Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Classic Cars Monthly Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Historic Racing & Motorsport History > Historic Racing Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7 Apr 2018, 09:39 (Ref:3813509)   #16
Geraint Owen
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Geraint Owen should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotustwincam View Post
Did this get clarified? We will be fitting a Cortina cage in the near future and would like to avoid any hassle.
The MSA issued the original Bulletin to the Scruits saying that there needed to be feet on the cage before the floor plate/box. There has been a row in the background and the MSA were forced to issue a second Bulletin saying the original rules are in their view correct, but that the Scruits shouldnt enforce it just yet while they work out what to do. From what I understand, there is a bit of politics between the cage manufacturers which doesnt help

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
Geraint Owen is online now  
Quote
Old 1 May 2018, 17:05 (Ref:3818696)   #17
Gerry Taylor
Veteran
 
Gerry Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 657
Gerry Taylor should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridGerry Taylor should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield View Post
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.
I would not use the word "Tinkering"; I would say "Meddling" or "Interfering" ( Hope I spelt that correctly) GT.
Gerry Taylor is offline  
Quote
Old 19 May 2018, 01:09 (Ref:3823324)   #18
Paul D
Veteran
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
England
Southport, Merseyside
Posts: 537
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
Old 4 Jul 2018, 11:49 (Ref:3834581)   #19
frogisland
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
frogisland should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Common sense prevails, in short:
Attached Thumbnails
www.msauk.org.png  
frogisland is offline  
Quote
Old 5 Jul 2018, 11:54 (Ref:3834784)   #20
Lancsbreaker
Veteran
 
Lancsbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
England
Padiham, Lancashire
Posts: 2,486
Lancsbreaker should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridLancsbreaker should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridLancsbreaker should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
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......
Lancsbreaker is online now  
__________________
Richard Murtha: Back Racing with CSCC, and another first, I've finally done a rolling start!
Quote
Old 5 Jul 2018, 12:42 (Ref:3834797)   #21
BertMk2
Race Official
Veteran
 
BertMk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
United Kingdom
Nr Maidstone, Kent
Posts: 8,802
BertMk2 has a real shot at the championship!BertMk2 has a real shot at the championship!BertMk2 has a real shot at the championship!BertMk2 has a real shot at the championship!BertMk2 has a real shot at the championship!BertMk2 has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker View Post
I'm fairly sure I know what they mean, but don't think they actually say what they mean......
There's quite a bit of the blue book like that.
BertMk2 is online now  
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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 12:57
Roll cages zefarelly Racing Technology 2 19 Aug 2002 14:24


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 22:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2018 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.