Roll cages

[ERC]

Continuation from the Shellsport Saloons thread. Suggest you read the latter stages of that thread first.

To summarise. Long term projects have been caught in a trap where cages built to the previous rules (main hoop metal spec has changed) but hadn't had the paperwork completed, can't get the cage passed without an engineer's report., This is required because the cage is deemed a "free design" and therefore has to conform to tests laid down by MSNZ. These tests dictate the amount of deflection given a specific force and at a specifc angle.

A newly built cage to the current specs and to an approved design will be rubber stamped within days. However, this approved spec would fail all the deflection tests.

So those trapped with longer term projects are faced with a cage that may be identical to 100's of existing, approved cages, but they are sidelined without stripping out the existing cage and replacing the main hoop, or, have built cages that are much stronger than the approved cages, but they can't get them passed.

[928]

Seems to me as an indemnity certificate is needed. You state that you do not want to race the car, but may do the odd speed event. If the regulators had a indemnty cert for you to sign, exempting them of liability, and you will take care of you own liability, the problem would be solved, surely. An easy a paper work exersize that should suit paper pushers down to the ground

[Rod Grimwood]

Quote; - Does anyone realise what the ramifications of scenario really are, on the one hand you have a roll cage that has been assessed by a registered engineer to be 25% stronger than that model recomended by MSNZ. This roll cage is deemed by MSNZ to be inadaquat so is not accepted.
The way I see it is that all MSNZ recomended roll cages that have passed as being suitable, are in fact going to fail, as they are 25% weaker than one that MSNZ will not pass as it does not fit the model that MSNZ are recomending.
I hope MSNZ have a very good insurance policy, as any resulting serious injuries or deaths will be looked at rather severely by the Labour Department, with all sorts of liabilities aimed at those who have signed and rubber stamped these cages off.
Your thoughts will make interesting reading. End Quote.

Note the Labour Department (now The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) only deal in work related accidents, this is sport (apparently)

[rogered]

with out reading the manual. did it not used to be
as per the examples in the book, or
if of a different design, to be signed of by an engineer

[Carlo]

I understand that the current safety cage regulations are the current FIA ones and one would suspect that the FIA have done a lot more research into the various issues and designs than all of NZ motorsport, us guys included, have done in total.

Yes there are some like Dave who have been caught out with the regulation changes simply because they did not get their cage approved when they built it, rather they waited until the car was close to completion before going through the process. If we look around the traps you will see a number of cars that are still not completed but have had their cages approved simply becasue the owner understood that there was a cut off date for approval of the old design.

I still think that a representation to the Executive correctly written up with the appropriate evidence to prove that the cage was constructed as part of the car build and that the actual cage it's self was completed prior to the cut off date would go a long way to achieving the desired result. You need to remember that the Technical Dept do not have the authority to change the rules or issue any form of exemption and that there are more ways to kill a cat than drowning the damn thing in cream.

In the case of my car I have the opposite problem, I built my cage just before the information about the changes was released and it is built with the old spec main hoop. Because of this I am unable to use my car overseas and any thought that I had about taking the car to a couple of classic / historic rallies in Australia are now completely out the window as I do not intend pulling the car to bits to replace it. Unfortunately this has also reduced the potential to sell the car off to a Skippy when I get to doddery to drive it too.

[markec]

Aproaches to MSNZ officialdom gets no response,as the roll cage in question has had an engineers certificate sent in with the application, your argument doesn't hold water Carlo. In a real world situation, what you say would happen, but remember we are dealing with MSNZ.

[markec]

Has anyone had their car scrutineered by an FIA scrutineer at a European competition meeting ?, you will find they will not physically touch your car. All adjustments and removal of covers etc have to be done by the entrant or his agent.

[Bruce Sollitt]

Carl, MSNZ is too willingly to effect change and impose cost on competitors for the sole purpose of compliance with FIA and uniformity. Neither is a valid enough reason for change.

Many cars are permitted to compete in NZ motorsport by virtue of 'grandfather clauses' which tells us that the standards to which they comply are both adequate and acceptable. The sport has no business disallowing any other competitor to comply with the same standards.

Rather than needless regulation change, a simple advisory that our previous main hoop specs rendered those cars ineligible for overseas competition would have sufficed.

However, leaving that aside for a moment, if I recall correctly, the rule change had a well publicised lead time of around 18 months so it's perhaps a little misleading for those who didn't get their stuff together to claim to have been "caught out".

One would hope that the situation is not irretrievable and that a well presented case to the Exec. might bring a solution. Failing that, a remit at conference.
But there would need to be some legwork first to understand the extent of the issue. Perhaps a register of those competitors and cars effected.

[ERC]

Seems to me as an indemnity certificate is needed. You state that you do not want to race the car, but may do the odd speed event. If the regulators had a indemnty cert for you to sign, exempting them of liability, and you will take care of you own liability, the problem would be solved, surely. An easy a paper work exersize that should suit paper pushers down to the ground
If I remove the cage, the car is legal... That is the true extent of the frustration. If the cages to MSNZ's own design are approved yet fail the tests, then surely, the test requirements are too tough? (Or the approved designs are too weak?)

I am no engineer, but it appears to me that the cage installed in a 1950's steel shelled saloon has exactly the same requirements and design as for a flimsy thin, fibreglass bodied car. (Yes I know thicker fibreglass can be strong...)

When a project has taken many years and the original cage photos were supplied to MSNZ back in 2006 and the go ahead given for it to be painted, the final approval to be turned down because the correct paperwork wasn't filed in time, in my case, is accepted. What is NOT accepted or acceptable, is the test criteria, or in Dave's case, the refusal to accept the engineer's report.

We don't have to sign an indemnity if we run without a cage, so why should we need to with one? I'd happily sign an indemnity, but it is optional safety equipment, in the same way that neck restraints and gloves or four/five/six point harnesses are also optional.

The systems need looking at if all the criteria are not equal. Maybe there also needs to be a consideration as to potential use, power to weight etc.

[markec]

The ironic part of this scenario is, that if Dave Silcock removes part of the front section of his cage in effect making it weaker the cage would be acceptable. You explain the logic in that situation.As Dave said to me,'how would it look on Fair Go, taking part of a structure out to make it legal,by weakening it'.

[markec]

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=fia+roll+cages&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hoH0UOqyC8ikkQWY6oHwCA&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=690

Go to the above site for images of FIA aproved roll cages.

[markec]

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/L23_roll_cage_padding.pdf

FIA Material specs

[grelley]

What has happened to Schedule AA for classic cars which was to a slightly lower standard. Could Sched AA not be ammended to encompass the older requirements.

[markec]

My slingshot Email address is disabled at the moment so try me on <mark@markcoulthard.com>

[Rod Grimwood]

Please don't start on FIA, we don't have enough computor space.
Who are they, what do they do for US. (NZ'ers)(classic people) Why do you have to have a mother to play, lots of orphans do very well by themselves, in fact the most successfull around were once orphans.
Is it true they share offices with the IRB. Must have nice lunch's together on our money (fees)

Sorry, I will do a hundred lines for being naughty.

[ERC]

Sorry guys, but I can't post much at the moment.

Whilst contorting my aged body last week, dealing to the front cage, to make sure it isn't there any more, I have severely twisted my back and I assume, dislodged a vertebra, trapping a nerve. I have spent more time at the emergency clinic, chiropractor (twice), acupuncturist and finally this afternoon, the GP, who has ordered total rest and put me on a swag of pain killers, anti inflammatories etc. I have virtually lost the use of my left hand/arm which is down to about 15% of its normal strength. Needless to say, this has made me even more bitter towards these stupid rules, as if the cage had been accepted, this wouldn't have happened!

Now 10pm and returning to a fully prone position, which is where I have been since 3pm and most of the last few days and sleepless nights... Sadly, it also means I won't now be trailering the car to HD to display (and to show Crunch and anyone else interested) and I now have up to six weeks of severely restricted movement to look forward to. Hopefully I will get to HD to take pics and say hi to a fair few people.

[markec]

Don't expect any sympathy from those from MSNZ Ray, one needs a conscience,sound social values, personal integraty, honesty along with empathy and other genuine human atributes to have feelings enough to offer condolances.

[John H]

Where is the best value for money to get a Holden fitted out with a complying roll cage in Auckland please?

[Paul Wilkinson]

Sorry guys, but I can't post much at the moment.

Whilst contorting my aged body last week, dealing to the front cage, to make sure it isn't there any more, I have severely twisted my back and I assume, dislodged a vertebra, trapping a nerve. I have spent more time at the emergency clinic, chiropractor (twice), acupuncturist and finally this afternoon, the GP, who has ordered total rest and put me on a swag of pain killers, anti inflammatories etc. I have virtually lost the use of my left hand/arm which is down to about 15% of its normal strength. Needless to say, this has made me even more bitter towards these stupid rules, as if the cage had been accepted, this wouldn't have happened!

Now 10pm and returning to a fully prone position, which is where I have been since 3pm and most of the last few days and sleepless nights... Sadly, it also means I won't now be trailering the car to HD to display (and to show Crunch and anyone else interested) and I now have up to six weeks of severely restricted movement to look forward to. Hopefully I will get to HD to take pics and say hi to a fair few people.


Sorry to hear about your back. Assuming you haven't moved in the last couple of years, I am just around the corner. If you've had to leave anything in a state you're not happy for it to remain for the next six weeks I am happy to pop 'round and tidy it away under your supervision.

[rf84]

There are a lot of anomalies in the regs. Our local car club had a competitor who had a "standard" road car (Subaru). It took many FTD's against cars such as a Porsche GT3. Because it was "standard" it was not required to have a roll cage of any sort (and, in addition, had only lap and diagonal road car belts). If the owner had installed a roll cage it would have made the car much safer in the event of a crash. But then he would have had all the hassles/expense of homologating the cage. Surely roll protection of any sort (approved or not) is safer than no roll protection at all?

[crunch]

Quote; - Does anyone realise what the ramifications of scenario really are, on the one hand you have a roll cage that has been assessed by a registered engineer to be 25% stronger than that model recomended by MSNZ. This roll cage is deemed by MSNZ to be inadaquat so is not accepted.
The way I see it is that all MSNZ recomended roll cages that have passed as being suitable, are in fact going to fail, as they are 25% weaker than one that MSNZ will not pass as it does not fit the model that MSNZ are recomending.
I hope MSNZ have a very good insurance policy, as any resulting serious injuries or deaths will be looked at rather severely by the Labour Department, with all sorts of liabilities aimed at those who have signed and rubber stamped these cages off.
Your thoughts will make interesting reading. End Quote.

Note the Labour Department (now The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) only deal in work related accidents, this is sport (apparently)

Not quite correct Rod. I cannot comment on individual cases on here for obvious reasons, but what the 25% relates to is an engineers opinion. Another engineer has a totally different opinion. Dont ask me how; as I thought they used mathematical equations...but that is the case. If a certified engineer signs/approves any structure, the onus is on them.
Yes we do have a good insurance policy, your fees pay for it.

[crunch]

Aproaches to MSNZ officialdom gets no response,as the roll cage in question has had an engineers certificate sent in with the application, your argument doesn't hold water Carlo. In a real world situation, what you say would happen, but remember we are dealing with MSNZ.

Totally disagree with your opening statement. I have already offerred Dave a solution which he has indicated to me is ok. It's comments such as yours that make me realise why some officials may not choose to help you.

[crunch]

Don't expect any sympathy from those from MSNZ Ray, one needs a conscience,sound social values, personal integraty, honesty along with empathy and other genuine human atributes to have feelings enough to offer condolances.

What a load of crap.

[markec]

So what crunch is inferring is that when/if an action went through the court system, it could bring a result that 5 or 6 Engineers reports could differ by up to and more than 25%, I think he's talking shite.
There is a situation at the moment where an engineer has given a report on an existing roll cage, but will not give a report on the model the MSNZ are using.. The conscensus is that they will not put their name to a structure that is so fundamentally flawed it will fail completly and it is the model being used in most circuit race cars operating under the MSNZ's approved, rubber stamped rulings.
The original issues are that "why is a rollcage that has been issued with an engineers report, deemed to be unsatisfactory when it has been shown in the engineers report, to be stonger than MSNZ require, not get a compliance certificate".
Whether those at MSNZ like it or not, it appears the the tall poppy syndrome is alive at MSNZ and is acting in a detrimental way to competitors and licensed members of the participating Car Clubs.. None of those involved with the issueing of compliance documentation are qualified Structural Engineers, so those issueing compliance certifications are obliged to accept registered Engineers reports on the structural integraty of the structures discribed in those Engineers reports.If that is not happening,and its not,then many of those applying for certification are doing the proverbial, peeing into the wind.
It would also appear that those further up the chain of comand at MSNZ are sitting on their hands rather than getting a little forming oil on the hands by doing something to resolve the whole scenario, after all thats what they put their names forward to be in the election cycle. It would seem a number o them should tender their resignations ,to let competent persons take over the running of Motor sport in this country.

[ERC]

Sorry to hear about your back. Assuming you haven't moved in the last couple of years, I am just around the corner. If you've had to leave anything in a state you're not happy for it to remain for the next six weeks I am happy to pop 'round and tidy it away under your supervision.
Very kind of you Paul. Much appreciated, but I am now at the strengthening/fibreglassing boot and bonnet stage and I'd like to think I can get back to that next week, though the lack of any gripping strength in the left hand might slow me. Thanks to others offering support and remedies.

rf84 Exactly. There is a major difference between an out and out racer and a road car, no matter how fast the road car. This is the frustration. Putting in a basic cage whilst building a road car from scratch is no big deal. Trying to modify a cage later is. I totally agree that any cage is better than none and as the only people likely to be affected by it in the event of a crash are the occupants, it is therefore a personal issue. I don't believe that MSNZ are in any way affected or liable when it comes to vehicle construction whether it is involved in a road or a track accident. On the public road, with a current WoF, MSNZ have zero liability. At the track, they are so far removed from liability that their risk is negligible. In fact, should my wife be widowed by anything that happens on track, she is in no doubt at all that no blame is attached to any driver or official and that I willingly accept any and every risk.

With or without a cage, I have pulled of races before now, when the speed differential between my slow car and faster cars such as the Lighting Direct Porsches, has been such that in poor weather, I deemed it dangerous to continue.

NZ Transport or whatever they are called these days, are happy enough to accept many thousands of cars on our roads without airbags, ABS brakes etc., even though you cannot now import many models that were already here before they changed the rules. But you can still import a classic car without those safety devices. In this respect, MSNZ are totally overlooking the requirements of many of their customers, namely the classic fraternity.

Regardless of the Historic Commission's beliefs and challenges to any such rules and attitudes, they are totally powerless, and it is this ongoing lack of respect for the commission from those deemed "above" them, which has led to a lot of criticism of MSNZ itself.

Maybe the technical department needs one person within who not only actually understands classics, but has the power to make common sense decisions, instead of just fobbing us off with "your cage doesn't comply with current regs, so go away". The calls for a stand alone organisation are driven by these sorts of issues.

Several TRS posters have written to me privately and I thank them for their suppport. If I am well enough next week, I may well trailer the unfinished project down to HD for weekend 2, but it is not looking too good at the moment as I am not yet allowed to drive.

[Dave Silcock]

Totally disagree with your opening statement. I have already offerred Dave a solution which he has indicated to me is ok. It's comments such as yours that make me realise why some officials may not choose to help you.

I am confused Crunch, what solution have you offered me?

[Dave Silcock]

So what crunch is inferring is that when/if an action went through the court system, it could bring a result that 5 or 6 Engineers reports could differ by up to and more than 25%, I think he's talking shite.
There is a situation at the moment where an engineer has given a report on an existing roll cage, but will not give a report on the model the MSNZ are using.. The conscensus is that they will not put their name to a structure that is so fundamentally flawed it will fail completly and it is the model being used in most circuit race cars operating under the MSNZ's approved, rubber stamped rulings.
The original issues are that "why is a rollcage that has been issued with an engineers report, deemed to be unsatisfactory when it has been shown in the engineers report, to be stonger than MSNZ require, not get a compliance certificate".
Whether those at MSNZ like it or not, it appears the the tall poppy syndrome is alive at MSNZ and is acting in a detrimental way to competitors and licensed members of the participating Car Clubs.. None of those involved with the issueing of compliance documentation are qualified Structural Engineers, so those issueing compliance certifications are obliged to accept registered Engineers reports on the structural integraty of the structures discribed in those Engineers reports.If that is not happening,and its not,then many of those applying for certification are doing the proverbial, peeing into the wind.
It would also appear that those further up the chain of comand at MSNZ are sitting on their hands rather than getting a little forming oil on the hands by doing something to resolve the whole scenario, after all thats what they put their names forward to be in the election cycle. It would seem a number o them should tender their resignations ,to let competent persons take over the running of Motor sport in this country.

Further to my earlier posting, Crunch could you please supply me with a copy of your engineers report. You and MSNZ have a copy of my report which you now say is incorrect. It may interest to know that I also have an additional report that concurs with in a fraction of a percent with the one you have. It is interesting to note you accept the report that fails my structure with out question yet one that could be embarrassing to MSNZ is questioned immediately.

[John McKechnie]

John H-My complying roll cage was from Ron McMillan of Road, Race Rally.Homologated in a week, no hassles.See me at HD-blue XA Coupe. Price was better than I thought.Will get my HK Monaro cage done there.Can pm you with the price.

[crunch]

I am confused Crunch, what solution have you offered me?

OK Dave, I will put it all out there.

This started because you had not had your structure certified by the cut off date. You publicised to all and sundry on here that you missed the date by 3 days and that it wasnt fair and MSNZ were a bunch of bad guys. Whereas in fact you missed it by 1 year and 3 years as I have already told you over our various phone calls. (And you agreed)
The company that you recently paid a lot of money to, to certify your roll structure (as the original manufacturer of it was unwilling/unable to do) informed you that it did not pass the test. You then on one of our many phone conversations said you had a mate in Wanaka who was a certified engineer who said it would pass. Therefore my suggestion to you (Dec 8th last year) was to get him to file a new Roll Protection Application for your current structure and sign it in his official capacity, and I would ensure that the sport would accept this. I also said you should endeavour to get this done before Christmas. This is not how the system should work as the original manufacturer is the person that should be certifying thier own work. However to help you out, I have bent the rules a bit.

Remember now maybe?

[crunch]

Sorry that should read 1 year and 3 days above

[crunch]

Further to my earlier posting, Crunch could you please supply me with a copy of your engineers report. You and MSNZ have a copy of my report which you now say is incorrect. It may interest to know that I also have an additional report that concurs with in a fraction of a percent with the one you have. It is interesting to note you accept the report that fails my structure with out question yet one that could be embarrassing to MSNZ is questioned immediately.

I dont have an engineers report Dave. What makes you think that? For your structure the only report that MSNZ has is the one you supplied to the sport that failed your structure.

[crunch]

So what crunch is inferring is that when/if an action went through the court system, it could bring a result that 5 or 6 Engineers reports could differ by up to and more than 25%, I think he's talking shite.
There is a situation at the moment where an engineer has given a report on an existing roll cage, but will not give a report on the model the MSNZ are using.. The conscensus is that they will not put their name to a structure that is so fundamentally flawed it will fail completly and it is the model being used in most circuit race cars operating under the MSNZ's approved, rubber stamped rulings.
The original issues are that "why is a rollcage that has been issued with an engineers report, deemed to be unsatisfactory when it has been shown in the engineers report, to be stonger than MSNZ require, not get a compliance certificate".
Whether those at MSNZ like it or not, it appears the the tall poppy syndrome is alive at MSNZ and is acting in a detrimental way to competitors and licensed members of the participating Car Clubs.. None of those involved with the issueing of compliance documentation are qualified Structural Engineers, so those issueing compliance certifications are obliged to accept registered Engineers reports on the structural integraty of the structures discribed in those Engineers reports.If that is not happening,and its not,then many of those applying for certification are doing the proverbial, peeing into the wind.
It would also appear that those further up the chain of comand at MSNZ are sitting on their hands rather than getting a little forming oil on the hands by doing something to resolve the whole scenario, after all thats what they put their names forward to be in the election cycle. It would seem a number o them should tender their resignations ,to let competent persons take over the running of Motor sport in this country.

I have no idea what you are on about. Frankly you are so obviously anti-MSNZ I shouldnt even bother trying to answer this, but I will and no doubt you wont accept the answer...but hear goes.
I agree with your first sentence about how can there be 25% difference when all an engineer is doing is using a universal formula that takes into account the material properties, weld process etc. They should all be the same,..but there you go, apparently two engineers can get two different results.

What MSNZ structure is so fundementally flawed?

Once I got to the "tall poppy sentence" I lost track of the point you are trying to make. MSNZ Tech Dept dont make decisions on rollcages in a small darkened room as you seem to think. They use certiifed engineers to advise because as you rightly point out; they are not! Most if not all of the certified engineers they use are also recognised as being the best in the motorsport field at roll protection. One was mentioned in Auckland on an earlier post.
As I dont know who you are; you will have to tap me on the shoulder this Saturday at Hampton Downs or Invercargill in February if you want to discuss further. I'm the fat guy wearing the MSNZ shirt.
However; I do expect to see you stand for election this year.

[markec]

It would seem that you have confirmed what I stated in my post with your answer.

[Dave Silcock]

OK Dave, I will put it all out there.

This started because you had not had your structure certified by the cut off date. You publicised to all and sundry on here that you missed the date by 3 days and that it wasnt fair and MSNZ were a bunch of bad guys. Whereas in fact you missed it by 1 year and 3 years as I have already told you over our various phone calls. (And you agreed)
The company that you recently paid a lot of money to, to certify your roll structure (as the original manufacturer of it was unwilling/unable to do) informed you that it did not pass the test. You then on one of our many phone conversations said you had a mate in Wanaka who was a certified engineer who said it would pass. Therefore my suggestion to you (Dec 8th last year) was to get him to file a new Roll Protection Application for your current structure and sign it in his official capacity, and I would ensure that the sport would accept this. I also said you should endeavour to get this done before Christmas. This is not how the system should work as the original manufacturer is the person that should be certifying thier own work. However to help you out, I have bent the rules a bit.

Remember now maybe?

Crunch you say '' you will put it all out there'' well I say you have a very selective memory. In post 22 you say you offered me a solution that I agreed to. Not true. This was your solution E mailed to me on 10/12/12. '' What you need to do is get your engineer buddy to complete a roll protection homologation form and submit to office before the 24th''
And this is my response the same day. '' I don't believe that will alter any thing , as it is my belief that Julian already has these documents in his possession. He clearly has had the MC Fraser report since you Emailed it to him Oct 1st, and I now believe that PC has forwarded the application. By the tone of his reply one can presume that he is going to take not one bit of notice that the tube in my car is 25% stiffer than that he would have me build it from etc etc. I don't think this could be seen an acceptance.
In one our many phone calls you told me if I got an engineers report stating that the tubing was as strong as that specified " you will have your approval'' When I supplied that to you on Oct 1st your response was '' will circulate H&C commission and have copied to Julian and Brian for comment. Then we will find away forward''.
And by the way on 10 Dec Julian was denying that he had any documents since August! When I phoned you in January to check on the way forward you came up with your ''solution''. This course of action was not feasible as there was already a report on record that stated the cage would fail the test.
You also asked me to get Dave Mac Cahn, advisor to MSNZ on roll cage matters and a manufacturer of roll cage kits involved. When I informed him of the issues involved his response was '' That means 90% of the present stock of approved roll cages would fail'' [ MSNZ 's tests]
And one last thing, on post 21 I think you were trying to cast doubt on the fact that my tube is 25% stiffer by saying another engineer could disagree. Perhaps MSNZ should engage one to find out instead of using innuendo to discredit to MC Fraser's report.
Are you also saying that MSNZ has never received his report as alluded to in post 31?

[crunch]

URGH!
So why isnt the lastest solution feasible to you? I will say it again, get an engineer to submit a Roll Protection form that he will sign off as doing what it is designed for. Julian or MSNZ has not recieved one as yet. We/I have got a one page report from an engineer stating he thinks that the tubes are not strong enough (supplied by yourself). I asked this question of the Tech Dept, and ALL their advisors (not just in NZ) who are involved with motorsport structures are comfortable.
Ball is in your court, remember I/we dont have to be doing this..

Who told you that this would not work?

[Dave Silcock]

The ball is certainly not in my court. No engineer is going to file a report stating a structure is going to meet MSNZ standards when clearly one built to your own standards will not. I have never agreed to this proposal, as it is not much more than an attempt by your organization to absolve it self from the chaotic mess, by your own admission,it finds it self in. The report you keep alluding is what you asked me to get Peter Cunliffe of Design Auto Tek to resubmit after we got the Fraser report and including the report that failed the structure. You told me this was required to move forward. You knew all along I was not in possession of any other report. What is it that makes you think that the Fraser report states that the tube is not strong enough? The closing statement of which is
"These figures indicate that while 38.1x2.1mm tube has lower sectional properties than the 44.5x2.5mm tube, the mechanical properties of the ASME 4130 tubing would allow the smaller tube to support a greater bending load at yield. by approximately 25%'' I think this last post of yours is telling in what you have failed to address.

[crunch]

OK Dave, lets just park it there then as obviously this isnt gonna work. I still dont know what the Fraser report is as all I have seen as a roll protection report for your structure was from the Christchurch company that you paid for. Doesnt really matter though.

This morning I have asked 7 experts in motorsport fabrication from NZ and around the world regarding if the formula/figures that MSNZ currently use are wrong. All the FIA ASN's (country representatives) use the same formula/s and the NZ constructors are very comfortable with the current system.

As for Ray's scenario, that is more demanding to find a solution.

[Russ Cunningham]

Obviously the previous parties will never be able to reach agreement but if a bloke wants to race a car with no rollcage at all then my feeling is that the onus ends there. For Gods sake, no one had roll cages in the 50's but they had a bloody sight more fun without the expense complying with every PC minded sod in the world.

Religious differences have accounted for more deaths in this world than anything else but do we see this PC crap attached to religion? NO!!!

Every soul in this world is entitled to the right to put their own value on their head.

By the way Jum! Mine's a buck!!!

Crunch that!

[ERC]

We keep coming back to this Crunch. The MSNZ approved designs fail their own tests, so either their designs are flawed or the test requirements are flawed.

If we assume MSNZ designs are OK, then just changing the main hoop and re-doing the calculations should show what the differences are between the two (old and new). As it is only the main hoop that has been changed, I can't see the need for about six extra bars to compensate for the minimal extra strength from that main hoop. Those extra bars are required just to achieve the test results required by MSNZ and for no other reason. I have zero engineering knowledge, but a small extra bar welded across the top open corner, triangulating the main hoop would probably put the same amount of strength into the old bar and would be possible without ripping the car to shreds. It would merely muck up the roll bar paint, but due to the test requirements, that extra strength isn't sufficient for the cage to pass.

In other words, if you build the cage to the current regs, it fails the deformity tests. So which is wrong? If we started a campaign to demand all previous cages were modified and brought up to current regulations, the numbers competing (specifically classics and older cars) would drop dramatically and we'd be hounded out of town.

[Frosty5]

Hi guys, I have been following this thread with interest and from where I sit (and I don't race a car or have an axe to grind and this is purely a personal observation so don't crucify me) it would seem that MSNZ have changed the regulations from time to time and some have been caught out with those changes. That being the case then if one builds a roll cage for ones pride and joy then under the regulations at the time it must comply with those regs surely. I once had a lifetime drivers licence however, the body (GOVT) changed the rules and you try telling a cop that you have a lifetime licence. It doesnt wash. The rules are the rules and one needs to comply with those. Just look at the rules for HMC, you turn up with lower profile tires, 16" wheels and alloy heads, they don't comply end of story. Fix that and you can race. The variations in interpretations from engineers is well know and I think that if MSNZ have had an engineers report then who are you/we to argue. Build them to the rules and offer enhancements for additional strength and safety and see what the reaction is rather than charge in with all the legal eagles. It will cost a lot less and a truckload less of drama.
Well thts my view, cheers guys

[Jac Mac]

Frosty5, you simplificate too much:), nothing wrong with HMC 's rules to retain the 15" tires, iron heads of the era... but then to suggest that all those cars should have a ~2013 compliant roll cage ... sounds like you want a foot in each camp, I have a problem with the current cage spec, it virtually requires a Hans device to make it safe, if you dont have the Hans device the chances are you will be KO'ed when your head clouts the longtitudinal bars in any sort of side impact, this is in my mind one of the major problems when fitting a current cage design into an older car, especially the smaller Euro, UK designs which have smaller/narrower interiors. A roll bar should be just that, a structure to prevent the roof collapsing in the event you roll the car, I think this would be enough for most classic type cars, the 'Cage' builds too many variables into the car in terms of stiffening the chassis, adding weight, inhibiting access etc.

PS, I shudder at the thought/vision of a cage designed by a 'legal eagle' [ ever noticed that both words use the same letters? ]

[ERC]

The personal history.

Original cage built in 2006 to MSNZ rules/materials into a steel shelled 1950’s saloon car weighing less than 1150kg, but sadly, cage builder(s)/owner never lodged any official paperwork, though pics and details were submitted prior to painting and provisionally approved November 2006.

End 2012, request engineer’s report as MSNZ wouldn’t pass it, but they stated that as long as the engineer’s report was satisfactory, it could be homologated. No guidance was offered as to the potential for the cage to fail the freeform test requirements, so the question has to be asked “Are/were MSNZ aware of the potential test results using the older spec steel?” Equally, are/were they also aware that even if built to the required steel spec, the cage would still fail their own tests?” If not, why not?

At the risk of repeating what was published previously on another thread – this is the cage as built to the old specs and submitted to the engineer. A basic cage only was required as this is not an out and out race car, but it would be nice to race in the MGCC series for example. Equally, side intrusion bars were deemed unnecessary as access was compromised in what is still a road car and the car is quite narrow and there is insufficient space for side bars without stripping out the heavy, steel, doors, compromising the interior totally.
An extra diagonal to the hoop would also mean moving the driver's seat forward - which is also not possible given that my build and physique is rather more more Angus Fogg than Ray Williams.

15012

After a wait of four weeks, this is what was received:

Fabricator: Finally received engineer’s response and not good news, he wants many bars added, see his e-mail below. Some of the bars (the roof diagonal especially) would be extremely hard if not impossible to 360° weld in situ to also meet the regs.

Engineer: To get the cage to meet the stricter current safety cage rules, we will need to add extra tubes as shown below:
A pillar support, a door bar, x in main hoop, a connection between x and harness bar, a roof cross, and base of rear stays to main hoop.
This is major work, it may be easier to just build a new cage to the current rules?

Engineer's demands to conform to MSNZ requirements for homologation:

15013


After a challenge – Engineer’s response: If you look in the new manual, it has three load cases that the alternative design must meet.

These include a vertical and side load on main hoop, case (i)
a side lateral and rear load on lateral at windscreen joint (ii)
and finally a side load on the main hoop (iii)
These load case also have maximum deflections of 50mm, 50mm, and 100mm.
I think these load cases are more than the standard designs shown on pages 298-303 in the book. Especially load case ii, which will require a pillar support and roof diagonal. That is why I recommend that you build a new one as in the standard designs.

ERC:Apparently, the outer bodywork is not included in the calculations. That means that even if you installed the cage in a Sherman tank, it is only the cage performance as a stand-alone structure that counts.
Like with Dave Silcock's, removing the front cage, suddenly makes the car legal, as you do not need homologation just for a rear hoop and back stays.

Would you want to wreck these door trims to accommodate an unwanted side extrusion bar, having spent so much time and effort in making them? Not to mention that a side intrusion bar would then make the window winder inaccessible and according to T & C (sic) window winding mechanism has to remain standard.

15014

[Dave Silcock]

OK Dave, lets just park it there then as obviously this isnt gonna work. I still dont know what the Fraser report is as all I have seen as a roll protection report for your structure was from the Christchurch company that you paid for. Doesnt really matter though.

This morning I have asked 7 experts in motorsport fabrication from NZ and around the world regarding if the formula/figures that MSNZ currently use are wrong. All the FIA ASN's (country representatives) use the same formula/s and the NZ constructors are very comfortable with the current system.

As for Ray's scenario, that is more demanding to find a solution.

Perhaps in your previous career as a civil servant you could dictate to people when a discussion was over but those rules don't apply here. I think that what this discussion hinges on is the integrity of the participants. And in regards to this matter, and given your seeming inability to make meaningful responses to matters raised, I'll make it easy for you. Did you or did you not, on the 1st of Oct 2012 at 11.32am, send me an E mail thanking me for a report I had forwarded you from M C Fraser Ltd., Consulting Engineer Wanaka ? And in that same E mail did you not CC to Brian and Julian at motorsport. org nz? A simple yes or no would be best.
It may interest you to know, seeing you seek to cast doubt on this report, as it is only an opinion in your view,I have checked with an engineer who graduated with a masters degree from Canterbury University, and he informs me that in matters of strength analysis of steel there is no room for opinion and any discrepancy will be the result of faulty calculations.
If you are so confident that your approved roll cages meet your own standards, perhaps instead of phoning the world for support, you could pick some of the designs from the year book at random and subject them to the same Finite Element Analysis [FEA] that my structure was.
But, apart from establishing what actually happened in this sorry saga, it does not matter as I have decided I will waste no more of my life on an activity administered by an organization so bereft of integrity and common sense.
So to those of you who have expressed a desire to see my car in action, I'm sorry but you will not hear the 7000rpm howl of the most highly developed and powerful XK engine in the world or hear the three 55mm Webers gobbling up the air it comes toward you, or see the three eared knock off's spinning against the polished Dunlop wheels.

But what the hell, someone in Wellington thinks a bit of procedure is more important than that!

[ERC]

So sad... I am fed up of being force fed a diet of Falcodores in various guises whilst potentially interesting cars are sidelined.

People will genuinely go "Wow!" when they see and hear the Jag on full song. Are our leaders so fixated on the boring stuff that they can't see or won't see what they are doing to the sport? Don't they recognise the NZ Heritage of building and racing interesting cars? Are they intent on everyone driving or racing blandmobiles in the future?

When I had an interview in the UK in 1982 for what was then a top NZ manufacturing company, I was told by the interviewer, "You will find that we are over administrated and under managed." I think he could well have been talking about other organisations.

[crunch]

Perhaps in your previous career as a civil servant you could dictate to people when a discussion was over but those rules don't apply here. I think that what this discussion hinges on is the integrity of the participants. And in regards to this matter, and given your seeming inability to make meaningful responses to matters raised, I'll make it easy for you. Did you or did you not, on the 1st of Oct 2012 at 11.32am, send me an E mail thanking me for a report I had forwarded you from M C Fraser Ltd., Consulting Engineer Wanaka ? And in that same E mail did you not CC to Brian and Julian at motorsport. org nz? A simple yes or no would be best.
It may interest you to know, seeing you seek to cast doubt on this report, as it is only an opinion in your view,I have checked with an engineer who graduated with a masters degree from Canterbury University, and he informs me that in matters of strength analysis of steel there is no room for opinion and any discrepancy will be the result of faulty calculations.
If you are so confident that your approved roll cages meet your own standards, perhaps instead of phoning the world for support, you could pick some of the designs from the year book at random and subject them to the same Finite Element Analysis [FEA] that my structure was.
But, apart from establishing what actually happened in this sorry saga, it does not matter as I have decided I will waste no more of my life on an activity administered by an organization so bereft of integrity and common sense.
So to those of you who have expressed a desire to see my car in action, I'm sorry but you will not hear the 7000rpm howl of the most highly developed and powerful XK engine in the world or hear the three 55mm Webers gobbling up the air it comes toward you, or see the three eared knock off's spinning against the polished Dunlop wheels.

But what the hell, someone in Wellington thinks a bit of procedure is more important than that!

1. Yes Dave; I do have that email. Thanks for giving me the exact reference.
2. Dave; I was never a civil servant as you imply. I was an Electron Microscopist who worked for the Govt and private industry simultaneously. Not an office body faceless entity beaurocrat as you are trying to imply.
3. I have given you the easiest option, out of this that will get you your roll protection. Maybe you should have been more on the ball a year beforehand so we didnt have to find a "backdoor way" of getting you a solution. That can still be used if you wish.
4. Sitting on file in the MSNZ office are FEA reports that do test the structures. I am informed they are correct. This was confirmed by local and overseas sources.
4. Frankly; it's your choice what you do, to say I dont really care would be a bit harsh, but I'm over it.

[crunch]

[QUOTE=ERC;23128]
Are our leaders so fixated on the boring stuff that they can't see or won't see what they are doing to the sport?
NO
Don't they recognise the NZ Heritage of building and racing interesting cars?
YES
Are they intent on everyone driving or racing blandmobiles in the future?
NO

Answers as we discussed on Saturday Ray

[Frosty5]

Hi again guys, well we have got ourselves into a right mess here to coin an old phrase. I have read and re-read the threads here several times and have changed my views somewhat to my previous comments. Like I said I don't have an axe to grind but there seems to be a level of bloody mindedness on this subject be it MSNZ or the participants (not sure which at this stage). I said previously "the rules are the rules" however, surely if the period cars raced previously with then certified roll cages and I certainly don't recollect anyone being seriously injured or god forbid, killed in a roll over back then, why shouldn't that designed roll cage be able to be certified today. Why is the "current" approved design needed anyway. Old story, "if it ain't broke dont fix it". I dont think the pointing of fingers and some of the language used on this subject is particularly helpful, it alienates people and before we know it the whole show turns to custard. How many other cars are in the same situation as Dave Silcocks? Can we/you or a body have these cars classed as heritage cars similar to the structure that is in place for old houses/buildings. Perhaps that would give the owners some protection from modern rules applying to classics - just a thought. Just try modernising a heritage home! All of us need to to compromise here somewhat I think, because if we don't we are going to lose some very interesting race cars and the history that goes with them - heaven forbid. These are just the thoughts of a simple country boy from the Waikato who has a passion for motorsport history. Cheers guys.

[Russ Cunningham]

Not being a helpful chap but hey! we can't all be.............An oldie but relevant.........A very wealthy man asks his ten year old son what he'd like for his birthday and the son says a "mickey mouse outfit" so Dad bought him MSNZ.

[Frosty5]

Not being a helpful chap but hey! we can't all be.............An oldie but relevant.........A very wealthy man asks his ten year old son what he'd like for his birthday and the son says a "mickey mouse outfit" so Dad bought him MSNZ.

WTF does that mean!!!!!!!

[jamie]

Russ you are Naughty BOY KEEP up the good work Jamie A

[Russ Cunningham]

WTF does that mean!!!!!!!

What does WTF mean???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've come up with a few possibilities but I'm wary to make these public.

[ERC]

WTF = Wot the flippin 'eck (Unless you are very much tongue in cheek...)
I still can't use the fingers of my left hand, so as I was contemplating what jobs I can still do on the car, I was wondering if I have permanently lost the use of that hand, whether or not I then have a claim against the MSNZ technical Department, as the "disability" was caused when dealing to the cage?

Russ, I am with you. The price on my head is also about a buck, as:

a) I have finished producing offspring
b) I have seen my grandchild
c) There is no F1 drive ahead
d) I have travelled the world
e) The mortgage is paid
f) There is little or no consultancy work anymore so obviously my expertise is no longer required

Personal safety is my choice and my choice alone, which is why I choose to wear gloves (optional) and a neck brace (optional), a two layer race suit rather than single layer (optional), and race cars with roofs rather than open wheelers (optional), on a circuit with barriers rather than gravel roads bounded by trees (optional), four wheels rather than two (optional), so I don't see why the thickness of just one piece of steel tube is of any importance whatever and certainly nothing to do with anyone else.

[Carlo]

b) I have seen my grandchild


Personal safety is my choice and my choice alone,

so I don't see why the thickness of just one piece of steel tube is of any importance whatever and certainly nothing to do with anyone else.

It might matter to the one mentioned in b) for I would suspect they would like to have you forever

[crunch]

WTF = Wot the flippin 'eck (Unless you are very much tongue in cheek...)
I still can't use the fingers of my left hand, so as I was contemplating what jobs I can still do on the car, I was wondering if I have permanently lost the use of that hand, whether or not I then have a claim against the MSNZ technical Department, as the "disability" was caused when dealing to the cage?

Russ, I am with you. The price on my head is also about a buck, as:

a) I have finished producing offspring
b) I have seen my grandchild
c) There is no F1 drive ahead
d) I have travelled the world
e) The mortgage is paid
f) There is little or no consultancy work anymore so obviously my expertise is no longer required

Personal safety is my choice and my choice alone, which is why I choose to wear gloves (optional) and a neck brace (optional), a two layer race suit rather than single layer (optional), and race cars with roofs rather than open wheelers (optional), on a circuit with barriers rather than gravel roads bounded by trees (optional), four wheels rather than two (optional), so I don't see why the thickness of just one piece of steel tube is of any importance whatever and certainly nothing to do with anyone else.

Go on Ray, you secretly desire the gravel road and trees scenario...I know, it is the ultimate test! BTW, remember the email you were going to send me we discussed last Saturday? Be good to get that asap.

[Dave Silcock]

Go on Ray, you secretly desire the gravel road and trees scenario...I know, it is the ultimate test! BTW, remember the email you were going to send me we discussed last Saturday? Be good to get that asap.

True to form Raymond you fail to address the content of Ray's post. I have never found doing skids on gravel much of a challenge. I wont do rallies as I love my cars too much. If you need an ultimate test why don't you try racing motor cycles.

[crunch]

True to form Raymond you fail to address the content of Ray's post. I have never found doing skids on gravel much of a challenge. I wont do rallies as I love my cars too much. If you need an ultimate test why don't you try racing motor cycles.

I have Dave, it's what my father excelled at in the 50's, however after a few mishaps I decided to still go fast on loose surfaces, but just with some metal around me. I have addressed maybe some of Ray's questions via private conversations. I didnt realise there was actually something for me to address in the content of that post of Rays?

[ERC]

I am putting together an email for the Historic Commission (via Crunch) regarding the test requirements and a request that the approved designs as published in the MSNZ book have test results applied to them and the results pubished. Incidentally, my own cage has a couple of bars over and above the published basic design therefore is stronger and I'll also be requesting that any freeform cage has to achieve or better the same results as the lowest performing MSNZ approved design.`

I suggest that others do the same, but I am realistic enough to realise that this will not exactly over fill Crunch's mailbox and those of us caught in this trap are in the minority, caught up in a transition period. However, there are many existing cages that are deemed legal regardless of the test results, or the metal specs, but builders of freeform cages need to be aware of the requirements.

Dave's case I believe is based on the material used but my case is the performance of a cage built to a previous standard, so the issues are not identical.

[John McKechnie]

Crunch- If you are going to be at Hampton Downs this weekend, can we catch up with each other- blue XA Coupe 083.
I want to talk cages on my Team Cambridge Monaro.

[crunch]

Crunch- If you are going to be at Hampton Downs this weekend, can we catch up with each other- blue XA Coupe 083.
I want to talk cages on my Team Cambridge Monaro.

Sorry John, could only make the one day trip last weekend as it was my daughters first birthday on the Sunday and this weekend the in-laws are moving in for a while. Hell; maybe a good reason to come up!! Email me on crunch1@xtra.co.nz or ring (06) 3564058 (021) 2503055 or even that facebook thingy under Raymond Bennett

[Bruce Sollitt]

... remember I/we dont have to be doing this.. Actually, you do Crunch. Both yourself and the sport have a responsibility to sort issues that affect or prevent members participation. It is only right that you are attempting to do so.

Dave & Ray ... you have gone to some lengths describing issues around engineers reports etc... , however you've been vague on the actual reason your cages did not qualify for standard approval. I'm assuming it's simply down to the use of the 38.1mm tube in the main hoop rather than the newly required 44mm?
Assuming that's the case, can you relay any incidences of communication between yourselves and MSNZ during the 18 month lead time from rule change advance notification to rule change enactment?

[ERC]

Bruce. I have already stated that it was an oversight that the paperwork wasn't lodged, even though photographs were submitted to MSNZ back in 2006 and accepted. Communications to MSNZ have been AFTER the rule change, re the main hoop.

Several emails were sent to MSNZ and all bar one recieved neither acknowledgement nor response. The one response was that I didn't need a cage for clubsport events, which is totally missing the point. The other suggestion was to remove it - old ground again.

I rang MSNZ technical and was told quite curtly that as the cage did not meet the current regs, then it could not be passed, but I would need an engineers report and if that showed the cage would conform to the required tests, then it could be homologated. The results are as shown above. The engineer was adamant that even if built to the MSNZ design with the 44mm tube, it would still fail the free form test. I am repeating myself here, but as my cage has an extra two bars over and above the MSNZ requirement based on their approved design, I am shocked that it needs so many extra bars (impossible to fit now the car is almost ready for the road) that the whole thing sinks to the level of farce.

[Dave Silcock]

Actually, you do Crunch. Both yourself and the sport have a responsibility to sort issues that affect or prevent members participation. It is only right that you are attempting to do so.

Dave & Ray ... you have gone to some lengths describing issues around engineers reports etc... , however you've been vague on the actual reason your cages did not qualify for standard approval. I'm assuming it's simply down to the use of the 38.1mm tube in the main hoop rather than the newly required 44mm?
Assuming that's the case, can you relay any incidences of communication between yourselves and MSNZ during the 18 month lead time from rule change advance notification to rule change enactment?

I had promised myself that I would no longer post on this subject as dealing with our man Raymond Bennet is some what akin to trying to feed an oyster into a parking meter. But as you have asked me to respond it would be churlish not to. Firstly I may have to repeat myself regarding previous posts in the interests of clarity and for that I apoligise in advance.
My cage was built in 2008 and all the necessary photos and documentation completed. It was also inspected by a visiting MSNZ offical at my workshop and declared up to standard. As there was much work remaining I [and I have already admitted this] foolishly decided to do all the paper work at the same time when the project was completed. At this time I was not a car club member so was unaware of any change in the offing. So mea culpa etc etc.
What is at issue is the results of the engineers FEA report on my cage.You are correct in assuming that issue is with the diameter and thickness of the main roll hoop. As I have had practical experince with mild steel and chrome moly [which my cage is made of] on a hand operated tube bender [one you can bend and the other you can't] I was stunned to be told that my structure had failed to pass MSNZ's test criteria. my immediate response was to request the same test be done using the properties of the specified tube. After considerable looking at the floor and much shuffling of feet they replied ''We have been in touch with Julian at MSNZ and don't want to put you to any further expence'' Three times I have asked for a quote to do this and I am still waiting for a response.
I then requested a report on the relative strengths of the two materials in question from M C Fraser Ltd., a consulting engineer with 50 years experince. This revealed that, as I had expected, that even taking into account the greater diameter and wall thickness of the MSNZ required tube, that the chrome moly tube was 25% stiffer in bending . One should also consider that this only compared the main hoop. If comparision was to be made with the similarly sized tube the rest of ths cage is made of the chrome moly tube would probably be twice as strong. Yet these tubes L/R and R/F ''failed'' in the FEA test.
This is the report Mr Bennet alternately denigrates or denies the exsistence of. Julian Leach as recently as Dec 21st denied having ever recieved it even though I have provided evidence in an earlier post that Mr Bennet sent it to him on Oct 1st. It has only occurred to me latterly [and many describe me as a gullible old fool] that MSNZ knew the results of my FEA test and its ramificatios before I did.
Raymond Bennet offered to go in to bat for me so I have only sent two E mails to the Technical Dept at MSNZ. One was replied to, claiming not to having seen the report mentioned above and the other was ignored . I'll leave it for you to decide who was batting for who.

[crunch]

I had promised myself that I would no longer post on this subject as dealing with our man Raymond Bennet is some what akin to trying to feed an oyster into a parking meter. But as you have asked me to respond it would be churlish not to. Firstly I may have to repeat myself regarding previous posts in the interests of clarity and for that I apoligise in advance.
My cage was built in 2008 and all the necessary photos and documentation completed. It was also inspected by a visiting MSNZ offical at my workshop and declared up to standard. As there was much work remaining I [and I have already admitted this] foolishly decided to do all the paper work at the same time when the project was completed. At this time I was not a car club member so was unaware of any change in the offing. So mea culpa etc etc.
What is at issue is the results of the engineers FEA report on my cage.You are correct in assuming that issue is with the diameter and thickness of the main roll hoop. As I have had practical experince with mild steel and chrome moly [which my cage is made of] on a hand operated tube bender [one you can bend and the other you can't] I was stunned to be told that my structure had failed to pass MSNZ's test criteria. my immediate response was to request the same test be done using the properties of the specified tube. After considerable looking at the floor and much shuffling of feet they replied ''We have been in touch with Julian at MSNZ and don't want to put you to any further expence'' Three times I have asked for a quote to do this and I am still waiting for a response.
I then requested a report on the relative strengths of the two materials in question from M C Fraser Ltd., a consulting engineer with 50 years experince. This revealed that, as I had expected, that even taking into account the greater diameter and wall thickness of the MSNZ required tube, that the chrome moly tube was 25% stiffer in bending . One should also consider that this only compared the main hoop. If comparision was to be made with the similarly sized tube the rest of ths cage is made of the chrome moly tube would probably be twice as strong. Yet these tubes L/R and R/F ''failed'' in the FEA test.
This is the report Mr Bennet alternately denigrates or denies the exsistence of. Julian Leach as recently as Dec 21st denied having ever recieved it even though I have provided evidence in an earlier post that Mr Bennet sent it to him on Oct 1st. It has only occurred to me latterly [and many describe me as a gullible old fool] that MSNZ knew the results of my FEA test and its ramificatios before I did.
Raymond Bennet offered to go in to bat for me so I have only sent two E mails to the Technical Dept at MSNZ. One was replied to, claiming not to having seen the report mentioned above and the other was ignored . I'll leave it for you to decide who was batting for who.

1. I dont like oysters Dave...or parking meters come to think of it.
2. Simple answer which has been conveyed to you verbally, written and on this forum repeatedly is to get your engineer friend who is qualified from M.C. Fraser Ltd. to submit a roll protection homologation form. He is sure your cage will pass, so it will be authorised by MSNZ. How hard is that?
3. You can denegrate MSNZ as much as you want Dave, and myself if it makes you feel better. Your mistake but it's our fault?

[markec]

15390

15391

15392

[markec]

"Not quite correct Rod. I cannot comment on individual cases on here for obvious reasons, but what the 25% relates to is an engineers opinion. Another engineer has a totally different opinion. Don’t ask me how; as I thought they used mathematical equations...but that is the case. If a certified engineer signs/approves any structure, the onus is on them.
Yes we do have a good insurance policy, your fees pay for it."


"1. I don’t like oysters Dave...or parking meters come to think of it.
2. Simple answer which has been conveyed to you verbally, written and on this forum repeatedly is to get your engineer friend who is qualified from M.C. Fraser Ltd. to submit a roll protection homologation form. He is sure your cage will pass, so it will be authorised by MSNZ. How hard is that?
3. You can denigrate MSNZ as much as you want Dave, and myself if it makes you feel better. Your mistake but it's our fault?"


According to Crunch’s remarks, if the cage diagrams, measurements and Engineers report have been submitted, with the report showing that the structure is as strong or stronger than that required by MSNZ, then the structure, cage, would be homologated. This all has been done but no homologation certificate has been issued. That therefore negates crunch’s argument, as the process is not operating in the manner it was designed to operate, the human involvement has disrupted the process.
OK the timing was not perfect, but how many of those on the fringes of an organization, club, would have been informed of potential changes, those people such as Dave Silcock who were doing all the work themselves, would not necessarily have known of the crucial timing of changes.
As my original comments said, there is no flexibility within MSNZ regarding this and many other topics, that has added to the perception by many, of the inadequacies’ of MSNZ.
Mark Coulthard.
ChCh.

[crunch]

According to Crunch’s remarks, if the cage diagrams, measurements and Engineers report have been submitted, with the report showing that the structure is as strong or stronger than that required by MSNZ, then the structure, cage, would be homologated. This all has been done but no homologation certificate has been issued.

No it hasnt.

1. There has only been one Roll Protection Homologation application submitted by Dave. This was declined as it wasnt the right diameter mainhoop.

2. Then I became involved and the Tech Dept said that the old structure by this time (1 year after the cut-off) could now only be homologated as a "free-form structure". Dave commissioned a report by a civil engineer (CHCH) that the Tech Dept knows of, and the engineer said it failed.

3. My reply to Dave is that if a civil engineer fills in the Roll Protection Homologation application of his structure and signs it off to say they are happy, then it will be issued. This is no different to the usual system.

4. The other report Dave refers to is a letter from a civil engineer stating that the material Dave used is better strength even if lesser diameter than the current standard, and I wouldn't disagree. This guy is an engineer. But it is not a Roll Protection Homologation Application, it is a letter detailing the material specs and his informed opinion. I do not doubt it.

5. My involvement is only because we tried to be flexible, contrary to what Mark states above. We have been flexible and found a way to get Dave's structure approved. Every Licence holder (if on email) would have got the Motorsport News issues that mentioned many times that the change was happening, and gave plenty of notice, so I would assume most of those on the fringes of an organisation, club would have known of the changes.

I feel like I'm repeating myself.

[/QUOTE]

[ERC]

The salient point Crunch, is that Dave's cage failed the freeform test even though it may well be stronger than an approved cage. This surely is the crux of the problem? The same applies to mine. It is not the strength of the structure that is the issue, nor the paper trail, it is the test requirements that are out of kilter.

If the approved cage material was balsa wood, our cages would still fail the required tests assuming they were not adjusted - and you do not need to be an engineer to see what a nonsense that is. Please, let's have the test results published of each approved cage design - or hasn't anyone at MSNZ ever thought to test them? More to the point, if not, why not?

The cages are failing the test - but that is not to say that the engineers are not happy with them. They are two different arguments. The engineers are telling us what has to be done to meet the MSNZ test requirements, and even they say it is overkill but that is what MSNZ demand. If you ask the engineers, "are you satisfied they are as strong as the basic design with the thicker main hoop", the answer is probably "yes". Will MSNZ accept that and the answer is "no" they won't.

We are all repeating ourselves but until someone with an engineering qualification can post a test result on the approved cages as a benchmark, with the old hoop material and also the new hoop material, then we are going nowhere and we have insufficient facts on which to mount a proper case. When we have that, we need to ensure the rules for a freeform are that the cage must equal or beat those results to gain homologation. How difficult is that?

It seems that there is a reluctance by the Technical Department to apply a degree of common sense in what is still a transitional period, and is no more than approving a structure that already exists legally in 100's of cars, or as in Dave's case, is made out of stronger material. What harm is there in that? Who does it adversely affect? As has been pointed out previously, how come MSNZ are telling us to remove cages to conform?

[Carlo]

The salient point Crunch, is that Dave's cage failed the freeform test even though it may well be stronger than an approved cage. This surely is the crux of the problem? The same applies to mine. It is not the strength of the structure that is the issue, nor the paper trail, it is the test requirements that are out of kilter.



Part of the issue is the weights of various vehicles for the calculations are based around the weight of the car rather than a fixed weight or force being applied hence whilst Dave's cage may have failed, the same design and materials used on say an Escort may well pass the test simply becasue of the lesser weight of the Escort.

[crunch]

The salient point Crunch, is that Dave's cage failed the freeform test even though it may well be stronger than an approved cage. This surely is the crux of the problem? The same applies to mine. It is not the strength of the structure that is the issue, nor the paper trail, it is the test requirements that are out of kilter.

If the approved cage material was balsa wood, our cages would still fail the required tests assuming they were not adjusted - and you do not need to be an engineer to see what a nonsense that is. Please, let's have the test results published of each approved cage design - or hasn't anyone at MSNZ ever thought to test them? More to the point, if not, why not?

The cages are failing the test - but that is not to say that the engineers are not happy with them. They are two different arguments. The engineers are telling us what has to be done to meet the MSNZ test requirements, and even they say it is overkill but that is what MSNZ demand. If you ask the engineers, "are you satisfied they are as strong as the basic design with the thicker main hoop", the answer is probably "yes". Will MSNZ accept that and the answer is "no" they won't.

We are all repeating ourselves but until someone with an engineering qualification can post a test result on the approved cages as a benchmark, with the old hoop material and also the new hoop material, then we are going nowhere and we have insufficient facts on which to mount a proper case. When we have that, we need to ensure the rules for a freeform are that the cage must equal or beat those results to gain homologation. How difficult is that?

It seems that there is a reluctance by the Technical Department to apply a degree of common sense in what is still a transitional period, and is no more than approving a structure that already exists legally in 100's of cars, or as in Dave's case, is made out of stronger material. What harm is there in that? Who does it adversely affect? As has been pointed out previously, how come MSNZ are telling us to remove cages to conform?

As you know Ray, we have already discussed this privately two weekends ago. You were to email me the original request.
The process has been started as of last Thursday

[Bruce Sollitt]

It wasn't my intention that either of you cover old ground but, rather, fill in a couple of blanks so there's no jumping to wrongful conclusions.

There's a lot of rocks being thrown at MSNZ on this thread and, as a consequence we've seen an assertion by Crunch that "they don't have to do anything".
There's no doubt fault on both parts but there's no getting away from the fact that the reason you're in this predicament is your own failure to heed the time limit for old homologations despite a significant notified lead time.
A certain level of 'ownership' of the problem might go some way to securing the co-operation needed for resolution. I see that you have taken some in your latest postings.

There's been a number of unfortunate and outrageous statements made by various people, not the least being the suggestion that cages built to the standard MSNZ Sched. A designs are weak and/or will fail. That is nonsense. Surely the vast majority (shall we say ... almost all) cages employed in race and rally cars in NZ will be built to those specs and are tested in real life situations week in week out and prove perfectly adequate.

There's also been suggestions that "any cage is better than no cage". This is also not true as a poorly designed and built structure could, in some circumstances, be more dangerous than no structure at all. Hence the need for design rules.

That all said, and despite the onus on compliance falling with the competitor, it does seem remarkable that such a wide reaching and seriously impacting rule change could be enacted without MSNZ reviewing pending applications, and contacting and alerting those members affected.

If Ray's story is correct and his cage documentation was sighted and approved, with clearance given to paint the cage, surely there was an 'open' file somewhere that could/should have been accessed and acted upon.
Equally, if approval was issued or implied (presumably in writing) in 2006, it should be a simple matter to issue a homologation retrospectively.

Dave's case may be a little more tricky however it is not difficult to understand how a car builder could be estranged from the sport during the build time and not 'in the loop' when changes are notified.
It wouldn't be too difficult to write a strong justification for a derogation to homologate cages in cars that were genuinely caught up in this rule change, either to be presented to the Exec. for consideration or as a remit to conference which is only a few weeks away.
Any submission would, as I stated earlier, need to be supported by an indication of the size of the issue.

[Carlo]

Spot on Bruce, If the cage was constructed prior to the cut off date then I am sure there is a way but people do have to stop using a sledge hammer to open walnuts and keep red herrings right out of it otherwise it just becomes a pissing contest.

[crunch]

It wasn't my intention that either of you cover old ground but, rather, fill in a couple of blanks so there's no jumping to wrongful conclusions.

There's a lot of rocks being thrown at MSNZ on this thread and, as a consequence we've seen an assertion by Crunch that "they don't have to do anything".
There's no doubt fault on both parts but there's no getting away from the fact that the reason you're in this predicament is your own failure to heed the time limit for old homologations despite a significant notified lead time.
A certain level of 'ownership' of the problem might go some way to securing the co-operation needed for resolution. I see that you have taken some in your latest postings.

There's been a number of unfortunate and outrageous statements made by various people, not the least being the suggestion that cages built to the standard MSNZ Sched. A designs are weak and/or will fail. That is nonsense. Surely the vast majority (shall we say ... almost all) cages employed in race and rally cars in NZ will be built to those specs and are tested in real life situations week in week out and prove perfectly adequate.

There's also been suggestions that "any cage is better than no cage". This is also not true as a poorly designed and built structure could, in some circumstances, be more dangerous than no structure at all. Hence the need for design rules.

That all said, and despite the onus on compliance falling with the competitor, it does seem remarkable that such a wide reaching and seriously impacting rule change could be enacted without MSNZ reviewing pending applications, and contacting and alerting those members affected.

If Ray's story is correct and his cage documentation was sighted and approved, with clearance given to paint the cage, surely there was an 'open' file somewhere that could/should have been accessed and acted upon.
Equally, if approval was issued or implied (presumably in writing) in 2006, it should be a simple matter to issue a homologation retrospectively.

Dave's case may be a little more tricky however it is not difficult to understand how a car builder could be estranged from the sport during the build time and not 'in the loop' when changes are notified.
It wouldn't be too difficult to write a strong justification for a derogation to homologate cages in cars that were genuinely caught up in this rule change, either to be presented to the Exec. for consideration or as a remit to conference which is only a few weeks away.
Any submission would, as I stated earlier, need to be supported by an indication of the size of the issue.

No fault on MSNZ's part at all.
MSNZ tried to help by finding a way to get a cage homologated that was outside the application date. In retrospe ct, we shouldnt have bothered except when I read on this forum that Dave had missed the cut-off by 3 days and everyone on here was bagging MSNZ as pricks. In fact it was 1 year and 3 days late, but did anyone actually retract the negative statements?

[ERC]

Bruce. I have indeed taken ownership - up to a point. But you are still overlooking the fact that there are 100's of cages out there that are deemed OK to contine racing. The engineers are adamant that the MSNZ cage would not pass the test required of a freeform. Crunch is pushing this aspect for investigation. Just go back and look at the two cage designs I published earlier. Mine was built to the regulations, out of the appropriate material, with extra bars. To meet the test, just have another look at all the extra bars and tell me that it isn't over kill, just to make up for the new main hoop - especially the requirement for additional A pillar bars and also side intrusion bars, back and front, neither of which has any bearing on the strength of the main hoop.

At no time have I bagged MSNZ other than querying why the approved cage designs would not pass the free form test and what appears to me to be a lack of judgement/latitude/pragmatism, call it what you will. I have the email and pics sent in 2006 but the person who was dealing with it no longer works for MSNZ and the incumbents therefore seem to have no knowledge of it.

Passing a couple of cages caught in this trap is hardly going to rock the very foundations of the technical structure of NZ motorsport, hence the plea for pragmatism, which has not been forthcoming. If I applied the same attitude to entry into our own race grids, with zero pragmatism, our numbers would be halved...

The aim of MSNZ and our own group is to encourage drivers to compete, not find ways to make life difficult.

We all await the response and result of Crunch's request to have the designs tested by an independent authority.

The other point that needs to be accepted is that the cage tests do not take into account the method of attachment to the bodyshell, the inherent strength of the bodyshell nor the weight of the car. The tests are applied to the freestanding cage alone, so a strong structure such as an Austin 1800 landcrab for example, is ignored even though the oft cited 1300 Escort may be much weaker or a 3.8 Jag much heavier.

These are not modern cars running in a Sanctioned Series, they are cars built for fun and some occasional competition use and have cages built to a standard that is acceptable to all - except MSNZ's technical department. I could plead a variety of reasons for not being on the ball at the appropriate time but I won't, but I am angry that common sense doesn't seem to prevail.

Talking to a Formula Junior driver at the Hulme it was interesting to note the problems of trying to conform to various directives when running a car with a spaceframe chassis built of 1/2" tube. Would you drill 6mm holes to mount a fire extinguisher?... Running without a roll over structure is almost mandatory, so within motorsport, we have a vast array of machinery and issues but there are times when someone has to stand up and say "This isn't going to work in 100% of cases."

[Bruce Sollitt]

But you are still overlooking the fact that there are 100's of cages out there that are deemed OK to contine racing. No, I'm not overlooking that fact at all. Indeed it is strong justification for allowing the cage in it's present form. I have previously stated as much.

To meet the test, just have another look at all the extra bars and tell me that it isn't over kill, Absolutely overkill Ray, and quite ridiculous.

Passing a couple of cages caught in this trap is hardly going to rock the very foundations of the technical structure of NZ motorsport, hence the plea for pragmatism, which has not been forthcoming. ...The aim of MSNZ and our own group is to encourage drivers to compete, not find ways to make life difficult. Absolutely. Which is why, if you read my posts, you will see that I believe the sport has an obligation to sort this issue in such a manner that enables your participation without unnecessary cost or aggravation. I've offered a suggestion. How you proceed is up to you.

[ERC]

Part of the problem now is timing. The LVVTA inspector needs the cage homologation with an authority card before he can complete his side of the process. Differing advice suggests that if the cage is hidden, it doesn't exist, but the certifier knows it is there and is not going to compromise his reputation, unless he is 100% sure that he is in no way liable for ignoring it. When he has done his final inspection, I then have to wait whilst the LVVTA committee examines the crack test reports, suspension drawings and debates those at their monthly meeting, before it can be issued with the plate and then go for compliancing.

Although a remit at conference "only a few weeks away" (May!!!) may or may not have the desired effect, it would speed things up considerably if MSNZ could just pass it! I suspect I would need yet another engineer's report (I only have the drawing so far) or a different report stating what the structural strength actually is rather, than what MSNZ desires.

All I know is that after over 8 years of hard work and trusting recognised people in the trade to carry out the major work to the required standard, changes to regulations throughout have meant constant changes (all at my expense of course) and in some cases, having to get the job done three times at considerable expense, and it is somewhat disheartening at times to keep going, but so much money, time and effort has been expended, that I can't really stop now!

I thank you for the support and I am putting my faith in Crunch's submission to the technical department, but not holding my breath.

[ERC]

It has gone strangely quiet... Meanwhile, I still can't get the car on the road.

The certifier failed to turn up at the agreed time last Tuesday, to check on the other work that was required has been done and to discuss the implications of hiding the cage. No call to advise and no contact since the appointment. The other certifier I contacted well before Christmas as I was going to have to shift the car to a different area, has failed to respond to three messages left on his voicemail.

The lack of professionalism and also lack of consideration in this saga from several people, is in my mind, a total disgrace. From professionals who take on the work and only spend 40 hours in a calendar year; those who purport to design and build suspension systems - but don't even understand weight transfer and roll centres; who cost me thousands for things that do not even work; to an organisation who says "go ahead and paint the cage, it all looks OK" then changes the rules - but can't (or won't) find any trace of the permission; or who set test standards for free form cages so far out of kilter with their own approved designs, who don't respond to emailed requests and can't recognise a special case; to those who either don't respond or don't turn up, shame on you.

[crunch]

It has gone strangely quiet... Meanwhile, I still can't get the car on the road.

The certifier failed to turn up at the agreed time last Tuesday, to check on the other work that was required has been done and to discuss the implications of hiding the cage. No call to advise and no contact since the appointment. The other certifier I contacted well before Christmas as I was going to have to shift the car to a different area, has failed to respond to three messages left on his voicemail.

The lack of professionalism and also lack of consideration in this saga from several people, is in my mind, a total disgrace. From professionals who take on the work and only spend 40 hours in a calendar year; those who purport to design and build suspension systems - but don't even understand weight transfer and roll centres; who cost me thousands for things that do not even work; to an organisation who says "go ahead and paint the cage, it all looks OK" then changes the rules - but can't (or won't) find any trace of the permission; or who set test standards for free form cages so far out of kilter with their own approved designs, who don't respond to emailed requests and can't recognise a special case; to those who either don't respond or don't turn up, shame on you.

Exec meeting this weekend Ray where I have put your suggestion regarding the sport testing two of it's designs (drawings in Schedule A) to an Engineers test to see if they do stack up.
Also I am assuming it will instigate a long discussion on rollcages as the Technical Manager will be in attendance.

[ERC]

Thanks Crunch. It also needs to be emphasised very strongly that this is an OPTIONAL piece of safety equipment in this instance. I still struggle to come to terms with the assertion that according to Land Transport or whatever they are these days, and possibly even MSNZ, that by putting in any form of roll protection, any car is magically transformed into a racing car. Adding a cage that conforms/conformed to an approved NZ standard should surely be encouraged? There is no way in the world that this car or 95% of all other competition cars will ever compete abroad, so if it doesn't now stack up to overseas standards, so what?

The test results need to be published for the 38mm main hoop and well as for the current 44mm hoop, so that we can see what the differences really are and then what needs adjusting in the test requirements, for parity. I fear that it will all now be too late for me though as I can't afford to wait any longer and will probably have to take the cutting disc to separate the hoop from the front cage, thus making it legal immediately - or so I am told, but opinions seem to differ and therein lies other problems.

With further impending delays whilst the LVVTA committee meets to examine the paperwork and suspension drawings, before issuing the plate, I can't see it finished and legal quickly anyway, as they only meet once a month and if your paperwork is down their list and they are busy, it gets carried over yet another month... but none of it can proceed without the authority card and homologated or removed cage, as this is step one on the procedure and steps are 100% sequential and cannot be concurrent and each step isn't exactly a 24 hour or even a 7 day turnaround.

I look forward to your email after the meeting Crunch, to see how you went, as you have already raised it in the Historic Commission report so the technical department should already have got the ball moving. A date needs to be set for this to be done, otherwise it is one of those items that will be at the bottom of the pile, as in truth, it probably doesn't affect too many people right now, only those trapped in a transitional, long rebuild/restoration, or with older cars that they'd like to race, but don't comply. I wonder how many of them are lurking in sheds awaiting a wake up call? Quite a few, so I have heard.

What irks me more than anything though Crunch, is that as an organisation, MSNZ had already given me the go ahead to proceed with painting. Whether the final paperwork was lodged in time or or not, is really not the major point.

I was recently talking to a newly graduated engineer, "Last week" he stated proudly, "I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one!"

[Carlo]

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/interior-impact-2001-index.html

This might give some insight as to where roll cages fit into the world of a car that is to be registered, warranted and driven on the roads of NZ.

[markec]

In Post 45 Crunch states, Quote:1. Yes Dave; I do have that email. Thanks for giving me the exact reference.
2. Dave; I was never a civil servant as you imply. I was an Electron Microscopist who worked for the Govt and private industry simultaneously. Not an office body faceless entity beaurocrat as you are trying to imply.
3. I have given you the easiest option, out of this that will get you your roll protection. Maybe you should have been more on the ball a year beforehand so we didnt have to find a "backdoor way" of getting you a solution. That can still be used if you wish.
4. Sitting on file in the MSNZ office are FEA reports that do test the structures. I am informed they are correct. This was confirmed by local and overseas sources.
4. Frankly; it's your choice what you do, to say I dont really care would be a bit harsh, but I'm over it.

"4. Sitting on file in the MSNZ office are FEA reports that do test the structures. I am informed they are correct. This was confirmed by local and overseas sources."

So it has been stated that MSNZ already have the test results of their roll cage designs on file, so why does it have to be brought up at an executive meeting:

Post 77,"Exec meeting this weekend Ray where I have put your suggestion regarding the sport testing two of it's designs (drawings in Schedule A) to an Engineers test to see if they do stack up.
Also I am assuming it will instigate a long discussion on rollcages as the Technical Manager will be in attendance."

Is this just more camaflage and time wasting,are there any test results on record?, if so there will be no need to retest.If there are no test records, that would indicate that a lot of hot air has been blown,also competators are being asked to install cages that models of have not been tested.
We are getting into dangerous ground now if no testing has taken place.

[ERC]

Update: After a pleading email to the certifier, he arrived on the doorstep tonight.

The other stuff needed for LVVTA has now been OKayed but he is still not happy about the front cage, even though it is now boxed in and does not intrude into the passenger compartment. However, he now needs to seek further authority from above, to ignore its existence. Equally, as a scrutineeer, until that has been agreed or sorted, he can't sign off for the authority card for harness belts and FIA seats.

If he cannot get that cage ignore authority, then he has pointed out where the front cage can be removed, meaning all of the cage above the dash bar and forward of the main hoop, which seems to be on the cards at the moment.

[ERC]

It is looking increasingly likely that I will now need a back operation to fix the loss of use of my left hand, as a result of working in an awkward position for too long, on boxing in, or hiding the front cage. I am still awaiting feedback from the higher authorities at LVVTA to see if hiding it, so that my head can't hit it, is OK. Sadly, the loss of use of my left hand also means the loss of work where I am often required to carry out time studies, using a clipboard and stopwatch in my left hand. Work is maybe scarce, but I still need to be able to do it!

As I pointed out to Crunch in a private email, the ongoing effects of this rule change could never have been envisaged at the time, but it also raises an issue regarding classic motorsport.

If we are running cars over 20 years of age, then shouldn't the rules of the day be sufficient? In other words, changes to any technical rules to classic and historic cars are generally irrelevant. If someone wants to build a stronger cage, so be it, but for those with older cars that are in sheds because of rule changes that render them unable to compete without extensive modifications, should surely be allowed to compete if they want? How can some people adopt a purist attitude, then demand that an historic car is extensively modified just to conform to today's standards? A degree of hypocrisy?

Whilst we still have a commission (and I hope that we keep one), shouldn't they have the right to veto any changes from the race commission or technical department, as applied to classic/historic cars? I think the commission probably needs a bit more power than it currently has in this area.

[ERC]

Great news! The helpful guys at the LVVTA in conjunction with the certifier, believe the cage will add strength to a shell not designed the way modern cars are, and are therefore happy to treat this as an exception to their normal rules - as long as I remove the 'false ceiling', and allow it to stay.

LVVTA in a few days achieve what MSNZ are unwilling to do and the key word is 'unwilling' - which sums things up quite nicely.

[Horizon]

I've been following along this tread...but somewere along the way, I lost the Plot. Can you post some pics to show were you ran into trouble so other folk don,t make the same errors :)

[ERC]

Anyone building a cage today to MSNZ specs using the 44mm tube for the main hoop will not have a problem Horizon. It is those of us who started a project years ago and rules changed before the paperwork was lodged. Not a problem for too many people as most people don't take this long to complete a project!

The plot as you put it is convoluted when a cage NOT using 44mm tube or in any other way does not conform to a published MSNZ design, has to have an engineers report before MSNZ will pass it. Unfortunately, the test requirements for a so called freeform cage are so extreme, that it is our belief that even if the car was built to the MSNZ design, it would fail the tests demanded by the MSNZ technical department for the free form cage.

A cage however, does not have to be approved by MSNZ in all cases, but may come under the requirements of the low volume criteria for modified cars (LVVTA). If the certifier is not satisfied that it meets the LVVTA criteria then the car will not be allowed on the public road. In my case, the certifier successfully lobbied on my behalf, but I have to remove the 'false ceiling' that I built to hide the cage. "Can't see it, can't be there..."

If the cage is MSNZ homologated, then along with other items such as full harness belts, FIA seats etc, MSNZ issues an Authority card that is renewed annually along with your race/rally licence, provided the car has a log book that shows it has been used at least twice in competition, as full harness belts etc., are otherwise illegal in a NZ road car. (Don't ask me why - a government directive.)

There is a 20+ page document/form put out by LVVTA that is COMPULSORY at any stage of the modification/build process, whereby their committee meets once a month to process such applications and they may well reject any modification and will advise the builder what has to be done to comply, hopefully before work has not advanced too far. This has to be accompanied by a full set of working drawings for the front suspension where it has been modified from standard. (Mine has.)

Only when the committee has fully signed off these modifications and the certifier is happy that all is in order, can a LVVTA modifications plate be issued, that is then attached to the car before it goes either for compliancing for a new car or one where the registration has lapsed, or in the case of an existing road car, for a (WoF) Warrant of Fitness, then road registration.

From then on, at WoF time, the inspectors will refer to the LVVTA plate and if any further modifications have been carried out, they can and probably will fail the car. Equally, if stopped by the police, they too may insist on checking the car against the plate.

The 8 year build progresss of my own car is on one of my websites so if you want to see more, send me a PM and I'll send you the web address!

[Dave Silcock]

Great news Ray, but is this any closer to you being able to race it at any level other than club sport? Or have you, like me, given up on the Evil Empire and the Troglydites that inhabit it?

[ERC]

Our own series is not a problem Dave, because cages are not compulsory anyway. Compliancing are happy as long as the certifier is happy - which he now is, having gone to bat on my behalf. Once that plate is issued and the compliancer is happy, then normal WoF rules apply.

I see no problem with the regular scrutineer but he may want the "false ceiling" putting back in again! (A ten minute job.)

However, I keep coming back to the point that the cage was built to MSNZ regs before they changed and there are 100's of cars out there with a document that says their's are OK. They do not have to update them.

If the test requirements are changed to be more realistic, then there is no reason why homologation could not be achieved, but having now got this far (almost on the road and more than likely able to be raced if required) then quite frankly, why would I bother?

Without this thread degenerating, I foreseee major problems ahead between the licence holders - and particularly the classic set - and the governing body unless there is a rapid mindset change from some people.

Have you gone the LVVTA route Dave, out of interest, given the body shape of your car interior is not exactly a million miles from mine, or is yours not a road car?

[markec]

It has been brought to my attention,that a number of cars that raced in Europe in an FIA Controlled Series,were factory entered cars that had been homolagated and whose cages were passed as legal in Europe by the FIA,were not passed in NZ by MSNZ as their cages did not comply.
My understanding is that MSNZ is an organization who carry out various tasks that are issued by the FIA.It would now appear that those entrusted with carrying out those tasks, as per FIA's regulations are in fact regulating as per a set of rules and regulations dreamed up by those members of the MSNZ staff, who are enforcing NZ only regulations on the NZ licenenced competitors. This would not only be an illegal intrusion on the rights of all NZ competitors, but would controvene the FIA regulations.
There appears to be many of the actions of those involved with the MSNZ organization, starting to have a distinctly bad aroma, with many of the actions that have taken place to be boardering on probable litigation.
Contery to many peoples beliefs, I am not anti MSNZ,what I am anti, is the little (and Bigger) Hitlers who are damaging motorsport in this country by getting their ego's mixed up with common sense and decent logical desicion making. There also needs to be 100% more transparency as " whether those in the staff of MSNZ organization like it or not" the competitors are the members of MSNZ, the staff are the paid servants.
Mark Coulthard.
ChCh.

[crunch]

Specific examples Mark?
Or just more Chinese whispers...

If you are referring to the NASCAR trucks, that has been sorted as a positive, I am not aware of any other H&C cars that are genuine Schedule K that have been declined.

[markec]

I was referring to some BMW's and sorry not more chinese whispers, Fact.

[crunch]

Are these classic/historic BMW's?
I will follow up with the Tech Dept on Monday and report back.

[ERC]

I have responded to Dave Silcock privately. I now have an exposed non-homologated cage that presumably the LVVTA will now accept as OK for road use in my case. Dave raised the issue as whether or not his car would be eligible in our series. The answer to that is yes - but as the car is South island, sadly, it isn't going to happen.

The next issue now is that according to some scrutineers, if the cage is not visible nor able to be hit with your helmet, it doesn't actually exist. That is the tack I was going down and that means that once the car is on the road with a WoF and an LVVTA plate, you have a legal road car. Presumably racing any road car in such a guise is entirely up to a scrutineer or specific race entry rules.

However, if MSNZ's current stance is in anyway advanced so as to either make cages compulsory or to demand excessive additional bars to meet some weird test results, then the future for classic racing is indeed very grim indeed and it seems to be currently driven without that degree of common-sense and appreciation for history we all crave. "Allowing in period cars as long as photographic proof is furnished" but ignoring a car constructed to period rules is illogical.

Apart from the H & C commission, I think we need a statement from the very top of the MSNZ heirarchy as to where they see Classics & Historics fitting into NZ motorsport and how current, past and future technical regulations, should apply - or do they have zero interest in the sector?

[jamie]

Hi Guys this Isue scares the shit out of me as I am in the middle of rebuilding SID111 so with the present rules the role cage will have to be replaced .After trying to get the cage OK;d for the CONCEPT sevral years ago the then top tec steward did not know what A space frame was ??? Jamie A

[markec]

The BMW;s are former European Touring Car Championship Factory team cars, not all from the same team or year.

[John McKechnie]

Hi Guys this Isue scares the shit out of me as I am in the middle of rebuilding SID111 so with the present rules the role cage will have to be replaced .After trying to get the cage OK;d for the CONCEPT sevral years ago the then top tec steward did not know what A space frame was ??? Jamie A

Jaimie-can you send me a pm please.

[Carlo]

After trying to get the cage OK;d for the CONCEPT sevral years ago the then top tec steward did not know what A space frame was ??? Jamie A

Think you may be pleasantly surprised this time around Jamie for the current ones do. Then again, becasue they do .........??

[Carlo]

Just as an aside re the 2nd fire extingusher mounting strap. Yesterday I was stewarding a gravel hillclimb and as a result of a car hitting a bank and spining down the roadway the fire extingusher which I understand had been secured by the old single strap method plus a ziptie, detached its self and flew out of the drivers window which was open less than 150mm and then landed on the roadway some distance from the car. That extingusher had to get past the drivers head.

Think about it and realise that some of the changes to regulations regarding safety actually are for your own well being. Maybe in the past some of us have just been downright lucky.

[928]

Easily solved, do not have extinguishers in cars. Either a properly fitted,remote activated system, or no missiles in the car.e

[ERC]

Think about it and realise that some of the changes to regulations regarding safety actually are for your own well being. Maybe in the past some of us have just been downright lucky.
A fair comment, but how far do you go? It is called progress, but there is nothing worse than seeing a 1950's Connaught with an exterior roll cage!

I have long questioned the point of carrying a tiny extinguisher in a circuit car given that if fire erupts, it is either

a) too fierce to be controlled by a 1kg extinguisher anyway

b) our first thought is going to be to get out as soon as as humanely possible

c) hopefully within reach of a fire marshal - though I have major concerns there, as I do not consider them sufficiently well equipped to deal either.

Equally, there is no such thing as 100% safe motorsport.

Given that we now have over 100 years of motorsport history, we reached the law of diminishing returns years ago. Any changes to safety from about 10 years ago will have had an overall negligible effect on car safety and sadly, as we saw at Teretonga, we still get an occasional fatality.

As regards the incident mentioned, if the extinguisher was secured by a cable tie, how on earth did the driver expect to remove it to activate it?

[Jac Mac]

Perhaps they shouldnt have batterys either...or more zip ties!!
Deleted URL to utube, not allowed to access oh well at least he parked it close to the fire marshall!....Uh oh, looks like we are not allowed to upload that... go to youtube & seach under 'car crash at teretonga' uploaded by 'brodie racing'..

[Bruce Sollitt]

Doesn't look like that battery had any bracket holding it in place at all.

[ERC]

Doesn't look like that battery had any bracket holding it in place at all.

I haven't seen the clip. It is no longer available, so I have no idea as to the details, but in NZ for the past few years, we have had each driver sign a declaration that their car conforms to the scrutineering requirements, which thankfully, means you no longer have to throw a sickie on a Friday whilst the scrutineering team tries to get 250 cars through. Instead, getting scrutineered after your third event (or is it after the second?) cuts down the initial workload by at least 50%, leaving scrutineers to prod and poke throughout the meeting.

If any driver appears at a meeting without the battery secured, then they are 100% responsible, but some cars have a retaining lip at the base of the battery - but as I said, I haven't seen the clip.

[Bruce Sollitt]

The clip is still there, you have to enter it in the search field as Jac Mac said.
I've lost count of the number of rally cars I've tossed off cliffs or planted in trees over the years and I've not had a battery break free of it's bracket yet. In the clip it certainly appears that the battery is simply sitting inside the plastic battery box with no other anchorage.
Then again, I've never had a fire extinguisher come loose either.
Carl's point is well made however I tend to agree with you Ray. There is an adequate and appropriate level of safety which I think we achieved many years ago. Changes made more recently serve only to provide discussion fodder for the sport's politicians and to fatten the wallets of equipment suppliers.

[crunch]

The BMW;s are former European Touring Car Championship Factory team cars, not all from the same team or year.

Hi Mark
I have had one of the Tech people in the office on Saturday to check this out.
As of then there are NO fully compliant International cars including BMW's that have not been able to be processed.

There was a recent case of a BMW imported into Christchurch without any paperwork and had never seen any competition, but the owner (Mike Lea?) wanted it certified, but this is in direct contravention to the regulations. However MSNZ and the Tech officer(s) in CHCH did a lot of extra work to eventually help the owner to go thru the steps to successfully gain a certification.

So I have no idea which BMW's you are talking about and the Tech Dept has no records of them.

If you have any more info, let me know.
Cheers

[markec]

Talk to Warren Good

[Russ Cunningham]

I come back to what I've stated previously. It's not for PC wankers to put a price on my head, it's up to me and the price is a buck!!!
If I want to race with a piece of exhaust tube above my head then that's my choice, not for some other superior, do gooding, bastard to do so.

Is MSNZ TAKING A VOLUNTARY STANCE ON FREEDOM OF CHOICE? I't wouldn't surprise me! A group of self interested do-gooders with little interest in the future of Motor Sport in NZ.

Boys! you've blown out competition costs for the true enthusiasts-----take a look at FF as an example....once we had qualifying for grid positons, now we have a maximum grid of eight cars. WELL DONE MSNZ!!!

If anarchy was a choice we'd shoot the lot of you!

ps. Hats off to Crunch for having the guts to be counted and responding to grips.

[crunch]

Hello Russ

The Formula Ford scanrio is a bit off topic, but it's demise is due to a number of factors, not all in the pervue of MSNZ.
In fact three years ago I was charged along with a small group to sort out the mess. This group made recommendations that werent accepted by the Exec of MSNZ AND the Formula Ford Association.

Perception of costs is a huge factor in Formula Ford at a Championship level. People thought you had to spend hundreds of thousands of $$ to win. Not true. It has been proven that you can compete at around $5K per meeting including all costs. But people choose not to believe it, they prefer to listen to the horror stories of 5 to 6 years ago.

Maybe another factor could be the use of what could be termed old technology in the Kent engine. However with minor changes over the last few years, these have been reliable and you should be able to do the season with one engine and use it the following season.

Formula Ford needs a kickstart, but the impedious for this to happen needs to come from the Formula Ford Association.
Send me your email address in a PM and I will send you the report we put together 3 years ago.

Yes; MSNZ has made some cock-ups, but they are not solely responsible for the state of Formula Ford.

[John McKechnie]

Crunch- thank you for all this information you are giving. I also hear info around the campfire, never heard of recommendations that were not accepted.

[crunch]

Back to Mark's enquiry regarding BMW's belonging to Warren Good being declined certification...the database shows Warren has three BMW's all with the appropriate current paperwork including an HTP. There are NO applications from Warren that are pending, void or have never been accepted.

So not sure where the problem is Mark, if there is one at all.

As for Jamie's enquiry, the SID 3 is a Schedule K car in it's original specification. So the roll protection as long as it is the same as period is not a problem.

[crunch]

If anarchy was a choice we'd shoot the lot of you!

.

...would need a big bullet for me.....howitzer? or maybe one of those WW1 railway guns??They were cool.

Seriously; I'm not gonna defend MSNZ as a whole because that would be seen as self-serving. But part of the MSNZ you wish to shoot is the H&C Commission who do work tirelessly for the competitors, within the framework of the Strategic Plan and the MSNZ Manual App.6 If the job they are doing isnt working for you or your motorsport, then please suggest changes that can be submitted as remits to conference. Now is the time to do it as car clubs have the remit forms in thier post boxes right now. Please submit your ideas, except maybe not a remit about shooting us...

[ERC]

Fair point Crunch, but without reawakening the debate on conference votes, I'd suggest that many of those able to vote would have no idea as to the issues that many of us face. Without a more licence holder based representation, the system is flawed anyway. To suggest changes via the clubs isn't that straightforward either, given that in many clubs, active racing members are a minority and the racers may only have one vote on a club commitee.

Russ Cunningham's post might be a little strong for me, but I'd suggest that his comments and perception would be echoed up and down the land, especially from those who would be nodding into a pint of Old Speckled Hen rather than supping a can of Lion Red.

I'll ask this two part question as it I believe it is relevant: "Does the current H & C commission have the right to overrule the Technical Department in classic matters" (I think we know the answer to that), and secondly, "Is it going to get better or worse under the proposed restructure?".

These are important points as word around the various camp fires is that the future is not looking too good and if we are going to get a lesser representation than we do now, it may indeed be to our benefit to align with the VCC.

[crunch]

Fair point Crunch, but without reawakening the debate on conference votes, I'd suggest that many of those able to vote would have no idea as to the issues that many of us face. Without a more licence holder based representation, the system is flawed anyway. To suggest changes via the clubs isn't that straightforward either, given that in many clubs, active racing members are a minority and the racers may only have one vote on a club commitee.

Russ Cunningham's post might be a little strong for me, but I'd suggest that his comments and perception would be echoed up and down the land, especially from those who would be nodding into a pint of Old Speckled Hen rather than supping a can of Lion Red.

I'll ask this two part question as it I believe it is relevant: "Does the current H & C commission have the right to overrule the Technical Department in classic matters" (I think we know the answer to that), and secondly, "Is it going to get better or worse under the proposed restructure?".

These are important points as word around the various camp fires is that the future is not looking too good and if we are going to get a lesser representation than we do now, it may indeed be to our benefit to align with the VCC.

At the moment Ray; all we have is the current system. That is what we have to use for this year's AGCM. Remits have power, whereas discussion in the workshop sessions tends to get lost. Having said that; if it is easier to submit your ideas for discussion in the workshop which could result in remits passed the following day in the general council, please email me on crunch1@xtra.co.nz with the subject Conference Discussion Point. I will ensure discussion happens, but we are time limited and remits to the general council get a better airing.

Answer to first point is that the Tech Dept can only over rule the H&C Commission on the grounds of safety. Nothing else.
Answer to second point...god, I hope so. You guys arent the only ones frustrated! There will still be an H&C Commission, otherwise I shall take Russ and his shotguns with me to see the President and rest of the review panel!

The future never looks good to a lot of people, to me it's looking really good as you and others have illustrated with regards to competitor numbers and the show I saw from the grandstands at the Hulme Festival. The whole Commission will be at the Legends of Speed meeting in a few weeks to see the same, and answer questions, share a beer....

I wouldnt consider any benefit at all with aligning with the VCC for motor racing purposes, but that is my personal belief based on some instances that have happened in the south island. I hasten to add that the Waitamata branch of the VCC does a perfect job of the Roycroft Trophy meeting...another great day out.

Now back to roll cages. My question is why am I struggling to fit through the bars into this year's Subaru Rally Car??? Does the new material spec have a shrinkage factor??

[crunch]

Who still drinks Lion Red and what is Speckled Hen?

[AMCO72]

Ray I'm sure has devoured gallons of 'Old Speckled Hen', and he will give us a good description of it, but here is mine.

A strong English BITTER bear. Probably as far removed from Lion Red as it is possible to get. Can be found in all GOOD supermarkets, but probably rejected by 'Leon Rouge' drinkers as being too expensive. Best drunk not too cold.

[Racer Rog]

As some of you guys here know, I have been lucky enough ( or unlucky, depending upon your point of view ) to able to sit with the rest of the H & C Commission along with Ross Armstrong, and sometimes posting on these forums can be a rod for your own back, so I give my full support to Crunch for sticking his head up over the turrent. The H & C Commission is a very hard working, and I believe the hardest working Commission in MSNZ, and one of the reasons for this is that it has to cover such a wide range of vehicles and issues in the fleet, and there would not be many days when the in box of all are not full of issues that we have to discuss and deal with, with out trying to piss anybody off, nor prevent them from racing which some have accused us of, the Commissions latest task is one of looking forward, or future proofing, and these subjects have been touched on within these forums, and one in which the talking stick will be banged on the table many times in the coming months, and as Crunch has said we need constructive feed back, not the whinnings that have appeared here at times, and then the same people wont front with their thoughts to the Commission, which has in turn, to give thought to all involved in our side of the sport, we all know that there has been a raft of problems within MSNZ, its not an easy fix, and personally I agree with some of it, but not all, and really we can only deal with what we are involved with at this point in time, as there is so much of it, so we need constructive feed back, be at H/D on the 23/24 March, we will all be there.
Russ, FF, go the way of the states upgrade the engine to HONDA, they are using the Honda Fit engine, standard, you can't do a damm thing to them, long term way cheaper than the KENT engine ( dear old girl ) but it does bring the class into the 20th centary, and HPD in the good ole US of A has developed the package, you can supply and work on your own engine, but it must remain standard no alterations at all, and they will supply the wiring harness drysump and inlet manifold and ECU. they have a restricture plate and the HP is the same as a top running Kent, no one else, agrees with me, but personally I see it as a way forward for us and the Aussies.
Rant over
Roger

[ERC]

Next time you go to Taupo, especially for a classic meeting, follow the MG guys to see where they eat/drink!... Old Speckled Hen is closely aligned to the MG Marque.

Just for the record AMCO, and as about as far as you can possibly get off the topic, I have never been a beer drinker (I prefer an occasional cider...) but having enjoyed a visit to the Speight's brewery, and had the health benefits of their product fully explained, I now down a bottle or two a week in summer - but with a generous slug of lime juice to avoid rickets.

I will be at the Legend's meeting and staying overnight Saturday, so will catch up there. If I can somehow or other get the (still unfinished) Magnette down there, it will also be in place for the Roycroft the following weekend. However, I have had to stand down as Commentator, as I'll still be awaiting the spinal operation and still not mobile or fit enough (or fit enough to finish the Magnette) - but I'll try and get down again for that great meeting too at some stage, even if only for a couple of hours. Great cars, great people, great spectacle.

[AMCO72]

Yes, probably at the 'Jolly Good Fellows'......also great place, with great cars, great people........the MG brigade.

[Lotus7Alfa]

Perception of costs is a huge factor in Formula Ford at a Championship level. People thought you had to spend hundreds of thousands of $$ to win. Not true. It has been proven that you can compete at around $5K per meeting including all costs. But people choose not to believe it, they prefer to listen to the horror stories of 5 to 6 years ago.

Not wishing to hijack the thread but, as a mere spectator unaware of the costs of racing, does FF really cost $5,000 per meeting??!! Phew!

[Lotus7Alfa]

Russ, FF, go the way of the states upgrade the engine to HONDA, they are using the Honda Fit engine, no one else, agrees with me, but personally I see it as a way forward for us and the Aussies.Roger

Hmm, but wouldn't that make it Formula Honda?!

[Racer Rog]

Not wishing to hijack the thread but, as a mere spectator unaware of the costs of racing, does FF really cost $5,000 per meeting??!! Phew!

Yep! but then, you think of traveling from Riverton, ( and yes I do know where that is, we used to have a crib there, or batch to all N/Islanders) to Levels at Timaru for a weekend racing, classic style, entry $200 to $300, fuel about $200 towing a trailer, two nights saying in a motel $250 to $300, race fuel, $100, feed and water the troops all weekend $500, so even at that level its not cheap, you are looking at $1400, and that not taking into account wear and tear of your car, now if you are running in Tier One FF, there are all the other costs if you want to be near the pointy end, with the top guys spend upto $30000 for a engine at the start of the season, lap the valves in at every meeting, and maybe a stripdown between meetings to keep the performance of the engine upto the 117 Hp they now seem to get out of them ( original 68 hp), so you can see that the costs can mount up, you can do it a lot cheaper, and many do just that, but if you want to win, well that's another story, and there are many here who could tell you a tale or two about what that costs.
But in saying all that, we are very lucky here in NZ, that we get so much bang for buck, whhen talking to one of the English FJ drivers, he put into perspective when he said, that at the levels meeting, he got as much racing in one weekend as he did in one whole season back in the UK, over the weekend, which starts on Friday at Noon, we ran 50 races through to Sunday at 4.30 in the afternoon, an very slick operation thanks to the SCCC and The Classic Motor Racing Club.
Roger

[Lotus7Alfa]

Yep! but then, you think of traveling from Riverton, ( and yes I do know where that is, we used to have a crib there, or batch to all N/Islanders) to Levels at Timaru for a weekend racing, classic style, entry $200 to $300, fuel about $200 towing a trailer, two nights saying in a motel $250 to $300, race fuel, $100, feed and water the troops all weekend $500, so even at that level its not cheap, you are looking at $1400, and that not taking into account wear and tear of your car, now if you are running in Tier One FF, there are all the other costs if you want to be near the pointy end, with the top guys spend upto $30000 for a engine at the start of the season, lap the valves in at every meeting, and maybe a stripdown between meetings to keep the performance of the engine upto the 117 Hp they now seem to get out of them ( original 68 hp), so you can see that the costs can mount up, you can do it a lot cheaper, and many do just that, but if you want to win, well that's another story, and there are many here who could tell you a tale or two about what that costs.
But in saying all that, we are very lucky here in NZ, that we get so much bang for buck, whhen talking to one of the English FJ drivers, he put into perspective when he said, that at the levels meeting, he got as much racing in one weekend as he did in one whole season back in the UK, over the weekend, which starts on Friday at Noon, we ran 50 races through to Sunday at 4.30 in the afternoon, an very slick operation thanks to the SCCC and The Classic Motor Racing Club.
Roger

Thanks for that, you're right, it does soon add up! I talked to one of the English FJ drivers at Teretonga (the pea green Lotus 22 in my photos) and he was enthusing about all the racing - he'd done the 6 week tour and reckoned the car would need a rebuild by the time he got back to the UK :)

[jim short]

I was in Aussie about five yrs back with Martin racing a FF ,they all were using a Ford {Focus??/} cost $12,000, the FF outfit brought them 5 at atime and made sure they all the same,they were unbreakable and ran for 3yrs without touching,.The old brigaade wanted to keep the Kent for obvious reasons..

[RogerH]

......
As for Jamie's enquiry, the SID 3 is a Schedule K car in it's original specification. So the roll protection as long as it is the same as period is not a problem.

The MSNZ Manual on this issue is not entirely clear but the way it seems to read is that the exemption to be able to use a roll bar that meets or exceeds the specification of a period roll bar is restricted to "... Schedule K Period Classifications A, B, C and S vehicles constructed prior to 1 January 1960 ...". Note that this date is in conflict with the date in Chart 4.4(3) which states "... constructed pre 31 December 1960 ...". I think the December date is the correct date.

Under this section it appears that the SID 3 could not utilise this roll bar exception unless it was built (in its current form) before 31 December 1960.

The Manual (under Schedule K) then goes on to say " ... Where fitted, safety structures shall be homologated under Appendix Two Schedule A (vehicles manufactured on or after 1 January 1978) or approved under ... Schedule AA (vehicles manufactured prior to 1 January 1978) for all vehicles, except single seater and sports racing cars, with a MSNZ vehicle logbook issued before 1 September 2010 and ... Period Classifications A, B, C and S vehicles constructed pre 31 December 1960 ........ All vehicles ... other than those exceptions specified above shall have a MSNZ certificate contained within the vehicle's logbook ...". (underlining and some punctuation added)

From this, does it seem the SID 3 as a sports racing car constructed after 31 December 1960?? is meant to have a roll bar homologated under Schedule A and the appropriate certificate contained in the logbook?

I've read the section of the Manual so many times I'm starting to get confused - have a look at the Manual at page 501 and try and work out what it means.

[Russ Cunningham]

Hello Russ

The Formula Ford scanrio is a bit off topic, but it's demise is due to a number of factors, not all in the pervue of MSNZ.
In fact three years ago I was charged along with a small group to sort out the mess. This group made recommendations that werent accepted by the Exec of MSNZ AND the Formula Ford Association.

Perception of costs is a huge factor in Formula Ford at a Championship level. People thought you had to spend hundreds of thousands of $$ to win. Not true. It has been proven that you can compete at around $5K per meeting including all costs. But people choose not to believe it, they prefer to listen to the horror stories of 5 to 6 years ago.

Maybe another factor could be the use of what could be termed old technology in the Kent engine. However with minor changes over the last few years, these have been reliable and you should be able to do the season with one engine and use it the following season.

Formula Ford needs a kickstart, but the impedious for this to happen needs to come from the Formula Ford Association.
Send me your email address in a PM and I will send you the report we put together 3 years ago.

Yes; MSNZ has made some cock-ups, but they are not solely responsible for the state of Formula Ford.

Hi Crunch,

Thanks for responding to the gripes (not grips) of a bitter old man who had drunk too much bitter prior to writing.

You're correct, FF does need a kick start! maybe Formula Honda as has been suggested but you also have to look at how the FF regulations have been tampered with over the years, in some cases to accomodate competitors who have bottomless bank accounts and who can afford to assist MSNZ officials in ways that disadvantage less wealthy competitors.

Having said that, I also take on board that MSNZ are not solely responsible for the state of FF but MSNZ has most certainly contributed to the state of FF racing today. One only needs to look for comparison to F.Vee or Formula First as it's now known.

From an enthusiasts point of view, MSNZ looks to be top heavy with people who don't value the sport sufficiently well to do a good job. I exclude yourself from this rather sweeping statement but nevertheless, I believe this to be true. Too many small minded chaps in influential jobs. Recent history proves that I'm correct in making this statement.

Good luck to you Crunch. You come across as a genuine, level headed fellow but have you ever thought that you might be the only one?

Regards,

Russ Cunningham

[ERC]

The saga drags on... I'll post more details shortly, when I have had time to cool off, otherwise I may write something I may later regret.

Suffice to say that we are just going around in circles and I am now no nearer getting the car on the road than I was when I was told that the cage wouldn't be passed by MSNZ. Meanwhile, another two months has now elapsed and absolutely zero progress.

If anyone wants to buy the most expensive MG Magnette in the World, send me a PM. I suggest you then insure it; set fire to it; (carefully); get it written off; claim off the insurance; buy it back and put in a 44mm hoop to current specs (you may have to cut off the roof to do it, but the roof will need repainting anyway), because at the rate we are progressing, I'll be too decrepid to ever get any fun out of it.

[markec]

The cars I referred to as having to be recomplianced were Warren Goods Super Tourer, that ran in Europe comlpianced by the FIA, 2 cars brought in by Mike Delmont, they had to be recomlianced. Andrew Buist had to spend in the vicinity of $6,000.00 to finally get his car legal in NZ,the Listerine car also had to go through the recompliance process. Gary Wilkinson had to have his Opal go through the process as did Bruce Miles when he brought in his BMW from Hong Kong, which has loads of European history.
All these cars ran in FIA sanctioned Series in Europe and were compliant under FIA regulations in Europe, it was only when here in New Zealand that officialdom deemed them not to comply.
This is only a small number of examples that have had to have thousands of dollars spent unecessarally because of small minded officialdom going out of their way to make things as difficult as possible, ego's are very costly things when they are part of an idiots makeup. It is also a known fact that these type of people are attracted to positions within Government departments and organisations that have a controling influence over their captive participants. Like I said in an earlier posting,"little Hitlers"
Each and every person I have spoken to regarding the whole situation with MSNZ, all are of the opinion that the only thing Julian Leitch deserves, is a bullet.

[grelley]

I have brought in 2 E30 M3 DTM cars. The first one was 6 years ago and didnt have a log book, but was not too much of a problem to have the cage inspected and certified. The second car had a log book with it which was submitted to MSNZ along with a copy of the homoligation papers for the cage, and the completed MSNZ logbook was returned in under 2 weeks. The cars mentioned above did not have logbooks with them, and the cages were of a later double hoop design. Part of the trouble was that MZNZ would not accept that the Listerene car was genuine, it could have been a fake. One look at the car gave a good indication that it was the genuine article

[ERC]

Each and every person I have spoken to regarding the whole situation with MSNZ, all are of the opinion that the only thing Julian Leitch deserves, is a bullet.
It is Leach, not Leitch...

I'm afraid I do not join the personal abuse bandwagon, but any comments I make are regarding the position held, the authority, the power and the ability to either construct road blocks or remove them. At no time do I ever attack people personally, though I am now being accused of creating problems by raising the issues in public. (Shoot the messenger, never mind the message.)

What this (and other message boards) can do, is bring issues out into the public arena for information, for discussion, solutions and also for scrutiny of the processes. When it degenerates into personal attacks, I am not really interested.

I am highlighting my own issues as I am not satisfied that either the rules or the processes are robust nor do they stand public scrutiny, nor are they always based on common-sense, so if people want to get uptight about the processes that are being attacked, or short-comings of any sort, then so be it. It is not personal and if some people want to make it so, then I hope that I can stay above it.

Others have raised their issues and although to many, they can't see what the fuss is about, it is because it is the difference between driving a 2012 Toyota Corolla and a 1908 Itala. One, everyone understand, has no foibles and requires no thinking. The other requires specialist knowledge and a more mechanical aptitude to drive, own and maintain.

At the end of the day (and I sure hope that comes soon), I would hope that the various anomalies are ironed out and common-sense prevails, because all I am doing at the moment is getting shoved from pillar to post, with some people lobbying hard on my behalf and others hiding behind flawed rules and procedures and passing the buck.

The day I have to cut out a cage that was installed to the standards of the day, that is in all respects no weaker than most of its contempories, will not only be a sad day, but will also take this issue to another level as an example of where rule makers are flawed in either their decisions or their process or both. Reducing the strength or safety of a car that may or may not be used in serious competition has to be totally contrary to the laws of reason and common-sense, yet that seems to be what the rule makers want.

Sorry, but I just do not understand why that has to happen. I just wonder what would happen if I were to be killed or seriously injured as a result of an incident on road or track, that could have been prevented had the front cage been left in? Is everyone then going to run for cover? If the same thing were to happen with the cage left in, then no-one is to blame, so why the current attitude?

[markec]

The words I used regarding the MSNZ employee are the ones people I have spoken to over this issue, have used, all I have done is to put on record the thoughts of those who wish not to be publicly identified.
If those are the feelings of the few that I have talked to, how many others involved with motor sport in this country, also think along those same lines. It is a sad day when those who are there to administer the FIA regulations are creating unecessary dificulties that appear to be only made to inflate their ego's. There are no productive reasons for many, infact most of these decisions.
When people create the sort of disention that is now begining to surface, it would appear that there are major issues within MSNZ that seem to start with those holding the higher positions. If they were interested and involved enough and were a good managment team these problems would stop as a good managment team is in place to run a smooth ship, to carry out those duties entrusted to them in an efficient, orderly manner, this is clearly not happening.
Mark Coulthard
Christchurch.

[crunch]

Will find out why those vehicles had some problems getting compliance and report back. There may well be viable reasons why as most that I have been involved with go through with the minimum of fuss, and if they dont have the paperwork, may take a bit longer.

These examples must have been from a few years ago, as I dont remember them.

[markec]

The point I am making is that the issue is not new, many people are not prepared to go back to MSNZ as it seems to them to be like bashing ones head against a brick wall. Many just find an alternative form of recreation to participate in, something that is user friendly, without major obsticles to overcome, just to enjoy an active past time.

[ERC]

Sadly Mark, you are probably correct.

Having been actively involved in motorsport for over 40 years - 35 of them in some sort of organisational capacity, current issues are debilitating in the extreme and if we are not extremely careful, we'll very soon find that the future is not going to be in organised motorsport, overseen by a governing body.

The future is already towards over-subscribed private track days, private hire events and other non-regulated motoring activities.

If an engineer says my cage is as strong as the MSNZ model, that is good enough for me. It is not for anyone else to demand it conforms to a test model that is flawed or unfairly loaded.

I still have a few days to wait for the LVVTA's response to certification modifications and that may well dictate where the future now lies, not only for my car, (I already have two people very keen to buy!) but also my involvement in organised motorsport.

Sometimes, the fight just isn't worth the time and aggravation (as has been pointed out by one person heavily involved), but having fought a long battle and also uncovered some amazing anomalies in the system, (there is more than has been published here so far...) plus an amazing number of private emails expressing total support, it would be a shame to back off now.

Anyway, having documented it all so far, I have the fairly well fleshed out bones of a publishable book (which was always on the cards from day 1) - electronic book publishing (Kindle) is so easy, I can't really walk away without a conclusion!

[markec]

Ray, you are only one of many with thoughts of getting away from motorsport, sadly there are 100's who have already taken that course of action. I know of 5 that wouldn't complete scrutineering, deciding in the heat of the moment to withdraw their cars from competition there and then and leave the sport. One of whom was a sponsor of 4 others, who also had to withdraw as they didn't have a personal income that was large enough to carry on. How many more scenario's such as that have occured in NZ motorsport over the years, many I would think. Only the self centered and naive would be unable to grasp the fact that there is being irreversable damage being done by very few in the management of the sport in NZ.
I was talking to an official of MSNZ earlier this week who has been involved in Motorsport in NZ for as long as I can remember, the early 1960's at least, who is now very disolusioned with what has happened to our sport, who is now also talking about walking away from it so he can enjoy the remainder of his life doing something that is not frustrating like having to deal with MSNZ. Now that is a sad situation for that person to be in, when you have spent years getting pleasure from participating, then spent another 20 plus year in a support role within MSNZ, giving some of his knowledge and experience to others, only to have the paid servants of MSNZ create an atmosphere of deception, half truths and biggotry so these dedicated volantary officials, find they cannot continue with any credibility.This person is a old school, honest person with real human values who wants to see Motorsport returned to an Organization, who are going to do what they should be doing and that is to administer the sport as per the FIA regulations. Without the Ego influences and biggotry we find we are now dealing with.
I am not in a position to influence the voting at the AGM, but I would sincerely like to see those members of participating car clubs hound their president's and commitee members into voting for serious change at MSNZ, in fact a total clean out with major constitutional changes made to make the organisation transparent and accountable.
Mark Coulthard.
Christchurch.

[ERC]

I am not in a position to influence the voting at the AGM, but I would sincerely like to see those members of participating car clubs hound their president's and commitee members into voting for serious change at MSNZ.
I have written to our club captain, but I am not sure that he is in a strong enough position to convince a club committe that comprises those with interests other than racing, to put anything forward to change matters. He is probably not totally up to date with these issues either.

The simple fact is that there are now several (large) marque clubs where only a few of their members are in the least bit interested in formal competition as we know it, yet pay a $5 levy per member to MSNZ.

I think that over the next year or two, you'll get say "The Alfa Trofeo Club Inc" or "MG Motorsport Club Inc" (affiliated to their marque Clubs), but then only paying levies to MSNZ for their competition members, not for the majority, who are effectively social members.

Needless to say, the numbers at MSNZ conference may well be the same, but the lost income will obviously have to be recouped by licence holders or on race levies and we all know what that means, but it appears to me to be inevitable and that in turn will focus voting members to challenge in all areas - or walk away. I'm no psychic, but I would think that real change isn't too far away and is inevitable.

[Rod Grimwood]

Well, I have just had a look at a car a gentleman has been building up over about 6 years and he is intending running it in HMC and Production Muscle Cars or what its called. It has seats and upholstery all fitted around the cage. He has recieved a letter back from powers to be. I will not mention too much at this stage, but very interesting read. One part tells him that the pipe that the cage was made out of (built 6 years ago by engineer and beautiful welds etc) has not been in production for 6 years and he can not use it. So does this mean that all our older cars with pipe that is no longer in production are not allowed.
It is an interesting read, with other " debateable faults" pointed out. He is not a young fella and has raced years ago and fair enough he has not filled some forms out properly (his best 3 years at secondary school were 3rd form) and this will be easy fix with a little help.
He said all he wants to do is a couple of meetings a year and can not afford to do much more at this stage. Oh and the car is looking very nice and is a different shape to most out there and is going to be 'tribute car' in presentation.

[ERC]

So does this mean that all our older cars with pipe that is no longer in production are not allowed.
It is an interesting read, with other " debateable faults" pointed out. He is not a young fella and has raced years ago and fair enough he has not filled some forms out properly (his best 3 years at secondary school were 3rd form) and this will be easy fix with a little help.
He said all he wants to do is a couple of meetings a year and can not afford to do much more at this stage. Oh and the car is looking very nice and is a different shape to most out there and is going to be 'tribute car' in presentation.

And therein is the real issue Rod. This is affecting basic cars, not Super Tourers or out and out track cars.

If all older cars were forced into replacing the main hoop, to the current 44mm, then there'd be a mass mutiny. This is precisely why I pushed the issue into a public forum. It appears to be a personal/departmental stance rather than one based on any degree of sustainable logic.

Best of luck, but it isn't always such an easy fix - unless you include removing the roof of a newly, professionally painted and fully trimmed car as easy.

[Kiwiboss]

Well, I have just had a look at a car a gentleman has been building up over about 6 years and he is intending running it in HMC and Production Muscle Cars or what its called. It has seats and upholstery all fitted around the cage. He has recieved a letter back from powers to be. I will not mention too much at this stage, but very interesting read. One part tells him that the pipe that the cage was made out of (built 6 years ago by engineer and beautiful welds etc) has not been in production for 6 years and he can not use it. So does this mean that all our older cars with pipe that is no longer in production are not allowed.
It is an interesting read, with other " debateable faults" pointed out. He is not a young fella and has raced years ago and fair enough he has not filled some forms out properly (his best 3 years at secondary school were 3rd form) and this will be easy fix with a little help.
He said all he wants to do is a couple of meetings a year and can not afford to do much more at this stage. Oh and the car is looking very nice and is a different shape to most out there and is going to be 'tribute car' in presentation.

Rod, if he didn't file the paperwork for Rollcage/logbook application at the time of the rollcage been built then HE is at fault and can blame NO one!!!(that's if this is the case?)

Dale M

[Milan Fistonic]

Just to lighten up this very serious thread.

I don't know who this guy is but but he sure could do with a roll cage of any type.


17253


Things were certainly different in those days.

[John McKechnie]

Milan- thats a very interesting pic, what details do you have on this?
The wheels, the body work, the breather on the bonnet

[Racer Rog]

He's dead, died while inhaling cork, whilst using his head as a roll bar, that ia after the spokes in the wheels broke. brave man!
Rog


Just to lighten up this very serious thread.

I don't know who this guy is but but he sure could do with a roll cage of any type.


17253


Things were certainly different in those days.

[Milan Fistonic]

Milan- thats a very interesting pic, what details do you have on this?


I know nothing about the car or driver.

Perhaps David could shed some light on who he is.

[crunch]

If all older cars were forced into replacing the main hoop, to the current 44mm, then there'd be a mass mutiny.

And besides that, it would be plain stupidity, which is why it has never even been discussed

[nzeder]

I see in the current rules that if a car has an existing rollbar/half cage then it can't be altered into a full cage as the change to full is treated as a new application/homologation. So if the half cage has the older regulation main hoop size it all has to come out is that correct?

[ERC]

Rod, if he didn't file the paperwork for Rollcage/logbook application at the time of the rollcage been built then HE is at fault and can blame NO one!!!(that's if this is the case?)

Dale M

Sadly that is the case Dale. However, it doesn't alter the fact that a cage built to the regs at the time and maybe pre paint pics sighted by MSNZ, should not be failed JUST because a piece of paper wasn't filed in time. That is the bureaucratic stance rather than the practicality stance, hence the discussion.

Those who build cages for a living or even modify cars for a living are more up to date with the requirements than those of us who hand over their cars to experts for the work to be done. Cage builders may well NOW realise that they should submit the paperwork as soon as the cage is complete, but long term builds can slip through the cracks all too easily.

Off topic, but trying to get a road car through the LVVTA certification AFTER the extensive work has been done is far more fraught with problems than applying in advance and gaining prior approval. None of the people who were involved with my car were aware of the LVVTA bible - "The Hobby Car Manual" when they did the work. It is only when you get to the certification stage that you find out what SHOULD have been done years ago and trying to conform is then a slow, very costly process.

The point is that LVVTA, having given approval to proceed, won't back out of their decisions if/when the rules change and therein lies the fundamental difference between them and MSNZ. LVVTA rules have changed more often than MSNZ rules, so just as with cages, you can get two apparently similar cars side by side with major differences, dependent on when they were certified.

[John McKechnie]

Its a tough analogy , but there is a proverb here to cover lack of speed in finishing a project -if you snooze, you lose.

[ERC]

Its also tough when you put family care and family health care costs before projects - as you should of course, but the delays and consequent problems escalate...

[John McKechnie]

Its always tough when we realize we arent Methuselah :confused:, and there is only a finite life time to get these projects done in.

[crunch]

I see in the current rules that if a car has an existing rollbar/half cage then it can't be altered into a full cage as the change to full is treated as a new application/homologation. So if the half cage has the older regulation main hoop size it all has to come out is that correct?

No. As long as your half cage was homologated before the infamous cut-off date, you are fine. If you do add to it or change, it is treated as a new cage and will have to conform to the new specs.

[nzeder]

No. As long as your half cage was homologated before the infamous cut-off date, you are fine. If you do add to it or change, it is treated as a new cage and will have to conform to the new specs.
That is what I thought - which is why I now have 2 cars one with a 1/2 cage with the old sizing and one with a full cage with the new sizing both homologated. I did not want to cut out my 1/2 cage to go to a full cage ie add to it or change it and I knew of another car with a full cage that was for sale.....however it too had the full cage build before the change over without going through the homologation process. In this case the cars owner at the time insisted the large hoop size be included as he might take the car to Australia who already had the large main hoop size. But the car had been painted along with the cage - so I had to strip the paint from the cage so I could get the photos done for the homologation process - the cage builder lost the unpainted photos when his computer crashed a few years back - but had all the other paper work ready for me - I would not have purchased the car if the main hoop was the old size. I was lucky in this case - unlike others.

[ERC]

Don't you find it a bit odd that you have to remove the paint and take a photograph, then someone can assses the quality of the weld and cage build from a pic, yet a local cage builder/scrutineer/engineer is not considered capable of making that judgement, by examining the car/cage?

We rely on scrutineer's to audit all cars before competing, but we can't trust them to pass judgement on a piece of OPTIONAL safety equipment?

[Rod Grimwood]

[QUOTE=Kiwiboss;26511]Rod, if he didn't file the paperwork for Rollcage/logbook application at the time of the rollcage been built then HE is at fault and can blame NO one!!!(that's if this is the case?)

Dale M[/QUOTE

Point taken Dale.
But most of these guys who are weekend car boys and don't do it for a living and have no law degree to not know this. I think most people believe that when they finish the car they will finish the paper Work ( bit like going to the toilet, you don't wipe up half way through, but this stuff doesn't wipe off) This will be another nice car that won't go anywhere because as he said, can't get a warrant until he has MSNZ paper work. This is another thing that needs addressing, with LVVTA.
Any way he is still positive and hopes to sort it out with MSNZ.
There is more to the letter as well but later for that if need be.

PS just read other post's, John fella, not everyone has the time or backing to build a car in a month, some work then do abit, more work buy some bits, more work do some more, get crook, come right and work some more and get back into their toy and buy more bits, etc etc. Finally Mum is happy that he has finally finished making all that noise under the house and she thinks its all finished because it has this nice paint on it. Poor mum, she finds her elder boy all upset after reading a letter. They deserve Mothers day, this year she may get a set of new wheels, (if car can have paper work)
Theres more to it than 'just build, do paper work, turn up and run)

[nzeder]

Ray your point is valid, and I did have the option of getting someone from WGTN up to Auckland (at my cost or shared cost if others were doing the same) to inspect the cage with the paint on. However in my case I don't have a lot of spare $$ for such expense and with 3 young kids and single income I try to spend my hobby $$ carefully. I do however have a retired father who has time on his hands, so it was take the paint off option that was chosen, Dad did most/all of the stripping and then painting once the homologation process was complete.

[John McKechnie]

Rod- my point was only that roll cage, paperwork and homologation are THE most important part.
NEVER be allowed as a race car without that magic sticker.
It was pointed out to me by everybody at the beginning, DONT let it run on, get that part finished and out of the way first-forget engines, gearbox, brakes etc.
I am glad I sought advice at the beginning, listened and followed that advice.
That more than anything else let me meet my deadline.

[car mad]

i have a car sitting in a shed for the last year or so .My problem is I can buy an FIA approved bolt in chrome moly half cage but do I bother ?I can drive my car on the road with the half cage without extra paper work but try and use it at our local track ivd been led to believe it wont happen Im not interested in full on racing just a few bent sprints and maybe flying laps etc .......What to do ................

[Rod Grimwood]

Rod- my point was only that roll cage, paperwork and homologation are THE most important part.
NEVER be allowed as a race car without that magic sticker.
It was pointed out to me by everybody at the beginning, DONT let it run on, get that part finished and out of the way first-forget engines, gearbox, brakes etc.
I am glad I sought advice at the beginning, listened and followed that advice.
That more than anything else let me meet my deadline.

Fair enough John, agree with everything you say, but this fella did not know about this, and has plodded along by himself with the car over a few years, not really wanting to annoy people or talking to people who would have directed him in right direction. He bought the rolling shell just after it had the cage fitted (to regs at that time) as he had some parts and wanted to build a tribute/race car out of them. (same colour as your Falcon but has 4 doors)
He will hopefully get there after he has tidied up the paper work (which he will get assistance with) and sense pervails.

PS Question for you fabricators; Does anyone have problem with pipes showing fine/very fine surface rust after they have handled it and welded it. Believe this is common.
When finished is it alright to clean it off, treat it, undercoat it and then paint it. (it hasn't sat for long, like 3-4 days and cleaned of like new)

[ERC]

A half cage or no cage should be OK for bent sprints and even some racing. I have run the Marcos for the last 22 years with either no cage; a half rear cage; or a half rear cage with one bolt in diagonal from the top of the hoop to the side of the spaceframe chassis on the passenger side of the transmission tunnel.

If I were to ever return the car to the road again, unbolting the front bar is easy. However, as it was restored in 1993, no provision was ever made for lap and diagonal belts, with tubed, plated, threaded belt attachment points just behind my shoulders. The sad thing is that having done that, the car can't get an authority card again for road use, unless it is used at least twice per year in competition, so you have to have a logbook, even if all you are doing is a couple of bent sprints, or, you try and refit lap and diagonal belts. (One day, I will publish a picture of the legal mounting for the original belt mechanism...)

Whilst open two seaters such as Frasers, Cobra replicas, Lotus Sevens, etc can get an exemption card for full harness belts without an MSNZ authority card, a car with a lightweight GT fibreglass body attached to a spaceframe chassis, with no metal above neck-line, can't - because it has a roof...

[Rod Grimwood]

The whole thing is decrapadated and needs a big redress. What some one thinks is blue others think it is light green and so it goes on and on. At the end of the day, if it is a V8 supercar or NZ Championship class car, yea it will be/has to be right because it has just been built and is for serious stuff. But if it is a classic that has been restored or built for classic reasons/events, lets get real and re-approach the whole subject, for gods sake is it really that hard to be reasonable. A little communication in the right manor between those involved in the decision making and the poor bugger just wanting to have a bit of fun a couple of times a year goes a long way.
Remember he still pays to MSNZ in the end weather he races once or twenty times a year. (Licence ect)
(and I am not a stubborn bastard, you ask my mum)

[nzeder]

When I was last actively racing in the mid 90's there was 2 cage rules as I recall. Those for schedule A and those for schedule AA. I return from a few years stint in Australia and there is now one set of cage rules? I understand there are needs for rules/regs to change over time to improve safety etc but are the classic cars that are/were built under schedule AA that much faster now aka at higher risk and therefore need a cage to schedule A standard?

Rules change, I get that, it was only a few years ago that the T&C rules stated that alternative material could be used if original was no longer available or hard to get ie fenders/guards so a car that once was T&C compliant (4 years ago under manual 33 or 34 IIRC) now it is not and original fenders/guards must be located. But is this what we want for out sport? Having cars in sheds not on the track?

[crunch]

When I was last actively racing in the mid 90's there was 2 cage rules as I recall. Those for schedule A and those for schedule AA. I return from a few years stint in Australia and there is now one set of cage rules? I understand there are needs for rules/regs to change over time to improve safety etc but are the classic cars that are/were built under schedule AA that much faster now aka at higher risk and therefore need a cage to schedule A standard?

Rules change, I get that, it was only a few years ago that the T&C rules stated that alternative material could be used if original was no longer available or hard to get ie fenders/guards so a car that once was T&C compliant (4 years ago under manual 33 or 34 IIRC) now it is not and original fenders/guards must be located. But is this what we want for out sport? Having cars in sheds not on the track?

Still is Schedule A and AA

[nzeder]

Still is Schedule A and AAyes I know that I have read the manual a number of times but my point was there used to be schedule AA cage regs and schedule A regs now in schedule AA it refers to schedule A IE 4.4(2)a.i

Anyway good to have this discussion in this forum so any muddy waters can be cleared. At the end of the day it is the car owner who needs to ensure the forms are completed and processed at the correct time. It is very sad that some were given incorrect advice be it 3rd party or others who should know better. Both my cars have log books and homologation for their cages even if they both are still in bits waiting for the owner to stop visiting websites and put them back together so photos can be taken and placed into the log books to make them complete. Then it will be COD time.

[ERC]

At the end of the day, if it is a V8 supercar or NZ Championship class car, yea it will be/has to be right because it has just been built and is for serious stuff. But if it is a classic that has been restored or built for classic reasons/events, lets get real and re-approach the whole subject, for gods sake is it really that hard to be reasonable. A little communication in the right manner between those involved in the decision making and the poor bugger just wanting to have a bit of fun a couple of times a year goes a long way.
Remember he still pays to MSNZ in the end whether he races once or twenty times a year. (Licence etc.)
(and I am not a stubborn bastard, you ask my mum)
Spot on Rod. Crunch, I know you are getting this message from several quarters, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears beyond you, so is anyone really taking any notice?

[Bruce Sollitt]

Righto Ray, without wanting to dig up old ground, I've said before, if there is a genuine issue which can be fixed by a sensible solution, your only chance is a remit at conference where the matter will be decided by the delegates, not the Executive.
The deadline for remits is close of play tomorrow. If you miss it you'll be waiting another year. Ball's in your court.

[ERC]

I've given up on an MSNZ approved cage Bruce. I've been advised to pull my head in, though I am by profession, one who is paid to challenge systems, processes, methods (and people!) for the overall betterment and survival of the institution/company/organisation. It is what I do best and have enough experience to know that regardless, I can only say my piece and I don't actually have the power to change anything.

At the end of the day, those in a position of authority use that authority as they see fit and no amount of advice, suggestion, logic, precedence, common-sense, contrary to their rulings, from other parties either from within or outside the organisation, may change them.

I have seen many manufacturing companies with tremendous potential, fall over because the owners refused to listen to professional advice, and I have seen similar companies prosper, because they did listen. You only have to watch some of the Gordon Ramsey/Hotel Inspector type of programmes to understand what I mean.

I have tried to open up a debate that I thought needed airing and I believe that to have been of value to some people and thorn in the side of others.

Many thanks to all those who have emailed me privately, rung me, talked to me or been involved in the practicalities and a big thank you to Crunch for trying to go to bat for me too, but so far, without a positive outcome.

The issue is far from over, but as far as public debate is concerned, this is my last post on this message board on the subject. It has gone on too long, has raised important issues and identified problems that may or may not be addressed by those in a position to effect change.

My closing comment however is just to remind you of the old saying "For evil to prosper, it just requires good men to do nothing".

[John McKechnie]

Ray- this roll cage thread, while painful to some, has been excellent forum, thank you for bringing along your heart and the courage to lay it open This modern medium we have here can bring this topic out and put it in all our faces. With the amount of views here, roll cages are now seen as essential research before any, or during a build.
. I think your closing sentence- EVIL- is too strong. I prefer-if you snooze, you lose.

[markec]

Ray's saying is very appropriat, given the negative, no comprimise attitudes he and others are dealing with, regarding cages, MSNZ employee's in his attempt to get something that is stronger than those recomended by MSNZ, but cannot be certified.Mr Silcock is another one in the same position.

[Racer Rog]

As I understand it, Dave has a solution to his problem, he claims he has a engineer in Wanaka that says his calculations says his cage is ok, as long as he puts his name and number to the paperwork, the cage will get its number, end of story, that Dave has failed to do so, is Dave's problem, not one of MSNZ, the offer was put to him, it was his to ignore.
Roger


Ray's saying is very appropriat, given the negative, no comprimise attitudes he and others are dealing with, regarding cages, MSNZ employee's in his attempt to get something that is stronger than those recomended by MSNZ, but cannot be certified.Mr Silcock is another one in the same position.

[Dave Silcock]

Once again I am back on here because people just will not address the issue or fail to retain what has been posted previously. I have a report, and so does MSNZ, that the tubing in my car is 25% stronger than the tube they would have me use. However an FEA test showed that even so this would fail. So the test proceedure is wrong. How can any engineer state that a structure will pass a test if it has already been shown to have failed the test. To be told I have been offered a back door way of getting approval is complete nonsense and an indication of the short attention span of those involved.

[jamie]

Good Morning Gang I have had my role cage constructer Contact MSN abought the role cage for SID111 I now have A can of worms to sort out AS thay.HAVE difrent answer to what Crunch and the outher boys told me at HAMPTON downs A few months AGO ????XXXX!!!have to start all over JAMIE A

[Rod Grimwood]

Jamie can you clarify what is happening with you and car.

As this maybe my concern about getting my old car going again, as I can not find the old log book etc. the car has not changed one bit and just sat there with out windows, motor/gearbox in it and wireing. all the same as last put on trailer at last meeting, same suspension, brakes, body and roll cage. Ther has been no fabrication or changeing anything, just paint, and shortly wire loom, refit engine/gearbox and put in windows. A new seat and belts of coarse as we do not sit in fibreglass buckets anymore.
Like you Jamie i don't/won't start over.

This/my car raced from around 1968 to 1988 as it is.

Hope we see SID again

[Oldfart]

Here it goes again!
As a result of where Dave was some months back, I had a contact who uses FEA (finite element analysis) most days of his working life run the figures for the current approved cage. This is what is required for any alternate design other than building your cage to the rules. What results? Well as a number of people predicted, the recommended design does not come up to the required numbers for an alternate design requirement. He ran out of time to complete the process, at around 60 hours of modelling and computer time, so there may be some variance to the final outcome. Indications were it was at about 40% of the required numbers.
I have just, this minute been on the phone to Wellington in regard buying a car with an existing homologated cage, and was told there are no issues in relation to the cage, on that basis you should be sweet Rod.

[crunch]

Hold fire Jamie. The Tech Dept have advised you wrong. As I told you on the phone on Friday I will be re-educating them on Tuesday as I am in Auckland tomorrow for Drag Racing stuff.

[crunch]

Hello Jamie and Rod,
As I have stated before;

If the roll protection on your vehicle is the same as what it was back when it was used in period and you can prove that with logbooks, photos etc. then that is OK for a Schedule K vehicle.
Please talk to Terry Carkeek in the TEch Dept at MSNZ as he knows what is required. It's a lot quicker and less stressful than posting on here. Cheers

[jamie]

Thanks Crunch will do AGAINE when I am back in N Z Jamie A

[ERC]

The car is now road legal. Unfinished, but road legal - with the same cage.

Just to bring you up to speed, the LVVTA refused to let me take it out, as in their opinion and given the fact that it was constructed to MSNZ plans at the time (2006) and approval granted then to paint it, they considered the 60 year old car safer with it in. Thank goodness for common sense from someone.

The cage is therefore stamped on the LVVTA plate as an allowed modification.

Quite what happens if I turn up to a MSNZ event with it, is anyone's guess, but it does highlight the farcical nature of an item of PERSONAL safety. No one demands we wear gloves, balaclava, neck brace etc., as these are personal choice safety items and don't affect anyone other than the driver. The same should apply to a roll cage in any road car used for competition, just as long as a senior scrutineer is happy with it - and they should be able to issue an authority card on that basis.

However, I was refused an authority card for full harness belts attached to the cage as the cage hasn't been homologated by MSNZ...

The upside is of course that by not having an authority card, with a legal cage, I don't have to do two events a year either and pay a fee each year.

Further to the above comments regarding the test requirements, it is worthwhile re-iterating that the test applies to a stand alone cage and takes no account of the vehicle to which is fitted. So a cage for a Sherman tank - built out of armour plating, or a Trabant, makes no difference whatever.

Have we seen a change in stance over the last two or three years from the technical department?

[rf84]

There are many anomalies in the roll protection regs (as there are in other regs). I am currently building a Locost (Lotus 7 type car) intending to compete in Basic Clubsport events. The table on MNZ Manual #35 Page 258 states that a safety cage or safety rollbar is optional on open cars. Earlier this week I received from MNZ a Scrutineer's newsletter. Among other things it tells us that there was an error when Manual 35 was written but there is a proposed amendment that will correct the omission and return to the previous rule. This will make roll over protection mandatory on open cars that are NOT road registered but not on open cars that ARE road registered. Maybe I am missing something here but I fail to see how, in the event of a roll over, a Registration sticker and WOF sticker on the windscreen are going to protect the driver!
When I queried this with the Tech Dept the reply was that the writer did not really know the reason for the distinction but suggested that road registered cars maybe aren't driven as hard as those that are not road registered!
So my car with a 1300 GT crossflow Ford and that weighs about 500kg, will take 18 seconds or more to do a Standing 1/4 Mile with a terminal velocity of maybe 140 kmph needs to have a homologated roll bar. A V8 Cobra replica competing at the same event, weighing 900 or more kg, doing an 11.8 sec 1/4 with a terminal speed of 190 kmph will not require roll protection because it is road registered.
It makes me wonder about the competence of some of those charged with administering our sport.

[Rod Grimwood]

Oh no, and I just done some little bits, maybe back to wait and see.

[crunch]

Oh no, and I just done some little bits, maybe back to wait and see.

Why? Nothing has changed in your situation. Get it done and through the system asap :rolleyes:

[Kevin Hirst]

Why? Nothing has changed in your situation. Get it done and through the system asap :rolleyes:

Yes, hurry up Rod, you may have noticed I have sold my toy & am looking for something to do before the boss finds me something else to do.

[Oldfart]

Yes, hurry up Rod, you may have noticed I have sold my toy & am looking for something to do before the boss finds me something else to do.

Janey got more for you to do? Get up to the bay and get Grimme wound up :)

[Kevin Hirst]

Janey got more for you to do? Get up to the bay and get Grimme wound up :)

Been there done that Rhys, just got to keep putting the boot in, How's that 11 coming along?

[Oldfart]

Been there done that Rhys, just got to keep putting the boot in, How's that 11 coming along?

Getting close, chassis to the paint shop this week, and to stay on track of this thread, it has an homologated jungle gym. Ugly as all hell, does not suit the car at all, needs 2 rear body sections to comply when it's fitted, but has the sticker! It won't be installed except if I feel the need to go to a Motorsport event (unlikely)