Enduro sup. reg. standardization?

[jimmyc]

Exactly. The rules for the former were overkill for the latter. Therefore, there would be a reason to change the safety rules based on the venue.



A barrier that functions as a dam does not allow burning fuel to run into the non-traffic side of the pits. A barrier like Summit's does allow this. Rules that impose a sufficient level of safety at Pocono may not do that for Summit. Therefore, there would be a reasxon to change the safety rules based on the venue.

Moreover, the safety rules are not just to reduce the likelihood of a bad event. The safety rules need to mitigate the damage that occurs when there is a bad event. Using your logic, the penalty for rolling a car should be severe (and beyond destroying the car, say a 5-year suspension of license). With that penalty in place, we can do away with the requirement for rollbars because "... you can't do anything really."



No - it's about mitigating the damage when they screw up. There's a reason why many professional series require EVERYONE in the pit boxes, on both sides of the wall, to be in nomex. If Topeka gets its hands on the rules, the should be prepared to put everyone in the hot pits in nomex because the legal types are going to demand it.



Point? I never said cans or dry break were better a/o safer. I said dry break systems tend to be quicker.

No the rules weren't really written for either, the series i am speaking of is GARRA Koni Challenge.

Garra KC ONLY requires the people handling the fuel to be wearing nomex. The Fueler and the fire bottle guy are the only two, not even the dead man has to be wearing it.

ALMS doesn't require every one to wear nomex on both sides of the wall either, same with NASCAR.

Which professional series are you referring to then?

On the roll over thing, that is NOT a very good example. The fuel thing is much different. Nice try though..

[jjjanos]

No the rules weren't really written for either, the series i am speaking of is GARRA Koni Challenge.

Doesn't matter if they were written for either. The minimum level of safety for a 50-year old pit lane isn't the same as for a super speedway. If a single set of rules is used for both, then either the 50-year old track is under "protected" or the super speedway is over "protected."

Think rollcage rules - club racing cars require them. Autocross cars don't. If the SCCA used a single set of cage rules for club and autocross... one will have too much cage and/or the other will have too little.

Which professional series are you referring to then?

The defunct CART/CCWS series and, I believe the IRL. At least that was the case in CART when worked their races... if you were in the box, you wore nomex. Outside the box, but in the pit lane street clothes were OK.

On the roll over thing, that is NOT a very good example. The fuel thing is much different. Nice try though..

NO, it's exactly the same thing. You think that you can legislate away an "accident" and it cannot be done. Safety rules can limit the probability of a particular accident occuring, but their main function is limiting the damage when the outcome occurs.

Fuel cells reduce the likelihood of a fire. Fire suits reduce the damage that occurs when there is a fire. Outlawing spills doesn't prevent spills, period.

[jimmyc]

Doesn't matter if they were written for either. The minimum level of safety for a 50-year old pit lane isn't the same as for a super speedway. If a single set of rules is used for both, then either the 50-year old track is under "protected" or the super speedway is over "protected."

I will say it again IT DOES'T MATTER were the race is. YOU CAN SAFELY use the same set of rules.

I don't care if the track is Euro style with NO pit wall, you can still use the same set of rules.

If you are worried about the people on the other side of the wall you are the ONLY person worried about it.

But you go ahead and keep pounding your drum, about nothing.

Didn't CART use Methanol?