thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

General Regulations on how a NEHA hillclimb should function, how the series works, etc.

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby W.Vaillancourt » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:09 pm

I agree with walter on this. Its such a cheap safety device compared to all the other expense's we have as racers. That $100 bucks could save you a massive hospital bill and tons of pain. I know I have said it before but I really think the easiest way to do it would be for it to follow the same rules as the roll cage break out time.
W.Vaillancourt
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:04 pm

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby sciroccohp » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:17 pm

I agree that it be tied to the breakout rule so we don't scare away someone with a suburu/evo/audi whatever that is all done up and wants to try their first event. If they have to have a firesuit maybe they don't come. Lets have them fall in love with hillclimbing then have them buy a cage/firesuit etc etc.
sciroccohp
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:49 pm
Location: New Haven, CT

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby KevinGale » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:32 pm

I think it is pretty clear that cars that are subject to the breakout rule won't be subject to a suit rule. Requiring first time drivers to buy a suit won't ever get enough votes to pass.

The simplest thing would be to require a suit if you have a cage. (Simple is our target for rules, we leave byzantine to SCCA.) It's hard to see anyone who is willing to cage their car walking away because they have to buy a $100 suit. Cages and suits pretty much go together in most forms of racing. To counter the financial problem we could vote it in to be effective as of 2011. So everyone knows it's coming and they have a year to get a suit. Long term we get to where we want to be. There is no real rush.

From a safety prespective this would be a very good thing since as far as I can recall, S an U cars have been more likely to have fires in the past. There is also a lot more burnable material than in most stripped P cars.
User avatar
KevinGale
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:01 pm
Location: Sutton, NH

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby Rabbit Farmer » Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:03 pm

To counter the financial problem we could vote it in to be effective as of 2011


Like I said... I'm for suits as long as we phase it in. When we add a rule that makes racing more expensive (even just $100), we may want to thank about making people aware in 2010 that the rule is in effect in 2011. Suits and cages go together.
Go Fast VW & Audi parts at FastAddiction.com
User avatar
Rabbit Farmer
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Earth

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby sdwarf36 » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:59 pm

The start of my 1st post was "I want to get an early start"-well theres 226 days between now + (a guess date of may 15th 2010 ) Ascutney-thats 7 1/2 months--or 32 weeks. You really think we need extend that to 19 months to cover a $100 expense?
Translating road racing to hillclimbing:
Proper tire selection== nothing hooks up on moss or wet leaves.
Staying on the racing line==anything paved is considered good.
User avatar
sdwarf36
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:06 pm

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby Rabbit Farmer » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:13 am

Rules aren't rules until the rules meeting in Jan-Feb (and only if they pass). That is where everyone gets to give their input on the rule. In the forums, we get to hash out the details (pros and cons) to allow for a better proposal that would have more people supporting it as it was developed with many people's input.

The idea: Suits are required for any car that requires a cage and classification discount of x% is given to any car not requiring a cage.
Pros: Safety
Cons: Could be a financial burden (or maybe not... as pointed out, a suit is $100 or so. I have one thanks to Sherman pointing me in the right direction)

I think it is a great proposal.

I guess I have between now and the rules meeting to figure out where to apply my vote. (have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything)

Steve
Go Fast VW & Audi parts at FastAddiction.com
User avatar
Rabbit Farmer
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Earth

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby Number_5 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:48 am

This idea of phasing in over two years is new.. I have had to react to the short turn around, it builds character.
"The idea: Suits are required for any car that requires a cage "
Makes alot of sense. Don't muddy it up with the other part yet.
John M
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings.
Albert
User avatar
Number_5
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby walterclark » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:50 am

The current reg states: "Fire-retardant outer clothing or underwear." where "suits" (meaning something recognizable as purpose made for auto racing) are implied but not stated for P cars now.

I like the linking of caged cars and "suits" myself. Do we want to stay with "Fire-retardant outer clothing or underwear" and leave it to the competitor and tech to judge what is suitable or do we want to specify what is required?...Such as SFI 3-2A/5, SFI 3-2A/1 (with SFI 3.3 underwear), FIA Standard 8856-2000, FIA 1986, etc. which is pretty common for other sanctioned racing.
The older I get the better I was.
User avatar
walterclark
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:57 pm
Location: Dover, MA.

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby KevinGale » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:05 pm

Phasing it in is just a suggestion. My way to cut down on complaints, I'd vote for it either way.

I suggest dropping the percent discount to cars not requiring a cage. It complicates the rule and it has an issue. Allowing someone in a faster car to bump down a class because they are wearing a suit but don't have a cage won't encourage them to buy a cage since that would bump them back up a class. For example someone in a S5 car buys a suit which allows them to run in S6. They are happy since they now have a really good car for class. If they put in a cage they get bumped to S5 and now have a not so good S5 car. The incentive is all wrong.
User avatar
KevinGale
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:01 pm
Location: Sutton, NH

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby KevinGale » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:18 pm

walterclark wrote:Do we want to stay with "Fire-retardant outer clothing or underwear" and leave it to the competitor and tech to judge what is suitable or do we want to specify what is required?


While there might be room for improvement in this area I'd leave it for now. If we wrap the changes together we complicate the issue a lot. A separate proposal might work or just let it lie for now.
User avatar
KevinGale
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:01 pm
Location: Sutton, NH

PreviousNext

Return to General Regulations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

x