Latest amendments to Appendix K (Jan 2012)

[pomracer]

No sooner had a got my head around jan 2011 Appendix K, I have just had a look at the latest version just published and applying from 1st january 2012.
Has anyone yet had a good look at the new sections on roll cages? I have just printed off a hectare of rainforest for a little light reading before bedtime... specifically noting already that it seems as though for Period F onwards (up to and including period G2) a full cage is now mandatory. I may have got it wrong, and have no wish to start a hare running, but it would appear that a car such as a AC Cobra (Period F) would have to have a full cage whether running with a hardtop or not.
Maybe by tomorrow I will have understood all 17 pages............

[Simon Hadfield]

Not quite, see section 5, specifically 5.13.5, (b) but if an open car the 50mm rule does still apply.

[pomracer]

arrrrrgh...just thought I had posted a long and clever reply but it got lost in the ether....

Anyway, I was going to say that I thought para 5.13.5 (b) applies to period f single seat and two seat racing cars, and not to GT or GTS which are covered by 5.13.5(c) ? ( all on page 130 for anyone still awake and interested)

the latter appears to say that for C,CT,GT, GTS and GTP cars of Period F up to and including Period G2 a ROPS complying to "Appendix VI A" is required...

This then refers to 5.13.5 (f) which talks about "drawing K50" which in laymans terms is a full 6 point cage.

Later on , in Appendix VIA , there is a get out clause allowing designs of ROPS to be submitted but even then it implies, I think, that (for example) the orginal style of roll hoop on a Cobra is no longer legal.

Anyway, in my own case I will shortly be applying for a HTP for an early Morgan Plus 8 ( Moss gearbox ) which will be Period G2.
I have built the car with a single rear roll hoop which is brand new, safe and 'kosher'. However, unless I am getting my knickers in a twist for nothing, my bedtime reading suggests that if I want to get my HTP and run the car in international App K events then I will have to scrap the roll hoop, fit a full cage and probably run a hardtop on the car otherwise it will look like s---t ( IMO) particulalrly by the time I have added the now mandatory padding ( FIA homologated of course and more expensive than axminster carpet by the metre).

I really want a safe car, and am all for safety, but if I have interpreted all the small print correctly, are we not at risk of making one or two of our beautful historic cars very ugly....and looking like american club racers?

Hopefully I have got it all wrong.

[Simon Hadfield]

You are correct in your reading of the regulations, I had lead you astray! As to whether safety or the elegance of design is the overiding priority is for the owner to decide I guess......

[pomracer]

No,safety first for me.

However, If I were lucky enough to own a very original cobra with race history, I would probably have to think very hard whether to alter it....or maybe build a replica like everyone else and race that instead!! ...but that is the subject for a different thread.

Back to my own situation, so if I did not apply for an HTP and forget about AppK, my car would still have to have a full cage (under Blue Book rules) because it is over 2 litres??

[terence]

I agree Pomracer,they do look awful! Faced with a similar situation a few years back,after repairing/rebuilding an open car after it had flipped,trapping the owner[no hoop!]We decided that there was no way he would drive it again without a hoop. I took measurements for the required 50mm clearance with the owner sitting in the car,did a 'mock up',and yes,it was going to look like 'an American club racer'. I have to say that up close it looks terrible,but out on track,the hoop being finished in satin black,doesn't show to much. Ultimately it makes a lot a lot of sense, especially after seeing the damage hands can suffer being trapped between tarmac and a steering wheel!!!!!

[pomracer]

Further to my earlier post, I am relieved to have found out that Morgans have had a dispensation for some time.
But it all seems a bit of mine field!

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by pomracer

Further to my earlier post, I am relieved to have found out that Morgans have had a dispensation for some time.
But it all seems a bit of mine field!

Now, if you had mentioned that it was a Morgan earlier....

Although my Plus 4 is 1959 so period E there is a seperate homologation sheet for the cage somewhere with the HTP. Have you fitted the under dash hoop?

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Now, if you had mentioned that it was a Morgan earlier....

Although my Plus 4 is 1959 so period E there is a seperate homologation sheet for the cage somewhere with the HTP. Have you fitted the under dash hoop?

Do you need a cage for a 1959 car now, rules used to be pre 1960 didn't need a hoops or cages? No one ran with cages back then so how can they be homologated?

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

Do you need a cage for a 1959 car now, rules used to be pre 1960 didn't need a hoops or cages? No one ran with cages back then so how can they be homologated?

No, but a specific cage for the Morgan whether 1959, 1979 etc has been homologated. So if you fit one it has to be that design, afaik!

[pomracer]

Well, as I read it, Periods A to E are relatively unaffected
see page 129 , section 5.13.2 (a)
"Periods A to E: ROPS as specified below are recommended,except for cars originally fitted with ROPS, which must have ROPS meeting or exceeding the sepecification used on the car when it was used in competition in its period"

and section 5.13.2.(c)

"A period specification ROPS is defined as one that was used in competition in period on the actual make and model of the car. The competitor must provide evidence of the period specification when requested"

As per my earlier post, it seems as though Period F onwards is subject o the changes discussed.

[pomracer]

Just to add that my telephone has been busy this morning.

Someone else has asked someone who should know...but he did not know...and the best response from seemingly knowledgeable chaps who should know is that " it is a grey area" .

(If that makes sense.)

Anyway, it is in print so I guess the real 'litmus' test is scrutineering...but hey...what do they know!?

In my dreams I have just won Euro millions so I knock on Chris Evans's door and make him an offer for his 250 GTO, unload the brown envelope (with forklift) and drive home. Then i then take the car to Spa and Monsieur le scrute has one look and says NON, you need a full 6 point cage with padding everywhere

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Now, if you had mentioned that it was a Morgan earlier....

he did, post 3, para 5

[Al Weyman]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

Do you need a cage for a 1959 car now, rules used to be pre 1960 didn't need a hoops or cages? No one ran with cages back then so how can they be homologated?

Yeah but it has to be made of Ash!

[Simon Hadfield]

In my dreams I have just won Euro millions so I knock on Chris Evans's door and make him an offer for his 250 GTO, unload the brown envelope (with forklift) and drive home. Then i then take the car to Spa and Monsieur le scrute has one look and says NON, you need a full 6 point cage with padding everywhere [/QUOTE]

So the vast cost/value means you can have different accidents? The point is that accidents can be just that, accidents - they can be independent of driver skill, car capability, and certainly car value - as I said earlier the relationship of elegance to safety is one that only the owner can make, if you want absolute purity don't race it!

[terence]

Sorry to be pedantic Simon,I thought they were 'Incidents' ?
BTW,Chris GAVE me the Ferrari,sorry.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

he did, post 3, para 5

But not post 1.......

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

In my dreams I have just won Euro millions so I knock on Chris Evans's door and make him an offer for his 250 GTO, unload the brown envelope (with forklift) and drive home. Then i then take the car to Spa and Monsieur le scrute has one look and says NON, you need a full 6 point cage with padding everywhere

So the vast cost/value means you can have different accidents? The point is that accidents can be just that, accidents - they can be independent of driver skill, car capability, and certainly car value - as I said earlier the relationship of elegance to safety is one that only the owner can make, if you want absolute purity don't race it![/QUOTE]


It is difficult to argue against any measure that are intended to save lives, but when one looks at the context of historic motorsport, are we not all involved because o a passion for the older machinery? Otherwisee we would all be door to door in modern saloons each containg more scaffolding and snug as bugs in our safet cocoons.

My rather jokey example was not used to make a point about value - of course you are right in that you can die equally easily in a Morris Minor or a ferrari GTO. Where I was trying to get to with it was that in my humble opinion, it would be a travesty to fit such a car with full 6 point cage + padding because it is beautiful, work of art on wheels, sublime.......so why wreck the aesthetics if, and I say IF , the owner CHOOSES to race the car with a single rear roll hoop , lets say made by Safety Devices, maybe a modern seat and wears a Hans Device. In the boot is a fuel cell + all the other usual safety things.....
Safety is such a difficult subject because to be against any measures suggested makes one come across as what the yanks might call an "unreconstructed neo-con", especially if you get on your soap box and shout "nanny state" .........but somehwere, somehow there must be a line drawn perhaps? Are we not allowed to make intelligent and considered decisions ourselves
Otherwise all the lovely cars we see being brought out to race will surely dissappear?
Maybe they will be consigned to 'parade' laps?
Will historic racing just become grids full of replica cars with HTPs?

[Simon Hadfield]

A modern seat doesn't wreck the aesthetics? All of this is about personal choice.....but with choice must come responsibility surely? As your work of art slowly submerges under fuel cells, seats, non period driver apparel etc where does the string snap - again I suggest the period/competitive/safety relationship is down to the owner - if you have a paddock of 200 drivers there will be 200 versions of where they think the relationship is balanced and I would guarantee that all 200 would think that their way is the only and best....

[pomracer]

I am not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not!
Anyway, let's draw a line under the safety argument, - I am very much driven in this by my own car which can run with or without a hardtop, and I guess that Morgans,Cobras and maybe some Etypes (for example) fall into that category and so form a tiny proprtion of all Period F cars over 2 litres ( most of which, especially TC's ,will have 6 point cages anyway).

Simon I gather that you may be on a committee which produces / reviews these changes? If so I plead ignorance to how the changes come about and what form of consultation process , if any, there is? Is it down to Clubs , or the MSA(UK)?

As of this morning I am informed of 4 historically very significant AC Cobras which will no longer be seen racing if the new regulations are 'set in stone' as their owners will not be prepared to butcher the cars. Perhaps this proves both my, and your point, that many cars will just sit in museums......and my bet is that one day there will be 4 more Kirkhams pounding around Goodwood with Joe Public thinking they are the real thing.

[428FRUA]

About 10 years ago I ran our Orange Cobra in the AMOC Intermarque Championship, where it was a front runner. The MSA brought in the 6 point cage rule then, and I obliged by fitting an approved cage. I can't find a photo of it, as it looked so awful I never bought any! It made a beautiful classic car look like a Modsport special. No offense to Modsports intended, as they were designed as such. Since then the cage has been removed and the car raced in FIA GTS, where the cage was not required and it ran a single head hoop and diagonal. If all the historic Cobras are expected to convert to the ugly 6 point cages, there will either be a shortage of Cobras out racing, or the richer owners will build clones, so their original can stay at home, unmolested. Where does that take our sport?

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by 428FRUA

........ Where does that take our sport?

perhaps it takes it back nearer club racing where you run what you brung, rather than a high-speed parade of 'investment vehicles' (pun intended)

[midgetman]

This isn't some kind of beauty parade, this is serious racing! In the 60s brutes such as Cobras and the like hurt a lot of competent Gentlemen Drivers. With the performance developments these cars have now undergone, plus increases in tyre and tarmac technology, they're hardly going to be going slower are they? An accident still hurts, whether you have it in a modern racer or a beautiful 1960s work of automotive art.

Any spectator with a modicum of common sense understands the safety side of motor sport and understands the compromised aesthetics.

Playing Devil's Advocate, it could be argued that if the cars mentioned above are too historically significant to have a roll cage fitted, then they're too historically significant to put at risk in a race and should be confined to parade laps.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by midgetman

........ With the performance developments these cars have now undergone, ........

Good point, if they were that historically significant they would be run as they *were*. No qualms about changing anything under the skin but a safety cage which spoils the photograph, heaven forbid we ruin 'the show' - does this sound hypocritical or what?

[pomracer]

I would like to think that we are all agreed on one thing : Motor sport is dangerous. Very dangerous. One could argue that historic motor sport is definitely at the more dangerous end of things for obvious reasons - the age of the cars we drive.

I do not think that it will ever be possible to reach a stage similar to F1 for example .Unfortunately accidents do happen and will happen, as we all know.

The Appendix K document - the subject of this thread - begins with the paragraph from which I quote:

"..Historic Competition is not simply another formula in which to acquire trophies, it is a discipline apart, in which one of the essential ingredients is a devotion to the cars and to their history. Historic Motor Sport enables the active celebration of the History of the Motor Car."

I consider the pursuit of safety admirable. If my wife wanted me to be a safe as possible I would not race a historic car - I would pick a modern tin top. With any racing there is risk, with historics I would argue, more risk. I make the personal choice to race historics because I have a passion for a certain era of cars.

Anyway, I did not really want this thread to become a safety debate, but perhaps because the subject is the latest rule changes (specifically the introduction of 6 point cages for Period F onwards) it was inevtiable.

It does seem however as though new regulations are introduced which have unintended consequences, but perhaps it is difficult to draft a regulation that will 'fit all sizes'. Consequently, common sense dictates that certain cars should be allowed dispensations - as is that case at the moment on all sorts of things ( see the 'back pages' of App K).