The Roaring Season

Kevin Hirst wrote: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)

Oldfart wrote: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?

Kevin Hirst wrote: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

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

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.

Rod Grimwood wrote: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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

markec wrote: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.

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.

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.

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".

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.