Roll cages

[105 Mad]

This may have already been discussed, but does anyone know if scruntineers are now enforcing the rule about only having a single bend on the front cage uprights? The rule has been in the "blue book" for a while now but was never enforced. No one seems to have picked up on it inc roll cage manufacturers, mine certainly has 2 bends.

It caused a bit of a panic last yr, rallyists had a couple of incidents with front cages deforming on impact & I belive the finger was pointed at S shaped front sections, there was a suggestion that 2 bends would be allowed if they bent the same way rather than S shaped if that makes sense.

However this yrs "blue book" still states only 1 bend.

All views appreciated.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by 105 Mad

This may have already been discussed, but does anyone know if scruntineers are now enforcing the rule about only having a single bend on the front cage uprights? The rule has been in the "blue book" for a while now but was never enforced. No one seems to have picked up on it inc roll cage manufacturers, mine certainly has 2 bends.

It caused a bit of a panic last yr, rallyists had a couple of incidents with front cages deforming on impact & I belive the finger was pointed at S shaped front sections, there was a suggestion that 2 bends would be allowed if they bent the same way rather than S shaped if that makes sense.

However this yrs "blue book" still states only 1 bend.

All views appreciated.

Presumably one bend is allowed at the roof line, and just one more at around dash level?

[105 Mad]

Ah yes, the bend where the a-pillar joins the roof is allowed, from that point down to the floor only one bend allowed.

[delta]

I don't know but I do know a man who does. Send me a PM if you want to speak to him.

[terence]

As you have correctly stated,this ruling has been in the Blue Book for eternity. Its due to people having more complex design's of cage that has lead to the 'forgetting' of it in the first place.

[Peter Mallett]

Rather confusingly the recent advisory or whatever it was, showed additional support required for those with only one bend in the front hoop.

We checked and if your roll cage is as homologated, there's no issue, although you can add bars.

[terence]

In Fact Peter,that raises a valid point in that before having a cage made check that the supplying company has MSA recognition for their products.
Its not just a case of 'if we bend that bit over there-----' for instance.



Peter,did you get my e-mail/pictures BTW?]

[Peter Mallett]

Hi Terry.

No e mail from you.

[JasperClan]

This has caused all the delay in preparing the Clan for the 360. It started with the MSA publishing a clarification of the existing regulation which only served to muddy the water. This was followed by a further clarification which appeared to contradict the original clarification. Various interpretations of these clarifications led a number of people to deem the front cage for the Clan supplied by Rollcentre to be illegal due to a second bend in the section that follows the windscreen pillar. This was never my interpretation as to me the rule was clear that second bends were not allowed in the vertical section that extends to the floor. This has since been confirmed by the MSA and I have a copy of this for presentation to scrutineers. I understand that the problem was with so called dash dodger cages that take the tube around the dash so as to not require the dash modification and this practice compromises the strength of the section. Only 24 days to go and at last there is more on teh car than there was at the end of last week.

Pete Richards

[105 Mad]

I am sure we have all now received our rule up-dates in the most recent MSA mag, look carefully & you will see what the new MSA requirement is.

The new advisery now shows a retro fit piller support as being required with immediate effect, as Peter Mallett has previously mentioned the diagram shows the additional support on a cage with just 1 bend which is allowed anyway.

I may be making a rapid call to Fabricage.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by 105 Mad

I am sure we have all now received our rule up-dates in the most recent MSA mag, look carefully & you will see what the new MSA requirement is.

The new advisery now shows a retro fit piller support as being required with immediate effect, as Peter Mallett has previously mentioned the diagram shows the additional support on a cage with just 1 bend which is allowed anyway.

I may be making a rapid call to Fabricage.

If you read 1.3.1 the last sentence now reads "The front leg of the front roll bar or a lateral roll bar must be straight, or if it is not possible, must follow the windscreen pillars and have only one bend unless a windscreen pillar reinforcement is fitted."

Probably wise to ask, but my take is that the drawing is just to show how the reinforcement is fitted should one be necessary. Shame it doesn't show a front leg with two bends.

[Paul D]

I would tend to agree with Mike's interpretation of the rule stated above - I think the diagram is just a stock drawing with the reinforcement tube added, so it's purely illustrative.

My cage has one bend at the base of the windscreen pillar, but then, about half-way between that point and the floor, it bends inwards (i.e. towards the centre of the car) to clear the inner sill. So, I assume that means I'm one of the lucky ones that will have to fit the reinforcements. What I'm not sure on is what you're supposed to do if, for example (as in my case), the resultant path of the new tube causes an obstruction to something critical - like, say, the steering wheel!

Also, there's no mention of how this might affect door bar attachments - as this new piece has to be no more than 10 cm from the mounting foot, then there's a good chance it will want to pass right through any door bar. So, do we simply shorten the door bar and attach it to the new piece, or does the door bar have to 'pass through' the reinforcement and attach to the original front leg?

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by Paul D

Also, there's no mention of how this might affect door bar attachments - as this new piece has to be no more than 10 cm from the mounting foot, then there's a good chance it will want to pass right through any door bar. So, do we simply shorten the door bar and attach it to the new piece, or does the door bar have to 'pass through' the reinforcement and attach to the original front leg?

Good point- one or other is going to have to be compromised, and if as in your case the foot is inboard due to second bend any pillar reinforcement presumably will not intersect door bar accurately!

Again, my personal thoughts only, but I would make sure that the extra pillar reinforcement is straight and one piece, then make a two piece door bar to fit- with bend(s) if necessary. Appreciate it won't help with your steering wheel 'clash'- 10" wheel perhaps?

Big pain in the butt though. A lot easier if making a new cage from scratch.

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Good point- one or other is going to have to be compromised, and if as in your case the foot is inboard due to second bend any pillar reinforcement presumably will not intersect door bar accurately!

Again, my personal thoughts only, but I would make sure that the extra pillar reinforcement is straight and one piece, then make a two piece door bar to fit- with bend(s) if necessary. Appreciate it won't help with your steering wheel 'clash'- 10" wheel perhaps?

Big pain in the butt though. A lot easier if making a new cage from scratch.

Plus, with a wonky knee it is hard to bend ones leg past the A pillar tube. never mind reducing the space by 4 inches.

[Colin Parkinson]

Taking this a little further, I bought a Safety Devices FIA cage for an MGB, brand new. No door bar fixings. So you can only use the SD clamp on ones.
This is a cage that is homologated.

If you want to weld on proper clamps and do the job properly, then the approval is null and void, as a modification has been made. And also the main hoop would not comply with current FIA spec, I think. But as it is homologated apparently that doesnt matter.

When I tried to get some sense out of the MSA, they said I could weld on the brackets for door bars, but were then confused about the fact that the homolgation would no longer apply. I never did get a satisfactory answer.

I am now going to use the cage on a club race MGB now, as I have had Protection and Performance build me a cage that meets ( or maybe met ) the latest spec for my FIA car!!

All a bit crazy really.

CP

[Paul D]

Sorry to dig this up again, but no one has yet come on to say how strictly this rule is being enforced now? Are there any scrutineer types who can give us some insight into this?

As mentioned in a previous post, making this modification to my cage is going to be tricky to achieve without impeding on the space needed to steer the car effectively. And due to a fairly steeply raked screen, the new reinforcement tube is going to seriously restrict the space for getting in & out of the car - and it's not exactly ample as it is!

My car has been raced for years previously with the cage as it is now, so I'm really just after some clarification as to the current position - as someone said, this rule has been around one way or another for years anyway, and the latest update is more of a clarification than a new rule. But is it being enforced more now because of the update?

Any info would be appreciated before I get the welder out!

[Peter Mallett]

I suspect the only way to be certain is to buy a new cage and cut a slot in the dash. Mine is a homologated cage but itwas picked up at the Brands Historic Festival (although I was allowed to race). So I'm putting in a new cage for next year.

[midgetman]

My understanding on this is that if it is a homologated cage, everything is hunky dory. I think your scrutineer was being a tad over zealous Peter. If it can be proved to be in the original approval, there should be no problem.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by midgetman

My understanding on this is that if it is a homologated cage, everything is hunky dory.

Been there, done that. If I turn up shouting "it's homologated" it will make no difference.

[midgetman]

'S odd...I was chatting to the 924 series scrutineer - which is one of the series having problems with iffy roll cages - and he said "show me the original homologation paperwork and we'll accept that.

[Peter Mallett]

Or just look at the homologation stamp on the hoop.

[Paul D]

Understood Peter - but mine isn't a 'dash-dodger' cage - it doesn't have an 'S' bend to clear the dash, the dash is already cut away to allow the cage to fit. The front leg hugs the A pillar all the way down - the second bend is only near the bottom, where it bends towards the centre of the car to clear a fairly pronounced inner sill.

In fact, I don't really see how a new cage that meets this 'one bend only' rule could also still satisfy the rule that says, in essence, that rollcage tubes should be a snug fit to the sides of the shell. To have only one bend in the front leg, this would have to be near the base of the screen, at which point it would then also need to bend inwards to clear the inner sill lower down, so that part of the tube below the bend would then be in thin air and not close to the side any more, if you see what I mean.

[GORDON STREETER]

I have seen a few cages with lugs welded on at the bend with another lug welded on the A pillar and bolted together.
Joe's Tina is like that and the bolts can be removed to satisfy the scrutes if they think it's cheating by beefing the shell up.

[zefarelly]

mines not, its still just 6 point. Jasons and many are, A&B posts,

I've been meaning to do mine as the shells flexing quite a bit, just to stop it falling apart, and tie in with the titanium tubing inside the cills etc

[GORDON STREETER]

I stand corrected sir