MikeR
|
| posted on 1/5/11 at 03:36 PM |
|
|
MSA roll bar rule change - not sure how affects us
Just found this link and thought i'd publicise it. Hopefully all MSA racers have been made aware of this via club newsletters if its relevent -
but those thinking of racing may need to keep it in mind, especially in car based classes.
http://www.racingexposure.com/blog/2011/03/msa-issues-immediate-roll-cage-regulation-amendment/
(please no MK related comments unless its relevent to this actual amendment - we've done it to death, either it is or it isn't but they
get through scruitineering so lets let it lie on this thread.)
|
|
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 1/5/11 at 04:08 PM |
|
|
How do you incorporate a windscreen pillar reinforcement in a car which either
a) doesn't have a windscreen ?
b) doesn't have a steel monocoque ?
Also
Quote
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.
Quote
"Have only one bend with its lower vertical part" ?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps "Have only one bend withIN its lower vertical part" might have made more sense.
Or did they mean. "Have only one bend with its lower part vertical." ?
Who knows?
Whatever the case, the form of words they have used do not work.
Yet again, the MSA attempt to try and word regulations to mean something and yet again they completely fail to nail it down in a definitive manner
which cannot be interpreted in more than one way. Worse than wording it in a manner open to interpretation, they have worded it using gobledegook
which means the square root of diddly squat.
This clarification is anything but a clarification and I would love to see it going to court.
The devil, as ever, is in the detail and in this case they have said precisely zero because of a poorly worded statement.
Pity help the poor buggers who have to now implement it.
Who would be a scrutineer ?
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 1/5/11 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by zilspeed
How do you incorporate a windscreen pillar reinforcement in a car which either
a) doesn't have a windscreen ?
b) doesn't have a steel monocoque ?
Also
Quote
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.
You've missed the bit which said text in green is deleted, "with its lower vertical part " has been deleted so it now reads
QUOTE:- 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 unless a windscreen pillar reinforcement [K1.3.5(e)] is fitted.
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 1/5/11 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
You've got me there.
Note to self.
Read and understand before commenting.
Stop ranting... 
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 2/5/11 at 06:34 AM |
|
|
So a double bend type front hoop is now ok as long as there are windscreen pillar reinforcements fitted (apart from the statement about the mounting
feet not being behind the foremost point of the roll bar which would suggest that all bends in a double bend have to be towards the rear)
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 2/5/11 at 11:56 AM |
|
|
The amendment to the front bar bend doesnt effect 'us' at all, as there are no windscreen mounts, the change is only relevant tintops.
We still can only have one bend (if that bends follows the 'windscreen line'.
|
|
|
eddie99
|
| posted on 2/5/11 at 12:28 PM |
|
|
As above... These changes are targetted at tintops with rollcages...
http://www.elitemotorsporteng.co.uk/
Twitter: @Elitemotoreng
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elite-Motorsport-Engineering/153409081394323
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Halemini
|
| posted on 14/12/11 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
Hello everyone!
Ok from this I read it as, you are allowed one bend in the lower section of the front roll cage. Therefore the front pillar can follow the angle of
the 'windscreen' (imagine we have one for second) and then has ONE bend to bring it back to vertical so it head down to the floor. I
believe this rule is to stop 'S' bends in this lower section which you sometimes see in saloon cars.
agree/disagree? I may have to call the MSA to confirm this!
Kind regards
Dc
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 14/12/11 at 09:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Halemini
Hello everyone!
Ok from this I read it as, you are allowed one bend in the lower section of the front roll cage. Therefore the front pillar can follow the angle of
the 'windscreen' (imagine we have one for second) and then has ONE bend to bring it back to vertical so it head down to the floor. I
believe this rule is to stop 'S' bends in this lower section which you sometimes see in saloon cars.
agree/disagree? I may have to call the MSA to confirm this!
Kind regards
Dc
Thats correct, one bend only, no 'S' bends.
|
|
|
v832b
|
| posted on 6/2/12 at 08:30 PM |
|
|
So will this affect scrinteering at a locost race?
|
|
|
