Originally Posted by John McKechnie
I know nothing about the car or driver.
Perhaps David could shed some light on who he is.
I know nothing about the car or driver.
Perhaps David could shed some light on who he is.
And besides that, it would be plain stupidity, which is why it has never even been discussed
I see in the current rules that if a car has an existing rollbar/half cage then it can't be altered into a full cage as the change to full is treated as a new application/homologation. So if the half cage has the older regulation main hoop size it all has to come out is that correct?
Sadly that is the case Dale. However, it doesn't alter the fact that a cage built to the regs at the time and maybe pre paint pics sighted by MSNZ, should not be failed JUST because a piece of paper wasn't filed in time. That is the bureaucratic stance rather than the practicality stance, hence the discussion.
Those who build cages for a living or even modify cars for a living are more up to date with the requirements than those of us who hand over their cars to experts for the work to be done. Cage builders may well NOW realise that they should submit the paperwork as soon as the cage is complete, but long term builds can slip through the cracks all too easily.
Off topic, but trying to get a road car through the LVVTA certification AFTER the extensive work has been done is far more fraught with problems than applying in advance and gaining prior approval. None of the people who were involved with my car were aware of the LVVTA bible - "The Hobby Car Manual" when they did the work. It is only when you get to the certification stage that you find out what SHOULD have been done years ago and trying to conform is then a slow, very costly process.
The point is that LVVTA, having given approval to proceed, won't back out of their decisions if/when the rules change and therein lies the fundamental difference between them and MSNZ. LVVTA rules have changed more often than MSNZ rules, so just as with cages, you can get two apparently similar cars side by side with major differences, dependent on when they were certified.
Its a tough analogy , but there is a proverb here to cover lack of speed in finishing a project -if you snooze, you lose.
Its also tough when you put family care and family health care costs before projects - as you should of course, but the delays and consequent problems escalate...
Its always tough when we realize we arent Methuselah, and there is only a finite life time to get these projects done in.
Last edited by John McKechnie; 03-30-2013 at 12:32 AM.
No. As long as your half cage was homologated before the infamous cut-off date, you are fine. If you do add to it or change, it is treated as a new cage and will have to conform to the new specs.
That is what I thought - which is why I now have 2 cars one with a 1/2 cage with the old sizing and one with a full cage with the new sizing both homologated. I did not want to cut out my 1/2 cage to go to a full cage ie add to it or change it and I knew of another car with a full cage that was for sale.....however it too had the full cage build before the change over without going through the homologation process. In this case the cars owner at the time insisted the large hoop size be included as he might take the car to Australia who already had the large main hoop size. But the car had been painted along with the cage - so I had to strip the paint from the cage so I could get the photos done for the homologation process - the cage builder lost the unpainted photos when his computer crashed a few years back - but had all the other paper work ready for me - I would not have purchased the car if the main hoop was the old size. I was lucky in this case - unlike others.
Don't you find it a bit odd that you have to remove the paint and take a photograph, then someone can assses the quality of the weld and cage build from a pic, yet a local cage builder/scrutineer/engineer is not considered capable of making that judgement, by examining the car/cage?
We rely on scrutineer's to audit all cars before competing, but we can't trust them to pass judgement on a piece of OPTIONAL safety equipment?
[QUOTE=Kiwiboss;26511]Rod, if he didn't file the paperwork for Rollcage/logbook application at the time of the rollcage been built then HE is at fault and can blame NO one!!!(that's if this is the case?)
Dale M[/QUOTE
Point taken Dale.
But most of these guys who are weekend car boys and don't do it for a living and have no law degree to not know this. I think most people believe that when they finish the car they will finish the paper Work ( bit like going to the toilet, you don't wipe up half way through, but this stuff doesn't wipe off) This will be another nice car that won't go anywhere because as he said, can't get a warrant until he has MSNZ paper work. This is another thing that needs addressing, with LVVTA.
Any way he is still positive and hopes to sort it out with MSNZ.
There is more to the letter as well but later for that if need be.
PS just read other post's, John fella, not everyone has the time or backing to build a car in a month, some work then do abit, more work buy some bits, more work do some more, get crook, come right and work some more and get back into their toy and buy more bits, etc etc. Finally Mum is happy that he has finally finished making all that noise under the house and she thinks its all finished because it has this nice paint on it. Poor mum, she finds her elder boy all upset after reading a letter. They deserve Mothers day, this year she may get a set of new wheels, (if car can have paper work)
Theres more to it than 'just build, do paper work, turn up and run)
Last edited by Rod Grimwood; 03-30-2013 at 10:07 PM.
Ray your point is valid, and I did have the option of getting someone from WGTN up to Auckland (at my cost or shared cost if others were doing the same) to inspect the cage with the paint on. However in my case I don't have a lot of spare $$ for such expense and with 3 young kids and single income I try to spend my hobby $$ carefully. I do however have a retired father who has time on his hands, so it was take the paint off option that was chosen, Dad did most/all of the stripping and then painting once the homologation process was complete.
Rod- my point was only that roll cage, paperwork and homologation are THE most important part.
NEVER be allowed as a race car without that magic sticker.
It was pointed out to me by everybody at the beginning, DONT let it run on, get that part finished and out of the way first-forget engines, gearbox, brakes etc.
I am glad I sought advice at the beginning, listened and followed that advice.
That more than anything else let me meet my deadline.
Last edited by John McKechnie; 03-30-2013 at 10:53 PM.
i have a car sitting in a shed for the last year or so .My problem is I can buy an FIA approved bolt in chrome moly half cage but do I bother ?I can drive my car on the road with the half cage without extra paper work but try and use it at our local track ivd been led to believe it wont happen Im not interested in full on racing just a few bent sprints and maybe flying laps etc .......What to do ................
Fair enough John, agree with everything you say, but this fella did not know about this, and has plodded along by himself with the car over a few years, not really wanting to annoy people or talking to people who would have directed him in right direction. He bought the rolling shell just after it had the cage fitted (to regs at that time) as he had some parts and wanted to build a tribute/race car out of them. (same colour as your Falcon but has 4 doors)
He will hopefully get there after he has tidied up the paper work (which he will get assistance with) and sense pervails.
PS Question for you fabricators; Does anyone have problem with pipes showing fine/very fine surface rust after they have handled it and welded it. Believe this is common.
When finished is it alright to clean it off, treat it, undercoat it and then paint it. (it hasn't sat for long, like 3-4 days and cleaned of like new)
A half cage or no cage should be OK for bent sprints and even some racing. I have run the Marcos for the last 22 years with either no cage; a half rear cage; or a half rear cage with one bolt in diagonal from the top of the hoop to the side of the spaceframe chassis on the passenger side of the transmission tunnel.
If I were to ever return the car to the road again, unbolting the front bar is easy. However, as it was restored in 1993, no provision was ever made for lap and diagonal belts, with tubed, plated, threaded belt attachment points just behind my shoulders. The sad thing is that having done that, the car can't get an authority card again for road use, unless it is used at least twice per year in competition, so you have to have a logbook, even if all you are doing is a couple of bent sprints, or, you try and refit lap and diagonal belts. (One day, I will publish a picture of the legal mounting for the original belt mechanism...)
Whilst open two seaters such as Frasers, Cobra replicas, Lotus Sevens, etc can get an exemption card for full harness belts without an MSNZ authority card, a car with a lightweight GT fibreglass body attached to a spaceframe chassis, with no metal above neck-line, can't - because it has a roof...
Last edited by ERC; 03-31-2013 at 12:59 AM.
The whole thing is decrapadated and needs a big redress. What some one thinks is blue others think it is light green and so it goes on and on. At the end of the day, if it is a V8 supercar or NZ Championship class car, yea it will be/has to be right because it has just been built and is for serious stuff. But if it is a classic that has been restored or built for classic reasons/events, lets get real and re-approach the whole subject, for gods sake is it really that hard to be reasonable. A little communication in the right manor between those involved in the decision making and the poor bugger just wanting to have a bit of fun a couple of times a year goes a long way.
Remember he still pays to MSNZ in the end weather he races once or twenty times a year. (Licence ect)
(and I am not a stubborn bastard, you ask my mum)
When I was last actively racing in the mid 90's there was 2 cage rules as I recall. Those for schedule A and those for schedule AA. I return from a few years stint in Australia and there is now one set of cage rules? I understand there are needs for rules/regs to change over time to improve safety etc but are the classic cars that are/were built under schedule AA that much faster now aka at higher risk and therefore need a cage to schedule A standard?
Rules change, I get that, it was only a few years ago that the T&C rules stated that alternative material could be used if original was no longer available or hard to get ie fenders/guards so a car that once was T&C compliant (4 years ago under manual 33 or 34 IIRC) now it is not and original fenders/guards must be located. But is this what we want for out sport? Having cars in sheds not on the track?
Last edited by nzeder; 03-31-2013 at 02:19 AM.
Still is Schedule A and AA
yes I know that I have read the manual a number of times but my point was there used to be schedule AA cage regs and schedule A regs now in schedule AA it refers to schedule A IE 4.4(2)a.i
Anyway good to have this discussion in this forum so any muddy waters can be cleared. At the end of the day it is the car owner who needs to ensure the forms are completed and processed at the correct time. It is very sad that some were given incorrect advice be it 3rd party or others who should know better. Both my cars have log books and homologation for their cages even if they both are still in bits waiting for the owner to stop visiting websites and put them back together so photos can be taken and placed into the log books to make them complete. Then it will be COD time.
Last edited by nzeder; 03-31-2013 at 03:17 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote