|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
14 Aug 2009, 09:01 (Ref:2521220) | #1 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,523
|
motorsport regulation codology
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! |
|
|
14 Aug 2009, 09:53 (Ref:2521265) | #2 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 254
|
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?
|
||
|
14 Aug 2009, 11:02 (Ref:2521289) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
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. |
|
|
14 Aug 2009, 14:20 (Ref:2521382) | #4 | ||||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 254
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||
|
14 Aug 2009, 14:26 (Ref:2521388) | #5 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
Cobblers. If you pulled them tight enough to stretch them you'd stop breathing and the blood would stop flowing through your legs.
|
|
|
14 Aug 2009, 14:33 (Ref:2521392) | #6 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 254
|
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.....
|
||
|
14 Aug 2009, 11:45 (Ref:2521311) | #7 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,699
|
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? |
||
__________________
You can't polish a turd but you sure can sprinkle it with glitter! |
14 Aug 2009, 12:24 (Ref:2521324) | #8 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,421
|
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 ! |
||
__________________
Balls of steel (knob of butter) They're Asking For Larkins. ( Proper beer) not you're Eurofizz crap. Hace más calor en España. Me han conocido a hablar un montón cojones! Send any cheques and cash to PO box 1 Lagos Nigeria Africa ! |
14 Aug 2009, 12:55 (Ref:2521339) | #9 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 458
|
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
|
||
|
14 Aug 2009, 13:16 (Ref:2521352) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,699
|
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.
|
||
__________________
You can't polish a turd but you sure can sprinkle it with glitter! |
14 Aug 2009, 14:13 (Ref:2521378) | #11 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
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! |
|
|
14 Aug 2009, 14:26 (Ref:2521387) | #12 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 254
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
|
14 Aug 2009, 16:27 (Ref:2521438) | #13 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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.... |
||||
|
14 Aug 2009, 16:54 (Ref:2521458) | #14 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 254
|
Quote:
And the cost of £85 was given by Al for a set of TRS belts, |
|||
|
14 Aug 2009, 13:58 (Ref:2521369) | #15 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,142
|
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. |
||
|
14 Aug 2009, 14:47 (Ref:2521396) | #16 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 254
|
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!
|
||
|
14 Aug 2009, 15:08 (Ref:2521399) | #17 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,662
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
Incognito: An Italian phrase meaning Nice Gearchange! |
14 Aug 2009, 15:21 (Ref:2521408) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
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. |
||
|
14 Aug 2009, 16:12 (Ref:2521430) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,813
|
|||
__________________
a salary slave no more... |
14 Aug 2009, 18:21 (Ref:2521500) | #20 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,699
|
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!
|
||
__________________
You can't polish a turd but you sure can sprinkle it with glitter! |
14 Aug 2009, 18:48 (Ref:2521511) | #21 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 176
|
Some good stuff being raised here, but I can't help feeling that it'd be more usefully voiced in a letter to the MSA. In the meantime, keep posting them up for us all to see as its quite interesting.
Of course, there are also some regs that aren't generally adhered to and the scrutineers don't seem to attempt to enforce anyway - like the one about fuel pipes not running unprotected through the cockpit. I've seen more cars like that than not! But vis a vis the oil tank/front engined car anomaly, its worth bearing in mind that the regs are can only be written to counter adverse things that have a likelihood of occuring. Placing the oil tank in the boot of a front engined car isn't very likely is it? If we continued your logic on that one, we'd need a rule that precluded the entering of cars that had wombats nesting in the sunroof, along with all the other possible eventualities imaginable by man. |
||
__________________
Tom Ibrahim |
14 Aug 2009, 19:01 (Ref:2521514) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
And I promise you, all the issues I have raised about the regs in this thread I have raised with the MSA over an extended period - with the exception of FIA approved 5 point belts. I only asked them for clarification about that on Wednesday this week. I sent a reminder email yesterday AND today. No answer to that question yet........ I am just glad I am not due in scrutineering at 7 am tomorrow morning as I was planning to be.... Why won't they - or the scrutineer in here - share their ruling on 5 point belts? Is there some kind of conspiracy going on? What's the big secret about? I just don't understand the attitude........ In every other forum on here people try to help each other - I certainly do anyway. Why won't our incumbent 'scrute' help us by relaying simple facts? In fact, he would be an ideal conduit back to the MSA for ALL the issues raised in here. He COULD become our Hero! |
||
|
15 Aug 2009, 10:42 (Ref:2521784) | #23 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,753
|
Quote:
4 point contacts shoulders and hips; 6 point shoulders hips and inner thighs. The single crotch strap is referrred to as a an anti-submarine strap and inicates that a 4 point harness may be fitted with such a device. Thus, there is no mention of a 5 point harness. We have 4 with or without and anti submarine strap, or 6. |
|||
__________________
If, as Freddie Mercury claimed, fat bottomed girls make the rocking world go round, isn't it about time that Croydon received some recognition for its contribution to astrophysics? |
15 Aug 2009, 11:28 (Ref:2521806) | #24 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
Good news though! |
||
|
15 Aug 2009, 12:09 (Ref:2521820) | #25 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,142
|
|||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Interesting 2011 regulation proposals | Marbot | Formula One | 48 | 1 Jul 2007 20:34 |
Track and Road Cars - Regulation question | apguy | National & Club Racing | 8 | 11 Apr 2005 20:26 |
some fears for the 2005 regulation!! | Hooper | Sportscar & GT Racing | 13 | 4 May 2004 19:29 |
Regulation changes during F1-years | Tomba | Formula One | 3 | 19 Jun 2003 06:21 |
Real world F1 regulation changes? | Tris | Racing Technology | 6 | 16 Nov 2000 14:39 |