http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-dec.pdf
Printable View
Page 9:
MEMBER ADVISORIES
4. Driver safety equipment – The CRB would like input from the membership about whether head and neck restraints should be made mandatory.
Greg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Shoud we try and have a united front on this? Otherwise they will get letters that read like this:
To whom it may concern re: manditory H&N:
No.
Thank you,
Joe Blow.
*****************
I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?
Mr. Gomberg:
Thank you. You comminicated well and made things happen. I am much happier with the way things have worked over the last 2 months than the previous 4.
Well, if we were to assume a standard opinion (and that would NOT necessarily be a good assumption) then we do need to clarify points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
There's two issues here:
- One, should HNRs be mandatory
- Two, if yes to the above, do they need to conform to SFI?
- Two-point-One: If not, should SCCA require any that are voluntarily used to conform to SFI.
I suggest that if the answer to One is "yes, then Two quickly follows, as SCCA really has no choice but to require a "standard" for "required equipment". So, effectively, a "yes" answer to requiring HNRs is a mandate for SFI cert.
We need to vet this idea thoroughly.
GA
I agree - but we must be swift in our responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
A few Court things of note:
- Anyone notice the "monocoque" argument? Reminds me of how we got to the "ship in a bottle" cages to full-up purpose-built cars in GT.
- The Knowles/Ziegler last lap incident at the Runoffs. I saw that on TV and thought Knowles crowded him (or to be exact, didn't leave enough room); I didn't know there was a protest and Ziegler was tossed from the win. Seems the Court of Appeals agreed with Knowles. :shrug: I may go looking for that broadcast to look at it with a more-jaundiced eye.
- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned.
Let's start a new topic to vet it. - GAQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
All of the in-car videos and such were posted and discussed over on sccaforums immediately after the Runoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/326310.aspx
I read all about it then and I would say that the Speed coverage doesn't change my mind: the stewards blew it by even starting an investigation, and once started, the wrong decision got made.
In reality, if anything was going to happen, it should have been initiated by Knowles, not by the stewards. It looks like a racing incident to me and unless one of the competitors wants to do something about it, the club should have just left it alone.
Josh, I agree, based on only my viewing of the Speed coverage. I have not looked at those links you posted but I will; but I did look at that speed coverage of the incident several times (I have a DVR). Based on that, I am in the "racing incident" camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
However, I have a lot of respect for Brian Holtz; there must have been a damn good reason for that. I'll reserve further judgment on the incident 'til I see what's already been presented.
NOTE: I've Dan's and Tom's posts to a new HNR topic I started; please continue the discussion there. I am sure we have very little time to provide feedback to the CRB on this issue; I would not be surprised if there's already a consensus forming, one way or the other... - GA
Oh, me too ... but even good guys make bad calls every once in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Brian posted in the sccaforums thread:
So he wasn't intending to pass judgement, but just by issuing the RFA, he was causing judgement to be passed. Perhaps there was a standing "rule" for the operating steward that he was to do that, in which case it wasn't his call, I'm just not sure.Quote:
My only part in the process was submitting the original RFA (Request For Action), as I was the Operating Steward for the race. I saw the two cars go past start/finish and then got the emergency call from the corner worker. The RFA was not filed against Bill alone. It named both drivers, both car numbers and simply read, "Investigate contact between Car #05 and Car #35", siting GCR Section 6.8.1, paragraphs A-D. I gathered the witness reports from the corner workers and turned them over to the SOM's. I did not testify as I was not a witness to the incident. You saw my name in the appeal notice only because I was the person who submitted the RFA.
I'm not really trying to put blame on anyone but "the system." I just think it should be a competitor-policed sport. This is no different, in my opinion, than people assuming that tech will notice someone else's illegal car. A competitor should have to file paper if they suspect an illegal car, and a competitor should have to file paper if they didn't like some on-track behavior.
I do wish that we could have a driver based protest board and appeals court on things like this. Every driver I've spoken with that has seen this thinks it's a big pile of poop, and the guy got the shaft.
4. ITA – Help the 1.6 Miata (Whitton). The car is appropriate as classed.
Why can't the people that don't want to wear them sign a waiver? :shrug:That way the SCCA will be protected & we won't be forced to buy some $1000.00 pos that may or may not work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
"- SM shocks. They apparently had a shock dyno; one guy "repeatedly tested approximately 100% over the baseline readings from the sample sets". He used the old SpecMiata argument of "but there's no specs!" Pwned."
I got a kick out of this one.:~)
In regards to the Knowles/BZig thing. I was standing on the hill overlooking the front staight when it happened and it looked to me to be an intentional block gone wrong. Knowles moved over and BZig was already there turing Knowles into the wall. There should have never been any intervention by the stewards.
Wow. Was Ziegler even with the door? No. Had Knowles driven essentially the same line the previous lap (see video)? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Hard to reconcile the above statement with this from you...
http://www.roadraceautox.com/showpos...4&postcount=57
According to you, it was Knowles corner and Ziegler is completely in the wrong.
This club racer is from my region. He finished 2nd in championship points this year. I do not understand what he means "help the 1.6 miata!!!" There were 1.6 Spec Miatas in my run group at the last race who were 2 seconds faster per lap than I was in ITA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Billiel
Actually, not really if you watch Ziegler's in-car. Knowles was never anywhere as close to the left side of the track during the prior few laps. Not sure about early in the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
Ziegler's video at youtube.com only shows the previous and incident laps. Knowles moves right to left leaving somewhere about a car to less than a car-width on DL.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
None-the-less, Ziegler wasn't even with the door - the standard maintained by some.
Both drivers were at fault. Knowles for failure to leave racing room. Ziegler for failing to avoid contact (Zielger's video seems to indicate that he never lifted as Knowles moved over - that's failure to avoid contact).
Both drivers should have been penalized, regardless of the fact that Knowles already was punished with a hurt car.
In a perfect world, Ziegler could have lifted and, armed with a tape showing hat there wasn't room left, Knowles would have been penalized. In the real world, few, if any stewards, would enforce such a penalty w/o contact in a normal race, let alone the Runoffs for the win.
As for stewards not getting involved... ANY official may file a protest. I would like to see the stewards get MORE proactively involved for contact. It protects people not involved in the immediate incident from later being a victim when the not-at-fault driver whimps out and doesn't file paper.
I've been in groups with a loose cannon and it wasn't until the third or fourth incident before the guy who got hit filed a protest. Bad on the earlier victims for settling it with a handshake instead of paper. The final victim shouldn't have been hit and under the self-enforcement idea, wouldn't have had standing to file a protest.
bzzzzztt wrong!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nj1266
if spec miatas are beating you, then you need to look at what YOU are doing. while i don't necessarily agree that the 1.6 car needs help, it has nothing to do with the ability of SMs to beat any IT cars.
There is no worng or right here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tnord
There are Spec Miatas that have pro built motors and are built to the full extent of the rules. My ITA car is not built to the full extent of the ITA rules. No overbore, no balancing/blueprinting, no tuned ECU. Just a $500 junkyard engine with OBX ebay header and a short intake with pulleys. My car has a beam axle and has shitty brakes and weighs 2530ish lbs at the end of the race. I also run on Toyo RA1s even though ITA rules allow me to run far better R-compound tires.
I can beat lesser Spec Miatas, but ones that are prepped to the maximum extent of the rules, I cannot beat.
Now, if my ITA car was built like Greg Amy built his and ran it on Hoosiers, then I would agree with you. But I like to race on the cheap and win. After all this is supposed to be amateur and fun.
After all this is supposed to be amateur and fun.[/quote]
Well, there is that! Been waiting 40 years for F1 teams to notice my talent, guess I'll just have to keep having fun!:p
that's fine, but you can't use the fact that SMs beat you to argue the performance potential of the 1.6 ITA car.Quote:
Originally Posted by nj1266
Isn't this a little bit like those folks who don't wear motorcycle helmets in the states that don't mandate their use? You can have the wind in your hair, look like Marlon Brando(maybe) and opt to kill yourself because you're too dumb to wear the only protection that might save your life!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
We're supposed to be adults and informed on safety issues. Have everyone sigh a waiver...if they chose to not spend the money and purchase a HANS or related device, nonbuyer beware.
We all know if you don't inspect your brakes and hubs ever, you will have an event at some point. Do we need that mandated in the CGR, as well?
Too much regulation, too little common sense!
Bruce:shrug:
PS. In the Speed Chan. weekly newsletter theur is an article about a 20 yr old professional race in critial condition in the hospital becuase he had a car wreck and was thrown from the vehicle because he wasn't wearing a seat belt.
You can't legislate againt stupidity!!
Good try with the stalking, but that doesn't change my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
OK, so it was a "racing incident". Which is exactly what I said above.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
Soooo.....what's your point? Are you just in an argumentative mood last night...?
I used up a lot of bandwidth and oxygen on this issue over the past 4 years, and have come to the conclusion that most club racers don't WANT to think about safety hard enough to make their own decisions - let alone make a difference, policy-wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
The fundamental problem here is that the only people who are really going to get involved in the SCCA version of this conversation now, are the early adopters who shopped around, liked the safety advantage afforded by the Isaac, and made that choice for themselves absent any requirement by the Club. Their position will be perceived as protecting their investment and will be largely dismissed: There's simply too few of them to matter and decision-makers will put "safety" (the club's, not individual racers') ahead of what they believe to be "saving money."
To this day, a too-large proportion of SCCA Club racers don't wear ANY H&N system and won't until there's a mandate. When the mandate comes, they'll follow directions. This group seems likely to vote "no" to any mandate. They'll eventually lose out but by then the SFI/not argument will have just happened somewhere.
Those who, for whatever reason, already have systems from SFI-member companies will be passive at best knowing that the cards will likely fall in their favor - or at least not foul up their choice. At worst, they'll buy into SFI tribalism and fight any other option, because that's what people do sometimes.
I'll write my letter but I'm going to put it in big terms that most people don't want to think about: We should be required to use H&N systems that meet specific test performance thresholds - even those that underly the SFI "standard" - but should be able to pick from any manufacturer willing to do those tests in independent settings, for a variety of reasons:
** Allows innovation and new technology
** Provides maximum variety of options to meet a greater range of racers' needs
** Encourages the racer to be a consumer of safety - to learn more than just "me need SFI sticker"
** Prevents unfair market protection that costs us $$
** Removes a potential barrier to entry for new choices
K
Thank you. The reson I hate the seat belt laws, even though I would never think of going out on the road without wearing mine, is that I consider it common-sense issue, not a legislative one. One of the points I made in my letter to the CRB was that we should attempt to educate all drivers as to the benefits of H&N restraint systems, in the hopes that more would choose to use them, but then leave it up to the drivers to decided if the risks warrant their use.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceG
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by knestis
I would love to believe that argument would find a receptive ear in Topeka, but I hold out little hope that the issue will ever boil down to more than a yes/no question. And if the answer is yes, I firmly believe the yes will actually be twofold; "YES to mandatory H&N restraints, and YES to SFI". I applaud your attempt, and if this comes to pass I hope you will prove me wrong, but at this point I'm going to have to stick with "no" as the answer to the question. I'm hoping that those who do not currently use, and do not want to use, any device will weigh in. Sometimes the right answer for the wrong reason is better than no answer at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by knestis
And there's the trap as I see it, Earl - by voicing a "no," you help the PTB avoid the harder thinking now and let them take the easy way out, because you take your numbers out of the pool of votes supporting the right thing (more choice) and leave it as "Isaac uses" (voiceless minority) vs. everyone else.
If everyone who hasn't yet purchased would scream loud and long about having choices taken away from them, when the mandate happens - and it WILL come - you won't be left with as many. And next time, it's going to be "you don't have SFI kevlar right side nets," or "sorry - that crappy FIA number isn't going to make your seat legal." No, I'm not making this up.
One thing for sure: All of this crap is CERTAINLY a disincentive to the early adopter. I'm probably going to get dicked here in the next couple seasons, because we bought over-the-wall helmets for our enduro crew - the ONLY team I've yet seen at the VIR, Summit, or Longest Day races so equipped - when someone decides that the same hardware is only going to keep my guys' punkin's safe if we cross SFI's hand with geld to buy a damned sticker.
K
If there is one thing I have learned about the BOD in this club is one of their biggest concerns is to avoid making negative decisions, in other words they really do not have the courage to go against what is actually a pretty small amount of letters. A very small number of letters, probably 100 or so from pissed off prod and touring drivers reversed the entire class consolidation plan in two weeks.
I will write, and I do and will mention that I do own a SFI compliant device, but I still believe that this is a bad decision, both from a personal responsibility and restraint of technology point of view.
With enough letters (emails) this will die for now, but the more they get the longer is will be before it come up again.
Take two minutes right now to write [email protected] :024:
Shame to see that you cannot be logically consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Which isn't consistent with your standard of at the door or more.Quote:
OK, so it was a "racing incident". Which is exactly what I said above.
"Racing incident" implies no fault a/o no need to impose punishment. Both drivers being at fault suggests punishment for both - even if one or both have wrecked cars. Drivers who accumulate racing "incidents" tend to accumulate red-mist "incidents" eventually. The judicial process should nip that behavior in the bud.Quote:
Soooo.....what's your point? Are you just in an argumentative mood last night...?
Look, I don't know what your beef with me is, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
You might be surprised to find that I think different situations can be, well, different. I don't know to what "other" incident you infer my " inconsistency", but I consider the Touring 2 last lap to be a racing incident. Based on what I saw on the Speed broadcast - which is all I know about it - I see this as two guys fighting for a national championship; I certainly don't think the win should have been taken away from Ziegler as a result.
If Greg Amy's opinion(s) on the incident are so important to you and this bothers you, feel free to vent to the world. But, do note that your opinion(s) and/or your venting will have zero affect on my opinion(s).
Finally, do not infer an ignoring of further posts from you on this subject as tacit approval; trust me, it's not.
GA
I have not purchased. I poked around in the past couple of weeks trying to find out what side of the mandate and SFI / NASA fence the SCCA was heading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
I see it two fold:
1. The 1k for the restraint is 2.5 race entries at LRP - half my projected season. The money is alloted. The purchase will make me a by stander for half the season. (For me this is a false argrument since I also budgeted for the restraint and will not impact the number for races I enter, but will impact others)
2. I do not believe I as safe as I can be with SFI restraints as I am with non SFI restraints. I went down this road with NASA. I let my membership lapse and will not race with them since I HAVE to use a restraint I feel is less safe.