December 08 is up

[nj1266]

bzzzzztt wrong!!!

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.

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.

[Ed Funk]

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!

[tnord]

There is no worng or right here.

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.........

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.

[BruceG]

Greg,

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?

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!

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

[BruceG]

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!!

[Greg Amy]

Hard to reconcile the above statement with this from you...

Good try with the stalking, but that doesn't change my mind.

Both drivers were at fault.

OK, so it was a "racing incident". Which is exactly what I said above.

Soooo.....what's your point? Are you just in an argumentative mood last night...?

[Knestis]

... I would think that some substance would be great and I know you and Kirk are passionate about this...suggestions?

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.

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

[erlrich]

Too much regulation, too little common sense!

Bruce

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.

[erlrich]

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.

Amen.

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:
...

K

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.

[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

[dickita15]

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]

[jjjanos]

Good try with the stalking, but that doesn't change my mind.

Shame to see that you cannot be logically consistent.

OK, so it was a "racing incident". Which is exactly what I said above.

Which isn't consistent with your standard of at the door or more.

Soooo.....what's your point? Are you just in an argumentative mood last night...?

"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.

[Greg Amy]

Shame to see that you cannot be logically consistent.

Look, I don't know what your beef with me is, but...

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

[raffaelli]

If everyone who hasn't yet purchased would scream loud and long about having choices taken away from them,
K

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.

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.