MSA change to roll cage specs
Discussion
I'm told that after a recent court case the MSA have changed the specs for cages. I cant post a link or diagram here but essentially it is an extra bar running from the roof to the floor on each side. It is positioned inside the A Pillar bar. Does anyone know about this ? What I heard was that it had to be done to all cages that needed it at once.
Only needs to be modified if the front hoop doesn't follow the windscreen pillars or has more than one bend.
MSA Newsletter 11/03/11 said:
Immediate rule change for ROPS
The Motor Sports Council unanimously agreed to implement immediate changes to Regulations K1.3.1 and K1.3.5, which cover the Technical Specifications of Rollcages.
This change takes immediate effect and competitors are advised to ensure that all vehicles are fully compliant with the new regulations before any future event. Should further advice be required, competitors are encouraged to speak to the MSA Technical Department or an MSA-registered Scrutineer.
The revised regulations are as follows (underlined wording indicates new text; strike through indicates deleted text):
K1.3.1. Main, Front and Lateral Rollbars. These frames or hoops must be made in one piece without joints. Their construction must be smooth and even, without ripples or cracks. The vertical part of the main rollbar must be as straight as possible and as close as possible to the interior contour of the bodyshell. The front leg of the front rollbar or a lateral rollbar must be straight, or if it is not possible, must follow the windscreen pillars and have only one bendwith its lower vertical partunless a windscreen pillar reinforcement [K1.3.5(e)] is fitted.
The mounting foot must not be rearward of the foremost point of the rollbar.
Where the main rollbar forms the rear legs of a lateral rollbar (see drawing K6), the connection to the lateral rollbar must be at roof level. To achieve an efficient mounting to the bodyshell, the original interior trim may be modified around the safety cage and its mountings by cutting it away or by distortion. However, this modification does not permit the removal of the complete parts of upholstery or trim. Where necessary, the fusebox may be relocated to enable a rollcage to be fitted.
K1.3.5. Optional Reinforcement of Rollcage.
(e) Windscreen Pillar Reinforcement
A tube the upper end of which must be less than 100mm from the junction between the front (lateral) rollbar and the longitudinal (transversal) member and the lower end less than 100mm from the front mounting foot of the front (lateral) rollbar, as shown in drawing K62.
The tube may be bent on condition that it is straight in side view and that the angle of the bend does not exceed 20°.
The Motor Sports Council unanimously agreed to implement immediate changes to Regulations K1.3.1 and K1.3.5, which cover the Technical Specifications of Rollcages.
This change takes immediate effect and competitors are advised to ensure that all vehicles are fully compliant with the new regulations before any future event. Should further advice be required, competitors are encouraged to speak to the MSA Technical Department or an MSA-registered Scrutineer.
The revised regulations are as follows (underlined wording indicates new text; strike through indicates deleted text):
K1.3.1. Main, Front and Lateral Rollbars. These frames or hoops must be made in one piece without joints. Their construction must be smooth and even, without ripples or cracks. The vertical part of the main rollbar must be as straight as possible and as close as possible to the interior contour of the bodyshell. The front leg of the front rollbar or a lateral rollbar must be straight, or if it is not possible, must follow the windscreen pillars and have only one bend
The mounting foot must not be rearward of the foremost point of the rollbar.
Where the main rollbar forms the rear legs of a lateral rollbar (see drawing K6), the connection to the lateral rollbar must be at roof level. To achieve an efficient mounting to the bodyshell, the original interior trim may be modified around the safety cage and its mountings by cutting it away or by distortion. However, this modification does not permit the removal of the complete parts of upholstery or trim. Where necessary, the fusebox may be relocated to enable a rollcage to be fitted.
K1.3.5. Optional Reinforcement of Rollcage.
(e) Windscreen Pillar Reinforcement
A tube the upper end of which must be less than 100mm from the junction between the front (lateral) rollbar and the longitudinal (transversal) member and the lower end less than 100mm from the front mounting foot of the front (lateral) rollbar, as shown in drawing K62.
The tube may be bent on condition that it is straight in side view and that the angle of the bend does not exceed 20°.
andy97 said:
It would be even better if it showed what they mean by the two bends, it's in the vertical part of the front legs. like this! 
MrLizard said:
some of the marshalls at events last year for us were looking unkindly at the dash dodging cages, it is all about the 2 bends i think...
fortunately mine just goes straight through the dash and has the two poles, does weigh a ton though!
The bit about not having 2 bends has been in there for a while, its the bit about adding an extra tube if they do have an extra bend that is new. I've seen plenty of cages with 2 bends like this, its going to cause a big problem if they are going to start enforcing it. To change its going to mean chopping large sections out of existing cages..fortunately mine just goes straight through the dash and has the two poles, does weigh a ton though!
here is an example of a front leg ( viewed from the side)
As you can see it has 2 bends. does this now need an extra bar from either a-B or a-C or does the whole thing want re making with the downward part from C as a straight tube... remake with only the one lower bend at point B?
Nice to see typically the msa diagram only has 1 bend doh....
I think the problem is that the double bend rule has been there for a while ( certainly the last few years) but its been ignored,( I certainly queries it over 2 yeas ago with someone ) and there are many cars out there with a double bend. Indeed even molsers have it..
It looks like the problem has been identified, possibly through an accident and the failure of a double bend cage, and someone suing as it had passed scrutineering. Hence the msa realising there is a problem and putting in the section about having an extra tube if there is more than one bend..
It does mean that scruits are probably going to be more aware of it and possible look for it.. so the first few races will be interesting... Although I know of at least one car with such a cage that has raced this year without problems, and some more that will be racing next weekend..
Making a front hoop with out extra bends could cause other problems in making the windscreen top bar potentially closer to the drivers head !!!, and there is also the access problem with the extra tube..
It looks like the problem has been identified, possibly through an accident and the failure of a double bend cage, and someone suing as it had passed scrutineering. Hence the msa realising there is a problem and putting in the section about having an extra tube if there is more than one bend..
It does mean that scruits are probably going to be more aware of it and possible look for it.. so the first few races will be interesting... Although I know of at least one car with such a cage that has raced this year without problems, and some more that will be racing next weekend..
Making a front hoop with out extra bends could cause other problems in making the windscreen top bar potentially closer to the drivers head !!!, and there is also the access problem with the extra tube..
Birdthom said:
Hmmm. I have an OMP 'dash dodger' cage with a 2-bend front leg. Is that a potential scrutineering failure? My first race of the season is in 2 weeks time and I'll have no chance of getting it sorted before then. All advice gratefully received...
I have no idea what a 'dash dodger' cage is so can't comment on it.But I advise doing what we are doing - find a local scrut, contact them, then send photos and get a yes/no answer. This has to be better than failing scrut at the first meeting.
But having said that - as the MSA have worded it so badly (no suprise there then!) will the scruts actually know what is right?
Reading the document - this applies to front cages where the A-pillar section has more than one bend, and does not affect those with only one bend. So why do they show a drawing of a cage section has only one bend!!?? Talk about adding to the confusion!
Since most regular cages only have one bend (usually at the base of the A-pillar), they're not affected, it is the "dash dodgers" that come down with the A pillar, then drop straight down, before bending forwards under the dash again, and then to the floor. Surely that design in clearly compromised in terms of vertical strength.
Since most regular cages only have one bend (usually at the base of the A-pillar), they're not affected, it is the "dash dodgers" that come down with the A pillar, then drop straight down, before bending forwards under the dash again, and then to the floor. Surely that design in clearly compromised in terms of vertical strength.
Gassing Station | UK Club Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff