Good afternoon all, In the light of the various statements and opinions contained in the thread and in particular those points raised by Ian, I would confirm the following: The MT took a multi- faceted approach to this exercise. Certainly the decision to undertake the engineering assessment was taken on the back years of debate, dialogue etc. It has always been reasonable to believe that any bar with one or two diagonal bracing structures would be stronger than those without. The objective was to therefore assess by how much. Were the differences substantial or otherwise? James' main article and other thread contributors noted that for any Club to recommend a lowering of the previously agreed higher standard would potentially have opened the Club and its' officials to legal scrutiny should a worst case scenario take place on a Club Track Day. Writing as a Director of the Club and personally, it is this element I took extremely seriously. The steps taken to ascertain the legal perspective were as follows:- 1) I have spent 15+ years working in a large manufacturing business with a strong corporate ethic as regards Health and Safety. During this time i worked with a lawyer (he has absolutely no connection with the Club), who specialises in working the HSE in cases of potential corporate manslaughter involving construction site equipment. 2) Given the need to also set our engineering report against the potential risks associated with change, it was agreed that I would outline the Club scenario to this gentleman, to obtain some informal feedback. At the same time he outlined the steps the Club would need to take to obtain a full legal opinion. The Club had two options a) seek a full legal opinion from a QC having first instructed a solicitor to engage said QC, b) seek out a QC, the vast majority of whom are based in London, who will take direct instruction from the customer. Both courses of action would have cost c.£10k. The prime consideration governing this important Club decision is the Common Law principle of the Duty of Care. In summarising the lawyers comments, it was he who posed the question, "how would you justify to the judge/coroner that an individuals' injuries (or worse) occurred as a result of decision to relax a previously adopted higher standard." And like it or like it not, that made me think very hard - perhaps I am overly risk averse. Nor we were concerned with the standards other Clubs adopt - they make their own rules. Our standard, as James pointed out in the article, had been set for a variety of reasons 20 years ago. It was not going to be a simple question of "bringing ourselves into line etc" So to the points: the question was not too difficult to answer - "ah yes the well trodden path of certain thread posters demanding responses to every post because they cannot accept a decision they don't like" We agreed I would respond when my work travel schedule allowed - apologies if this was not in line with expectations the decision was not poor that is just an individual opinion, to which of course that individual is entitled. For the reasons stated above I 100% stand behind the decision - endless repeating of the same point does not make your opinion right Ian. Nor will it make me change my mind.the H&S advice is not is written form - see aboveso you're wrong - the legal input was independentthis thread will remain on record as to the approach takencorrect - see above. On balance the Club felt that as the decision being taken was primarily a matter of conscience, supported by engineering assessment and reliable legal input, it was not necessary to obtain the full written legal report given the indicated costs involved.For what it's worth I am regular trackday attendee and have been for c.15 years. My first car was a Crossflow with a very standard roll bar. After my first track day at Cadwell Park, a friend who was with me on the day, turned to me as we were packing up and said something along the lines of "great fun but I'd have been happier with something stronger to protect me" Fair point thought I, so I bought a 'tall track day bar" and enjoyed the trials and tribulations of fitting it. As General Secretary of the Club, I take the position seriously. I know that fellow members of the MT think the same of their commitment to the Club. With c.2800 members, we are never going to please everyone, but for such an important matter as this, I asked myself "what do I think is the right thing to do". For one I could not stand in front of the authorities and explain away the decision to reduce this important safety standard. Others may feel that they could. That will be a decision that another MT could make should they so choose. Regards Rog General Secretary