MikeR
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
Roll bar / Roll cage and blue book rules on height
So i'm just about to order my replacement roll bar after a slight mistake (see my posts a couple of weeks ago).
Before I did i was checking the blue book to make 100% sure i've got it right. In theory there are three rules i need to abide by but this has
me confused when i think about cages.
1) size / thickness of steel - thats easy.
2) Helmet must not be between the top of the roll bar and a line to the front structure of the car - again easy.
3) Helment must be 2" lower than the bottom of the rear roll hoop. Now when i look at picture of people in cages I don't see this. I do
see lots of bars going over peoples heads - often a MK style bent bar.
Does rule three not apply when you've got a cage? If it doesn't apply where does it say it in the blue book?
(This is not a MK specific point, its just they've made a cage that is popular and its easy to describe).
|
|
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 11:06 AM |
|
|
Depending on what you are doing with the car you will likely need to comply with
K60(i) & K30 in the BB 2018.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 11:15 AM |
|
|
Yep, read that but lots of cages don't seem to apply to the rule about the helmet being two inches below the rear hoop lowest edge. They seem to
run a bent tube above the driver head and use that. Hence the question.
(Upgrading to full cage is a long term plan hence curious)
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 11:42 AM |
|
|
Bent tube would not be allowed in a MSA Cage unless it was certified.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
On the top tube between front and rear hoops i thought it's allowed - drawing 53.
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
Bent upwards? I didn't think so but if it is shown in a drawing then you'll be OK. Still doesn't help you lol.
|
|
|
JimSpencer
|
| posted on 12/3/18 at 04:53 PM |
|
|
Hi
The long answer to this would take pages..
But to give you an idea..
My Striker (Photo's in archive) has a full cage but its' a 1988 manufactured chassis (albeit road registered in 2000) and runs in Road
Going so it only needs the rear hoop, diagonal and back stays for that class (to 1988 tube requirements) - so that Has to be to the regs (and it is),
the rest of the cage doesn't. (but it is anyway)
It was queried once - years ago - at a British Sprint Round where it was circuit racing scruitineers doing the task instead of the normal fellas, a
few minutes of inspection saw a huddle of them 'discussing' the cage and one, slightly older, bloke whispering in my ear "I'll
leave them to it for a few minutes and then point out the tax disc and number plates" 
So
Do it so you're 100% happy it meets the regs, keep documents and photos so you can Prove it meets the regs (tube specs wise) and that way you
can relax.
Looking at photo's of what other folks are doing will only add to the confusion..
|
|
|
scimjim
|
| posted on 16/4/18 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
My (non locost/7 type) roadgoing production car has never met requirement 3 with a 6 point fully approved ROPS either.
Luckily they’ve just re-written the rules to remove the requirement 
https://www.msauk.org/assets/rulechangesapril2018.pdf
[Edited on 16/4/18 by scimjim]
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 20/4/18 at 08:11 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scimjim
My (non locost/7 type) roadgoing production car has never met requirement 3 with a 6 point fully approved ROPS either.
Luckily they’ve just re-written the rules to remove the requirement
https://www.msauk.org/assets/rulechangesapril2018.pdf
[Edited on 16/4/18 by scimjim]
Its now been reinstated, just had an email.
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
scimjim
|
| posted on 20/4/18 at 08:18 AM |
|
|
Yea, got that too - Gurston tomorrow, let’s see if any get checked!
|
|
|
