Welded seat rails

Andy, the key word in rule Gary cited is not "fastener" but rather "bracketry." Bracketry (or even "bracket") is not defined in the GCR.

I would argue and believe that any piece whose sole purpose is to hold in the passenger seat can be removed. How it is attached to the car (whether it be by nut, bolt or spot weld) is irrelevant.

Kirk, yes, I suppose this is an aggressive interpretation of the rules and I probably personally would not do it, but if that parapet wall thingie is only their to attach the seats -- in my view it COULD come out.
 
Kirk,

Is this piece you are talking about a Bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Does it serve any other purpose other than to perform as a bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Is it fastened to the chasis of the car to maintain a fixed position using a bolt, nut, screw, or any other type of fastening system which would allow someone to prove that it is not something other than a bracket.

If you answered yes to these questions then it is spelled out very clearly in the ITCS on page 339 section 9.E. that you can remove them and save the weight! :026:


So the catch that everyone is pondering... Is a weld a form of fastening something together or is it then a part of the chasis. If we all agreed that welding was a form of fastening 2 things together then I Think that everyone would agree that in section 9.E. it says bracketry may be removed.

We know that welding something joins 2 peices of metals together but the real question is that different then fastening 2 things together? Since the Definition of a weld (Noun)is A metal joint formed by softening with heat and fusing or hammering together and in a (Verb) is to Join together by heating, as of metals.... then you decide the rest based on Websters fine knowledge and the 1 definition we can use from the GCR.

Definition of a Joint as a Noun: Junction by which parts or objects are joined together.
Definition of a Joint as a Verb (Join): To fasten with a joint
Definition of Fasten (verb): Cause to be firmly attached
Definition of Fastened (Adj.):Firmly closed or secured
Definition of a Fastener(s)(Noun): Restraint that attaches to something or holds something in place
In the GCR it lists: Fasteners - Any mechanism which serves no other purpose than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc). The key word here being ETC.
Definition of Attached (ADJ.): Fastened together


So we could go on and on but to me it seems as though a weld securly joins by creating a joint (Same as Fastened from webster) 2 metal pieces (in this case a bracket to the chasis of the car) to hold it firmly in place so that it maintains a fixed position.

If you want SCCA clear answer you could right a check to SCCA for $250 bucks for clarification... Or create lots of headaches, paperwork, appeals and hearings and protest someone for $25 :rolleyes:

This turned out way more involved than I had ever planned but if I say something I had to back it up :( I hope I haven't completly bored you and I hope that I saved a bunch of German makes a bunch of weight! :smilie_pokal:

Stephen
 
Good reasonable debate. I just think anything that is welded is part of the car and is not a 'bracket'. Fasteners are mechanical. Everything is a bracket for everything under this read.
 
Last edited:
StephenB said:
Kirk,

Is this piece you are talking about a Bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Does it serve any other purpose other than to perform as a bracket for the rear seat back or rear seat bottom cushion(s)? Is it fastened to the chasis of the car to maintain a fixed position using a bolt, nut, screw, or any other type of fastening system which would allow someone to prove that it is not something other than a bracket.

If you answered yes to these questions then it is spelled out very clearly in the ITCS on page 339 section 9.E. that you can remove them and save the weight!


So the catch that everyone is pondering... Is a weld a form of fastening something together or is it then a part of the chasis. If we all agreed that welding was a form of fastening 2 things together then I Think that everyone would agree that in section 9.E. it says bracketry may be removed.

We know that welding something joins 2 peices of metals together but the real question is that different then fastening 2 things together? Since the Definition of a weld (Noun)is A metal joint formed by softening with heat and fusing or hammering together and in a (Verb) is to Join together by heating, as of metals.... then you decide the rest based on Websters fine knowledge and the 1 definition we can use from the GCR.

Definition of a Joint as a Noun: Junction by which parts or objects are joined together.
Definition of a Joint as a Verb (Join): To fasten with a joint
Definition of Fasten (verb): Cause to be firmly attached
Definition of Fastened (Adj.):Firmly closed or secured
Definition of a Fastener(s)(Noun): Restraint that attaches to something or holds something in place
In the GCR it lists: Fasteners - Any mechanism which serves no other purpose than to cause a component to maintain a fixed position (i.e. bolt, nut, screw, etc). The key word here being ETC.
Definition of Attached (ADJ.): Fastened together


So we could go on and on but to me it seems as though a weld securly joins by creating a joint (Same as Fastened from webster) 2 metal pieces (in this case a bracket to the chasis of the car) to hold it firmly in place so that it maintains a fixed position.

If you want SCCA clear answer you could right a check to SCCA for $250 bucks for clarification... Or create lots of headaches, paperwork, appeals and hearings and protest someone for $25 :rolleyes:

This turned out way more involved than I had ever planned but if I say something I had to back it up I hope I haven't completly bored you and I hope that I saved a bunch of German makes a bunch of weight! :smilie_pokal:

Stephen
Click to expand...
:happy204:I am impressed, I didn't think there was anyone under 40 that knew what a dictionary was, not to mention how to use one. To use a phrase from my generation, "Right on!", Stephen! Or was that "Right Arm!"?

As always, the GCR should help us eschew obsfuscation!:cool:
 
This is getting off track. The method of fastening is totally irrelevant and immaterial, as there are no limitations whatsoever in 9.e. to that end. You can remove it quite simply because it is part of the seat attaching hardware and bracketry... it was put there by the factory to attach the seat to the car, period. The notched rail (and yes, the "parapet wall" device in the back) both fit the description perfectly. They are, very precisely, "attaching hardware".

If the car had been designed with no passenger seat, would the factory have put the rail there anyway? I think not. It is, therefore... attaching hardware.

WRT to "fastening" - So I'm preparing my Acme Zoomboy GT for ITB, and I can't find anyone that makes racing header for it. But I want to get rid of the catalytic converter, as clearly allowed by the ITCS. Oops! The factory welded the damned thing to the header pipe, which I'm going to keep. So I guess the converter has to stay on the car, because it's welded to something? I don't think so. Again, there were no limitations as to how it's fastened. It simply states you may remove it, so it's outta here!
 
My thinking is influenced by the time I spent pondering the VIN number rule. My argument was always that a "chassis" or unibody is actually an assembly of multiple pieces, pretty much any of which can be ordered from a parts desk or aftermarket supplier (while they are in production, that is). The fact that they are are stamped steel sheet, most people never disassemble them, and they are welded together rather than bolted doesn't change any of that, so all logic for the VIN being attached to something we think of as "a car" falls apart...

So for me, the fact that something is welded rather than bolted is immaterial, if I'm being consistent. I'm just trying to reconcile what attributes define "bracketry" and how to figure out where a bracket ends and another piece of "the car" begins.

FWIW, I'm to a place where I think a case can be made for Kevin's specific suggestion - that he can remove that particular stamped piece of steel. I'm not sure I like where it goes but I don't think it's inconsistent with the current rules. And I guess the same probably goes for...

floornew.JPG
floornew.JPG


...the crosswise bit that we replaced when we rebuilt Pablo's floor (above), and for the bit I was referencing earlier. We could benefit from this, no question, but the issue is that it's not something that's easy to undo if the IT world decides it doesn't like it.

K
 
Last edited:
Agree, good reasonable debate.

As Gary said, method of fastening is immaterial. If the GCR says it comes out, it can come out regardless of how it is fastened to the car.

Kirk on that cross piece, again, I wouldn't take it out because it is "low weight" but it looks like its sole purpose is to hold the front of the passenger seat up. Bracket, so out it comes -- if you want.

I agree with you the "sole purpose" analysis might get a bit murky in places but such is the nature of rules that have to apply to 100+ makes and models of cars.
 
This is a good debate. I like the dual function perspective. You may or may not remember I built a new Rx7 last year. I was trying to prove that the new weight was unattainable so I went thru the book and I do not believe I cheated but I definitely pushed some gray areas. I know that on any given court I may or may not be proven right depending on what the stewards had for breakfast.
The Rx7 comes with a Watts link that we routinely replace with a panhard rod. While on the rotisserie I ground off the frame about 9 pounds of bracket that was used for the stock Watts link.
 
Knestis said:
floornew.JPG
floornew.JPG
Click to expand...

This is a tough one. I would remove the bracket on top of the "U" shaped piece, but there is no way to say if that "U" is reinforcement of the body/floor or only for the seat. If the later, than why not just make a taller bracket?

As for the original question, I believe that it is OK to remove. Rear seat rail? -- I'll have to think about that one before I remove it from my A3 under construction. :024:
 
Jason - I agree 100% on the inverted "U" channel removal, or lack thereof. First, if it were there only to support the seat, it probably would not have been the size and shape it is. Secondly, even if it came from the factory with a metal tag riveted to it that says "This is a seat bracket", I'd leave it in for structural purposes, weight be damned. :)

Dick - IMO, there is a fundamental difference between what I'm arguing and your Watts link example. The seat removal rule specifically allows the removal of attaching hardware and bracketry. The paragraph that allows a Panhard rod to be substituted for a Watts link contains no such verbiage. I'm not necessarily condemning your actions here, I just don't think it's an apples and apples example.
 
Gary, I understand it is different. I just think it is a natural discussion of similar principals. By the way I agree with you and Jason on the front seat cross bar. The rear seat “bracket” I don’t know enough about to have a solid opinion.
 
That front seat bracket - both the little nubbin on top and the box-section cross piece - was all one part number at the VW parts desk. Does that matter?

I also removed the whole thing on the driver's side to mount the seat. Does that matter?

Point is however, this is precisely the basis of my concerns. Would that crossmember be there if the car had come without a passenger seat? We don't know.

K
 
Knestis said:
That front seat bracket - both the little nubbin on top and the box-section cross piece - was all one part number at the VW parts desk. Does that matter?

I also removed the whole thing on the driver's side to mount the seat. Does that matter?

Point is however, this is precisely the basis of my concerns. Would that crossmember be there if the car had come without a passenger seat? We don't know.

K
Click to expand...

I don't think VW decisions on how to package spare parts has anything to do with the rule in question - it doesn't matter. In fact, here's my opinion - the "nubbin" can go, as it is clearly seat bracketry or attaching hardware. The box cross section, not so much... sorry, but it has to stay. But like I said earlier, I'd have left that particular piece in place, regardless.

Your driver's side decision doesn't matter either, but this time because the wording is different. For starters, the driver's side allowance contains the words "...to facilitate replacement mountings....", making it an altogether different situation. That is not to say however, that I would automatically agree the driver's side box section can legally be removed. It's a separate discussion. :)

As an aside, I just noticed there is obvious redundancy within the "Dirver/Passenger Compartment - Trunk" section. Paragraph 9.a says (referring to all but the driver's seat) "All other seats may be removed." Then, on the same page is 9.e., which says the same thing, but this time with maybe a little too much detail?
 
I gotta say Gary, that you are pretty sure about some things that frankly just aren't that cut and dried in my view - and I daresay that they seem a little arbitrary as presented to this point.

Let's accept that the nubbin in question is clearly outta here - since it attaches directly to the seat, we probably have consensus that it's a bracket. But drawing a bright line between it and the rest of the seat mount is certitude over logic.

On the "pro" cut-it-out side, we've got...

1. It's all one piece in the VW parts book - we enforce a lot of rules based on the "stockness" of a part in IT, defined pretty much exclusively by the specifications of the original part, defined by the part number. There are cases where you can remove a stock part but not modify it. We allow replacement of stock parts as long as they are the equivalent of those they replace.

2. It's job is to connect the seat to the chassis, making it by definition a bracket. That is, unless you are suggesting that simply because it adds strength to other pieces, that it's not ONLY a bracket. Any bit that welds to any other bit is strengthening the structure. Removing that nubbin makes the cross piece weaker - that it does so in such a small amount as to be immeasurable makes it just a matter of degree. HOW MUCH support does that cross piece have to provide in order to qualify as structure - as something other than a bracket? From an engineering standpoint, it only makes sense to mount the seat to the tunnel and rocker, rather than to a flat piece of floor sheetmetal, and that appears to be what VW did.

On the "con" you-can't-cut-it-out side, we've got... What, again? :)

K
 
Have to agree with Kirk. That thing, very thin stamped steel it looks like, appears to me to be there only to support the seat. Think of it this way. If the seat was not there, would the bracket be? I doubt it.

Gray area, but unavoidable in this context.
 
Knestis said:
That front seat bracket - both the little nubbin on top and the box-section cross piece - was all one part number at the VW parts desk. Does that matter?

K
Click to expand...

My vote is that it can go especially since it is the same part number. If it wasn't the same part Number I may say it has to stay based on my ignorance of what the cross member actually does. (I am not an engineer by any means!) Since it is the same part number I guess I would have to ask what is the description of the part number?

This digs into an important thing that I never thought of... part numbers/ descriptions should be a contributing factor to the decision on what would be a "Bracket" and therfor removable. I am usually going to beleive the manufacturer if they say it is a bracket or not.

Stephen
 
Kirk - Arbitrary indeed. Sorta like the guy that decided sound deadening material could be removed (and not replaced, BTW) because it interfered with paint prep? :)

Back to the subject at hand. Seriously... what does VW call that part - the box section complete with nubbin? Do they actually call that assembly a "seat support"? If so, I might be inclined to reverse my position on the box section piece. Recall, I said "...not so much", relative to my opiinion on the exact function of the box section, and I meant that. I just didn't know - it was a gray area IMO, so I said it had to stay.
 
I have got to say I don’t like using parts book description to determine if it can be removed. It may be unavoidable but it seems pretty arbitrary. If one company says that is a seat support and another says it is a bulkhead stiffener should that be the determining factor.
Some Miata guys are having to change their cages because on the optional forward foot protection bars they attach to a piece that the factory calls something other than firewall even though there installation are the same as what we do in IT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top