advice on vehicle standards

[miketomcat]

Once again thank you all for comment on this the whole reason I posted on here was to see if we were missing something or if it really was a case of "yes it has got an MOT" or can we scrutineer that for you.

Some great points have been raised and we as a committee will now look at our options and see what we can come up with. I like the idea of srutineering but I think we need to be careful as to what qualifies someone to do it and who we have that is qualified/can be trained, willing and able to get to all our events.

Mike

[discomikey]

sorry if this has been suggested previously in the thread. I've only just flicked through im only on a short break.

What about requiring the vehicles to be signed off by a qualified engineer to be "fit for purpose" and have a list of criteria which must be met.

wont cost the price of an MOT but should ensure you keep the carp out,

[Dave W]

Dave W - we've always got plenty of people to run an event safely, we wouldn't run events if we didn't. What we don't have is the manpower to cover all the roles that the MSA regs seem to demand as they are very much tailored for motorsport events rather than non-comp bimbling round, and as you say (and as we had long suspected) plenty of clubs were running everything under "promotional" days and taking the pee. You say we could run play days as CCV's with only 3 people + marshals, is that under the MSA banner or something else?

That's the MSA requirement, yes, for the majority of cross country events you only need 3 officials, those officials can also be marshals so for something like a trial (which is a lot easier to marshal than most events) we only need 3 people signed on as officials although we normally have a minimum of 5. You can't run pay and play days under an MSA permit of any kind really, CCV would be a Cross Country Trial permit - there is no distinction between CCV/RTV etc... for MSA permits, that's something that clubs have invented to "grade" their trials. The MSA Clubsport permit level is the grass roots level and, as such, the requirements are lower for both officials and paperwork.

[David Sparkes]

I've only just read through this thread, and while I don't compete I hear a little from fellow members of the Peak & Dukeries LRC. Perhaps more to the point I recently included these words to a family member (who turns out to be on holiday on the relevant date).

http://www.cdlrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Series-RTV.pdf

The event is termed 'RTV' (Road Taxed Vehicles), but I note Supplementary Regulation 22, "Vehicles don't need to be moted or taxed for this event.".

To be fair, they have both standard and modified classes; the 'no mot or tax' exception will be to encourage former competitors to dig out their older competition vehicles, with leaf springs, that are considered no longer viable against the later coil sprung models.

The Thorn Cross Farm site doesn't appear on the 50K Landranger maps, but I've resolved their map 192, 901 808 reference to SX 901 808. For online mapping, the only sort I have for that area, Bing or Streetmap will zoom down to 25k, where Thorn Cross Farm is named. Just plotting a route there looks interesting, as it appears the final approach has to be from the South.

I'm pretty certain that P&D don't run to MSA rules, but to ALRC rules, which suits them as a Land Rover club.

Your club may be for allcomers, so ALRC rules may not appear suitable, (perhaps AWDC have some scrutineering standards?), but the point is 'supplementary regulations'.

As per my italicised comments, this club is running an RTV, which you assume means Road Taxed Vehicles, like standard Series leafers, etc. However, for the reasons I've expressed, they are also opening the opportunity for Club members to resurrect their older competition vehicles, something which P&D have recently done.

So, in this case, an appropriate SR goes against the main apparent thrust of the event.

What ever scrutineering rules you care to adopt, it seems to me that SRs can tailor them to your circumstances.

I'd suggest the MOT rules are inappropriate to your purposes, as they don't allow for SRs, whereas I think you will find other sets of rules do allow this.

HTH.

[FridgeFreezer]

Dave W / David S - Is it not the case that all of these things apply only to competitive events such as trials etc.? We are mostly a non-competitive club running pay-and-play style events (albeit members only not free-for-all) and pretending to run CCV / RTV or whatever when it's really a play day seems to be a bit pointless and liable to end in trouble.

Running general drive-arounds under motorsport association rules seems to be a tricky circle to square and is perhaps not the direction we need to be looking.

[David Sparkes]

Running general drive-arounds under motorsport association rules seems to be a tricky circle to square and is perhaps not the direction we need to be looking.

I think you have answered your own question there :-)

Yes I agree, for drive-arounds you should perhaps be looking in a different direction to MSA, BUT, that is what I have suggested (DaveW can speak for himself) and you have rejected those also!!

What I'm thinking, even if I didn't write it in so many words, is that starting from a different base level, then applying Supplementary Regulations that suit your circumstances, may give you a circle that is easier to square.

I appreciate that you aren't running a competition, but you do want to impose a similar degree of 'scrutineering' (vehicle standards) as they use in low level competitions. I think that is a laudable aim, and is really the only reason I'm writing.

Whatever regulations you use as your base standard you have to provide a link to them, but you emphasis that the following Supplementary Regulations apply:

1/ That this event is untimed and non-competitive.

2/ Vehicles will proceed or delay under the directions of the identified marshals.

Clearly you add other directives about road taxed, or not, as you see fit.

If the base level regulations don't actually say vehicles will be scrutineered, then your SRs must say that they will be scrutineered to the standards laid down in .... (your base regulations).

You might also have to include SRs to exempt fire extinguishers, externally controlled engine kill switches, etc, depending on the base regulations, and your chosen standards.

I'll say again, choosing base regulations that allow SRs means you get clear and tested standards which are as close to your requirements as possible, THEN you fine tune them.

HTH

[FridgeFreezer]

that is what I have suggested (DaveW can speak for himself) and you have rejected those also!!

Sorry David, I think perhaps I'm missing something in what you've posted, are we talking about some alternative to the MSA or borrowing a set of regs from another club?

[Dave W]

I'm pretty certain that P&D don't run to MSA rules, but to ALRC rules, which suits them as a Land Rover club.

You are mistaken in that belief. The ALRC are an MSA recognised club (they are not an association as such). When you join an ALRC club you also join the ALRC as an individual member of the ALRC (part of your membership fee goes to the ALRC). The ALRC have their own regulations that supplement the MSA regulations, however, all their events must comply with the MSA regulations as well as their own "self-imposed" regulations. On top of that, an ALRC club may add it's own individual regulations on top of the ALRC regulations but these may not contravene either the ALRC standing SRs or the MSA regulations for the permit.

Any MSA recognised club (including ALRC) agrees that it will not run any motor sport event which does not comply with MSA regulations.

Any ALRC affiliated club agrees that it will not run any motor sport event in contravention of the MSA regulations and the ALRC regulations.

Some ALRC affiliated clubs get their MSA permits through the ALRC who apply for the permit on their behalf, others get their permits direct from the MSA.

Anyway, we digress because there really is no way of running a pay and play under an MSA permit

[David Sparkes]

Sorry David, I think perhaps I'm missing something in what you've posted, are we talking about some alternative to the MSA or borrowing a set of regs from another club?

Yes I was thinking about some alternative to the MSA.

One alternative would be, I suggested, ALRC, but DaveW has 'apparently' kyboshed that idea.

Another alternative would be borrowing a set a regs from another club, after all you aren't inventing the wheel, are you?

The main point, which I'm clearly struggling to get across, is that because you are not running a competition you don't have to comply with the instructions that are mandatory for those who are running competitions.

While I'm not suggesting it as a wholly practical suggestion, at its most extreme this means you could say: 'as regards vehicle standards, your vehicle must conform to the standards laid out by the (MSA) (ALRC) (Uncle Tom) (whoever). You then detail where those standards can be found. You add in SRs that meet your local circumstances, for which you can obviously present a convincing argument.

Should any local dispute about vehicle standards arise you can point out that they come with an impressive provenance, reviewed, tried and tested, in arenas much bigger than yours.

Clearly, if you have cherry-picked just the bits you want, and are not (perhaps) a member of the MSA, ALRC, etc, you cannot sue the organisation if someone sues you for 'bad' regulations, but that's too extreme.

I don't see what further opinion I can usefully add (or even uselessly add :-).

Good luck.

[miketomcat]

I think I get it your saying nick someone's ref tween to suit us then tell non mot trucks these are the regs comply or rick being chucked off site. That way we only need to scrutineer if we feel someone is taking the riddle.

I like that idea (if I've got you right).

Mike