motorsport regulation codology

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

Tell you what, avoid all the hassle and illegality - I'll take it off your hands

Get your wallet out then.. make me a sensible offer

[midgetman]

Originally Posted by phoenix

OK - point taken.

You say that 'black box', five point belts, door bars, oil tank and engine cover regs are not problems, but the truth is my car does not meet the letter of the applicable regulations as written.

So - the problems for me could be in the future. I don't want problems in the future, obviously, so I would like the wording such that my door bars and oil tank etc pass scrutineering every time, not just sometimes.

The car has never failed scrutineering - yet - but you can see my worry. If someone fails it in the future because of one of these issues I will be MIGHTY hacked off. The only reason it might fail in the future is because a different scrutineer might give a different interpretation. Maybe you can understand my concern.

In that light, do you find my concerns constructive? And can you put my mind at rest and assure me that the car won't be failed on these points in future?

I suppose this comes back to the Log Book scenario. The car could be inspected and all these points signed off as approved, but that would cost and someone here would complain......

Or it could be argue that you've had TEN YEARS to make the wings of your production based car legal and haven't bothered, despite having been warned.....

Or it could be argued that the rules are deliberately vague to allow some latitude to get everyone racing. After all, you've had no problems in the intervening period.......

Or it could be argued that apart from the wings no-one's ever complained about your car and it's legal, so this is a huge mountain being made out of a tiny molehill.......

Phoenix, no offence meant but there is a hint coming through your posts that you want the rules re-written to make your car legal. "Oh look, they're all out of step except my little Johnny!"

Which brings us back to the 5-point belts....a problem arose, some sensible decisions were made, problem went away. Democracy in action. It was a shame that the scrute couldn't say "well, there's lots of these belts here let's let them race under appeal and sort it out later" though.......perhaps common sense s a little lacking on both sides at times.

[Al Weyman]

"well, there's lots of these belts here let's let them race under appeal and sort it out later"

After a phone call and a half hour delay they did.

[phoenix]

How about having log books as an option?

Then anyone who wanted the comfort of knowing their car is legal can pay for one and those who are happy not to won't need to. For me it makes economic sense, as it is trivial amount compared with the cost of entering and getting to an event. In many cases I can see this would be an extra cost that many don't want - in a one make series, for example, there would seem little point.

It may sound like I want the rules to be written to suit my car, but that's not the case. With respect to the vents in the wings there are other cars allowed to race with them, so I would like the rules clarified so that everyone knows who can and who can't run them legally. I think most would agree that the rules should provide a level playing field. I think most can judge from the use of the word 'mud guard' that the regulation is pretty long in the tooth and needs reviewing at least. Do you know any cars, other than maybe 7esque or clubmens cars that have mudguards? I don't want to have to change my wings if I don't have to, as they are a period feature of the car, so just as a 935 would look odd without them, so would mine. If all the 935s and sportscars competing with them are forced to change too, then I guess I would have to go along with it. But to me it would be a shame to have to butcher the bodywork on some of the lovliest cars ever built.

The oil tank regulation was written with single seaters in mind - I know that for a fact. But because it is poorly worded, even a Porsche with the oil tank in the engine bay behind the rear wheel arch breaches the rule - because the gearbox is in front of it. Every dry sumped Escort I have ever seen has the oil tank in the boot - but this rule doesn't affect them - so I don't see that as a well considered rule.

The black box rule is plain out of date, as most people running closed cars with an ECU have it located in the cockpit.

Reading in here, the belts problem has not yet gone away, at least not to the satisfaction of all scrutineers. Competitors will have to wait for Motor Sports Now or the 2010 Blue Book to find out if there has been a change of rule or interpretation. Maybe in this case the meaning was lost in translation from French - as all the FIA regs are written in French.

[Al Weyman]

Reading in here, the belts rule has YET to be clarified to the satisfaction of all scrutineers and competitors will have to wait for Motor Sports Now or the 2010 Blue Book to find out if there has ben a change of rule or interpretation.

Until that I arrives I bet in the meantime right now a lot of scruts up and down the country have been made aware of this issue by reading these threads and will save someone else some grief this weekend which is surely what a forum like this is all about and why discussions like this are both useful and healthy.

[Rovcoup]

So does it mean my 6 point is really a 5 point if it goes by whats on you body?

[johnw]

No, your six point is a six point. It has two crutch straps connected to the car.

Your four point is a four point even if it has a single anti-submarine strap.

There are no five point harnesses (according to the August scrute update).

[Al Weyman]

I just don't see the point....mind you niether did the scrutineers at Lydden! :-) But more important, just what does 'Codology' mean?

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I just don't see the point....mind you niether did the scrutineers at Lydden! :-) But more important, just what does 'Codology' mean?

Ah! Al man, the next thing you'll be giving me is the neurps. Codology is simple. It is some goat acting the Cod.

[phoenix]

The Blue Book is not very clear in this area. A harness which is homologated by the FIA is perfectly acceptable for circuit racing in the UK, provided it is in good condition. Some homologated harnesses will be in a “5 point” configuration as you have indicated, typically a four point configuration with the addition of a single crotch strap. Provided the entire harness is of the same homologation this is acceptable. What you cannot do is “mix and match” parts from different harnesses.

Regards,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Hickerton

Technical & Risk Control Assistant

The Royal Automobile Club Motor Sports Association Limited

+44(0)1753 765000

[Al Weyman]

Thanks for that Sam it explains a lot :-) Refreshing to see Joe has conceeded the Blue book was not very clear on this area.

[tristancliffe]

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.....

Sorry to jump back a few pages, but I read the above, and felt the urge to write something.

Yes, it is in part due to the stretch of the belt, but also in part due to the driver moving around under track forces (e.g. squishing down in the seat under braking or wriggling lower resisting lateral g forces).

I can't put any numbers on it exactly, but I would say it's about 1% belt stretch and 99% driver movement.

And, the belt stretch will almost certainly be below the elastic limit of the webbing material, and hence will return to normal lengths afterwards.

After an accident when the belts have measurably stretched then they are junk - the material has stretched and will not be able to do so safely (i.e. absorb impact energy) again. But from tightening them they will not do any harm.

So I think it is cobblers that belts somehow deteriorate over time with normal usage. So I presume that the life of the belts is to reduce the number of crashed belts remaining in service? Surely it is not beyond the realms of science to have a panel/label/insert in/odd the webbing that does not stretch more than the allowable usage stretch (a tiny amount) before it cracks/breaks/stains etc. Then the scrutineer simply looks at this section to see if it's broken, and allows the belt to be used if it isn't.

Just replacing things for the sake of replacing things might be okay in F1, GP2, F3, DTM, BTCC where money is effectively no object. But at the proper end of the motorsport ladder (you know - the important end without which professional motorsport wouldn't be possible) it's a foolish and dumb attitude.

The Blue book, and the rules behind it (e.g component life policies) need serious revision before it all gets too far out of hand. It does NOT need to follow the FIA rules a few years behind, which are based on an entirely different set of circumstances (e.g. money no object).


Edit: Edit removed, as I nearly got carried away and said some rude things about officialdom

[Al Weyman]

I cant disagree with any of that and thought the marshals or officials slashed the belts if they thought they had been involved in a massive crash. In reality I bet it would need a serious amount of stretch before they became dangerous but I am not qualified to say. I think general condition of the belts must be a good indication. i always remember I bought some from ebay, guy giving a load of old crap about haw new they were, they were bloody rotton, frayed covered in oil (I got my money back incidently and dont worry would not do it again), now if a scrut see those he would have been in his rights to render them unusable surely.

I have the original 1976 belts in a IROC racer and they are a bit faded and I wouldnt use them but they still look strong although oddly enough considering it was a NASCAR type race car the mounting area looks very weak.

[midgetman]

>>>>>>>>>although oddly enough considering it was a NASCAR type race car the mounting area looks very weak.

Wasn't that a factor in Earnhardt's crash?

[Al Weyman]

I am not sure but from memory it only has provision for two 5/16" bolts may even be 1/4" on the shoulder straps at the rear mounting and looks very weak. Actually Earnhardt may have driven my car as he practiced for one event but don't think he made the race. I know for sure the last NASCAR man to race it was Buddy Baker the all time outright record holder with the fastest recorded NASCAR lap ever which I believe still stands at over 200mph (average!) back in the days of the Plymouth Superbird and the character in the Pixel film cars (the old champ) was based on him. Also Jacky Icx (the Belgium F1 driver whos name I cannot spell) and Al Unser definitely drove it as I even have incar of Unser on a HAVOC video when mario Andretti spun in front of the whole field and Unser just missed him. Also a host of other F1 and NASCAR stars of the 70's drove it but strangly enough it does not seem to be worth that much which is something I cannot understand. One was sold in 2007 for $50,000 but I would have to spend £15k and do a lot of work to get it up to the standard of that car which was very pretty.

[midgetman]

On such tiny points does history rotate.

>>>>>>>>>and Unser just missed him

Another few inches, wrecked car, you don't race it and we have never heard of Al Weyman LOL!

[Al Weyman]

I will never race this one anyhow as its more a musuem piece like is sister sitting in the Talladaga Musuem of Speed, don't confuse it with my IROC-Z modified road car racer this was built from scratch by Penske Racing and Banjo Matthews. Unser clipped the pitlan wall in the vid and there is a small dent in the nearside door bar and I have often wondered if that was the result however I don't think you could ever really kill one of these things they are made like a 2nd world war Sherman tank with a massive tubular frame and all the boddy, seat, engine, suspension, gearbox hanging off of that. You could drive the frame on its own if you so wished!

[R59]

It's about time you got that finished!

Going back to seatbelts, once upon a time, I used a (5) point belt, with the NASCAR type buckle. In all the years I raced with that, it never snagged, always released when asked.
Going to a "proper" twist buckle, I've always found slower, and more difficult to get undone.

I guess because it was a NASCAR type buckle, the FIA had to ban it!! Simple agricultural design, idiot proof.

Earnharts death was the result of a basal skull fracture - a HANS or even Hutchins device would have saved him, but the Intimidator didn't believe in all of this new fangled safety mumbo jumbo.

I won't mention where my oil tank is. Or my brake/clutch reservoirs!

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by midgetman

Or it could be argue that you've had TEN YEARS to make the wings of your production based car legal and haven't bothered, despite having been warned.....

I've done a bit of research into 'ventilated wings'. First a reminder of the regulation:

C (b) 8 (h)
With the exception of racing cars or cars of
periods A to D be equipped on all wheels with
mudguards which present no sharp edges and cover
the complete wheel (flange+rim+tyre) around an arc
of 120 degrees. This minimum coverage must:
(i) be achieved with a continuous surface of rigid
material uninterrupted by any gaps, holes, slots or
vents.
(ii) extend forward ahead of the axle line.
(iii) extend downward behind the wheel to not more
than 7.5cm. above the axle line.

I have created quite a list of manufacturers and cars that are not single seat racing cars but which are, and have been for many years, permitted to race with 'mudguards' that do not comply with this regulation.

Being permitted to race might mean that the regulation is being ignored, but I doubt that would be the case as it is happened so often and over an extended period.

This is not an exclusive list, but the manufacturers include:

Acura
Alfa Romeo
Audi
BMW
Chevron
Ford
Ferrari
Fiat
Jaguar
Juno
Lancia
Ligier
Lola
Lotus
March
Mazda
McLaren
Peugeot
Porsche
Radical
Triumph
Vauxhall
Zytec


There may be many more, but I hope this will be sufficient to illustrate that the problem is not limited to just my car!

[Al Weyman]

Pure codology as simple as that :-)

[tristancliffe]

More details on the Lancia ones please. I know the cars very well, and would be interested to hear which ones don't mean which specific parts of the regulation?

[phoenix]

Well, at least:

Lancia Beta Montecarlo Turbo
Lancia LC1
Lancia LC2

They all have vents/louvres in the front wings above the wheel wells, and vents to the rear in the case of the Montecarlo

[anna_blakemore]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Well, at least:

Lancia Beta Montecarlo Turbo
Lancia LC1
Lancia LC2

They all have vents/louvres in the front wings above the wheel wells, and vents to the rear in the case of the Montecarlo

Not having been around when these cars were first on track I have a question. They seem to all be 'specials' ie cars specifically designed for a championship. Therefore they would have been built to comply with specific regs at the time and therefore would have been legal in what ever they ran in. When you made your long list I was expecting to see production road cars.
The fact that they did run like this 'back in the day' doesnt mean that they are legal in other championships.

Anna

[tristancliffe]

I see what you mean. It would seem that none of those cars are technically eligible for racing under MSA technical regulations. The very fact that they do either means nobody has noticed (in which case challenge their entries if you're competiting against them! ), or nobody cares, in which case...

WHY THE HELL DOES THAT RULE EVEN EXIST???? Why have rules that aren't policed. Why have rules just to take up space in a book?

The further you delve, the more you realise that the Blue Book is a big waste of time, with contradition after pointless rule.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by anna_blakemore

Not having been around when these cars were first on track I have a question. They seem to all be 'specials' ie cars specifically designed for a championship. Therefore they would have been built to comply with specific regs at the time and therefore would have been legal in what ever they ran in. When you made your long list I was expecting to see production road cars.
The fact that they did run like this 'back in the day' doesnt mean that they are legal in other championships.

Anna

OK, they are not 'production saloons' - but that is only one very small class of cars racing today - in fact I don't believe there is a specific national production saloon championship.

Many of the cars I am talking about are still racing today - that is my point. In historic events, Richard Chamberlain's 935K in the Porsche Open and any number of sports car series. There are a huge number of cars competing that are in breach of this regulation; And the names Acura, Juno, Radical and Zytec are hardly from 'back in the day' - they are extremely current!

A far as I am aware, specific championhip regulations and supplementary regulations CAN NOT relax regulations in the Blue Book - they can only tighten them up; This is the opening statement for the Technical section of the Blue Book:


Technical

The following technical regulations are mandatory and
apply to vehicles in all forms of competition (other than
karting). In addition vehicles must comply with the
appropriate Specific Technical Regulations. Where
there are several regulations concerning any particular
subject it shall be taken, as a general principle, that
one does not override another unless specifically
stated.

So a car failed a scutineering by any regulation in this section of the Blue Book cannot be deemed 'legal' by any Championship regulations, as they cannot overule anything that is Mandatory in this section of the Blue Book.