Roll cages

[ERC]

Update: After a pleading email to the certifier, he arrived on the doorstep tonight.

The other stuff needed for LVVTA has now been OKayed but he is still not happy about the front cage, even though it is now boxed in and does not intrude into the passenger compartment. However, he now needs to seek further authority from above, to ignore its existence. Equally, as a scrutineeer, until that has been agreed or sorted, he can't sign off for the authority card for harness belts and FIA seats.

If he cannot get that cage ignore authority, then he has pointed out where the front cage can be removed, meaning all of the cage above the dash bar and forward of the main hoop, which seems to be on the cards at the moment.

[ERC]

It is looking increasingly likely that I will now need a back operation to fix the loss of use of my left hand, as a result of working in an awkward position for too long, on boxing in, or hiding the front cage. I am still awaiting feedback from the higher authorities at LVVTA to see if hiding it, so that my head can't hit it, is OK. Sadly, the loss of use of my left hand also means the loss of work where I am often required to carry out time studies, using a clipboard and stopwatch in my left hand. Work is maybe scarce, but I still need to be able to do it!

As I pointed out to Crunch in a private email, the ongoing effects of this rule change could never have been envisaged at the time, but it also raises an issue regarding classic motorsport.

If we are running cars over 20 years of age, then shouldn't the rules of the day be sufficient? In other words, changes to any technical rules to classic and historic cars are generally irrelevant. If someone wants to build a stronger cage, so be it, but for those with older cars that are in sheds because of rule changes that render them unable to compete without extensive modifications, should surely be allowed to compete if they want? How can some people adopt a purist attitude, then demand that an historic car is extensively modified just to conform to today's standards? A degree of hypocrisy?

Whilst we still have a commission (and I hope that we keep one), shouldn't they have the right to veto any changes from the race commission or technical department, as applied to classic/historic cars? I think the commission probably needs a bit more power than it currently has in this area.

[ERC]

Great news! The helpful guys at the LVVTA in conjunction with the certifier, believe the cage will add strength to a shell not designed the way modern cars are, and are therefore happy to treat this as an exception to their normal rules - as long as I remove the 'false ceiling', and allow it to stay.

LVVTA in a few days achieve what MSNZ are unwilling to do and the key word is 'unwilling' - which sums things up quite nicely.

[Horizon]

I've been following along this tread...but somewere along the way, I lost the Plot. Can you post some pics to show were you ran into trouble so other folk don,t make the same errors

[ERC]

Anyone building a cage today to MSNZ specs using the 44mm tube for the main hoop will not have a problem Horizon. It is those of us who started a project years ago and rules changed before the paperwork was lodged. Not a problem for too many people as most people don't take this long to complete a project!

The plot as you put it is convoluted when a cage NOT using 44mm tube or in any other way does not conform to a published MSNZ design, has to have an engineers report before MSNZ will pass it. Unfortunately, the test requirements for a so called freeform cage are so extreme, that it is our belief that even if the car was built to the MSNZ design, it would fail the tests demanded by the MSNZ technical department for the free form cage.

A cage however, does not have to be approved by MSNZ in all cases, but may come under the requirements of the low volume criteria for modified cars (LVVTA). If the certifier is not satisfied that it meets the LVVTA criteria then the car will not be allowed on the public road. In my case, the certifier successfully lobbied on my behalf, but I have to remove the 'false ceiling' that I built to hide the cage. "Can't see it, can't be there..."

If the cage is MSNZ homologated, then along with other items such as full harness belts, FIA seats etc, MSNZ issues an Authority card that is renewed annually along with your race/rally licence, provided the car has a log book that shows it has been used at least twice in competition, as full harness belts etc., are otherwise illegal in a NZ road car. (Don't ask me why - a government directive.)

There is a 20+ page document/form put out by LVVTA that is COMPULSORY at any stage of the modification/build process, whereby their committee meets once a month to process such applications and they may well reject any modification and will advise the builder what has to be done to comply, hopefully before work has not advanced too far. This has to be accompanied by a full set of working drawings for the front suspension where it has been modified from standard. (Mine has.)

Only when the committee has fully signed off these modifications and the certifier is happy that all is in order, can a LVVTA modifications plate be issued, that is then attached to the car before it goes either for compliancing for a new car or one where the registration has lapsed, or in the case of an existing road car, for a (WoF) Warrant of Fitness, then road registration.

From then on, at WoF time, the inspectors will refer to the LVVTA plate and if any further modifications have been carried out, they can and probably will fail the car. Equally, if stopped by the police, they too may insist on checking the car against the plate.

The 8 year build progresss of my own car is on one of my websites so if you want to see more, send me a PM and I'll send you the web address!

[Dave Silcock]

Great news Ray, but is this any closer to you being able to race it at any level other than club sport? Or have you, like me, given up on the Evil Empire and the Troglydites that inhabit it?

[ERC]

Our own series is not a problem Dave, because cages are not compulsory anyway. Compliancing are happy as long as the certifier is happy - which he now is, having gone to bat on my behalf. Once that plate is issued and the compliancer is happy, then normal WoF rules apply.

I see no problem with the regular scrutineer but he may want the "false ceiling" putting back in again! (A ten minute job.)

However, I keep coming back to the point that the cage was built to MSNZ regs before they changed and there are 100's of cars out there with a document that says their's are OK. They do not have to update them.

If the test requirements are changed to be more realistic, then there is no reason why homologation could not be achieved, but having now got this far (almost on the road and more than likely able to be raced if required) then quite frankly, why would I bother?

Without this thread degenerating, I foreseee major problems ahead between the licence holders - and particularly the classic set - and the governing body unless there is a rapid mindset change from some people.

Have you gone the LVVTA route Dave, out of interest, given the body shape of your car interior is not exactly a million miles from mine, or is yours not a road car?

[markec]

It has been brought to my attention,that a number of cars that raced in Europe in an FIA Controlled Series,were factory entered cars that had been homolagated and whose cages were passed as legal in Europe by the FIA,were not passed in NZ by MSNZ as their cages did not comply.
My understanding is that MSNZ is an organization who carry out various tasks that are issued by the FIA.It would now appear that those entrusted with carrying out those tasks, as per FIA's regulations are in fact regulating as per a set of rules and regulations dreamed up by those members of the MSNZ staff, who are enforcing NZ only regulations on the NZ licenenced competitors. This would not only be an illegal intrusion on the rights of all NZ competitors, but would controvene the FIA regulations.
There appears to be many of the actions of those involved with the MSNZ organization, starting to have a distinctly bad aroma, with many of the actions that have taken place to be boardering on probable litigation.
Contery to many peoples beliefs, I am not anti MSNZ,what I am anti, is the little (and Bigger) Hitlers who are damaging motorsport in this country by getting their ego's mixed up with common sense and decent logical desicion making. There also needs to be 100% more transparency as " whether those in the staff of MSNZ organization like it or not" the competitors are the members of MSNZ, the staff are the paid servants.
Mark Coulthard.
ChCh.

[crunch]

Specific examples Mark?
Or just more Chinese whispers...

If you are referring to the NASCAR trucks, that has been sorted as a positive, I am not aware of any other H&C cars that are genuine Schedule K that have been declined.

[markec]

I was referring to some BMW's and sorry not more chinese whispers, Fact.

[crunch]

Are these classic/historic BMW's?
I will follow up with the Tech Dept on Monday and report back.

[ERC]

I have responded to Dave Silcock privately. I now have an exposed non-homologated cage that presumably the LVVTA will now accept as OK for road use in my case. Dave raised the issue as whether or not his car would be eligible in our series. The answer to that is yes - but as the car is South island, sadly, it isn't going to happen.

The next issue now is that according to some scrutineers, if the cage is not visible nor able to be hit with your helmet, it doesn't actually exist. That is the tack I was going down and that means that once the car is on the road with a WoF and an LVVTA plate, you have a legal road car. Presumably racing any road car in such a guise is entirely up to a scrutineer or specific race entry rules.

However, if MSNZ's current stance is in anyway advanced so as to either make cages compulsory or to demand excessive additional bars to meet some weird test results, then the future for classic racing is indeed very grim indeed and it seems to be currently driven without that degree of common-sense and appreciation for history we all crave. "Allowing in period cars as long as photographic proof is furnished" but ignoring a car constructed to period rules is illogical.

Apart from the H & C commission, I think we need a statement from the very top of the MSNZ heirarchy as to where they see Classics & Historics fitting into NZ motorsport and how current, past and future technical regulations, should apply - or do they have zero interest in the sector?

[jamie]

Hi Guys this Isue scares the shit out of me as I am in the middle of rebuilding SID111 so with the present rules the role cage will have to be replaced .After trying to get the cage OK;d for the CONCEPT sevral years ago the then top tec steward did not know what A space frame was ??? Jamie A

[markec]

The BMW;s are former European Touring Car Championship Factory team cars, not all from the same team or year.

[John McKechnie]

Hi Guys this Isue scares the shit out of me as I am in the middle of rebuilding SID111 so with the present rules the role cage will have to be replaced .After trying to get the cage OK;d for the CONCEPT sevral years ago the then top tec steward did not know what A space frame was ??? Jamie A

Jaimie-can you send me a pm please.

[Carlo]

After trying to get the cage OK;d for the CONCEPT sevral years ago the then top tec steward did not know what A space frame was ??? Jamie A

Think you may be pleasantly surprised this time around Jamie for the current ones do. Then again, becasue they do .........??

[Carlo]

Just as an aside re the 2nd fire extingusher mounting strap. Yesterday I was stewarding a gravel hillclimb and as a result of a car hitting a bank and spining down the roadway the fire extingusher which I understand had been secured by the old single strap method plus a ziptie, detached its self and flew out of the drivers window which was open less than 150mm and then landed on the roadway some distance from the car. That extingusher had to get past the drivers head.

Think about it and realise that some of the changes to regulations regarding safety actually are for your own well being. Maybe in the past some of us have just been downright lucky.

[928]

Easily solved, do not have extinguishers in cars. Either a properly fitted,remote activated system, or no missiles in the car.e

[ERC]

Think about it and realise that some of the changes to regulations regarding safety actually are for your own well being. Maybe in the past some of us have just been downright lucky.

A fair comment, but how far do you go? It is called progress, but there is nothing worse than seeing a 1950's Connaught with an exterior roll cage!

I have long questioned the point of carrying a tiny extinguisher in a circuit car given that if fire erupts, it is either

a) too fierce to be controlled by a 1kg extinguisher anyway

b) our first thought is going to be to get out as soon as as humanely possible

c) hopefully within reach of a fire marshal - though I have major concerns there, as I do not consider them sufficiently well equipped to deal either.

Equally, there is no such thing as 100% safe motorsport.

Given that we now have over 100 years of motorsport history, we reached the law of diminishing returns years ago. Any changes to safety from about 10 years ago will have had an overall negligible effect on car safety and sadly, as we saw at Teretonga, we still get an occasional fatality.

As regards the incident mentioned, if the extinguisher was secured by a cable tie, how on earth did the driver expect to remove it to activate it?

[Jac Mac]

Perhaps they shouldnt have batterys either...or more zip ties!!
Deleted URL to utube, not allowed to access oh well at least he parked it close to the fire marshall!....Uh oh, looks like we are not allowed to upload that... go to youtube & seach under 'car crash at teretonga' uploaded by 'brodie racing'..