FIA App K regulations - 01-01-2012

[Peter Mallett]

Actually a lot of the touring car boys now multi point the cage to the strut tops etc. So you can see the point. Also what if the rear stays are fixed to a bulkhead but the straight line distance is 100mm or less from a suspension mount?

[pomracer]

Originally Posted by Leo Landman

There's another little gem hidden in 5.13.5 that could spell trouble for some folks running period F-G2 cars: it's no longer permitted to attach roll cage tubes to the chassis within 10 cm of a suspension pick-up point.

Yes there are many little gems in the ROPS section which many people appear to be still unaware of ....some already discussed at length elsewhere on this forum.

Suggest that everyone looks closely at the new requirements within Appendix K as published January 2012, and take action now.

In fact the actual wording in 5.13.5 which I think the above quote refers to reads as follows:-
"Tubes through the bulkheads or attached to the body/chassis within 10cm of suspension pickup points are not permitted unless this is a period or homologated specification" (my italics and bold)

This puts a different slant on things I think.

However any compliance problems which are insurmountable are covered,
ultimately , in 5.13.5 para (g) which states:
"cars not able to fully comply with the above requirements may be granted a special dispensation subject to approval by HMSC.Confirmation of the dispensation must be appended to the car's HTP"

Anyone who gets to this stage should join the back of the queue soon.....

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by pomracer

Anyone who gets to this stage should join the back of the queue soon.....

Men (or Womem) in white coats again?......

[terence]

Originally Posted by pomracer

Yes there are many little gems in the ROPS section which many people appear to be still unaware of ....some already discussed at length elsewhere on this forum.

Suggest that everyone looks closely at the new requirements within Appendix K as published January 2012, and take action now.

In fact the actual wording in 5.13.5 which I think the above quote refers to reads as follows:-
"Tubes through the bulkheads or attached to the body/chassis within 10cm of suspension pickup points are not permitted unless this is a period or homologated specification" (my italics and bold)

This puts a different slant on things I think.

However any compliance problems which are insurmountable are covered,
ultimately , in 5.13.5 para (g) which states:
"cars not able to fully comply with the above requirements may be granted a special dispensation subject to approval by HMSC.Confirmation of the dispensation must be appended to the car's HTP"

Anyone who gets to this stage should join the back of the queue soon.....

HMSC being absolutely nothing to do with my company.

HONEST!

[tazracer]

Hi, all A mate of mine is looking to put an appendix K mustang together and already has a suitable base car. We were wandering around a recent appendix K meeeting at silverstone and noticed a mustang running adjustable top mounts on the front suspension. I didnt think this was allowed, have I misinterpreted something

[jimasaurus]

Hi Tazracer.
I think the recent silverstone meeting was either the Walter Hayes or the HSCC meetings. There are classes that can run fully adjustable front suspension ie HRSR.
I hope this helps.
Jim.

[Relentless]

Originally Posted by tazracer

We were wandering around a recent appendix K meeeting at silverstone and noticed a mustang running adjustable top mounts on the front suspension.

No tazracer you are interpreting Appendix K correctly. Adjustable top mounts are a prohibited modification. If your friend used them on his Mustang then he would not get a FIA passport and therefore would not be able race in the HSCC Touring Car Championship. Are you sure you were at an Appendix K meeting not just a practice day as all entrants are closely scutineered.

[jimasaurus]

[QUOTE=Relentless;3167557]No tazracer you are interpreting Appendix K correctly. Adjustable top mounts are a prohibited modification. If your friend used them on his Mustang then he would not get a FIA passport and therefore would not be able race in the HSCC Touring Car Championship. Are you sure you were at an Appendix K meeting not just a practice day as all entrants are closely scutineered.[/QUOTE

You seem very sure relentless. Are you part of the HSCC or do you race?

[terence]

What if they are period alterations? Same could apply to many different makes,Ford,BMW for instance.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by tazracer

We were wandering around a recent appendix K meeeting at silverstone and noticed a mustang running adjustable top mounts on the front suspension. I didnt think this was allowed, have I misinterpreted something

Hi tazracer, quick search on t'internet suggests the car in your pic races with HSCC in ByBox series. The regs for this are on HSCC website and allow more freedom than AppK, although indeed there is a class for that within the series. As stated, adjustable suspension mounting points are outside the regs for AppK Production Touring Cars unless fitted as standard in period. Mustang front suspension is wishbone type, so assume your reference to top mounts is towards the spring saddles pictured, not the mounting point on inner wing?

FYI, Quote from HSCC regs-

"It is intended that the technical regulations contained herein represent a qualified and clarified interpretation of the FIA Special
Touring Cars Group 5 Definitions and Specifications, as contained in the RAC handbook for the season 1966 chapter vii, pages
251 & 252."

[terence]

But being "fia", anything goes,doesn,t it?

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by terence bower

But being "fia", anything goes,doesn,t it?

Not like you to be cynical, Terry!

After reading that bit out of the HSCC regs did wonder how many have access to the '1966 RAC handbook'!

[Relentless]

I used to race but now write.

If you look at the HSCC Historic Touring Car Championship for Appendix K and HRSR Cars 2012 Regulations you will see under Technical Regulation 5(8).2 Prohibited modifications: “that suspension components must be of original design ... The original pickup points and mountings must be used. The original spring system must be retained though the spring rate itself is free. One spring may be replaced by another but not by a spring of different type. The common types are leaf, coil and torsion bar.”

Further Regulation 5(2): “If a model of car is Homologated then that car may use parts that appear within its Homologation papers up to December 31st 1966, and it may then be prepared to these regulations.”

[Robyn Slater]

For the record Warrens mustang runs as app.K

Whether those parts should be there i know not.

[terence]

I doubt very much that the parts in question should not be where they are.HSCC are possibly the most policed clubs there are.

[Al Weyman]

I thought the standard Mustang mod was the 'Shelby' mod where the upper wishbone mounting point to the fletch panel is lowered by an inch, I bet every race Mustang out there runs like that as its been done on these cars for years. Would that be illegal according to FIA?

[morninggents]

Al, my take is that it would not be allowed. If you look at the very first post in this thread Article 6.3.1 specifically prohibits the changing of mounting points.

[Clive Brown]

But is it not permissible if it can be proven that this modification was done in period?

[zefarelly]

easiest thing to do would be modify the homologation forms . . . . I've seen a few that literally have ( for example) 'piddly SU carbs' scribbled out and 'bloody great big webers' written over the top in biro!

[Al Weyman]

On the Mustang I believe the mod was standard on the Shelby cars and may well have been homologated I don't know but if so i would have thought the mod on a Notchback was doubtful from the factory. Its the same as the Guilstrad mod on the 1st gen Camaro (not required on the 2nd gen like I race as the factory did it for you) but I bet most of the 'legal' cars have this modification. Its all about lowering the top wishbone inner mounting points and is not easy on the camaro as the frame has to be cut and shut. The object is to give more camber gain during cornering.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

But is it not permissible if it can be proven that this modification was done in period?

Was it done legally in period? I don't see why cheating in period should make a mod legal today.

[zefarelly]

I agree Peter, but who can prove one way or another. buying opinions from skint reiree's was fashionable at one point . . .

[morninggents]

I don't think it has to be proven, Joe. The mods allowed for App K cars are either on the homologation papers or contained in the overriding App K regs as shown in post 1 of this thread. Surely it is up to the entrant of any car running to App K regs to ensure that their car complies. If they believe ABC or XYZ applied in period they must prove it. It is not enough to say that this or that person/company cheated in period and, therefore, that is OK today.
It bloody well isn't!

Sorry for the language - it get's me a bit hot under the collar.

[Clive Brown]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Was it done legally in period? I don't see why cheating in period should make a mod legal today.

I meant if it was permissible in period, not if similar cheating occurred in period!

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Clive Brown

I meant if it was permissible in period, not if similar cheating occurred in period!

If it was permissible in period then it is up to entrants to prove it, surely.