|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
26 Feb 2018, 11:20 (Ref:3804010) | #1 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 100
|
Scruitineering of Roll Cages - a change in interpretation by the MSA
This is a word of warning following my experience at VSCC Pom at Silverstone this weekend. I was in an ex Kuhmo Cup E36 M3 that has done over 200 races, so it is a car that has been checked once or twice in the past.
Anyway, within the last few weeks it seems the MSA have issued a "clarification" to the scruits about roll cage mounting of the main hoop and front stays to the floor. They are insisting on a foot welded to the main tube that is then welded to a reinforcing plate welded to the floor. It has been practice for many car builders to build a "box" for the cage to sit on about 6" high up from the floor for increased strength. What the scruits are now saying is that it is unacceptable for the main tube to be welded to the top of the "box", instead there must be a foot on the tube welded to the top of the box. There is no specification for the size of the foot, so in theory it could be the diameter of the tube, but in practice you may get rejected for that. The alternative is to have a reinforcing plate under the box. If in doubt read this http://www.awmmc.org.uk/images/infor...crutineers.pdf |
|
|
26 Feb 2018, 16:39 (Ref:3804093) | #2 | |
Registered User
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
|
If the enforce this they are going to have 99% of cars failing scrutineering imo. I've never seen a fully welded-in cage (bolt-in yes) with a separate foot like that and a quick look at the instruction videos/documents for the major players in the market don't show any either.
|
|
|
27 Feb 2018, 15:17 (Ref:3804301) | #3 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 53
|
Thanks for the information, can anyone suggest any benefit from compliance with this clarification or is it simply yet another ill-considered missive from the MSA which will be retracted a few weeks down the line?
|
||
|
27 Feb 2018, 15:34 (Ref:3804315) | #4 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,830
|
Think I’ve only got one welded in cage, but that car may be subject to questioning, reading the blurb. I’m certainly not rushing to modify anything, best to see what transpires. The car isn’t due to race this season anyway, so lucky there’s no pressure......
|
||
__________________
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. (Einstein) |
27 Feb 2018, 15:48 (Ref:3804322) | #5 | |
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 100
|
I spoke to one of the roll cage manufacturers today.
Their advise was do nothing for now. The cage manufacturers have all gone to the MSA and said you have got it wrong. It is said the MSA will issue an update, but no one there is prepared to sign off the change. Watch this space! |
|
|
27 Feb 2018, 16:06 (Ref:3804332) | #6 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 79
|
Bruce that sounds about right!
One has to ask why the MSA have suddenly looked at this issue, when cars have been scrutineered over and over again without issue. I cannot see an easy fix, except welding a plate on the outside of the car under each mounting, but I am not sure if that will comply. The bulletin form the MSA to scrutineers has not told them what would be an acceptable solution. Most welded in cages will have been fitted as the car is being built and there is no easy fix as far as I can see. Some competitors I know are already talking about jacking it in. More bureaucracy and more cost to the competitor. Then there is the fire extinguishers............! I believe this will affect most race and rally competitors with welded in cages. |
||
|
27 Feb 2018, 16:54 (Ref:3804348) | #7 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 73
|
"Some competitors I know are already talking about jacking it in. More bureaucracy and more cost to the competitor."
Its not just existing competitors that are affected, it also puts off prospective new competitors. How many ROPS failures have there been that the "feet" would have prevented? |
|
|
28 Feb 2018, 08:05 (Ref:3804482) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 520
|
This is the issue that concerns me, why are the discussions being taken, and on what basis? Why is the rank and file competitor not being consulted, as far as I am aware even scrutineers have not been asked, so why the seemingly constant tinkering with regulations that seem to have been working well up to now? I would make the point that this is not specifically a historic issue, as in theory it could affect every type of car that has had a roll cage fitted.
Also, what would adding a plate under the shell do? How on earth does that better serve the structure than a box welded over many inches so as to feed the load into both side and bottom of the shell structure? Very odd. Last edited by Simon Hadfield; 28 Feb 2018 at 08:34. |
|
|
28 Feb 2018, 09:14 (Ref:3804498) | #9 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 79
|
Is this anything to do with Safety Devices having a go at the MSA for some reason?
|
||
|
28 Feb 2018, 09:19 (Ref:3804500) | #10 | ||
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,830
|
Totally agree with Simon. Let's hope that the cage manufacturers can get the MSA to see some sense......
|
||
__________________
Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. (Einstein) |
3 Mar 2018, 18:16 (Ref:3805494) | #11 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,984
|
The MSA have had to issue a clarification about fire extinguishers, essentially changing the interpretation of the regs isued just a few weeks ago, and now they are having to re- examine their recent interpretation of the ROPS regs because the manufacturers have told them they are wrong.
You could not make this up. Confusion reins. Have the MSA not heard of consultation? I hope that David Richards can get a grip on this. |
||
__________________
Born in the Midlands, made in the Royal Navy |
3 Mar 2018, 22:28 (Ref:3805542) | #12 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 79
|
So the interpretation on fire extinguishers is .........?
I have not seen anything yet. |
||
|
4 Mar 2018, 05:45 (Ref:3805625) | #13 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,984
|
Quote:
Dear Andy, There is no maximum life for an extinguisher in either MSA or FIA regulations. Some manufacturers will give their systems a maximum serviceable life but this is a commercial decision for that manufacturer. A non-FIA homologated system can be serviced by any suitably qualified person, however we would recommend that the manufacturers service schedule is followed. Best Regards Michael cid:image001.png@01D1DFA5.A18EE730 Technical Department Motor Sports Association, Riverside Park, Colnbrook, SL3 0HG T: +44 (0)1753 765000 | technical@msauk.org cid:image008.jpg@01CE62D5.D4FE8850@msauk cid:image009.jpg@01CE62D5.D4FE8850/msauk | www.msauk.org The Royal Automobile Club Motor Sports Association Limited, trading as Motor Sports Association. Registered in England and Wales 1344829. For full email disclaimer, please click here. From: Andy Sent: 12 February 2018 16:57 To: Technical <Technical@msauk.org> Subject: Fwd: Fire Extinguisher Servicing Good Morning The recent regulation change regarding fire extinguisher servicing states that extinguishers are to be serviced in accordance with manufacturers guidelines. Some manufacturers have decreed that they will not service extinguishers that are 10 years old. Please can you tell me categorically whether this is an absolute rule, that extinguishers are now lifed to 10 years from date of manufacture and then have to be discarded or whether it is possible to get an extinguisher serviced by a qualified and competent Fire Extinguisher engineer and still be useable (albeit none homologated) even if it is over 10 years old, as long as it passes the test and service regime. Thank you Andy |
|||
__________________
Born in the Midlands, made in the Royal Navy |
8 Mar 2018, 12:28 (Ref:3806836) | #14 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 79
|
MSA told scrutineers to take no action (unless clearly poor workmanship) until advised. No idea how this mess will be sorted out but at least scrutineers now covered!
Quote from an un-named source! Colin |
||
|
5 Apr 2018, 10:45 (Ref:3812960) | #15 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 73
|
Did this get clarified? We will be fitting a Cortina cage in the near future and would like to avoid any hassle.
|
|
|
7 Apr 2018, 08:39 (Ref:3813509) | #16 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 100
|
Quote:
If you are about to install a cage, then it would be worth studying the original MSA Bulletin to ensure what you make will be OK regardless of what they decide. Of course some manufacturers (who I tend to agree with) are saying that the fixing of the foot adds more heat into the tube and actually reduces the strength of the cage. Best of luck |
||
|
1 May 2018, 16:05 (Ref:3818696) | #17 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 677
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
19 May 2018, 00:09 (Ref:3823324) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 826
|
I think I know what I'd be doing if I had a weld-in cage affected by this ruling: cut some new mounting feet as per the new rule, slightly smaller than the existing ones attached to the car's shell before the cage was welded in. Then, cut holes in them to match the diameter of the weld at the foot of each cage tube. Next, cut them in half lengthways, place them around the bottom of the cage tube and weld them in-situ, to both the bottom of the tube (over the existing weld) and to the existing reinforcement plate. Grind flush the welds that you made over the lengthways cuts, and then you have, to all intents and purposes, feet attached to the bottom of each cage mounting. As you made these smaller than the existing plates on the shell, then it will be obvious to anyone inspecting it that you now have the 'plate welded to a plate' as per the new rules.
It's barmy to have to do this, and it won't make one iota of difference to the strength of your cage, but it will get you through scrutineering without: (A) having to buy a complete new cage or; (B) having to cut out your existing cage just to add pointless feet to it! I wouldn't advocate cutting corners where safety is involved, but when there's an ill-thought out regulation such as this, imposed on us by people who clearly don't understand that what they're proposing won't add anything useful to the existing arrangement, then I don't have a problem with doing whatever's necessary to pacify them, if that's what it's going to take to allow me to keep racing something that I know is safe already. Just a thought... |
||
__________________
"Light travels faster than sound - that's why, at first, some people appear bright... until you hear them speak!" |
4 Jul 2018, 10:49 (Ref:3834581) | #19 | |
Rookie
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
|
Common sense prevails, in short:
|
|
|
5 Jul 2018, 10:54 (Ref:3834784) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,032
|
However I'm not convinced that this paragraph actually makes sense:
Each leg of a main, lateral or front rollbar must be attached via a mounting foot,by at least three bolts, minimum M8 ISO grade 8.8 and utilising a steel reinforcement plate of a material of at least the same thickness as the wall of the tube to which it is being welded (minimum 3mm) and of at least 120cm2 area which is welded to the bodyshell (see drawings K13 to K18). The mounting foot or leg may alternatively be welded directly to the bodyshell/reinforcement plate in accordance with drawing K13. It seems to say that the plate must be welded to the tube and also that it must be welded to the shell. I'm fairly sure I know what they mean, but don't think they actually say what they mean...... |
||
__________________
Richard Murtha: You don't stop racing because you are too old, you get old when you stop racing! But its looking increasingly likely that I've stopped.....have to go back to rallying ;) |
5 Jul 2018, 11:42 (Ref:3834797) | #21 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,279
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interpretation of MSA rule change to (J)5.2.6 | Alex Hodgkinson | Racing Technology | 1 | 24 Mar 2011 08:14 |
Roll center and CofG...rate of roll or force of roll | meb | Racing Technology | 27 | 16 Jan 2007 14:27 |
Roll Cages | Stephen Green | Marshals Forum | 53 | 25 Oct 2002 11:57 |
Roll cages | zefarelly | Racing Technology | 2 | 19 Aug 2002 13:24 |