Roll Bar Debate 2018

[Golf Juliet Tango]

Ian

At the risk of taking this interesting thread off topic, I have never been asked to refrain from posting on BlatChat.

[Ian B]

I've noticed Stephen 

However, as I've said, the approach I outlined above was discussed several times on the MT forums, usually in response to the appearance of threads such as this 

Now, back to roll bars?

[AndrewB]

I am not sure there is much left to say until the article is published.    But I'll give it a go anyway.

It feels like Brexit where the question was everything, also it's like the ref in rugby asking the TMO 'any reason I can't award a try' or 'try or no try'.

Also, will the review cover the legal position for both cases, i.e. where the half FIA roll bar requirement is dropped and where the half FIA roll bar is required.

 

 

 

 

[Jim 123]

Christine from my perspective I would like to thank you for taking the time to proactively share what is happening with the Roll Bar Study particularly the middle paragraph of your posting #99. 

Perhaps your example can be seen as a learning point for the future. 

I am quite sure that had your explanation been volunteered to Members at an earlier stage, then AndrewB would not have felt it necessary to open this whole topic with a new posting.  It would certainly have avoided the subject running to 11 pages.

[Shortshift]

I think you'll find Jim, that Christine did indeed give this information in her 'Happy Xmas' post dated 24th December, posted some four days before Andrew created this thread and referred to a couple of times earlier on in this 105 post marathon...

But really good to see such a lively exchange on BlatChat - even though this topic is something of a regular (see my post right back at #6)!

James

[L7 FST]

Re Andrew's point about the legal issues, I too am certainly hoping that the report will be more than a verdict on whether the so-called FIA bar is stronger and more desirable for track days than the standard bar.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that it almost certainly is.   But that - of course - is not what the real debate is about...

As I think more or less everyone now accepts, it's about, firstly, whether it's logical for the Club to carry on making a very specific stipulation in one area (roll over protection) and not in a myriad of others  (helmet spec, clothing, tyre choice, engine power......etc etc.),   And given that, no, it clearly isn't at all logical, but is the result of an anachronistic decision that has now become something of a millstone, the second question is can the Club reasonably now drop it without incurring excessive legal risk?   The report will certainly need to address these knotty core issues in some detail, not just the engineering ones...

I'm confident it will!

[Slipper man]

Ian B: In relation to the MT not responding to BlatChat threads, you say "Unfortunately I'm afraid it was the case under previous Chairmen"

I was the Chairman from 2000-2004 (IIRC) and there was never any such policy in my time (nor my predecessor's). If fact, we were very active in engaging with BlatChat and assisting in its development.

On the subject of this thread, the decision to require FIA bars pre-dated even my tenure on the MT. As various others have pointed out, the decision was taken (and I am not sure there is any value in questioning if it was right at the time) and in my view won't be reversed. The reason is that, having decided on a minimum safety standard, it is inconceivable that any MT would decide to reduce the apparent safety level in today's world unless there is clear evidence that the standard bar is just as safe as the FIA bar. I look forward to seeing the test analysis, but I would be more than a little surprised if the data showed the standard bar to be safer.

It is really easy for people to point out what other track day companies do and suggest that the risks of litigation are minimal. The trouble is, when you are the one with his head on the block the risk analysis feels very different! 

I commend the approach the MT are adopting to collect evidence to see if the policy makes sense, but anyone who thinks there is any chance of the policy being changed is not being realistic.

We should all be grateful that we have volunteers willing to give up a lot of their free time to organise events for us. They do a great job!

[SLR No.77]

Excellent post Keith (where's that damn like button when you need it!)

Stu.

[TomB]

And where is Keiths real identity 

[AndrewB]

Hi James,

This thread (Roll Bar 2018) was created as it was taking over the thread discussing the use / preference of the Lotus 7 Club name.  I think I was the first to mention roll bars in the Lotus thread on the 21st December.  Therefore the Roll Bar 2018 thread essentially began life on the 21st December, 3 days before the happy xmas post and therefore was done so without knowledge of the tests which had been commissioned. 

It's an important point to make as your post suggests that the thread was started in full knowledge of the happy xmas post details and in fact it was not.

Andrew  

[Shortshift]

Err - it's not at all important Andrew (I am pleased to see an uptick in BC activity) but Jim 123's post was suggesting that this thread, created on 28th December, wouldn't have been necessary if it had been know beforehand that the rollbar report was being prepared.  And the point is - it was known (although perhaps missed by yourself but no big deal; who reads everything on here?!) from 24th December.

It's a matter of record that this thread was started after Christine's Xmas message, even if you had missed the connection!

But who cares - as I say, it's not important (though important enough for the pedant in me to come out!).

James

 

[AndrewB]

Yes this thread was started after or at the same time as the happy xmas post but the debate had started before and so your post was not giving the full picture.  That is all I have done.  The discussion began on the 21st, (this time around although one could say it has been a constant discussion in blatchat).

[Golf Juliet Tango]

AndrewB: I don't know to what you are referring when you use the phrase

the half FIA roll bar

I know of the following roll bars and I think you are referring to #2 but it might be #5

1. the early Caterham "standard" bar,
2. the Arch Motors bar with a single diagonal (MSA approved at the time if a petty strut was fixed in place),
3. the present Caterham Cars "standard" bar
4. the present "trackday" bar, with two diagonals by Caged Engineering.
5. there is also the triangular bar I have seen on Japanese cars and the new SuperSprint

[Grubbster]

There is (or was) a bar that looked like the standard one but was made of thicker gauge steel I believe, I think it is what was fitted to the early R500 but I could be mistaken.

[AndrewB]

GJT.  My understanding was that there is no such thing as an FIA bar unless it also has the petty strut fitted.  Therefore the talk of L7C trackdays requiring an FIA bar is not strictly correct as you do not need the petty strut for an L7C trackday.  Therefore I felt it appropriate to refer to the L7C bar as half an FIA bar.  

I could well be wrong!

[Golf Juliet Tango]

Well, it is a term of your own, novel, creation. Thank you for adding clarity but it might be easier to use pre-existing terms.

[christinecsr7]

I may well be wrong here as well Andrew ;-)  - but  Caterham parts shop call Roll bars without petty strut a "Trackday bar"  and with a petty strut an "FIA Roll over bar"  .......... 

Chris

 

 

[Tony P]

Just out of general interest:

Is the bar that Grubbster refers to essentially GJT’s “No.3”, or are we thinking of different iterations of the R500?

GJT's No.5 is very similar to (or the same as) the old Vauxhall race car bar - though that had a bolt-in strut running forward into the cockpit (and was used in conjunction with an internal cockpit brace). That bar, in turn, appeared to be inspired by the bespoke bars used on the Alex Hawkridge cars that dominated (and some would argue destroyed) the previous Class A racing, prior to the launch of the VX and then K cars. Although, on Hawkridge’s and (Barry) Lee’s cars, I recall the strut extending right down into the footwell, rather than the cockpit side, and not being removeable.

While we are in the typically male mode of making lists… might I add a “2b”? The so-called FIA+2, same thing, single-diagonal, but two inches taller. Arch-made (at least, mine was) but seems to be little-known these days, though perhaps simpler than lowering the floors!

[Drumster]

  "Tall FIA bar", fair point well made, yes, it was made by Arch. Wouldn't be without mine 

[Tony P]

Indeed, but I should qualify my "simpler" remark: of course the standard hood won't fit...

[Grubbster]

Is the bar that Grubbster refers to essentially GJT’s “No.3”, or are we thinking of different iterations of the R500?

There have been a couple of different rollbars without any diagonals, things have changed a bit over the years. I just have a vivid recollection of a bar that looked like the standard one but was made of a thicker gauge and I'm pretty sure it was on the original R500. Unfortunately I can't find any reference to it online and I no longer have a collection of old brochures. It's partly because of this type of variation that I don't think it is right for the club to police fitment in the way they have been.

Edit - of course it is possible that the rollbar I am talking about has since become the new 'standard' model. but I don't know.

[Tony P]

re. your Edit: yes, that's what I was unclear on...

[Shortshift]

If only it were that simple, Chris!

I think that the Caterham Cars online store uses the terms 'FIA' and 'trackday' pretty much randomly.  I certainly don't see a logical link to the FIA descriptor being associated with inclusion of the Petty strut; shame - that would have been neat.

So if it helps... 

There are really two generic types of 'trackday' or so-called 'FIA' rollover bar that are usually available to purchase through Caterham Cars (although, as the saying goes, "other rollover bars are available, etc...")., featuring either one or two diagonal braces.  There are also several variants of each of these two main generic types of rollover bar to cater for different vehicle types over the years (for example, for live axle or de-dion chassis; for narrow body Series 3 and wide body SV vehicle types).  But, in essence and as already mentioned, a trackday (or FIA) bar can be most readily identified by the presence of one of more diagonal bracing tubes across and in the plane of the main hoop structure.   Earlier trackday (or FIA) bars, made by Arch Manufacturing, have a single diagonal brace whereas the more recent versions, made by Caged, have two braces in the form of a cross. 

There are of course other less visible characteristics for the trackday (or FIA) bars that distinguish them from Caterham's standard rollover bars including tube size and gauge (thickness), material specifications, tube manufacturing methods, fixing methods, bend radii and even overall size and shape.  In general terms, for Series 3 cars the height of trackday (or FIA) bars is greater than for the standard bars but there are also 'tall' versions available so this isn't a hard and fast observation.  However, on an SV the height of both standard and trackday (or FIA) bars is pretty much identical.  And contrary to what has been said earlier in this thread (# 85), there appears to be no evidence to support the thought that any Caterham Series 3 car has ever been offered with a factory supplied longitudinally-unbraced bar (that is, a vertical-plane only bar, without the tubes that slope down from the top of the main hoop to the rear frame), so the presence of these sloping rear braces does not in any way indicate that a bar is necessarily a trackday (or FIA) type.

Worth explaining, also, that neither of the two main generic types of trackday (or FIA) rollover bar are fully FIA compliant unless they are used in conjunction with the bolt-on Petty strut - meaning that an 'FIA' bar is not really FIA certificated unless used with that additional fore-aft element. 

So for competitive motorsport, where full FIA compliance is needed, the rollover bar will need to be of the trackday (or FIA) variety and used in conjunction with the Petty strut.  In relation to trackdays, the long-standing rule on rollover bars for Club trackday events requires fitment of a trackday (or FIA) bar but it is permissible to use it on its own or with the Petty strut bolted-on, in the motorsport configuration.  Incidentally, you should never carry a passenger in a Seven with a Petty strut fitted as it places the passenger's head too close to the strut.

A bit confusing?  Maybe.  It's certainly a bit complex but I managed to get my mind around it so it's not that difficult really.  I'll be starting a national lecture tour in due course...

James

[L7 FST]

I remember when I bought my first Caterham (from CC) in 2005, the salesman told me that a standard rollover bar was safer than a cross-braced one for road use.  He said that in the event of an accident on the road, you'd be more likely to injure your head if you had cross bracing than if you didn't.  He said that's why the standard bar is specified for road use (he didn't mention the IVA test visibility issue). I don't know whether it was true, but that's what he said...

So, given that this whole area is now under our scrutiny for The Report, would it be wise to ask our manufacturer, CC, to give their comments on the suitability of standard bars for trackday use, and trackday bars for road use?  I would have thought from a legal point of view that the manufacturer's thoughts and recommendations would be considered highly relevant.

[Golf Juliet Tango]

Tony P:-

Quite right about 2b: the tall Arch Motors version. My oversight.

Is there a 4b? A tall version of the Caged Engineering bar.

For certain sure there wasn't a tall version of 1 (which is a discontinued product).  Is there of 3?