Board logo

T45 MSA compliant ROPS for Stylus
se7ensport - 12/8/17 at 08:35 PM

Looking for a recommendation of a decent company that can properly make a T45 half/full cage within 60miles of Bristol.

Thanks
Alex

jeffw - 12/8/17 at 08:45 PM

Matt Downes at SSC?

Shooter63 - 12/8/17 at 09:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
Matt Downes at SSC?


I think you will find that Matt won't make them , this has been debated on the stylus forum, your best bet is to get the main hoop bent up by tube bender on flea bay then cut and make the diagonal and rear stays yourself, as no doubt you will be aware the sod job is the rear stays which in my view are best put through the boot lid and welded to the rear cross member via brackets, this will get you more than the required 30 degrees.
This is what I plan to do, obviously this will make to boot lid leak like a sieve, if you want a full cage then I believe the front legs cause problems in which case a pro company is probably your best bet.

Shooter

jeffw - 13/8/17 at 05:42 AM

Be aware the MSA has changed the requirement, when I had mine done by Fury Sportscars the MSA insisted on rear stays and this is why we had to build out a rear frame and cut the tub. However they have changed the regs to say that, if rear stays are not possible, you can have front stays. Still needs to be 45x2.5 CDS with the correct angles but can go forward not back.

TimC - 13/8/17 at 06:23 AM

I've heard good things about:
Cyclone Racing Ltd
BA3 4XE
01761 418562

procomp - 13/8/17 at 07:39 PM

Hi

It would cost a fortune to get a ROPS cage done due to the FIA testing fees unless going to be selling 100's to spread cost it wouldn't be worth while.

Also if using T45 the cost of heat treating is PROPERLY is ridiculous. Stick too CDS or best you can use MSA-500 tubing.

Cheers Matt

scootz - 14/8/17 at 04:28 AM

quote:
Originally posted by procomp
Hi

It would cost a fortune to get a ROPS cage done due to the FIA testing fees unless going to be selling 100's to spread cost it wouldn't be worth while.

Also if using T45 the cost of heat treating is PROPERLY is ridiculous. Stick too CDS or best you can use MSA-500 tubing.

Cheers Matt



Hi Matt.

I know you know your onions, but all the T45 suppliers that I've asked said that thin-walled T45 doesn't need to be heat treated post weld.

adithorp - 14/8/17 at 11:10 AM

Why would it need to be FIA tested/approved to be MSA compliant? Surely all the hundreds of cars doing club level motorsport aren't fitted with FIA tested ROP.

jeffw - 14/8/17 at 12:58 PM

MSA Blue book compliant Roll-hoop in 45mm x 2.5mm CDS is the answer. Not sure where FIA approval came in.

procomp - 14/8/17 at 02:47 PM

Hi.

The reason i mentioned FIA testing is because the very first word on the OP's post is T45 !

Hence i said if you read, that unless wanting to spread the cost over many cages stick with CDS or MSA-500 which obviously wont need FIA testing if built to blue book regs.


RE heat treating. Look what happens to all the cages and chassis made from T45 with no heat treating. Cracking and breaking is very common. Hence MSA-500 tubing was developed and approved. Bit stronger than CDS but most importantly traceable supply at a known standard and does not require heat treating, just very expensive.

Cheers Matt

loggyboy - 14/8/17 at 04:52 PM

Probably would have been easier to tell him t45 is no longer a bluebook acceptable material.

se7ensport - 14/8/17 at 08:20 PM

Thanks for the replies.

I'm going to have a chat with Matt at SSC as I'd prefer to put the work his way, however, our timescales may not align as he's working on other stuff at the moment. I'll also try the other guys mentioned.

Re: T45, didn't intend to create confusion (partly a misunderstanding on my part), I had thought it was the lightest material that complied with the bluebook spec; basically I have worked my way through my car taking out weight at every opportunity and don't want to add more back in the necessary.

Sounds like MSA-500 will do the job.

redturner - 22/8/17 at 01:15 PM

Contact Jo White at Vulcan Dezigns in Oxford.....

redturner - 22/8/17 at 01:36 PM

Can some one tell me exactly what MSA 500 tube is. AFAIK, this is a seamed tube, something we use at work. I have no doubt that it would be more than adequate for a roll hoop. If anyone can point me to the BB number it would be appreciated.....

loggyboy - 22/8/17 at 02:09 PM

I suspect its this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTM_A500
either a typo or a colloquial term.

Blue book states:

Minimum Material
Cold Drawn Seamless Unalloyed Carbon Steel, containing a maximum of 0.3% of carbon. Note: For an unalloyed carbon steel the maximum content of additives is 1.7% for manganese and 0.6% for other elements.
Minimum Yield Strength 350 N/mm2
Minimum Dimensions (Ψ in mm)
a) Mandatory tubular members
45 x 2.5 (1.75” x 0.095”) or 50 x 2.0 (2.0” x 0.083”).

[Edited on 22-8-17 by loggyboy]

procomp - 22/8/17 at 08:36 PM

Its available from a number of sources but here is one i use. http://proformancemetals.co.uk/motorsport/roll-cage-tube/ They refer to it as ROPT510. However MSA clubman 500 tubing will show many more suppliers.

Cheers Matt

phelpsa - 22/8/17 at 08:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
I suspect its this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTM_A500
either a typo or a colloquial term.

Blue book states:

Minimum Material
Cold Drawn Seamless Unalloyed Carbon Steel, containing a maximum of 0.3% of carbon. Note: For an unalloyed carbon steel the maximum content of additives is 1.7% for manganese and 0.6% for other elements.
Minimum Yield Strength 350 N/mm2
Minimum Dimensions (Ψ in mm)
a) Mandatory tubular members
45 x 2.5 (1.75” x 0.095”) or 50 x 2.0 (2.0” x 0.083”).

[Edited on 22-8-17 by loggyboy]


From Matts description it sounds like proformance ropt510 which seems to have been developed as an easily formable and weldable T45 equivalent. Tbh it's not really worth using anything better than standard EN10305-4 CDS if building to MSA regs (unless the car is particularly heavy...), and if going to the effort and expense of FIA approval you might as well go the whole hog and use 15CDV6 (17734.5).

Edit: simultaneous posting!

[Edited on 22-8-17 by phelpsa]

redturner - 23/8/17 at 08:21 AM

I think what people are getting confused about re. the FIA approval is being confused with the fact that a new design will have to be tested at MIRA as they are the only people in the UK who are authorised to give certification. and they make big charges, check out the problems that OMS and some other manufactures have had getting an MSA certificate for their cars. If you were to build a brand new car and wanted a roll hoop that complied with BB then you have to have it tested at MIRA and that will be expensive where as if you were to produce lots of car the cost would be spread over the production run. You could of course go to Safety Devices or a similar company and they could make one without any issues. Because I had issues with middle age spread I had difficulties getting comfortable in the car as the forward stays were digging in my shoulders so I cut the out, and relied on the rearward facing stays. When the balloon went up in the air at the end of last season I obtained the ROPS certificate from the MSA but because I had cut the tubes out it didn't comply, so instead of putting the tubes back in I simply made a new roll hoop out of CDS2 to the new larger section as permitted in the BB. I had a scrutineer call round and he was pleased to pass it and mark my logbook accordingly.....

loggyboy - 23/8/17 at 08:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by redturner
I think what people are getting confused about re. the FIA approval is being confused with the fact that a new design will have to be tested at MIRA as they are the only people in the UK who are authorised to give certification. and they make big charges, check out the problems that OMS and some other manufactures have had getting an MSA certificate for their cars. If you were to build a brand new car and wanted a roll hoop that complied with BB then you have to have it tested at MIRA and that will be expensive where as if you were to produce lots of car the cost would be spread over the production run. You could of course go to Safety Devices or a similar company and they could make one without any issues. Because I had issues with middle age spread I had difficulties getting comfortable in the car as the forward stays were digging in my shoulders so I cut the out, and relied on the rearward facing stays. When the balloon went up in the air at the end of last season I obtained the ROPS certificate from the MSA but because I had cut the tubes out it didn't comply, so instead of putting the tubes back in I simply made a new roll hoop out of CDS2 to the new larger section as permitted in the BB. I had a scrutineer call round and he was pleased to pass it and mark my logbook accordingly.....


I think your confusing it further!
For those building there own cage or own car, a new 'design', based on the blue book requirements, will not require any further testing. They shouldnt even be thinking about testing and homologation.

redturner - 23/8/17 at 11:03 AM

Correct, but as I said, in maybe a long winded way, it must be to the new (2017) Blue Book regs...That is why I had to increase the size of the tubing. However, you will not be issued with a certificate from the MSA.....

se7ensport - 7/10/17 at 07:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by TimC
I've heard good things about:
Cyclone Racing Ltd
BA3 4XE
01761 418562


^ And you'll hear more from me, massive thanks for the recommendation!

Rob was really good; humoured my OCD demands and expectations, we agreed on an outline design with the MSA and then tweaked the details so that it will act as a frame for a new hood and door glass (perspex).


[img] cage 1
cage 1 [/img]

[img] cage 2
cage 2 [/img]

[img] cage 3
cage 3 [/img]

[img] cage 4
cage 4 [/img]

[img] cage 5
cage 5 [/img]

[img] cage 6
cage 6 [/img]

[img] cage 7
cage 7 [/img]

CosKev3 - 7/10/17 at 08:30 PM

Looks great

But I thought in the MSA blue book you were not allowed more than one bend in the front legs of the cage?

adithorp - 7/10/17 at 08:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CosKev3
Looks great

But I thought in the MSA blue book you were not allowed more than one bend in the front legs of the cage?


I can only see one bend.

Does look good.

jeffw - 7/10/17 at 08:35 PM

Have you had a MSA Scrutineer approve this new cage?

CosKev3 - 7/10/17 at 08:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
quote:
Originally posted by CosKev3
Looks great

But I thought in the MSA blue book you were not allowed more than one bend in the front legs of the cage?


I can only see one bend.

Does look good.


So it has!

se7ensport - 7/10/17 at 08:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
Have you had a MSA Scrutineer approve this new cage?


Design photos and sketches approved in writing by MSA; don't forget that its K1 which is just the rear hoop and forward stays over 30degrees, anything added for additional safety is fine.

jeffw - 7/10/17 at 09:58 PM

Yes, I'm aware of that.

se7ensport - 7/10/17 at 10:05 PM

What’s behind the question then?