Roll cages

[ERC]

Bruce. I have already stated that it was an oversight that the paperwork wasn't lodged, even though photographs were submitted to MSNZ back in 2006 and accepted. Communications to MSNZ have been AFTER the rule change, re the main hoop.

Several emails were sent to MSNZ and all bar one recieved neither acknowledgement nor response. The one response was that I didn't need a cage for clubsport events, which is totally missing the point. The other suggestion was to remove it - old ground again.

I rang MSNZ technical and was told quite curtly that as the cage did not meet the current regs, then it could not be passed, but I would need an engineers report and if that showed the cage would conform to the required tests, then it could be homologated. The results are as shown above. The engineer was adamant that even if built to the MSNZ design with the 44mm tube, it would still fail the free form test. I am repeating myself here, but as my cage has an extra two bars over and above the MSNZ requirement based on their approved design, I am shocked that it needs so many extra bars (impossible to fit now the car is almost ready for the road) that the whole thing sinks to the level of farce.

[Dave Silcock]

Actually, you do Crunch. Both yourself and the sport have a responsibility to sort issues that affect or prevent members participation. It is only right that you are attempting to do so.

Dave & Ray ... you have gone to some lengths describing issues around engineers reports etc... , however you've been vague on the actual reason your cages did not qualify for standard approval. I'm assuming it's simply down to the use of the 38.1mm tube in the main hoop rather than the newly required 44mm?
Assuming that's the case, can you relay any incidences of communication between yourselves and MSNZ during the 18 month lead time from rule change advance notification to rule change enactment?

I had promised myself that I would no longer post on this subject as dealing with our man Raymond Bennet is some what akin to trying to feed an oyster into a parking meter. But as you have asked me to respond it would be churlish not to. Firstly I may have to repeat myself regarding previous posts in the interests of clarity and for that I apoligise in advance.
My cage was built in 2008 and all the necessary photos and documentation completed. It was also inspected by a visiting MSNZ offical at my workshop and declared up to standard. As there was much work remaining I [and I have already admitted this] foolishly decided to do all the paper work at the same time when the project was completed. At this time I was not a car club member so was unaware of any change in the offing. So mea culpa etc etc.
What is at issue is the results of the engineers FEA report on my cage.You are correct in assuming that issue is with the diameter and thickness of the main roll hoop. As I have had practical experince with mild steel and chrome moly [which my cage is made of] on a hand operated tube bender [one you can bend and the other you can't] I was stunned to be told that my structure had failed to pass MSNZ's test criteria. my immediate response was to request the same test be done using the properties of the specified tube. After considerable looking at the floor and much shuffling of feet they replied ''We have been in touch with Julian at MSNZ and don't want to put you to any further expence'' Three times I have asked for a quote to do this and I am still waiting for a response.
I then requested a report on the relative strengths of the two materials in question from M C Fraser Ltd., a consulting engineer with 50 years experince. This revealed that, as I had expected, that even taking into account the greater diameter and wall thickness of the MSNZ required tube, that the chrome moly tube was 25% stiffer in bending . One should also consider that this only compared the main hoop. If comparision was to be made with the similarly sized tube the rest of ths cage is made of the chrome moly tube would probably be twice as strong. Yet these tubes L/R and R/F ''failed'' in the FEA test.
This is the report Mr Bennet alternately denigrates or denies the exsistence of. Julian Leach as recently as Dec 21st denied having ever recieved it even though I have provided evidence in an earlier post that Mr Bennet sent it to him on Oct 1st. It has only occurred to me latterly [and many describe me as a gullible old fool] that MSNZ knew the results of my FEA test and its ramificatios before I did.
Raymond Bennet offered to go in to bat for me so I have only sent two E mails to the Technical Dept at MSNZ. One was replied to, claiming not to having seen the report mentioned above and the other was ignored . I'll leave it for you to decide who was batting for who.

[crunch]

I had promised myself that I would no longer post on this subject as dealing with our man Raymond Bennet is some what akin to trying to feed an oyster into a parking meter. But as you have asked me to respond it would be churlish not to. Firstly I may have to repeat myself regarding previous posts in the interests of clarity and for that I apoligise in advance.
My cage was built in 2008 and all the necessary photos and documentation completed. It was also inspected by a visiting MSNZ offical at my workshop and declared up to standard. As there was much work remaining I [and I have already admitted this] foolishly decided to do all the paper work at the same time when the project was completed. At this time I was not a car club member so was unaware of any change in the offing. So mea culpa etc etc.
What is at issue is the results of the engineers FEA report on my cage.You are correct in assuming that issue is with the diameter and thickness of the main roll hoop. As I have had practical experince with mild steel and chrome moly [which my cage is made of] on a hand operated tube bender [one you can bend and the other you can't] I was stunned to be told that my structure had failed to pass MSNZ's test criteria. my immediate response was to request the same test be done using the properties of the specified tube. After considerable looking at the floor and much shuffling of feet they replied ''We have been in touch with Julian at MSNZ and don't want to put you to any further expence'' Three times I have asked for a quote to do this and I am still waiting for a response.
I then requested a report on the relative strengths of the two materials in question from M C Fraser Ltd., a consulting engineer with 50 years experince. This revealed that, as I had expected, that even taking into account the greater diameter and wall thickness of the MSNZ required tube, that the chrome moly tube was 25% stiffer in bending . One should also consider that this only compared the main hoop. If comparision was to be made with the similarly sized tube the rest of ths cage is made of the chrome moly tube would probably be twice as strong. Yet these tubes L/R and R/F ''failed'' in the FEA test.
This is the report Mr Bennet alternately denigrates or denies the exsistence of. Julian Leach as recently as Dec 21st denied having ever recieved it even though I have provided evidence in an earlier post that Mr Bennet sent it to him on Oct 1st. It has only occurred to me latterly [and many describe me as a gullible old fool] that MSNZ knew the results of my FEA test and its ramificatios before I did.
Raymond Bennet offered to go in to bat for me so I have only sent two E mails to the Technical Dept at MSNZ. One was replied to, claiming not to having seen the report mentioned above and the other was ignored . I'll leave it for you to decide who was batting for who.

1. I dont like oysters Dave...or parking meters come to think of it.
2. Simple answer which has been conveyed to you verbally, written and on this forum repeatedly is to get your engineer friend who is qualified from M.C. Fraser Ltd. to submit a roll protection homologation form. He is sure your cage will pass, so it will be authorised by MSNZ. How hard is that?
3. You can denegrate MSNZ as much as you want Dave, and myself if it makes you feel better. Your mistake but it's our fault?

[markec]

[markec]

"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. Don’t 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."


"1. I don’t like oysters Dave...or parking meters come to think of it.
2. Simple answer which has been conveyed to you verbally, written and on this forum repeatedly is to get your engineer friend who is qualified from M.C. Fraser Ltd. to submit a roll protection homologation form. He is sure your cage will pass, so it will be authorised by MSNZ. How hard is that?
3. You can denigrate MSNZ as much as you want Dave, and myself if it makes you feel better. Your mistake but it's our fault?"


According to Crunch’s remarks, if the cage diagrams, measurements and Engineers report have been submitted, with the report showing that the structure is as strong or stronger than that required by MSNZ, then the structure, cage, would be homologated. This all has been done but no homologation certificate has been issued. That therefore negates crunch’s argument, as the process is not operating in the manner it was designed to operate, the human involvement has disrupted the process.
OK the timing was not perfect, but how many of those on the fringes of an organization, club, would have been informed of potential changes, those people such as Dave Silcock who were doing all the work themselves, would not necessarily have known of the crucial timing of changes.
As my original comments said, there is no flexibility within MSNZ regarding this and many other topics, that has added to the perception by many, of the inadequacies’ of MSNZ.
Mark Coulthard.
ChCh.

[crunch]

According to Crunch’s remarks, if the cage diagrams, measurements and Engineers report have been submitted, with the report showing that the structure is as strong or stronger than that required by MSNZ, then the structure, cage, would be homologated. This all has been done but no homologation certificate has been issued.

No it hasnt.

1. There has only been one Roll Protection Homologation application submitted by Dave. This was declined as it wasnt the right diameter mainhoop.

2. Then I became involved and the Tech Dept said that the old structure by this time (1 year after the cut-off) could now only be homologated as a "free-form structure". Dave commissioned a report by a civil engineer (CHCH) that the Tech Dept knows of, and the engineer said it failed.

3. My reply to Dave is that if a civil engineer fills in the Roll Protection Homologation application of his structure and signs it off to say they are happy, then it will be issued. This is no different to the usual system.

4. The other report Dave refers to is a letter from a civil engineer stating that the material Dave used is better strength even if lesser diameter than the current standard, and I wouldn't disagree. This guy is an engineer. But it is not a Roll Protection Homologation Application, it is a letter detailing the material specs and his informed opinion. I do not doubt it.

5. My involvement is only because we tried to be flexible, contrary to what Mark states above. We have been flexible and found a way to get Dave's structure approved. Every Licence holder (if on email) would have got the Motorsport News issues that mentioned many times that the change was happening, and gave plenty of notice, so I would assume most of those on the fringes of an organisation, club would have known of the changes.

I feel like I'm repeating myself.

[/QUOTE]

[ERC]

The salient point Crunch, is that Dave's cage failed the freeform test even though it may well be stronger than an approved cage. This surely is the crux of the problem? The same applies to mine. It is not the strength of the structure that is the issue, nor the paper trail, it is the test requirements that are out of kilter.

If the approved cage material was balsa wood, our cages would still fail the required tests assuming they were not adjusted - and you do not need to be an engineer to see what a nonsense that is. Please, let's have the test results published of each approved cage design - or hasn't anyone at MSNZ ever thought to test them? More to the point, if not, why not?

The cages are failing the test - but that is not to say that the engineers are not happy with them. They are two different arguments. The engineers are telling us what has to be done to meet the MSNZ test requirements, and even they say it is overkill but that is what MSNZ demand. If you ask the engineers, "are you satisfied they are as strong as the basic design with the thicker main hoop", the answer is probably "yes". Will MSNZ accept that and the answer is "no" they won't.

We are all repeating ourselves but until someone with an engineering qualification can post a test result on the approved cages as a benchmark, with the old hoop material and also the new hoop material, then we are going nowhere and we have insufficient facts on which to mount a proper case. When we have that, we need to ensure the rules for a freeform are that the cage must equal or beat those results to gain homologation. How difficult is that?

It seems that there is a reluctance by the Technical Department to apply a degree of common sense in what is still a transitional period, and is no more than approving a structure that already exists legally in 100's of cars, or as in Dave's case, is made out of stronger material. What harm is there in that? Who does it adversely affect? As has been pointed out previously, how come MSNZ are telling us to remove cages to conform?

[Carlo]

The salient point Crunch, is that Dave's cage failed the freeform test even though it may well be stronger than an approved cage. This surely is the crux of the problem? The same applies to mine. It is not the strength of the structure that is the issue, nor the paper trail, it is the test requirements that are out of kilter.

Part of the issue is the weights of various vehicles for the calculations are based around the weight of the car rather than a fixed weight or force being applied hence whilst Dave's cage may have failed, the same design and materials used on say an Escort may well pass the test simply becasue of the lesser weight of the Escort.

[crunch]

The salient point Crunch, is that Dave's cage failed the freeform test even though it may well be stronger than an approved cage. This surely is the crux of the problem? The same applies to mine. It is not the strength of the structure that is the issue, nor the paper trail, it is the test requirements that are out of kilter.

If the approved cage material was balsa wood, our cages would still fail the required tests assuming they were not adjusted - and you do not need to be an engineer to see what a nonsense that is. Please, let's have the test results published of each approved cage design - or hasn't anyone at MSNZ ever thought to test them? More to the point, if not, why not?

The cages are failing the test - but that is not to say that the engineers are not happy with them. They are two different arguments. The engineers are telling us what has to be done to meet the MSNZ test requirements, and even they say it is overkill but that is what MSNZ demand. If you ask the engineers, "are you satisfied they are as strong as the basic design with the thicker main hoop", the answer is probably "yes". Will MSNZ accept that and the answer is "no" they won't.

We are all repeating ourselves but until someone with an engineering qualification can post a test result on the approved cages as a benchmark, with the old hoop material and also the new hoop material, then we are going nowhere and we have insufficient facts on which to mount a proper case. When we have that, we need to ensure the rules for a freeform are that the cage must equal or beat those results to gain homologation. How difficult is that?

It seems that there is a reluctance by the Technical Department to apply a degree of common sense in what is still a transitional period, and is no more than approving a structure that already exists legally in 100's of cars, or as in Dave's case, is made out of stronger material. What harm is there in that? Who does it adversely affect? As has been pointed out previously, how come MSNZ are telling us to remove cages to conform?

As you know Ray, we have already discussed this privately two weekends ago. You were to email me the original request.
The process has been started as of last Thursday

[Bruce Sollitt]

It wasn't my intention that either of you cover old ground but, rather, fill in a couple of blanks so there's no jumping to wrongful conclusions.

There's a lot of rocks being thrown at MSNZ on this thread and, as a consequence we've seen an assertion by Crunch that "they don't have to do anything".
There's no doubt fault on both parts but there's no getting away from the fact that the reason you're in this predicament is your own failure to heed the time limit for old homologations despite a significant notified lead time.
A certain level of 'ownership' of the problem might go some way to securing the co-operation needed for resolution. I see that you have taken some in your latest postings.

There's been a number of unfortunate and outrageous statements made by various people, not the least being the suggestion that cages built to the standard MSNZ Sched. A designs are weak and/or will fail. That is nonsense. Surely the vast majority (shall we say ... almost all) cages employed in race and rally cars in NZ will be built to those specs and are tested in real life situations week in week out and prove perfectly adequate.

There's also been suggestions that "any cage is better than no cage". This is also not true as a poorly designed and built structure could, in some circumstances, be more dangerous than no structure at all. Hence the need for design rules.

That all said, and despite the onus on compliance falling with the competitor, it does seem remarkable that such a wide reaching and seriously impacting rule change could be enacted without MSNZ reviewing pending applications, and contacting and alerting those members affected.

If Ray's story is correct and his cage documentation was sighted and approved, with clearance given to paint the cage, surely there was an 'open' file somewhere that could/should have been accessed and acted upon.
Equally, if approval was issued or implied (presumably in writing) in 2006, it should be a simple matter to issue a homologation retrospectively.

Dave's case may be a little more tricky however it is not difficult to understand how a car builder could be estranged from the sport during the build time and not 'in the loop' when changes are notified.
It wouldn't be too difficult to write a strong justification for a derogation to homologate cages in cars that were genuinely caught up in this rule change, either to be presented to the Exec. for consideration or as a remit to conference which is only a few weeks away.
Any submission would, as I stated earlier, need to be supported by an indication of the size of the issue.

[Carlo]

Spot on Bruce, If the cage was constructed prior to the cut off date then I am sure there is a way but people do have to stop using a sledge hammer to open walnuts and keep red herrings right out of it otherwise it just becomes a pissing contest.

[crunch]

It wasn't my intention that either of you cover old ground but, rather, fill in a couple of blanks so there's no jumping to wrongful conclusions.

There's a lot of rocks being thrown at MSNZ on this thread and, as a consequence we've seen an assertion by Crunch that "they don't have to do anything".
There's no doubt fault on both parts but there's no getting away from the fact that the reason you're in this predicament is your own failure to heed the time limit for old homologations despite a significant notified lead time.
A certain level of 'ownership' of the problem might go some way to securing the co-operation needed for resolution. I see that you have taken some in your latest postings.

There's been a number of unfortunate and outrageous statements made by various people, not the least being the suggestion that cages built to the standard MSNZ Sched. A designs are weak and/or will fail. That is nonsense. Surely the vast majority (shall we say ... almost all) cages employed in race and rally cars in NZ will be built to those specs and are tested in real life situations week in week out and prove perfectly adequate.

There's also been suggestions that "any cage is better than no cage". This is also not true as a poorly designed and built structure could, in some circumstances, be more dangerous than no structure at all. Hence the need for design rules.

That all said, and despite the onus on compliance falling with the competitor, it does seem remarkable that such a wide reaching and seriously impacting rule change could be enacted without MSNZ reviewing pending applications, and contacting and alerting those members affected.

If Ray's story is correct and his cage documentation was sighted and approved, with clearance given to paint the cage, surely there was an 'open' file somewhere that could/should have been accessed and acted upon.
Equally, if approval was issued or implied (presumably in writing) in 2006, it should be a simple matter to issue a homologation retrospectively.

Dave's case may be a little more tricky however it is not difficult to understand how a car builder could be estranged from the sport during the build time and not 'in the loop' when changes are notified.
It wouldn't be too difficult to write a strong justification for a derogation to homologate cages in cars that were genuinely caught up in this rule change, either to be presented to the Exec. for consideration or as a remit to conference which is only a few weeks away.
Any submission would, as I stated earlier, need to be supported by an indication of the size of the issue.

No fault on MSNZ's part at all.
MSNZ tried to help by finding a way to get a cage homologated that was outside the application date. In retrospe ct, we shouldnt have bothered except when I read on this forum that Dave had missed the cut-off by 3 days and everyone on here was bagging MSNZ as pricks. In fact it was 1 year and 3 days late, but did anyone actually retract the negative statements?

[ERC]

Bruce. I have indeed taken ownership - up to a point. But you are still overlooking the fact that there are 100's of cages out there that are deemed OK to contine racing. The engineers are adamant that the MSNZ cage would not pass the test required of a freeform. Crunch is pushing this aspect for investigation. Just go back and look at the two cage designs I published earlier. Mine was built to the regulations, out of the appropriate material, with extra bars. To meet the test, just have another look at all the extra bars and tell me that it isn't over kill, just to make up for the new main hoop - especially the requirement for additional A pillar bars and also side intrusion bars, back and front, neither of which has any bearing on the strength of the main hoop.

At no time have I bagged MSNZ other than querying why the approved cage designs would not pass the free form test and what appears to me to be a lack of judgement/latitude/pragmatism, call it what you will. I have the email and pics sent in 2006 but the person who was dealing with it no longer works for MSNZ and the incumbents therefore seem to have no knowledge of it.

Passing a couple of cages caught in this trap is hardly going to rock the very foundations of the technical structure of NZ motorsport, hence the plea for pragmatism, which has not been forthcoming. If I applied the same attitude to entry into our own race grids, with zero pragmatism, our numbers would be halved...

The aim of MSNZ and our own group is to encourage drivers to compete, not find ways to make life difficult.

We all await the response and result of Crunch's request to have the designs tested by an independent authority.

The other point that needs to be accepted is that the cage tests do not take into account the method of attachment to the bodyshell, the inherent strength of the bodyshell nor the weight of the car. The tests are applied to the freestanding cage alone, so a strong structure such as an Austin 1800 landcrab for example, is ignored even though the oft cited 1300 Escort may be much weaker or a 3.8 Jag much heavier.

These are not modern cars running in a Sanctioned Series, they are cars built for fun and some occasional competition use and have cages built to a standard that is acceptable to all - except MSNZ's technical department. I could plead a variety of reasons for not being on the ball at the appropriate time but I won't, but I am angry that common sense doesn't seem to prevail.

Talking to a Formula Junior driver at the Hulme it was interesting to note the problems of trying to conform to various directives when running a car with a spaceframe chassis built of 1/2" tube. Would you drill 6mm holes to mount a fire extinguisher?... Running without a roll over structure is almost mandatory, so within motorsport, we have a vast array of machinery and issues but there are times when someone has to stand up and say "This isn't going to work in 100% of cases."

[Bruce Sollitt]

But you are still overlooking the fact that there are 100's of cages out there that are deemed OK to contine racing.

No, I'm not overlooking that fact at all. Indeed it is strong justification for allowing the cage in it's present form. I have previously stated as much.

To meet the test, just have another look at all the extra bars and tell me that it isn't over kill,

Absolutely overkill Ray, and quite ridiculous.

Passing a couple of cages caught in this trap is hardly going to rock the very foundations of the technical structure of NZ motorsport, hence the plea for pragmatism, which has not been forthcoming. ...The aim of MSNZ and our own group is to encourage drivers to compete, not find ways to make life difficult.

Absolutely. Which is why, if you read my posts, you will see that I believe the sport has an obligation to sort this issue in such a manner that enables your participation without unnecessary cost or aggravation. I've offered a suggestion. How you proceed is up to you.

[ERC]

Part of the problem now is timing. The LVVTA inspector needs the cage homologation with an authority card before he can complete his side of the process. Differing advice suggests that if the cage is hidden, it doesn't exist, but the certifier knows it is there and is not going to compromise his reputation, unless he is 100% sure that he is in no way liable for ignoring it. When he has done his final inspection, I then have to wait whilst the LVVTA committee examines the crack test reports, suspension drawings and debates those at their monthly meeting, before it can be issued with the plate and then go for compliancing.

Although a remit at conference "only a few weeks away" (May!!!) may or may not have the desired effect, it would speed things up considerably if MSNZ could just pass it! I suspect I would need yet another engineer's report (I only have the drawing so far) or a different report stating what the structural strength actually is rather, than what MSNZ desires.

All I know is that after over 8 years of hard work and trusting recognised people in the trade to carry out the major work to the required standard, changes to regulations throughout have meant constant changes (all at my expense of course) and in some cases, having to get the job done three times at considerable expense, and it is somewhat disheartening at times to keep going, but so much money, time and effort has been expended, that I can't really stop now!

I thank you for the support and I am putting my faith in Crunch's submission to the technical department, but not holding my breath.

[ERC]

It has gone strangely quiet... Meanwhile, I still can't get the car on the road.

The certifier failed to turn up at the agreed time last Tuesday, to check on the other work that was required has been done and to discuss the implications of hiding the cage. No call to advise and no contact since the appointment. The other certifier I contacted well before Christmas as I was going to have to shift the car to a different area, has failed to respond to three messages left on his voicemail.

The lack of professionalism and also lack of consideration in this saga from several people, is in my mind, a total disgrace. From professionals who take on the work and only spend 40 hours in a calendar year; those who purport to design and build suspension systems - but don't even understand weight transfer and roll centres; who cost me thousands for things that do not even work; to an organisation who says "go ahead and paint the cage, it all looks OK" then changes the rules - but can't (or won't) find any trace of the permission; or who set test standards for free form cages so far out of kilter with their own approved designs, who don't respond to emailed requests and can't recognise a special case; to those who either don't respond or don't turn up, shame on you.

[crunch]

It has gone strangely quiet... Meanwhile, I still can't get the car on the road.

The certifier failed to turn up at the agreed time last Tuesday, to check on the other work that was required has been done and to discuss the implications of hiding the cage. No call to advise and no contact since the appointment. The other certifier I contacted well before Christmas as I was going to have to shift the car to a different area, has failed to respond to three messages left on his voicemail.

The lack of professionalism and also lack of consideration in this saga from several people, is in my mind, a total disgrace. From professionals who take on the work and only spend 40 hours in a calendar year; those who purport to design and build suspension systems - but don't even understand weight transfer and roll centres; who cost me thousands for things that do not even work; to an organisation who says "go ahead and paint the cage, it all looks OK" then changes the rules - but can't (or won't) find any trace of the permission; or who set test standards for free form cages so far out of kilter with their own approved designs, who don't respond to emailed requests and can't recognise a special case; to those who either don't respond or don't turn up, shame on you.

Exec meeting this weekend Ray where I have put your suggestion regarding the sport testing two of it's designs (drawings in Schedule A) to an Engineers test to see if they do stack up.
Also I am assuming it will instigate a long discussion on rollcages as the Technical Manager will be in attendance.

[ERC]

Thanks Crunch. It also needs to be emphasised very strongly that this is an OPTIONAL piece of safety equipment in this instance. I still struggle to come to terms with the assertion that according to Land Transport or whatever they are these days, and possibly even MSNZ, that by putting in any form of roll protection, any car is magically transformed into a racing car. Adding a cage that conforms/conformed to an approved NZ standard should surely be encouraged? There is no way in the world that this car or 95% of all other competition cars will ever compete abroad, so if it doesn't now stack up to overseas standards, so what?

The test results need to be published for the 38mm main hoop and well as for the current 44mm hoop, so that we can see what the differences really are and then what needs adjusting in the test requirements, for parity. I fear that it will all now be too late for me though as I can't afford to wait any longer and will probably have to take the cutting disc to separate the hoop from the front cage, thus making it legal immediately - or so I am told, but opinions seem to differ and therein lies other problems.

With further impending delays whilst the LVVTA committee meets to examine the paperwork and suspension drawings, before issuing the plate, I can't see it finished and legal quickly anyway, as they only meet once a month and if your paperwork is down their list and they are busy, it gets carried over yet another month... but none of it can proceed without the authority card and homologated or removed cage, as this is step one on the procedure and steps are 100% sequential and cannot be concurrent and each step isn't exactly a 24 hour or even a 7 day turnaround.

I look forward to your email after the meeting Crunch, to see how you went, as you have already raised it in the Historic Commission report so the technical department should already have got the ball moving. A date needs to be set for this to be done, otherwise it is one of those items that will be at the bottom of the pile, as in truth, it probably doesn't affect too many people right now, only those trapped in a transitional, long rebuild/restoration, or with older cars that they'd like to race, but don't comply. I wonder how many of them are lurking in sheds awaiting a wake up call? Quite a few, so I have heard.

What irks me more than anything though Crunch, is that as an organisation, MSNZ had already given me the go ahead to proceed with painting. Whether the final paperwork was lodged in time or or not, is really not the major point.

I was recently talking to a newly graduated engineer, "Last week" he stated proudly, "I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one!"

[Carlo]

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/ru...001-index.html

This might give some insight as to where roll cages fit into the world of a car that is to be registered, warranted and driven on the roads of NZ.

[markec]

In Post 45 Crunch states, Quote:1. Yes Dave; I do have that email. Thanks for giving me the exact reference.
2. Dave; I was never a civil servant as you imply. I was an Electron Microscopist who worked for the Govt and private industry simultaneously. Not an office body faceless entity beaurocrat as you are trying to imply.
3. I have given you the easiest option, out of this that will get you your roll protection. Maybe you should have been more on the ball a year beforehand so we didnt have to find a "backdoor way" of getting you a solution. That can still be used if you wish.
4. Sitting on file in the MSNZ office are FEA reports that do test the structures. I am informed they are correct. This was confirmed by local and overseas sources.
4. Frankly; it's your choice what you do, to say I dont really care would be a bit harsh, but I'm over it.

"4. Sitting on file in the MSNZ office are FEA reports that do test the structures. I am informed they are correct. This was confirmed by local and overseas sources."

So it has been stated that MSNZ already have the test results of their roll cage designs on file, so why does it have to be brought up at an executive meeting:

Post 77,"Exec meeting this weekend Ray where I have put your suggestion regarding the sport testing two of it's designs (drawings in Schedule A) to an Engineers test to see if they do stack up.
Also I am assuming it will instigate a long discussion on rollcages as the Technical Manager will be in attendance."

Is this just more camaflage and time wasting,are there any test results on record?, if so there will be no need to retest.If there are no test records, that would indicate that a lot of hot air has been blown,also competators are being asked to install cages that models of have not been tested.
We are getting into dangerous ground now if no testing has taken place.