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 Rabbit Farmer » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:23 pm

Okay, simplified.... need cage, need suit. Sherman... your proposal when it comes time for rule submission (however you see fit to submit it, with or without anyone's comments).
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 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:38 pm

Ok--thanks guys. Short + simple works for me.
Just think-By hashing things out rather than at the meeting, I saved everyone $100 worth of beer! :P
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 » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:37 pm

Wrong... gives us more time to drink without all the yapping that we have to do. ;)
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 honda#72 » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:53 pm

This is a tough topic, I am putting a cage in my silver S2000 this year, even though I stayed under break out in that car. I was going to wait another year but doing 100 mph at Okemo with a millimeter of canvas over my head made me think twice. However, I do think the suit and cage should not go hand and hand. My thoughts are that it should be geared towards the modifications to the car, especially the fuel system and oil system. Being a Honda tech for 10+ years the only fires I have ever seen have been on modified fuel and oil systems. Now I know in an crash things break and rupture, but that will happen if you have a cage or not, and can happen in a low speed crash. I have seen some of the slowest cars we have at the events catch on fire. And I had a friend who's merkur Xr4 ti , almost burnt to the ground when he went up to Ascutney to see the mountain before a event, and he was going 15mph up the hill. Bottom line I think I you have a modified or non stock fuel or oil system and /or lines you should need a suit.
1997 cc + Vtec + 9,200 rpm fuel cut = Fun !
User avatar
honda#72
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: thoughts on a 2010 rule proposal

Postby walterclark » Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:24 am

Don and I responded to an engine fire - put out by checkpoint workers - a couple years ago on a stock CIS fuel system. One of the high pressure fuel lines developed a leak, probably due to age and corrosion, not modification. The car hit nothing. So you can add age and maintenance to modifications for conditions.

Personally, I like the cage=suit approach. While it may not cover every risky case it is not subjective in the least. Besides with the availability of SFI 3.2A suits for under $100 it is not a financial burden.

Which reminds me. Any rule like this should be specific about the certifications/compliance of the suits. For instance SFI 3.2A, FIA 8856-2000, and FIA 1986 are suitable. SFI 40.1 alone rated suits are not suitable (this standard addresses abrasion resistance of suits for motorcycle and kart use, not flame retardant needs).
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 honda#72 » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:12 am

I did forget to mention the age/ rust factor, which applies to all vehicles.
1997 cc + Vtec + 9,200 rpm fuel cut = Fun !
User avatar
honda#72
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Previous

Return to General Regulations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

x