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.Originally Posted by Rod Grimwood
Yes we do have a good insurance policy, your fees pay for it.
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.
What a load of crap.
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.
Last edited by markec; 01-17-2013 at 04:22 AM.
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.
I am confused Crunch, what solution have you offered me?
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 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.
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?
Sorry that should read 1 year and 3 days above
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.
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.
It would seem that you have confirmed what I stated in my post with your answer.
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?
Last edited by Dave Silcock; 01-17-2013 at 09:40 PM. Reason: spelling
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
Last edited by ERC; 01-18-2013 at 06:26 AM.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote