MSA Rule changes - another cock-up?

[JohnD]

All,
Just received my copy of "Motorsports NOW!" for Spring 2008.
It includes the usual 'Rule Changes' article, and as usual they have slipped in a nice little earner for the FIA.

P.46 Bottom right
"Common Regs for competitors" In yellow as this is a proposed change, to be implemented 1/1/09 after ratification by the Council in June.
You can read it for yourself, but it means that most racers and hillclimbers, as well as the other disciplines, will have to have a dry-break, fuel sampling port next to their carb or injection unit. AND have the necessary coupling with hose at all times. AND have enough fuel in the tank for samples to be taken.

Same page, top left, stipulates that three, one litre samples shall be taken for analysis. So you can't run your tank less than three litres dry. This is 'immediate'.

"Road going production classes" are exempt, but I know that many race cars are not MoT compliant, so cannot argue that they are 'road going'. I've had a quick scan to find the price of an FIA approved dry break coupling, and Demon Tweeks sell them for £216.75 PLUS VAT (£255).

The MSA gives a reason for this, "Grounds of safety, to reduce risk whilst fuel samples are taken" Not that fuel samples are ever taken in many events.

It looks like the MSA has been goosed by the FIA and has gone off, again, at half cock, as it were. "Final wording to be ratified at the June Council meeting," so I suggest that as many licence holders as possible write to the MSA Council asap, to protest and ask that this be modified, so that it applies only where it is necessary.

The Chairman of the Committee of the MSA is Graham Stoker.
The Chairman of the Race committee is Robin Knight (also 750MC Sec, and a very sensible man).
The Hill Climb sub-committee chair is Simon Durling.
I suggest a copy to the Chief Exec. Colin Hilton, as well.

Quote your Licence No. to make clear you are a participating member.
Address the letters to these gentlemen at:
The Motor Sports Association
Motor Sports House
Riverside Park
Colnbrook
SL3 0HG

Hope for luck! It worked last time, over the fog lights!

John

[terence]

Not before some of us bought one though!

[Tim Falce]

Another letter to join the "change the 50% rule letter", anything else before I put digits to keyboard?

[JohnD]

Excuse my ignorance - 50%??
Or was that one to Mr.Darling?

John

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by JohnD

Excuse my ignorance - 50%??
Or was that one to Mr.Darling?

John

Sorry, it's to do with races being abandoned by CoCs if they are stopped after 50% or more is completed. More in this thread and others.

[DaveGT6]

Hi John,

Interesting development on the dry break fuel sampling port as the instructions I have received for each event this year have stated that fuel sampling may take place. So what/who has instigated the sampling requirement and is the dry break development a reaction to this demand to ensure safety or are the two hand in hand?

Why do we need fuel tests at club level any way? Who is going to bear the cost of the analysis and what is it going to prove - we only race for tin plate cups or plastic trinkets any way!

[scrutineer]

Not sure cock up is the right wording. However I will point out that the changes that you are talking about have come from issues raised by drivers/teams.
A number of times teams have refused to supply fuel samples due to safety reasons (obviously nothing to hide) therefore this is the MSA response. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
As for the 3 litres bit that was in the blue book in 2007 so guess when they moved it around this year they missed it out. So where is the problem?

[JimW]

The rally people used the lack of a dry break coupling to refuse to have fuel samples taken last year on grounds of "safety". It was patently obvious that many of them were breaking the "pump fuel" rules and this was their way of trying to escape being caught.

So cheats have forced this on you all.

That's the simple position.

Regards

Jim

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

So where is the problem?

The problem is the half a week's wages to buy that bit of kit added to the week's wages to buy a HANS device for probably 2009/10 added to the half day's wages to buy a new fog light next year added to the anything up to a week or mores wages to enter a race that we have no guarantee of running the full length.
All these little "What's the problem" scenarios are all well and good when you are forcing the ordinary man to shell out more and more money for no good reason. I've never had a fuel test in 8 years of racing and if anyone wanted to test it they could take it straight out of my jerry can before I pour it in the tank.

[IAN #51]

Originally Posted by falcemob

The problem is the half a week's wages to buy that bit of kit added to the week's wages to buy a HANS device for probably 2009/10 added to the half day's wages to buy a new fog light next year added to the anything up to a week or mores wages to enter a race that we have no guarantee of running the full length.
All these little "What's the problem" scenarios are all well and good when you are forcing the ordinary man to shell out more and more money for no good reason. I've never had a fuel test in 8 years of racing and if anyone wanted to test it they could take it straight out of my jerry can before I pour it in the tank.

Hear Hear just what i was thinking ! it just boils down to the average club racer having to bend over and take it off the MSA again.

Ian

[midgetman]

>>>>>>>>>Same page, top left, stipulates that three, one litre samples shall be taken for analysis.

With petrol prices as they are, take enough fuel samples and the whole scrutineering team can get home for free after a race

And if we all turn up at the first race without the sampling unit? Chuck us all out and give the paying spectators nothing to watch? Hmm, circuit owners will love giving back their admission fee...perhaps militancy has its place.

How to attract more drivers into circuit racing? Charge 'em £255 for something that will never be used. Good thinking lads!

Still, look on the bright side, looks like I can become a dry break valve stockist and earn enough money to buy my own.

[JohnD]

Thank you, DaveGT6 and falcemob, I should have pointed out that at club racing level, fuel samples are NEVER taken, in my experinece at least. If it will not be used, this expensive gadget will have NO safety benefits.

IMHO, this should only apply where the championship regs provide for fuel testing.

John

[midgetman]

Got more outraged about this as I had breakfast. Need to rant or I'll go pop.

>>>>>>A number of times teams have refused to supply fuel samples due to safety reasons (obviously nothing to hide) therefore this is the MSA response. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Talk about the MSA over-reacting more like. This is because they couldn't police their rules effectively and we're suffering for their inefficiency.

How about mandating that if a valve is not fitted, cars remain in parc ferme until it is safe to remove fuel from the system for testing? How about simply mandating that it is the responsibility of the driver to provide fuel when requested, on pain of exclusion. Both equally effective, neither cost money.

Actually, I read about the furore last year. A couple of exclusions would have cured it. Just because the MSA is too pusillanimous to enforce its own regs, we have to suffer.

Exit Max stomping away muttering angrily about being screwed again.

[DaveGT6]

Um, I'd just like to point out before we all go apoplectic that the rule change relating to the dry break joint is in Secion H, Appendix 2 - in other words it is applicable to Rallying NOT Circuit Racing.

Take a deep breath and..calm.

[Mr.Jingles]

Another issue...

Did anyone else see the red (ratified, no need for consultation as it's for safety) edit around changing the minimum lead period before the introduction of new rules? It used to be at least 6 months between rule changes being proposed and being inforced (12 months for technical rules) now it is 'normally' (or something to that effect).

This means they could potentially drop a technical rule change in in december and have it in effect for the next month - not right surely?

There was already an exception made to the above for safety before the edit - so how did this get passed as ratified without consultation FOR SAFETY?

[scrutineer]

Originally Posted by DaveGT6

Um, I'd just like to point out before we all go apoplectic that the rule change relating to the dry break joint is in Secion H, Appendix 2 - in other words it is applicable to Rallying NOT Circuit Racing.

Take a deep breath and..calm.

So what we are saying is that this whole thread is moaning about at item that will not effect any of the people posting and is not bringing any new rules into circuit racing. Glad at least someone has read it properly before jumping on the MSA bashing train.

[JohnD]

Dave, get your BP up again and read the MspNOW item.

"With the exception of cars of periods A-F [1965 and before] and those competing in road-going production classes, cars competing in Rallycross, Car Racing, Special Stage Rallying, Sprints & Hill Climbs must be equipped......"


It's blanket cover, everything but drag racing, historics and very production classes, as it now reads.

As I said before, I think, we should ask that it only be implemented where the Series regs provide for fuel testing, AND where fuel testing is done. What club series does this?

John

[Tim Falce]

Is there a link to this on the MSA site? I looked this morning and couldn't find anything. As my MS Now has not arrived I will wait until I read it before taking it further.

[JohnD]

There is, falcemob, but the MSA haven't been *rs*d to get the latest copy on the site. There's only the Winter 07 edition at http://www.msauk.org/site/cms/conten...2&category=797

[Tim Falce]

The rule changes in the winter 07 edition are specific to rallying, is the spring 08 one different?

[Stuart H]

As I race in stock hatch our regs state that each driver must have 3 liters in the tank after the race for testing.
How ever as I'm in my second year of racing as well (doing the odd event when my bank balance allows) I've never been tested at all!

[Simon S]

saw this in the newsletter...

must say I agree it's yet another total over-reaction by MSA....

in the 12 years I have been racing, *never* ever seen a fuel sample taken form *any* car, right from club stuff though to GT...

I remeber a few years back, 750 getting all holier than thou about fuel going on how they would be taking samples etc, supprise supprise, they never actually did anything of the sort... (you any idea what it costs to actually have fuel testing done? - hint, it's in the hundereds).

[scrutineer]

Originally Posted by Simon S

in the 12 years I have been racing, *never* ever seen a fuel sample taken form *any* car, right from club stuff though to GT...

Fuel testing is very common in GT's F3's BTCC ect, in fact they have there own fuel test machine at each round, it is operated by the fuel supplier. Although you wont always (probably never) see it as it happens in parc ferme (including the testing).
The problem with testing at club level is 'who will pay' the club wants a level playing field but are not normally willing to pay for the testing, competitors can protest someones fuel but as you all know you have to put the cash down (you get it back if your right as I understand). At the end of the day it is the easiest way of cheating with the lowest risk. Maybe this new requirement is a sign that fuel testing will become more common in years to come.

[MGDavid]

thank goodness both my MGs are '65 or earlier.
The other solution is to only race sur la continent where a more relaxed and sensible attitude seems to prevail.....

[DaveGT6]

Originally Posted by JohnD

Dave, get your BP up again and read the MspNOW item.

"With the exception of cars of periods A-F [1965 and before] and those competing in road-going production classes, cars competing in Rallycross, Car Racing, Special Stage Rallying, Sprints & Hill Climbs must be equipped......"


John

Oh b****r you're right, I didn't read it properly! Ah well that's another good reason to buy that nice FiA car I have my eye on!