Classic 2CV Racing Club

Classic 2CV Racing Club Ltd Forum => Technical => Topic started by: Chris Yates on November 18, 2015, 21:29:37

Title: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Chris Yates on November 18, 2015, 21:29:37
Get 'em here:

http://www.2cvracing.org.uk/2016-draft-regulations/
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Trevor Williams on November 24, 2015, 10:37:19
Can't see any mention of the requirement to use an FHR and the necessary alterations to harness fitment? Also, BARC championship coordinator won't be Nicola Bush, she left BARC last April....
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Trevor Williams on November 25, 2015, 12:07:27
Regulation 1.6.1 and 1.6.3.1 & 2 seem to contradict each other......
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Mick Storey on November 25, 2015, 20:05:51
Whats the necessary change to seat belt fixings?
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Nick Roads on November 25, 2015, 23:51:34
Trevor - agree the clauses you refer to are confusing. It would have been useful to see a marked up copy showing the changes from 2015 as well but generally seems to me an improvement on last year.

On the FHR / Hans question I thought this was an MSA requirement not BARC

https://www.msauk.org/assets/fhrguidance.pdf

For the same reason our regs do not specify what type of helmet and gloves etc are needed.

I think there is a change in the 2016 regulations as well in clause 5.3.8 for 5 fixing points and 5 strap belts to be used which means some cars will need HANS, HANS bar, HANS complaint helmet and new belts. The clause does also mention FHR:

"It is mandatory to use a harness with a minimum of 5 fixing points, where at least one fixing
point is designed to prevent the driver from sliding forward and under the lap straps.
Harnesses must be suitable for use with a Frontal Head Restraint (FHR) device and be
properly installed in the car in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
Installation guidance can also be found in the FiA publication 'Guide for the use of HANSĀ®
in international motor sport'."


Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Trevor Williams on November 26, 2015, 09:15:56
Mick
Read the attached
The advice on FHR belt location and fitment contradicts what is in the Blue Book (2015 addition). If you follow the letter of the FIA guide, there are mandatory distances between the belts, and between the belts and the fixing.
By mounting the belts using the existing fittings over the tank saddle, you wouldn't comply (in my opinion). All cars, again in my opinion, should have their harnesses fitted to a harness bar using the methods allowed by the regs (threaded insert, wrapping the belts around the bar
I am not a scrutineer, and I'm very thankful of that for 2016, as more than 50% of cars that I looked at this year (not just 2CVs) would fail scrutineering unless they did something to their belt mounting

Trevor
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Chris Yates on November 26, 2015, 09:28:42
The confusion over 1.6.1 really arose last year when the rule on nominating point scoring cars vanished from the regs without being voted on. It was agreed at the AGM that this rule needed to go back in, regardless of any other points-scoring rules.
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Trevor Williams on November 26, 2015, 11:49:12
Just plain daft...... but nothing surprises me regarding the Regs and the AGM.....
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Matthew Hollis on November 26, 2015, 14:25:07
I proposed that 1.6.3.1 and 1.6.3.2 be introduced to avoid the issues we had this year. However I didn't realise 1.6.1 was going to be coming back into the regs, had I known I would have proposed that this be re-worded to "a race" rather than "an event", which would solve everything. As it is, no proposal could be put in at that short notice so I will propose the change at the next AGM.

In the interim, it was agreed at the AGM that if somebody drives two cars at a meeting, 1.6.3.1 and 1.6.3.2 will overrule 1.6.1, this I hope will be noted in the AGM minutes when these are posted.
Title: Re: 2016 DRAFT regs
Post by: Trevor Williams on November 26, 2015, 14:54:51
Matt
If that is the case, it needs to be in the regulations.....