MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Moderator: DLRA

User avatar
ROSS BROWN
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:43 pm
Location: COORPAROO BRISBANE

MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by ROSS BROWN » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:03 pm

by Stayt`ie » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm

i know the minutes have been up for sometime now, thankyou for posting, ,,

i see that Ross is considering any motorcycle changes that may be necessary, the example given being Bretts "salt burn" to the neck area, with a possible recomendation that all "A" bike riders wear a head sock,, i only know of the extent of Bretts incident by whats been reported on this site, so i ask, what is the reasoning behind this possible next sock recomondation ,, also what are other changes that maybe recomended, ,,


Ron , Thank you for your input.. and aggreed an explanation is in order..
This is not the first time I have proposed the idea that a head sock be worn. The reason I have targeted "A" bike, is because it is primarly the only way I can see it being inforced without it being a blanket rule for all bikes...(The starter assistants will see that the bike is classed "A" and will check that a headsock is being worn ) I do believe that all classes that has a record above 200mph a headsock should be worn.. but extremly difficult to enforce.
The mechanical reason "A" bike has been targeted is that the fuel tank and it's ancillariesis are usually not off the shelf items and are more likely to have issues.

There were 2 motorcycle accidents this year Jim Ashcroft at 181 mph and Brett DeStoop at 240mph
both incedents were attented by a least 5 officials the saftey crews and the doctor.
Jims accident went for aprox 350 yards while Bretts went a full 1/4 mile
Brett Spent approx 300 yards still inside the motorcycle and the last 100 yards seperated, during some part of the incident Brett spent some time skipping and sliding backwards while on his back, during this time his leathers pulled partially down his shoulder exposing that area of his shoulder and his neck to the salt .. A head sock would have certainly helped in that situation.
The other obvious reason.. A fire in the depression zone

Yet there is an issue with writing up a rule change. The continuos domination of the SCTA rule book
This year we had the leathers fiasco ... writing up a rule change for a head sock this year and not having the SCTA go with it will only have it deminished next year.

SO for the moment it is a proposed thought to increase competitors saftey.

Currently there are no other changes being tabled...
But what will be directly enforced next year is that.. All "A" bikes will be presented at scruitineering
with all fairings removed...

Your thoughts
Ross...
IT IS ALL A RACE AGAINST TIME.
TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE.

HOW FAST CAN YOU GO ?

S/UF 925

hawkwind
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by hawkwind » Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:03 pm

My thoughts.... firstly Ross please don't take my reply personally :D

Firstly we have the issue of the head sock.
Secondly the issue of "forcing special construction classes to use it.
And finally rule conflicts with the SCTA rules.

The head sock.....I totally disagree with enforcing its use......it should be a decision of the individual rider as to using one or not....using the Brett De-Stoop accident as a back door way of implementing your desire that we all use one is not warranted...A fire rated head sock is for temporary protection against flame impingement not as a garment to protect against abrasion......and who is to say that if the force that caused his leathers to be dragged / rolled down were applied to the back of the head sock it to, would be dragged and possibly cause other issues like strangulation ???.......Show me where in this sport here or overseas that fire is common on our machines. ... to my knowledge there has only been 2 incidences of fire while riding ...both were with the same bike and rider and it was oil leaks not fuel .... and it brought upon us out of pure ignorance the utterly stupid all leather rule... I have the opinions of several people who have been in the fire industry for there entire careers including myself who know the all leather rule is utter poppycock.....don't go compounding it with head socks for the sake of perceived SAFETY.... fire is not an issue BUT overheating the rider is ever present and adding a head sock would compound an already to high thermal load on the rider. And if you have a good fitting helmet it should be very snug ..you wont fit a bulky head sock underneath it with out having to buy a new over sized helmet.

Rule for special construction only .....again why only special construction ..your explanation, for ease of implementation ??? come on there must be other reasons why A only .... you mention the fuel tank in particular and the fuel system generally on A bikes ...is there a problem with them???? Are they sub standard ??? any examples??? if so then lets change the rules re: there construction or workmanship....this has nothing to do with mandatory head socks for A class bikes only.

The Rules .......... yes funny isn't it .....every one knows my opinion on this matter ..by making a hard and fast rule to follow the yanks regardless ,anything we want to change is doomed because if they don't change we cannot ..... wake up folks and at least admit it may be a good idea in theory ,but falls on its arse in reality, lets use the SCTA rules as a guide and implement our own rules the sooner the better .



ok interested to see what other think then Ill have more to add
cheers
Vehicle......................A new creation.
Designed by................Troglodyte.
Engineered/ built by......Rustic.
Financed by.................Nickles & Dimes.
Rider......................... Tardus Vetus Inflatio

User avatar
Dreamliner 200
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:09 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by Dreamliner 200 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:01 pm

Not common, but it does happen...

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.p ... #msg167498

G :?
DLRA Member 752
Livin' the dream!

User avatar
DLRA
Site Admin
Posts: 1310
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 11:03 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by DLRA » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:07 pm

Nice little rant there Gary.
I am honestly concerned about some of the negativity of your comments and want to try and help address some of your issues.
By all means express your opinion on the proposal that Ross has put forward, that's what the forum is all about.
But you do your cause no help by wrapping up other unrelated issues in what is effectively one proposed change.

Can you please show me where the head sock conflicts with the SCTA rules? As I've just had a read of the SCTA Rule Book and I can't find a "conflict" anywhere.
Why do you believe that "anything we want to change is doomed because if they don't change we cannot"? As by my reading of the 2013 DLRA Rule Book I believe that this is just not true, can you provide examples of where this has occurred?

An example I can show where a significant change was made that is definitely not a SCTA rule is 1.G.1 One Way Records. This is purely a DLRA rule and there are many, many other changes which specifically relate to DLRA rules.

There seems to be some misapprehension about the DLRA Rule Book.
And based on the comments above (with respect) I wonder when was the last time you actually had a good look at the current 2013 rule book?

Bottom of page 1 reads

"IMPORTANT
Bold face words or sentences indicate updated rules.
ALL PORTIONS THAT ARE CAPITALISED CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
Italicised type indicates DLRA specific requirements."

A couple of facts -
The old DLRA rulebook was drastically out of date and it was recognised and agreed to by the members that we needed to update it.
It was decided that the 2013 rulebook should be based on the 2012 SCTA Rulebook and there was no objection to this.
Members were given the opportunity to make comment during the formation of the 2013 DLRA Rulebook.
This is where DLRA specific requirements were introduced.

Nobody within the DLRA has ever dictated that we are following the Yanks "hard and fast".
We have all had ample opportunity to make changes that we wanted and then there was a line drawn in the sand and the 2013 DLRA Rulebook was printed.
Good, bad or otherwise.

At the back of the 2013 DLRA Rule Book, page 92 is a form; B-3 Rule Change or Addition - Submission Form (Petition)
As an active DLRA member if there is something specifically that you don't agree with in the 2013 DLRA Rule Book, the only way that you can make a change is to fill out this form.
It will then be assessed by the Rules Committee and a decision made.
Keep the shiney side up........
DLRA WebMaster / Editor

User avatar
gennyshovel
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:10 am
Location: Broken Hill

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by gennyshovel » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:45 pm

ROSS BROWN wrote:by Stayt`ie » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Brett spent some time skipping and sliding backwards while on his back, during this time his leathers pulled partially down his shoulder exposing that area of his shoulder and his neck to the salt .. A head sock would have certainly helped in that situation.

Your thoughts
Ross...


My thoughts are if his leathers fitted snugly, the chance of then being "pulled down" would be slim,,,,,,
I am against the blanket "A" class targeting,,,I run in "A", and I'm flat out getting to 125mph !
A sock would require, yet another helmet upgrade, that is, because it fits me well, there is no room for a sock, this helmet has done one mile, it's be a shame to toss another so soon.
Doodah Doodah :wink:
Tiny
PS, I'm not a queenslander either,,A !
Tiny DLRA# 484
Postiebike Racing , created & funded by TwoBob Engineering

hawkwind
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by hawkwind » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:22 am

Greg and Ross .....sorry it comes across as negative ,even when I placed the PLEASE DONT TAKE PERSONALLY :D :D :D :D :D

I was only responding to what was raised by Ross
Yet there is an issue with writing up a rule change. The continuos domination of the SCTA rule book
This year we had the leathers fiasco ... writing up a rule change for a head sock this year and not having the SCTA go with it will only have it deminished next year.

SO thank you for your assistance and pointing out the DLRA position ...... But I will add this YES the CAR rules were well out of date compared with the then current SCTA rule book, Not so the bike rules as I worked very hard ( when chief bike scrut) making sure we kept up to date with the SCTA ,but I had no problem deviating from them in the interests of OUR bike race competitors and made what I thought were fair and reasonable changes ,especially in the special construction and streamliner classes which allowed racers to explore performance beyond the SCTA rules...which included Ross to run 3 engines and some other racers to build and run configurations outside of the SCTA rules .... to say I was pissed off when all my efforts were dumped and we went back to the SCTA rules is an understatement ...but that is my burden and bridge to get over.

If im offending some/all my apologies as its not my intention do so and as the internet takes away over 60% of interpreting what one is saying by a lack of visual queues and body language. Regardless I will continue to be that voice crying out in the wilderness when IMHO something needs to be spoken out about and for upholding the interests and rights of the BIKE racing members.

Cheers Gary
Vehicle......................A new creation.
Designed by................Troglodyte.
Engineered/ built by......Rustic.
Financed by.................Nickles & Dimes.
Rider......................... Tardus Vetus Inflatio

User avatar
ROSS BROWN
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:43 pm
Location: COORPAROO BRISBANE

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by ROSS BROWN » Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:33 am

No offence taken Gary........
I expected no less from you.. :D

If I didn't want to cop flack from this, I would have quitely written up a rule submission form and sent it in..
In bringing the idea to the forum I'm looking for the reasons it should not be implemented..
Yer right Tiny .. picking on "A" bikes is a bit harsh.. so to give the no vote a bit more fire power....
I would really like to see it implemented on all bikes... :shock:
This I hope will have some other cats crying fowl and spitting out some plausable reasons why It should not be implemented.
REASONS LIKE ... It will mess me hair up....
................... It will make me look fat... will be laughed at and cast as a yes vote...

Boy's and Girl's I am sqeaking this wheel for a reason...
say what ya feel .. I'm happy enough to wade through the shit to find the facts...

PS.
I will not be near a computer for the next five or so days ,
so don't think me ignorant for not answering promptly .

Ross
Chief Doodah..
IT IS ALL A RACE AGAINST TIME.
TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE.

HOW FAST CAN YOU GO ?

S/UF 925

User avatar
AuotonomousRX
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:05 pm
Location: Eyre Peninsula SA

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by AuotonomousRX » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:05 pm

The Head Sock makes sense to me. It protects the one area that's not covered and that is the neck. :idea:

I think that maybe it applies to the PS bikes running the more enclosed Fairings rather than all A class bikes or Bikes with OEM Fairings. :?: :?:

Or maybe make a Rule amendment that states an approved Head Sock is a "Highly Recommended" bit of Safety Gear. :?: :?:

I know there is the Rule/Change Amendment process, but I think that notifying Members about Rule Submissions before they are submitted, gives us all a chance to have some input before anything is finalised or a least we know about the stuff that's going to be submitted.

Pete :D
Metric Target 250 on a 250 on a Red Bike

Pete :shock:
DLRA #866
SATA #49

Stayt`ie
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Mackay

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by Stayt`ie » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:41 pm

i have no wish to have anymore imput in this discussion, we went thru the nomax underwear issue late last year on this site (link :?: )
First Australian to ride a motorcycle over 200mph at Bonneville,,,

hawkwind
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by hawkwind » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:00 pm

A quick look through the other high speed motorcycle disciplines reveals some interesting facts as to where they see the emphasis on safety and surprise surprise none have mention with regards to head socks or for that matter fire rated garments ....even among our own LSR organisations there is no mention or discussion with regards to a head sock for any reason at all. Have all of these bodies missed something ? even top fuel bikes makes no mention of fire rated garments.

Facts during the first 50 years of LSR motorcycles there were zero fatalities in the past 10 years there have been 8 most at 1 mile events o% were caused by fire ....of all serious injuries 0% were fire related ....... in 60 years of racing there have been 2 recorded / reported fire on board incidences out of hundreds of thousands of runs ...I am baffled why so many here think that this is a serious problem that requires drastic solutions :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

IMHO we should be spending our efforts in looking at what all the above mentioned disciplines concentrate so hard on as far a safety is concerned ...we should be pushing for the allowed use of the superior GP style racing suits and ancillaries....... air bag technology.... built in cooling systems... not insisting on forcing racers to use head socks.

If one desires they can use a head sock or anything else that takes their fancy in fire protective gear if they personally deem it to be of such importance but forcing us to use one is BS.
gary
Vehicle......................A new creation.
Designed by................Troglodyte.
Engineered/ built by......Rustic.
Financed by.................Nickles & Dimes.
Rider......................... Tardus Vetus Inflatio

User avatar
Greg Watters
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:57 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by Greg Watters » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:12 pm

I am also of the opinion the neck abrasions were to do with leathers fit
but only having seen Brett afterward and not an in depth assessment of his leather style and fit have to say this is only an opinion
I know several guys and one gal that have come off at Bretts speed and above there injurys vary quite a lot
burns through leathers were fairly universal , Brett was lucky to be in the bodywork for a good part of his slide
but the way the rider landed and slid , dictate the degree of damage , its pretty much the luck of the draw
i think the leathers style and body armor like or better than our current back protectors would be something to look at

lots added since i started this reply , called away for a couple of hours can do that but its still relevant

User avatar
ChrisACT
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by ChrisACT » Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:00 pm

As Gary stated, there is nothing to stop anyone wearing a head sock if they deem it necessary. The fact that pretty much nobody does should tell you how the riders feel about it. So why make it mandatory? Is the suggestion that we are all, as a collective, too stupid for our own good?

MotoGP riders do not wear them and they fall off a lot. Fast. And hit solid things. Shinya Nakano fell off at 200mph and Colin Edwards had a very nice fire going on an Aprilia once (burnt through parts of his leathers) and they still didn't feel the need to wear a head sock or have their perforated panels replaced with non-perforated panels. They don't race when it's 54 degrees C either. Further more, DORNA did not feel the need to enforce the kinds of safety equipment rules that are being suggested and have been implemented here after those incidents. Guy Martin had a roaring 200kph+ fire going a couple of years ago at the Isle of Man TT. Are they making neck socks mandatory for that event now? Nope. Have they banned perforated panels in their leathers? Nope. And on average, two riders die every year at the TT.

It's part of racing and all of us accept the risks involved. Does anyone think we want to go out there and kill ourselves?

We're all grown ups here, so please put the cotton wool away. If I thought the risks were unacceptable, I wouldn't be building a bike to race.

By the way, Ross, if I do kill myself ... it's not your fault. It's entirely my own. So please let me take responsibility for it.

momec3
Posts: 715
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:36 pm
Location: Cedar Grove Qld

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by momec3 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:02 pm

Chris ACT,
I'm not buying into any petty bike arguments about headsocks but your last comment hit a cord.

I go, I race and I am like you, resigned to the risks. If the worst happens its my choice, I accept the risks.

I witnessed the results of 2 major accidents this year. From a scruiteneers perspective the responsibility suddenly becomes very heavy when all you can focus on is the drivers chest and you pray like hell its moving. At this point you suddenly question every single little problem you had during scruiteneering and wish like hell you could turn back the clock. From the starters perspective you question yourself.
I along with all the other scruineneers will not be 'easy' on a single vehicle next year. I do not intend to write anything in a log book that says 'fix for next time' , it won't race this time and thats all there is to it.
Believe me each scruiteener, each starter, each member of the rescue crew in fact every official takes great reponsibility for making sure their part of your run is done right.
So please don't think it will only be your "responsibility".

Chris
Chris

User avatar
ChrisACT
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by ChrisACT » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:29 pm

Chris, I understand. I don't wish to be petty either. I think this discussion is quite serious.

I have marshalled at circuit racing events and I know that everyone does their bit and wants only the best outcomes for racers. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't or don't care, or shouldn't do their best. I'm just saying that it's my neck (pun intended) and as such I should be the one who decides whether or not I wear a safety garment which may or may not help in the event of a very specific type of crash which occurs extremely rarely.

If racers want to wear them, they already can. Why does it need to be mandatory?

If leathers, helmets, boots & gloves were not mandatory, I would still wear them (although they would breath better than what is currently allowed). I think the back protectors are marginal given that in this type of racing, there's nothing much to hit. I suppose one could get tangled up in their bike so at least it's not completely silly. But I really don't see the value in wearing a neck sock in the desert. We're covered head to toe as it is in almost completely un-breathing garments (thanks to the no perforated panels rule). Our necks are the only thing left which can catch some cooling air. Our heads get a little bit through the vents in our helmets. The neck sock would prevent both of those.

It will cause all riders to heat up and will protect almost none. The benefit just isn't worth the deficit. It's not just a comfort issue. The heat is a safety issue in itself. My view is that wearing a head sock will increase the risks of racing a motorcycle in the conditions I will be racing in.

Besides, the rules are actually not there to provide the highest possible level of safety for all racers (I can hear the screams at this one already). They're actually there to set a minimum standard of safety equipment without which one cannot participate. All racers can improve on those rules if they believe their particular class or speed attempt warrants it. But why should the slow guys on tiddlers have to suit up like they're going into battle? The rules should be set for the entry level. It is a minimum requirement.

It is absurd to set minimum safety standards for racers doing 60mph which are designed to fully protect racers attempting to run at 300mph. One size does not fit all.

User avatar
Greg Watters
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:57 pm

Re: MOTOR CYCLE SFI HEADSOCK

Post by Greg Watters » Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:32 am

We can pad the racers in cotton wool all we like, there still comes a point where the racer takes responsability for there own actions

we should be carefull not to over regulate

Examples i can think of are the differences between SCTA and Bubs (AMA and FIM)
SCTA are very defined as we are aware, AMA and FIM regulations are more about setting the basics and letting the racer choose , like leathers and tires
they also approach insurance differently where you self insure to be able to ride and not rely on the policy of the association to cover any needs

Post Reply