Half Cage Cams Compliance?

[Kam-80]

I can't find my CAMS book, does anyone know whether a half-cage needs to be CAMS compliant if I'm using it in an event that doesn't mandate the use of a cage, like the regular weekend track days?

[Duncan]

actually it's really contentious, and the way the rules read you may have less trouble without the cage.

Basically if a cage is not CAMS compliant, you are allowed to use it "at the discretion of the scruitineer".

Personally, if I was scruitineering and you turned up with a non-compliant cage, I would be tempted to reject it - simply what happens if I deem it to be OK and it fails in an accident and you die....will I be held responsible for using my discretion?

wierd rule but there you go!

[Kam-80]

Fair enough I can understand the liability side of things, sounds like it's just going to be easiest to get whatever I put in CAMS approved then, thanks Duncun!

[260DET]

Can't comply a half cage and its usually dangerous to drive with a full cage without a helmet. Its a CAMS copout but if you want a half cage then best to have it built so that it complies as far as possible with CAMS requirements.

[aza]

if car is road rego and the class that you will fall in to dus not state that you need one

and it is out of the road ofthe drive and pasenger and the car is not log booked

you will not have a problem as it may be beter it be there than not as long as it looks in good nik and

i have one and its been in for 5+ years and never been Q over it 2 dutton ralleys and lots of club races

now if car is un regoed its in a differn as needs to be log booked and going by the rules

now thats if the scruitineer pics up on it lots of them dont

its all int the inter prertaion of some of the rules becouse the car dus not comply with aus staneds

sorry for any poor spelling

as this is not one of my strong points

[JET200]

I run a bolt in cae in my S13 and because its registered and Supersprints dont mandate a cage its all good.

[hrd-hr30]

actually it's really contentious, and the way the rules read you may have less trouble without the cage.

Basically if a cage is not CAMS compliant, you are allowed to use it "at the discretion of the scruitineer".

Personally, if I was scruitineering and you turned up with a non-compliant cage, I would be tempted to reject it - simply what happens if I deem it to be OK and it fails in an accident and you die....will I be held responsible for using my discretion?

wierd rule but there you go!

that's not quite the way its worded. The regs specifically permit non-complying cages in events that don't require you to have a safety cage, unless the chief scrutineer beleives the structure to be of unsafe construction. If it doesn't appear to be unsafe, the scrutineer has no personal liability in allowing it through scrutineering. If you have a mass produced jap bolt-in cage, or if you have a cage engineered for road use, or ANDRA spec cage etc, there is no reason for the scrutineer to consider it unsafely constructed.

edit: so if you run into trouble in scrutineering about your cage, just ask the chief scrutineer why he's failing the cage. If he says something like "because its not to CAMS spec", or anything other than "because its unsafe", get them to note that in your licence passbook or scrutineering slip and go to the Clerk of Course or Stewards with Sceh J in hand...

you can get a half cage CAMS approved. One of the first drawings in Sceh J is a half cage. They're acceptable in open sports cars for racing, and closed cars for speed events which require a cage

Edited November 2, 2010 by hrd-hr30

[Beer Baron]

I have personally used a cusco/safety 21 cage in my 32 GTR at supersprint events for years. both in half cage form and full cage. it's quite a good cage with main hoop, 2 bars to rear towers/wheel arches, a horizontal bar between them and the normal rear diagonal bar, plus the two front legs and horizontal bar at top of windscreen. it does not meet cams standards in material spec and the front legs have 2 bends instead of 1 but apart from that I am comfortable using it and in conjunction with a proper seat and harness I feel much safer with it than without it. no chance I would be able to use it for any door to door stuff but for supersprints, practice days and track days it's fine. just because it's made in japan and not made exactly the way a bunch of old blokes at cams want it made does not make it rubbish. still a good cage.

[JAS-25T]

Lets not mix up the definition of "compliance" with "opinion".

It really is a black or white area. There are set rules, if it complies with those rules, it does. If not, it doesnt.

/end thread.

P.S. for all comments on interpretations, ask CAMS

[hrd-hr30]

very helpful JAS-25T...

http://www.camsmanual.com.au/pdf/10_gen_re...dule_J_Q410.pdf

Schedule J specifically permits the use of non complying cages in events that do not require you to use a safety cage (9. NON-COMPLYING SAFETY CAGES)

Schedule J also specifies that a half cage is the minimum requirement for closed cars running in speed events that do require a cage (7. FORMS OF ACCEPTABLE SAFETY CAGES), and provides the drawing and dimensions for compliance of a half cage (Safety Cages - Drawings - Type 2: Half Cage)

So not only is it OK to run a (safely constructed) half cage in a closed car at sprints, it can also be CAMS compliant.

Edited November 3, 2010 by hrd-hr30

[Roy]

Harry, I understand what you are saying....but have you ever been a scrutineer or close friends with any scrutineers? It is not quite as clear cut as what you are saying, though what you are saying is generally correct.

It will be a brave Steward or Clerk of Course who overrules their chief scrutineer. So going to complain to them is unlikely to have their decision over turned.

If a quick inspection of the cage reveals that its fasteners are not appropriate, reinforcement plates undersized, or the diameter of he main roll hoop undersized then I say there is a chance that a scrutineer may knock back use of the cage. By being compliant to Sched J the scrutineer has a known baseline for inspection to measure whether it is acceptable. If it deviates significantly from the the requirements of Sched J then it is all of a sudden a judgement call of the scrutineer to verify that it is safe.

Whilst he may have no personal liabliity, as a CAMS representative he has an official duty of care and as the insurers for the event you can guarantee CAMS officials understand that worst case they can be in front of the coroners court explaining themselves. In which case it will be an interesting tale....the cage did not comply with the accepted norm....question will go along the lines of "and what grounds/experience/investigation was performed to ensure that the competitors cage was safe in light of the fact that it did not comply with guidelines and was not iteself a danger inside the cabin?"

So whilst you are correct, there are some steely old CAMS folk and scrutineers out there who if asked to make a judgement call on something pointed out to them will always err on the conservative side.

You said it in your last line...if it isnt compliant with Sched J how is the scrutineer expected to understand if the cage is "safely constructed?"

[hrd-hr30]

well I disagree. just saying its dangerous because its not CAMS spec (ie this particular part is undersized compared to CAMS spec) is clearly against the intention of Schedule J, section 9. NON-COMPLYING SAFETY CAGES.

Clearly, the intention of Schedule J, section 9. NON-COMPLYING SAFETY CAGES is to allow cages of safe construction other than CAMS spec and dimensions.

If you have a mass produced cage, or one approved by a transport authority or ANDRA or whatever, it can hardly be considered to be unsafely constructed by a reasonable person.

Yes, I have had this issue at a CAMS event.

I also think your worst-case scenario of a coronor's inquiry is pretty unrealistic. They would not give two hoots about the cage unless the coroner deemed it to be a significant factor in the death. And moreover, that without the cage, the death may not have occurred. This is hardly likely to be the case with any of the above examples. Nor could a scrutineer reasonably be expected to foresee such a rare set of circumstances arising from passing a Jap bolt-in cage from a reputable manufacturer.

Edited November 3, 2010 by hrd-hr30

[260DET]

As I said before its a CAMS copout. It should be possible to have a half cage complied but for limited use eg sprints or else it should be accepted that a half cage which has passed an engineers inspection for road registration purposes is similarly approved. CAMS would remove as much uncertainty as possible from the rules in the interests of all involved if they were doing their job properly.

Edited November 6, 2010 by 260DET

[kazekage]

If you have a mass produced jap bolt-in cage, or if you have a cage engineered for road use, or ANDRA spec cage etc, there is no reason for the scrutineer to consider it unsafely constructed.

Sorry, you are saying this cage would survive a roll or a side impact or top impact?

http://www.nengun.com/cusco/roll-cage-steel-chrome-molly

I look at that and think:

Ok, if i take a top/side impact. There will be 1000kg of force on 2 BOLTS.... which are held by a tiny piece of metal connected using a thin weld....

[hrd-hr30]

Sorry, you are saying this cage would survive a roll or a side impact or top impact?

http://www.nengun.com/cusco/roll-cage-steel-chrome-molly

I look at that and think:

Ok, if i take a top/side impact. There will be 1000kg of force on 2 BOLTS.... which are held by a tiny piece of metal connected using a thin weld....

all I can say mate, is that you have a much better eye than me! I can't judge their tiny metal or thin welds from those photos!

but from what you can see from those small pics, I don't see anything to suggest it's unsafely constructed.

as for your concern on the bolts, they're mounted in double shear and guestimating from when i fitted the cage to my car, they'd be about 14mm diameter. I can tow 3500kg using a mild steel pin of similar diameter mounted in double shear, so you can stop worrying about your 1000kg of "force" acting on them.

Edited November 18, 2010 by hrd-hr30

[Beer Baron]

lol, agreed. the cusco/safety 21 cages are very well made and thought out. the mounting hardware is suitable for it's intended use and the welding is fantastic. they would be sued time and again by poor japanese blokes killing themselves drifting up mountain roads if their cages were patently unsafe. they may not be best of the best but they are certainly better than nothing.

the real solution is if you don't feel safe with one then by all means go and buy a cams approved cage. surely just the fact that it's cams approved in design and material means it's miles safer right?

[Risking]

Whilst being better than nothing you'd be suprised how bad they actually are.

When I have some free time I'll scan some pages from the FIA manual. The CAMS manual shedule J is just that regurgitated almost word for word.

CAMS haven't made the rules they are mearly using the FIA's guidlines. Of which material specification etc is all defined by the FIA who do the testing and determine what's safe and what's not.

I have homologated about 5 cages with the FIA now all of which require load test simulations etc. We did some basic simulations on a Jap design cage using 350mpa and a known 1.8mm wall thickness.

The whole structure using hinge style joins (which are legal with CAMS and FIA) failed miserably to the point we didn't move past the first static load simulation.

They have a one bend with the vertical for legs and hoops rule for a good reason. The buckle otherwise, very quickly and easily.

That's enough in my oppinion to deem a Jap cage as "rubbish" it's not really oppinion it's clearly outlined what has been deemed safe by the governing body of our sport. Higher than CAMS. They do the r&d and know more than anyone on the interweb regarding what's acceptable and what's not, I'm not one to argue with them.

Like I said far better than nothing but really is miles from being as safe as a good cage.

[hrd-hr30]

...We did some basic simulations on a Jap design cage using 350mpa and a known 1.8mm wall thickness.

The whole structure using hinge style joins (which are legal with CAMS and FIA) failed miserably to the point we didn't move past the first static load simulation.

They have a one bend with the vertical for legs and hoops rule for a good reason. The buckle otherwise, very quickly and easily.

That's enough in my oppinion to deem a Jap cage as "rubbish" it's not really oppinion it's clearly outlined what has been deemed safe by the governing body of our sport. Higher than CAMS. They do the r&d and know more than anyone on the interweb regarding what's acceptable and what's not, I'm not one to argue with them.

Like I said far better than nothing but really is miles from being as safe as a good cage.

no one said they are as good as a CAMS spec cage. Its perfectly obvious that the larger diameter and thicker walls of the CAMS spec tube is going to be stronger. Its also obvious that the bends around the dash are a compromise and weaken the structure. But it permits easy access to get in and out of your road car every day, not something I would like to do with my old CAMS approved cage! And certainly adds at least some rigidity to the bodyshell, if not a huge amount of additional roll over protection. Still, it must be stronger than just relying on the A pillar alone! but rollovers are quite unusual at events that don't mandate roll cages anyway. Next time you're doing load simulations, try it on the bare bodyshell - if you can work out how to model its strength.

But that all misses the point. CAMS allow non-complying cages (in events that don't mandate cages for your vehicle) as long as they are not unsafely constructed. Like it or lump it. So take your own advice: give over to the higher power's wisdom, accept it and move on. CAMS are against your assertion that anything not to their spec is unsafe rubbish.