Latest amendments to Appendix K (Jan 2012)

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Look , there are only a very few cars affected by this rule change - almost every Period F car I can think of (over 3 litres) has a roof, and/or a 6 point cage already, and with a roof from a spectators viewpoint a 6 point cage can hardly be seen.


IMO many spectators travel far and wide to watch historic racing, especially the big meetings, precisely BECAUSE someone is wheeling out a particularly lovely , maybe very rare, ( does not necessarilly mean very valuable, just maybe not seen out very often) car to race. Hence big crowds at maybe 3 meetings a year, virtually empty stands the rest of the time.

So , if I follow some of the posts corrctly, maybe we are following in the footsteps of the USA and maybe historic racing will divide into balls out racers in mobile scaffold platforms on wheels, and 'parade' races of cars with no overtaking on corners .....god forbid!

[terence]

Unfortunately,not many owners/drivers seem to have read those words,the reason why Historic Racing will never get 'back to how it should be!' Its regarded as just a business now with rather a lot of competitors taking it/themselves far too seriously,it is supposed to be FUN.

[pomracer]

Agreed!

The latest copy of Historic Motor Racing News has just landed on my desk. I am not sure about Copyright etiquette and forums, however as usual Carol Spagg hits the nail firmly on the head in her editorial of the issue in front of me.
Maybe I can just squeeze in a quote:

"...I don't necessarilly advocated the old Brooklands dictum of 'the Right Crowd and no Crowding' ,as after all. it is nice to make expenses, but the point of the whole thing is for the owners of these fine old cars to give them an airing,not necessarilly to do the ego bit in front of a racing crowd. After all ,you can get semi-serious racing in less precious cars at your local SCCA regional event and get tossed out of corners too, but the Historic Car events aren't supposed to be like that."

[pomracer]

Just trying to get this thread back on track and back to roll cages, and the new Appendix K regulations which have come in to effect as from january 1st.
It may be very dull for some, but I recommend a read of the relevant sections if you can be bothered. It may affect you.

It has been brought to my attention that the FIA might actually differentiate between a car which cannot be fitted with a full roll cage as per the new regulations just published......and a car to which the owner does not want to fit the required roll cage.

The two are very different and perhaps some of the posts on the thread have gone 'off piste' ,so to speak.

I have been told that in fact there are a number of cars which it would be impossible to fit a roll cage, within the confines of the bodywork and comply with the new regs as written.


And just so as not to make the whole argument appear elitist and only applying to expensive cars, owners of any car which has some history behind it are equally affected of course.


Out of all the feedback and chat about this, it seems very clear that many are taking the view that the FIA have an agenda here : they want to see historic racing go in the direction of replicas, and 'real' cars confined to museums.

It is your sport, and to use a cliche, I believe that we are all sleepwalking in to this.

[Simon Hadfield]

But then if you make an exact replica of a car which cannot have a roll cage fitted then surely by definition the replica cannot have one either? There are regulations about cars that supposedly cannot have the FIA specified roll cage fitted - one simply has to go through the necessary procedures. This whole topic has become terribly emotional and I really do agree with MGDavid - when one knows some of those who are creating such a fuss and the way the cars have been developed MGD hits the nail right on the head!

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

But then if you make an exact replica of a car which cannot have a roll cage fitted then surely by definition the replica cannot have one either? There are regulations about cars that supposedly cannot have the FIA specified roll cage fitted - one simply has to go through the necessary procedures. This whole topic has become terribly emotional and I really do agree with MGDavid - when one knows some of those who are creating such a fuss and the way the cars have been developed MGD hits the nail right on the head!

The point is that if an original car can no longer be raced because the owner makes the choice to retain its historic identity and integrity ( ie not change existing roll cage to a 6 point) , an owner may then possibly chose to build a replica of his car with all the new FIA scaffolding in place , because he does not want to butcher his 'real' car. The real car sits in a museum and the fake, with scaffolding, is raced. He won't care what that looks like. More is the pity , I say.

In the case of a car that cannot meet these regs - (and you use the term "supposedly" which is, I may say, a tad cynical) then yes it is a technical issue which I think is covered by section 8.5 of Appendix VI A - ?? This appears to allow a design to be submitted for approval. However, someone somewhere in Switzerland or wherever the FIA is based has to give the nod and say so, and if not , then it is a 6 point cage or game over. Is that a fair summary?

MGDavid , I think, is saying that everyone is happy to spend money to "develop" their car but does not want to change their roll cage because they are concerned about its looks.
My response is firstly, that actually many car owners value the originality of their car very highly , don't go down the "development" route, and as a consequence are usually to be found midway down the grid or lower, irrespective of driver ability. I have also stated in previous posts what I believe, and it seems the FIA believes (at least in the opening statement of App K ), what historic Motor Sport is all about.

Secondly, why blame car owners for said "development" (whether within reg's or not)? Car preparers must take their share of the blame. You have a cracking reputation for producing some fiendishly quick cars yourself, and you will have been, and still are, on the cutting edge of using modern technology to develop historic race cars for clients who hopefully pay you very good money to do so - and good for you. Don't blame the car owner!

Not so long ago FIA Appendix K actively restricted the application of ROPS because it was seen as a tool to stiffen the chassis of an old car and thereby gain a performance advantage. Has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
How soon will it be before period E and earlier gets the same treatment? Will we be looking at Lister Knobblies , C Type Jags, etc with 6 point cages ??


Finally, you say "when one knows some of those creating such a fuss" -
perhaps you would care to elaborate on this rather than use a public forum to put people down, and inferring that you know best ?

[terence]

Quick question Simon,have the regs changed to now allow welded rather than bolted cages in app k? There is a definite advantage to had from welding a cage in,something that quite a few have now realised.

[Simon Hadfield]

Patrick, as I have had emails form various competitors about this very subject, all since you bought the subject up , yes I do know some of the people who are emoting so greatly. I would also point out the FIA Historic Technical Working group is comprised of many people, of varied nationalities, from all walks of historic motorsport, (and with ability to co-opt specialists as necessary) there is no "spin", there are no "vested interests".
Again as I said to the good Zef some time ago - if I am doing things that are aginst the grain of historic motorsport - come out and tell every body what I am supposed to be doing. I believe that it is very easy to point fingers and shout, rather more difficult to actually show specifics. As our cars (and drivers, variously) do tend to be reasonably competent we do seem to be scrutineered more than most, do we have some kind of Harry Potter potion for them? I would also point out our Harry Potter potion doesn't seem to allow us to work on customer's cars without their permission - owners have to be complicit in any work/development/preparation (they pay for it) - or maybe your customers are different to mine?
The cage designs, for the period we are discussing, although 6 point are so designed to minimise the addition of stiffness, so actually no pendulum swing there.
As to the fitment of cages in non compliant situations, in every case I have seen the FIA has worked very hard to satisfy both parties as to the resultant ROPs - again maybe you know different - if so please enlighten us.
MGDavid made a valid point - he has his view, you have yours - so be it. I share his view.
There seems little now worthwile to say - we can play ping pong posts ad infinitum. Why don't you come to the Reims FIA historic "summit" in Febuary, then you can meet and discuss with the various commitee members your concerns?

[Simon Hadfield]

Let me turn the question around. What is the resistance to basic safety? Take Jacky Ickx, he was really underwhelmed by Jackie Stewart's crusade in the sixties for greater safety, he now admits that he (Jacky) probably would not be here today without it. A long way further down the food chain as we are I stuggle to see why the application of what are really very basic safety items is causing so much anguish. One only has to look at Michael Steele's accident at Monaco to see that a simple roll hoop in all probablity saved his life - and the accident had nothing to do with him!

[pomracer]

Re last two posts - agree to draw a line as am sure we both have better things to do. than ping pong here!

just a couple of points-
I have always said in my posts that safety is a major issue to me personally. Same applies to drivers I have spoken with who as feel strongly as I do, many of them spend as much if not more time in race cars than you do (lucky b----s!)
All very aware of safety issues, and of course accidents - another example being Roger Wills' incident.
Can't think of anyone who would dream of going out without some form of adequate ROPS

It is the apparent "its a 6 point cage or nothing" approach that sticks.

Lots of earlier cars now have ROPS , well concealed and cleverly done, but effective , viz maser 250F, C Type jags , HWMs etc - same approach could be taken to certain open topped Period F cars?

Maybe we should all take a much stronger interest in what the FIA are doing, so rather than react when dumped on out of the blue on Jan 1st every year, there is an opportunity for discussion, representation , consensus, understanding, call it what you will etc etc ........and I admit to being ignorant of the process . Could/should it be better publicised maybe. Not sure what appropriate media would be.

[Al Weyman]

Hey just a thought, lots of references to all these fine old cars going into museums, cant see that myself as how many museums are there that would want stuff like this?

[rogerwills]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

One only has to look at Michael Steele's accident at Monaco to see that a simple roll hoop in all probablity saved his life - and the accident had nothing to do with him!

Ditto my accident at Portimao. I have no doubt that I would have broken my neck or far worse without the roll hoop in my car. It saved my life.

[terence]

Watched some Snetterton film footage of an early sixties F1 event last night.ALL of the hoops on all of the cars could have done with being about eight inches higher,just to get level with the top of the drivers head!

[John Turner]

Pleased to see Pomracer's more conciliatory post. First step to find out more about process is maybe to take Simon's offer to go to the Reims 'summit' he refers to.

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Pleased to see Pomracer's more conciliatory post. First step to find out more about process is maybe to take Simon's offer to go to the Reims 'summit' he refers to.

Well, there is only so much time one can spend on a forum!

Wearing my new conciliatory hat , and with the benefit of hindsight , this thread rather snowballed, gathering layers of issues, when really it started with a concern over the application of the new regulation affecting a relatively small number of Period F (or later) cars , which included my own.

Add in everyone’s obvious passion for their sport – including mine with a big emphasis on the word historic - , things can always get a bit spicy, but it is ‘heat of the argument’ stuff, so hopefully no harm done. As with all electronic media it is easy to fire off an email / post and say things which you probably would not say face to face, so it is not an ideal form of communication/interaction. I rarely ever add a post to a thread on this forum relating to a serious subject because I often see replies fired off where it is clear that the original post has not been read, and/or misinterpreted…and I include myself when it comes to opinions or arguments not perhaps being expressed clearly and coherently. Furthermore any thread relating to safety issues automatically sets you up as an easy target because suggesting anything that may be perceived as anti safety is a big no-no and before you know it you face the all too familiar sound-bites being trotted out, which of course make you look as though you are sitting there trying to defend the indefensible…which is not really where I was coming from.

I am sure that the various committees serving the FIA do sterling work – my beef is perhaps with what their mandate is, and as I have already said, what consultation process there is and finally how a car owner is informed. For instance, I read every magazine going, receive club newsletters and so forth – I recall that there used to be the occasional article in HMRN regarding what was going on within the FIA - did I miss something on this rule change? Who was aware of it prior to Jan 1st 2012?


Example situation, which is real:-

· A car is built (from scratch) in approx 12 months and is completed before Christmas 2011, including brand new ROPS all as per 2011 Appendix K reg’s.
· An inspection for HTP is planned for January 2012, with a view to getting the HTP granted and the car out to race by March 2012.
· On January 1st 2012 the new Appendix K is published which overnight appears to render the brand spanking new approved/certified ( and £££££s expensive) ROPS redundant.
· This is a major part of the car – not an out of date seatbelt or a fire system bracket.
· Concerned racer friends start emailing and telephoning
· Telephone calls to scrutineers come up with a blank…nobody seems to know how new rules adapt to this car.
· Nobody seemed to know whether a 6 point cage to comply with reg’s is actually feasible (quite apart from how it would look, which is my own personal opinion).
· I was informed by someone who contacted a FIA scrutineer that, according to the scrutineer, the proposal for 6 point cages in Period F cars was ‘known about’ for a while ..well, it was news to me and many others.

To answer my own questions, this case is best taken up by me privately and not aired on a public forum, as I guess that I am in a small minority affected, and it will eventually be resolved.

It is not so much the cost implications, or the hassle, or even the delay in getting the car out this year – it is the principle here.

I cannot really resist now hanging up my conciliatory hat and signing off my saying that I am still very concerned about the impact of ROPS rules on the cars and in general the future of historic motor sport, and reflected in a long and deep bath last night that maybe we are stuck on a merry-go-round :- “development” = higher speeds = arguable more risk of death = requirement for more safety measures …and so it goes on. Add to the mix a dollop of PC thinking , a pinch of cover-your-backside, and on we go.
I should not mention Goodwood – it always opens a can of forum worms – but hell, here goes. My mischievous hat has somehow slipped on to my head. If someone tells me that every car on the grid of the TT this September is going to comply with latest App K reg’s , I will eat my race suit, helmet ….(maybe not nomex underwear though). Will drivers be queuing up to race these cars – yep, and lots getting trampled in the rush to get a seat. Will anyone say anything – nope.

[terence]

Pom,I fully understand your frustration,took five years of generally buggering about with various HTP inspectors with an application for papers on a car with a huge amount of proof of all that is required,but we got there in the end!! Including a freshly designed ROPS,no questions/suggestions/or any thing else come to that. A personal view[although echoed by a few others] of GW is that this is where the trend for the Hot Rod Brigade to started!!!!!!!!!!

[Simon Hadfield]

Matron......arghhhh....Goodwood is not an Appendix K/FIA race - that's why the development arms race runs faster there than anywhere else - and why one or two cars cannot/do not run anywhere else.
To answer one specific point about information, the MSA are really poor at relaying FIA information to the competitor. In comparison to some of our European neighbours we are reading stone tablets while they are on broadband!

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Pom,I fully understand your frustration,took five years of generally buggering about with various HTP inspectors with an application for papers on a car with a huge amount of proof of all that is required,but we got there in the end!! Including a freshly designed ROPS,no questions/suggestions/or any thing else come to that. A personal view[although echoed by a few others] of GW is that this is where the trend for the Hot Rod Brigade to started!!!!!!!!!!

Knew I should not have mentioned the G word!!

I do however agree with you. Once paddock chat included the phrase " the car is running its Goodwood engine" , we were already well down the slippery slope. The early days of Gent'Drivers was great fun (IMO) but the very civilised approach to scrutineering I am sure also meant that some cars ended up running with their "Goodwood engine" installed for the whole season!!

[terence]

Got it in one.

[Peter Horsman]

I have to agree with Pomracer. Six point roll cages are (in my view) absolutely over-the-top for such cars. A good roll bar under the present (old?) rules seems to have stood the test of time with regard to safety. I was in the market myself for a Moss box Mog, but will not have one if a six point cage is required (or is likely to be required in the future). I am unaware of any Mog dispensation in regard to FIA events, though I am aware of one for MSA events.

So that's my choice. Not now to buy one to race because the FIA has made it personally unattractive to do so. I feel for those who already have one (or Cobras, ACs and so on).

Simon asks what is the resistance to basic safety, and cites Michael's accident. Few are resistant to basic safety, Simon, and probably even fewer racing post war cars. The question is, is a six point cage an appropriate safety requirement? It clearly is not 'basic'.

Why limit such a requirement to post 1960 cars if safety is the name of the game? Michael's car did not require a rollbar, and still does not. I might observe that the older the car, the more 'necessary' a full cage might be! D Types, C types (sadly, especially C types), FNs with their narrow track......... The fact is that safety considerations are not the only matters to be considered in historic racing. That older cars are not (presently) required to have cages must indicate the even the FIA understand that.

There is a balance to be had between safety on the one hand and respect for the integrity of the car on the other. My view, and that seemingly of Pomracer and others, is that our dear old FIA have once again lost touch of those it says that it represents and organises. To counter what I believe to be a reasonable push back by Pomracer with, don't complain but come to the Rheims historic summit - whatever that is - is not an especially helpful reply. Hopefully, Simon (whom I respect enormously) will be able to take back these comments to the FIA.

Of course, had we been aware that the matter was being discussed in the first place, we could have made representations at the time either directly or through him. I feel a bit of the Hitchhikers' Guide coming on........

[Al Weyman]

Maybe they should specifiy the full safety thing if the cars are as seems to be the current situation, raced very agressively. Prehaps they could say that if the race is more of a demonstration event as favoured in the US then they can be left as was in period. I think what I saw at Goodwood last year demonstrates to me that there is too much aggression racing these old cars and the facts are someone will die. Prehaps its time to divide the two types of racing.

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Peter Horsman

I have to agree with Pomracer. Six point roll cages are (in my view) absolutely over-the-top for such cars. A good roll bar under the present (old?) rules seems to have stood the test of time with regard to safety. I was in the market myself for a Moss box Mog, but will not have one if a six point cage is required (or is likely to be required in the future). I am unaware of any Mog dispensation in regard to FIA events, though I am aware of one for MSA events.

So that's my choice. Not now to buy one to race because the FIA has made it personally unattractive to do so. I feel for those who already have one (or Cobras, ACs and so on).

Simon asks what is the resistance to basic safety, and cites Michael's accident. Few are resistant to basic safety, Simon, and probably even fewer racing post war cars. The question is, is a six point cage an appropriate safety requirement? It clearly is not 'basic'.

Why limit such a requirement to post 1960 cars if safety is the name of the game? Michael's car did not require a rollbar, and still does not. I might observe that the older the car, the more 'necessary' a full cage might be! D Types, C types (sadly, especially C types), FNs with their narrow track......... The fact is that safety considerations are not the only matters to be considered in historic racing. That older cars are not (presently) required to have cages must indicate the even the FIA understand that.

There is a balance to be had between safety on the one hand and respect for the integrity of the car on the other. My view, and that seemingly of Pomracer and others, is that our dear old FIA have once again lost touch of those it says that it represents and organises. To counter what I believe to be a reasonable push back by Pomracer with, don't complain but come to the Rheims historic summit - whatever that is - is not an especially helpful reply. Hopefully, Simon (whom I respect enormously) will be able to take back these comments to the FIA.

Of course, had we been aware that the matter was being discussed in the first place, we could have made representations at the time either directly or through him. I feel a bit of the Hitchhikers' Guide coming on........

I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised that someone else has dared put his head above the parapet! Hope you are wearing the required safety equipment (tee hee).

May I say that you have probably put my point across more clearly in one post than I managed in five.

[Peter Horsman]

Simon,

May I ask please what, if anything, hap[pened in this regard at the Reims FIA historic "summit" in Febuary?

Thanks and regards

Peter

[Simon Hadfield]

The rules as laid down in Appendix K are fixed, Peter. The seminar in Rheims did address the issues of safety at some length and the spotlight will now fall rather more on the driver/operator end of things. The FIA is to collate much better historic racing accident data, throughout the food chain, and hopefully this will provide the information as to how the safety topic is pursued going forwards.

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Simon Hadfield

The rules as laid down in Appendix K are fixed, Peter. The seminar in Rheims did address the issues of safety at some length and the spotlight will now fall rather more on the driver/operator end of things. The FIA is to collate much better historic racing accident data, throughout the food chain, and hopefully this will provide the information as to how the safety topic is pursued going forwards.

Sounds like HANS etc is coming our way ?