NEHA

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.