rear wiper "system" includes motor, right?
- Thread starter tom91ita
- Start date
I've always been confident that if the [whatever] can be removed, then the bracket holding on the [whatever] can be removed. HOWEVER, I've limited that to bolt-on parts. My logic has been that this doesn't extend to cutting off welded on brackets. That's a very slippery slope.
K
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I agree 100%.
Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, then you bloody well can!"
"System" is the described item and everything associated with it and its installation. The subsequent restricting words "bolt" and "-on" do not exist in the regulation.
Roffe wins.
GA
Why?
There's nothing in the regs that differentiates any specific method of attachment. In fact, many a mod has been made under the support of "attached" not having a defined meaning.
Roffe wins.
GA
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Debatable for sure and I disagree. Saying that a piece of the chassis (which is what a welded bracket really is) is part of the system is taking it too far IMHO. Then the 'mounting surface' of anything removable becomes defacto removable. This isn't the case.
To me, when in doubt, you look up the parts that comprise the 'system' in the service manual. If you can't order it and have it come in a box, I think we have crossed a line.
Attaching additional non-illegal 'parts' (like heat shields to headers or intakes) to a free item is different than removing everything a legally removable item attaches to...that would be EVERYTHING. Like a welded bracket on the inner fender, why stop at grinding off the bracket? Take the whole inner fender out because since the bracket was PART of the inner fender, who is to argue with what you are calling the 'system'?
Just pointing out that using that logic the entire car is basically now 'free' unless specifically illegal.
To me, when in doubt, you look up the parts that comprise the 'system' in the service manual. If you can't order it and have it come in a box, I think we have crossed a line.
Attaching additional non-illegal 'parts' (like heat shields to headers or intakes) to a free item is different than removing everything a legally removable item attaches to...that would be EVERYTHING. Like a welded bracket on the inner fender, why stop at grinding off the bracket? Take the whole inner fender out because since the bracket was PART of the inner fender, who is to argue with what you are calling the 'system'?
Just pointing out that using that logic the entire car is basically now 'free' unless specifically illegal.
No, that logic is wrong; you're playing a lawyer's game of "reductio ad absurdum".
That "line" is clear: anything that is part and parcel of the allowable removed system is also allowed to be removed. In our specific example, removal of the rear windshield wiper "system" (key word, that) allows any part that is associated with the "rear windshield wiper system". That means motor, wiper arm, wiper, wiring, switches, brackets. Given there's no subsequent restriction as to method of attachment, welded brackets can be removed as well, right down to the spot welds that are used to attach those brackets to whatever structure they're attached to.
To "reductio ad absurdum" that because the welded brackets attach to something, that something can be removed is, well, absurdum.
Here's a simple logical test. Point 1, if that windshield wiper mounting bracket was bolted onto the rear deck, would you not allow it to be removed? I suggest your answer is "yes". Point 2, do you agree that there is nothing in the regs that limits removal/addition of components based solely on the method of attachment of that component? I suggest your answer is "no". Ergo, that bracket may be removed up to, but not including, the panel to which it is attached.
If you can point out to me where in the GCR any rule allowance is limited based solely on method of attachment, I'll agree with you. Until then, it's all free to be removed.
GA
I will likely leave brackets in wiper is needed for another class. Another idea would be to compare a "base" model without this "system" to if brackets were on all cars regardless of if the "system" was installed.
And I think the brackets in the hatch will not be easy to access.
And I think the brackets in the hatch will not be easy to access.
JLawton
New member
Say, for example the wiper system has a bracket that's sole purpose is to hold the motor..... and that bracket is welded to hatch. The main and sole purpose of the hatch is not to hold the wiper it's to hold the glass, enclose the back, etc...... Two ver distinct purposes in my eyes. The bracket (it's sole purpose is to hold part of the wiper "system") can be removed but the hatch (which it's purpose as NOTHING to do with the wiper) can not. Seems black and white to me. "It can be removed as long as it doesn't serve another purpose".
.
StephenB
New member
Howdy,
My rear wiper is held to the car by the hatch. You just unbolt two hatch hinges and some support rods and it comes right off.
Mark
My rear wiper is held to the car by the hatch. You just unbolt two hatch hinges and some support rods and it comes right off.
Mark
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Do I have to know Latin to play the game?
While I agree with most of your premise, I disagree on the welded part. You could make an argurement that if the 'bracket' was welded to the rear hatch, it was part of the rear hatch, not the "rear windshield wiper system". Taking it further, you could just as well argue that since the 'system' was bolted to the hatch and the hatch was bolted to the chassis, the hatch is really the 'bracket'...so off with that too.
To "reductio ad absurdum" that because the welded brackets attach to something, that something can be removed is, well, absurdum.
That's my point. If this argument is based on something attaching to something, then there has to be a defined 'base'. If you want to say that since it's not defined, then it's really not defined.
And here is where I think the logic fails. What is your definition of 'bracket'? To me, what it's a permanent piece of is what defines it. What if, in your example, the panel the components attach to were simple encapsulated nuts inside the panel? To me, if it's part of the 'panel', it's a no-touch. And when something is welded as part of the chassis, to me it's part of it.
I guess my issue is that there is no definition of 'bracket'. Effectively, the entire chassis is a bracket.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
How can the bracket be welded to the hatch and have a sole purpose of holding the motor- AND - the hatch have a sole purpose of holding glass, when it has a welded bracket that holds the motor? That's 2 purposes. The issue in my mind is that if the bracket is welded to the hatch, it's PART of the hatch, not part of the system.
But like minds will disagree. We need either 'bracket' or a further definition of 'attachment point' in the Glossary me thinks.
my thought was only to make it easy to argue legallity. start cutting welds, get this argument. leave that stuff in, and no argument.
the fact that car A might have had the system as an option means nothing to me. In some cases examples exist both with and without chassis fixtures/brackets for the system (sunroof structure panels in a roof), or with chassis brackets/ fixtures weather with or witout the system (suroof storage rail setup in an MR2 frunk come to mind). in others, a car of the same model but a different trim and NOT classified the same (say, a EG civic DX vs an SI) might have and not have the system and hardware, but all of the examples of the model/trim as classified have such bracets, so there's no real IT-level correlation. the last version of the argument applies to single model cars where all examples have the debated bracketry.
just leave the stuff thats is welded or bonded by the OEM and remove the rest. no arguments.
the fact that car A might have had the system as an option means nothing to me. In some cases examples exist both with and without chassis fixtures/brackets for the system (sunroof structure panels in a roof), or with chassis brackets/ fixtures weather with or witout the system (suroof storage rail setup in an MR2 frunk come to mind). in others, a car of the same model but a different trim and NOT classified the same (say, a EG civic DX vs an SI) might have and not have the system and hardware, but all of the examples of the model/trim as classified have such bracets, so there's no real IT-level correlation. the last version of the argument applies to single model cars where all examples have the debated bracketry.
just leave the stuff thats is welded or bonded by the OEM and remove the rest. no arguments.
Last edited:
Howdy,
Seems like that should be explicit somewhere in the rulebook. Welded brackets for a component/system allowed to be removed are part of the chassis, not part of the component/system.
Mark
Seems like that should be explicit somewhere in the rulebook. Welded brackets for a component/system allowed to be removed are part of the chassis, not part of the component/system.
Mark
I love Latin. Makes me sound important, like I actually know something.
A simple question, yet unanswered: where in the GCR is allowances/restrictions subsequently limited by method of attachment? Said differently, where in the GCR are allowances/restrictions limited only to those items fastened by hardware easily removed by hand tools (for example) and explicit exclude items that are fastened by welding?
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
P.S., we already had this argument, by the way, in regard to rear seat brackets and rear interior trim panels. We discussed it here and someone at the track got their nose out of joint because I removed the spot welds holding these brackets in my NX2000. I explained the rationale to them and offered that if they disagreed I'd be willing to front the $25 for the protest and walk them through it. After a brief discussion with a steward they declined to protest.
I'm willing to make that offer to anyone else interested in pursuing it.
Something that is used to mount a component. Something that, were that specific component not installed, would not itself be installed.
A simple question, yet unanswered: where in the GCR is allowances/restrictions subsequently limited by method of attachment? Said differently, where in the GCR are allowances/restrictions limited only to those items fastened by hardware easily removed by hand tools (for example) and explicit exclude items that are fastened by welding?
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
P.S., we already had this argument, by the way, in regard to rear seat brackets and rear interior trim panels. We discussed it here and someone at the track got their nose out of joint because I removed the spot welds holding these brackets in my NX2000. I explained the rationale to them and offered that if they disagreed I'd be willing to front the $25 for the protest and walk them through it. After a brief discussion with a steward they declined to protest.
I'm willing to make that offer to anyone else interested in pursuing it.
One of the issues on brackets is that sometimes we specifically clarify that they can be removed like with seats.
Does that mean we can extrapolate and do it or not do it?
For the "not bracket" crowd, if a base crx without the rear wiper does NOT have a bracket, does that make it part of the wiper system?
Does that mean we can extrapolate and do it or not do it?
For the "not bracket" crowd, if a base crx without the rear wiper does NOT have a bracket, does that make it part of the wiper system?