motorsport regulation codology

[SAMD]

I have a lovely, safe, very well made, nice fitting Bell Helmet. It is a few years old now (not sure exactly, prob about 2002 vintage) but apparently it will not comply with the Blue book from January as it does not have the flameproof lining. So, with the economic climate the way it is I will have little option but to replace my nice safe, expensive but non compliant helmet with some poor quality ill fitting cheapo model that has the correct sticker.

Clever thinking or what!

[scrutineer]

Which sticker do you currently have, if its the blue BS that goes out this year that is not new info that has been published since the end of 2008. However if it doesnt have a flame retardant lining is it fully safe?

[phoenix]

Is there such a thing as fully safe?

In this case, the MSA obviously thought it was 'safe enough' until some time during 2008. Fireproof materials were around long, long before that.

[Al Weyman]

I agree and why cant the manufacturing company do a lining change for you. This safety equipment lark is getting out of control and will eventually be the death knell of this sport. I just cut up a perfectly good set of immaculate belts to make some towing thongs, how sad is that I only wore them half a dozen times but someone decides that man made materials deteriate in so rapidly (they don't as is evident by the immaculate condition of the belts) and they have to be replaced after what 3 years is it now? Same as my £350 race suit, just bought a new one and its absolutely identical in every way to the old one, what a joke.

I wonder how long it will before they decide to 'life' HANS?

[GORDON STREETER]

I have mentioned this before but there is no "life"on normal road car seat belts that will be used every day for years, and unless they are showing obvious deterioration or the thing wont actually clip together then you can still use them until the next MOT.!
If you go into a few car breakers they often pick the complete car up by its belts that may be 25 years old and the parts that normally let go are the rusted up lower mounting points !

[ianpearson]

I have not seen the news regs with regards helmets for next year, but is it only SNELL (latest) & red BS stickers allowed, ruling out the use of any non fire proof helmets? I 've resited buying a new helmet lately thinking this was likely to be on the cards

[Al Weyman]

If my 3 year old helmet is deemed obsolete then I will probably hang it up for good and not bother to replace it as enough is enough.

[Tim Falce]

BS6658-Type A is to be withdrawn from jan 01 2010 (BS6658-Type A/FR is not affected). Snell 2000 may be withdrawn from Jan 01 2010.
Seat belts are lifed for 5 years
I believe there is a Snell 2010 coming out in October this year so that should be good for 10 years.
Quite why a standard that has a BS No. is not lifed but a Snell one is, is a mystery to me.

[phoenix]

Let's face it, the Blue Book is a mess.

Take for example C (c) 20 which refers to door bars and drawings 9 and 12 in appendix 2. These allow for X type door bars - as FIA approved in Appendix J.

In section G of the Blue Book regulation 126 does not allow for an X door bar - which is stronger than a single horizontal bar!

How can it makle sense that for racing, a single, less effective horizontal bar is specified? Of course, as a scrutineer excludes you from taking part in practice or racing, you will be told 'that's what it says in the Blue Book'. What a stupid situation.

And another: G 115 says that in a rear engined car the oil tank cannot be behind the gearbox casing; This means that in a front engined car the oil tank can be in the boot, not only behind the gearbox casing but also behind the rear axle line, whereas in a rear engined car with the gearbox under or alongside the engine, the oil tank cannot be in the boot. What nonsense. And why?

There are plenty more!

[scrutineer]

Originally Posted by phoenix

In this case, the MSA obviously thought it was 'safe enough' until some time during 2008. Fireproof materials were around long, long before that.

Progress dear boy

BS6658-Type A is to be withdrawn from jan 01 2010 (BS6658-Type A/FR is not affected). Snell 2000 may be withdrawn from Jan 01 2010.
Seat belts are lifed for 5 years
I believe there is a Snell 2010 coming out in October this year so that should be good for 10 years.
Quite why a standard that has a BS No. is not lifed but a Snell one is, is a mystery to me.

It is worth remembering that BS helmets have not been manufactured for a number of years as they have gone over to EU standards, which are a lower standard and therefore not accepted by the FIA or the MSA.

One point about the seat belts though, how tight do you put your belts on in your road car. Im sure you dont pull them as tight as the race car, and the point is they stretch over time. And in an impact its that stretch that helps keep you safe (or at least safer) as if you have no stretch its just a sudden stop.

[scrutineer]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Let's face it, the Blue Book is a mess.

Take for example C (c) 20 which refers to door bars and drawings 9 and 12 in appendix 2. These allow for X type door bars - as FIA approved in Appendix J.

In section G of the Blue Book regulation 126 does not allow for an X door bar - which is stronger than a single horizontal bar!

How can it makle sense that for racing, a single, less effective horizontal bar is specified? Of course, as a scrutineer excludes you from taking part in practice or racing, you will be told 'that's what it says in the Blue Book'. What a stupid situation.

And another: G 115 says that in a rear engined car the oil tank cannot be behind the gearbox casing; This means that in a front engined car the oil tank can be in the boot, not only behind the gearbox casing but also behind the rear axle line, whereas in a rear engined car with the gearbox under or alongside the engine, the oil tank cannot be in the boot. What nonsense. And why?

There are plenty more!

Can you please give me the line were it actually precludes the use of cross door bars? Cant seem to see it in mine.
Not sure what you are going on about with regards to G115, there is no mention of front engine cars in that para so please explain.
If you are going to quote sections I would suggest you do the whole section and not just cherry pick the bit you want as it seems you are going all out to cause trouble.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

One point about the seat belts though, how tight do you put your belts on in your road car. Im sure you dont pull them as tight as the race car, and the point is they stretch over time.

Cobblers. If you pulled them tight enough to stretch them you'd stop breathing and the blood would stop flowing through your legs.

[scrutineer]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Cobblers. If you pulled them tight enough to stretch them you'd stop breathing and the blood would stop flowing through your legs.

Having raced many years ago in a single seater I know that belts can losen during the race, this is due in part to the stretch hence you have to tighten them up more. Your cobblers statement is obviously based on fact, we just can seem to see them.....

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

Having raced many years ago in a single seater I know that belts can losen during the race, this is due in part to the stretch hence you have to tighten them up more. Your cobblers statement is obviously based on fact, we just can seem to see them.....

Yes, it is based on fact. I use tie-down straps on the race car when transporting it, and they don't stretch and come loose. I think modern belts (seat belts, that is) must have better buckles than in your day.. Progress dear boy, I guess.

[scrutineer]

This is true, however tie down straps are probably about 4 times thicker than the seat belts in a race car so cant see the link here. Again looking for the facts and would love to hear them, after all if the facts are there the MSA would have to listen and take notice. If it can be proven that there is no problem with the belts after 5 years maybe they would re-think the policy. Although put into context £85 for 5 years use makes it just short of 33p per day!

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

This is true, however tie down straps are probably about 4 times thicker than the seat belts in a race car so cant see the link here. Again looking for the facts and would love to hear them, after all if the facts are there the MSA would have to listen and take notice. If it can be proven that there is no problem with the belts after 5 years maybe they would re-think the policy. Although put into context £85 for 5 years use makes it just short of 33p per day!

OK, I see what you're saying here but...
1) I'd expect trailer straps to be thicker than a seat belt harness, what they're holding in place is significantly heavier (and that would still apply if I was still racing!).
2) £85.00 for 5 years use would maybe equate to less than 33p per day, but only if you used them every day. Race cars are generally used much less frequently.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

This is true, however tie down straps are probably about 4 times thicker than the seat belts in a race car so cant see the link here. Again looking for the facts and would love to hear them, after all if the facts are there the MSA would have to listen and take notice. If it can be proven that there is no problem with the belts after 5 years maybe they would re-think the policy. Although put into context £85 for 5 years use makes it just short of 33p per day!

Firstly, my Sabelts are thicker - and wider - than the tie-down straps.
And £85 quid for a set of belts? You are kidding, right? If that's all you paid that probably explains why your belts slipped.

And, lets look at this another way. 5 years, 8 races per year, so used 40 times before they are declared useless. Compared with 365 days a year - say 337 days allowing for holidays - and 8 years use for my car belts. Plus the previous owners use of course.

Which belts need replacing first, would you say?

p.s. my 5 point FIA approved and in homologation belts cost over £200. When I replace them with 4 point (less safe than I am no - so utterly daft!) they will cost £203.01 + shipping and if I go for the 6 point (to be as safe as I am now but not as comfortable) £229.84 + shipping.

p.p.s. my belts are 3" belts - shoulder, strap and crotch and the tiedown straps are 2". The belts have to keep me - weighing 70Kg - in place in a shunt and the car weighs 14 times more - about a tonne.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

..... tie down straps are probably about 4 times thicker than the seat belts in a race car .....

an inspection side-by-side will show them to be the same or *very* similar thickness, at least mine are.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

Can you please give me the line were it actually precludes the use of cross door bars? Cant seem to see it in mine.

126. If fitted with lightened non-standard doors,
vehicles should have a horizontal safety bar across
each door aperture below the line of the window and at
a suitable height to protect the Driver. This must not be
integral with the door.

Originally Posted by scrutineer

Not sure what you are going on about with regards to G115, there is no mention of front engine cars in that para so please explain.

115. Oil tanks situated outside the chassis or main structure of the vehicle should be suitably covered with a protective coating (e.g. GRP). On rear-engined vehicles no part of the oil tank may be located to the rear of the gearbox casing. Cars of periods A to D are exempt from this requirement.

Originally Posted by scrutineer

If you are going to quote sections I would suggest you do the whole section and not just cherry pick the bit you want as it seems you are going all out to cause trouble.

Of course, Scrutineers never cherry pick sections from the Blue Book, do they?

You see, this is the problem, whether it be an un-clear definition, conflicting regs between different sections in the Blue Book, conflicting regulations between the FIA and MSA - or just plain asking for clarification, you see it as trouble making whilst I see it as trying to get clear, meaningful, intelligent regulations that won't cause confusion on race day - for scrutineers or other officials, or for competitors.


What was the answer from the MSA on 5 point belts, by the way? You were going to tell us yesterday....

[scrutineer]

Originally Posted by phoenix

126. If fitted with lightened non-standard doors,
vehicles should have a horizontal safety bar across
each door aperture below the line of the window and at
a suitable height to protect the Driver. This must not be
integral with the door.



115. Oil tanks situated outside the chassis or main structure of the vehicle should be suitably covered with a protective coating (e.g. GRP). On rear-engined vehicles no part of the oil tank may be located to the rear of the gearbox casing. Cars of periods A to D are exempt from this requirement.



Of course, Scrutineers never cherry pick sections from the Blue Book, do they?

You see, this is the problem, whether it be an un-clear definition, conflicting regs between different sections in the Blue Book, conflicting regulations between the FIA and MSA - or just plain asking for clarification, you see it as trouble making whilst I see it as trying to get clear, meaningful, intelligent regulations that won't cause confusion on race day - for scrutineers or other officials, or for competitors.


What was the answer from the MSA on 5 point belts, by the way? You were going to tell us yesterday....

So you still havent shown me were it precludes the use of cross door bars, and all you highlighted was the mention of the rear engine and not the front engine.

And the cost of £85 was given by Al for a set of TRS belts,

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by scrutineer

So you still havent shown me were it precludes the use of cross door bars, and all you highlighted was the mention of the rear engine and not the front engine.

And the cost of £85 was given by Al for a set of TRS belts,

In C (c) you are given the choice of horizontal bars or cross bars - I have cross bars and no horizontal bars.

In G 126 is says you need horitontal bars.

I have no horizontal bars viz I am in breach of regulation G 126.

OK, now G 115. If I had a front engined car, the positioning of the oil tank in the boot is not precluded by this regulation - do you agree?

If I have a rear engined car with a boot BEHIND the gearbox then this regulation DOES preclude me having an oil tank in the boot - do you agree?

Suffice it to say, that whether you think that an oil tank in the boot of a rear engined car, behind the gearbox, is fine, then you don't agree with the regulation.

If you agree with the regulation - that an oil tank cannot be in the boot of a rear engined car if the boot is behind the gearbox - then my question is, isn't that a nonsense? Why is it unsafe to have an oil tank in the boot of a rear engined car, but not in the boot of a front engined car?

Finally, what was in the email from the MSA about 5 point belts? You offered to appraise us of the contents (or so you said yesterday)

[phoenix]

OK, G121 is another one I might fall foul of without some clarification:

121. No ignition components, coils, chokes or black
boxes should be located in the cockpit area in racing
cars. Cars of periods A to E are exempt from this
requirement.

I have an ECU and as in many production cars it is located in the cockpit. Mine also happens to be black in colour.

As with most ECU's it controls the ignition - but only the signal from the crank and cam sensor and the low tension circuit of the coil (just thought - so does the ignition switch - another vital ignition component!)

Is my 'black box' illegally located? Does my black box contravene the regulation as it was intended when it was written? Has the regulation been reviewed with ECUs in mind, or not? Could some over-zealous scrutineer (who has just found out his wife is cheating on him, stubbed his toe badly as he got out of bed, found his dog has died in the night before he leaves for the circuit and writes-off his favourite weekend runabout in a needless accident on his way) decide that it is black, a box, has something (undeniably) to do with the ignition and is in the cockpit - so is in contravention of G 121 and so I'm not allowed to practice, qualify or race?

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by phoenix

OK, G121 is another one I might fall foul of without some clarification:

121. No ignition components, coils, chokes or black
boxes should be located in the cockpit area in racing
cars. Cars of periods A to E are exempt from this
requirement.

I have an ECU and as in many production cars it is located in the cockpit. Mine also happens to be black in colour.

As with most ECU's it controls the ignition - but only the signal from the crank and cam sensor and the low tension circuit of the coil (just thought - so does the ignition switch!)

Is my 'black box' illegally located? Does my black box contravene the regulation as it was intended when it was written? Has the regulation been reviewed with ECUs in mind, or not? Could some over-zealous scrutineer (who has just found out his wife is cheating on him, stubbed his toe badly as he got out of bed, found has dog has died in the night before he leaves for the circuit and writes-off his favourite weekend runabout in a needless accident on his way) decide that it is black, a box, has something (undeniably) to do with the ignition and is in the cockpit - so is in contravention of G 121 and so I'm not allowed to practice, qualify or race?

Phoenix, you must be an engineer by trade or qualification but could you just save a lot of argument and paint it green or something?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by falcemob

Phoenix, you must be an engineer by trade or qualification but could you just save a lot of argument and paint it green or something?

That would invalidate the guarantee, I'm afraid... it's black to be cool

And anyway, hey! I don't want an argument - I simply want the [censored] rules to be written and updated properly! What do we pay our licence fees for?

Just wait for the next one - you'll love it. Cropped up at Cadwell Park over a decade ago - and the regulation STILL has not been re-written and the meaning is STILL wrong!

[Al Weyman]

Just checked the TRS Magnum 6 point FIA approved belts have gone up a tad to £92.50 plus vat and as I said they look a good piece to me. I value my life as much as the next man but these 75mm belts look as strong as any I have seen and am sure they will perform just as well if push comes to shove comes to crunch!