MSA compliant rollbar

[se7ensport]

Hi Matt

Thanks for the reply, I was looking for a compliant one as opposed to a certified - in the westfield scene Playskool has taken this approach and designed as per the bluebook and kept costs relatively low as it doesn't need to be certified http://www.plays-kool.co.uk/acatalog/Wi ... lbars.html

I suspected it would have to go back through the bodywork, I had hoped that a design like Tony's would work where the rear stays don't protrude into the boot; I did wonder about the main hoop being able to lean slightly over the rear of the helmet to accommodate as its the mountings that need to be located just behind the seats.

Quick point in the diameter, 48.3 relates to "sports racing cars", I thought the Stylus generally came under "sports car" as most are roadgoing which has options of either 45 x 2.5 (1.75” x 0.095”) or 50 x 2.0 (2.0” x 0.083”) (section 1.4.1). Personally I would be happy with any of the 3 tube sizes



Cheers
Alex

[MattD]

Hi All

I will go away and have another proper think on this.

Compliant vs Certified - I will revise my terminology What I was trying to say was that I wont be spending £5K to do a certified ROPS design at this stage (or two in fact - single rear hoop & full rollcage designs). Any motorsport ROPS that SCC might make will therefore have to be Compliant to the section K design rules, following the drawings & materials in the blue book.
Not throwing stones..., but I think Playskool may have to look at their design as the double bend into the rear mounting foot does not match K1-K4 which shows a straight tube/90 degree mount.
But in principle, Yes, a simple low-ish cost ROPS could be made, but it will need to go thru the GRP bodywork into the boot area, which those I have discussed it with before have not been prepared to do.

I do agree with Kev that all the mounting points should be properly thought out & reinforced, including a footplate at the front/door hing area for a full cage front hoop. This is something that was already on my list as I am planning the build of a serious V6 powered Stylus RT with a full cage for myself, based on the MX5 running gear.
As Kev says, there is no reason why a tall MSA height fits-all-drivers ROPS cannot be designed/made in an MSA compliant form. Might be a bit ugly though !
The problem for current owners will be that your chassis wont have the revised design of chassis ROPS mounts. So you'll have to either retro-weld in the mounts & crush tubes (difficult), and/or make do with what your chassis already has. This is an issue that Matt Loveless (Pete & Matt) and I have recently visited for IVA reasons, and its still an ongoing work in progress.

Moving on...
Personally I don't think its reasonable to call a Stylus a "Sports Racing Car" in motorsport terms.
In my view these are full blooded open cockpit, mid-engined racers such as Radicals, Domes, etc. Maybe that's a short sighted view that I should reconsider.
But as always.... its down to the entrant to nominate their chosen class.

For sprinting I would classify the Stylus as Road Going Specialist Production (20 chassis produced per annum back in the day).
Series production does not apply as 1000 chassis have not been made.
This leads to Modified Specialist Production and/or Sports Libre for MSA log booked cars.

Overall - Is there demand out there for MSA ROPS for existing Stylus' ??, as there is a lot of time, effort & prototyping required to put something saleable together.

Cheers
Matt

[MattD]

Don't think its Top Secret, so I'll post this for clarity, these are the words the MSA technical dept emailed me back in October...

As I’m sure you can image we are receiving a lot of queries on the Roadgoing Specialist ROPS regulations at the moment and there are certain vehicles that are going to require changes to comply. In simple terms the new regulation bring the ROPS requirement for Roadgoing Specialist up to the same standard as the Modified Classes, Sports Libre and Circuit Racing. There are no changes to the regulations for Modifieds, Sports Libre and Circuit Racing.

To clarify the options with ROPS compliant with MSA regulations, there are two main options either to be compliant with the general MSA regulations detailed in Section k of the Blue Book, or to have been issued with an MSA or FIA ROPS certification.

For ROPS compliant with MSA general regulations the cage needs to meet basic design requirements and material specification in detailed section K, noting that the material specification is different for pre-95 designs, anybody can build a ROPS to these regulations and it will be accepted in all MSA events. The basic mandatory requirements for Sports Cars is in K1.6.1.

Alternatively if a ROPS manufacturer wants to build something outside of the basic MSA requirements, for example using a smaller diameter tube or different material or different design principle, then they can apply to have the ROPS certified. To become certified, there is a basic specification to comply with and the ROPS will be required to be load tested (done by simulation) by an approved test house. I have attached the certification regulation for your information.

For forward facing stays, these are not permitted for Sports Cars per K1.6.1 in place of rear facing stays (you could have them in addition to rear facing stays). However they would be permitted on a certified ROPS providing it meets the load test requirements.

[josephmoore]

Putting my name down there as someone who is tentatively interested in changing his low-level factory hoop for one that's Road-Going Specialist Production Car compliant. The year I decide to try doing some speed events, is the year the car becomes non-compliant I can't promise that I'll have the spare money immediately though, so it's just a heads up really.

I'd be interested in a diagonal brace as I get the feeling the regs will only tighten over time and it does make things stiffer, but without the horizontal harness bar there would need to be some fixing points elsewhere.

I think the hoop you posted up in that previous picture with the stays going down through the hood deck is entirely acceptable, if it's compliant.

[josephmoore]

Just a thought - what are the Fury chaps doing about it? Are the chassis still similar enough that there's mileage in getting a bunch of people together to do a group buy on a K1 spec hoop?

[stylussprinter]

Just a thought - what are the Fury chaps doing about it? Are the chassis still similar enough that there's mileage in getting a bunch of people together to do a group buy on a K1 spec hoop?

Fury is from the same ' song sheet ' but not identical. Also each driver will be a different height sat in the car and even height will vary depending on seat chosen. Your bar needs to suit you to be compliant ie . 50mm's higher than your helmeted head.

[josephmoore]

I kinda figured judge it for the GRP skin seats, an average bloke and helmet plus some wiggle room and it'd do for most people.

Incidentally, do you know where they measure the front touch-point for the 50mm from? It's not horizontal, but the line from the hoop to the highest forward structural point. I assume that's actually the top front of the engine, not the screen surround which would fold easily in a roll.

[stylussprinter]

I kinda figured judge it for the GRP skin seats, an average bloke and helmet plus some wiggle room and it'd do for most people.

Incidentally, do you know where they measure the front touch-point for the 50mm from? It's not horizontal, but the line from the hoop to the highest forward structural point. I assume that's actually the top front of the engine, not the screen surround which would fold easily in a roll.

Not easy to judge as the screen's in the way to use a piece of string ----- SO , I didn't bother estimating it but did extra height from the roll over hoop to helmet top . ie. 50mm's below the bottom of the roll hoop NOT the top edge , giving me 100mm's from helmet to top edge of hoop. Just look at pic's on this forum of my hoop and see how very high it is . Never bothered about a hood cover so no prob's.

[se7ensport]

I got in contact with the MSA technical department earlier this year to see if they would accept forward facing stays in "Roadgoing" as they are already acceptable for "Sports racers" that are significantly faster than our type of kits...

I just found the following update on the MSA website:
RULE CHANGES
Decisions taken at the Motor Sports Council meeting of 6 September 2016 that affect regulations in the MSA Yearbook

(K) Competitors: Safety
Date of implementation: 1 January 2017
1.3.3.
Backstays. These are
compulsory and must be attached
near the roofline and near the top
outer bends of the main rollbar on
both sides of the car. They must
make an angle of at least 30° with
the vertical, must run rearwards and
be straight and as close as
possible to the interior side panels of the
bodyshell. Their materials
specification, diameter and thickness
must be as defined in 1.4.1.
Forward facing stays are permitted if an angle
of 30° cannot be achieved with
Backstays, providing they do not
unduly impede Driver and Co -
Driver access to the vehicle.
Their mountings must be reinforced
by plates. Each backstay should be
secured by bolts having a cumulative
section area at least two thirds of
that recommended for each rollbar
leg mounting in 1.3.2 above, and
with identical reinforcement plates of
a least 60cm2 area (see drawing
K19).
A single bolt in double shear is
permitted, providing it is of adequate
section and strength (see drawing
K20) and provided that a bush is
welded into the backstay.
The mounting feet may alternatively
be welded direct to the reinforcement plate.
Reason:
To allow Sports Cars with
short rear overhangs to use forward
facing stays in place of backstays
where there is no suitable structure
rearward of the Main Roll Bar on
which to mount a back stay at the
required 30° angle.


Time to get a new bar designed and built for 2017

[Shooter63]

That's interesting, but I'm not too sure of the last paragraph, it may be worth emailing the MSA to confirm if all cars can have forward stays or only the short overhang ones.

Shooter

[stylussprinter]

That's interesting, but I'm not too sure of the last paragraph, it may be worth emailing the MSA to confirm if all cars can have forward stays or only the short overhang ones.

Shooter

That's exactly what they're saying ------ forward stays will be tolerated if the rear overhang is too short to allow 30 degree angle to be made between stays and roll bar.

[kevp]

It does state if there is no suitable structure rear of the main hoop also.
Is the rear chassis arm suitable? As it is just a long arm that holds the fuel tank and suspention arms. I can see the benefit of the back stays of the ROP are to gain some trigonometry for the rear axle more than personal protection.
On a typical car the rear ROP stays link to an area main suspention area -this makes sense.

[se7ensport]

Need a roll bar for the stylus in the next month or two, already missed a couple of events this year that I wanted to run in, but I'm non compliant .

Is anyone else looking to get one made as getting two made at the same time will save costs and potentially create a template for future users needing one?

[stylussprinter]

We've all built our cars slightly differently , so a standard bar would be tricky to fit to be honest . Multiple bars complete with rear stays , accurately fitting without adjustment , would need to be in numbers of 10 minimum made , for any manufacturer to quote a lower price . If I do get my Stylus done , it'll retain the roll hoop I've got now , remove the existing rear stays , weld in mounting plates at the 50x25mm rear chassis tubes positions that will make a 30degree angle for the new rear stays ---- that's it . Then just put up with the fact that the boot will need to be slotted in in two pieces , as opposed to lift out in one piece , as now. I haven't actually measured or mocked up the required position of the bottom rear stay plates , so possibly some ' U ' sections may have to be cut out each side to satisfy the MSA stated '' as close as possible '' requirement . Jeff Wiltshire has had his made and it hasn't required ' U ' sections cut out BUT it is a Phoenix NOT a Stylus , so chassis tubes distance from our boot lid outer could be further away

Right now I'm competing in the Alfa Romeo GTAm to avoid the Stylus ROPS issue , plus of course the fact that the ACSMC have moved ' it ' and other kit type cars out of modified , where the above ROPS is accepted. It would HAVE to go into sports libre WHERE I've run it before , then of course only a full cage will suffice the MSA regs ---- even more cash PLUS I can never win an event however quick I manage to drag out of myself and car , because Radicals are in this class and have been for two years HENCE me being 2nd if I'm lucky --- Radicals can lap at 79 secs at Goodwood , my PB is 93.27secs

[se7ensport]

Cheers for the thoughts Rob, I can see your issues with classes being a real pain.

I'm going with forward stays as per my earlier post and conversation with the MSA, it's because of cars like ours, and other JPSC ones, that they made the amendment to the bluebook. Going through the boot really doesn't work for me.