style bars, roll bars and schedule J compliance...

[CT]

I'll write this in normal text - for those whom english is a second language. If you choose to read my post with your eyes open, you will have noticed that I was referring to the standard at club level. I will repeat, club level road racing is much more highly regulated for safetly conformance than drift or drag cars at the same level. Such a bold statement must surely come from between my legs. Well no, I actually did some drag racing in the 90s and believe me, the sh*t I saw other cars get away with and also got away with myself was bordering on criminally negligent. As for drifting safety at local days......put it this way, if I sold cable ties as battery brackets and put Drift R Spec Type B on the packaging......I'd be re-ordering stock after every event I scrutineered at.

As a sidenote, plenty of roll cages I have seen bolted into sleightys and s14s at some NSW drift says wouldn't pass CAMS strict rules for design (schedule J page 6-22 in the 2006 CAMS Manual as a reference). But again, if it says \"DriftR\" somewhere on it, it must be good huh.

I repeat - club level. bpt4w, your thread mentions there are \"no club lvl (level) rules of drifting as yet\". Tough to comply with something that DOES NOT EXIST I would have thought. (Written in large writing for ease of reading.)

[rain902]

was talking to alan moffatt a few weeks ago, he believes that it was a fearful crime that the drivers of his day (bathurst winner 1972 i think he was) were allowed to drive on that track with the (lack of) safety gear including a rudimentary hoop if they were lucky and go as fast as they did.

[JBT]

The silly thing about all this roll bar approval business is there seems to be little concern about how it is bolted to the car. I really do doubt the integrity of a BD or any roll bar for that matter that is bolted to the paper thin shelf behind the seats. Isn't the fuel tank under there? I reckon there's a better than fair chance that the rear bar supports would punch straight through that shelf in a rollover should the car thump the ground when inverted.

[Bevan]

I reckon there's a better than fair chance that the rear bar supports would punch straight through that shelf in a rollover should the car thump the ground when inverted.

Na, it's not the rear bars that are bolted to the shelf. The rear supports are welded to a thick flat plate that runs along the length of the shelf. This would disperse the weight. The bars are wide enough to well and truely clear the fuel tank anyway. The plate is bolted to the thicker metal at the very back of the shelf, not the thin aluminium. Here's a pic of Andrew's to give you a visual indication:

[rain902]

The silly thing about all this roll bar approval business is there seems to be little concern about how it is bolted to the car. I really do doubt the integrity of a BD or any roll bar for that matter that is bolted to the paper thin shelf behind the seats. Isn't the fuel tank under there? I reckon there's a better than fair chance that the rear bar supports would punch straight through that shelf in a rollover should the car thump the ground when inverted.

rather good point JBT - this issue is addressed in the manual, and covers minimum size (thickness and surface area) of backing plate and bolts (diameter, number and grade)

None of these would appear to be adaequately addressed from what ive seen here and on the track. Now keep quiet before people start checking (and rejecting) this as well!

[Matty]

ct i didnt mean to offend with the large writing , its just that when i write a long set , it all seems to blend into a large blur and there is no middle font on these post areas.

True, but the rules of modern punctuation and grammar have existed for many decades.

[JBT]

The rear supports are welded to a thick flat plate that runs along the length of the shelf. This would disperse the weight. The bars are wide enough to well and truely clear the fuel tank anyway. The plate is bolted to the thicker metal at the very back of the shelf, not the thin aluminium.

According to a certifier I was speaking to few weeks ago, the BD roll bar would not pass modification engineering because the rear brace mount method (and possibly the bar itself) would not withstand the certification forces.

[bigdog]

According to a certifier I was speaking to few weeks ago, the BD roll bar would not pass modification engineering because the rear brace mount method (and possibly the bar itself) would not withstand the certification forces.

This would depend on what they were testing for JBT. My understanding is that they would be certifying that the addition of the bar has not compromised the structural integrity of the original vehicle (and I am almost positive that this is not the case). They would not be certifying the roll-over worthiness of the bar for RTA type engineering purposes. All add on ROPS are a compromise of some sort, and the BD design is not bad IMHO given the position and type of installation required. I would expect a Jap made bar that required holes to be cut in the parcel shelf would have problems passing certification in Aus - the engineers don't like holes in structural panels or firewalls.

[Cal]

This roll bar fiasco is about to get a lot worse for us. The 2\" above the helmet rule is to be extended to say the bar must also be 2\" laterally from your shoulder. So any chance of running a soft or hardtop on the car at any time is non existent. I was hoping to build my race car so it could run a hardtop from time to time. Can't see that happening. Was looking for a bulletin on the CAMS website with regard to this. It's not up yet, but can't be far away. Brown Davis are going to have to design a different bar for punters with street registered cars.

Cal.

[Bevan]

This roll bar fiasco is about to get a lot worse for us. The 2" above the helmet rule is to be extended to say the bar must also be 2" laterally from your shoulder. So any chance of running a soft or hardtop on the car at any time is non existent. I was hoping to build my race car so it could run a hardtop from time to time. Can't see that happening. Was looking for a bulletin on the CAMS website with regard to this. It's not up yet, but can't be far away. Brown Davis are going to have to design a different bar for punters with street registered cars.

Cal.

That sux! Surely the width of the cars body, with the height of the roll bar, and being strapped in tight by a harness would more than protect your shoulder?

[JBT]

This would depend on what they were testing for JBT.

Certificate of modification for roadworthiness was how it was explained to me. He indicated it would need to be fixed (welded?) to the structural parts of the body at frame level as opposed to bracing parts like the rear shelf. But then again there was his point about the strength of the bar itself (type/size of material and welding) being doubtful. I agree that the BD looks the goods (even though I think the installation as a bit sus), but this guy is the professional and has no axe to grind............and neither do I.

[bigdog]

This roll bar fiasco is about to get a lot worse for us. The 2" above the helmet rule is to be extended to say the bar must also be 2" laterally from your shoulder. So any chance of running a soft or hardtop on the car at any time is non existent. I was hoping to build my race car so it could run a hardtop from time to time. Can't see that happening. Was looking for a bulletin on the CAMS website with regard to this. It's not up yet, but can't be far away. Brown Davis are going to have to design a different bar for punters with street registered cars.

Cal.

I haven't heard anything to this effect on my CAMS grapevine Cal. Do you have a reliable source on this? It would seem to be a tall order in most road based vehicles (V8 Supercars would come to mind - the bars in these are all around the driver - and most sports sedans I've seen would have trouble with this too).

[bigdog]

This would depend on what they were testing for JBT.

Certificate of modification for roadworthiness was how it was explained to me. He indicated it would need to be fixed (welded?) to the structural parts of the body at frame level as opposed to bracing parts like the rear shelf. But then again there was his point about the strength of the bar itself (type/size of material and welding) being doubtful. I agree that the BD looks the goods (even though I think the installation as a bit sus), but this guy is the professional and has no axe to grind............and neither do I.

You would need to study the QLD rules to know what he is talking about. Most of the engineering rules in NSW relate to how you have changed the structure, and to torsional rigidity of things like seats etc that are then bolted to the structure. No prob with torsional rigidity of BD bar as such, and it can't harm the car by attaching it, can only improve it, so I don't see what the issue would be, but QLD rules may be different. It seems to vary in NSW from one engineer to another too when discussing vehicle mods...

[Li7hium]

Re: 2\" from the shoulders

I heard this as well although Irwin83R was my source.

Oh well, looks like I am going to have to acquire another MX5 purely for the purpose of trackwork.

[rain902]

This roll bar fiasco is about to get a lot worse for us. The 2" above the helmet rule is to be extended to say the bar must also be 2" laterally from your shoulder. So any chance of running a soft or hardtop on the car at any time is non existent. I was hoping to build my race car so it could run a hardtop from time to time. Can't see that happening. Was looking for a bulletin on the CAMS website with regard to this. It's not up yet, but can't be far away. Brown Davis are going to have to design a different bar for punters with street registered cars.

Cal.

I haven't heard anything to this effect on my CAMS grapevine Cal. Do you have a reliable source on this? It would seem to be a tall order in most road based vehicles (V8 Supercars would come to mind - the bars in these are all around the driver - and most sports sedans I've seen would have trouble with this too).

easiest way to not have to recomply your rollcage is to get the car logbooked now - that way its accepted for the foreseeable future with what is permitted by cams now - case in point being if your car was logbooked in umm 2000 you could have a bolt up alloy cage in there and still be permitted to run open meets today - of course some caveats apply to this.

just coz its logbooked doesnt mean that it cant still be your daily driver.


*********

I should have listened more closely to our cams delegate last night - from what he mentioned in the minute that i spoke to him there was still a lot of debate surrounding definitions of mx5/road registered/"racing" etc and nothing was resolved.