View Single Post
Old 19 May 2018, 00:09 (Ref:3823324)   #18
Paul D
Veteran
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
England
Southport, Merseyside
Posts: 821
Paul D should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridPaul D should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
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...
Paul D is offline  
__________________
"Light travels faster than sound - that's why, at first, some people appear bright... until you hear them speak!"
Quote