Josh Sirota wrote:
> I see this sort of assertion made every once in a while, but,
frankly folks,
> it's not in the book (read it!)
I have read this section many times. I have discussed the issue
with SP competitors who have written the SEB for clarification of
this allowance. Your reading is directly at odds with mine, as
well as with the readings of several past SEBs.
> It just says that parts may be interchanged.
No, it says a whole lot more than that, to wit:
"The updated/backdated part or the part to which it is to be
attached may not be altered, modified, machined or otherwise
changed to facilitate the updating/backdating allowance.
> My assertion is that a "part" is any individual unit of the
car, trackable
> with an assigned "part number", that can be ordered through the
standard
> dealer network in a state that is unattached to any other
parts.
So far, so good.
> If this part that I have obtained from the dealer requires
welding to detach
> the old one
Whoa there. You can't detach a welded-on part by welding, you
must do so by _grinding_ and/or _cutting_. See above. I don't see
how you can claim that cutting and/or grinding is not "modified,
machined, or otherwise changed." It certainly is machining, if
nothing else. And machining is _specifically_ verboten.
>and attach the new one,
Welding melts portions of both parts being attached. How can you
defend that as not constituting "modification?" Are you aware of
the SEBs history of reading the rule in precisely the opposite
way you're now trying to read it?
> I don't see the issue there.
There are _lots_ of issues here. Ask Steve Hoelscher for one set
of such issues.
> It's just
> a method of attachment,
Nope, it's more than that: It's modification of the part and the
car in order to perform the attachment..
>and the update/backdate rules say nothing about the
>method of attachment
Actually, the portion of the rules I quote above says quite a lot
about the method of attachment. It says you can't modify the part
or the car in order to accomplish the attachment. More
importantly it does NOT say that prohibited modifications are
legal as long as they are the factory-specified method of
attachment. And, "if it doesn't say you can...."
> I can imagine a case where the roof panel of a car is orderable
from the
> factory. Just the roof panel. There are likely to be two
varieties, one
> with a hole for a sunroof, and one without. If this panel can
be ordered
> independently of any other parts, I would argue that it should
be a
> candidate for update/backdate, even though attaching it
requires welding.
Within the last year, the SEB answered a request for
clarification about that exact scenario in the negative. What
would you say is different now than then?
In defense of the traditional, conservative (and I claim correct)
way of reading U/B, I'd offer the common-sense observation that,
if factory-specified body-repair techniques such as cutting and
welding are no longer considered "modification" for purposes of
U/B, you've opened the door to all sorts of hybrid combinations
of body/chassis parts that were never assembled together by the
manufacturer, and the potential cost of SP preparation has taken
another major step skyward.
If using the "factory-specified" method of attachment were to
become legal for U/B, I could then make several major - and
expensive - upgrades to my car's performance that would
previously have been illegal.
Jay
|