Either it was more than adequate, or it hadn't been discovered that it was INadequate yet.

Quote
Gravel Spray

Quote
fliz

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
NoCoast
John.
All home built cages must conform to the newest homologation date.
So even if you are building a cage in a 1972 Volvo, you have to cage it just like it was a 2011 Fiesta.

That part of the Mid-westese dialect I understand, but nowhere in any ASN or FIA site does it say that---and I've read them all.

And frankly, that interpretation seems nothing short of insane.

Frankly, I'd think your interpretation is slightly insane. Crash standards are updated all the time. There is no doubt that a 2011 model year car is safer from the factory than a 2000 or 1990 car. Why would you possibly think that an older car needs a lesser cage?

Possibly because it WAS more than adequate?

The cage rules have become totally insane. A well built cage cira 2000 is FAR safer than a "new style" cage built to the letter of the rules, poorly.

This, so much this.

Also, can anyone tell me if Rally America (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) allows NASA logbooked cars? NASA still allows the low "V" in the main hoop instead of the spiderweb. Would a newly built NASA logbooked car built to current NASA rules with a low "V" be allowed to run an RA event or would they turn you away?

Quote
Doivi Clarkinen

Quote
Gravel Spray

Quote
fliz

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
NoCoast
John.
All home built cages must conform to the newest homologation date.
So even if you are building a cage in a 1972 Volvo, you have to cage it just like it was a 2011 Fiesta.

That part of the Mid-westese dialect I understand, but nowhere in any ASN or FIA site does it say that---and I've read them all.

And frankly, that interpretation seems nothing short of insane.

Frankly, I'd think your interpretation is slightly insane. Crash standards are updated all the time. There is no doubt that a 2011 model year car is safer from the factory than a 2000 or 1990 car. Why would you possibly think that an older car needs a lesser cage?

Possibly because it WAS more than adequate?

The cage rules have become totally insane. A well built cage cira 2000 is FAR safer than a "new style" cage built to the letter of the rules, poorly.

This, so much this.

Also, can anyone tell me if Rally America (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) allows NASA logbooked cars? NASA still allows the low "V" in the main hoop instead of the spiderweb. Would a newly built NASA logbooked car built to current NASA rules with a low "V" be allowed to run an RA event or would they turn you away?

If it was built after 2007 they have the option to turn away Vbar cages. NRS is phasing that type of construction out also. Pre 2007 that meets the Appendix 1 specs and is allowed. That allowance is a courtesy and not a legal right. Any sanctioning body for any sport has the right to upgrade or change safety requirements as they see fit. I've seen some scarey 2000 cages and several fatalities in those cars over the years. The new standard is basically surrounding the driver compartment with the cage stucture. The main hoop X, windshield A pillar support and roof bars are to stop the main cage deformation. Sadly nothing really stops a bad side impact, but that is being studied and focused on.

Bottom line is RA and NRS can require whatever they like for cage rules, don't like it, go play somewhere else.

Quote
Dazed_Driver
What strut tops are you using upfront?

they are steel Tein Camber plates, they lifted the front up and allowed us to take all the preload out of the front springs and retain a good ride height. they havent been stage tested yet just a few days of practice on gravel and two rallyX's. we'll see if they will take the abuse.

Quote
Gravel Spray

Quote
fliz

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
NoCoast
John.
All home built cages must conform to the newest homologation date.
So even if you are building a cage in a 1972 Volvo, you have to cage it just like it was a 2011 Fiesta.

That part of the Mid-westese dialect I understand, but nowhere in any ASN or FIA site does it say that---and I've read them all.

And frankly, that interpretation seems nothing short of insane.

Frankly, I'd think your interpretation is slightly insane. Crash standards are updated all the time. There is no doubt that a 2011 model year car is safer from the factory than a 2000 or 1990 car. Why would you possibly think that an older car needs a lesser cage?

Possibly because it WAS more than adequate?

The cage rules have become totally insane. A well built cage cira 2000 is FAR safer than a "new style" cage built to the letter of the rules, poorly.

And to amplify Pete's point---we have decades of crash data with some pretty brutal crashes---ROLL OVERS specifically and have seen very few even partial failures when built to earlier standards say FIA spec 1991..

And we have seen---until they found a tarp and covered it up---some up to snuff---supposedly-----05 X in main hoop style things done by Por' Drive USA---who had one customer---who may you ask---which did partially fail in a simple roll-over--the drivers 3rd or 4th or 5th---I forget---in a year and a half career.

The CRASH DATA, or simply put, reality ought to prevail.

I don't know if many of you guys think about force much but the X in the plane of the main hoop is going to mitigate force coming primarily in the direction of the legs of the X, in the nice illustration we can say somewhere around 10 or 11 o'clock and 1 to 2 o'clock.
The main hoop, being an arch is already a nice strong shape, and is called the "main hoop" for good reason.

If it stays where its supposed to be---by attaching to B pillar and inner roof, years of evidence shows they do their job.

Since we usually, often have a FORWARD element in the car---we drive them forwards sometime kinda fast, when we flip them there is force pushing BACK , OK? Car goes thisaway------> hits something, force works like its going thisaway <------------------------

Seems to be that if we have a couple of side backstays that's nice for the <------------force, and since in a roll there's some sideways force--which i can't illustrate here, some DIAGONAL tubes supporting the main hoop in the opposite direction ain't a bad idea.
If fact it looks to support the main hoop just as well, if not better..

But as Grant astutely points out, none of this is actually about occupant safety, or actual stresses, or anything at all really except establishing a defense in a theoretic court case.

Quote
heymagic

Bottom line is RA and NRS can require whatever they like for cage rules, don't like it, go play somewhere else.

No need to get pissy. This was the kind of definitive answer I was looking for. A spider web in the main hoop it is, then. Codriver gets hold the helmets in his lap during transits.

Quote
Doivi Clarkinen
Codriver gets hold the helmets in his lap during transits.

It's such a pain too. I wonder if you can play with the X to make enough room for helmets to fit above or below. My car can't fit below (might be between seats that limits) or above the X so they get to flitter become arm rests. Scott's Impreza mine could fit between seats and under X but just barely.

Okay, since we're now getting into some cage tech, I used to recall cages being allowed to have the main hoop tilt back at up to 20 degrees. I don't see that or any constraint in the FIA 253 article.

The attached quick cage I drew up has a 20 degree tilt back, but only in the upper part of the cage.

Quote
Doivi Clarkinen

Quote
heymagic

Bottom line is RA and NRS can require whatever they like for cage rules, don't like it, go play somewhere else.

No need to get pissy. This was the kind of definitive answer I was looking for. A spider web in the main hoop it is, then. Codriver gets hold the helmets in his lap during transits.

Dave, ( I wasn't pissy at your questions, it was at people that want to clip an paste obscure rules while intimating they are some sort of scrutineering authority)... the X in the main hoop needs to be within 4 inches of the center of the top bend, approx. Cheat it down a bit into the lower part of the bend. Should still be room to put helmets thru the center of the cage into the back. Realistically the size of the cabin and the current and future design of seats with wings that will restrict helmet pass thru far more than an X in the main hoop.



Grant, there is nothing to be gained with your main hoop bend as shown. It doesn't gain any room over tilting the whole hoop back 3 degrees or so.

John, there might just be some differences between the FIA spec cage and most of the homolgated cages being used. Not the same animal at all, don't mislead people into thinking they are.

What's going to happen when a Sooper Bitchin strut or brake bracket fails in a spectator area and a car goes flying into the crowd. Everyone lawyers up and JVL might get to live in his old SAAB if no one wants it. Very real concern.

Anyone nowadays who doesn't worry about legal defense is a complete and utter idiot. Why do we have pages of additional insureds on every rally policy? Even if someone prevails against a wrongful death or injury lawsuit, the attorney bills will ruin your life. It is reality.

The current accepted cage design comes from the FIA, which is European and as JVL points out European can do no wrong ...so what is the problem? Not like they've been changed since 2007 basically. No reason for this discussion and the confusion it causes someone trying to upgrade their cage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2011 08:59PM by heymagic.

All those cage rules are for FIA homoligated cages, and as Grant said, not backyard garage build cages.

There is a general "if you build a car now" rules that pretty much mirrors the RA/NASA rules, except they call out for CDS and T45 instead of the allowance for DOM that RA/NASA give. These rules are for non-homoligated cages (aka one off builds) and is a general catch all that will give ample minimum protection needed to satisfy the FIA.

When you are building your homebrew cage, you follow all the rules that they have listed there. However you cannot put in a V on the main hoop, at least my understanding, unless you're filing for some homoligated approved cage with your backyard build and you meet it with an older homoligated chassis. The reason, you can run FIA homoligated cage builds that are built to out-dated rules (example GC subaru FIA cages have a V in the main hoop), but since it was FIA blessed, you're good to go.

I don't know the whole FIA homligation legwork for cages. But you can build a cage that is far from the FIA required design as long as you prove (through test and simulation) that the cage meets all the required stresses labeled in the safety documents. That is why you should not copy a cool WRC cage design. Take Ford for example with the double V in the roof, that design is not legal by a homebrew cage design. However, M-Sport went and tested/verified that it still meets the FIA required forces and went through the homoligation process for that cage. Therefore, BAM you can put it into any Focus/Fiesta you want.

This applies to tubing size as well. If you can prove that running 1" tubing all around and half the tubes "required" and still meet the FIA standard force requirements, you go through the homoligation process, you can put that cage in your car.

Also, with any FIA homoligated cage, you CANNOT add any elements to it, even if you figure it will strengthen it. The cage was homligated in the AS DESIGNED format, once you add something to it, you become a backyard homebrew cage and need to follow the general guidelines.

I probably missed something in there, but that's what I gathred when I was researching cage design and homoligation with FIA cages when I was looking for a cage in the Civic.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 10:48AM by BillyElliot.

Well put Billy.

I have been spending some quality time with article 253 appendix J. The FIA is not as restrictive as I had thought. The biggest problem for me is the need for an X in the main hoop. Like Gene suggested, I am using the 100mm spec to my best advantage.

The cage in my car will ultimately be overkill despite the fact that it will only have two "extra" bars. I wish that the FIA would develop some sort of formula for cages based on power and weight. 1.75x.095 is HUGE in a Golf!

---

Robert.

"You are way too normal to be on Rally Anarchy." Eddie Fiorelli.

Quote
Rallymech
Well put Billy.

I have been spending some quality time with article 253 appendix J. The FIA is not as restrictive as I had thought. The biggest problem for me is the need for an X in the main hoop. Like Gene suggested, I am using the 100mm spec to my best advantage.

The cage in my car will ultimately be overkill despite the fact that it will only have two "extra" bars. I wish that the FIA would develop some sort of formula for cages based on power and weight. 1.75x.095 is HUGE in a Golf!

You only lose 1/2" in space using 1.75" tubing...

Gene, it's only .25" !!


10 years ago when you bought an FIA homologated kit they send a cert sticker in the box.


Now you first must pass a welding test prior to installation, they send you a few tubes to weld together, you ship them back, then they do a destructive weld test. Then after the cage is fully installed, pre paint you have to provide 10 photos, the feet (with serial # clearly visable) and a few more of certain juctions. After they review everything they approve it and ship the Homolgation papers and a cert sticker.

My old car had 1.75" on the main hoop & half laterals...wasn't that big a deal.

Question, since we're talking cage sizes.

When butting the end of a 1.5" tube to a 1.75" tube, is it best to center it, or can it be attached to the outer half? Seems like outer half would give you more space and more support against intrusion.

Gene: "obscure rules"???????
I din't know FIA rules were obscure rules, sorry.

And i said "I's corn-fused-ed" and I siad "Wot da fock do I's knows"

Their efforts to prepare a defense in a theoretical lawsuit theoretically imagining that "they" will be sued for negligence because they did or didn't require some specific copies--excepting materials---of FIA designs results in a more complicated, heavier and expensive car even for meteorite fast guys like oh say whassis duff in dead last Rabbit.

Thus it is a heightening of the "bar to entry"...and some have suggested, not unintentionally so.

But wot da fawk do I know....?