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.
Roll cages
Re: Roll cages
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
Well thts my view, cheers guys
Re: Roll cages
[color="#0000FF"]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? ] [/color]
, 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? ] [/color]
-
ERC
- World Champion
- Posts: 5016
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:29 am
- Location: Auckland, North Shore
- Contact:
This cage's history...
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
-
Dave Silcock
- Semi-Pro Racer
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:30 pm
- Location: Christchurch
Re: Roll cages
crunch wrote: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
- World Champion
- Posts: 5016
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:29 am
- Location: Auckland, North Shore
- Contact:
Re: Roll cages
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.
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.
Re: Roll cages
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 as I said I dont have an axe to grind but there seems to be an level of bloody mindedness be it MSNZ or the
parties affected. I have also changed my view on the "rules being the rules". Surely if the cars raced in the period had certified roll cages and I certainly dont recollect anyone being seriously injured or god forbid, killed in a roll over back then, why shouldn't that designed cage be able to be certified today. Why is the "current" approved design needed anyway. Old story "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I don't think the pointing of fingers and some of the language used on this subject helps our cause in any way shape or form, 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
parties affected. I have also changed my view on the "rules being the rules". Surely if the cars raced in the period had certified roll cages and I certainly dont recollect anyone being seriously injured or god forbid, killed in a roll over back then, why shouldn't that designed cage be able to be certified today. Why is the "current" approved design needed anyway. Old story "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I don't think the pointing of fingers and some of the language used on this subject helps our cause in any way shape or form, 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
Re: Roll cages
Dave Silcock wrote: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.
Re: Roll cages
[quote="ERC"]
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
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
Re: Roll cages
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
- Semi-Pro Racer
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:56 am
- Location: Tauranga, New Zealand
Re: Roll cages
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.
Re: Roll cages
RUSS CUNNINGHAM wrote: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!!!!!!!
Re: Roll cages
Russ you are Naughty BOY KEEP up the good work Jamie A
-
Russ Cunningham
- Semi-Pro Racer
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:56 am
- Location: Tauranga, New Zealand
Re: Roll cages
Frosty5 wrote: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
- World Champion
- Posts: 5016
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:29 am
- Location: Auckland, North Shore
- Contact:
Re: Roll cages
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 do, I was wondering that if I have permanently lost the use of that hand, whether or not I had a claim againmst the MSNZ technical Department...
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), lon a circuit with barriers rather than gravel roads bounded by trees (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.
I still can't use the fingers of my left hand, so as I was contemplating what jobs I can do, I was wondering that if I have permanently lost the use of that hand, whether or not I had a claim againmst the MSNZ technical Department...
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), lon a circuit with barriers rather than gravel roads bounded by trees (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.
-
ERC
- World Champion
- Posts: 5016
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:29 am
- Location: Auckland, North Shore
- Contact:
Re: Roll cages
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.
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.
Re: Roll cages
ERC wrote:
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
Re: Roll cages
ERC wrote: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
- Semi-Pro Racer
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:30 pm
- Location: Christchurch
Re: Roll cages
crunch wrote: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.
Re: Roll cages
Dave Silcock wrote: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?