![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
2013 MSA Yearbook
The 2013 MSA Year Book is now on-line
http://www.msauk.org/site/cms/conten...p?article=1158 As we all know - the MSA seem incapable of getting things right or correcting their errors and sometimes compound errors or create 'unforeseen' problems. So I will start the ball rolling with the errors/problems I have spotted, feel free to add your own. My previous correspondence with the MSA has gone unanswered and unacknowledged but hopefully their relevant Motor Sports Council members may see this thread and take note..... |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
First error spotted:
SECTION K. 1. The following are various specifications and configurations that can be used in manufacturing, preparing and installing Roll-Over Protection Systems (ROPS) into Production Cars, Touring Cars Saloon and Sports Cars (1.5.1), Sports Racing Cars (1.5.2), Single Seaters (1.5.3), and other forms of Competition Vehicles (1.5.4). The details covered in this section give many permutations, the MSA mandatory requirements are the minimum acceptable. Care should be taken to check FIA International requirements for Groups, Classes and Formulae which may not be covered by this section, which is for MSA National ‘A’ and lower status events. Spotted Errors: (1.5.1) should read (1.6.1) (1.5.2) should read (1.6.2) (1.5.3) should read (1.6.3) (1.5.4) should read (1.6.4) |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
1.2.2. The ROPS must not unduly impede Driver and Co-Driver access to the vehicle. Members may intrude into the interior space by passing through the dashboard, front side-trim, rear side-trim and rear seats, which may be folded down. ROPS must not extend beyond the front upper or rear suspension mounting points of the vehicle. Any modification to a homologated ROPS (other than fitment of doorbars) is prohibited. Tubes must not carry any fluids.
Unintended effect: The term “ROPS” was substituted for “Safety Cages” in the paragraph “ROPS must not extend beyond the front upper or rear suspension mounting points of the vehicle.” This has the unintentional effect of outlawing the rear stays on many vehicles including some Lotus/Caterham/Westfield and Clubmans type cars where the rear stays terminate beyond a live axle. In this specific paragraph the term ROPS is not appropriate and should have been left as “Safety cages”. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Does this still need to be a sticky? Is it still relevant?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
No longer relevant, well out of date
__________________
Renny Thomson, MSA Scrutineer (Opinions are my own) |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I was hoping we were going to turn back the clock there and go to a more sensible time!
__________________
Diesel - just say no |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|