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

bigdog · Postby **bigdog** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:29 pm

JBT wrote:
bigdog wrote: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 · Postby **Li7hium** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:05 pm

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 · Postby **rain902** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:53 pm

bigdog wrote:
Cal wrote: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.

rain902 · Postby **rain902** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:59 pm

Bevan wrote: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?

watch some crash test dummy video sometime - your head flops around more than you would believe!

ive seen comas caused by side / rear helmet impacts to the uprights of a bar - and that was with harness and race seat.

Cal · Postby **Cal** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:47 am

bigdog wrote: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).

The source is better than reliable. I've been hearing about it for 12 months, but thought it was just speculation. It's not.

Cal.

CT · Postby CT » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:31 pm

For the record, V8 Supercar roll cages do not comply with CAMS. That's right. They do not comply with CAMS. They are built to the V8SC companies specs. If you purchased a V8 supercar and wanted to run it in a CAMS category, you would need to change the cage. The \"Larry\" bar is a prime example of where the V8s differ from CAMs specs.

bigdog · Postby **bigdog** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:38 pm

Bloody typical :roll:

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:34 pm

CT wrote:For the record, V8 Supercar roll cages do not comply with CAMS.

If that's correct, it shows what a farce the roll bar/cage rules are becoming.

Red Baron · Postby **Red Baron** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:29 pm

This whole CAMS thing just makes no sense at all.

I have decided in my best interest to take up Knitting and have purchased at great expense the entire series of Yes Minister, including I might add, the editors cuts.

After several weeks of Knitting, and I have done some very fast stuff as well as the more sensible speed for special curves, trying to keep my eye on the telly at the same time, I have got to say I now understand it all.

CAMS seems to be populated by a bunch of Knitters that watch too much Yes Minister on telly.

Fuc@* your brain. I have now started counting Blue Smarties to try and get some sanity back.

baron

bpt4w · Postby **bpt4w** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:40 pm

?

mmmm hide the blue pill and give him the red pill

Red Baron · Postby **Red Baron** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:09 pm

mmmm hide the blue pill and give him the red pill

Excellent, you have my point well in hand!!!!

CAMS are in a position to ream a group of enthusiasts, by simple bungling. \"Yes Minister\" is a very apt example of how this happens in these environments.

Knitting, unless I choose to change my vehicle, then I might just as well take it up, cause in an MX5 I \"WILL BE REGULATED OUT\"

High time that the MX-5 Clubs of Australia got together on this, put up a unified front, and give the CAMS \"MINISTERS\" a wake up call.

Don't you all think??????

I would really like to be competing again this year, but I can assure you that I am not prepared to put up my hard earned for entry fees, tyres etc just to be told that I do not comply.

Not pointing the finger at the Scrutineers, because they can only interpret the book, and the \"BOOK\", might just as well be turned into a series called \"YES MINISTER\"

baron

bpt4w · Postby **bpt4w** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:13 pm

yeah i agree.

i know that cams is part of the safety side of motorsport but sometimes they get a bit excited, if this persists i guess there will just be a one make series that only complies with its own rules and regs like there is in the states.

irwin83r · Postby **irwin83r** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:18 pm

CAMS is starting to sound like a government body..

one of the main reasons i bought my 5 was because of how suited they are to low level track work and now i'm hearing it wont be possible to have a road reg's 5 on the track.

2\" from the shoulder would put most jap cars out the window in fact alot of cars in general would need some MAJOR interior work or stripping to get a decent sized bar to sit next to your shoulder with a 2\" gap...

and now im hearing if i have it all signed off before a set date i wont have to worry about spending hundreds or even buying a different car all together? jesus its personalised plates all over again...

:roll:

mossy · Postby **mossy** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:32 pm

I'm a little slow on the uptake here but does this mean a club day with the WRX club or AROCA will affect us racing unless we have a proper roll cage built?