:

1- The compressor
2- the belt for the compressor
3- the extra pulley for the compressor
4- the bracket for the compressor
5- The bolt that goes through the bracket and into a raised threaded boss on the engine block
6- The raised threaded boss on the engine block
7- the hoses to and from the compressor
8- the secondary wiring harness that connects the compressor to the mani harness.

Which items are you going to remove?

Everything its all part of the A/C System.

Jake would you also debate that the wiring harness, brake lines, ABS modules, ABS computers, etc can not ALL be removed? Because like the A/C rule it says anything related to the A/C system can be removed.

e. Air conditioning systems may be removed in whole or in part.

 

[CDS]

If it's a unique 'sub-structure' that strengthens the surrounding area and is in no way attached to the sunroof and its mechanism (usually spot welded in and not it's own part number)? I say no way.

Agreed. That's why I believe you can't just graft an entire non-roof roof onto a sun-roof car. The roof bracketry in the sunroof car is configured differently from the non-roof car (I presume, I haven't actually compared them), but the brackets still serve the purpose of reinforcing/strengthing the roof structure. They're more than just components of the sunroof system. If you were to remove them, you would have (presumably) less roof support, and less weight, than a non-roof car would have. And where do the rules permit you to add back the roof brackets that are unique to the non-roof car?

You will note that I'm arguing against my own interests, since I have a non-roof CRX that I would like to convert to ITB, but I just don't think the rules allow it unless I do the whole roof swap thing.