Cage construction questions

Quote
john vanlandingham
(? did you forget their name? I've had many interesting conversations with people about homologated cages...2 actually even knew something..Doubtless because they actually made homologated cages. Imagine that)[/color][/i]

Nope. That particular conversation was with Martin Headland, but I figured that wasn't really relevant as I have had similar conversations with others.

Quote
john vanlandingham
And I would not be particularly adverse to the whole of Art 253 being the template... But--and you know thus full well----intentionally ignoring all the sections up to "For cars first homologated 1 Jan 2007 and onward, the following elements are required" and intentionally pretending the perfectly acceptable specs applicable PRIOR to that doesn't exist or are inadequate (despite them mandating much safer cages that we in North America had for decades---and oddly had few cages collapse), that is a lot to expect people to swallow whole.

In Canada, at least, a car that was BUILT prior to 2004 doesn't need to update the cage - it is grandfathered in. A new build would need a current spec 253-8 cage, and that is what I read from the rules. (in that a car being homilogated is talking about a specific build, not a model or variant.)
If taken to the extreme, if you're suggesting that a 1969 mini should be allowed to run with the cage that was used in it in 1969... I doubt you'd get much agreement on that.
Surely cage design changes aren't all driven by performance improvements in the cars, some are borne from observed 'failures' and changes in risk assessment.
In that sense, any reasonable person would see that what was felt to be safe before may not be considered safe with what we know today.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

So really what is "extraneous" comes down to:
An X in the main hoop
Two roof bars instead of none or one
A-pillar reinforcement

I still don't get the complaining.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
NoCoast
So really what is "extraneous" comes down to:
An X in the main hoop
Two roof bars instead of none or one
A-pillar reinforcement

I still don't get the complaining.

Stick around for another 15 or 20 years and you might get more things.
Process
Politics
Rationalisations
Walter Mitty-isms.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

I can see the lawyer saying, "so was the roll cage of the highest level of safety Mr. Hurst?"
"Well no, we allow less cage in vehicles with some arbitrary date cutoff that has no relevance to any specific change."

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
NoCoast
I can see the lawyer saying, "so was the roll cage of the highest level of safety Mr. Hurst?"
"Well no, we allow less cage in vehicles with some arbitrary date cutoff that has no relevance to any specific change."

You see that because you see the same superficial simplistic shit that most people see..
You buy into the arguments....Waste of time and I don't think you are serious..You've said as much several times. In other words Grant, you trollin.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

To me it IS a weird discussion. We kinda follow the FIA rules here in Denmark, meaning that we have the various cut off dates for homologation.

What is weird is that we have a national homologation system as well, which allow us to build cars that the FIA never homologated - sort of akin to what you have, but with more restrictions on things like engine swaps, etc.

Since anybody can perform a national homologation of any car, regardless of age, a forty year old non-FIA homologated car require 2016 spec cage, since it was nationally homologated this year.
That does not make sense for our rules, since the performance will NOT be near what we have from R5-cars for instance.

My Golf on the other hand, is FIA-homologated in 1986, but built for one of our national classes, requiring national homologation. This was performed in 2014, and logic would dictacte that my cage should be 2014-spec. However, our sanctioning body has stipulated that if an FIA homologation exists prior to the national homologation, that is the date to use when determining the required spec for the cage.

Corn-fused?

Then add this: as soon as a cage is certified by FIA - typically a weld-in-kit or a bolt-in model - all dates goes out the window (as far as I know this is an FIA rule).
This means that I can get a 2000's-ish Peugeot 106, slap in a 6 point OMP bolt-in cage, and I am good to go compete all over europe in any event I wish - no worries.
If I buy a 6-point bolt-in cage from Sassa - I can't - since there is no piece of paper from FIA saying that it is certified. But it's the same cage - Sassa produces the OMP-cages...

This is so silly... as much as I feel that your rules are a bit over the top sometimes, they are at least coherent to some extent.

---

Brgrds
Brian

Quote
wildert
To me it IS a weird discussion. We kinda follow the FIA rules here in Denmark, meaning that we have the various cut off dates for homologation.

What is weird is that we have a national homologation system as well, which allow us to build cars that the FIA never homologated - sort of akin to what you have, but with more restrictions on things like engine swaps, etc.

Since anybody can perform a national homologation of any car, regardless of age, a forty year old non-FIA homologated car require 2016 spec cage, since it was nationally homologated this year.
That does not make sense for our rules, since the performance will NOT be near what we have from R5-cars for instance.

My Golf on the other hand, is FIA-homologated in 1986, but built for one of our national classes, requiring national homologation. This was performed in 2014, and logic would dictacte that my cage should be 2014-spec. However, our sanctioning body has stipulated that if an FIA homologation exists prior to the national homologation, that is the date to use when determining the required spec for the cage.

Corn-fused?

Then add this: as soon as a cage is certified by FIA - typically a weld-in-kit or a bolt-in model - all dates goes out the window (as far as I know this is an FIA rule).
This means that I can get a 2000's-ish Peugeot 106, slap in a 6 point OMP bolt-in cage, and I am good to go compete all over europe in any event I wish - no worries.
If I buy a 6-point bolt-in cage from Sassa - I can't - since there is no piece of paper from FIA saying that it is certified. But it's the same cage - Sassa produces the OMP-cages...

This is so silly... as much as I feel that your rules are a bit over the top sometimes, they are at least coherent to some extent.

That confusion and asinine cut off dates and such are the reason why the US people just say, "here is what the cage must be" and they have to choose the highest spec cage in order to avoid the potential to have someone say, "why wasn't this bar that is required in some cars not required in this car?" "Would that bar have saved this person's life?"
US is fucked when it comes to lawyers and liability. Kids grow up saying, "I'm going to sue you!" People see stories of people getting windfall settlements in the millions of millions of dollars for things like wrongful death suits. It already killed rally in the USA once and caused the largest motorsport body that had been involved in the sport for decades to abandon the sport.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
wildert
To me it IS a weird discussion. We kinda follow the FIA rules here in Denmark, meaning that we have the various cut off dates for homologation.

What is weird is that we have a national homologation system as well, which allow us to build cars that the FIA never homologated - sort of akin to what you have, but with more restrictions on things like engine swaps, etc.

Since anybody can perform a national homologation of any car, regardless of age, a forty year old non-FIA homologated car require 2016 spec cage, since it was nationally homologated this year.
That does not make sense for our rules, since the performance will NOT be near what we have from R5-cars for instance.

My Golf on the other hand, is FIA-homologated in 1986, but built for one of our national classes, requiring national homologation. This was performed in 2014, and logic would dictacte that my cage should be 2014-spec. However, our sanctioning body has stipulated that if an FIA homologation exists prior to the national homologation, that is the date to use when determining the required spec for the cage.

Corn-fused?

Then add this: as soon as a cage is certified by FIA - typically a weld-in-kit or a bolt-in model - all dates goes out the window (as far as I know this is an FIA rule).
This means that I can get a 2000's-ish Peugeot 106, slap in a 6 point OMP bolt-in cage, and I am good to go compete all over europe in any event I wish - no worries.
If I buy a 6-point bolt-in cage from Sassa - I can't - since there is no piece of paper from FIA saying that it is certified. But it's the same cage - Sassa produces the OMP-cages...

This is so silly... as much as I feel that your rules are a bit over the top sometimes, they are at least coherent to some extent.

If the geniuses who cook up their version of the rules would simply say "These are the rules"--- or alternately "These are the rules we've picked and chosen KINDA inspired by some of the rules under FIA Art 253"
Then OK.

The problem is--and the problem is why----they say "Our rules are SAME as FIA except the steel formula"
They are not and they say that constantly to cast the idea around that they are so that one day when some poor organiser or sanctioning body has been dragged into court on a multi-million dollar lawsuit alleging it was a faulty cage BUILT to the ___________(fill in which sanctioning body) rules and logbooked and tech inspected--AND THEREBY BLESSED!!!! and Billy Bob lays dead not because he drove straight off a 500m cliff--but because of ___________ sanctioning body's outrageously neligent cage rules which did not follow BEST PRACTICES!!!"

They can say "Our rules mandate cages built to the latest FIA specs, and have for YEARS!"


And requiring the exact same cage Ogier or Latvalla or Paddon has in their cars for a rank beginner in a 100 hp econobox grocery getter...id flat stupid and I have an aversion to stupidity.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
john vanlandingham
And requiring the exact same cage Ogier or Latvalla or Paddon has in their cars for a rank beginner in a 100 hp econobox grocery getter...id flat stupid and I have an aversion to stupidity.

Well, I agree - to some extent - when thinking about "the average". But nothing about crashes are average.
The 100 hp grocery getter can drive off a cliff just as easily as the million hp Pikes Peak monster.
The 100 hp grocery getter can get up to speeds where meeting a big fat tree is really unpleasant, not to say lethal - and it can just as easily happen in the grocery getter that it meets the tree.

Just because the average speed on stage is lower, doesn't mean that the crash situation is proportionally less dangerous.

On the legislation part, I simply don't get it - I've been to the States several times, and the amounts of waivers, disclaimer and what not, that I have read, agreed to, and signed over the years for various activities I have participated in, are numerous. It ought to be possible for some one to construct a "get out of jail free" wording I would think... but I guess not.

---

Brgrds
Brian

This discussion, which has come up over and over again, is goofy, and probably has the effect of scaring newcomers away from getting involved.


The US rules for roll cages are actually quite simple to understand, and not at all difficult to follow.

The idea of having different requirements for different cars ages, or power levels… what is this Brazil?

That would be nothing but confusion, what if you add a more powerful engine, you then have to rebuild your cage?

give it a rest.

"And requiring the exact same cage Ogier or Latvalla or Paddon has in their cars for a rank beginner in a 100 hp econobox grocery getter...id flat stupid and I have an aversion to stupidity."


This is my concern as well. I'm no expert. John will attest to that. I'm not even to a point of knowing the basics well enough to hurt myself from the amount of ignorance. But the point of a cage, in my very humble opinion, is crash protection.

IT class cages in SCCA, and PCA cages are built for the type of racing the cars encounter, not the power of the car. (Yes John, I know IT is not Rally, its just what I know best, so I'm trying to make my thoughts somewhat intelligent).

If I hit the wall at NHIS in my ITB Rabbit GTi, my 914-6, or my 951 (944T), or Etc...Etc...Etc...; it was the same wall I would be hitting,and the same protection I would want. So with that in mind, if I am doing a hill climb at Mount Washington, or a Stage Rally at Team O'Neil, wouldn't I want the same protection for an off no matter what type of car I am running?

To say that we have to meet the WRC safety cage requirements is a bit of an overexaggeration.
IF we did, the cost of my roll cages would be easily tripled if not more.

"The creation of a 200mm space between the door and the seat provides the critical survival space that will be used to help minimise the energy and forces on the body of the occupant in the event of a collision. The 200mm space will be filled with high efficiency energy absorbing material, to enable the crash forces to be attenuated.

Further side impact measures, including a stronger supporting seat, stronger seat rails, safety nets and optimised belt anchorage positions"

The required helmets and seats are like $3000+ for WRC car spec equipment.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
john vanlandingham
And requiring the exact same cage Ogier or Latvalla or Paddon has in their cars for a rank beginner in a 100 hp econobox grocery getter...id flat stupid and I have an aversion to stupidity.

Then you'll be happy to know that the 253-8 cage is NOT the same spec as a WRC car would require. It is a 'catch-all' spec for GrpA/N cars that is an option to homologated cage designs.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
wildert
On the legislation part, I simply don't get it - I've been to the States several times, and the amounts of waivers, disclaimer and what not, that I have read, agreed to, and signed over the years for various activities I have participated in, are numerous. It ought to be possible for some one to construct a "get out of jail free" wording I would think... but I guess not.

Waivers are worthless if the person in authority is negligent.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022