Roll cages

[ERC]

Continuation from the Shellsport Saloons thread. Suggest you read the latter stages of that thread first.

To summarise. Long term projects have been caught in a trap where cages built to the previous rules (main hoop metal spec has changed) but hadn't had the paperwork completed, can't get the cage passed without an engineer's report., This is required because the cage is deemed a "free design" and therefore has to conform to tests laid down by MSNZ. These tests dictate the amount of deflection given a specific force and at a specifc angle.

A newly built cage to the current specs and to an approved design will be rubber stamped within days. However, this approved spec would fail all the deflection tests.

So those trapped with longer term projects are faced with a cage that may be identical to 100's of existing, approved cages, but they are sidelined without stripping out the existing cage and replacing the main hoop, or, have built cages that are much stronger than the approved cages, but they can't get them passed.

[928]

Seems to me as an indemnity certificate is needed. You state that you do not want to race the car, but may do the odd speed event. If the regulators had a indemnty cert for you to sign, exempting them of liability, and you will take care of you own liability, the problem would be solved, surely. An easy a paper work exersize that should suit paper pushers down to the ground

[ERC]

Seems to me as an indemnity certificate is needed. You state that you do not want to race the car, but may do the odd speed event. If the regulators had a indemnty cert for you to sign, exempting them of liability, and you will take care of you own liability, the problem would be solved, surely. An easy a paper work exersize that should suit paper pushers down to the ground

If I remove the cage, the car is legal... That is the true extent of the frustration. If the cages to MSNZ's own design are approved yet fail the tests, then surely, the test requirements are too tough? (Or the approved designs are too weak?)

I am no engineer, but it appears to me that the cage installed in a 1950's steel shelled saloon has exactly the same requirements and design as for a flimsy thin, fibreglass bodied car. (Yes I know thicker fibreglass can be strong...)

When a project has taken many years and the original cage photos were supplied to MSNZ back in 2006 and the go ahead given for it to be painted, the final approval to be turned down because the correct paperwork wasn't filed in time, in my case, is accepted. What is NOT accepted or acceptable, is the test criteria, or in Dave's case, the refusal to accept the engineer's report.

We don't have to sign an indemnity if we run without a cage, so why should we need to with one? I'd happily sign an indemnity, but it is optional safety equipment, in the same way that neck restraints and gloves or four/five/six point harnesses are also optional.

The systems need looking at if all the criteria are not equal. Maybe there also needs to be a consideration as to potential use, power to weight etc.

[Rod Grimwood]

Quote; - Does anyone realise what the ramifications of scenario really are, on the one hand you have a roll cage that has been assessed by a registered engineer to be 25% stronger than that model recomended by MSNZ. This roll cage is deemed by MSNZ to be inadaquat so is not accepted.
The way I see it is that all MSNZ recomended roll cages that have passed as being suitable, are in fact going to fail, as they are 25% weaker than one that MSNZ will not pass as it does not fit the model that MSNZ are recomending.
I hope MSNZ have a very good insurance policy, as any resulting serious injuries or deaths will be looked at rather severely by the Labour Department, with all sorts of liabilities aimed at those who have signed and rubber stamped these cages off.
Your thoughts will make interesting reading. End Quote.

Note the Labour Department (now The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) only deal in work related accidents, this is sport (apparently)

[crunch]

Quote; - Does anyone realise what the ramifications of scenario really are, on the one hand you have a roll cage that has been assessed by a registered engineer to be 25% stronger than that model recomended by MSNZ. This roll cage is deemed by MSNZ to be inadaquat so is not accepted.
The way I see it is that all MSNZ recomended roll cages that have passed as being suitable, are in fact going to fail, as they are 25% weaker than one that MSNZ will not pass as it does not fit the model that MSNZ are recomending.
I hope MSNZ have a very good insurance policy, as any resulting serious injuries or deaths will be looked at rather severely by the Labour Department, with all sorts of liabilities aimed at those who have signed and rubber stamped these cages off.
Your thoughts will make interesting reading. End Quote.

Note the Labour Department (now The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) only deal in work related accidents, this is sport (apparently)

Not quite correct Rod. I cannot comment on individual cases on here for obvious reasons, but what the 25% relates to is an engineers opinion. Another engineer has a totally different opinion. Dont ask me how; as I thought they used mathematical equations...but that is the case. If a certified engineer signs/approves any structure, the onus is on them.
Yes we do have a good insurance policy, your fees pay for it.

[rogered]

with out reading the manual. did it not used to be
as per the examples in the book, or
if of a different design, to be signed of by an engineer

[Carlo]

I understand that the current safety cage regulations are the current FIA ones and one would suspect that the FIA have done a lot more research into the various issues and designs than all of NZ motorsport, us guys included, have done in total.

Yes there are some like Dave who have been caught out with the regulation changes simply because they did not get their cage approved when they built it, rather they waited until the car was close to completion before going through the process. If we look around the traps you will see a number of cars that are still not completed but have had their cages approved simply becasue the owner understood that there was a cut off date for approval of the old design.

I still think that a representation to the Executive correctly written up with the appropriate evidence to prove that the cage was constructed as part of the car build and that the actual cage it's self was completed prior to the cut off date would go a long way to achieving the desired result. You need to remember that the Technical Dept do not have the authority to change the rules or issue any form of exemption and that there are more ways to kill a cat than drowning the damn thing in cream.

In the case of my car I have the opposite problem, I built my cage just before the information about the changes was released and it is built with the old spec main hoop. Because of this I am unable to use my car overseas and any thought that I had about taking the car to a couple of classic / historic rallies in Australia are now completely out the window as I do not intend pulling the car to bits to replace it. Unfortunately this has also reduced the potential to sell the car off to a Skippy when I get to doddery to drive it too.

[markec]

Has anyone had their car scrutineered by an FIA scrutineer at a European competition meeting ?, you will find they will not physically touch your car. All adjustments and removal of covers etc have to be done by the entrant or his agent.

[markec]

Aproaches to MSNZ officialdom gets no response,as the roll cage in question has had an engineers certificate sent in with the application, your argument doesn't hold water Carlo. In a real world situation, what you say would happen, but remember we are dealing with MSNZ.

[crunch]

Aproaches to MSNZ officialdom gets no response,as the roll cage in question has had an engineers certificate sent in with the application, your argument doesn't hold water Carlo. In a real world situation, what you say would happen, but remember we are dealing with MSNZ.

Totally disagree with your opening statement. I have already offerred Dave a solution which he has indicated to me is ok. It's comments such as yours that make me realise why some officials may not choose to help you.

[Dave Silcock]

Totally disagree with your opening statement. I have already offerred Dave a solution which he has indicated to me is ok. It's comments such as yours that make me realise why some officials may not choose to help you.

I am confused Crunch, what solution have you offered me?

[crunch]

I am confused Crunch, what solution have you offered me?

OK Dave, I will put it all out there.

This started because you had not had your structure certified by the cut off date. You publicised to all and sundry on here that you missed the date by 3 days and that it wasnt fair and MSNZ were a bunch of bad guys. Whereas in fact you missed it by 1 year and 3 years as I have already told you over our various phone calls. (And you agreed)
The company that you recently paid a lot of money to, to certify your roll structure (as the original manufacturer of it was unwilling/unable to do) informed you that it did not pass the test. You then on one of our many phone conversations said you had a mate in Wanaka who was a certified engineer who said it would pass. Therefore my suggestion to you (Dec 8th last year) was to get him to file a new Roll Protection Application for your current structure and sign it in his official capacity, and I would ensure that the sport would accept this. I also said you should endeavour to get this done before Christmas. This is not how the system should work as the original manufacturer is the person that should be certifying thier own work. However to help you out, I have bent the rules a bit.

Remember now maybe?

[Dave Silcock]

OK Dave, I will put it all out there.

This started because you had not had your structure certified by the cut off date. You publicised to all and sundry on here that you missed the date by 3 days and that it wasnt fair and MSNZ were a bunch of bad guys. Whereas in fact you missed it by 1 year and 3 years as I have already told you over our various phone calls. (And you agreed)
The company that you recently paid a lot of money to, to certify your roll structure (as the original manufacturer of it was unwilling/unable to do) informed you that it did not pass the test. You then on one of our many phone conversations said you had a mate in Wanaka who was a certified engineer who said it would pass. Therefore my suggestion to you (Dec 8th last year) was to get him to file a new Roll Protection Application for your current structure and sign it in his official capacity, and I would ensure that the sport would accept this. I also said you should endeavour to get this done before Christmas. This is not how the system should work as the original manufacturer is the person that should be certifying thier own work. However to help you out, I have bent the rules a bit.

Remember now maybe?

Crunch you say '' you will put it all out there'' well I say you have a very selective memory. In post 22 you say you offered me a solution that I agreed to. Not true. This was your solution E mailed to me on 10/12/12. '' What you need to do is get your engineer buddy to complete a roll protection homologation form and submit to office before the 24th''
And this is my response the same day. '' I don't believe that will alter any thing , as it is my belief that Julian already has these documents in his possession. He clearly has had the MC Fraser report since you Emailed it to him Oct 1st, and I now believe that PC has forwarded the application. By the tone of his reply one can presume that he is going to take not one bit of notice that the tube in my car is 25% stiffer than that he would have me build it from etc etc. I don't think this could be seen an acceptance.
In one our many phone calls you told me if I got an engineers report stating that the tubing was as strong as that specified " you will have your approval'' When I supplied that to you on Oct 1st your response was '' will circulate H&C commission and have copied to Julian and Brian for comment. Then we will find away forward''.
And by the way on 10 Dec Julian was denying that he had any documents since August! When I phoned you in January to check on the way forward you came up with your ''solution''. This course of action was not feasible as there was already a report on record that stated the cage would fail the test.
You also asked me to get Dave Mac Cahn, advisor to MSNZ on roll cage matters and a manufacturer of roll cage kits involved. When I informed him of the issues involved his response was '' That means 90% of the present stock of approved roll cages would fail'' [ MSNZ 's tests]
And one last thing, on post 21 I think you were trying to cast doubt on the fact that my tube is 25% stiffer by saying another engineer could disagree. Perhaps MSNZ should engage one to find out instead of using innuendo to discredit to MC Fraser's report.
Are you also saying that MSNZ has never received his report as alluded to in post 31?

[Bruce Sollitt]

Carl, MSNZ is too willingly to effect change and impose cost on competitors for the sole purpose of compliance with FIA and uniformity. Neither is a valid enough reason for change.

Many cars are permitted to compete in NZ motorsport by virtue of 'grandfather clauses' which tells us that the standards to which they comply are both adequate and acceptable. The sport has no business disallowing any other competitor to comply with the same standards.

Rather than needless regulation change, a simple advisory that our previous main hoop specs rendered those cars ineligible for overseas competition would have sufficed.

However, leaving that aside for a moment, if I recall correctly, the rule change had a well publicised lead time of around 18 months so it's perhaps a little misleading for those who didn't get their stuff together to claim to have been "caught out".

One would hope that the situation is not irretrievable and that a well presented case to the Exec. might bring a solution. Failing that, a remit at conference.
But there would need to be some legwork first to understand the extent of the issue. Perhaps a register of those competitors and cars effected.

[markec]

The ironic part of this scenario is, that if Dave Silcock removes part of the front section of his cage in effect making it weaker the cage would be acceptable. You explain the logic in that situation.As Dave said to me,'how would it look on Fair Go, taking part of a structure out to make it legal,by weakening it'.

[markec]

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=fia...w=1600&bih=690

Go to the above site for images of FIA aproved roll cages.

[markec]

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/fil...ge_padding.pdf

FIA Material specs

[grelley]

What has happened to Schedule AA for classic cars which was to a slightly lower standard. Could Sched AA not be ammended to encompass the older requirements.

[markec]

My slingshot Email address is disabled at the moment so try me on <mark@markcoulthard.com>

[Rod Grimwood]

Please don't start on FIA, we don't have enough computor space.
Who are they, what do they do for US. (NZ'ers)(classic people) Why do you have to have a mother to play, lots of orphans do very well by themselves, in fact the most successfull around were once orphans.
Is it true they share offices with the IRB. Must have nice lunch's together on our money (fees)

Sorry, I will do a hundred lines for being naughty.