Appendix J - Changes

General Paddock Chatter
Post Reply
User avatar
CountJohnny
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:51 am

Appendix J - Changes

Post by CountJohnny »

Good Morning (Afternoon/Evening)

I should probably say that, as you can see from my Avatar I'm a (albeit single seater based) sports racing car driver, so our issues may be slightly different, but has anyone read the 2012 Grey Book and noted 5.2.7 which states:

'[about aerodynamic devices fitted to racing and sports racing cars]...may not extend longitudinally from the bodywork by more than 100mm.'

...and wondered whether that includes rear wings? If sohas anyone queried things with the brains trust in Colnebrook?

Also, 5.2.1 has been beefed up to make it clear that the driver must be isolated from:

'...suspension components including their operating linkages and attachments...'

Does this cause problems for you and, if so, has anyone done anything about solving the problem, or queried it with the MSA?

User avatar
Paperman
Mechanic
Mechanic
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:42 pm

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by Paperman »

Hi CountJohnny

Good questions, which (to be clear) relate to changes in the 2012 "Blue Book".

J5.2.7 appears to be aimed at restrictions on the fitment and dimensions of aerodynamic devices on saloons and similar cars which are not originally designed for racing. However it's worded in a very confusing way and could be taken to cover aerodynamic devices fitted to single seater racing cars and sports racing cars. On the other hand drawing 19.17 on page 269 is very clear about allowed dimensions for single seaters, including aerodynamic devices - which haven't changed. Sports racing cars don't have this clarification, however.

J5.2.1 amends the previous regulation's wording to include the term "suspension components". This could be taken to include springs and might therefore be relevant to the very many single seater and other racing cars which have front springs and dampers mounted inboard of the chassis. Cars with this configuration are common and have been in use for many years without any safety issues that we are aware of. In July 2011 while this change was in consultation Monoposto raised this issue with MSA because we were concerned this might lead to a requirement for shields of some sort to be fitted to such cars. Our view is that such shields are not in general necessary and could themselves be dangerous. We were told that "the slight change of wording was done as a clarification", and that MSA were conducting further research.

Since the change has been written in to the 2012 Regulations we will now try to establish what, if any, the consequences might be for cars which have been compliant with the previous wording.

I realise this reply isn't helpfully definitive, but we will continue to pursue the question.

Simon Davey
MRC Administrator

(BTW - we prefer forum posts to not be anonymous)

schomosport
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Bedford
Contact:

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by schomosport »

And further if you take the below literally then it it is clearly a challenge to arrive at an arrangement that allows the driver to adjust his anti roll-bars..........

Also, 5.2.1 has been beefed up to make it clear that the driver must be isolated from:

'...suspension components including their operating linkages and attachments...'
Schomosport

User avatar
CountJohnny
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:51 am

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by CountJohnny »

Paperman wrote:(BTW - we prefer forum posts to not be anonymous)
Apologies Simon, and thanks for your reply.

Like many of your cars, I suspect, my Speads has inboard springs and dampers and - being tall - my knees are more or less jammed up against them, so arranging some form of shielding would be pretty difficult to do and uncomfortable, for me. Also, much like many of your cars I suspect, the rear mounting points for the front lower wishbones are very much inboard (like right under my thighs) so I don't know what one is expected to do about that.

Aparently, last year, a single seater at a SEMSEC meeting failed scrutineering on the basis of an interpretation of the old rule so - racing with the pedants in the 750, as I do - the new wording causes me even more concern.

With regard the 'aerodynamic device' thing, yes the single seater dimensions are quite clear - and haven't changed, to my knowledge, for years - which is why this new rule seems to muddy the water, somewhat, as it does clearly refer to '...racing and sports racing cars...'.

If it stands and applies to your cars, there is a slight get out of jail card if you look at the definition of Bodywork, in the Blue Book (basically anything that isn't the engine, transmission and wheels (so the wing support structure could be 'bodywork')) but I really don't want to spend the whole season going over that one while everyone else is putting on their race face.

Any information or feedback would be gratefully received.

Regards

Iain Cumming

User avatar
Paperman
Mechanic
Mechanic
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:42 pm

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by Paperman »

We've got some progress on 5.2.1 at least ("isolation of suspension components")- Please take a look at the item on StartLIne for more information.

And many thanks to Gary Hill and OMS for this info!

Simon Davey

Eddie Guest
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by Eddie Guest »

Having just read the MSA newsletter I am now scratching my head as to how to solve the problem for my lower front wishbones. The rear pivot point is just below my knees and there is no way I can see I can add anti intrusion bars to the wishbones as they will foul the pull rod suspension. Any ideas would be gratefully received!!

Eddie Guest

User avatar
tristancliffe
Lifetime achievement award
Lifetime achievement award
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: Norwich, Norfolk
Contact:

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by tristancliffe »

Looking at photos, maybe the anti-intrusion bars could be a bit further outboard? Or maybe have a kink in the middle to clear the pullrod?

I'm wondering if this applies to carbon cars? The 98 Dallaras don't have these bars on their wishbones as standard (although I've seen some that do, but presumably they are pattern parts?), but it isn't clear whether they should have them now. Later Dallaras do have them though. I didn't understand what they were for for a while.
Tristan Cliffe - MSV F3 Cup - Dallara F307 Image
Monoposto Champion 2008, 2010 & 2011 with a Reynard 883 and a Dallara F398, and F3 Cup and Team Champion 2012

User avatar
lee
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:56 am
Location: Nr Worcester

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by lee »

Eddie,
When I read the changes my mind did go back to the Lola arrangement. When I had my Lola it did cross my mind what would happen to the lower wishbone should a bolt fail etc. I will have a look at some pictures later and see if I can come up with a solution. Does this reg apply to all cars? New cars? Having read the article i'm still unsure . I can see loads of classics and historics falling foul of this rushed in amendment.
Ex Magic Motorsports official 3rd and test driver.
The other 883 outright race winner......seems so long ago!
Lee Bennett

Eddie Guest
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by Eddie Guest »

Thanks Lee - all thoughts gratefully received - not long before the 1st race of the season so need to get is fixed if necessary asap

Eddie

User avatar
AVIT!
Recovery
Recovery
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:54 am
Location: Doncaster

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by AVIT! »

Hi all!
putting a post on here aswell but for anyonw worried about this bar thats needed i will have my welding gear and material needed at round one at brands and will be there from friday lunch!
so if any one does need this doing they can be done on the car at a a cost od £15 per wishbone so ne need to strip the car down!
Might even bring some black paint to pretty up the job when its done!
AVIT!
Avit! motorsport taking club racing back to its routes by beating wallets on a small budget!

User avatar
CountJohnny
Marshal
Marshal
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:51 am

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by CountJohnny »

Eddie Guest wrote:Having just read the MSA newsletter I am now scratching my head as to how to solve the problem for my lower front wishbones. The rear pivot point is just below my knees and there is no way I can see I can add anti intrusion bars to the wishbones as they will foul the pull rod suspension. Any ideas would be gratefully received!!

Eddie Guest
Because my car has similar arrangement, I'm hoping that the test of 'considering what happens if something breaks and what the risks are' will stand and that the steel shrouds around the inboard rod ends will be viewed as mitigating the risk.

User avatar
Paperman
Mechanic
Mechanic
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:42 pm

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by Paperman »

We've been advised by MSVR's Chief Scrutineer, who is an MSA Technical Commissioner, that this issue should have no affect on cars which are running in their "as designed" specs and have previously been passed as OK. If the car is a new design or you've modified the car (for example by removing chassis shielding around the suspension components, or removing anti-intrusion bars if they were part of the original design), then it could be sensible to get specific advice. If you contact me I can help on this.

However it's clear that a sensible approach is being taken to this issue by the Scrutineers.

Simon Davey

Administrator, Monoposto Racing Club
email: admin@monoposto.co.uk
tel: 01327 843056

stevengriffin
Mechanic
Mechanic
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:48 pm

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by stevengriffin »

I'm glad that I'm not the only person who didn't know what those triangulation bar were for. I just assumed it gave the the wishbones a bit more rigidity and strength I had no idea they were there to try and prevent us from getting orthopaedic surgeons out of bed on a Sunday night.
It's nice to know the designers are thinking about our safety.

User avatar
tristancliffe
Lifetime achievement award
Lifetime achievement award
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: Norwich, Norfolk
Contact:

Re: Appendix J - Changes

Post by tristancliffe »

tristancliffe wrote:Looking at photos, maybe the anti-intrusion bars could be a bit further outboard? Or maybe have a kink in the middle to clear the pullrod?

I'm wondering if this applies to carbon cars? The 98 Dallaras don't have these bars on their wishbones as standard (although I've seen some that do, but presumably they are pattern parts?), but it isn't clear whether they should have them now. Later Dallaras do have them though. I didn't understand what they were for for a while.
Even though I no longer have to worry about badly modifying my wishbones, or the thought of stripping a car down, modifying them in a jig with expensive material that matches the original steel (and how would one tell what alloy of steel was used in each application?), and then sending it all off for heat treating to try and avoid weakening the original welds... :wink:

I realised yesterday that the 05-12 Dallaras do not have anti-intrusion bars, whilst the 99-04 ones do. Either they were added for one chassis because of fashion (I believe fashions have a lot to do with over 50% of car design at any level) of removed for the more recent chassis because they were pointless weight that did nothing for driver safety (in context of carbon tubs).
Tristan Cliffe - MSV F3 Cup - Dallara F307 Image
Monoposto Champion 2008, 2010 & 2011 with a Reynard 883 and a Dallara F398, and F3 Cup and Team Champion 2012

Post Reply