noc231073
|
| posted on 16/3/11 at 06:07 PM |
|
|
Here ya go
To all Motorsport Ireland competition licence holders:
Please see below a press release from the MSA relating to an immediate rule change for safety roll over bars.
Please be aware this may apply to your car if you intend to compete in Northern Ireland or Britain.
Motor Sports Council approves immediate rule change for Safety Roll-Over Structures
At the latest meeting of the Motor Sports Council, which took place at the Royal Automobile Club on Tuesday 8th March, it was unanimously agreed to
implement immediate changes to Regulations K1.3.1 and K1.3.5, which cover the Technical Specifications of Rollcages.
Following a National Court judgement last September, the Technical Advisory Panel was asked to review the regulation.
The Technical Advisory Panel confirmed to the Motor Sports Council that as front hoop failure was a possible risk where multiple bends appear in ROPS
members, an additional Windscreen Pillar Reinforcement must now be fitted in these circumstances.
This change takes immediate effect and competitors are advised to ensure that all vehicles are fully compliant with the new regulations before any
future event. Should further advice be required, competitors are encouraged to speak to the MSA Technical Department or an MSA-registered
Scrutineer.
The revised regulations are as follows:
K1.3.1. Main, Front and Lateral Rollbars.
These frames or hoops must be made in one piece without joints. Their construction must be smooth and even, without ripples or cracks. The vertical
part of the main rollbar must be as straight as possible and as close as possible to the interior contour of the bodyshell. The front leg of the front
rollbar or a lateral rollbar must be straight, or if it is not possible, must follow the windscreen pillars and have only one bend with its lower
vertical part unless a windscreen pillar reinforcement [K1.3.5(e)] is fitted.
The mounting foot must not be rearward of the foremost point of the rollbar.
Where the main rollbar forms the rear legs of a lateral rollbar (see drawing K6), the connection to the lateral rollbar must be at roof level. To
achieve an efficient mounting to the bodyshell, the original interior trim may be modified around the safety cage and its mountings by cutting it away
or by distortion. However, this modification does not permit the removal of the complete parts of upholstery or trim. Where necessary, the fusebox may
be relocated to enable a rollcage to be fitted.
K1.3.5. Optional Reinforcement of Rollcage.
(e) Windscreen Pillar Reinforcement
A tube the upper end of which must be less than 100mm from the junction between the front (lateral) rollbar and the longitudinal (transversal) member
and the lower end less than 100mm from the front mounting foot of the front (lateral) rollbar, as shown in drawing K62.
The tube may be bent on condition that it is straight in side view and that the angle of the bend does not exceed 20°.
Drawing No. 62 attached.
Best regards,
Motorsport Ireland
|
|
|
|
|
noc231073
|
| posted on 16/3/11 at 06:10 PM |
|
|
Basically it looks like Mk has sold us lemons......
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 16/3/11 at 06:54 PM |
|
|
is this part not a bit contentious
K1.3.1. Main, Front and Lateral Rollbars.
These frames or hoops must be made in one piece without joints. Their construction must be smooth and even, without ripples or cracks. The vertical
part of the main rollbar must be as straight as possible and as close as possible to the interior contour of the bodyshell. The front leg of the front
rollbar or a lateral rollbar must be straight
This does imply that a bend is permissable, The mK one is welded to the chasis at the bend so in theory it is attached at a straight part of the
rollcage
[Edited on 16/3/11 by austin man]
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
noc231073
|
| posted on 16/3/11 at 09:19 PM |
|
|
A bend is permissable but not a double bend that the MK has ...also the front hoop should be one piece ...which the MK is not also the front hoop leg
is rearward of the forward most part of the cage also not allowed....
before this email I was aware of the issue with the roll cage from this very forum, ( after i purchased a full race spec car from mk who knew my
intentions were to race and hillclimb the car,)
Now i tought that this issue would not affect me in Ireland due to the scrutineers maybe not being aware ....well mot anymore ...as this email has
been sent to every member holding a competition lience highlighting the problem...
What chance do i have producing the mk to get logbook now....NONE...
So i now have 2 options ...
1. remake the front section of the roll cage at my own cost thus distroying my nice powdercoating,
2. just get rid of the car at depriciated value ...as when i bought the car it was a race car now its just a track day car
From experience ringing MK about the problem would be a waste of time and the cost of a phone call..
So AJW and myself have bought 2 new MK race cars that are just NOT race cars and paid serious money for the privaledge
what a rip off....
It will be quite interesting to see how this will affect Dannys race car.... my guess they will now have to do something about it .. thus proving that
what they have been saying all along that there cage is up to spec is lie.....
MK can build a good road car or track day car but have no idea how to build a race car .....
|
|
|
ajw
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 08:20 AM |
|
|
msa regs
Can anyone confirm if front section cage frame is optional or mandatory under MSA rules or is a rear hoop with supports and diagonal strut as on
sports cars the requirment. Is the rule change focused on rally cars ?
AJW
|
|
|
Davegtst
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 09:12 AM |
|
|
Looks like procomp was right after all.
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 05:11 PM |
|
|
AJW,
The legal term here is 'unfit for purpose'. You might add, 'unfit for specified purpose'.
MK must make good, in law, or refund and take the vehicle back.
MK's only get out may be the change in rules date, but that cage of theirs has been on the dodgy side of legal for some time.
Nev.
|
|
|
danny keenan
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 06:53 PM |
|
|
today i have been to mallory park testing with one of our race cars.
i got the eligibilty scrutineer for the 750 motor club to have a look at the car.
he told me the the front role bar does NOT come into these regs as a car of this size with this engine only needs a rear rollbar.
as long as that is ok and to the MSA drawings,then the front part is just and additional part.
so i my eyes all is ok.
|
|
|
noc231073
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
Have you got your Msa logbook for your new race car yet Danny ? ... Because getting a guy to have a look is one thing getting a guy to put his name
on a log book is a totally different thing .. As no scrutineer is going to put there names to something that remotely dodgy
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
Based on the scrutineers discussion today the front section is an optional and does'nt have to comply. Danny is out next weekend so his car will
be under the eye of the scrutineer, If the roll cages for this type of car do require a front section to adhere the rules I think we need to consider
how Formula Four, Formula V and the 750 engined cars can pass scrutineering as they only have 1 rear hoop. weight wise and size I would not say there
is a significant difference.
Food for thought
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 17/3/11 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
AJW,
The legal term here is 'unfit for purpose'. You might add, 'unfit for specified purpose'.
MK must make good, in law, or refund and take the vehicle back.
MK's only get out may be the change in rules date, but that cage of theirs has been on the dodgy side of legal for some time.
Nev.
If it has been on the "dodgy side of Legal for some time", how has it been through scrutineering so many times for so many races and hold
several class wins in different series?
When Chris Maries car flipped nose to tail and barrell rolled over half a dozen times, I dont recal any doubt being raised as to the integrity, safety
or compliance of the structure when the car was immediately returned to Parc Ferme and inspected.
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
ajw
|
| posted on 18/3/11 at 10:19 AM |
|
|
msa regs
It would seem that the regs for sports cars relate to drawing K60 which is roll hoop with support bars with a clearance requirment overhead and to the
side. I will contact Danny to see if if he got new car MSA logged as this will settle all the issues . Look section K msa regs. My son Alex built roll
cages for rally car and followed FIA spec and had it logged as we followed WRC spec .This is all about interpretation and I am happy that MK cage is
fit for its purpose as the weakest area in all kit cars will be chassis in a crash situation. Maybe somebody might develope a carbon fibre tub and
sell to all the manufacturers of 7 type cars !
AJW
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 18/3/11 at 10:41 AM |
|
|
750mc require full cages for these cars, if over 2L raced in kits. The rules are a little ambiguous, because, as I read them, if under 2l then a rear
roll hoop with backstays and diagonal, is acceptable.
However, if a full cage is fitted, it must meet the required standards. The fact that some scrutineers will look aside at something that doesn't
meet the regs, just so the driver can go racing, doesn't say that the cage is correct.
The scrutineers should be telling Danny Keenan and anyone else with one of these mickey mouse bent tube cages, to either fix them, or remove the
sections of cage forward of the rear hoop, if they are running engines less than 2L. A bit silly, but that's how the regs read, at least to
me.
And why make that complicated lower bit anyway, when a straight tube is easier, and quicker to make and is stronger?
Cheers,
Nev.
[Edited on 18/3/11 by Neville Jones]
|
|
|
noc231073
|
| posted on 18/3/11 at 05:52 PM |
|
|
Now I am totally confused....
Does anyone really know what the regs are????
If a full rollcage is fitted does it have to comply with the above letter from the msa...????
so now engine size come into it??
|
|
|
ajw
|
| posted on 18/3/11 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
750 MC not my worry, it will be Robert C. my local scrutineer who will log car and if he is happy then I have no problem as I consider cage is better
than some cages that only attach to upper chasssis rail. I have a chassis with a cage on the shelf for sale maybe I should drop a block of concrete
from the teleporter to see if it survives ! bit extreme maybe !
I have decided to bring the car to Ireland and if the cage fails we will rebuild it. As I understand it you can buy a kit of certified tubes from a
supplier and weld them in your self ( and most home welds leave a lot to be desired) so I still feel the cage fitted at MK is probably the strongest
for the job ( maybe I could add gussets to strengthen the bends on front roll cage)
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 18/3/11 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neville Jones
750mc require full cages for these cars, if over 2L raced in kits. The rules are a little ambiguous, because, as I read them, if under 2l then a rear
roll hoop with backstays and diagonal, is acceptable.
However, if a full cage is fitted, it must meet the required standards. The fact that some scrutineers will look aside at something that doesn't
meet the regs, just so the driver can go racing, doesn't say that the cage is correct.
The scrutineers should be telling Danny Keenan and anyone else with one of these mickey mouse bent tube cages, to either fix them, or remove the
sections of cage forward of the rear hoop, if they are running engines less than 2L. A bit silly, but that's how the regs read, at least to
me.
And why make that complicated lower bit anyway, when a straight tube is easier, and quicker to make and is stronger?
Cheers,
Nev.
[Edited on 18/3/11 by Neville Jones]
Oh do I note a little bit of back pedalling yesterday you where stating law, now you are stating ambiguity its one or the other, it would appear to
me that being as the cars are not over 2litre then all is okay.
Now you also go on to state Mickey Mouse bent tube cages, I take it that you have undertaken stress test and assumed the correct forces within your
tests to give rationale to your argument . Mk obviously designed this cage to have a degree of aesthetics to it and in My oppinion it looks nice and
is complimentary on the eye ,so they aren't penny pinching by cost cutting and taking the easy option. It would also appear that they have done
their homework and meet the requirements.
I also notice that the downrights of the MK cages appear to be more secure and offer additional strength due the the method they are mounted to the
floor on the inside of the car and welsed to the top rail and not on a bit of plate welded to the outside
I thinks we must also remember the weight of one of these kits is possible half the weight and less than a roadgoing car yet uses equivelant
materials. I will always come back to the Chris Maries incident and would urge all else who witnessed the horrific role to bear testament to how well
the cage stood up to the battering it took oh and that was with a Mickey Mouse bend or two.
Just goes to show a little bit of scaremongering can go a long way and can cause a lot of harm. I would hope all that are concerned will now take it
up with MK personally anyone else who hasn't got an MK needn't really worry as it doesnt really affect you unless you have some commercial
/ profitteering to be made out of it all. As this appears to be where all this muck spreading started from initially.
If the outcome airs on the side of MK I would also hope all those who have made it their personal crusade to generate worry are big enough to
apologies to MK.
Im sure the guys at MK will do all in their power to assist their customers should they be in the wrong
Rant over
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
danny keenan
|
| posted on 18/3/11 at 07:18 PM |
|
|
hi alex
i have booked your car in to get an msa log book for you just to stop all the negative comments.
cheers danny
|
|
|
ajw
|
| posted on 19/3/11 at 07:34 AM |
|
|
msa regs
Many thanks Danny , this will prove the facts on eligability of the car for competition. As we say in Ireland " F**k the begrugers " as
you may have had people with commercial interests stirring the pot ! .
I will be returning car to Irl as soon as Jonathon maps engine.
Many thanks for putting issue to bed with good customer service. Looking forward to driving the car.
AJW
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 19/3/11 at 10:22 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by austin man
Oh do I note a little bit of back pedalling yesterday you where stating law, now you are stating ambiguity its one or the other, it would appear to
me that being as the cars are not over 2litre then all is okay.
No backpeddling at all. It appears that MK are exploiting a quirk in the regs.
It will only take one pedantic scrutineer to refuse one of these cages, then the fox is in the henhouse.
That double bend may look 'aesthetic', but is very poor design, and certainly does not pass FIA regs, and is very questionable under MSA
regs, even when used in an under 2L car. FIA require a few more tubes than MSA, as well. The top diagonal isn't compulsory with MSA, but is with
FIA, and I can't understand with this a vital safety issue, why MSA would differ. Maybe to 'mother' club racers?
Stress testing?? Now you're playing my back yard. Unless you're a stress engineer, don't go there. That MK cage wouldn't pass
testing without at least an added roof diagonal. The front corner stamp load test would bend the cage beyond limits.
Cheers,
Nev.
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 19/3/11 at 10:28 AM |
|
|
As a final comment,
Is it just far too easy for MK to take out the bends in question, and have a cage that causes no questions, and is far safer?
Cheers,
Nev.
|
|
|
Nosey
|
| posted on 19/3/11 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ajw
750 MC not my worry, it will be Robert C. my local scrutineer who will log car and if he is happy then I have no problem as I consider cage is better
than some cages that only attach to upper chasssis rail. I have a chassis with a cage on the shelf for sale maybe I should drop a block of concrete
from the teleporter to see if it survives ! bit extreme maybe !
I have decided to bring the car to Ireland and if the cage fails we will rebuild it. As I understand it you can buy a kit of certified tubes from a
supplier and weld them in your self ( and most home welds leave a lot to be desired) so I still feel the cage fitted at MK is probably the strongest
for the job ( maybe I could add gussets to strengthen the bends on front roll cage)
Hi ajw, is Robert C. based around Carlow? If so he has logged a chassis and cage I built myself for hillclimbing. Some old pics on
www.otoole-motorsport.com. I should be out with it in the first round in Wexford on the 26th. Best of luck with the lovely new car, sounds like we
might be in the same class (unfortunately for me from the spec of your car!).
|
|
|
ajw
|
 posted on 19/3/11 at 09:31 PM |
|
|
mk indy r / Irl.
ATTN NOSEY,
You dont have to worry about me . Have a look at NOC MK with 1350 hyabusa and he will be able to peddle it. He is in your neck of the woods as am I
( within 20 miles)
|
|
|
ajw
|
| posted on 30/3/11 at 08:38 PM |
|
|
test
Heading with danny to cadwell park on 12th to see how car performs. Its being mapped this week but may have to remake exhaust manifold .
|
|
|
noc231073
|
| posted on 30/3/11 at 09:14 PM |
|
|
Why do you have to remake the manifold
|
|
|
ajw
|
| posted on 1/4/11 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
manifold
waiting result of mapping but engine builder raised question on manifold ,we will see the results and then make a decision. The present one is by
raceline.
|
|
|
.jpg)
