Ian B

Ah yes, the well trodden path of certain MT members ignoring questions when they are too difficult to answer, or there has been a poor decision or course of action taken. James has had ample opportunity to clarify the information requested but has chosen to ignore the questions, which is disappointing. As he won't answer, I believe I can answer the questions for him: Was the "legal and H&S advice" taken into account by the MT: in written form. -- Probably NOT at least in the case of the Legal advice. from independent sources not connected with the Club. -- NOT in the case of the "legal" advice. held by the Club's registered office for future reference and inspection if required. -- NOT in the case of the "legal advice" from legally accountable sources with the appropriate PI insurances. -- NOT in the case of the "legal advice.A Director of the Club has stated that the whole matter of whether any relaxation of the roll bar rules can be considered is irrelevant due to "legal and H&S advice" confirming that the Directors could be liable IF an incident occurred (where it was proven that any outcome was exacerbated by having a non "FIA" bar). Unfortunately that "legal advice" was not from a professional legal expert in this field; indeed it was from a person who has previously provided inappropriate "legal advice" to the MT. I would suggest basing such a significant decision on unqualified, and unrecorded, "advice" is not appropriate or in the best interests of the Club (or Directors). The result of the roll bar decision doesn't affect me, but I am very disappointed at the apparent tergiversating replies when seeking to get to the truth behind the decision

James, could you please answer the questions in my post above? Thanks, Ian

My 7 friendly MOT place's ramp does corner weights

James, could you please answer the questions in my post above? Thanks, Ian

www.sensorcom.com Ask for Howard

PS. I use the Sensorcom Microcom 3 in-ear headset with boom mic (with custom molded inserts) as I found the full "cans" got too hot, sweaty and uncomfortable on long trips especially in hotter countries.

Any evidence to support this for drivers of sevens? Several of us have used headsets extensively in France since the "law" was supposed to have been introduced, and passed numerous Gendarmes, with no interest shown whatsoever. I can understand them possibly targeting yoof's in hot-hatches not paying attention (massive over generalisation there!), but I've not seen any evidence of issues where headsets are used for comms between cars (indeed we find this offers another level of safety, allowing the lead car to let those behind know of hazards, or potentially dangerous oncoming traffic or road conditions).

Mark, great post and suggestions James, thanks for your post #64 but all I was asking in post #34 was; In my time on the MT there were occasions when "legal advice" was verbally given to the MT that turned out to be out of context and not relevant to the subject being discussed and decided upon, despite appearing to be "authoritative" at the time. As this is clearly an important subject, I am merely asking you to confirm the above in relation to your statement int he LF article: Given the seriousness of this issue, the previous irrelevant advice in other matters, and the potential perceived risk that you have mentioned, I'm simply trying to get your confirmation that an "advice" on this item was in the form stated in the questions above, that's all.

James, would you be kind enough to reply (on here) to my questions in post #21 please? Thanks.

I also think it's unfortunate that the full test results are not being made available to members. This can lead to some unsupported assumptions and conclusions (as evidenced above). For example the data may simply indicate that one bar type was only "less strong" than another bar type by 0.1% in one direction. The statement that one bar is stronger than another would still be true, but whether that difference is material to any particular member given their risk tolerance and use, is not possible for them to determine without the full results. This risks members becoming alarmed that their bar could be significantly weaker, when it may not, or assuming a particular bar is good for nothing as evidenced in some of the above comments. It's only possible to make an informed decision with the full data to hand.

Thanks James. I'm only asking as the original "advice" given that influenced the 1996 MT decision appears to have been lost and some was not in writing, which resulted in some mis-informed and inaccurate statements being made to the MT in more recent years when the matter has arisen. I'm therefore keen to confirm that the legal and H&S advice is from independent sources that are qualified and legally able (ie covered by professional indemnity for their advice) to provide it. Therefore can you confirm that all the legal and H&S advice taken into account by the MT is: in written form from independent sources not connected with the Club held by the Club's registered office for future reference and inspection if required from legally accountable sources with the appropriate PI insurancesI'm sure that you would agree that these ought to be the minimum requirements in a matter of such importance both to the Club and it's Directors, and I trust this is the case.

Thanks James, but that doesn't answer my question. You've confirmed in the article that the Club commissioned HORIBA-MIRA to do the tests, I'm simply asking for clarification on from whom and in what form was the "legal advice" taken, as that is clearly an important aspect?

James, the article states: Can you advise what form that advice took, and what was the source please?

Andy, no, I think those particular issues being experienced were resolved from "version 7" onwards in 2004, so a 2017 car won't be affected.

Dragging this BTTT for anyone not familiar with the issue. (I know the picture links are broken but I'm afraid I don't have the time to re-host them and redo the links at the moment).

Oh dear, I do hope this doesn't herald the introduction of a new set of rules that, similar to the 1996 roll bar rule, will shackle the Club for decades to come, and in the future will lead to statements like "we can't go back on this because we may be seen to be relaxing safety standards and will become personally liable". Edited to add the bold highlighting above is an automatic "feature" of this forum, and not my emphasis

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?

Sorry Christine, naturally not a written Policy, but perhaps "team practice" is a better term. As you know I wasn't on the MT for long (in relative to my tenure) since you took over the helm, so hopefully that practice hasn't continued. Unfortunately I'm afraid it was the case under previous Chairmen. The practice of MT members not responding to discussions on blatchat was raised and discussed on quite a few occasions on both the previous MT forums, with the general theory being that it just prolongs any threads and members should instead be encouraged to use the "Ask the Team" email so they could be responded to on a one-to-one basis. I for one opposed that approach as I believed that only effectively answered one single member at a time, whereas the issue they may be raising could well be of concern, or the answer relevant, to many more members, and the Club forum was the place to have that discussion. Perceived poor communications between MT and Members, and the desire to improve it, was one of the main reasons I joined the MT when I was an AR. Sadly the MT forums, that contained a lot of history and background information such as this, that could be of use to newer MT members, have either been lost or aren't searchable on the "new" website platform.

Thanks James

Thanks Chris. Perhaps, in the spirit of openness, James can confirm the above in that case?

Chris, can you confirm who is on the Trackday review team please? Also, when do you expect the decision process to be completed?

No worries Tony. Unfortunately some of the mis-information on this subject has been recirculating for so long that it "becomes fact" John, just to be clear, I wasn't on the MT at that time, but I did quite a bit of digging when it last came up when I was on the team. All I can say is there are people with very strong and very blinkered views, who want to resist any change at any cost, and without considering alternatives. I'm not the type who accepts "statements" as fact unless I can see the evidence, which is why I made independent enquiries when I was told things I didn't believe. You'll have to ask the MT regarding their response or otherwise, but they have stated a report will be published in LF this month so I suggest waiting to see what that says (and whether it repeats any of the "myths" ). I believe the current MT have a policy of not engaging in discussions on here. That policy was something I, and a few others, disagreed with and campaigned against (along with publishing Minutes etc), but as they say, "I'm Out"!

Hi Tony, As I said, I have looked into the history in some detail, and made enquiries outside the Club as well. The TDO you refer to was indeed hosting a Club track day, and simply "asked" the Club to look at the suitability of the rollbars in use at that time by "some" cars on the track. They did not mandate a change and did not ban the Club as has previously been claimed. They also are still in existence today, and allow any seven on the days they run now, no matter what roll bar is fitted. The cars they were concerned about at the time were running the "original" roll bar, which is simply a near vertical hoop with no rear braces (and no lateral bracing either). The MT at the time reacted to that simple request to look at the suitability of the bars in use by referring to the MSA Blue Book that was used by the Club Sprint series at the time, as it was the only "specification" available, but that relates to Competition Motorsport, and not recreational Track Days. As I said, there has been a lot of mis-information circulated about the reasons the Club is shackled with the current situation. The key is who is taking responsibility. If the Club are mandating something then they are. If they provide the information, and perhaps a "recommendation" to members, then the member can make that risk assessment for themselves

And similar statements made elsewhere in this thread. That is exactly the issue, it should be up to the individual member to consider and assess their own level of risk. For example members are allowed to make their own choice with regard to every other aspect of their safety, eg: Harnesses: you can choose to use a 3 point belt on a L7C TD if you wish Clothing: you can choose whether or not to wear a fireproof race suit, helmet liner, gloves, etc Extinguisher: none is "required" but you can choose to carry one, or have a plumbed-in system HANS device: personal choiceBut when it comes to a non-tested (without the petty strut) "FIA" bar vs a non-tested variety of other bars, members are restricted by a historic decision made by MT members who at the time simply referred to the regulations contained in the Motorsport Associations Blue Book that governed the Club Sprints, as they felt they needed to regulate that particular aspect of Club TDs. (and I am fully aware of the circumstances that led to that perceived need, and it is often mis-stated). ISTR in the past, when exclusive "L7C" sessions at Brands Hatch were arranged and paid for directly to MSV, then their (MSV) rules applied and any roll bar was fine. Perhaps there is a market for returning to that model? (or simply align the Clubs TDs to all others!). And how does all this square with the 620 from CC offering passenger laps last year on L7C TDs with a reportedly non "FIA" rollbar? (I wasn't there so am not sure if this was the case, but it was reported as such on previous threads by those that were). As for legal liability of Directors if they bring the Club rules into line with ALL other professional TDO's, only professional legal advice can inform that, and that advice will depend on how the question is asked, in the same way the results of the current tests will depend on the questions asked of the testers. Attempting to quantify which bar(s) are acceptable and which aren't is a futile exercise IMO: will that test be repeated in the future every time a slight spec or manufacturing change is made to one of the several different types of bar available? - and how will the Club even know that a design or manufacturing change has been made? As has been stated, it would be far more practical, enforceable, and sensible to check and enforce the 2" helmet clearance guideline on Club TDs (although again what is the evidence that 2" is adequate? Perhaps 1.5" is ok, or maybe it should be 3" ). And for reference, I have an "FIA" bar so the rule doesn't affect me, but I fully support those members that would like to be able to make the risk assessment for themselves.

I had an "original" SBFS half hood (for an SV) for almost 15 years. It had the felt "sausage" along the top of the screen and never had an issue with sagging (and I'm quite tall so was quite close to the hood). I also never had issues with the side straps un-popping that a few seem to mention, and I think both "issues" are down to having the correct one-way poppers fitted to the side fixings, and keeping the HH correctly tensioned (eg really tight).